Your forum profile under Marital Status says, "3 wives (more coming, God willing)."
Is this supposed to be a joke, or are you in fact a polygynist?
You also list your religion as "Catholic (true Hebrew Israelite)". What does that mean? Are you a Catholic as understood by the members of this forum?
Quote from: Fleur-de-Lys on September 16, 2020, 12:31:09 PM
You also list your religion as "Catholic (true Hebrew Israelite)". What does that mean? Are you a Catholic as understood by the members of this forum?
Obviously, he needs to answer that for himself, but I understood this way of describing Catholicism as a statement of supersessionism.
QuoteSupersessionism, also called replacement theology, is a Christian doctrine which asserts that the New Covenant through Jesus Christ supersedes the Old Covenant, which was made exclusively with the Jewish people.
In Christianity, supersessionism is a theological view on the current status of the church in relation to the Jewish people and Judaism.[1] It holds that the Christian Church has succeeded the Israelites as the definitive people of God[1][2][3] or that the New Covenant has replaced or superseded the Mosaic covenant.[4] From a supersessionist's "point of view, just by continuing to exist [outside the Church], the Jews dissent".[5] This view directly contrasts with dual-covenant theology which holds that the Mosaic covenant remains valid for Jews.
Supersessionism has formed a core tenet of the Christian Churches for the majority of their existence. Christian traditions that have traditionally championed dual-covenant theology (including the Roman Catholic, Reformed and Methodist teachings of this doctrine), have taught that the moral law continues to stand.[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism)
This is the historical Catholic view and far more traditional than many recent statements from the Vatican on the subject.
QuoteSupersessionism is not the name of any official Roman Catholic doctrine and the word appears in no Church documents, but official Catholic teaching has reflected varying levels of supersessionist thought throughout its history, especially prior to the mid-twentieth century. Supersessionist theology is extensive in Catholic liturgy and literature.[5] The Second Vatican Council (1962–65) marked a shift in emphasis of official Catholic teaching about Judaism, a shift which may be described as a move from "hard" to "soft" supersessionism, to use the terminology of David Novak (below).[31]
Prior to Vatican II, Catholic doctrine on the matter was characterized by "displacement" or "substitution" theologies, according to which the Church and its New Covenant took the place of Judaism and its "Old Covenant", the latter being rendered void by the coming of Jesus.[32] The nullification of the Old Covenant was often explained in terms of the "deicide charge" that Jews forfeited their covenantal relationship with God by executing the divine Christ.[33] As recently as 1943, Pope Pius XII stated in his encyclical Mystici corporis Christi:
By the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. ... on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees and fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race.
—?Pope Pius XII, Mystici corporis Christi (1943)
This is an important topic, often misunderstood, so there is a good reason for drawing attention to it in his profile as Croix-de-Fer has done.
On the other hand, the bit about the wives sounded like trolling, so this might be too.
You're always generous, Jayne.
While I am familiar with supersessionism, the term "true Hebrew Israelite" is associated with some bizarre sects. Seeing that on Croix de Fer's profile, together with the reference to polygyny and his numerous posts about a global Jewish conspiracy, ideas that are consistent with some of these groups' beliefs, made me wonder if he is indeed a Catholic. I wanted to give him the opportunity to clarify that.
Quote from: Fleur-de-Lys on September 16, 2020, 05:00:33 PM
You're always generous, Jayne.
Only if nobody gets me writing on the topic of Greg. :P
Quote from: Fleur-de-Lys on September 16, 2020, 12:31:09 PM
Your forum profile under Marital Status says, "3 wives (more coming, God willing)."
Is this supposed to be a joke, or are you in fact a polygynist?
You also list your religion as "Catholic (true Hebrew Israelite)". What does that mean? Are you a Catholic as understood by the members of this forum?
Hmmm, trad Catholics should have multiple children. Three simultaneous wives, whether or not they know of each others, which itself matters, isn't Catholic. Presumably it's a joke. I cannot see how it would be conducive to sanity also.
Quote from: Fleur-de-Lys on September 16, 2020, 05:00:33 PM
You're always generous, Jayne.
While I am familiar with supersessionism, the term "true Hebrew Israelite" is associated with some bizarre sects. Seeing that on Croix de Fer's profile, together with the reference to polygyny and his numerous posts about a global Jewish conspiracy, ideas that are consistent with some of these groups' beliefs, made me wonder if he is indeed a Catholic. I wanted to give him the opportunity to clarify that.
The guy is clearly a Christian Identity troll.
QuoteChristian Identity (also known as Identity Christianity)[1] is a racist,[2] anti-Semitic,[2] and white supremacist interpretation of Christianity which holds the view that only Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Nordic, Aryan people and those of kindred blood are the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and hence the descendants of the ancient Israelites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity
They tend to be quite active on Trad Catholic forums, and are, unfortunately, moderately successful at spreading their inbred, mouth-breathing, stupidity, to lost people looking for answers on the internet.
Same person. Same avatar.
https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/croix-de-fer-has-been-banned/
https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/catholic-forums-ban-discussions-on-geocentrism-long-ages-and-evolution/
QuoteSuscipe Domine and "Catholic" Answers look at real Catholics like we're some kind of freaks.
Bunch of feminists, fags and communists at those sites.
https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/suscipedomine-promotes-dogmatic-anti-geocentrism/msg478010/#msg478010
QuoteYeah, the SuscipeDomine forum is a cesspool of neo-Catholic liberals, socialists, heliocentrists and evolutionists. They seem to suck down the modernist kool-aid, too. :furtive:
Quote from: Greg on September 17, 2020, 06:15:13 AM
Same person. Same avatar.
Yes. Same style. Same opinions.
On Cathinfo, where there is nothing especially distinctive about his views on Jews and race, his identifying characteristic is his support of McDougall's sugar diet. After being banned there, this poster kept coming back under other names. He always got caught when expressing his views on diet.
