Marsinah

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulfilas

This one always cracks me up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulfilas#/media/File:Bischof_Ulfilas_erkl%C3%A4rt_den_Goten_das_Evangelium.jpg

As you know, God gave St. Paul the almost impossible task---mission---to convert the Gentiles, and the German barbarians later, to a belief in monotheism. Paul did the best that he could, under the circumstances. The circumstances being the nature of the Germans, which nature had antecedents in the nature of Indo-Europeans, and subsequently in any man or woman of European descent.

If you know anything at all about this "nature" (as you will when I am finished), you would know that Christ's message of peace, love and forgiveness could never appeal to the forever head-butting combative Indo-Europeans.

[St. Ulfilas himself when he translated the bible into Gothic deliberately omitted the chapter on Kings as he well knew this chapter would only serve to entice the Germans into battle].

Yet Paul's message of the god-human sacrifice of Jesus (as God's Own Son) appealed to their intensely loyal, almost unquestioningly, and certainly uncompromisingly, loyal, nature. And from these barbarians, to the medieval knights of old, and even to America's fighting men (who were known all over the world as the best fighting men on earth, before feminism took over their minds, hearts and souls---remember the Alamo? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeUbEGyu6XQ), death was preferable to the disgrace of losing.

Can't you just hear those German warriors saying: "What? Love my enemies? Are you out of your freakin' mind?" These were, and are, men who would just as soon cleave your skull into two parts as reason with you. (I have my ideas on why that is so, but I'm saving it for a later time!)

And so we have Paul's insistence that "Christ died for the ungodly also" repeated over and over in his epistles. For the gentiles, the ungodly consisted of the uncircumcised, among others.

Now, it is well known that Christ's message did appeal to the women, mothers and wives, as well as slaves. St. Helena, mother of the first Roman emperor to be baptized, was a Christian. It was partly due to her influence, as well as what Constantine saw as the need for a unifying force in the Roman empire, which was in severe decay and under pressure of invasion from the Germans, that provided the impetus for his conversion, in the 4th century. Remember the legendary phrase "In hoc signo vinces"? The conversion of Constantine was informed by conquest.

The wife of Clovis I, Clotilde, was also Christian, and it was partly at her behest that he converted to Christianity, in 508 AD. But the major impetus, as it was for Constantine, was the victory of Clovis at the Battle of Tolbiac:

"Gregory of Tours records Clovis's prayer in chapter II of the History of the Franks: "O Jesus Christ, you who as Clotilde tells me are the son of the Living God, you who give succor to those who are in danger, and victory to those accorded who hope in Thee, I seek the glory of devotion with your assistance: If you give me victory over these enemies, and if I experience the miracles that the people committed to your name say they have had, I believe in you, and I will be baptized in your name. Indeed, I invoked my gods, and, as I am experiencing, they failed to help me, which makes me believe that they are endowed with no powers, that they do not come to the aid of those who serve. It's to you I cry now, I want to believe in you if only I may be saved from my opponents."

My point, obviously, is that it was not peace and love that converted the warlike German barbarians, or that was even their driving motivation.

[As an interesting side note, during the Middle Ages, the Church outlawed fighting on Sundays and Holidays. It wasn't much, but it tells you how almost constantly they (known by that time as Europeans) battled.

Marsinah

Here's what I wonder: Did this intensely loyal character precede their combative streak, or develop from it? Truthfully, I doubt there could be one without the other.

I also wonder, as others---non-European---have, if the Indo-European propensity for monogamy derives from that same loyalty "instinct". Pretty hard to be loyal to more than one wife. I know "I" will ALWAYS be the only wife.

Now, let's see who among you, if any, will be the first to "contest" me.

Marsinah

I intend to add to this thread from time to time.

Marsinah

The attractive consequence of this particular combination of unquestioning loyalty and head-butting, has been the advancement in technology and scientific knowledge, the high point of which is the Industrial Revolution (persistent loyalty to one's own concepts and reasoning ability--"nullius in verba"; along with the combative spirit needed to see those ideas through (See my thread on "Reading Galileo": http://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-31530-1.html ).

The unimaginable and horrific downside is the almost absolute destruction of civilization, as the world was witness to, in the twentieth century.
It is why all peoples of the world need to contribute their own particular and unique understanding of governance, and conflict resolution. The world will not continue to exist unless, and until, that occurs.

Marsinah

Now you know your own nature, and the dangers it poses to the rest of humanity.

Any good, thoughtful comments?

Or just the usual inane and profane, and thoughtless "Americanisms"?

thinksense

And your point is ??????????

Marsinah

How about the need to consider the future destruction, self-destruction if you will, of the human species? How could you possibly miss that?

This might be a good place to explain why the German barbarians would just as soon "cleave your skull into two parts" as reason with you. There are actually a number of contributing factors. Here are two: (more will be forthcoming, as I review the situation, past and present):

1. The German, and his descendants, might be afraid that he could be convinced of the "fallacious" or unnecessary nature of his loyal intentions. That is, he might actually come to believe that he might be "wrong" or "mistaken", and that might compromise his natural and German instinct for intense allegiance. God forbid THAT should occur.

2. The German, and his descendants, could possibly believe that the working of his mental functions is not all that swift; that is, before he could use reason to overpower his opponent, his opponent would overpower him, with the sword. Or axe.

[Footnote: These "feelings" are also very apparent in the attitudes of Westerners, and especially American Christians, today. So they believe the worst of Islam and Muslims because they WANT to believe it, not because it is rational to do so. Have you forgotten what I have taught you about the need to properly assess past and present and their implications/explications for the future? I think you have.]

And that brings me to something very, very important that lies in the nature of all men, but most specifically and intensely in the nature of those of Indo-European descent.

