Right Wing Discussion Thread X: Pol's closed

[Hakons]

Not Satan or Beelzebub, but the prophet Muhammad certainly wasn't inspired by God. This is the Christian position. Either Muhammad made up everything, severely misunderstood a message from God, or was inspired by a demon. The latter interpretation opens the theory of "Satan worshipping," but Muslims themselves don't profess this. They claim that they worship the only God, which thus excludes worshiping Satan, who is not the Creator.

Cult is just a term for religions that are viewed negatively, usually due to their radical/harmful views. Islam is definitely anti-Christian. To possess their faith is to require the rejection of Christ.

I think that's a bit of an oversimplification. While Islamic treatment of Christians in Muslim-dominated countries has been... less than ideal, Christians are regarded as "people of the book" in Islamic theology, and Jesus is considered a prophet in Islam. I mean, sure, the Islamic view of Jesus is considerably different from the Christian view, but it's not like they're accusing God of being a Demiurge or worshipping peacock gods like the Gnostics. If the Islamic god isn't the Christian god, who is he?

They are anti-Christian because they expressly oppose Christianity. The Christian God is the Trinity, which Islam expressly rejects.

[Sanctissima]

I think that's a bit of an oversimplification. While Islamic treatment of Christians in Muslim-dominated countries has been... less than ideal, Christians are regarded as "people of the book" in Islamic theology, and Jesus is considered a prophet in Islam. I mean, sure, the Islamic view of Jesus is considerably different from the Christian view, but it's not like they're accusing God of being a Demiurge or worshipping peacock gods like the Gnostics. If the Islamic god isn't the Christian god, who is he?

The Islamic god is the Islamic god, nothing more. The Christian god is Christ, not a mere prophet.

Yes, I'm aware of the theology dilemma, but I hardly see how that disqualifies the Islamic god from being the Christian god. Since, frankly, by that same standard both the Jews and non-Nicene Christians would be disqualified.

Also, to tie it back into the relevance of Right-wing politics, this is fairly important in relation to the Pact of Umar and East-West relations, so there, we're on-topic.

[Luminesa]

Yes your juvenile mockery is clearly flame-bait.

Okay, well, you are of course welcome to report me if you strongly believe that. But I am certainly not trying to provoke your wrath, and you are probably taking my posts too personally

Fake humility is not impressive and nobody is going to play that game. Your consistent pseudo-intellectualism only makes you look foolish, and it doesn’t contribute anything to this forum.

[Sanctissima]

I think that's a bit of an oversimplification. While Islamic treatment of Christians in Muslim-dominated countries has been... less than ideal, Christians are regarded as "people of the book" in Islamic theology, and Jesus is considered a prophet in Islam. I mean, sure, the Islamic view of Jesus is considerably different from the Christian view, but it's not like they're accusing God of being a Demiurge or worshipping peacock gods like the Gnostics. If the Islamic god isn't the Christian god, who is he?

They are anti-Christian because they expressly oppose Christianity. The Christian God is the Trinity, which Islam expressly rejects.

Then do the Arians, Jews and non-Nicene Christians not count as worshiping the same god as Nicene Christianity's God?

[Hakons]

The Islamic god is the Islamic god, nothing more. The Christian god is Christ, not a mere prophet.

Yes, I'm aware of the theology dilemma, but I hardly see how that disqualifies the Islamic god from being the Christian god. Since, frankly, by that same standard both the Jews and non-Nicene Christians would be disqualified.

Also, to tie it back into the relevance of Right-wing politics, this is fairly important in relation to the Pact of Umar and East-West relations, so there, we're on-topic.

Jews worship God as He was understood before the coming of the Messiah. Christ revealed to us the nature of God. Jews have chosen to ignore this revelation, but they still worship God as He was understood before. Perhaps Muslims can be included in this, as their understanding of God is similar to Judaism. Sects that reject Nicene Christianity are arguably not Christian, since they reject several core tenets of the Christian faith, namely the Trinity.

[Hakons]

They are anti-Christian because they expressly oppose Christianity. The Christian God is the Trinity, which Islam expressly rejects.

Then do the Arians, Jews and non-Nicene Christians not count as worshiping the same god as Nicene Christianity's God?

It depends if we consider incorrect worship of God to be the same as worshipping a different God. Considering the Trinity is one essence and cannot be divided, worshiping only one nature of God is not worshiping the entirety of God. One cannot worship just a part of God. We worship God or nothing.

[Sanctissima]

Yes, I'm aware of the theology dilemma, but I hardly see how that disqualifies the Islamic god from being the Christian god. Since, frankly, by that same standard both the Jews and non-Nicene Christians would be disqualified.