Sugar is bad for you. QED. ;D
Smart and insightful enough to discern the joos' nefarious plans for world conquest.
Too dumb to change his username and avatar.
Quote from: Jayne on September 17, 2020, 06:38:40 AM
After being banned there, this poster kept coming back under other names. He always got caught when expressing his views on diet.
LOL!
Quote from: Greg on September 17, 2020, 06:48:54 AM
Smart and insightful enough to discern the joos nefarious plans for world conquest.
To dumb to change his username and avatar.
There is no reason to think that he was trying to hide that he used to post on Cathinfo. He knows that there is an overlap of membership and he would have recognized both you and me, as well as others.
It is consistent with the hypothesis that he is trolling. He would appreciate the attention of having threads started about him and people writing about his posting history elsewhere.
Didn't he have bizarre views on women and prenups too?
https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/hear-woman-!/15/
Another expert on women who never actually convinced one to marry him, despite being "highly attractive to women" in his own words.
I wonder why he wants to participate in a forum of "fags, feminists, communists, neo-Catholic liberals, socialists, heliocentrists and evolutionists" as he describes this place.
I don't think he is looking for a date.
Quote from: Fleur-de-Lys on September 16, 2020, 12:31:09 PM
You also list your religion as "Catholic (true Hebrew Israelite)". What does that mean? Are you a Catholic as understood by the members of this forum?
Now that Croix has posted a video from a group which refers to itself as Hebrew Israelites, (although he labels the video "Traditional Catholic Truth") we have the answer to your question. It looks like he is a follower of a heretical sect which he calls Catholic. See https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=24498.msg511996#msg511996 (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=24498.msg511996#msg511996)
They are flat-earthers.
https://www.straitwaytruth.com/straitwaytruth-newsletter.htm
Quote from: Greg on September 17, 2020, 01:50:23 PM
They are flat-earthers.
That is not as bad as being Judaizers. We should be more concerned with heresy than with nuttiness.
I am less concerned with heresy when it comes from nutters, because nutters only convert other nutters. And not many.
Nobody would convert me who taught flat-earth nonsense. It is so unbelivably stupid.
Just as you need magnets to remove metal particles from food, you need idiot magnets to keep Traditionalist chapels sane. The best thing that happened to the SSPX in the last 20 years was The Resistance. All of the worst morons, and reactionary idiots who panic over a 90,000 dollar water bill because they cannot read a water meter, or use their common sense, left. The kind of irrational freaks who make themselves bishops.
When Vetus Ordo becomes an apologist for Islam, that is when I worry, because he is intelligent and well read. I actually liked the guy.
I like to think that new members who join this forum for the first time enjoy a clean slate. Meaning, if we are going to judge Croix, he ought to be judged based on his conduct on this forum, not on a different forum where the culture is to say the least, defective. However, he did use the same name and avatar. So, if the moderator chooses to make an exception to this generous but unwritten rule given the context, it is understandable.
As for his diet nonsense, and it is that, please don't be fooled by Croix that it is sourced from Dr. Mcdougall. Dr. Mcdougall is not at all an advocate for consuming the amounts of sugar that I believe Croix advocates. Croix is just hijacking a prominent an sane figure in the diet community to achieve an absurd end.
Croix is I believe a diet disciple of Harley from the durianrider youtube channel. If I am not mistaken, Croix said that he used to race bicycles in his past. So, I am convinced that his pro sugar diet ravings are sourced from the celebrity vegan cyclist durianrider on youtube. You will want to watch the linked video to understand what we are talking about regarding this particular sugar consumption fad. Harley/durian rider is a master troll.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5GHBXk2QEM
That is incredibly stupid Philip. Leopards don't change their spots. The beauty of the Internet is that your past does follow you. We can therefore not subject ourselves to trolls if we wish to filter them out.
God can forgive anyone. But we don't need to allow rabblerousers, flat earthers, jew hating conspiracy theorists, commies or modernists on this forum when we know their MO.
We have lost members like my brother Clau Clau precisely because we tolerate these assholes. It comes at a cost of good people who don't want the asshatery of kooks like him.
KK will ban him at some stage. Until then I intend to call him out whenever I can. They have a forum for nutters and he was banned from that. He made it very clear in posts on there what he thinks of SD members. I listed his posts yesterday.
It is weakness like yours that let the seminaries be infiltrated by faggots.
Quote from: Greg on September 17, 2020, 11:41:01 PM
That is incredibly stupid Philip. Leopards don't change their spots. The beauty of the Internet is that your past does follow you. We can therefore not subject ourselves to trolls.
God can forgive anyone. But we don't need to allow rabblerousers, flat earthers, jew hating conspiracy theorists, commies or modernists on this forum when we know their MO.
We have lost members like my brother Clau Clau precisely because we tolerate these asshole. It comes at a cost of good people who don't want the asshatery of kooks like him.
Our Lord says he desires mercy, not sacrifice. If I am not mistaken, Croix has changed his forum name at least three times over the last 7 or so years. And, if it is the same person I am thinking of, Croix was/has been a genuine sspx/Lefebvre supporter. And, I don't recall him being ignorant of the finer details regarding tradition. I don't think he is a flat earther. His fault if you wish to call it one is that he is definitely consumed with exposing judaism. However, the same can be said of Fr. Fahey, and we all value him.
His profile comment about having three wives is very bizarre, and it needs to be fleshed out in my opinion. Some people learn a valuable lesson from being kicked off of a forum, as Croix was from CI. Time will tell us what he has learned.
Man, I am darn good. I just went on the channel that Croix has been linking, at it has a video of none other than durianrider. I honestly did not see that video when I said that Croix is a durianrider disciple because of his sugar diet talk. 100% proof. Case closed.
