Historicity of Jesus - 2

HareKrishna · (This post was last modified: 05-04-2009, 10:25 AM by HareKrishna.)

Emil Cioran explains that early Christian apologetics are simply a set of libels camouflaged as treatises. But there was one thing that made Christianity different: hatred. Without that hatred, this new religion would merely have traded in "the old gods for a nailed corpse."

Cioran is not the first to criticize Christianity. But he then goes on to defend Paganism. He explains that under Paganism, fervor is shared among Goddesses and Gods. Only under monotheism does this fervor degrade into faith and aggression. People, being capricious, would shift from one God to another if given the chance. And Pagan Goddesses and Gods do not demand to be worshipped, just respected: in general, one does not kneel before them but merely hails them.

As Cioran states, the human soul is naturally Pagan. And thus he has a conclusion: we humans will return to Paganism. The only thing Christianity had going for it was hatred, and that is no longer going to be there to sustain it. We'll ask the Goddesses and Gods to return to us. And maybe we'll even stop the bizarre Christian practice of burying the dead in broad daylight.
http://www.amazon.com/new-gods-E-M-Cioran/dp/0812904753

ramana · (This post was last modified: 05-09-2009, 01:56 AM by ramana.)

Wiki has this link on Arianism

In the bottom there is a map of Arianist places. See if there is a correlation between later Islamic areas?

Hillaire Belloc on
Ishamelite heresy

He is right its based on the Catholics as the Orthodox split was ~ two centuries later.

if he was so clear why was this not understood by the Western politicians who molly coddle Islam?

dhu · 05-09-2009, 02:51 AM

http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/HERESY4.TXT

dhu · (This post was last modified: 05-09-2009, 09:50 AM by dhu.)

QUOTE..John of Damascus' the Heresy of the Ishmaelites is now available ...
..

Here's a brief sample:
------------
And there is also the up until now strong and people-deceiving superstition of the Ishmaelites, being the forerunner of Antichrist. And it is born from Ishmael, who was born from Hagar to Abraham, from which they are called Hagarenes and Ishmaelites. And they call them Saracens, as from Î£Î±ÏÏÎ±Ï ÎºÎµÎ½Î¿Î¹ (those empty of Sarah), because of what was said by Hagar to the angel: âSarah has sent me away empty.â So then, these were idolaters and reverenced the morning star and Aphrodite, who they indeed named Khabar in their own language, which means great. Therefore, until the time of Heraclius, they were plainly idolaters. From that time and until now came up among them a false prophet called Mamed, who, having encountered the Old and New Testament, as it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, he put together his own heresy. And under the pretext of seeming pious, attracting (?) people, he reported that a book was sent down to him from heaven by God. Therefore some of the compositions written by him in a book, worthy of laughter, which he handed down to them as an object of reverence.
---------------
Hilaire Belloc drew on John of Damascus for Belloc's later work, The Great Heresies. Christian apologists should be familiar with both works and their arguements. You'll find chapter four of Belloc's The Great Heresies on The Great and Enduring Heresy of Mohammed in the same folder.


John of Damascus:

QUOTEHe was a polymath whose fields of interest and contribution included law, theology, philosophy, and music. He was the Chief Administrator to the Muslim caliph of Damascus, wrote works expounding the Christian faith, and composed hymns which are still in everyday use in Eastern Christian monasteries throughout the world. The Catholic Church regards him as a Doctor of the Church, often referred to as the Doctor of the Assumption due to his writings on the Assumption of Mary. wiki

At first glance, John of Damascus seems almost like a Josephus figure. Another thing that does not make sense is that interior arab pagans began their kaaba iconoclasm on their own impetus.

more on John of Damascus

dhu · 05-09-2009, 09:21 AM

QUOTEviz. that the Goths were Aryans, is obviously a misreading
of the well-known fact that many of them were "Arians", i.e. followers of the
Christian "heretic" Arius. He taught a strict monotheism in which Jesus was only
an outstanding human being, not God's son and incarnation. A kind of Islam
without Mohammed, as it were. Arius was murdered during a Church Council, and
his followers were defeated by the Frankish king Clovis and other Trinitarian
(God as father, Son and Holy Ghost) Catholics.