Also, to tie it back into the relevance of Right-wing politics, this is fairly important in relation to the Pact of Umar and East-West relations, so there, we're on-topic.

Jews worship God as He was understood before the coming of the Messiah. Christ revealed to us the nature of God. Jews have chosen to ignore this revelation, but they still worship God as He was understood before. Perhaps Muslims can be included in this, as their understanding of God is similar to Judaism. Sects that reject Nicene Christianity are arguably not Christian, since they reject several core tenets of the Christian faith, namely the Trinity.

So they worship God if their religion existed before the Council of Nicaea, but otherwise it's full-on Trinity or nothing?

I'm sorry, but that has no logical consistency.

[Hakons]

To conclude, the best status non-Nicene, Jewish, or Muslim worship can obtain is that of severe heresy. As Christians, we must promote the worship of God as He is, and not make feel-goody concessions to faiths that are opposed to us.

[Sanctissima]

To conclude, the best status non-Nicene, Jewish, or Muslim worship can obtain is that of severe heresy. As Christians, we must promote the worship of God as He is, and not make feel-goody concessions to faiths that are opposed to us.

You can at least call a spade a spade.

Even if you consider them heretics or heathens, they very obviously worship the Christian God. The entirety of Islamic theology uses Jewish and Christian theology as its starting point, and cannot rightly considered to be worshiping a god other than Yahweh without some added theological component akin to demiurge-tier Gnosticism.

[Hakons]

Jews worship God as He was understood before the coming of the Messiah. Christ revealed to us the nature of God. Jews have chosen to ignore this revelation, but they still worship God as He was understood before. Perhaps Muslims can be included in this, as their understanding of God is similar to Judaism. Sects that reject Nicene Christianity are arguably not Christian, since they reject several core tenets of the Christian faith, namely the Trinity.

So they worship God if their religion existed before the Council of Nicaea, but otherwise it's full-on Trinity or nothing?

I'm sorry, but that has no logical consistency.

Our knowledge of God was first defined under the Old Covenant, which is what Jews still follow and perhaps Muslims. However, Christ revealed to us the true nature of God, that is the Trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This revelation is well known, so those that reject this reject the Christian God. One could potentially say Jews and Muslims are given a pass for sticking to the Old Covenant, but I don't think grave theological error should be given a pass

[Hakons]

To conclude, the best status non-Nicene, Jewish, or Muslim worship can obtain is that of severe heresy. As Christians, we must promote the worship of God as He is, and not make feel-goody concessions to faiths that are opposed to us.

You can at least call a spade a spade.

Even if you consider them heretics or heathens, they very obviously worship the Christian God. The entirety of Islamic theology uses Jewish and Christian theology as its starting point, and cannot rightly considered to be worshiping a god other than Yahweh without some added theological component akin to demiurge-tier Gnosticism.

Rejecting Christ is rejecting the Christian God since the Christian God is the inseparable Trinity. Taking Christ out of the Trinity is not worshiping the Trinity, which is not worshiping the Christian God. Since there is no other God to worship, I'll let you conclude what I think Muslims worship.

[Northern Davincia]

Jews worship God as He was understood before the coming of the Messiah. Christ revealed to us the nature of God. Jews have chosen to ignore this revelation, but they still worship God as He was understood before. Perhaps Muslims can be included in this, as their understanding of God is similar to Judaism. Sects that reject Nicene Christianity are arguably not Christian, since they reject several core tenets of the Christian faith, namely the Trinity.

So they worship God if their religion existed before the Council of Nicaea, but otherwise it's full-on Trinity or nothing?

I'm sorry, but that has no logical consistency.

Pretty much.

[Republican Corentia]

What does this even mean? This comment is unfunnier than the typical unfunny comments you make around this site, because right-wingers are in favor of privatizing education - I.E. leeching and chipping away at every chance for someone to get their education in literal basic mathematics.

You said something to the effect of "American education isnt left wing" which is a bunch of BS. American education is Keynesian in economics, social justice and feminist in sociology, left leaning in psychology and literature. I think the only right wing or at least neutral classes tend to be mathematics and engineering.

It's really not BS. Economics courses depend on where you go to, but Neoclassical and Keynesian economics reign supreme. Keynesian economics isn't even the type we would envision in the 40's either, which usually incorporate high taxes and a social democratic government. Marxists are kicked out frequently in any sort of economics or political science courses - the ones that actually land you up in very important positions. Suffice to say I think we both know sociology and literature is not in high demand. If you want to talk about indoctrination through education, how about you look at the plethora of economists who never read any substantial work of Marx aside from the Manifesto, and come out 20 years later saying Marx was correct? Also I don't know how a STEM field could be "right" or "left" wing, but I know the people I talk to who work mainly in STEM fields typically lean left.