Not to bash on Croix, because I am a cyclist, and I am very familiar with durianrider. Durianrider is a love/hate figure. There are some who totally hate him, and it ruins them. There are some who totally love him, and for them he inspires them to lose weight and get outdoors and go live/enjoy life. And, then there are those who love him and hate him. Those are the options, take your pick.
Quote from: Philip G. on September 17, 2020, 10:57:25 PM
I like to think that new members who join this forum for the first time enjoy a clean slate. Meaning, if we are going to judge Croix, he ought to be judged based on his conduct on this forum, not on a different forum where the culture is to say the least, defective. However, he did use the same name and avatar. So, if the moderator chooses to make an exception to this generous but unwritten rule given the context, it is understandable.
It is somewhat of a moot point since I have been reacting to Croix solely based on his conduct on this forum and I came to a conclusion similar to that of Greg. Just looking at Croix's profile and posts is enough to see that there is something off, without any reference to other forums. Personally, I consider his posting a video from a heretic while calling it "Catholic truth" is sufficient grounds to ban him. How bad must a poster be, if he is capable of making Greg and me form an alliance?
Not that an alliance is necessarily a bad thing. I have said for years that Greg and I had the dynamic of the partners at the beginning of a buddy cop movie. We've only been waiting for the right villain to come along. I daresay we will be saving each other's lives next. What should we call this? Traditional Catholic Lethal Weapon? Lethal Traditional Catholic Weapon?
:grin:
Quote from: Jayne on September 18, 2020, 05:08:22 AM
Quote from: Philip G. on September 17, 2020, 10:57:25 PM
I like to think that new members who join this forum for the first time enjoy a clean slate. Meaning, if we are going to judge Croix, he ought to be judged based on his conduct on this forum, not on a different forum where the culture is to say the least, defective. However, he did use the same name and avatar. So, if the moderator chooses to make an exception to this generous but unwritten rule given the context, it is understandable.
It is somewhat of a moot point since I have been reacting to Croix solely based on his conduct on this forum and I came to a conclusion similar to that of Greg. Just looking at Croix's profile and posts is enough to see that there is something off, without any reference to other forums. Personally, I consider his posting a video from a heretic while calling it "Catholic truth" is sufficient grounds to ban him. How bad must a poster be, if he is capable of making Greg and me form an alliance?
Not that an alliance is necessarily a bad thing. I have said for years that Greg and I had the dynamic of the partners at the beginning of a buddy cop movie. We've only been waiting for the right villain to come along. I daresay we will be saving each other's lives next. What should we call this? Traditional Catholic Lethal Weapon? Lethal Traditional Catholic Weapon?
:grin:
JayneK, I'm disappointed in you, but I still love you. You condemn me for merely posting a video of a man who
professes the Name of Jesus Christ, yet, you say nothing about Vetus Ordo promulgating ideas from a Muslim pagan.
Quote from: Greg on September 17, 2020, 07:29:09 AM
I wonder why he wants to participate in a forum of "fags, feminists, communists, neo-Catholic liberals, socialists, heliocentrists and evolutionists" as he describes this place.
I used science and logic to destroy an evolutionist on this forum about 5 years ago. How do you like those apples? You crypto-agnostic worm.
Here: http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=9766.75
Quote from: Croix de Fer on September 18, 2020, 06:07:02 AM
JayneK, I'm disappointed in you, but I still love you. You condemn me for merely posting a video of a man who professes the Name of Jesus Christ, yet, you say nothing about Vetus Ordo promulgating ideas from a Muslim pagan.
I do find it a bit problematic that Vetus Ordo draws so much material from Muslim sources, but, at least, he has always clearly identified them as Muslim. He has never labeled them as traditional Catholic truth.
Arguably, the man in the video you posted does not profess the name of Jesus Christ. The "pastor" consistently referred to Our Lord as "Yeshuah Hamashiach" a Hebrew name that appears nowhere in Scripture. I realize that this is a translation of "Jesus Christ", but there is no tradition of Christians using Hebrew like this. It is typically an affectation of Judaizers, like Jews for Jesus or Hebrew Israelites, and closely tied to their heretical beliefs.
Quote from: Croix de Fer on September 18, 2020, 06:04:02 AM
I'm not a flat earther [...]
You might not personally believe the earth is flat but you posted a video by a flat earther. You should have been able to figure out that anyone who thinks the earth is flat is so stupid that he is unlikely to have anything worthwhile to say on any subject. Your decision to post a video from someone who is both a heretic and a nutter shows remarkably poor judgement. How could you think it was appropriate for this forum?
I attempted to watch another video you posted too. That speaker used so much profanity that I could not even tell what point he was making. Even if there were a point consistent with
Catholicism somewhere in there, I find it highly unlikely that it contained a valuable insight that I have not already heard expressed far more articulately by a traditional Catholic.
I do not know what criteria you are using to choose videos to post here but you do not seem able to select anything worth the time to watch it. I am not going to waste any more time on them.
O Lord, deliver us from the horns of unicorns.
Quote from: Jayne on September 18, 2020, 07:41:05 AMArguably, the man in the video you posted does not profess the name of Jesus Christ. The "pastor" consistently referred to Our Lord as "Yeshuah Hamashiach" a Hebrew name that appears nowhere in Scripture. I realize that this is a translation of "Jesus Christ", but there is no tradition of Christians using Hebrew like this. It is typically an affectation of Judaizers, like Jews for Jesus or Hebrew Israelites, and closely tied to their heretical beliefs.
"Judaizer" as a term, in the way you are using it, is just sectarian semantics. But Christianity
in toto itself is the real Judaizing monster, the 800-lb. gorilla of Jewishness: by its missionaries and its conquerors, Europe was given a Hebrew religion. Yeshua, Jesus. You say "to-may-to," he says "to-mah-to." At least we were spared Mohammedanism, though. Could be worse.
