Pages

Friday, October 27, 2017

Mark Shea is a shameless liar

Catholic ubercuck Mark Shea lies about Jesus Christ, lies about Christianity, lies about a verse from Galatians, and lies about the Alt-Right.
Alt Right worshippers of blood and race have made an idol of whiteness. As though your skin is a culture and, worse, as though your skin is a god. They subordinate the God of the universe to a mere prop authorizing the skin idolator to fall down in worship of his race and, accordingly, to excuse the oppression and destruction of those he deems inferior to his Master Race.

The contempt of the Alt Right for “Cuck Christianity” relies on a narrative that confirms what I have come to call “Herreid’s Law”. My friend John Herreid observed some time ago that when people bedeck their Facebook page with pictures of knights, crusaders, or paladins, they tend to be kooks. The Alt Right Christian invariably does this, and their race kookiness is manifest. They only value the Christian tradition for giving them an iconography of white people killing brown ones. But of course, the Faith (and especially the Catholic faith) is chockablock with brown people–and brown saints.

Not surprising really since her Lord was brown–a standard Middle Eastern Jew of the first century. Somebody who would have been on one of Steve Bannon’s travel bans and deemed a danger by the Race Theorist of the Alt Right. Happily for us northern European stock, he put no stock in Alt Right racist crap and declared membership in his Body, the Church, open to anybody–even white supremacists idiots if they would only repent their white supremacist idiocy and confess that in Christ Jesus there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, black nor white. That’s a tall order for some of these idiots. But repentance and salvation is open to anyone, even members of the Alt Right.
It is not worshiping blood and race, nor making an idol of whiteness, to recognize that DNA exists, race exists, and that differences in DNA and race have a profound effect on culture and society alike. That is a lie for which Mark Shea will be held accountable, both in this world and the next.

It is not true that the Alt-Right only values Christian tradition for giving us "an iconography of white people killing brown ones". Quite to the contrary, we value Western civilization, also known as Christendom, and even those of us who are not Christians value the Christian tradition as one of the three foundational pillars of the West, without which it cannot survive. That is another lie for which Mark Shea will be held accountable, both in this world and the next.

Jesus Christ most certainly did put at least some stock in "Alt Right racist crap", as he declared in Matthew 15:24-26, He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” And he answered, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs. That is another lie for which Mark Shea will be held accountable, both in this world and the next.

Finally, while it is true that "in Christ Jesus there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female,", it is not true that in the world in which the Christian is in, but not of, there is Greek and Jew, slave and free, male and female." Notice that he deceitfully added "black nor white", which neither Jesus nor Paul said. Since Paul also told slaves that they remain slaves, and since Paul also condemned men having sex with men, it is obviously true that Mark Shea's citation of this verse to claim that those various differences do not exist in the world for the Christian today is dishonest, deceptive, and theologically false.

I submit that this is conclusive evidence proving that Mark Shea is a liar, a deceiver, an accuser, and a false follower of the Truth. There is no truth in him. No man who considers himself to be a Christian should pay this wormtongue any heed or respect, and he should be confronted by his church authorities and called upon to publicly repent of his lies and false accusations.

Cuckservatism and Churchianity are not Christianity. Their lies and falsehoods preclude the possibility. Judeo-Christ is not Jesus Christ, he is literally antichrist.

And I have a verse for Mr. Shea that may be wise for him to keep in mind in light of his little additions to Galatians 3:28, which actually reads as follows: There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Do you see anything about "black nor white"? Because I don't. Isn't it amazing how the Bible once more proves to be prophetic?

Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.
- Proverbs 30:6

220 comments:

  1. Luckily Apostle Paul set us an example on how we should be talking about race realism, and collective characteristic traits of ethnicities and cultures. It is as follows:

    Tit 1:12 One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons."

    ReplyDelete
  2. What I have come to notice is that it is always criticism of the opposition that counts. That is the true, single, underlying doctrine. True or false or who cares, it always comes down to name calling.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I remember this tale in Matthew 15:24-26,

    He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 25 But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” 26 And he answered, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.

    Not being a native speaker of English, I am struggling with the exact way one should interpret that last part re: children's bread and dogs.

    Could someone here please help me to understand and clarify a bit better? Is the Lord calling her a dog? Genuinely curious - please and thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Is the Lord calling her a dog?

    Metaphorically. He is telling her that she is not equal to the house of Israel and is not a full member of the family. The fact that he subsequently healed her daughter due to her faith did not negate that statement.

    Samaritans remained Samaritans. Romans remained Romans. Greeks remained Greeks. We remain every bit as members of our nations as we remain members of our sexes, whether Christian or not.

    ReplyDelete
  5. VFM#0265 wrote:Could someone here please help me to understand and clarify a bit better? Is the Lord calling her a dog?

    Short answer, yes.

    Longer answer, the Samaritans collectively were like dogs, compared to the Judeans who were like children in this analogue. With her response, she showed Jesus that she rose above her culture, and hence received what would normally have been reserved only for the children.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm Not a Fascist. But My Sons Are.October 27, 2017 8:45 AM

    People like Shea seem to possess and entirely different apparatus by which they experience Being. Something like eyes, something like a brain... but not quite... Homo Leftus

    People like Shea also serve to reinforce when differences are, in fact, irreconcilable.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oh interesting. Very good. This helps very much. Thank you, Vox & Markku!

    ReplyDelete
  8. With her response, she acknowledged that as a Samaritan, she is as entitled to a favor from Jesus as a dog is entitled to the child's meal. Jesus was pleased with this, so he gave her what she asked.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Christ was a Judean the term Jew did not exist in Christs time on earth. Todays so called modern Jews in Christs time where the Pharisees. Christ was not a Pharisee and fought against them. It was the Pharisees who murdered Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Canaanite, not Samaritan.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Robert Browning wrote:Christ was a Judean the term Jew did not exist in Christs time on earth.

    Yes, it did exist, only they called themselves Hebrews. Literally EVERYBODY else called them Ioudaios, which happened to be the exact word with which the Septuagint translated "Jew" as in, "member of the tribe of Judah". This was obviously confusing as hell in the first century. The Hebrews had a general principle that if there was even a single gentile in the audience, they said Jew. If they were talking only amongst themselves, they said Hebrew.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mr. Shea will also be held accountable to the Lord for using his word in a context opposite to which it was meant. The epistle to the Galatians was written two reject the ideas of early Christian Judaizers who insisted that Old Testament derived Jewish practices were required for salvation.
    They maintained that essentially only Jews could be saved and to be Jewish and living by every tiny bit of the law regarding cutting your hair or which cup you could drink out of.

    Paul rejected that and the statement about neither Jew nor Greek is clearly referring to Salvation not the existence of different ethnic groups on Earth

    ReplyDelete
  13. Weasel did not use quotation marks when doing his misquote. Slippery, that. The devil is called the father of lies for a reason.

    ReplyDelete
  14. They claim to love Christianity.... they claim to love western civilization. They claim to defend it.

    But they have never loved it. They have never defended it. And their own guilty conscience is what makes them shriek when other do.

    ReplyDelete
  15. If you're still not sure of my reading look back through the epistle to see what Paul when he was referring to being in Christ. The entire context of the latter is salvation and what is required for it. I'm sad to say that this kind of bullshit exegesis could only work on Catholics as sadly we traditionally have very poor biblical understanding

    ReplyDelete
  16. Cucks are either as deceitful and dumb as alt-retard or merely just as dumb. For now I'm going with dumb and deceitful.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Given that God once worked through the dominance of Israelite peoples, it should come as no surprise that He now works through the dominance of European peoples.

    ReplyDelete
  18. 11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

    12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.

    13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

    14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

    15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

    16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King Of Kings, And Lord Of Lords.

    ReplyDelete
  19. He's using the classic 'pull this verse out of context and use it to fit my point' that churchians and many pastors have been using for decades. We must continue calling these deceitful people out. Funny how they think going along with the culture on this is the right thing to do. As a Christian you should question yourself anytime what you believe is in line with what the world believes. Either way, the point Paul is making in this passage is that justification no longer comes through the law. It comes through faith in Christ. Through faith in Christ, we get Christ's righteousness(v.27) So we are 'part of the family', spiritual heirs along with Christ who was a physical heir(physical seed of Abraham). Those things don't matter for justification, but Paul is definitely not saying those distinctions don't matter in the world. God spends the entire Old Testament using those very blood, racial, national distinctions to carry out his covenant to Abraham.

    ReplyDelete
  20. The argument is just question-begging. It assumes that the person or group we may be suspicious about at any given moment, in fact IS in Christ. Especially if talking about a group, such that we already know said group, as a policy, weasels its way into existing Christian institutions, and then receives benefits and concessions with the race card.

    It is precisely whether this individual/group indeed is in Christ, or is maybe one of the weeds in the field, that is under question. It does nothing for you to appeal to a verse that even begins to apply only when you have already answered that question and determined that they are in Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The idea that the middle East was always full of dark skinned Arabic peoples is not true. The region has actual racial diversity until the Arab-Islamic conquests. Was Jesus blonde with blue eyes? Maybe, but there's no reason to suspect he was dark either. Some Jews were light, some were dark.

    ReplyDelete
  22. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Vox, you could also add that he lied about the Crusades.

    He implied the Crusades were a race war of aggression when in fact it was Christendom defending themselves from millions of savage invaders.

    ReplyDelete
  24. >>when people bedeck their Facebook page with pictures of knights, crusaders, or paladins, they tend to be kooks...