Best of luck,

KE

Husky · (This post was last modified: 05-09-2009, 12:32 PM by Husky.)

QUOTEviz. that the Goths were Aryans, is obviously a misreading
of the well-known fact that many of them were "Arians", i.e. followers of the
Christian "heretic" Arius.Can't imagine anyone existing (outside christianism) who would confuse Arians with "Aryans".

http://www.ftarchives.net/foote/crimes/contents.htm
QUOTECRIMES
OF
CHRISTIANITY

BY

G. W. FOOTE
AND
J. M. WHEELER
Â

VOL. I

LONDON
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
1887.
LONDON:
PRINTED BY G. W. FOOTE,
AT 14 CLERKENWELL GREEN, E.C.
There was never a vol II.

But Chapters 1 and 2 discuss arianism:
http://www.ftarchives.net/foote/crimes/c1.htm
http://www.ftarchives.net/foote/crimes/c2.htm

Excerpt from 1st link:
QUOTEConstantine's penal laws in favor of Christianity were still more influential. He condemned those who should speak evil of Christ to lose half their estates. His laws against various heresies may be seen in the Justinian code. So far did he advance in true godliness, under the inspiration of the bishops and clergy, that he issued a decree for the demolition of all heretical temples in the following elegant strain:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
Â Â "Know ye, Moravians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Paulinians, and Cataphrygians, that your doctrine is both vain and false. O ye enemies of truth, authors and counsellors of death, ye spread abroad lies, oppress the innocent, and hide from the faithful the light of truth â¦ That your pestilential errors may spread no further, we enact by this law that none of you dare hereafter to meet at your conventicles, nor keep any factious or superstitious meetings, either in public buildings or in private houses, or in secret places; but if any of you have a care for the true religion, let them return to the Catholic Church â¦ And that our careful providence for curing these errors may be effectual, we have commanded that all your superstitious places of meeting, your heretical temples (if I may so call them), shall be, without delay or contradiction, pulled down or confiscated to the Catholic Church." [20:9] 

Such is the language, and such are the acts, which made Constantine "a pattern to all succeeding monarchs." These oppressive acts were grateful to the Christian clergy; and Eusebius, as Lardner remarks, relates them "with manifest tokens of approbation and satisfaction." [21:1]

The reign of the first Christian Emperor was distracted by the famous Arian controversy. Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, and his presbyter Arius, had a fierce and bitter dispute about the Trinity, the former contending that the Son was equal, and the latter that he was inferior, to the Father. According to Jortin:

QUOTE"Alexander wrote a circular letter to all bishops, in which he represented Arius and his partisans as heretics, apostates, blasphemers, enemies of God, full of impudence and impiety, forerunners of Antichrist, imitators of Judas, and men whom it was not lawful to salute or bid God speed." [21:2]

This is merely the language of bigotry, for Sozomen acknowledges that these reprobates were learned, and to all appearance good men. As the quarrel grew inflamed the soldiers and inhabitants joined in it, and much blood was shed in and about the City. Constantine wrote Alexander and Arius a long letter, bidding them be more peaceable. But as the controversy spread through the empire, he at length resolved (A.D. 325) to summon a Council of the Church at Nice, in Bythinia, to determine between them. After much wrangling, which Constantine peremptorily ended, the bishops and ecclesiastics discussed the subject of the Trinity. It was finally resolved by a majority that the Father and the Son were of the same substance, and not of like substance. The famous Nicene Greed was drawn up for subscription, with an addendum declaring that -

QUOTE"The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematises those who say there was a time when the Son of God was not, and that before he was begotten he was not, and that he was made out of another substance or essence, and is created or changeable or alterable." [21:3] 

The Council of Nice only envenomed the dispute, for, as Gibbon observes, the emperor "extinguished the hope of peace and toleration from the moment that he assembled three hundred bishops within the walls of the same palace." Constantine ratified the Nicene Creed, and issued the following edict against the minority:

QUOTE"Since Arius hath imitated wicked and ungodly men, it is just that he should undergo the same infamy with them. As, therefore, Porphyrius, an enemy of godliness, for his having composed wicked books against Christianity, hath found a fitting recompense in being infamous and having all his impious writings quite destroyed, so also it is now my pleasure that Arius and those of his sentiments shall be called Porphyrians, so that they may have the appellation of those whose manners they have imitated. Moreover, if any book composed by Arius shall be found, it shall be delivered to the fire, that not only his evil doctrine may be destroyed, but that there may not be the least remembrance of it left. This also I enjoin, that if anyone shall be found to have concealed any writing composed by Arius, and shall not immediately bring it and consume it in the fire, death shall be his punishment: for as soon as ever he is taken in this crime, he shall suffer capital punishment. God preserve you." [22:4] 

God preserve you! is a fine piece of irony, coming after a menace of death for reading an heretical book. Let it also be noticed that the first great Council of the Christian Church resulted in the first promulgation of the death penalty against heretics. [22:5]

Ten years afterwards Constantine veered round and favored the Arians. He repeatedly commanded Athanasius, the Archbishop of Alexandria, to receive Arius into the Catholic communion, but that extraordinary man refused to comply with the emperor's will. At the Council of Tyre (A.D. 335) an Arian majority condemned Athanasius to degradation and exile for having, as they alleged, whipped or imprisoned six bishops, and murdered or mutilated a seventh; and the great Archbishop found shelter for nearly two years in the Court of Treves.

Meanwhile Arius came to an untimely end. Constantine ordered Alexander, the Athanasian bishop of the capital, to receive the heresiarch into communion on the following Sunday. On the Saturday the bishop fasted and prayed, and in his church he besought God to avert the evil, even by taking Arius away. [23:6] The next day, as Arius was on his way to the church, he entered a house to attend to a call of nature, where, according to Athanasius, his bowels burst out. He was at any rate found dead, and the Athanasians saw a divine judgment in his sudden fate. "But when Alexander's party," says Draper, "proclaimed that his prayer had been answered, they forgot what that prayer must have been, and that the difference is little between praying for the death of a man and compassing it." [23:7]

Gibbon says that "those who press the literal narrative of the death of Arius must make their option between poison and miracle." He evidently inclines to the former choice, and he is followed in this by Draper. Cardinal Newman, however, regards the death of Arius as a Church miracle. "Surely it is not impossible," says Jortin, "that amongst his numerous enemies there might be one who would not scruple to give him a dose, and to send him out of the way." [23:8] The cautious Mosheim adopts the same view. "When I consider," he says, "all the circumstances of the case, I confess that to me it appears most probable, the unhappy man lost his life by the machinations of his enemies, being destroyed by poison. An indiscreet and blind zeal in religion has, in every age, led on to many crimes worse than this." [23:9]

Constantine himself died in the following year (May 22nd, A.D. 337) at Nicomedia. His body was laid in state for several days, and finally interred with gorgeous rites. According to Jortin, he had the honor of being the first Christian who was buried in a church. The true believers paid almost divine honor to his name, his tomb, and his statue, and called him a saint equal to the apostles. And as the clergy had bestowed upon him, during his life, the most fulsome praise even when he was committing the most flagitious crimes, so now, after his death, they had the effrontery to declare that God had endued his urn and statue with miraculous powers, and that whosoever touched them were healed of all diseases and infirmities. [24:1]

Constantine did so much for Christianity that the apologists and historians of that creed have always striven to whitewash his memory. Their efforts are futile, but they had good reason for the attempt. Not only did Constantine establish Christianity as the religion of the empire, but by sanctioning and promoting its endowment he gave a permanency to its institutions. His removal of the seat of empire to Constantinople gave free play to the ambition of the Western Church, which centred in the eternal city, and was invested with the glamor of the name of Rome. Antioch is now but a name, Constantinople is a Mohammedan capital, and Alexandria is ruled by a dependent of the Sultan; while Rome is still the centre of Christendom, the home of infallibility, and the obstinate enemy of liberty and progress.</div>It goes on in Ch. 2 at http://www.ftarchives.net/foote/crimes/c2.htm

Continued in the next post

Husky · (This post was last modified: 05-11-2009, 08:28 PM by Husky.)

Related to the above.

http://freetruth.50webs.org/A2a.htm

A little further down and Arius and Arians is mentioned. My comments inserted in purple.