Towards the latter part of the 19th century, the Europeans' search for national identity became a grab for power. And that is because they felt if "they" did not have power, the "other" would overwhelm them. I have told you this previously. But I have since realized that these feelings are not limited to that particular period of time, but is always and at all times a part of the nature of men. And it is particularly acute in those of Indo-European descent: the unquestioningly, uncompromisingly loyal head-butting species of man of European descent.

Now I have a question for you: Is this the only comment you could come up with, on a topic of such supreme importance? This is all you were able to think of?

Also, you might have to read this comment at least 40 times, as Averroes did when he read Aristotle (I think Averroes, as one of God's clear-thinking Arabs, may have found Aristotle, a Greek with Indo-European heritage rather cumbersome) before you can completely understand it. Please do your homework!!!

thinksense

What utter Nonsense.

Marsinah

Which part of my topic do you dislike the most, ts? (Short for tough shit).

Marsinah

The world trembles. Truly.

Do you know who Steven Pinker is?

Steven Arthur Pinker (born September 18, 1954) is a Canadian-American cognitive psychologist, linguist, and popular science author. He is Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University, and is known for his advocacy of evolutionary psychology and the computational theory of mind.---Wikipedia.

In a book of his, mainly about mankind and the future thereof, he stated something to this effect: "...according to our best estimate of human nature." To which I responded (to him) that "Your best estimate of human nature is badly flawed, Dr. Pinker." For one, the arrogance, bias and fears of Americans, especially Christian Americans, (as I have related in a previous comment), will surely destine mankind for an early extinction. Not, I repeat, not, anthropogenic global warming as the VELGDS would have you believe.

The world is now getting a better idea of human nature, and in fact, the nature of various peoples.

All of the world, that is, except you, thinksense.

Marsinah

Try this on for size. Anytime fairness butts heads with loyalty, fairness is the trait that takes the hit. That is, when an individual of Indo-European descent is forced to choose between fairness and unquestioning loyalty, he chooses loyalty. He can't help it. It's in his genes. It is what Dawkins (that's Richard D. Dawkins, the world's foremost and eminent atheist) refers to as "tribalism". This individual may attempt to reconcile fairness with loyalty, but that is a rare occurrence, and may in the end cause his "descent" into madness.

Here is a modern example of loyalty, in a scholar: "...a translation which might also, I hoped, be read for pleasure or study, and which would be as LOYAL to Greek and Greek experience as I could make it without involving myself in disloyalty to English. Only by so doing, I thought, could I remain faithful to two languages and two cultures at the same time." (From William Arrowsmith's translation of "The Birds", by Aristophanes.)

The remark I made about American fighting men are known the world over as the finest fighting men in the world was told me by a Muslim cleric, and in the interest of fairness.

And don't try to contest me on this, as your responses have proven to the world that "I" am right. And I believe that was the point of God's trap.

Marsinah

The danger of "unquestioning loyalty" in combination with pernicious head-butting is they may "fight to the death" to save (as they perceive it, they are "saving" something) a civilization that is rotting out from under them. And this "rotting", as I have said before, can most plainly be laid at the door of Socialism, Liberalism, Feminism, Progressivism, and many other "isms".

Try to understand, will you, that Christianity is NOT---repeat, NOT---in competition with Islam. And hasn't been for centuries.

Marsinah

Because of eschatological reasons, 5% of the world's population---the Americans---want to eliminate 22% of that population. The thinking goes something like this: End Times are coming, therefore Israel must be saved, therefore we must wipe out Islam and Muslims.

How do we do that, you may ask? With nukes. And then the End Times will arrive. And humans haven't even gotten into space yet. But that may be a good thing.

Marsinah

The Merry Minuet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z26XJbnpeA

Someone will set the spark off, and we will all be blown away! What nature doesn't do to us, will be done by our fellow man.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp6dsKleGpU

Marsinah

Some things to think about:

Reason rules fairness; it is the passions that rule loyalty. Do you remember Pascal's statement that the heart hath reasons that reason itself cannot fathom?

Also, do you remember what I have said in the past on this forum, again and again, that when John of the Gospel said "God sent His light..." he meant that God sends his light in different ways at different times to different peoples, according to their nature? Just as the wise mother adjusts her nurturing to suit the nature of each of her children. That is, what appeals to and strengthens one child may not work with another.

The Qu'ran addresses fairness explicitly and specifically, especially insofar as a man's business dealings and relations with his wives are concerned. It is an Arab thing. And may have developed from, or contributed to, the extreme amount of coordination needed to move 100 to 200 camels and cameliers thousands of miles from one part of the world to another. (You know camels: they spit and kick and are an otherwise all around mean creature. But helpful. In fact called the Pearl of the Desert, where it counts.)

And that is why the Christian approaches God through and with his heart; the Muslim with his mind.

I informed my friend the Muslim cleric who had told me that American fighting men were known the world over for being the finest fighting men on earth, that he was being too gentle (I am still angry at America and Americans. Notice I did not say "hate", only anger. It is not the same. What a shame I should even have to explain that.) He said it is not gentleness; it is only fairness.

That same Muslim cleric reminded me that Jewish Law, though fair, was harsh, and that is was Christ's message of love and forgiveness that softened the Law for the Gentiles. I repeated what I have said before on OPP, that the Jewish people at the time Christ appeared were crying out to God for mercy and forgiveness. The people had changed; the Law remained rigid. And so God sent Jesus, who is revered among Muslims as well.

My point is this (since some OPP posters have trouble figuring it out): Islam may or may not be a religion of peace; it is, however, a religion of fairness.

And it is man's reason that rules fairness; his passions, his heart, that rules loyalty.