    Or to put it another way, he is against people having fun, which is usually what this is.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Christ wasn't a standard "brown Jew"—his father was God, not a Jew. Attempting to link genetics to Christ is just about the silliest thing that you can attempt to do. He certainly was raised and grew up among the Roman-subjugated Jewish culture of 2,000 years ago, but he also routinely condemned it.

    Also, what exactly does Shea think the oft-repeated refrain about the last shall be first and the first shall be last is supposed to mean? The Children of Israel had the Gospel first, but since they rejected it, it went to the Gentiles. Now it will come back to the Jews last, for their obstinacy and lack of repentance.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Just to point out - the guy you call "Jesus Christ" wasn't named that any more than He was named "Judeo-Christ". The two words are both titles rather than names, and one was bestowed long after His death. According to the original source material, His name was Emmanuel.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "We remain every bit as members of our nations as we remain members of our sexes, whether Christian or not."

    The left mixes up the genders these days, wonder where they got that from could it be ...

    "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28

    Wonder who would twist scripture like that? /s



    ReplyDelete
  28. Shea really is a shameless liar who would curb-stomp Christ in the manger if it led to advancement of his shitty left-wing politics. If you look at his writings, notice he'll go apeshit over people questioning the sincerity of Lady Gaga's interest in Catholicism, snarling at people who criticize her photo op or who talk about her pro-abortion, pro-gay-marriage activism. Criticism, he says, may push her away from the faith, so we have to assume she has only the best intentions, and his meager god sneers at anyone who would criticize her.

    But Christians concerned with anti-white hate? Abominations.

    In a more sane time with a more sane Church, his chubby little ass would have been thrown to the curb a while ago while he cried his way over to the Episcopalians or some other sufficiently converged church. May that day still yet come if he doesn't realize his errors and his hate, and disavow it.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Trevor who was TrumpOctober 27, 2017 9:22 AM

    How can the Bible simultaneously claim Christ is only here for the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and at the same time that there is no Jew or Gentile...for all are one in Christ? Cause if we are all one in Christ, what's the point of not giving to the dog what you would give to your child?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. " first to the Jew, then to the Gentile." Not "first and only to the Jew".

      Delete
  30. I guess the lesson was from the B&W comic - "olive skin" is suddenly brown? Was John Boehner our first minority speaker of the house?

    What did Saul ask when David slew Goliath? “Abner, whose son is this youth?” The Bible cares who your father is - and racial groupings, per the Biblical view, descend from the table of nations, the inductive principle applied to who your father was. It was very important to the lineage of Messiah who your ancestors were; you'll notice that Moses married a Cushite (daughter of Ham); you did not see Aaron do any such thing, but rather marry a daughter of Jacob, because it was essential for the line to stay within Jacob.

    With the tongues of Pentecost, every Hellenist Jew present heard the Gospel in the language of his new home. The Gospel spoke to a Greek Jew in Greek, a Persian Jew in Farsi, etc. This is why we print up Bibles in other languages and send them along with the missionaries - the best missionary to X nation is a member of X nation.

    Lastly, 2 Kings 17 gives the background on the Samaritans. They were other ethnic groups resettled into the land of Israel by the Assyrian Emperor. They are given a better account than the ten tribes: "So these nations feared the LORD and also served their carved images." They had an imperfect understanding of the LORD as merely a "god of the land", but they knew the LORD better than the wayward children of Jacob who were carried off out of the northern kingdom. Whereas the ten tribes had known the presence of the God of Israel and seen him deliver them time and again, and they had self-righteously rejected him, the Samaritans, a mish-mash of various people put together by the Assyrians, feared the LORD and so possessed the beginning of wisdom, but they mixed it with their old folk religion - hence in the order of the children, the family dog, and the outsider, the Samaritan is second in priority, but still placed behind the children of Jacob in racial (paternity) order.

    ReplyDelete
  31. p-dawg wrote:Just to point out - the guy you call "Jesus Christ" wasn't named that any more than He was named "Judeo-Christ". The two words are both titles rather than names, and one was bestowed long after His death. According to the original source material, His name was Emmanuel.

    You're just plucking that from an Old Testament prophecy that only SECONDARILY refers to Jesus of Nazareth, which was his actual name. Primarily the prophecy was to Ahaz, who was cowering before Assyria. Isaiah said to him that before a child conceived at this very moment becomes age of Bar Mitzvah, the king of Assyria will already have been thoroughly humiliated and Israel will enjoy peace and plenty. If the primary fulfillment did not actually happen, then Isaiah was a false prophet. Because he said AHAZ would see this happen. Not some future generation.

    It is merely a secondary fulfillment that a man who can TRULY be called "God with us", also did the same to the Powers and Principalities.

    ReplyDelete
  32. #26

    Christ was a title, Jesus is the Greek version of his Jewish name.

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Jesus_(name)

    ReplyDelete
  33. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete


  34. As far as Jesus and skin color goes, being from the Middle East he is not going to be one of those Nordic types, as Jesus is sometimes portrayed. But the mixed race often Semite population in Palestine were a light skinned people relative to the region. I believe someplace in the Bible he is described as visually unimpressive.

    The word Judea is Roman and translates to home of the Jews. The word Jew comes from the kingdom (province?) of Judah, the territory they occupied and the assumed common ancestor of the people labeled Jew. Hebrew comes from nobody knows where, in my opinion. Usually it is said to be the ethnic type of the Semite tribes that entered the region.

    The Samaritans to the north were race mixed by the Assyrians, and thus were not automatically descendents of Abraham or Israel, making their status ambiguous by the more rigid religious standards of the day. Plus they followed a religious doctrine that was very similar to the Judean one, but heretical by the priestly standard. And there had been wars fought between the two groups. I suspect Jesus would have liked to be inclusive of the Samaritans in his movement.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Where he grew up, he would have been called Jesus, the son of Joseph. Outside that area, Jesus of Nazareth. These two are proper names. Jesus Christ is name with title. Only, we tend to put them in an awkward order because we have just cargo-culted an eccentric feature of Koine Greek. We should call him Christ Jesus.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "How can the Bible simultaneously claim Christ is only here for the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and at the same time that there is no Jew or Gentile...for all are one in Christ? Cause if we are all one in Christ, what's the point of not giving to the dog what you would give to your child?"

    Read #25 Desdichado's second paragraph

    ReplyDelete
  37. a deplorable rubberduckyOctober 27, 2017 9:34 AM

    Shea is using the classic trick of putting words in the Alt-Right's proverbial mouth and constructing a good old fashioned strawman. And that would be contemptible and bad enough, but then he takes it a step further and puts words St. Paul's mouth! It is indeed quite vile all around.

    ReplyDelete
  38. If we provide not for our own, we are worse than infidels. If these guys like Mark Shea really cared about Christianity, they would be more concerned about the real threats against it, such as communism and Islam.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Trevor who was TrumpOctober 27, 2017 9:42 AM

    "Read #25 Desdichado's second paragraph"

    Thank you, I missed that when I first posted.

    ReplyDelete
  40. World saving rhetoric always sounds deceitful to me, I'm not a Christian by any means so maybe it is just bias.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Anyone opposed to White Genocide is 'worshiping race'.

    Anyone who won't cuck for Satan and the globalist agenda is always 'worshiping race'

    ReplyDelete
  42. Shea is a hysteric, seems to get drunk on his own emotion, and often mistakes himself for the Pope, indeed sometimes the entire Magisterium. He's been doing this kind of stuff for at least fifteen years, possibly longer. He's a convert who enjoys telling people who have been Catholic all their lives what Catholicism REALLY means.

    On second thought, has anyone ever seem the Pope and Shea together? That might explain a lot...

    ReplyDelete
  43. I just tried to comment on Shea the Deceiver's page, but when I wrote "Vox Day" in the comment, I was banned even before I could post. I was going to state, "I read a response to your recent article written by Vox Day...." and BAM, the red pop-up informed me I was banned.

    Shea is such a thin skinned cretin, he shrinks from criticism.

    ReplyDelete
  44. " We are unable to post your comment because you have been banned by Catholic and Enjoying It!. Find out more. "
    Have I commented there before, or do they just know who I am by reputation?

    ReplyDelete
  45. This is a "taking flak" article. Pretty sure we are over the target.

    ReplyDelete
  46. We've had this guy on the radar for a long time and he files into the category that we sort of call "neo-Caths who use the Faith as a vehicle for making a living". He is quite the character.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I wonder if Shea would also argue that the only differences between men and women are due to "socialization" or whoever they're framing that one now days.

    ReplyDelete
  48. The nations were created at the beginning of Genesis, and the Revelation tells us the Nations (GR. "ethnos") will be gathered in the end.

    These clowns are Marxists who never comment on Jewish Supremecism, or Black Power or....Marxists for the very pupose of Anti-White only, and thus Anti-WesternCiv.

    The use of Supremacy vs Segregation is the attempted weaponized psych bullshit. Freedom of association is evil only when whites or fems or ....

    The Alt Right IS Western Civ and Salvation.

    ReplyDelete
  49. bw wrote:The nations were created at the beginning of Genesis, and the Revelation tells us the Nations (GR. "ethnos") will be gathered in the end.

    Not the beginning. In Gen 10:5. The Babel incident was the birth of the gowy/ethnos.

    ReplyDelete

  50. SJW Virtue Signalling: Churchianity version

    Virtue Signalling is no virtue.