QUOTEÂ Â In 380, the Roman Christian Emperor Theodosius passed a decree that read:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEÂ Â Â Â "We shall believe in the single Deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, under the concept of equal majesty and of the Holy Trinity. We command that those persons who follow this rule shall embrace the name of Catholic Christians.
(Definition! All protestants included in that term. And so too the Orthodox Christians, I think? They are those who follow the credo, i.e. hold to the Trinity - you know, "In nomine patris, et filis, et spiritus sancti". Sign of cross with 4 points and yet 3 entities: 'in the name of the priestly father=gawd, the sin=jeebus, and the holy sanctimonious spook'.)
The rest, however, whom We adjudge demented and insane, shall sustain the infamy of heretical dogmas, their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, and they shall be smitten first by divine vengeance and secondly by the retribution of Our own initiative, which We shall assume in accordance with the divine judgment."
(Exactly what that 'doctor of the church', the theologian santa Thomas Aquinas said in 1271: "Unbelievers deserve not only to be separated from the Church, but also... to be exterminated from the World by death.")

Â Â -- Helen Ellerbe, The Dark Side of Christian History
QUOTEÂ Â Already in 385 C.E. the first Christians, the Spanish Priscillianus and six followers, were beheaded for heresy in Trier/Germany
Â Â Manichaean heresy: a crypto-Christian sect decent enough to practice birth control (and thus not as irresponsible as faithful Catholics) was exterminated in huge campaigns all over the Roman empire between 372 C.E. and 444 C.E. Numerous thousands of victims.
Â Â -- Opus Diaboli, by Karlheinz Deschner

Link http://web.archive.org/web/20021012152454/...eo/victims.html

QUOTEÂ Â Repression began as soon as the Christians gained control of the Roman Empire. Constantine jailed and suppressed Christian bishops who supported Arius. Arius was considered a heretic (325 c.e.) who denied the divinity of Jesus Christ, and the unity of the godhead (trinity.) In 385 c.e. The dissident (i.e. heretic) Priscillian and his followers were executed for heresy.

Link http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/triumph_...stianities.html

Roman Christianity persecuting other Christianities:

QUOTEÂ # In 317 Constantine's Roman Christian sectarians in Carthage filled the well outside the main Donatist [non-Roman Christian] church with the bodies of their Christian opponents.
Â # In 333 AD Constantine issued edicts against "Arius, wicked and impious," forbidding his teaching and even outlawing owning the Arian version of the New Testament.
Â # In 382, in Egypt, celebrating Easter on the day set aside by the local non-Roman Christian sect was punishable by death.
Â # In 383, in Spain, Urbanica was stoned to death and her bishop Priscillian was executed for their non-Roman Christian beliefs.
Â # St. Augustine describes the sectarian struggles in North Africa, in which believers had their eyes torn out and one bishop had his hands and tongue cut off. [Augustine, Epistles 44.7]
(Didn't happen in Godhra - despite what christoterrorist liar Suzanna Margaret 'arundhoti' Roy et al penned - but has always happened when christians congregate.)
From: Triumph over other Christianities http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/triumph_...stianities.html

Besides determining which books belonged in the Christian Canon, the councils also determined which concepts and beliefs were to become part of Christian doctrine, and which would be classed as heresy and its adherents persecuted. They also decided Church practices, such as moving the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday.

QUOTEÂ The history of these councils is both bewildering and abominable. ...Contrary to the naive opinion that the deliberations of church councils were infused by the power of divine guidance, most of the councils â and their aftermaths â were pretty ghastly affairs. [Link] http://www.atheists.org/christianity/realbible.html

The Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325): The first Christian Emperor of Rome, Constantine the Great, after having many of his close relatives put to death, convened this Council to determine which of the Christian factions with opposing ideas on the matter of the nature of Jesus should be considered orthodoxy:

QUOTE The burning question of the council was the argument between Arius and Bishop Alexander of Alexandria. Arius claimed Jesus was essentially distinct from the Father, having been created ex nihilo by the latter. Alexander, however, claimed

Â Â Â Â "as God is eternal, so is his Son â when the Father, then the Son â the Son is present in God without birth, ever-begotten, an unbegotten-begotten."

Â Â By a packed vote, Arius was condemned as a heretic, excommunicated, and exiled. Three years later, however, Constantine ... recalled Arius to Constantinople. On the very day Arius was to reenter the Cathedral in triumph, his bowels suddenly burst out in a privy, obviating any need to redefine orthodoxy. The orthodox considered it a miracle; the Arians knew it was murder.