QuoteJudaizers are Christians who teach it is necessary to adopt Jewish customs and practices, especially those found in the Law of Moses, to be saved. The term is derived from the Koine Greek word ?????????? (Ioudaizein), used once in the Greek New Testament (Galatians 2:14),[1] when Paul publicly challenges Peter for compelling Gentile converts to Early Christianity to "judaize".[2][3] This episode is known as the incident at Antioch.
This term includes groups who claim the necessity of continued obedience to the Law of Moses found in the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) for gentiles.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaizers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaizers)
Quote from: Jayne on September 18, 2020, 12:05:47 PM
QuoteJudaizers are Christians who teach it is necessary to adopt Jewish customs and practices, especially those found in the Law of Moses, to be saved. The term is derived from the Koine Greek word ?????????? (Ioudaizein), used once in the Greek New Testament (Galatians 2:14),[1] when Paul publicly challenges Peter for compelling Gentile converts to Early Christianity to "judaize".[2][3] This episode is known as the incident at Antioch.
This term includes groups who claim the necessity of continued obedience to the Law of Moses found in the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) for gentiles.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaizers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaizers)
For heaven's sake. As I said, I know what it means in the sectarian sense, and I realize you care about it in those terms. If you will but momentarily broaden your view, you will see that it might also be used to describe the missionary activity of a Jewish religion.
This so-called "sectarian sense" of the word "Judaizer" is how it is normally used and has been used for almost 2000 years. The only person with a different meaning for it is Pon de Replay who apparently is using this as an opportunity to express his rejection of traditional Christian beliefs.
Quote from: Jayne on September 18, 2020, 12:19:04 PM
This so-called "sectarian sense" of the word "Judaizer" is how it is normally used and has been used for almost 2000 years. The only person with a different meaning for it is Pon de Replay who apparently is using this as an opportunity to express his rejection of traditional Christian beliefs.
I am just being slightly creative with an idea that is by no means novel nor original to me. Although he did not re-appropriate the term "Judaizer," these are essentially the ideas of the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. Nor was it even original to him. The ancient Roman objection to Christianity was that it was a Jewish sect. The Romans did not care for the Jews, but they reluctantly tolerated them as a people somewhat hallowed by time and customs, and because they did not tend to be proselytizers. The Roman despising of Christianity was in part for its missionary impulse. They (the Romans) were the traditionalists of their day, and did not want society overrun by a Hebrew religion.
Quote from: Pon de Replay on September 18, 2020, 12:28:53 PM
I am just being slightly creative with an idea that is by no means novel nor original to me. Although he did not re-appropriate the term "Judaizer," these are essentially the ideas of the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. Nor was it even original to him. The ancient Roman objection to Christianity was that it was a Jewish sect. The Romans did not care for the Jews, but they reluctantly tolerated them as a people somewhat hallowed by time and customs, and because they did not tend to be proselytizers. The Roman despising of Christianity was in part for its missionary impulse. They (the Romans) were the traditionalists of their day, and did not want society overrun by a Hebrew religion.
Can you point me to your original sources for this idea, Pon? My impression from what I've read is that the Romans were mainly concerned that Christians would become politically active as a group. There were also charges of cannibalism and other forms of depravity, but these of course are silly and based on misunderstandings of things such as the Eucharist. I don't think I've encountered any writers who objected specifically to the Hebrew origins of Christianity.
Quote from: Pon de Replay on September 18, 2020, 11:49:30 AM
Quote from: Jayne on September 18, 2020, 07:41:05 AMArguably, the man in the video you posted does not profess the name of Jesus Christ. The "pastor" consistently referred to Our Lord as "Yeshuah Hamashiach" a Hebrew name that appears nowhere in Scripture. I realize that this is a translation of "Jesus Christ", but there is no tradition of Christians using Hebrew like this. It is typically an affectation of Judaizers, like Jews for Jesus or Hebrew Israelites, and closely tied to their heretical beliefs.
"Judaizer" as a term, in the way you are using it, is just sectarian semantics. But Christianity in toto itself is the real Judaizing monster, the 800-lb. gorilla of Jewishness: by its missionaries and its conquerors, Europe was given a Hebrew religion. Yeshua, Jesus. You say "to-may-to," he says "to-mah-to." At least we were spared Mohammedanism, though. Could be worse.
Is your point that Islam was way more of a Judaizing monster than Christianity is?
If not, tell me how Islam isn't as much of a Judaizing monster as Christianity it?
Same moral values, in fact same stories about the vanity of dominance when God is dominant over all, and same destructive and conquering tendencies. All those pagan temples were destroyed, all art burned, all literature censored in the name of Allah. In fact mucn, much worse because Islam is far more Judaic in praxis compared to Christianity.
-
Quote from: Fleur-de-Lys on September 18, 2020, 12:43:46 PMCan you point me to your original sources for this idea, Pon? My impression from what I've read is that the Romans were mainly concerned that Christians would become politically active as a group. There were also charges of cannibalism and other forms of depravity, but these of course are silly and based on misunderstandings of things such as the Eucharist. I don't think I've encountered any writers who objected specifically to the Hebrew origins of Christianity.
The most famous would probably be Celsus' tract,
The True Word (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsus#Work), which only survives in quoted portions in Origen, but seems to have been generally aimed at Christianity in terms of it being a Semitic novelty and coming up against Celsus' conservative instincts to preserve Roman paganism.
Quote from: WikipediaCelsus writes that "there is an ancient doctrine [archaios logos] which has existed from the beginning, which has always been maintained by the wisest nations and cities and wise men." He leaves Jews and Moses out of those he cites, and instead blames Moses for the corruption of the ancient religion: "the goatherds and shepherds who followed Moses as their leader were deluded by clumsy deceits into thinking that there was only one God, [and] without any rational cause ... these goatherds and shepherds abandoned the worship of many gods."
