Not Spam

I think that perhaps the early Christians may have been taken with celibacy because they expected an immediate return of Christ or a quick death as a martyr. For all of history until recently, sex meant children, not having fun, with no children. At least on purpose. Chastity is not the same as celibacy.

How this quickly became an IDEAL, I don’t know. But things do develop, or something. All this is interesting and raises a lot of questions. I have wondered why Christianity took root and spread only among white peoples and hardly anywhere else. Oh I know, you would say that it was forced because they got burned alive if they didn’t. I don’t know. That might have happened, but it doesn’t explain a lot of things.

— Comment by Shari

ME:

As I keep saying, my time and money here is wasted if you don’t see how my points INTERRELATE. Shari knows this, so this is NOT a criticism of SHARI. But her comment reminds me of a pointthat needs making that INTERRELATES to my last post.

In the article below Edwin and I talked about an entirely different subject. He led me into a discussion of the fact that usage, not the dictionary, is the basis of language. Shari’s distinction between chastity and celibacy is another case in point.

When I was coming up, there was a very clear distinction between the two words. Catholic priests were REQUIRED to be “celibate,” not chaste. This was a VERY important distinction for a very practical reason.

Celibacy then referred primarily to not being MARRIED. If a priest engaged in sex, it was a matter between him his confessor. But if a priest got MARRIED, he was kicked out of the priesthood. This is fairly important distinction, especially if you have spent half your life in the priesthood.

But with the rise of AIDs there came a new emphasis on chastity. But the word “chastity” was associated with hard-core Christianity, so it was the LAST word a liberal could use.

So suddenly all the media started using the word “celibacy” when they meant “chastity.” The dictionary includes chastity as a form of celibacy. But, as I say, when I was coming up you referred to Catholic priests as being required to be celibate, not chaste. To repeat, back then you NEVER said a Catholic priest was REQUIRED to be chaste because they AREN’T. A Catholic was SUPPOSED to be chaste, but he was REQUIRED to be celibate, i.e., unmarried.

Now the second meaning of celibate back then is, in media usage, the first meaning of that word.

Greetings! This is my first post, so please be HARD on me!
Every Chef Guevara t-shirt wearing politics major and his cousin seems to be a campus leftie these days. Conservative are not aggressive enough in arguing with these people. They need to be shut down, and that means showing how they are anti-white racists. I think it’s always healthy to take an accusatory approach with them. Conservatives will never go for the jugular.
We White Nationalists deserve some of the blame for giving these weaklings free reign. We are a scattered group of net surfers and do not have a unified presence on Columbia campus like the
Republicans. If we did we could give these conservatives at Columbia a model of a political movement that works.

Comment by Edwin

ME:

Edwin, every commenter here will assure you that you don’t need to ask me to be hard on you if I think you goofed. If you will read Mark’s statement below you will notice that commenters are not particularly easy on me, either. This is NOT macho. It just means that we take this seriously.

I jumped all over Trager because he came in with a lah-de-dah attitude.

We laugh and we joke but we don’t PLAY.

As I have said here before, quoting Noah Webster, in language usage is everything. The purpose of language is not to fit into a dictionary, but to communicate, and communication depends on actual usage, not on dictionaries. If you use a term in a way it is not understood, all the dictionaries in the world are meaningless.

In your case, the paragraph above applies to the word “conservative.” You will never meet a more radical person than I am, but I am resigned to falling into the “conservative” category in it s present usage, because conservative means nothing of the sort in our present USAGE of the word. In our usage of the term, “conservative” means anyone who is not totally dedicated to our established religion of Political Correctness, which is referred to as “liberalism” or “leftism.”

Those who do not want to CONSERVE the ruling religion as it is, with no deviations, are referred to as conservatives.

This, as I have pointed out before, happens to language regularly. When we refer to the Temperance Movement, we are talking about those who want to prohibit the use of alcohol completely.

To be temperate about something means that you indulge in it, but you do OVERindulge in it. A person who is temperate in the use of alcohol is a person who does not:

1) Refuse to drink and

2) Drink too much

But when we refer to the Temperance Movement, we mean people who fall entirely into category 1), which is as much a violation of temperance as those who fall into category 2). Nonetheless if you refer to the Temperance Movement and you mean someone who is actually temperate, the dictionary may back you up but nobody will understand what you mean.