Link http://www.atheists.org/christianity/realbible.html

QUOTEIn time, the rival doctrines of Arius were declared a heresy. For this, Arianism was persecuted out of existence: since the Northern tribes and many others belonged to this Christian sect, the mainstream Church persecuted the highly numerous Arians to their deaths.
Whenever a vestige of this early heretical Christian sect resurfaced, it would be instantly suppressed. 16th century Protestant England, for instance, burnt an Arian to death.
See also: The Arian Controversy and its demise ( http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/arian.html ), how the heretical Arianism was murdered out by Catholicism ( http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/arianism.html ), more on Arius during Constantine's reign ( http://www.ftarchives.net/foote/crimes/c1.htm ) and afterwards ( http://www.ftarchives.net/foote/crimes/c2.htm )</div>
The non-existent jeebus is full of miracles. Deadly miracles.

Oh this is always funny, am sorry if I keep repasting it here every little while. From the same link http://freetruth.50webs.org/A2a.htm

The History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science by John William Draper
QUOTEAmong a countless host of disputants may be mentioned Arians, Basilidians, Carpocratians, Collyridians, Eutychians, Gnostics, Jacobites, Marcionites, Marionites, Nestorians, Sabellians, Valentinians.
Of these, the Marionites regarded the Trinity as consisting of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Virgin Mary; the Collyridians worshiped the Virgin as a divinity, offering her sacrifices of cakes; the Nestorians, as we have seen, denied that God had "a mother."
...But, though they were irreconcilable in matters of faith, there was one point in which all these sects agreed - ferocious hatred and persecution of each other.All "True Christians", don't you know.

QUOTEAfrica was equally disturbed by the factions of the rival bishops Caecilian and Donatus, which afflicted its provinces above three hundred years, the feud being only extinguished when Christianity was overcome by Mohammedanism. Excommunicated by the Western Church, the Donatists boldly excommunicated all other churches than their own.
-- Crimes of Christianity, by G W Foote and J M Wheeler
Link http://www.ftarchives.net/foote/crimes/c2.htm

ramana · 05-10-2009, 06:44 AM

So dhu what do we conclude about Islam?

Is it a Near Eastern Arianism to normatize the Semitic Arabs of the desert?

dhu · (This post was last modified: 05-11-2009, 07:51 PM by dhu.)

QUOTE(ramana @ May 10 2009, 06:44 AM)So dhu what do we conclude about Islam?

Is it a Near Eastern Arianism to normatize the Semitic Arabs of the desert?
[right][snapback]97130[/snapback][/right]


It is too early to say anything definitively, at least for me (it would take at least a few pages of thread as well as reorienting the thread focus). I would imagine that sepoy status for Mohammad would be very painful to most Muslims. Interestingly, true King status for Jesus is anathema to Christians (which is just the opposite). Given Syrian (linguistic, caliphate) connection of the Koran and the similarity of Islamic theology to Arianism (and Nestorianism?), Islam is most likely a Christian project. Our task should be to connect the theology to political propaganda. Member G. Subramaniam has made the point that the political orientation of Islam seems to be towards the East (Hind as female in the Koran) - and that Mohammad himself declares India as a primary target.

Islam emerged in an interlude period of the Roman(Byzantine) versus Persian wars.

btw, I was hoping that Islam would turn out to be a native response to the Empire, but that does not seem likely.

Desert Arabs are hardly a choice target.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 05-14-2009, 09:19 PM by Husky.)

^ Dhu's post

QUOTE(dhu @ May 11 2009, 07:49 PM)Given Syrian (linguistic, caliphate) connection of the Koran and the similarity of Islamic theology to Arianism (and Nestorianism?), Islam is most likely a Christian project.Â Our task should be to connect the theology to political propaganda. Member G. Subramaniam has made the point that the political orientation of Islam seems to be towards the East (Hind as female in the Koran) - and that Mohammad himself declares India as a primary target.[right][snapback]97153[/snapback][/right]Tangential. There were (are?) discussions on Greek and Russian sites/fora on a long-standing orthodox conviction that islam is a catholic conspiracy meant to pull down Eastern Orthodoxy. (They hold that islamism was a dark ages/medieval strategy against orthodox Byzantium, and that communism was a similar strategy against orthodox Tsarist Russia.)