    Its theft: of people's lives, their past and future.

    https://i.imgur.com/gevCTM0.png

    ReplyDelete
  51. SciVo de PlorableOctober 27, 2017 10:08 AM

    I cannot even describe how angry it makes me when they lie. All they have to do is just look at God's word, read it as it says, go "oh but this is politically incorrect -- oh never mind, we must render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's, must be in this world but not of this world, wise as serpents but harmless as doves" and then they will be fine.

    ReplyDelete
  52. These most literal translation would be “neither Judean nor Greek” so yes, it is about race in that passage

    ReplyDelete
  53. You're a day late with your beatdown of MarxChe. There's a whole FB group "Banished by Mark Shea" of people who have felt his ban hammer. He once did some decent apologetics work, but his real religion now seems to be socialism. He had a meltdown over Fr. Heilman reposting JinjerZilla's "This is how we save the West" drawing.

    I just have to remind myself that the entire history of the Church has been filled with saints and assholes, and there's nothing new under the sun.

    ReplyDelete
  54. @51 I know several prog "Catholics" who, when I argued with their heretical ideas using scripture, finally admitted to me we must submit God's word to human reason of the day, and let the latter rule. Getting them to that point was exhausting and enraging, but worth it finally. It removed the scales from my eyes and showed me what they actually worship.

    Note that 3rd rule applies here as well. He accuses the Alt-Right of *exactly* what he's doing, worshipping something other than God, by placing his humanist ideas as the real ultimate truth. Every fucking time, man.

    ReplyDelete
  55. @52, go back and re-read the epistle. It's quite clearly not only race, and not in the context that Shea means. It means all races can be saved, and that Pharisaical law is not needed for Salvation.

    Shea accuses the Alt-right of not understanding that all can be saved, while conflating universal salvation with empirical equalism and destroying the idea of separate nations. The gospel should be spread to all nations, not all nations should mingle because they have the Gospel.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Lol... This guy. "That’s a tall order for some of these idiots."

    So he has contempt for idiots, does he? Shall we go over some basic IQ statistics for him?... I guess SJWs do always project :)

    ReplyDelete
  57. I've been searching for a while, are there any Alt-Right friendly Christian resources or online communities anyone would like to share for a struggling believer?

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Johnny wrote:As far as Jesus and skin color goes, being from the Middle East he is not going to be one of those Nordic types, as Jesus is sometimes portrayed. But the mixed race often Semite population in Palestine were a light skinned people relative to the region. I believe someplace in the Bible he is described as visually unimpressive.
    Isaiah 53 says something to that effect: "2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. 3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. 4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed."

    ReplyDelete
  59. The idea that the middle East was always full of dark skinned Arabic peoples is not true.

    Posted elsewhere, I believe by BGKB.

    https://medium.com/east-med-project-history-philology-and-genetics/no-jesus-was-not-a-nonwhite-refugee-who-would-have-voted-for-43779209eea4#.6xzbg3cs1

    ReplyDelete
  60. A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty CentsOctober 27, 2017 10:35 AM

    Judeo-Christ is pleased with Mark Shea.

    ReplyDelete
  61. In Christ Jesus there are neither Muslims or cucks either.


    God made nationalism because of globalist hubris. These people want to reconstruct the Great Whore against His expressed wishes. Mystery Babylon is getting less mysterious all the time.

    ReplyDelete
  62. SciVo de PlorableOctober 27, 2017 10:38 AM

    SomeGuy wrote:I've been searching for a while, are there any Alt-Right friendly Christian resources or online communities anyone would like to share for a struggling believer?

    Dalrock. It is a short list. But be encouraged! He knows of which he speaks.

    ReplyDelete
  63. @57 the only ones I'm aware of are some FB groups, they may have links to other places. Dalrock.wordpress.com may have more links.

    ReplyDelete
  64. SciVo de PlorableOctober 27, 2017 10:43 AM

    Oh also The Other McCain, which is more newsy because actual newsman.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Thank you JohnofAustria and SciVo de Plorable.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Anybody read The Next Christendom by Philip Jenkins? He posits that the southern hemisphere will overwhelmingly be the center of Christianity for the next generation onward and that a "white christian" will be nearly a statistical anomaly. The numbers are staggering.

    ReplyDelete
  67. I also heard it once put more simply, as to ID:
    She notes in Faith, "I'm YOUR dog.."

    ReplyDelete
  68. > In Gen 10:5. The Babel incident was the birth of the gowy/ethnos.

    I don't think so. That doesn't fit how the Bible interprets itself, nor the anthropological evidence.

    There were nations in and around the Garden of Eden. The serpent was the animal mascot of a non-Adamic nation. The Genesis reverse-prophecy was told to Moses by Jehovah. Like other prophecies, it may contain multiple layers of truth, both metaphorical and historical.

    Babel describes the split of the Adamic bloodline.

    Also, I'm not convinced that Shea's crime of riffing on verses is verboten. I suspect there are multiple Biblical instances thereof. However, there is a much greater gulf between white and black than between Jew and Greek. It would certainly be false to extend it to "neither animal nor man". Some might argue the subtracting Neanderthal and adding chimp DNA takes us partway there...

    Anyhow, my impression was that the crime of adding or subtracting related to the scribe's work, of faithfully transmitting God's Word.

    ReplyDelete
  69. VFM#0265 wrote:Not being a native speaker of English, I am struggling with the exact way one should interpret that last part re: children's bread and dogs.

    Could someone here please help me to understand and clarify a bit better? Is the Lord calling her a dog? Genuinely curious - please and thanks!


    In addition to what folks have put here, here is some more commentary. The basic message agrees with what is said here, but it's worth taking a look to see some of the significance of Jesus word choice. I don't want to sperg up the comments too much. here's the link:

    http://biblehub.com/matthew/15-26.htm

    ReplyDelete
  70. Israel has a wall.

    And I bet Mark Shea doesn't mind a bit.

    ReplyDelete
  71. "There were nations in and around the Garden of Eden. The serpent was the animal mascot of a non-Adamic nation."

    That's just a plain lie contrary to all biblical mention of "the serpent". There are no people on the planet who we cannot link to a single, relatively recent ancestor, both in make and female lineage.

    @Some Guy -

    Dunno if someone mentioned it yet, but several commenters here also run menofthewest.com.

    @Markku - Don't all the Romance languages structure it that way as well? (a la Jesus Cristos)

    ReplyDelete
  72. S1AL wrote:@Markku - Don't all the Romance languages structure it that way as well? (a la Jesus Cristos)

    Yes, you're right, Latin does also say "Julius Caesar". So, it would be natural for the Vulgate to put it in that order and then, with the force of both the Septuagint and the Vulgate behind that word order, it may have been a bit much for the Germanic languages to dare reverse it.

    ReplyDelete
  73. " bedeck their Facebook page with pictures of knights, crusaders, or paladins, they tend to be kooks. The Alt Right Christian invariably does this"

    Cuck Shea dones the armor https://gab.ai/BGKB/posts/13848864

    ReplyDelete
  74. There's also a more natural flow to it than "Jesus, the Christ", which is how it was often structured in older English works. I'd blame it on a combination of Romance tradition and English laziness/efficiency. Because there's no phrase an American ever saw and didn't think "I can make that shorter..."

    ReplyDelete
  75. > That's just a plain lie contrary to all biblical mention of "the serpent".

    I don't expect you to understand this concept, much less agree with it. I did not say the serpent was ONLY a national mascot; in fact I implied the opposite.

    "Speak, and say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great dragon that lieth in the midst of his rivers, which hath said, My river is mine own, and I have made it for myself." Ezekiel 29:3

    It says "dragon"; I might write "crocodile".

    "I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: so that all the trees of Eden, that were in the garden of God, envied him." Ezekiel 31:9

    Trees and animals, animals and trees.

    > There are no people on the planet who we cannot link to a single, relatively recent ancestor, both in make and female lineage.

    200,000 years ago is not what I would call "relatively recent" in the context of behaviorally-modern, city-building humans. Somehow I doubt your version of Eve would tempt any angels, but to each his own (even furries).

    ReplyDelete
  76. Why didn't Shea just quote the passage from Numbers 12? It states that Miriam was struck with snow white leprosy for criticizing Moses' marriage to an Ethiopian. Clearly God is accepting of interracial marriage to a God-fearing woman.

    Elsewhere the Bible dictates the terms of acceptance of God-fearing foreigners in general, IF they adopt the ways of their hosts. Why not refer to those passages?

    What is it with leftist Christians and their horror of the Old Testament? To my mind, some of the best stuff is in there.

    ReplyDelete
  77. > It states that Miriam was struck with snow white leprosy for criticizing Moses' marriage to an Ethiopian.

    I just got that joke. How I pity atheist comedians!

    ReplyDelete
  78. Gubbermint Cheez wrote:Why didn't Shea just quote the passage from Numbers 12? It states that Miriam was struck with snow white leprosy for criticizing Moses' marriage to an Ethiopian.

    I bought this one too, until I actually read the verse.

    Num 12:2 and they said, "Has the LORD indeed spoken only through Moses? Has he not spoken through us also?" And the LORD heard it.

    Notice how the problem that "the LORD heard" is not the criticism? It's the claim to hold the same office of prophet as Moses did. So, God made a little demonstration that she is not in fact a prophet, only Moses is.