The early Christian martyrs were put to death mainly for being refuseniks when it came to sacrificing or honoring the Roman gods. This was irksome to the Romans when done by both Jews and Christians alike. Caligula is supposed to have tried to place a statue of himself in the temple of Jerusalem in order to test the Jews' loyalty there. The recalcitrance and self-aggrandizing haughtiness of the God of the Hebrews was unpalatable to the Romans—whether in his primary priesthood or in his various sectarian devotees (Christians, Samaritans, Bar Kokhbans, &c.)
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on September 18, 2020, 01:02:51 PM
Is your point that Islam was way more of a Judaizing monster than Christianity is?
Negative. My point is that they are
both Judaizing monsters. I wholly agree with you that Islam is "far more Judaic in practice compared to Christianity," and that is why I think it would've been worse. In Mohammedanism you really have the martial and barbaric spirit of the Old Testament. You're back in the desert.
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on September 18, 2020, 01:06:08 PMFriedrich Nietzsche -
"On the Genealogy of Morality" and "Beyond Good and Evil"
His views on the evolution of Judaism and the Jewish priesthood were probably best formulated in chapters 24-27 of
The Antichrist. Some of the subsequent chapters concern the ultimate consequence of that Jewish history: the world's greatest Judaizer, Paul of Tarsus. You should read it, if you haven't. I think you might enjoy it.
Quote from: Pon de Replay on September 18, 2020, 01:18:57 PM
Negative. My point is that they are both Judaizing monsters. I wholly agree with you that Islam is "far more Judaic in practice compared to Christianity," and that is why I think it would've been worse. In Mohammedanism you really have the martial and barbaric spirit of the Old Testament. You're back in the desert.
Yeah.
Quote
His views on the evolution of Judaism and the Jewish priesthood were probably best formulated in chapters 24-27 of The Antichrist. Some of the subsequent chapters concern the ultimate consequence of that Jewish history: the world's greatest Judaizer, Paul of Tarsus. You should read it, if you haven't. I think you might enjoy it.
I'll take a read. Thank you.
Quote from: Pon de Replay on September 18, 2020, 01:08:39 PM
Quote from: Fleur-de-Lys on September 18, 2020, 12:43:46 PMCan you point me to your original sources for this idea, Pon? My impression from what I've read is that the Romans were mainly concerned that Christians would become politically active as a group. There were also charges of cannibalism and other forms of depravity, but these of course are silly and based on misunderstandings of things such as the Eucharist. I don't think I've encountered any writers who objected specifically to the Hebrew origins of Christianity.
The most famous would probably be Celsus' tract, The True Word (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsus#Work), which only survives in quoted portions in Origen, but seems to have been generally aimed at Christianity in terms of it being a Semitic novelty and coming up against Celsus' conservative instincts to preserve Roman paganism.
Quote from: WikipediaCelsus writes that "there is an ancient doctrine [archaios logos] which has existed from the beginning, which has always been maintained by the wisest nations and cities and wise men." He leaves Jews and Moses out of those he cites, and instead blames Moses for the corruption of the ancient religion: "the goatherds and shepherds who followed Moses as their leader were deluded by clumsy deceits into thinking that there was only one God, [and] without any rational cause ... these goatherds and shepherds abandoned the worship of many gods."
The early Christian martyrs were put to death mainly for being refuseniks when it came to sacrificing or honoring the Roman gods. This was irksome to the Romans when done by both Jews and Christians alike. Caligula is supposed to have tried to place a statue of himself in the temple of Jerusalem in order to test the Jews' loyalty there. The recalcitrance and self-aggrandizing haughtiness of the God of the Hebrews was unpalatable to the Romans—whether in his primary priesthood or in his various sectarian devotees (Christians, Samaritans, Bar Kokhbans, &c.)
Interesting. Thank you, Pon. I will take a look at Origen, if and when I ever have sufficient free time again. :D In the meantime, the Wikipedia article you provided suggests that Celsus' objection was to the strict monotheism of Judaism and Christianity, rather than their Semitic origins per se.
Quote from: Fleur-de-Lys on September 18, 2020, 01:54:54 PMIn the meantime, the Wikipedia article you provided suggests that Celsus' objection was to the strict monotheism of Judaism and Christianity, rather than their Semitic origins per se.
True. "Semitic" would probably encompass peoples such as the Egyptians and the Canaanites, who were not strict monotheists (excepting the possible Akhenaten affair). Strict monotheism would be exclusively Jewish, which I think is how Celsus was viewing things.
It feels like half of this forum is Nietzscheans, gnostics, perennialists, and Christian Identity people. I believe we discussed this problem as recently as six months ago. It's past time to be banning these twerps.
Quote from: Graham on September 18, 2020, 08:55:58 PM
It feels like half of this forum is Nietzscheans, gnostics, perennialists, and Christian Identity people. I believe we discussed this problem as recently as six months ago. It's past time to be banning these twerps.
I agree. Good thing I'm none of the above. What say you, graham cracker?
Quote from: Pon de Replay on September 18, 2020, 11:49:30 AM
At least we were spared Mohammedanism, though. Could be worse.
Islam influenced Southern Europe and the Balkans to a large extent.
One cannot help but look in amazement at the civilization of Al-Andalus or the Emirate of Sicily, for instance.
Quote from: Croix de Fer on September 18, 2020, 08:58:01 PM
Quote from: Graham on September 18, 2020, 08:55:58 PM
It feels like half of this forum is Nietzscheans, gnostics, perennialists, and Christian Identity people. I believe we discussed this problem as recently as six months ago. It's past time to be banning these twerps.
I agree. Good thing I'm none of the above. What say you, graham cracker?
You should be banned for being dumb and giving off homosexual vibes
Quote from: Graham on September 18, 2020, 09:05:36 PM
You should be banned for being dumb and giving off homosexual vibes
Satan means "accuser", and Satan accuses the innocent of that which he is guilty.