This entire talk about content of the education of course is ignoring the fact that American education has been put on a hold for years and hasn't received proper structural reform in years. High school students in the U.S. today can't even tell you when the American Civil War happened and 67% can't even tell you who delivered the Gettysburg Address (http://news.gallup.com/poll/9526/how-ma ... -part.aspx). It's all very well and good some internet libertarians don't support gutting education but that's a moot point when that's what your political apparatuses do, aside from whatever individual ideas you hold. Privatization of public resources is a general trend on that side. it's the opposite of what we need however.

[Neutraligon]

I think that's a bit of an oversimplification. While Islamic treatment of Christians in Muslim-dominated countries has been... less than ideal, Christians are regarded as "people of the book" in Islamic theology, and Jesus is considered a prophet in Islam. I mean, sure, the Islamic view of Jesus is considerably different from the Christian view, but it's not like they're accusing God of being a Demiurge or worshipping peacock gods like the Gnostics. If the Islamic god isn't the Christian god, who is he?

They are anti-Christian because they expressly oppose Christianity. The Christian God is the Trinity, which Islam expressly rejects.

So I then assume that Christianity is expressly anti-Jewish since the Jewish god is expressly not the Trinity, which Christianity in its modern form rejects.

[Sanctissima]

:?:

You can at least call a spade a spade.

Even if you consider them heretics or heathens, they very obviously worship the Christian God. The entirety of Islamic theology uses Jewish and Christian theology as its starting point, and cannot rightly considered to be worshiping a god other than Yahweh without some added theological component akin to demiurge-tier Gnosticism.

Rejecting Christ is rejecting the Christian God since the Christian God is the inseparable Trinity. Taking Christ out of the Trinity is not worshiping the Trinity, which is not worshiping the Christian God. Since there is no other God to worship, I'll let you conclude what I think Muslims worship.

No, at most that would be worshiping God incorrectly, as you'd previously stated. The Islamic God is still the Christian God, even if both religions have a different conception of God.

Like I said, if we use your view of the matter, then not even Arians and other non-Nicene Christians would count as having worshiped God, which is something not even Athanasius was willing to claim.

[Republican Corentia]

Quite literally not a controversial thing to say. The education system is frequently underfunded and the discipline of history is just some undefined jumble of events without any proper organization to it, precisely because it's not designed to be an actual look at history, it's just "you need to know x event happened then you get off this free education ride".

Not controversial? It might not be controversial in your left-leaning bubble, but keep in mind that this is the Right Wing Discussion Thread. And while I agree that it is important for education to be well-funded, people would be more willing to support higher funding if the education system did a better job of avoiding ideological bias.

I find it funny you're accusing me of a left-wing bubble because I'm talking on a forum that's a literal bubble for right-wingers.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

I find it funny you're accusing me of a left-wing bubble because I'm talking on a forum that's a literal bubble for right-wingers.

>NS General (NS in of itself)
>right-wing bubble

[Republican Corentia]

The problem with American education is that it's not left-wing enough. There's literally no philosophical discipline to it other than to reinforce the status quo/simply make a few good workers, which whether you like it or not, is not "left-wing" for the United States.

Education isn't supposed to be political, y'know. At most, it's supposed to instill a basic sense of non-partisan patriotism. That's it. The rest is quite explicitly simply a matter of learning knowledge, with political commentary being reserved for discouraging students from falling into radical nonsense like your above statement.

>Education isn't supposed to be political

What do you mean by "supposed"? It's been used for political indoctrination for centuries, and I'd like to end that with a realistic and steadfast approach to things concerning history, funding and teaching techniques. Even your comment about "supposed to not indoctrinate people" contradicts itself as soon as you talk about non-partisan patriotism and trying to quell radical viewpoints. Like, why do you think that so many teenagers nowadays know they're being fed bullshit by the school system? It's because of the thing you just admitted in your comment. There's a very deliberate agenda behind it whether or not you would like to claim it's "supposed" to not be political. The thing is, it's actually "supposed" to support the status quo and a lot of the time it's so boring/useless you'll want to shut it off in spite of your grades.

[Republican Corentia]

I find it funny you're accusing me of a left-wing bubble because I'm talking on a forum that's a literal bubble for right-wingers.

>NS General (NS in of itself)
>right-wing bubble

If you think NS isn't a bubble then you haven't been outside for very long.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The War of 1812 was a bullshit imperialist war started by the United States as a pretense to annex Canada. The Louisiana Purchase as a bullshit imperialist purchase of land Native Americans were on and we know would have to be forcibly moved. And Jackson unilaterally started the Seminole Wars with Spain when he was a general, for bullshit imperialist reasons.

