Tarquin Rees
Member
Wow. Seems the antithesis of Christianity. I guess this would be another one to chalk up to #4 in my additional category.
The Fortean times and its moderation failure (alt-right, atheist, materialist)
- Thread starter Tarquin Rees
- Start date
Wow. Seems the antithesis of Christianity. I guess this would be another one to chalk up to #4 in my additional category.
gabriel
New
That isn't power. A successful government is one that doesn't kill anybody on its watch, the rest is tweaking the dials. Labour goes neo-liberal, the Tories turn anti-austerity = meaningless rhetoric and showboating. Most just pass round the begging bowl when their constituents see through them.
gabriel
New
That's because you see everything through the prism of politics and Christianity doesn't recognise earthly authority. Since when was Christianity about nice?
Charlie Primero
Member
I find it difficult to believe you don't know that Oligarchs who run trans-national corporations install politicians for the purpose of retaining the Power to rent-seek.
David Bailey
Member
Well show me somewhere that is recognisably Alt Right, and declares those to be their values.
David
Charlie Primero
Member
Those were AntiFa Communists a.k.a "Black Bloc".
They were the Communists who tried to take over Germany during the Weimar period.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifaschistische_Aktion
Last edited:
gabriel
New
The politicians aren't powerful, they're useful idiots. They catch everyone in the tyranny of left and right to keep their eye off the bigger picture.
Charlie Primero
Member
We agree on that. Their usefulness is their power to set up rent-seeking for their Masters, who hold the real political power.
The Illuminati? The gods? The Meninblack? Who are you referring to?
gabriel
New
Nothing so exciting. Greedy gits mostly.
Charlie Primero
Member
S
Sciborg_S_Patel
Your moral core is too pure to be alt.right just as mine is too pure (pat on the back haha) to be alt.left.
S
Sciborg_S_Patel
Genuinely curious - how so?
Tarquin Rees
Member
I think it's you who have a prism. Either you that or you haven't been reading my posts. I am not political in the least. Have said that several times. Curiously once in agreement with a post of yours.
Tarquin Rees
Member
Well the first thing you need to realise is there is a distinction between the teaching of Christ and the dogma of the Church and later denominations. When I say 'Christianity' I mean the former. Not sure what the OP means when he uses the term but the fact that institutional Church doctrine is at variance with Christ's message can be hardly doubted and can in fact be proved. So we have there a divergence which makes many things possible.
We don't know what the poster I was replying to understands by Christianity - i.e. whether he clever to Christ or the Church - but we can take some salient points:
Many Scriptural passages militate against this view. The Good Samaritan would be one and the injunction to be hospitable to strangers 'as you were strangers in Egypt' would be another. The theologian H Richard Niebuhr has written whole genre-defining books on Christ and Culture showing how his bridging the Gentiles and Jews was the ultimate MultiCultural act in a monocultural environment. He is in fact the ultimate reconciler of cultures - what is Christianity (even Churchianity) if it is not the highest expression of a global culturally reconciling force?
So that's strike one.
Some questions: Did Jesus want the Sermon on the Mount enshrined in law? Is there the slightest evidence for this anywhere in the New Testament? Would it even be possible? Did the disciples have this - or any form of established basis in the legal system of the State - as an aim or agenda in their spreading of the Gospel?
If the answers to these questions is 'No' - and to any rational researcher with knowledge of the records it is a resounding 'No' - then you have your answer.
Strike Two.
It may well be a question of poor sentence structure and bad formulation of concepts but we can only assess that which is before us. This part of the statement "......enshrined in law and tolerance extended to those who subscribe to it....." betokens a degree (at least) of non-tolerance to those that don't.
Leaving aside the question of laws at State level this directly contradicts the teaching of Christ AND the Church.
So, yeah.....
gabriel
New
So you don't think portraying anything you disagree with as Nazism, is political? You're probably a splendid chap, but your views come across like Rick Mayall in The Young Ones. The stuff I used to hear in a bedsit in 1978. Most people move beyond that binary vision where left and right are a direct replacement for the politically problematic good and evil. I think your Jesus is a peacenik, Neil from the Young Ones, not the creator of the universe. If you want to discuss Christianity seriously I will do, but not over a castrated hippie Jesus.
As for the Sermon on the Mount, it's the best guide to human conduct I've heard, and knocks spots off the made up morality of secular humanism which dominates the political discourse currently.
Tarquin Rees
Member
Well, maybe. If I did it. But as it happens I only portrayed one thing I disagree with as Nazism: alt-Right and extreme right racist attitudes. And there's a reason for that... I'll give you a clue, it's the same reason I describe my cat as a cat. There may well be people who claim I label all animals cats but I think they need to rethink.
Thanks! I'll take it as a compliment... I was think perhaps you incline more to his portrayal of B'Stard in the New Statesman!
Never been in a bedsit so can't speak to that. I'm not sure what your idea of Jesus is but if it's based on theological references and established academic outlines and you can argue it then perhaps we can talk. I think your penchant for erroneous labelling of things might get in the way though. Which is a shame.
You're right about one thing though, my Jesus - the historical Jesus also if he existed - is definitely not the Creator of the Universe. Not even theologically.
I agree. My point was you aren't following it.
Do you forgive suicide bombers? I somehow doubt it.
gabriel
New
First of all you're obsessed by something called alt.right, which if it exists at all was dreamt up by leftist ideologues to seal debate against the incursion of common sense and backsliding in the young and impressionable. If such a thing is more than internet chatter in search of a neologism, I seriously don't think it's the royal road to fascism much less Nazism. Both of those are in rude good health without equating social conservatism with the far right.
Secondly unless you're a member of a latter day cult like Trinitarianism, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and God are one in the same, a divine mystery for Christians but one that supports Christ the Nazarene and the creator of the universe as indivisible. We can debate the to and fro with scripture tennis but it amounts to something very like I've just said.
Thirdly, to forgive the suicide bombers requires acknowledging their actions in their entirety, not merely as generalised victims, victimising. The Manchester bomber filled a jacket of explosives with "dockyard confetti" to reduce adolescent young women to small parts and strike a blow at Western decadence and reserve himself a coterie of his own intact virgins. He may have had a lousy life, he may have been bullied by a militaristic brand of Islam. He may have been extremely stupid, but not so stupid as to be incapable of unleashing a lethal weapon. It really isn't for me to forgive him because, thank God, the incident is just another headline. What the relatives think is up to them. One internet comment about a subsequent atrocity put it best. We cry, we light candles, we sing songs together, repeat, because the alternative is doing something about it.