    ReplyDelete
  79. "I don't expect you to understand this concept, much less agree with it. I did not say the serpent was ONLY a national mascot; in fact I implied the opposite."

    There is no evidence for the serpent of Genesis as a national mascot. None. There is no mention whatsoever of any non-Adamic nations anywhere in the Bible.

    You are a liar.

    ReplyDelete
  80. I am demonstrably not a liar, for I merely offered my interpretation, as indicated by the preface "I think", and cited the relevant suggestive evidence as well.

    You on the other hand, have repeatedly shown yourself to be a midwit.

    ReplyDelete
  81. S1AL appears to be under the impression that Koanic is some Alt-White who has come here only in the last wave of Alt-Whites, and now is just spouting some pseudo-Christian stuff that he doesn't believe himself in order to infiltrate us. Nope. Koanic has been around for a very, VERY long time. His Edenist theories are well known to us. I'm not convinced by them, but what you should know is that he's not just making this up as he goes. He has a very specific set of ideas. If you REALLY want to discuss it, then do so at his blog.

    ReplyDelete
  82. I think you're right, Vox.

    I think all true metaphysical Christians should concede the imagery of Christ to the power worshipping alt-right.

    What matters is the message, not the label. And Christianity has, over the past thousand years, come to mean the exact opposite of what it did at first.

    Christianity is no longer useful as a vehicle for the other-worldly tradition, the Perennial Tradition, and has come to symbolize power, wealth gathering, 'civilization' (i.e the pursuit of power, wealth, and pleasure).

    It doesn't matter what Christianity 'originally' meant, it matters that for the past thousand years it has increasingly stood for the power and wealth gathering impulses of the West - i.e, western 'civilization'.

    Denying this simply leafs to confusion - an alt-right blogger like Bruce Charlton calls himself a Christian, but his main concerns are this worldly power and wealth. Metaphysical Christians come to his site and it is amusing to see how eventually they realize what he truly stands for.

    There is no need for this confusion.

    Vox is correct the in what Christianity had stood for in the past millenium, and it's pointless going back to origins.

    People who adhere to the perennial tradition in the west, the tradition that eschewes power, despises wealth, preaches love and compassion, looks down on 'civilization', should concede the iconography and imagery of Christianity, which has not meant those things for a very, very long time now.

    Adherents of the perennial philosophy in the west must find, perhaps forge, a new vehicle for the timeless and unchanging truths of the spiritual life, and leave the power hungry this wordless to their Christian imagery l.

    ReplyDelete
  83. The OP quote... Oh the lies, the lies. Oh my god SOOO Funny! I wish I could have laughed in xer face as xe declaimed this to a crowd of peace loving antifadas.

    Sorry - but I seem to only comment from time to time about how funny this sheiss is.

    So yeah - every single word including 'and' and 'the'. Hilarious LIES!

    ReplyDelete
  84. My blog is closed for renovations, and I don't think anything I've said here qualifies as Edenism. I am simply implying that Adam and Eve correspond to one of the more recent "Great Leaps Forward" in anthropological development.

    "In Adam's fall, we sinned all" can still hold even if he is not Y-chromosomal Adam, if he was given spiritual dominion and stewardship over Earth.

    This is relevant to the OP because we're really not "all the same", and the Adam myth is pretty untenable if interpreted as Y chromosomal Adam.

    ReplyDelete
  85. I, for one, tend to side with Koanic on the extra-Adamic men idea. Sins of God, daughters of men I think is a clue. But that's OT.

    ReplyDelete
  86. "I merely offered my interpretation, as indicated by the preface "I think", and cited the relevant suggestive evidence as well."

    You prefaced only one comment with "I think". It was not the one to which I referred, which you presented as fact.

    Liar.

    "You on the other hand, have repeatedly shown yourself to be a midwit."

    That's adorable.

    ReplyDelete
  87. @Markku - Oh, I'm aware of what he is. And I should probably just ignore the pseudo-scientific and pseudo-mystical justifications for his particular brand of kookery. But he's lied about me, specifically, and in general so often that I'm annoyed.

    Out of respect for the fact that this is ultimately pointless and off-topic, though, I won't address him further.

    ReplyDelete
  88. > It was not the one to which I referred, which you presented as fact.

    Yes it was. Your comments 71 and 79 refer to my comment 68. in which I introduced both the serpent as national mascot concept, and the extra-Adamic races of man concept. The exact beginning was "I don't think so."

    My next comment, 75, doesn't contain any Biblical interpretation.

    I'd call you a liar, but you're just stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  89. SomeGuy wrote:I've been searching for a while, are there any Alt-Right friendly Christian resources or online communities anyone would like to share for a struggling believer?

    Thank you.


    Mentioned earlier, but with the wrong URL.

    You can check out Men of the West.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Apparently, my earlier link did not work. Just click on my username, and it will take you to Men of the West.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Remember to always write http:// to the beginning of your links. Otherwise that will happen.

    ReplyDelete
  92. @78 I agree that the main problem was Miriam's attempt to usurp power; but don't you think the snow white leprosy thing is just a little bit suggestive? Not all of God's lessons are direct.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Oh, right, it's a .net site. I always forget that. Thanks for the correction.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Gubbermint Cheez wrote:@78 I agree that the main problem was Miriam's attempt to usurp power; but don't you think the snow white leprosy thing is just a little bit suggestive? Not all of God's lessons are direct.

    I used to repeat this argument also. But it turns out that leprosy (which is defined as white in Leviticus, in the laws about detecting leprosy, so whiteness goes with the program) is a typical punishment of God for the particular sin of usurping religious authority that doesn't belong to you.

    2Ch 26:19 Then Uzzi'ah was angry. Now he had a censer in his hand to burn incense, and when he became angry with the priests leprosy broke out on his forehead, in the presence of the priests in the house of the LORD, by the altar of incense.

    ReplyDelete
  95. @VD "even those of us who are not Christians value the Christian tradition as one of the three foundational pillars of the West"

    True. I'm an atheist myself, thus I view religions as something akin to "operating systems" for people, the result of millennia of experience condensed into an easy to use format.

    Since non-cucked Christianity has consistently produced the best results (aka Western Civilization) I have no issue supporting it. It seems logical to me.

    ReplyDelete
  96. @94 But why was it "snow white" leprosy?

    Miriam was trying to call out Moses for something that was not a sin. She was trying to define a new sin. God (who has a sense of humor) punished her by making her the "purest" color.

    There is a Biblical place for God-fearing people of other colors and cultures who assimilate one by one. The problem is with those who only pretend to convert, or invaders who do not plan to convert.

    ReplyDelete
  97. @94 Legit. Also, there's no proof that the Ethiopian was black. Conquistadors a few hundred years ago weren't.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Gubbermint Cheez wrote:@94 But why was it "snow white" leprosy?

    Miriam was trying to call out Moses for something that was not a sin. She was trying to define a new sin. God (who has a sense of humor) punished her by making her the "purest" color.


    Yes, this is how John Piper so eloquently paraphrases the passage, which is why I used to repeat the argument. But it doesn't match the facts.

    Lev 13:13 then the priest shall make an examination, and if the leprosy has covered all his body, he shall pronounce him clean of the disease; it has all turned white, and he is clean.
    ----
    Snow white leprosy is quite simply completed leprosy. It was the most total demonstration of God's power - to make the process that usually takes years, in mere seconds.

    ReplyDelete
  99. @98 Hmmm. It's an interesting point but I don't buy it. The fact remains that she was trying to define a non-sin as a sin, and become the "decider" so to speak, and she was punished for it.

    Furthermore, there are laws in the OT dictating how a foreigner is to be accepted into the ranks of the Hebrew people, so it is not a sin to do so.

    That doesn't mean you can't kill or eject foreign invaders, of course. And if the invasion of the land of Canaan is to be taken as a precedent, you could even invade a non-believing country and kill all of its inhabitants, if God so instructed you.

    Which I suppose demonstrates why the OT is unpopular with leftists. It puts a different spin on American history when you think about it that way.

    ReplyDelete
  100. A true cuck among cucks.

    P-tooey

    ReplyDelete
  101. We don't even know if they called it a sin. Here's the full extent of what we know about their claim:

    Num 12:1 Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married, for he had married a Cushite woman;
    Num 12:2 and they said, "Has the LORD indeed spoken only through Moses? Has he not spoken through us also?" And the LORD heard it.

    "Speaking against" COULD of course mean calling it a sin. The way the anti-racists read the story, is a coherent way. But that's not how these two verses come across to me. I think the two verses are summarizing one claim. Not first making one claim: That intermarrying is a sin, and then a second claim, that therefore they should be seen as holding the same office of prophet as Moses.

    No, I think it's a single claim: Moses is not loyal to Israel. He even married a Cushite. Listen to US too, to bring some LOYALTY on the table.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Amongst the many other descriptors you could have added but didn't, I propose, coward. Despicable coward.

    ReplyDelete
  103. What makes Moses' position even worse is that he grew up in the Pharaoh's court. In all but genetics, he was as Eqyptian as Eqyptians come. And now he goes and marries a Cushite, instead of Israelite? Tell you what. This guy is CLEARLY trying to wipe out Israel in one fell swoop.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Markku, don't forget jealousy as a motive. Moses did, after all, grow up in a free life of luxury while the Israelites suffered.

    ReplyDelete
  105. I'm surprised there hasn't yet been a daily meme about heaven being a gated community (Rev 21:12-27) with a "great high wall".