Projection of your own sodomite desires or activity is another default response of somebody who has already lost the argument, besides call their foe a "troll".
Poor chess move, graham cracker.
Quote from: Graham on September 18, 2020, 08:55:58 PM
It feels like half of this forum is Nietzscheans, gnostics, perennialists, and Christian Identity people. I believe we discussed this problem as recently as six months ago. It's past time to be banning these twerps.
Well said. At one point, since there were some members who wanted to have discussions with non-Catholics, while other members who did not like such discussions, we started a sub-forum for them. This was meant to be a compromise, allowing the discussions for those who wanted them,but making them easily avoided by those who did not.
But there is nowhere on this forum free from non-Catholic ideas now. They turn up everywhere. If we can't have moderators enforcing that non-Catholic discussion is contained, then it does not work to have so many people here who post non-Catholic ideas. Banning them, as Graham suggests, is the solution that springs to mind.
Never compromise with bad willed people or idiots.
It never works.
Quote from: Greg on September 17, 2020, 02:06:57 PM
I am less concerned with heresy when it comes from nutters, because nutters only convert other nutters. And not many.
Nobody would convert me who taught flat-earth nonsense. It is so unbelivably stupid.
Just as you need magnets to remove metal particles from food, you need idiot magnets to keep Traditionalist chapels sane. The best thing that happened to the SSPX in the last 20 years was The Resistance. All of the worst morons, and reactionary idiots who panic over a 90,000 dollar water bill because they cannot read a water meter, or use their common sense, left. The kind of irrational freaks who make themselves bishops.
When Vetus Ordo becomes an apologist for Islam, that is when I worry, because he is intelligent and well read. I actually liked the guy.
What? Vetus Ordo IS an apologist for Islam. He posts endless articles on Islam' wonders, its scholarship, its teachings. Where have you been?
Too busy going after Croix de Fer, who may be a bit of a nutter, but at least he doesn't pretend to be an intellectual. It's not just you though, is it Greg. The pack is circling around Croix de Fer and the slimey Vetus Ordo is JOINING IN! And you admire his intellectual prowess!
Vetus Ordo has all the trappings that Trads admire so much and Croix de Fer never stops banging on about the Jews. Since I find it impossible to believe that the proportion of psychopaths in the Jewish population is any higher than in any other population, I find C de F's obsession to be entirely misplaced and unpleasant. But at least it's out in the open where we can all see it.
Meanwhile, Vetus Ordo plays a far cleverer game and you fall for it because he displays all the trappings that are admired in Trad circles. But it is all appearances and can be acquired and used to manipulate people.
I'm sure lot's of people admired Carlos Urrutigoity's intellectual prowess, his manners and his smooth talk.
And for that reason I am saying I am worried more about Vetus than women hating, nazi loving nutters.
What sent him off the deep end I shudder to think. Perhaps he is in love with an Islamic woman.
Or they must have some really strong Crack Cocaine there in Madeira.
Because Islam is so obviously bollocks. ;D
Any religion that bans booze and bacon can only be of Satan.
Quote from: Greg on September 19, 2020, 03:57:09 AM
And for that reason I am saying I am worried more about Vetus than women hating, nazi loving nutters.
What sent him off the deep end I shudder to think. Perhaps he is in love with an Islamic woman.
Or they must have some really strong Crack Cocaine there in Madeira.
Because Islam is so obviously bollocks. ;D
Now I'm completely confused. You're not worried about Vetus Ordo but you are. Okay.
I see a mob circling around Croix de Fer and Vetus Ordo joining in.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on September 19, 2020, 03:47:40 AM
Meanwhile, Vetus Ordo plays a far cleverer
Vetus Ordo isn't clever, nor is he intellectual. Yesterday, I called out his logical fallacy manifested in two separate posts that contradicted each other within about an hour. Nothing but crickets from him because he knows I'm right.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on September 19, 2020, 05:00:04 AM
Now I'm completely confused. You're not worried about Vetus Ordo but you are. Okay.
You misunderstood Greg's comment. He did not say that he was not worried about VO.
Quote from: Greg on September 17, 2020, 02:06:57 PM
When Vetus Ordo becomes an apologist for Islam, that is when I worry, because he is intelligent and well read. I actually liked the guy.
Greg is saying that this is something that has already occurred. (And that before it happened, he liked VO. The implication is that Greg no longer does.)
Greg uses present tense here, rather than past tense, to indicate that VO represents a general case. When VO becomes an apologist for Islam (which already happened)
or anything similar happens (either in the past of future), Greg worries more than he does about nutters. It is not a contrafactual or conditional.
What a pity the mob baying for Croix de Fer's blood isn't as subtle as Greg.
Yes, I'm being sarcastic.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on September 19, 2020, 05:29:53 AM
What a pity the mob baying for Croix de Fer's blood isn't as subtle as Greg.
Yes, I'm being sarcastic.
It's weird because Jayne(K) defended me numerous times at CathInfo but she flipped on me here. ahahahahahahahaha !!!!!
Quote from: Croix de Fer on September 19, 2020, 05:10:47 AM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on September 19, 2020, 03:47:40 AM
Meanwhile, Vetus Ordo plays a far cleverer
Vetus Ordo isn't clever, nor is he intellectual. Yesterday, I called out his logical fallacy manifested in two separate posts that contradicted each other within about an hour. Nothing but crickets from him because he knows I'm right.
Vetus Ordo plays a clever game though. Note how this thread was started by his sidekick Fleur-de-Lys, who shares his intellectual, culinary and linguistic pretentions. Diverting attention away from themselves and onto you is crafty, don't you think.