IIRC, they certainly made a case for islamism being a (western) christian concoction. But the target being (solely) orthodoxy didn't seem as clear.

ADDED:
Likewise, Buddhist and Hindu Asia is similarly a victim of western-christian directed communism; it's not been just orthodox Russia, Ukraine, etcetera, that have been on the receiving end of communism and been dismantled by it.

Of course both islamism and communism are powder kegs and can explode anywhere: can sting anyone. That's why when either islamism or communism gets too close to the western christian empire and looks to cut or swallow it as well, that one sees the classic western christian reaction of the Vatican and 'secular' western christian powers: genocidal mayhem. Hence the Crusades against islamism in the middle ages, and the conscious mounting of Nazism by christianism+Vatican as modern-day crusaders against the 'communist' Slavs. Note: not against the catholic nation of Slovakian Slavs since Slovakia's catholic head Tiso was a nazi and axis man. Slovakia was under nazi=western christian rule, hence it was immune to the anti-Slav bile being spewed by christonazi ideology.
Croats used to once be classed as Slavs as well, but the western-christian - particularly catholic - enmity towards the Orthodox Slavic Serbs meant catholicism resorted to its usual drivel of inventing a racial identity for the Croats that was utterly separate from the Slavic Serbs. Some christo nazi bishop in Croatia made up a non-Slavic, Gothic for the Croats instead for contrast. (Back in the nazi decades, Slavs were particularly NOT Oryans. Whereas today they are the 'original Oryans'. Similarly, today the claim is that Croats were Oryans from Afghanistan because Hrvat is identified with Harahvaiti; and the Afghan origin is as fervently believed in circles as their Gothic ancestry was during the nazi era. Tomorrow the origin story invented for the victimised Croatians will be different again.)

http://freetruth.50webs.org/A7c.htm#Supp...tatorships
QUOTEÂ Â Â Â Having lost its "strongest bulwark" [Austria] with the end of the first World War, the Vatican turned to Mussolini and fascist Italy to defend it and its long range goals. Likewise, the Vatican threw its support behind Mussolini's imperialist ambitions for fascist Italy. ... Why did Hitler create two independent clerical-fascist states which considered themselves vassals of the papacy? The answer to this question explains why historians hardly ever mention Slovakia and Croatia in their discussions of World War II or the Holocaust: because the Vatican was a silent partner in the Axis alliance, as well as in the Holocaust.
Â Â -- What is the Vatican Hiding, Barry Lituchy http://freetruth.50webs.org/Appendix4.htm

Besides Nazism in Germany, Italy and Croatia there are a number of other European countries that suffered markedly under the fascist tyranny of Catholics: Spain under ruthless fascist Catholic dictator Franco and Slovakia under the priest Tiso.

Â Â Catholicism had links to government organizations, right-wing nationalism, including Fascism and Nazism. Moreover, most every right-wing dictator of the period had been brought up a Catholic: Hitler, Horthy, Franco, Petain, Mussoline, Pavelic, and Tiso (who has served as a Catholic priest).

From: Christianity in Europe during WWII http://www.nobeliefs.com/ChurchesWWII.htm#anchor2b

Contrary to their claims today, the fascist regimes in Europe from the 1920's to the 1940's had been widely supported by the majority of Christians, including the Nazi rule in Germany. Other examples were the Italian Fascism under Mussolini, the rule of Spanish Catholic dictator Franco (and a similar one in Portugal), the Clerofascist rule of Tiso in Slovakia, and the war-born Ustasha regime in Croatia, a part of Yugoslavia.

From: The Christian Horror Picture Show
http://www.geocities.com/iconoclastes.geo/nazi.html

Actually, one can see the hand of catholicism/western christianism manipulating islamism again in a small way: Arch-catholic Danny Boyle's slummovie "slumdog millionaire".
There's also the far more organised christian rule in Bharatam trying to give full power to islamania in order to destroy the Hindu nature of the country. And giving communism and islamism a free hand in Nepal (in order to weaken it and infiltrate christianism as is being done).

