To repeat, Shari says,

“I also think that there are more young singles, who would like that than you might think.”

Shari, you would be surprised how many young women have made the following “confession” to this old man:

“I know it’s the wrong thing to say, but I am JEALOUS of those ’50s women who stayed home and took care of their children.”

I kid you not. They CONFESS this to me as if I were a priest of Political Correctness who can ABSOLVE them of this desire to be what Women’s Libbers call “oppressed.”

You can imagine what my answer is.

Shari says,

“Early Christians were probably just as gullable as now, but I don’t think sterility was St. Pauls ideal. He wrote in I Cor. that husbands and wives were to give each other what was due and not to defraud one another. He also wrote in I Timothy about seducing doctrines, forbidding to marry, etc.and advised young widows to remarry. I think that Manichaeism was a heresy wasn’t it? I know that Marxism certainly is, and it makes me nauseous to listen to those who try to make it sound so Christian. A big burden for whites is contraception. We are the only ones who use it, so we can pay more and more for welfare and war. Getting married and having their own children is very hard for those who still want to do that, to put together. I also think that there are more young singles, who would like that thanyou might think.”

Comment by Shari

Shari, here is a quotation from 1Timothy. I am using
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1timothy-kjv.html

11) But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry;
[12] Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.

But in 1 Timothy Paul also says that a bishop SHALL have ONE wife.

You might say, “Paul, make up your mind” if you didn’t know that, unile Peter, one thing Paul had no trouble doing was making up his mind.

Jesus told the rich young man, “If you would be PERFECT, sell all you have, give it to the poor and follow me.”

When the young man refused, Jesus didn’t curse him. If a man could be perfect, Jesus would not have been there.

As I have said before, Jesus kept referring to us as his sheep. Very few people nowadays have much experience with sheep. Jesus was surrounded by sheep all his life.

I have had enough experience with sheep to know that Jesus was not exactly bowled over by our intelligence. Sheep make a brain-damaged snake look like a genius.

Sheep will follow the Judas goat into the slaughter.

Perfect? No, I kind of doubt Jesus thought we were perfect.

I said that Paul’s IDEAL was sterility. But Paul like Jesus was aware that people are not perfect. Most of his guidance was how to behave if you are NOT perfect. So what he says sounds contradictory.

Maybe it’s a lifetime in politics, but I see no contradiction.

“A bishop shall have ONE wife.”

That fascinates me because one thing Rome and Orthodoxy agree on is that a bishop shall have NO wife. An Eastern Orthodox priest is allowed to be BE married, but not to marry. Once he is ordained, he cannot marry, so most unmarried Orthodox seminary students graduate and then put off their ordination until they have married.

But in the Orthodox Church only a priest who has NEVER married can become a bishop. That severely limits the number of priests from whom a bishop and be selected.

Roman priests are forbidden to marry at all. So the talent pool from which Catholic bishops are selected is much larger than the one from which Orthodox bishops are selected. My own observation is that I have never met a Catholic bishop who was not highly intelligent, and the intelligence of Orthodox bishops does not impress me.

But both branches of the ancient church agre that a bishop, in direct defiance of Paul’s words, must have NO wife.

All I said was that Paul’s IDEAL was sterility. It fits in with MY theory.

If Popes and Patriarchs have trouble understanding it all, you sure can’t take Ole Bob’s opinions as Gospel.

In response to my answer to “Shari” below, Elizabth writes:

The “early Christian stories” about a young man and a
young woman marrying and agreeing to celibacy were just
that — stories.

MY REPLY:

“But WHY were they stories? From my point of view the idea of beautiful young white woman and a man with good genes agreeing to remain sterile is not a dream, it is a nightmare. To do it inthe name of Jesus is, again to MY mind, blasphemy.”

“Yet here were people who considered this to be the perfect end to a perfect story.”

“This may be no problem for you, but from MY point of view it reflects the genetic suicide that is our ideal today, nd I need to know where it came from.”

An older couple might decide to live together without
sex — and I’m told that some do — but that didn’t
necessarily have anything to do with religion.

Before 1200, women under religious vows were basically
free to travel — as long as they got permission from
their abbess. (Vow of Obedience) Then, the major restriction
on traveling was being able to arrange to do so: a lot of
medieval Europeans, whatever their condition of life,
would keep an eye out for a group going in the general
direction they wanted to go, get some supplies together,
and go. You just had to do it with at least one companion,
for safety, if not for company.

MY REPLY:

“Your and my understanding of history is entirely diffferent from most people’s, as we have discussed before. So people have no difficulty imagining a royal baby accidentally switched at birth by someone who was alone with it.”

“To you and me this is unimaginable, because we both know that NO ONE was ever alone with a royal baby or any other infant of rank, including its mother. During childbirth the room was FULL of witnesses.”

“So when you reveal that women in orders were allowd to travel with only one companion, most people do not understand how extreme this was.”

Between 1200 and the early 1500s, there were a few remaining
abbesses who sat in assemblies of nobles, minted money, sat in judgment
over their nuns and servants as well as their secular flocks,
and sent armed men to fight for their kings and emperors.

MY REPLY:

“You point out that the status of women went downhill during the Rennaisance. The Rennaissance really got around with the use of hte printing press inthe early 1500s.”

“Yet the history I was raised with said that Europe was mired in stupidity and superstition until we began to read the ancient Greek and Roman manuscripts which had been preserved in the monasteries.”

“In fact, the official line was that Islam and the monasteries saved civilization by preserving those ancient documents until us grunting barbarians got hold of them during the Rennaisance.”