Quote from: Pon de Replay on September 18, 2020, 01:08:39 PMCaligula is supposed to have tried to place a statue of himself in the temple of Jerusalem in order to test the Jews' loyalty there. The recalcitrance and self-aggrandizing haughtiness of the God of the Hebrews was unpalatable to the Romans—whether in his primary priesthood or in his various sectarian devotees (Christians, Samaritans, Bar Kokhbans, &c.)
Poor benighted Hebrews, refusing to put a debased and effeminate tyrant on the same level as the omnipotent Creator of heaven and earth. Even more silly than Socrates being executed for suggesting that deities don't fornicate with each other and rape human beings.
Quote from: Croix de Fer on September 19, 2020, 05:33:56 AM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on September 19, 2020, 05:29:53 AM
What a pity the mob baying for Croix de Fer's blood isn't as subtle as Greg.
Yes, I'm being sarcastic.
It's weird because Jayne(K) defended me numerous times at CathInfo but she flipped on me here. ahahahahahahahaha !!!!!
I agree with many of your ideas when you express them in your own words. Both on CI and here, I objected to you using videos from heretics. On CI, Matthew stepped in to limit your use of videos, so I did not need to say much about it. Since there has been no such intervention here, I have much more to say.
I started out giving the most positive interpretation possible of your use of "Hebrew Israelite" in your profile, but when you post videos from blatantly heretical Hebrew Israelites, I can no longer do that.
We are not baying for his blood we just know CFD will contribute nothing, learn nothing and piss people off. So it is only upside if he is banned.
We know what he thinks of the forum, so we already know his motive is to cause trouble.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on September 19, 2020, 05:36:10 AM
Quote from: Croix de Fer on September 19, 2020, 05:10:47 AM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on September 19, 2020, 03:47:40 AM
Meanwhile, Vetus Ordo plays a far cleverer
Vetus Ordo isn't clever, nor is he intellectual. Yesterday, I called out his logical fallacy manifested in two separate posts that contradicted each other within about an hour. Nothing but crickets from him because he knows I'm right.
Vetus Ordo plays a clever game though. Note how this thread was started by his sidekick Fleur-de-Lys, who shares his intellectual, culinary and linguistic pretentions. Diverting attention away from themselves and onto you is crafty, don't you think.
LOL
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on September 19, 2020, 05:36:10 AM
Quote from: Croix de Fer on September 19, 2020, 05:10:47 AM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on September 19, 2020, 03:47:40 AM
Meanwhile, Vetus Ordo plays a far cleverer
Vetus Ordo isn't clever, nor is he intellectual. Yesterday, I called out his logical fallacy manifested in two separate posts that contradicted each other within about an hour. Nothing but crickets from him because he knows I'm right.
Note how this thread was started by his sidekick Fleur-de-Lys, who shares his intellectual, culinary and linguistic pretentions.
She's just gauging whether she can be a prospective wife of mine.
Quote from: Croix de Fer on September 19, 2020, 06:33:41 AM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on September 19, 2020, 05:36:10 AM
Note how this thread was started by his sidekick Fleur-de-Lys, who shares his intellectual, culinary and linguistic pretentions.
She's just gauging whether she can be a prospective wife of mine.
So that's what drew you here? My intellectual, culinary, and linguistic pretensions make me a magnet. Well, enjoy the fantasy, Croix! It's all you'll ever have.
Quote from: John Lamb on September 19, 2020, 05:37:18 AM
Quote from: Pon de Replay on September 18, 2020, 01:08:39 PMCaligula is supposed to have tried to place a statue of himself in the temple of Jerusalem in order to test the Jews' loyalty there. The recalcitrance and self-aggrandizing haughtiness of the God of the Hebrews was unpalatable to the Romans—whether in his primary priesthood or in his various sectarian devotees (Christians, Samaritans, Bar Kokhbans, &c.)
Poor benighted Hebrews, refusing to put a debased and effeminate tyrant on the same level as the omnipotent Creator of heaven and earth. Even more silly than Socrates being executed for suggesting that deities don't fornicate with each other and rape human beings.
Typically obdurate Semites.
If only Rome had held on to the caprice of Jupiter or Venus instead.
Quote from: John Lamb on September 19, 2020, 05:37:18 AM
Quote from: Pon de Replay on September 18, 2020, 01:08:39 PMCaligula is supposed to have tried to place a statue of himself in the temple of Jerusalem in order to test the Jews' loyalty there. The recalcitrance and self-aggrandizing haughtiness of the God of the Hebrews was unpalatable to the Romans—whether in his primary priesthood or in his various sectarian devotees (Christians, Samaritans, Bar Kokhbans, &c.)
Poor benighted Hebrews, refusing to put a debased and effeminate tyrant on the same level as the omnipotent Creator of heaven and earth. Even more silly than Socrates being executed for suggesting that deities don't fornicate with each other and rape human beings.
Need I remind you, though, that you worship a God who was a carpenter and friends with fishermen, a God who underwent capital punishment and literally died.
zay gezunt Croix de Fer. It happened and "soon". Like really "soon".
Told ya.
Quote from: John Lamb on September 19, 2020, 05:37:18 AM
Quote from: Pon de Replay on September 18, 2020, 01:08:39 PMCaligula is supposed to have tried to place a statue of himself in the temple of Jerusalem in order to test the Jews' loyalty there. The recalcitrance and self-aggrandizing haughtiness of the God of the Hebrews was unpalatable to the Romans—whether in his primary priesthood or in his various sectarian devotees (Christians, Samaritans, Bar Kokhbans, &c.)
Poor benighted Hebrews, refusing to put a debased and effeminate tyrant on the same level as the omnipotent Creator of heaven and earth. Even more silly than Socrates being executed for suggesting that deities don't fornicate with each other and rape human beings.