C.S. Lewis - the catholic who originally started off irreligious, but after his conversion wrote the usual bad christian apologetics like "Mere christianism" etcetera - wrote how islamism was "only a christian heresy" or "only the greatest of christian heresies". I can't remember the exact wording. Web search it.

As an aside, The Clash of Civilisations of islam vs christian west was already illustrated in the final book of C.S. Lewis' Narnia series. aptly titled "The Last Battle", it describes how the world containing Narnia is destroyed upon a battle between the (white, obviously western christian) Narnians and the (dark and turbanned, obviously islamic) evil Tash-worshipping Calormenes, whose ruling elite are called Tarkaans and are an obvious amalgamation of all islamic dynasties from Arabia to Turkey to Iran and Afghanistan to the Mooghals. Place names include Tashbaan. Lots of islamic customs including slaves, and 'islamic culture' (some of it actually Persian such as litters to carry people), etcetera.

Anyway, in The Last Battle, the "dark eastern islamic Calormenes" (Colourmeanies) invade Narnia through cunning and by working with some devious atheistic Narnian animals and overcome the "white christian Narnians". Narnia is lost, the entire world in which it rests is destroyed. And then there's a chapter on 'heaven' and jeebusjehovallah.

The book was also arguing about how Tash (allah) is not Aslan (jeebus), but that this was all confusion sown by the 'deplorable and devious wicked' (aka atheists and by extension liberals and multiculturalists).
Like The Last Battle is actually against islamism, the previous book in the series, "The Silver Chair", is almost entirely directed against atheism.
"The Last Battle" also argues against atheism but focuses more on the 'modern secular conceit' of equating and giving equal value to christianism with islamism and hence the 'ultimate price of multiculturalism'.

ramana · 05-12-2009, 12:36 AM

The Catholic and Orthodox split in Church came much after Islam was created. islam was definitely in the mold of the pre-split Church.

And the Church was split on the issue of icons whether Jesus could be shown on icons- sort of anti-idolatory position of Islam.

One way of looking at it is the non-Nicean sects of Christianity in Asia re-baselined their message and it becameIslam. The re-baselining was because the Nicean Christians became monarchianists- ie empire supporters. So from being rebels they became the Foundation.

dhu · (This post was last modified: 05-12-2009, 02:00 AM by dhu.)

Amazing. I had always thought that split in the Church dated to the Split in the Empire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Emp...he_Roman_Empire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East-West_Schism

dhu · (This post was last modified: 05-12-2009, 11:45 PM by dhu.)

Husky, following is most accurate description of Marxism that I've found. It was written in 1995.

QUOTERam Swarup The missionary-colonial attack was reinforced by another attack - Marxism. Its source too was Europe and it was even more Eurocentric than regular Imperialism. It used radical slogans but its aims were reactionary. It taught that Europe was the centre and rest of the world its periphery - not by chance but by an inherent dialectics of History. Marx fully shared the contempt of British Imperialists for India. He said: "Indian society has no history at all, at least no known history. What we call its history, is but the history of succesive intruders."Â He also said that India neither knew freedom nor deserved it. To him the question was "not whether the English had a right to conquer India, but whether we are to prefer India conquered by the Briton." This also became the faith of his Indian pupils.

In India, Macaulayism prepared the ground for Marxism - early Marxists were recruited from Macaulayites. Marxism in turn gave Macaulayism a radical look and made it attractive for a whole new class. While Marxists served European Imperialism, they also fell in love with all old Imperialist invaders, particularly Muslim ones. M.N. Roy found the Arab Empire a "magnificient monument to the memory of Mohammad." While the Marxists found British Imperialism "progressive", they opposed the country's national struggle as reactionary. They learnt to work closely with Muslims both during and after Independence.

dhu · (This post was last modified: 05-12-2009, 10:25 AM by dhu.)

QUOTEThe title King of the Gypsies has been claimed or given over the centuries to many different people. It is both culturally and geographically specific. It may be inherited, acquired by acclamation or action, or simply claimed. The extent of the power associated with the title varied; it might be limited to a small group in a specific place, or many people over large areas. In some cases the claim was clearly a public relations exercise. As the term Gypsy is also used in many different ways the King of the Gypsies may be someone with no connection with the Roma.