So...a lot of “bulls*** imperialism”. How educated of you.

The War of 1812 was the result of various unsettled disputes between the French, the British, and the U.S., specifically over trade deals, and started in-part because the British were illegally placing American sailors onto their ships. Technically nobody shares all of the blame, we certainly were never exactly the type to sit and wait for a fight, but the British played a large role in instigating the War.

The Louisiana Purchase happened because Napoleon needed money for a war, and we decided to spend a little more than extra, in order to find this land and to explore it. Manifest Destiny as a concept developed a generation or so after the purchase, once people started moving west and started fighting Indians for land.

“The First Seminole War (circa 1816–1819) began with General Andrew Jackson's excursions into West Florida and Spanish Florida against the Seminoles after the conclusion of the War of 1812. The governments of Britain and Spain both expressed outrage over the "invasion". However, Spain was unable to defend its territory, and the Spanish Crown agreed to cede Florida to the United States in the Adams–Onís Treaty of 1819.” At the very least he started the first war, though technically it SHOULD have been settled (and without forcible resettlement) after the Adams-Onís Treaty.

So tell me, you seem to be against imperialism, but when the Ottomans forcibly invade Orthodox Christian territory and the leaders among the Orthodox hand over people as slaves for the Ottomans, you side with the Ottomans on the matter? “B-But they didn’t know slavery was wrong!” Slavery has existed since the Roman times, and everyone with a conscience knew it was wrong and inhumane. So don’t talk about imperialism until you stop kissing-up to the Ottomans, and turning a blind eye when they stole away your Christian brothers and sisters.

Is that why several popes endorsed slavery of non-Christians and heretics?

[Sanctissima]

Education isn't supposed to be political, y'know. At most, it's supposed to instill a basic sense of non-partisan patriotism. That's it. The rest is quite explicitly simply a matter of learning knowledge, with political commentary being reserved for discouraging students from falling into radical nonsense like your above statement.

>Education isn't supposed to be political

What do you mean by "supposed"? It's been used for political indoctrination for centuries, and I'd like to end that with a realistic and steadfast approach to things concerning history, funding and teaching techniques. Even your comment about "supposed to not indoctrinate people" contradicts itself as soon as you talk about non-partisan patriotism and trying to quell radical viewpoints. Like, why do you think that so many teenagers nowadays know they're being fed bullshit by the school system? It's because of the thing you just admitted in your comment. There's a very deliberate agenda behind it whether or not you would like to claim it's "supposed" to not be political. The thing is, it's actually "supposed" to support the status quo and a lot of the time it's so boring/useless you'll want to shut it off in spite of your grades.

Because Communism is the root of all evil and the vile defiler Marx is the snake in our garden.

*ahem*

Education is politicized to a certain extent, sure, but the general objective, at least in democratic countries, is to form students who will become productive members of society who will not fall prey to destructive and chaotic influences. Political radicalism is inherently a destructive and chaotic influence, hence the need to oppose it.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The British stopped that before the war begin. The war was over Canada, everyone knew that. The Federalists were absolutely against the war for that reason. It turned into an absolute disaster for us, the conquest of Canada failed, the Brits burned the White House, and we still have the balls to this day to say it was draw or even a "victory" for us. We tried to take Canada, we go BTFO

The Federalist Party strongly opposed the Louisiana purchase, and the Indians living on the land was a large factor in that. Don't forget that John Jay strongly supported legislation to prevent whites from cheating Indians out of their land.

Jackson started the war without authorization from the government.

I never kissed up to the Ottomans. I say they are preferable to what the situation is today in the Middle East (and they probably would have reformed considerably in humanity were it not for the Young Turks). But no, I don't think they knew any better regarding their conduct, because they weren't Christians. I don't think Muslims today who do horrible things know any better.

“Since the outbreak of war with Napoleonic France, Britain had enforced a naval blockade to choke off neutral trade to France, which the United States contested as illegal under international law. To man the blockade, Britain impressed American merchant sailors into the Royal Navy. Incidents such as the Chesapeake–Leopard affair inflamed anti-British sentiment. In 1811, the British were in turn outraged by the Little Belt affair, in which 11 British sailors died.[14][15] The British supplied Indians who conducted raids on American settlers on the frontier, which hindered American expansion and also provoked resentment.[16] Historians remain divided on whether the desire to annex some or all of British North America contributed to the American decision to go to war. On June 18, 1812, United States President James Madison, after receiving heavy pressure from the War Hawks in Congress, signed the American declaration of war into law.” So no, the War was primarily over trade disputes, as I said. Canada came later, as it was a British territory and would be an important strategic location to capture.