    ReplyDelete
  106. I am certainly not a biblical scholar, of any sort, but I have read the Bible several times. That makes me a midwit for any such discussions. But I have noticed a modern egalitarianism and universalism that has crept into Christianity, that never before existed, which I can only attribute to the extra baggage of Leftist Liberals and their influence in the modern church. This would help explain how so many of the mainline Protestant (and Catholic) faiths have become converged and subverted from the original faiths that existed even during my own lifetime.

    Historically, there has never been an egalitarian tradition in Christianity, nor has Christianity been so universal that it made all Christians brothers or allies. European history especially is a long recurring nightmare of wars and revolutions and blood-letting between Christians, sometimes because of slight differences in their faith and other times in spite of their congruence.

    Until very recently, there has never been a religious duty for Christians to ignore the obvious hostility and extreme violence of the Muslims (or pagans, or another other religion) and refuse to protect and defend Christians from people who insist they are deadly enemies. The Kingdom of Christ must be defended, just as any other, against sworn enemies and known threats...not by singing hymns or offering prayers but by strong arms with swords and spears. Good does not triumph without good men...or at least men doing good works.

    ReplyDelete
  107. She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne.

    Another angel, a second, followed, saying, “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of the passion of her sexual immorality.”

    And they sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, “Great and amazing are your deeds, O Lord God the Almighty! Just and true are your ways, O King of the nations!

    Who will not fear, O Lord, and glorify your name? For you alone are holy. All nations will come and worship you, for your righteous acts have been revealed.”

    And the angel said to me, “The waters that you saw, where the prostitute is seated, are peoples and multitudes and nations and languages.

    For all nations have drunk the wine of the passion of her sexual immorality, and the kings of the earth have committed immorality with her, and the merchants of the earth have grown rich from the power of her luxurious living.”

    From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.

    and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while.

    By its light will the nations walk, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it.

    They will bring into it the glory and the honor of the nations.

    through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

    ReplyDelete
  108. I suppose then that "Conservatives" need to stop calling themselves "Republicans".

    ReplyDelete
  109. Doc Rampage wrote:Your standard pretense that very Republican is a Conservative is a lie.

    That is what the GOP establishment insists upon. Per the GOPe, McCain, McConnell, Ryan, Graham, Bush and Romney are all conservatives. Per the GOPe, these GOPe stalwarts are the definititon of conservatism. These GOPe stalwarts are what conservative voters keep returning to office - they are what conservatives vote for.

    The only way we can say that Reagan was a conservative (Reagan, who was a New Deal Democrat, in his youth), is to accept the GOPe definition of conservative==Republican.

    I think that your problem is that you are trying to define ``conservative'' as ``not liberal,'' which is simply silly. A conservative is someone who is trying to protect the gains of earlier liberals.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Professional convert lay apologists enjoy letting everyone know how right they are. Their bishops should silence them for their lack of humility and because their drama queen antics are an embarrassment to normal Catholics. Shea should look up calumny in the CCC.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Elder Son wrote:I suppose then that "Conservatives" need to stop calling themselves "Republicans".

    We wish that Republicans, and conservatives, were somehow different from loony Left Dems, once in office. We observe that
    they are not.

    I suppose then that we should acknowledge that neither conservatives nor Republicans are going to save Western Civilization. The GOPe was never the force for Right and decency we once imagined it to be.

    Many who are currently identifying as Republicans will take part in restoring Western Civilization, once they get past their nostalgia for what they imagined the Republican Party to be.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Back in the good old days, the word "Conservative" used to mean something.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Hey, guys, I can tell y'all why it was that Ronald Reagan was considered so conservative; it came down to two (2) things mainly - his speech in support of Goldwater in 1964, and, his refusal to negotiate with the communist student terrorists in Berkeley when they tried to take it over. It can't be assumed that it was Reagan's fault that Goldwater lost and the communist students ended up taking over Berkeley and all the other colleges later by other means.

    ReplyDelete
  114. I just viewed a PragerU vid on the alt-Right, and he gets it very wrong (not Prager himself). But the one big tell is at the end where it says conservatism is about INDIVIDUALS.

    Is Shea married?

    What is good for families is often bad for individuals. Is No-Fault Divorce or Abortion good? Do cuckservatives actively oppose either?

    If you go to most major cities were there were Catholics, you find different ethnic churches from before 1960. There's the German, Polish, Italian, Irish etc. churches very close to each other, and few bothered to ask why. One reason the Catholic Church could work is because it didn't enforce anti-nationalism, but considered it normal. Even assimilating immigrants would prefer to go to the neighborhood church their family attended. Cities were collections of little villages.

    While Shea screeches about "raciss!", has he read the 10 Commandments in the Catechism? No single mothers around who are going to burn in hell for all eternity? No gang bangers robbing, stealing, and killing in turf wars, also damned forever? Can he walk a half mile from his house without encorntering grave if not actually mortal sin? How far is the nearest abortion clinic killing innocents daily? And where is the nearest alt-right raciss threat?

    I wonder if Milo's next tour will take him near Shea (Seattle). I'd love to hear an exchange.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Gubbermint Cheez wrote:
    What is it with leftist Christians and their horror of the Old Testament? To my mind, some of the best stuff is in there.


    Two reasons, the second stemming from the first:

    1.) The Old Testament sets the stage, and lays down the foundation and the law. It is the rock upon which the New Testament will be built. You can't get to fulfillment without it. However, it is also largely concerned with JUSTICE.

    Because of it's focus on justice (you can't get mercy unless there is justice first, that judges and finds guilt and punishment is warranted) they don't like it. They don't want to think about justice, or being guilty, or being deserving of punishment. They only want the mercy, the dove, the lovey-dovey-happy stuff. They want Pope Francis' fake mercy, without repentence. So they ignore that which illustrates the need for mercy.

    2.) Because of those who should be teaching the Old Testament, but aren't due to #1, people are ignorant.

    ReplyDelete
  116. As actual Catholics have long known (since the catastrophe of the Second Vatican Council, actual Catholics are known as "traditional" Catholics), Mark Shea is a total CatholiCuck. Hence this cucking doesn't surprise us at all. It's par for the course among CatholiCucks.

    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=CatholiCuck

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He has spread his poison for a long time. He has said obscene things about the traditional Mass. not just a cuck but a demonic individual.

      Delete
  117. Christ was not dark-complected. His mother was of noble heritage, of the lineage of David. No matter the culture, nobility are always lighter in completion than the ordinary people. This is because of a near universal preference for fair skin in women. The Virgin was a descendant of David. There's no reason to suspect she was in any way dark. The Levant is full of fair-skinned elites. Assad is a perfect example of this. Admittedly that's still somewhat speculative, but it's a way more substantive idea than simply assuming he was brown, when even today's modern Palestinian elite are not dark.

    ReplyDelete
  118. It's pretty rich for you to be complaining about others lying about you, Vox. Just yesterday you wrote this blatant lie about Conservatives: "They had 37 years, the Presidency, the House, the Senate, nine Supreme Court nominations, and two economic booms with which to fight the cultural war. And they did absolutely nothing."

    I myself am no fan of Vox Day's blanket attacks on conservatives, as opposed to Conservative, Inc. and the GOPe. We do tend to shoot ourselves in the foot, however. For example, we'd been trying for decades to come up with a good word for the various Republican sell-outs, squishes, and sycophants, but when the alt-right (or -lite, or one of the apolitical anti-establishment trolls out for LulZ) offers us up "cuckold" and "cuck-servative" on a silver platter, what do we do?

    Heh.

    The most recent National Review contains an article which uses B.C.E. and C.E. instead of B.C. and A.D. In a venue completely under their control, and with no pressing need for political compromise, they've simply rolled over on a point of Western Culture. It seems to me that excoriating Conservative, Inc and the various condottiere conservatives therein makes perfect sense.

    Really, your comment would fit better over on the Praeger U thread. They're a useful ally in the culture war because while not particularly interesting to seasoned political philosophy wonks like Vox Day, they're brilliant for getting the ball rolling on culture war topics for tweens and young teens. And we really do need folks who create content like that. So had you posted there, I could understand your irritation.

    But why should Vox Day ignore it when people go out of their way to single him out for abuse, and dishonest abuse at that, rather than merely addressing where he's wrong? I could wish he'd distinguish between Mr. Praeger and Mr. Shea, but how do you recommend he do that? And is it even tactically useful for what him to do so with what he's trying to achieve with projects like Alt-Hero, Castalia & Infogalactic?

    ReplyDelete
  119. But how can you spread Christ's salvation to the world if your limiting it to people of a specific race? Are we not all equal in the eyes of God through Christ? Where does this leave the many non-white that are Catholic?. Also what actual proof do you have that Jesus was white whynnLloyd?

    ReplyDelete
  120. SullyRob wrote:But how can you spread Christ's salvation to the world if your limiting it to people of a specific race? Are we not all equal in the eyes of God through Christ? Where does this leave the many non-white that are Catholic?. Also what actual proof do you have that Jesus was white whynnLloyd?

    Like always. Send missionaries, give them the tools to start their own churches in their own countries. That is, to countries where a missionary can actually give something useful. If it's a country that has already heard the gospel, and rejected it, then we have no further obligation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But that didn't answer my question of the large number of non-whites in the Catholic church. All Roman Catholics are supposed to be united under the church in Rome and Pope Francis. You can't create "seperate" Catholic churchs.