If God is offended by the thought of Caligula's statue in his temple, then he can, being "the omnipotent Creator of heaven and earth," smite Caligula at his pleasure. The response here might be to say that God was using Caligula as an instrument to test the Jews' fealty (for the umpteenth time). One wonders why he bothered, though, since at this date the Jews had already proved perfidious in calling for the crucifixion.
"His blood be upon us, and on our children!" God was already done with them at this point. They were an accursed people, dead to him, unless they were willing to repent and be baptized. Standing up to a Roman ponce is not going to redeem you if you've committed deicide.
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on September 19, 2020, 01:59:17 PMNeed I remind you, though, that you worship a God who was a carpenter and friends with fishermen, a God who underwent capital punishment and literally died.
I'm sure you can tell the difference between God condescending to become a man for our sake and putting a statue of a pagan emperor in God's place in the temple.
Furthermore, He is impassible. Only the human nature of Christ can suffer and die.
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on September 18, 2020, 09:01:51 PMIslam influenced Southern Europe and the Balkans to a large extent.
One cannot help but look in amazement at the civilization of Al-Andalus or the Emirate of Sicily, for instance.
Iberia is certainly an interesting corner of Europe. In one sense, we can say it is the most
Semitic—between the residency of the Sephardic Jews there, the Moorish conquest, and its two epochs of Christianity, and all the resultant hostilities. And yet it is none the worse for wear.
For what follows, I'm sure you will know that I do not ask this in the same vein as your various interlocutors here who attempt to
auto-da-fé you into revealing yourself as some sort of crypto-Mohammedan. But I think it has to be agreed: it would have been overall worse for Europe had it gone to Islam rather than Christianity,
n'est-ce pas? (Somewhere an alternate history or two has probably been written about this, where Charles Martel was defeated instead of having triumphed). Interestingly, Nietzsche, who was mentioned earlier on this thread, once said he would have favored Islam, so great was his contempt for Christianity. I do not agree with him there.
Quote from: Greg on September 19, 2020, 02:53:45 PM
zay gezunt Croix de Fer. It happened and "soon". Like really "soon".
Told ya.
I confess I'm disappointed. He had interesting views, and I would've liked to have heard more from him. A trenchant anti-Semite, and yet a Judaizing traditional Catholic. And he seems to have been a vegan. I also wonder how he determined that a video of a crazed Australian reeling off a stream of "get out there and live your life to the fullest" platitudes, laced with generous profanity, constituted "Catholic truth." Croix de Fer was a compelling enigma, a curiosity you can't ignore.
Quote from: Pon de Replay on September 20, 2020, 05:10:54 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on September 18, 2020, 09:01:51 PMIslam influenced Southern Europe and the Balkans to a large extent.
One cannot help but look in amazement at the civilization of Al-Andalus or the Emirate of Sicily, for instance.
Iberia is certainly an interesting corner of Europe. In one sense, we can say it is the most Semitic—between the residency of the Sephardic Jews there, the Moorish conquest, and its two epochs of Christianity, and all the resultant hostilities. And yet it is none the worse for wear.
For what follows, I'm sure you will know that I do not ask this in the same vein as your various interlocutors here who attempt to auto-da-fé you into revealing yourself as some sort of crypto-Mohammedan. But I think it has to be agreed: it would have been overall worse for Europe had it gone to Islam rather than Christianity, n'est-ce pas? (Somewhere an alternate history or two has probably been written about this, where Charles Martel was defeated instead of having triumphed). Interestingly, Nietzsche, who was mentioned earlier on this thread, once said he would have favored Islam, so great was his contempt for Christianity. I do not agree with him there.
Spiritually worse? Obviously. Christendom's strength lies precisely in the truth of the gospel. Without it, any material and intellectual progress is ultimately vain.
However, one cannot simply dismiss the achievements of Islamic civilization out of hand and how our interactions with them shaped the West. We have examples of parts of Europe in the past that became Islamized and that were civilizationally on par with the rest of the globe, sometimes even superior to others in wealth and the worldly sciences. This could not have possibly come about if Islam were merely a destructive force that grew out of the depths of Arabia. In fact, the establishment of such a longstanding civilization that now spans 1,400 years and that has reached the four corners of the globe and so many different cultures is a remarkable achievement that no-one can take away from that modest and illiterate Arab trader that lived in the outskirts of the dominant powers of his age.
PDR - You are ignoring that my prophecy came true, and soon meant soon for once.
He gone, not vegan.
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on September 20, 2020, 06:51:02 PMHowever, one cannot simply dismiss the achievements of Islamic civilization out of hand and how our interactions with them shaped the West. We have examples of parts of Europe in the past that became Islamized and that were civilizationally on par with the rest of the globe, sometimes even superior to others in wealth and the worldly sciences. This could not have possibly come about if Islam were merely a destructive force that grew out of the depths of Arabia. In fact, the establishment of such a longstanding civilization that now spans 1,400 years and that has reached the four corners of the globe and so many different cultures is a remarkable achievement that no-one can take away from that modest and illiterate Arab trader that lived in the outskirts of the dominant powers of his age.
What Muhammad Did When He Saw a Beautiful Woman
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EANsQMcEoDk&t[/yt]
Quote from: Fleur-de-Lys on September 16, 2020, 12:31:09 PM
Your forum profile under Marital Status says, "3 wives (more coming, God willing)."
Is this supposed to be a joke, or are you in fact a polygynist?
You also list your religion as "Catholic (true Hebrew Israelite)". What does that mean? Are you a Catholic as understood by the members of this forum?
Where was the outrage here? Why is this appropriate to do?
Quote from: Fleur-de-Lys on September 16, 2020, 12:31:09 PMYour forum profile under Marital Status says, "3 wives (more coming, God willing)."
Is this supposed to be a joke, or are you in fact a polygynist?
You also list your religion as "Catholic (true Hebrew Israelite)". What does that mean? Are you a Catholic as understood by the members of this forum?
@Kaesekopf Mote, meet beam.