And John Jay didn’t do anything wrong in that? Okay?

> “Th-They don’t know any better be-because moral reasons!”

If you are a grown adult going around and systemically pillaging people, chances are you know it’s wrong and you don’t care. Stop trying to twist Christian theology to try and justify the slavery of your own Christian brothers and sisters.

Pillaging wasn't seen as morally wrong for most of history, and Parkus hasn't been justifying the slavery of anyone. You're taking his words grossly out of context.

[Luminesa]

“Since the outbreak of war with Napoleonic France, Britain had enforced a naval blockade to choke off neutral trade to France, which the United States contested as illegal under international law. To man the blockade, Britain impressed American merchant sailors into the Royal Navy. Incidents such as the Chesapeake–Leopard affair inflamed anti-British sentiment. In 1811, the British were in turn outraged by the Little Belt affair, in which 11 British sailors died.[14][15] The British supplied Indians who conducted raids on American settlers on the frontier, which hindered American expansion and also provoked resentment.[16] Historians remain divided on whether the desire to annex some or all of British North America contributed to the American decision to go to war. On June 18, 1812, United States President James Madison, after receiving heavy pressure from the War Hawks in Congress, signed the American declaration of war into law.” So no, the War was primarily over trade disputes, as I said. Canada came later, as it was a British territory and would be an important strategic location to capture.

And John Jay didn’t do anything wrong in that? Okay?

> “Th-They don’t know any better be-because moral reasons!”

If you are a grown adult going around and systemically pillaging people, chances are you know it’s wrong and you don’t care. Stop trying to twist Christian theology to try and justify the slavery of your own Christian brothers and sisters.

Pillaging wasn't seen as morally wrong for most of history, and Parkus hasn't been justifying the slavery of anyone. You're taking his words grossly out of context.

“They didn’t know any better,” and, “free will comes with being baptized” are not responses that can be justified by Orthodoxy in the slightest. He is excusing the Ottomans along the lines of, “They did not know any better”. Yet in the same breath he says that a.) Islam is Satanist and b.) the Taliban and ISIS, who also pillage and have committed heinous crimes against humanity, are both worse than the Ottomans who killed millions of people and also are guiltless because they “did not know any better” due to not being baptized. Not only is his entire post history about Islam contradictory, it shows that he is willing to go against orthodox Orthodox Christianity and to throw his fellow Christians under the bus to try and sweep aside the actions of the empire that enslaved millions of his brothers and sisters.

[Republican Corentia]

>Education isn't supposed to be political

What do you mean by "supposed"? It's been used for political indoctrination for centuries, and I'd like to end that with a realistic and steadfast approach to things concerning history, funding and teaching techniques. Even your comment about "supposed to not indoctrinate people" contradicts itself as soon as you talk about non-partisan patriotism and trying to quell radical viewpoints. Like, why do you think that so many teenagers nowadays know they're being fed bullshit by the school system? It's because of the thing you just admitted in your comment. There's a very deliberate agenda behind it whether or not you would like to claim it's "supposed" to not be political. The thing is, it's actually "supposed" to support the status quo and a lot of the time it's so boring/useless you'll want to shut it off in spite of your grades.

Because Communism is the root of all evil and the vile defiler Marx is the snake in our garden.

*ahem*

Education is politicized to a certain extent, sure, but the general objective, at least in democratic countries, is to form students who will become productive members of society who will not fall prey to destructive and chaotic influences. Political radicalism is inherently a destructive and chaotic influence, hence the need to oppose it.

That's a very idealistic viewpoint. The intelligentsia creates the curriculum and directs the purpose, not the society itself. Indoctrination by way of education has always been a very powerful tool in both liberal democracies and socialist countries, both ending up with very different viewpoints and outcomes, but all essentially being the same function. It all claims to be simply against radical elements but in reality all it does is shut out the viewpoints of other ideologies that don't agree with what's acceptable to the class of people the intelligentsia comes from.

In liberal democracies, the class the intelligentsia usually comes from is the capitalist-class, or at the very least, the petit-bourgeois. In socialist countries it came from the working-classes and mid-range professional types. But since we're talking in a specifically American context here, I recommend reading Michael Parenti's History as Mystery wherein the first chapters he talks quite a bit about censorship and propaganda in the education system. Here's an excerpt with sources:

[FelrikTheDeleted]

>NS General (NS in of itself)
>right-wing bubble

If you think NS isn't a bubble then you haven't been outside for very long.

I never said it wasn’t a bubble, I just objected to the idea that it is a right-wing one.