It has also been suggested that in places where they were persecuted by local authorities the "King of the Gypsies" is an individual, usually of low standing, who places himself in the risky position of an ad hoc liaison between the Roma and the gaje (non-Roma). The arrest of such a "King" limited the harm to the Roma. [1]Â link

HareKrishna · (This post was last modified: 05-12-2009, 11:50 AM by HareKrishna.)

QUOTE(dhu @ May 12 2009, 10:24 AM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEThe title King of the Gypsies has been claimed or given over the centuries to many different people. It is both culturally and geographically specific. It may be inherited, acquired by acclamation or action, or simply claimed. The extent of the power associated with the title varied; it might be limited to a small group in a specific place, or many people over large areas. In some cases the claim was clearly a public relations exercise. As the term Gypsy is also used in many different ways the King of the Gypsies may be someone with no connection with the Roma.

It has also been suggested that in places where they were persecuted by local authorities the "King of the Gypsies" is an individual, usually of low standing, who places himself in the risky position of an ad hoc liaison between the Roma and the gaje (non-Roma). The arrest of such a "King" limited the harm to the Roma. [1]Â link
[right][snapback]97172[/snapback][/right]
</div>
Cioaba,king of gipsy
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ro/t...x-IonCioaba.jpg

Emperor Julian of gipsy
http://www.ablog.ro/img/200707/23416.jpg

Madalin Voicu,known gipsy politician
http://www.adevarul.ro/editor_files/Image/...cu-interviu.jpg

boyars of gipsy
http://aghiazma.files.wordpress.com/2009/0...11438802882.jpg
http://images.google.ro/imgres?imgurl=http...t%3D63%26um%3D1

dhu · (This post was last modified: 05-12-2009, 01:58 PM by dhu.)

QUOTE(ramana @ May 12 2009, 12:36 AM)One way of looking at it is the non-Nicean sects of Christianity in Asia re-baselined their message and it becameIslam. The re-baselining was because the Nicean Christians became monarchianists- ie empire supporters. So from being rebels they became the Foundation.
[right][snapback]97160[/snapback][/right]


Christianity in the peripheral ME was a pacifying and domesticating force. Christianity in the Roman center, while jostling for power, was not so burdened. As soon as power was achieved, Constantine moved the power center to the East (to be closer to the stage of action?)..

from the East-West Schism page:
QUOTEThe historian Will Durant writes that, after Jerusalem, the church of Rome naturally became the primary church, the capital of Christianity....Â Â ..While the Eastern cities of Alexandria and Antioch produced theological works, the bishops of Rome focused on what Romans admittedly did best: administration.[2]

That the theology emanated from the East makes sense since the East is where the fodder class was located. Theology acts a lever to differentiate master and sepoy and imparts structural stabilty to the relationship. Try as you will you cannot Orientalize the West despite your best efforts. Even IPL cheerleaders are not experienced as an orientalizing effort by the West; just as rustification and archaizing phenomenon are foreign to the East

dhu · 05-12-2009, 01:43 PM

<img src='http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/Sassanid-empire-610CE.png/180px-Sassanid-empire-610CE.png' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
The Sassanid Empire at its greatest extent c. 610.

ramana · 05-12-2009, 10:01 PM

QUOTE(dhu @ May 12 2009, 08:13 AM)<img src='http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/Sassanid-empire-610CE.png/180px-Sassanid-empire-610CE.png' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
The Sassanid Empire at its greatest extent c. 610.
[right][snapback]97175[/snapback][/right]


Eventually they were the areas in Asia that Islam took over! And thus ended the scourge of Europe!!!

**Hauma Hamiddha** · 05-12-2009, 10:38 PM

ramana,May 12 2009, 11:31 AM Wrote:[quote=dhu,May 12 2009, 08:13 AM]<img src='http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/Sassanid-empire-610CE.png/180px-Sassanid-empire-610CE.png' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
The Sassanid Empire at its greatest extent c. 610.
[right][snapback]97175[/snapback][/right]

Looks like Iranian propaganda -- they never occupied Gujarat in that period! Also they did not occupy parts of the Sindh, which were under Hindu rAja-s.

ramana · 05-13-2009, 01:46 AM

Sure it has its propoganda but look at big picture. Does it represent Islam's expansion areas?

Login




Remember me Lost Password?