      Delete
  121. "If it's a country that has already heard the gospel, and rejected it, then we have no further obligation."

    Per the precedent set with the wandering of the Israelites in the wilderness, I'm fairly certain it's incorrect to apply this across generations.

    ReplyDelete
  122. I mean, if the country already pretty much knows what the gospel is, so the missionary wouldn't be bringing them any new information.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Markku wrote:With her response, she acknowledged that as a Samaritan, she is as entitled to a favor from Jesus as a dog is entitled to the child's meal. Jesus was pleased with this, so he gave her what she asked.

    What I like most about her response is that she is not just humbling herself. She is elevating God and Jesus in her reframe.

    The life saving miracle she desperately desires for her daughter is a mere crumb from the table that naturally falls to the ground, that no master bothers to deny his dog from enjoying.

    She is not begging for Jesus's best. She merely wants to claim a tiny scrap.

    ReplyDelete
  124. @108-Which president are you talking about? Gerry Ford? Because Reagan left office 30 years ago. And I'd prefer to call him a neocon, but at least he tried.

    The problem with your point is that though Bush the Younger modified the label "conservative" with "compassionate" and conservatives made fun of him for it, they were never able to manage use of the label. What's the difference between a True Conservative and almost every conservative who was ever in power, all of who were apparently No True Conservatives? I dunno. Because what does the term mean, if everyone it was spied to so many fakers?

    ReplyDelete
  125. WynnLloyd wrote:Christ was not dark-complected. His mother was of noble heritage, of the lineage of David. No matter the culture, nobility are always lighter in completion than the ordinary people. This is because of a near universal preference for fair skin in women. The Virgin was a descendant of David. There's no reason to suspect she was in any way dark. The Levant is full of fair-skinned elites. Assad is a perfect example of this. Admittedly that's still somewhat speculative, but it's a way more substantive idea than simply assuming he was brown, when even today's modern Palestinian elite are not dark.

    A counterpoint is that Jesus was born to a poor family. So we're looking at a minor branch of the Davidic line, that could have inter-married with possibly dark-skinned lower classes.

    Consider Mary's betrothed, Joseph. I doubt carpenter was an elite job, even for a small town like Nazareth/Bethlehem.

    Also, Jesus was himself not special looking. He may well have not looked noble to the Pharisees and scribes scrutinizing him. "A real Messiah would look the part."

    ReplyDelete
  126. What does Joseph have to do with anything? Jesus didn't have any of his genes. Only Mary matters.

    ReplyDelete
  127. #61 Arthur Isaac: "Mystery Babylon is getting less mysterious all the time." Yes, indeed. Btw, Mecca is a city with seven hills; that cleared up a lot for me. And yes to the several comments pointing out that the "nations" shall exist until the end of time and beyond (in the New Jerusalem, where they shall be healed). So there is nothing non-biblical about defending one's own nation.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Back in the day, Catholic and Enjoying It had a lively comment section complete with a significant group of right wing Catholics that kept the man honest. We loved the quality of much of his work and spoke up when he went off the rails and stopped being a Catholic and started his shilling for the Democrats schtick.

    If I wasn't the last from that group to be banned/leave, it certainly was close. In my case I was banned. He has that ban active to this day. He also got 2 comments on that post. Low double digit comments seem to be a high point on a blog that used to have an order of magnitude larger community.

    The amusing thing is that Shea is very likely referring to "Alt Right worshippers of blood and race" as a group of people which Vox sometimes refers to as Alt White, a group that Vox is not so fond of so I'd be inclined to come to Shea's defense here that his words are being misinterpreted.

    But Shea doesn't want me or my defense anywhere near him. I'm too hung up on treating individual cases individually and actually listening to all sides before coming to a judgment. That habit of mine annoyed him for years.

    ReplyDelete
  129. @114-They sound stuck in Cold War rhetoric, like individualism versus collectivism. But why did the National Review crowd read Ayn Rand out of the movement, then?

    Not even libertarians, or most of them, are thoroughgoing individualists. They're all for "voluntary association" and the like. Who would be individualists at heart, really? Homos, probably, because they have no future, which mindset Keynes exemplified well.

    Of course, being warmed-over leftists, who get by on picking the parts of the already-existing culture they prefer and calling it tradition mainstream conservatives probably don't care to notice the longstanding partnership between radical individualism and collectivism in modern Western culture. It goes back to Rousseau if not before, supposedly a bete noire of the right.

    Confusion may arise from the fact that there truly is a fault line between right and left on grounds of groupiness, if you will. As with all such things, however, it's relativistic.

    ReplyDelete
  130. "Christianity is for cucks." - Mark Shea

    What did he mean by this? Is this a confession?

    ReplyDelete
  131. Markku wrote:What does Joseph have to do with anything? Jesus didn't have any of his genes. Only Mary matters.

    Status indicator of Mary's own class, because marriage is a family affair.

    If Mary family was higher class, she would have been married to someone of similar status like a scribe or some such. This is speculative, since I am ignorant of the actual class pecking order of the AME.

    Am guessing carpenter is working class given nature of work and Jesus's childhood poverty. (dove offering)

    In light of that, speculation that Mary was fair-skinned due to royal blood is unproven, though still possible.

    Also somewhat missing the point of the Gospel narrative. Spergs gonna sperg.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Somewhat OT, but I've been convinced that Joseph and Jesus were masons, not carpenters. The only thing we know about their profession is that they built houses. And houses were made of stone in first century Judea.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The word translated as "carpenter" (Tekton) could also refer to one who works with stone as well as wood. Given that Israel has far more stone than wood, yeah he was probably a mason.

      You might find this video series i uploaded informative, Markku.
      https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5oOQjuMV9kcAb_8s92Pw3Yopca80emON

      Delete
  133. The skin color debate is kinda hilarious. Take a look at the non-Arab Semites. They're pretty light. Hell, remember that Esau had RED HAIR. That's still a fairly common feature of Jewish individuals (and a stereotype in certain countries). Most likely they would have been about the same shade as Hungarians.

    ReplyDelete
  134. SullyRob wrote:But that didn't answer my question of the large number of non-whites in the Catholic church. All Roman Catholics are supposed to be united under the church in Rome and Pope Francis. You can't create "seperate" Catholic churchs.

    I don't care the slightest bit about Catholics, but if I did, it wouldn't really matter. Yes, the local churches would be under the authority of Rome, but the people would not be mixed. The actual, local worship would be the same ethnicities, and hence our differences wouldn't constantly be grating each other.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What do you have against Roman Catholics? What denomination are you anyway?

      Delete
  135. @29 How can the Bible simultaneously claim Christ is only here for the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and at the same time that there is no Jew or Gentile...for all are one in Christ? Cause if we are all one in Christ, what's the point of not giving to the dog what you would give to your child?

    Your bones, blood, and brain are all one in the sense that they all work together to make you one person. "All are one" simply does not imply "all are equal."

    ReplyDelete
  136. 5343 Kinds of DeplorableOctober 27, 2017 5:54 PM

    She is not begging for Jesus's best. She merely wants to claim a tiny scrap.

    That's good, much like the centurion who basically said, "Don't bother coming to my house to heal my servant, you can just speak the word from here ..."

    ReplyDelete
  137. @134 And houses were made of stone in first century Judea.

    Walls may have been mostly stone or compressed earth block, but roofs almost certainly weren't. Those would have probably been a wood, cane, or similar structure covered with thatch.

    ReplyDelete
  138. SullyRob wrote:What do you have against Roman Catholics? What denomination are you anyway?

    I happen to belong to a Pentecostal congregation, but that's purely out of geographical necessity. I'm a pretty vanilla believers-baptism Protestant and would feel equally at home in any such congregation. As for Catholics, I believe their doctrines are so far from Christianity that I can't consider the organization Christian in any meaningful sense. But I let them do their thing. It doesn't really bother me, if they keep to themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Noah B The Savage Gardener wrote:@134 And houses were made of stone in first century Judea.

    Walls may have been mostly stone or compressed earth block, but roofs almost certainly weren't. Those would have probably been a wood, cane, or similar structure covered with thatch.


    Perhaps, but remember that we don't actually possess a single piece of historical information that would lead us to think about carpenter. The Bible calls them "builders". So, if we just forget about very late Christian tradition that is not connected with the original events or people, then what does "builder" bring to your mind in first century Judea? Stone, methinks. Not wood.

    ReplyDelete
  140. If "builders" is the most accurate translation then it's almost certain that most of the work of building in Jesus' time in the ME would have been masonry. Stone, compressed earth blocks, sun-baked mud bricks, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  141. The word is tekton, "begetter". Interlinears do say "carpenter", but I've been reasonably convinced by the other side's argument that everybody just assumed this, because in their culture houses were made of wood and there is no objective first-century reason to bring wood to the picture.

    ReplyDelete
  142. The best translation would probably be "craftsman". They probably knew how to work both wood and stone, as necessary for each individual part of the project. You hired Jesus, and voilá! you had a house. With the appropriate wooden parts in it.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Markku wrote:The Bible calls them "builders".

    What verses/reference are you using?

    Matthew 13:55 on BibleHub says carpenter.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Bah, slow. You already answered, thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  145. What exactly makes Catholics "not christians"? Also you are aware Roman Catholicism predates almost all protestant denominations.

    ReplyDelete
  146. I answered your question. I'm not going to discuss this any further, especially since I'm under specific orders to delete all Catholic attempts to pick fights here. If you continue, I will delete you.