“Meanwhile, I would like for someone to tell me one redeeming factor of this explosion of ancient literature.”

“We never notice, for example, that the Norse on the high seas for months never got scuvy. They ate what they needed to eat. But the Galen Theory of Medicine we learned in the Rennaissance and that Professors of Medicine taught because they knew Latin allowed scurvy to become commonplace.”

“When we were taught about Columbus, we were shown a flat-earth map that was ridiculous and we were told that is whwat our grunting pre-Columbian ancestors believed in. That map was actually a Rennaissance map which reflected the Wisdom of Greece and Rome.”

“The INTELLECTUALS took that silly thing seriously, but Columbus certainly never had to argue about it seriously among Mariners who had sailed the Ocean Sea.”

“Our pagan ancestors had shield-maidens, women owned property, women probably VOTED in pre-Christian Iceland. So it is no accident that you point out that women had the power you talk about UNTIL the Rennaisance closed in.”

One nurturing thing about comments is that they include statements I take for granted and make me take a new look at them.

A Whitakerism is analyzing a reality that is so obvious we all take it for granted.

Notice the “we” here. I would be of no use to you if I, too, had not ignored the same fact by taking it for granted.

So Joe states one of those realities I always took for granted.

Joe says,

“It’s important to remember that an opinion is not a fact.”

On the point he is making, Joe is perfectly right.

But a person who has spent his life in politics has repeatedly asked a question about opinion polls:

“Are they FACTUAL?”

That was a major part of the way I made my living.

But what was the “fact” I was talking about?

The “facts” I made my living largely consisted of the accurate assessment of opinion.

For me, opinion WAS fact.

“It’s important to remember that an opinion is not a fact.”

But look at one of my major themes in all my writings. I keep urging you to remember that your “opinion” is a fact that you shold stand up for.

Political Correctness rests on telling us that our opinions are just prejudices while the priest of PC state the real, truly objective preferences we should have.

And, of course, the fundamental tenant of our established religion is that the opinion of an expert is fact.

But that comes right back to a proper understanding of what Joe said in the first place:

“It’s important to remember that an opinion is not a fact.”

This was a useful intellecutal exercise for me.

But, strictly speaking, Joe should have gone through this whole rigamarole right after he said, ‘It’s important to remember that an opinion is not a fact. ”

But we’ve been through that already. Joe was the one who said that I should go through the whole rigamarole when I make a flat statement like that.

But, MUCH more important, Joe was the one who said, after our discussion, that what he said originally was NOT the case.

Our mutual conclusion seems to be that I can expect Joe to go through all of this every time he makes a statement, or he can expect me to understand what he is saying in the first place.

I had not thought about it before, but saying what you think flatly and leaving all the quibbles and analysis to the other person does the other person a lot of good. If he is smart enough to be worth talking to, you do him no favor by doing all his thinking FOR him.

In response to “My Humility Can Beat the Hell Out of YOUR HUmility,” Joe writes:

As I read this piece, Bob, the computer on the top of my neck instantly picked up on something you said. I immediately thought that you won’t like my comment. Then it occurred to me that you have said on occasion that you are a Christian. In your piece you mention something about Zoroastrianism (not my thing) and Christianity. Brace yourself. Here it comes. “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof; but he that doeth the will of God abideth forever.” Please forgive the king’s language. You’ve probably heard it before. Most of it was in my head but, I admit, I deliberately looked it up so as to not deceive you as to the exact wording.

I deliberately put this comment in here because you mentioned in an earlier piece that people who quote Scripture “too much” cannot be trusted. There is some truth in this observation but it’s not entirely true. There are exceptions to this rule.

I understand that Scripture I just quoted to you. I have understood it for quite a long time. I am aware that being “on” Bob’s Blog is being in “the world.”

Comment by joe rorke

MY REPLY:

Joe, int his blog, I have quoted reepeatedly Christ’s words, “My kingdom is of of this earth.”

Jesus blesssed the marriage at Cana. According to your interpretation of the quote you cited, he should have CURSED it.

There is long, unhealthy trip from Jesus as here to teach us about the next world to a man turturing himself to death in the desert in the name of Chirst. There is along, and sick journey from these words from one who blessd a wedding to the sterility demanded by early Christianity.

This is a matter of deep concern to me because I want want to know where the white race got this obsession with racial suicide. It should of deep concern to every Christian or even anyone who wants to understand Christianity.

Old Testament Christians rest their entire faith on the literal truth of the Old Testament. They do so rather desperately. A preacher wrote a long e-mail to show that the Magi were actually steeped in the Old Testament.

Meanwhile, inthe real world, the Holy Jews did not invent the story of the Flood. I am sure the discovery of the legend Gigamesh caused some Old Testament Christians to lose their faith.

The idea that many of Christ’s ideas, and those of the Old Testament, derived from the biggest monotheistic faith of their day will shake many a faith which balanced on the narrow ledge of the Holy Jews.

The very thought that Jesus was incluenced by anything but the Old Testament is pure heresy to many.

But if you don’t understand Roman history you are going to have a very hard time finding out where the term “The Living God” came from in the Old Testament, though I am sure it can be done if you are desperate enough.

You say you are interested in Christianity but not Zoroastrianism. I cannot imgine how you can understand the former without the latter.

Early Zoroastriansim did not preach self-hate. What Jesus said, which, by the way, is a great contradiction of the Old Testament which concentrated on THIS world, was a statement of early Zoroastrianism.

Late Z like Modern Christianity, was a sick thing, a rotting corpse. And it was from that corpse that early Church got the poison we could die from.

Studying Christianity without any awareness of Z is like studying medicine without taking anatomy.