Search? Click Here
Join the BUGS Team! Post on the internet along with us to fight White Genocide!

Shari

Posted by Bob on August 3rd, 2006 under Comment Responses


I read somewhere that Islam says that hell is full of women. Islam hasn’t much use for women, but of course muslim men have to have SOME use for them, or no more muslim men. By the way, I saw a while back the new queen of Jordan on TV. She was stunning.Beautiful. She wore no headcovering but her manners put the western newsbabes to shame. She was straight forward but very courteous. She acted as if she was representing more than just her very important self.

Comment by Shari

What I laughingly and for lack of a better term call my memory does not recall the King of Jordan stooping to marry an Arab. Did the last couple marry a European woman?

Long before the Da Vinci stuff came up, it was well known that the fatal mistake Mithraism made was excluding women completely. From what I can understand through all the rewritten history, today’s Mass was formerly the Agape, the Love Feast. It was held in private homes and the WOMEN tended to preside.

In the Eastern Rite Church which I was baptized into they still don’t let you have any breakfast at all until you have taken the Host in bread and wine. Catholics used to do that, but not any more.

By the time the Eucharist is over, you are very hungry. At that point the Orthodox priest hands out the Agape, bread. Lots of bread. It is, to coin a phrase, like manna from heaven.

Speaking as a politician rather than a theologian, which I ain’t, this is very significant to me.

You don’t need the DaVince Code to know that women MADE Christianity.

But there came a time when Christianity stopped being the faith of slaves and women, as they would put it, and became the faith of the Empire. By then, the Roman Empire’s capital was in Constantinople, and it was a Middle Eastern Empire. Middle Easterners consider women as several steps below rabbits, and the very idea of women presiding over an Agape was Doubleplusuntough.

Another historical thread enters in here:

There was absolutely nothing new about Islam. The Middle East was never purged of Arianism. Between Constantine and the rise of Island there was one long war in which the Grreks tried to impose the Trinitarian idea on churches inthe Middle East.

Arianism said exactly what Islam said, that there was one God, and He is God, and Christ was his Prophet.

Islam still says that CHRIST, not Mohammed, will come to judge the quick and the dead. But he is NOT the son of God.

I am no theologian. My field is politics. In other words, my expertise is how you win out.

There came a point at which the Middle Eastern Roman Empire had to stop depending on women and put them “in their place.” The Da Vinci Code is right about that, though it gets the dates wrong. And one reason I repsect Orthodoxy is because, despite the fact that it is something everybody is supposed to forget, Orthoxy simply cannot omit the Agape.

In the end this absolute fanaticism about males is straight politics. The Church needed women — and slaves — back when it was just getting off the ground.

But when Christianity began to be a major competitor in the real world of power politics, it was a simple fact that men had the strength and the power, and men wanted a political phil — sorry, I mean a religion – that belonged to THEM. So all the influence they had granted to women was taken back.

This is not exactly a shock to an expert on political power. Screwing the people you based your power on before is standard Bush Administration policy. Does anybody really think it’s NEW?

Somehow everybody tries to make a mystery of history.

So does any of this discredit Christianity? It does only if you need everything to be a Just-So story.

We keep hearing that Christianity grew in the Just-So Way, the good guys versus the bad guys. If you accept The Faith, it will make you Healthy, Wealthy and Wise.

That enraged C S Lewis. He kept saying that he wished people would stop arguing for his faith because it caused good things to happen or it was a comfort or it went with the tide of history. CS Lewis kept saying taht the only question is whether it is TRUE or not.

Not whether Jesus was the true result of Moses. Not whether Christians were the historical good guys.

Is it TRUE or not?

So I dissect the history of every faith as a political strategist.

And I keep being told, “You are violating the myth I need to believe.”

You think I am evil. I think you should lay off myths.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
  1. #1 by Mark on 08/03/2006 - 6:20 pm

    “You think I am evil. I think you should lay off myths.”

    I couldn’t have said it better myself.