    ReplyDelete
  147. S1AL wrote:The skin color debate is kinda hilarious.

    *Angel appears to crowd*

    Angel: "Fear not, I bring you good tidings! For unto you is born in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord."

    Man: "Is his mother Mary light-skinned?"

    A: "What?"

    M: "She's supposed to be descended from David, which makes her a princess, see? And princesses don't be darkies. But she's poor and a few generations removed, so we was wondering ..."

    *Angel facepalms*

    ReplyDelete
  148. Who gave you orders? Why delete Catholics comments specifically? I'm only politely asking questions here. I haven't insulted you or anything.

    ReplyDelete
  149. Vox. Because Catholics cause problems, and no other denominations or cults do. Mormons used to, but they behave now.

    ReplyDelete
  150. We allowed it for several years. No more.

    ReplyDelete
  151. And what terrible problems have us Catholics caused exactly? The problem of just asking you questions.

    ReplyDelete
  152. I'm not answering that, and if you persist, your messages will start disappearing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very well sir. May ask at least what I am allowed to write in the blog that won't get deleted? I'm new here so I'm not really familiar with the blog rules yet.

      Delete
  153. I think you know when you are picking a fight and when you aren't. You'll note that I didn't delete your question originally, even if it was obviously a leading one. If you start foaming in the mouth about how Protestants are heretics or whatnot, you'll be deleted. My intent is to prevent the kind of fights between Protestants and Catholics that we've already seen probably about a hundred of. There was a time I did it to Mormons too, but they learned the lesson.

    If you believe Protestants are outside salvation, that is perfectly fine. It's also perfectly fine to say anything that would reveal such a view. But you know perfectly well when you say such a thing in order to provoke someone to fight you. That is not going to be allowed.

    ReplyDelete
  154. And I'm aware that the above is a Vatican I position. We have probably more Vatican I Catholics here than we have Vatican II Catholics.

    ReplyDelete
  155. We all have a lot of history behind us, in our own families, and in our own countries. I make an extra effort to get along with everyone....regardless of their religious affiliation. Yes, Catholic or Protestant, Jew or Christian, atheist or pagan. I am not here to convert the heathen or convince those who think otherwise. Make friends where you can, even if they are not of your own tribe.

    ReplyDelete
  156. I'm also aware that in Vatican II, Protestants are the only group you are actually allowed to aggressively try to convert. That's what makes you such a constant problem here.

    ReplyDelete
  157. My point was not that I thought protestants are outside salvation. I don't believe that. My Girlfriend is a non-denominational Christian and very pious woman compared to me. I would say prorbably I fall into the Vatican 2 camp.I was just wondering why you said Catholics needed to be deleted because it seemed Like you had other Catholics in the comments that you were leaving alone. That is what threw me off.

    ReplyDelete
  158. SullyRob: Remember Remember the 4th of November, that's why.

    ReplyDelete
  159. Right. If any other group starts picking fights as a policy, they shall receive the same policy.

    ReplyDelete
  160. --Is the Lord calling her a dog?

    Metaphorically. He is telling her that she is not equal to the house of Israel and is not a full member of the family. The fact that he subsequently healed her daughter due to her faith did not negate that statement.--

    Its like parents feeding their kids when a homeless man asks for the very food you are putting in your child's mouth.

    The Word of God came for the Jews first, us 2nd... and he puts that in the harshest possible terms.

    Rather than being filled with pride, she accepted with humility that what she was asking for was not for her, but lowered herself more in accepting his characterization.

    Her humility was born out of incredible faith that he was who he said he was. Itherwise, she would have pulled herself up and stormed off in a huff.

    She was saved by her humility.

    ReplyDelete
  161. --With her response, she acknowledged that as a Samaritan, she is as entitled to a favor from Jesus as a dog is entitled to the child's meal. Jesus was pleased with this, so he gave her what she asked.--

    Yeah... that!

    ReplyDelete
  162. @34 As far as Jesus and skin color goes, being from the Middle East he is not going to be one of those Nordic types, as Jesus is sometimes portrayed.

    Actually you are wrong. Christ was described by Pilate as fair skinned and haired, in opposition to the "dark swarthy jews".

    As another commenter stated God is the father of Jesus. Mary was of Israelite blood of the Davidic line and old records speak of her as being blond haired and blue eyed. Christ was written of being Strawberry blond with blue-green eyes.

    You might want to read "Killing Jesus - Pilate's Report"

    ReplyDelete
  163. I think, Markku, that you just found one of those niche situations where the guy is sincerely confused but looks like a fake because you've seen the came comments so often.

    Happens to the best of us.

    @SullyRob - I think the rule is probably best defined as "thou shalt respect the Peace of Westphalia. No, seriously, just don't get into it. At all."

    ReplyDelete
  164. --Consider Mary's betrothed, Joseph. I doubt carpenter was an elite job, even for a small town like Nazareth/Bethlehem.--

    Joseph is also descended from David. Matthew and Luke have different genealogies, one of Joseph and the other for Mary.

    My understanding is Joseph came from a line that was cut off (Jehoiakim, Jeremiah 36:30 - not mentioned, but his son, Jehoiachin, is)... so the imagery of the root of Jesse being restored is through God giving Joseph responsibility of His Son, even if he isn't sharing his blood.

    ReplyDelete
  165. @141 Marrku As for Catholics, I believe their doctrines are so far from Christianity that I can't consider the organization Christian in any meaningful sense.

    Marrku, you are obviously uneducated. Catholics are the OriginalTM Christians. Protestants, if you know any history, broke away from the Catholic Church and developed their own weird doctrines.

    "You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it."

    Question: That was Jesus speaking. The "Reformers" said the Church had become so corrupt they had to reform/rebuild the Church.

    So, who lied, Christ or the "Reformers"?

    ReplyDelete
  166. --Actually you are wrong. Christ was described by Pilate as fair skinned and haired, in opposition to the "dark swarthy jews".--

    My take was that he favored King David in coloring, who was described as ruddy, or red haired.

    ReplyDelete
  167. I'm going to take the high road, and merely not answer your question.

    Don't test me.

    ReplyDelete
  168. A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty CentsOctober 27, 2017 7:32 PM

    @156 SullyRob
    I'm new here so I'm not really familiar with the blog rules yet.

    There is a live link in the left sidebar not far below EMAIL VOX. That link is

    Rules of the blog you might try reading it.

    As for the "why" of Markku banning certain Catholic comments, "Rome or Die" is not an argument. But it is tedious after a while, say, the first 100 times.

    ReplyDelete
  169. A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty CentsOctober 27, 2017 7:34 PM

    @170 Matamoros

    Dude, "Rome or Die" is not an argument. 30 years war is over.

    ReplyDelete
  170. 5343 Kinds of DeplorableOctober 27, 2017 7:34 PM

    So, who lied, Christ or the "Reformers"?

    I sense the ban hammer hovering ...

    ReplyDelete
  171. If you're on your phone, that link is also at the bottom. I occasionally still reference it.

    Speaking of which, this particular rule might be worth adding, given how often it comes up.

    ReplyDelete
  172. I suppose then that "Conservatives" need to stop calling themselves "Republicans".

    Ignore him. He's a butthurt gamma who has been lurking for years wanting to take a shot.

    ReplyDelete
  173. And what terrible problems have us Catholics caused exactly? The problem of just asking you questions.

    Just shut the fuck up. That's what. We are not here to cure your ignorance.

    Markku, ban the moron if he keeps it up.

    ReplyDelete
  174. Marrku, you are obviously uneducated. Catholics are the OriginalTM Christians. Protestants, if you know any history, broke away from the Catholic Church and developed their own weird doctrines.

    Drop it, Matamoros. You are wrong. The Roman Catholics are the original schismatics, who broke away from the Orthodox Church. This is the wrong place to play the historical ignoramus; we know our Roman and Byzantine history here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just a question. Why aren't you part of the Orthodox Church if that's true?

      Catholics don't have much problem with them it seems, even considering them to not only have all the sacraments they have, but for them to be every bit as valid as their own.

      Delete
  175. I believe Vox has made a fictional suggestion regarding how Catholics might endear themselves by dealing with their antipope. I recall stabbing and burning.

    ReplyDelete
  176. Markku wrote:The best translation would probably be "craftsman". They probably knew how to work both wood and stone, as necessary for each individual part of the project. You hired Jesus, and voilá! you had a house. With the appropriate wooden parts in it.


    More on tekton:

    The Greek word tekton is a more generic term referring to a “builder.” ... The Greek word tekton does indeed mean carpenter, but it was translated from the Aramaic word naggar, which could mean craftsman or learned man.

    ReplyDelete
  177. So fitting. Jesus was an engineer, who put the theory of the Decalogue into practice, thereby transcending it, fulfilling prophecy, and creating (building) a path to salvation.

    ReplyDelete
  178. @178 VD I'm quite familiar with the Orthodox position, being a Romanian Byzantine Catholic married to a Romanian Orthodox believer. My marriage wouldn't survive otherwise.

    Let's say that the position is still debated but seems to have been overcome by events dating back to the 1960s. And therein lies a significant chance for peace in your comments section if you'll but take it.

    Both sides in the Great Schism believe in apostolic succession. Both sides have mainstream leadership who have admitted "we done screwed up" (paraphrased) in theologically tenable ways and are seeking peace, forgiveness, and reconciliation. I'm decidedly hopeful they finish the work in my lifetime.