  2. #2 by mderpelding on 08/03/2006 - 6:58 pm

    NOT SPAM

    I have come to hate the whole “Good & Evil”
    viewpoint as inherently eastern.
    This whole religious concept of some sort of
    super-human battle between opposite forces
    makes no sense.
    It’s all Zoroasterianism.
    The whole dark and light thing.
    As a heretic, I see millions of my racial
    bretheren killing each other, all believing
    that they are the “Good” and their enemies
    are “Evil”.
    Why do you think that your “Greatest Generation”
    are also history’s pre-eminent mass killers?
    When your worldview sees good and evil as the only
    poosible morality, your enemies deserve decimation.
    THEY ARE EVIL.
    YOU ARE ON THE SIDE OF GOD.
    Our ancestors, the ones who were burned
    alive, preferred immolation over accepting
    this TOXIC worldview.
    Unfortunately,
    the fact that we are here means that we are
    all “Quislings” of a sort.
    Or descendents of them.

  3. #3 by mderpelding on 08/03/2006 - 8:41 pm

    NOT SPAM

    As a postscript,
    Remember the “Screwtape Letters”?

  4. #4 by joe odin on 08/03/2006 - 10:05 pm

    If hell is full of women, then sign me up for an eternity in hell…I love women!

  5. #5 by Shari on 08/04/2006 - 9:45 am

    NOT SPAM
    NOT SPAM

    I don’t see where you are violating any myth that I need to believe. There are many things known, unknown, forgotten, lied about etc. We have a wedding today! Our blue eyed, blond but balding son is marrying Lindsay with sandy red hair, big blue eyes and pale complextion. How’s that?

  6. #6 by joe rorke on 08/04/2006 - 2:47 pm

    Boring doesn’t even begin to describe this.

  7. #7 by Pain on 08/04/2006 - 4:04 pm

    NOT SPAM

    NOT SPAM

    “From what I can understand through all the rewritten history, today’s Mass was formerly the Agape, the Love Feast.”

    This is a common mistake made by certain sects. The Agape was separate and distinct from the Eucharist. The Agape or “Love feast” was a charity dinner (agape = “charity”) held for anyone of the public. It was free food provided for the poor and anyone who wanted it, Christian or not. The Agape was just like a Baptist church service with a potluck immediately afterwards. The Agape was one important means for preaching the Gospel to non-believers but the Eucharist was reserved for baptized Christians.

    The Eucharist was very different, although both had the prayers, hymns, and a sermon. In the Agape, the meal was normal, earthly food (all you can eat) to fill the stomach. In the Eucharist, the meal was ritual, spiritual food (a piece of bread and a swallow of wine) enabling man to commune with God. The earliest Eucharist would have been very much like a high church Anglican/Episcopalian, Roman Catholic, or Orthodox Eucharist. There is no reason an Agape could not follow Eucharist, just as a potluck might follow one today.

    Both services were presided over by the priests, and as CS Lewis rights, the Church never had priestesses. Granted one assumes that women cooked the food, thus it was them that everyone must have thanked gratefully. The priest may have given an inspiring sermon, but it always she who cooks the food that gets our special love and favor.

    Over time, the Agape love feast fell out of use since it had come to be abused by those getting free food everyday who did not need the charity.

    “The Middle East was never purged of Arianism. Between Constantine and the rise of Island there was one long war in which the Grreks tried to impose the Trinitarian idea on churches inthe Middle East.”

    Arian had its strongest foothold among the Goths. Arius did NOT preach that Jesus was just a man or a prophet. He taught that he was God, but a being created at some time in eternity past. Nicea corrected that to say that Jesus as God was eternal, not created, and thus “begotten not made.” The east that you spoke about actually developed their Christology in opposition to Arius.

    The Nestorians of Babylon and the Far East accepted that Jesus was divine, but that he was two separate persons, one divine and one human. Orthodoxy taught that Jesus was just one person with both divine and human natures. The Antiochenes that feuded so much with the rest of orthodoxy believed in essentially the same orthodox view but worded it differently to set themselves apart from the Nestorian heretics with whom they had to deal.

    The view that Jesus was not divine is common to Islam and modern cults such as the Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses. (Mormons believe that Jesus was not divine in the same way as God the Father, but was a man who became divine as a model for men to become divine and get their own planets and populate them with their wives; the children in turn get their own planets in an endless cosmic pyramid scheme.)

You must be logged in to post a comment.