    The Protestants generally have a long-term modus vivendi with the Orthodox that doesn't involve a lot of name calling, cat fighting, and other issues so it's probably viable to ask them to take the Orthodox lead in this matter with regard to Rome.

    Both sides have extremists who deny the current holders of their leadership are valid. They are not significant in numbers and generally avoid questions like how many Catholics and Orthodox actually are out there because addressing that exposes that their interpretations are as influential as any storefront preacher is in American Protestant tradition.

    ReplyDelete
  179. RE: "the three foundational pillars of the West"
    I have been thinking about this for a few weeks. In addition to Christianity, what are the other two proposed pillars? I would suggest Deduction/Logic, Roman Law and Science, but thats one too many and perhaps to narrow in scope? I'm also somewhat curious as to what delineates Western from Eastern Civilization? GreccoBuddhism had a profound affect on the East. Lastly, I recently read a study of IQ across the two main populations in Japan (East and West). The authors strongly suggest the differences were stratified from North to South across both. I feel that we will in time come to appreciate something akin to a Northern Civilization. Due to a shared history of genetic selection.

    ReplyDelete
  180. Meng Greenleaf wrote:RE: "the three foundational pillars of the West"

    I have been thinking about this for a few weeks. In addition to Christianity, what are the other two proposed pillars?


    The Three Pillars of The West

    1:) The Greek and Roman Legacy

    2:) Christianity

    3:) The Customs of the Germanic Barbarians

    http://alphagameplan.blogspot.ca/2016/04/the-three-pillars-of-west.html

    ReplyDelete
  181. more here:

    https://wolvesandmen.wordpress.com/2016/04/08/the-three-pillars-of-the-west/

    ReplyDelete
  182. Markku,
    I got interested in the construction techniques, wood or stone, you mentioned. I thought of the historic 'cedars of Lebanon' so looked them up. Came up with this site. Fun or not so fun, reading about folks cutting forests to extinction. http://www.endangeredspecieshandbook.org/forest_eurasian_lost.php Hope the link works. Seems stone with very limited wood construction would be the main building material. I always had associated Jesus with carpentry, and had seen iron and bronze examples of planes.... like they say about assumptions :)

    Thanks for a wonderful discussion. VERY thought provoking and educational.

    God bless.

    ReplyDelete
  183. So, who lied, Christ or the "Reformers"?

    If the Reformers helped preserve the Catholic Church by forcing it to address some of the corruption that had taken hold, they helped fulfill Jesus' promise to Peter. In which case, no one lied.

    ReplyDelete
  184. Joseph had no biological impact on Christ according to Christian tradition, obviously. Yet I also doubt how poor the Holy Family actually were. Artisans were not poor in the Roman Empire in general at that time. The poor consisted of rural tenant farmers and the urban poor. Joseph likely was on par with a plumber/welder of today, who are by no means elite, but not poor. There's no reason to S great that aristocratic traits didn't die out. I myself am an example. I'm 1/8 Choctaw, the son of very poor people, yet I'm also descended from a specific Welsh noble family and I have extremely pale skin. Men of means generally prefer lighter women due to neotony.

    The ancient peoples of the Levant were lighter than the Arabs, you can see this in ancient art. However the Arabs actually didn't have the extreme genetic effect people think they did. The darkening of middle eastern peoples (of the lower classes, that is) comes from Sub-Saharan slaves brought in during the Ottoman Empire. Recent DNA tests are conclusive with the Egyptians, for example. The 10-20% Sub-Saharan genes in upper (southern) Egypt came into the population over the last 500 years, meaning that ancient Egyptians were significantly fairer than the Egyptians of today.

    But the real key for me are the religious minorities in that part of the world. The Alawites, Copts, Yazidi, are lighter generally than the Arabs in these regions. Christ was a Hebrew without Arabic or sub-Saharan blood also most likely.

    If you look at upper classes of any society they will be lighter. Even the Zulu elite were often "red," due to the women of the lineage.

    If you look at Islamic Spain, the Umayyad Caliphs were largely Syrian on the male side, but due to Slavic slave women and Visigothic wives they became whitened over time. The greatest Caliph, Abd-ar-Rahman III, had blue eyes and blond hair.


    It isn't sperging (I'm the opposite of a sperg and a gamma, I.e. a pathological codependent) to point out the flaw in a typical leftist talking point. It's used to separate Christianity from its land of incubation and the peoples responsible for spreading it all over the world.
    With all that said, there isn't conclusive proof he was any color, but my main point is that assuming he was "brown" is less likely than assuming the opposite. If I had to bet, I would place him as resembling Alawites, upper class Palestinians, and other Eastern Mediterranean peoples. But who knows.

    Can you guys pushing Catholicism do that somewhere else? This blog is a necessity for my sanity and an anti-Catholic backlash created by your trolling will not be helpful, at least for me. No one converts due to comment threads. No one even wants to convert. They just want to troll other people for no reason.

    ReplyDelete
  185. So many suggest Jesus was indicating she was unworthy. I never quite saw it that way. I saw two things happening, in conjunction. He tested her faith against her values. When her value structures were set aside, rightly, Christ showed that the perception was flawed. This was one of the first notions that gentiles could, and would, be welcomed. As much a parable as a true story. Who was Jesus, admittedly, teaching first right in that bit? Right. One has to start slowly, Jew or gentile. I often can't tell them apart. :p

    No, you can't burn the witch. *facepalm*

    ReplyDelete
  186. I first heard of Mark Shea when he tried to discredit the movie "The Principle" by tricking Lawrence Krauss, suggesting he was in a movie about geocentrism, which caused him to lash out at the movie before ever seeing it.

    Mark Shea seems to hold some grudge against Robert Sungenis, one of the producers, because Sungenis believes the Jews must accept the New Covenant. I kind of thought he was a bit of a snake due to his behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  187. There's a plain reason Vox does not want more "Roman Catholic vs Protestant" debating on his blog - if it's allowed to happen, it takes over every single discussion about anything related to religion, culture, Western civilization, etc etc etc.

    And don't think you've got some argument that we Protestants just haven't heard or considered before. We've heard them all already. And we've got answers to them. All of them.

    ReplyDelete
  188. I'm going to start deleting you now.

    ReplyDelete
  189. Don't try the rules crap. You are done.

    ReplyDelete
  190. If you are moved to relitigate the Reformation in the comment section, remember that you are acting like Mark Shea.

    ReplyDelete
  191. Regarding the Roman Catholic Church, one should read the first 3 chapters of Revelation if you want to know what Jesus thinks of renegade apostate heretical luke warm phony baloney plastic banana good time rock & roll hypocritical churches. I'll just tell you, to save time: Jesus says that He will spue them out of His mouth.

    ReplyDelete
  192. I have not read all this interesting thread yet, but I must mention before I forget, my Roman Catholic Parish Priest, from India, in Canada, twisted the bible quote into claiming Jesus was sarcastically mocking the disparaging view of the Canaanites.

    My parish priest is incorrect. I was thinking, during the Homily, lets see if I can go through many other bible verses, and apply sarcasm, as an exercise in reversing every meaning.

    A brown Catholic convert friend of mine, a few days ago, sent a video of a woman burned alive with fuel thrown on here, surrounded by a huge crowd of brown people and a very steady cameraman-sociopath, not reactive to the horror. It upset her so much (and me) that she only shared it with me, a white person, to express a fear of what is not her culture, but is her 150 year ago predecessors. I said to her, we call those nicely dressed barbarians "new Canadians" now.

    It was so dreadful I almost turned it off. I forced myself to watch it so I can hate it enough to figure out a way to convince my neighbours to stop voting for their own now-fast replacement.

    My brown friend thinks the division can be Christian versus the rest, but I said to her that she looks like them. How will they know she is Catholic. She said white people will move to their own place up north. I mentioned that when British rule ended everywhere (including her South American country), then the communism, atheism and violence spread. The millions of dead, because of Ghandi, means maybe he was not a good guy. She never thought of it that way. Her own country's independence was not a good thing, and she fled to here and never understood her own kind destroyed her own country. She thought it was just chance/3rd world.

    It was not a discussion with a solution. Is she losing her place inside our old Canadian culture? It worked for her because she was a tiny minority, but now she is looking like the new foreigner majority.

    Note that she is alarmed, and her same-S.A.country friend sent the video to her to sound the alarm. She is very animated about why do not white people do something to stop this. I told her the CBC and the rest cut to pieces anybody who speaks, and we have no leaders to solve this, but I test the waters with white strangers and I am assured they all know what danger is happening and they are waiting for a leader, I think.

    Stephen Harper (a cuckservative) is called pragmatic at Bohemian Grove. Since 2009, I called him a double agent from the Liberal party. He lost the election because of me seeing the truth about him. The NDP party are led by a Sikh turban identity. Liberals led by a femaleist gynocentric identity. We need Conservatives led by a cross swinging Christian identity.

    ReplyDelete
  193. Correction, not all whites, to whom I speak, know the danger, but more than I expected do know; maybe only 1/4 of them.

    Also the daughter of that East-Indian descent (but mostly like British) friend of mine (daughter now 30 years old) is born in Canada and she fled to an Italian neighbourhood to flee the East Indians and middle-easterners.

    I divide the groups by faith. Cut immigration to zero and then let us all separate into our own enclaves, including a female-promiscuous-communist-atheist/cuckolder-male enclave.

    ReplyDelete

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.