(FB 1544286004 Timestamp) THE HOLE IN CHRISTIANITY IS OPENNESS TO NON-KIN – THE SOLUTION, LEGISLATION AGAINST INCOMPATIBLE RELIGIONS by Jennifer Dean The problem with Christianity as I see it is not tolerance – Christians are PLENTY intolerant (in some ways I agree with and others I do not) – the problem is that Christians have an inability to recognize many of the things they are intolerant to, when it comes to outsiders or foreigners, and instead mostly prefer to enforce intolerance on their own kind. Look at the Amish to see the most exaggerated example of what I mean, they use shunning and excommunication over the most petty things you could imagine. Rule enforcement for the sake of sheer submission. And while their ability to preserve their way of life is admirable in some ways, obviously it is only possible within a larger context of free riding, and their way of life is all or nothing. T hey might seem to be an extreme or unusual example of Christianity, but the same elements of submission and intolerance are present in other denominations, only the others have allowed outsiders to infiltrate and subvert their doctrine. I believe legislating Christianity, in this country, would have been a disaster. The fundamental problem is that it is still welcoming of outsiders and converts (civnat at the religious level and indeed, where civnat comes from) for the sake of winning souls to Christ, and THAT is the loophole that outsiders have exploited. The better strategy would have been to have legislation AGAINST Judaism, Talmudism, Babylonian mysticism, Satanism, Luciferianism (as we already do have some legislation against Islam, but unfortunately we needed more and what we have has not been enforced) and to educate people on the dangers of these religious ideologies, and their hidden, very real and very very sick practices of human sacrifice (of INNOCENTS – not murderers, criminals, undesirables, but BABIES. CHILDREN.), pedophilia and child marriage. But the problem is due to the convert loophole in Christianity, they simply come in anyway and hide in our midst, and kidnap our children and traffic them. (CD: well done)
Form: Quote Commentary
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1544292814 Timestamp) —“Iâve had enough of your heresies. Time to part ways.”—Matthew McLester In other words: “I’m taking by room-temperature-iq-ball and going home, because disapproval and rejection is my only substitute for argument.” I don’t write for simple people. I write the law that governs all people, not just the simple. 😉
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1544286004 Timestamp) THE HOLE IN CHRISTIANITY IS OPENNESS TO NON-KIN – THE SOLUTION, LEGISLATION AGAINST INCOMPATIBLE RELIGIONS by Jennifer Dean The problem with Christianity as I see it is not tolerance – Christians are PLENTY intolerant (in some ways I agree with and others I do not) – the problem is that Christians have an inability to recognize many of the things they are intolerant to, when it comes to outsiders or foreigners, and instead mostly prefer to enforce intolerance on their own kind. Look at the Amish to see the most exaggerated example of what I mean, they use shunning and excommunication over the most petty things you could imagine. Rule enforcement for the sake of sheer submission. And while their ability to preserve their way of life is admirable in some ways, obviously it is only possible within a larger context of free riding, and their way of life is all or nothing. T hey might seem to be an extreme or unusual example of Christianity, but the same elements of submission and intolerance are present in other denominations, only the others have allowed outsiders to infiltrate and subvert their doctrine. I believe legislating Christianity, in this country, would have been a disaster. The fundamental problem is that it is still welcoming of outsiders and converts (civnat at the religious level and indeed, where civnat comes from) for the sake of winning souls to Christ, and THAT is the loophole that outsiders have exploited. The better strategy would have been to have legislation AGAINST Judaism, Talmudism, Babylonian mysticism, Satanism, Luciferianism (as we already do have some legislation against Islam, but unfortunately we needed more and what we have has not been enforced) and to educate people on the dangers of these religious ideologies, and their hidden, very real and very very sick practices of human sacrifice (of INNOCENTS – not murderers, criminals, undesirables, but BABIES. CHILDREN.), pedophilia and child marriage. But the problem is due to the convert loophole in Christianity, they simply come in anyway and hide in our midst, and kidnap our children and traffic them. (CD: well done)
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1544292814 Timestamp) —“Iâve had enough of your heresies. Time to part ways.”—Matthew McLester In other words: “I’m taking by room-temperature-iq-ball and going home, because disapproval and rejection is my only substitute for argument.” I don’t write for simple people. I write the law that governs all people, not just the simple. 😉
-
Curt Doolittle shared a link.
(FB 1544393014 Timestamp) THE GERMANIZATION OF CHRISTIANITY The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity: A Sociohistorical Approach to Religious Transformation —“While historians of Christianity have generally acknowledged some degree of Germanic influence in the development of early medieval Christianity, Russell goes further, arguing for a fundamental Germanic reinterpretation of Christianity. This first full-scale treatment of the subject follows a truly interdisciplinary approach, applying to the early medieval period a sociohistorical method similar to that which has already proven fruitful in explicating the history of Early Christianity and Late Antiquity. The encounter of the Germanic peoples with Christianity is studied from within the larger context of the encounter of a predominantly “world-accepting” Indo-European folk-religiosity with predominantly “world-rejecting” religious movements. While the first part of the book develops a general model of religious transformation for such encounters, the second part applies this model to the Germano-Christian scenario. Russell shows how a Christian missionary policy of temporary accommodation inadvertently contributed to a reciprocal Germanization of Christianity.”— https://www.amazon.com/Germanization-Early-Medieval-Christianity-Sociohistorical/dp/0195104668/
-
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
(FB 1544392586 Timestamp) WHAT MEANEST THOU? 😉 —I need no faith. I need only the necessity of action. Faith is for those so poor in assets, character,agency,and will that they seek excuses for action, inaction, success and failure. That cowardice is for The Herd. Men satisfy the need for action & consequence and learn from it.— Deflation: Decidability > Confidence > Trust > Belief > Faith
- belief: Meaning “conviction of the truth of a proposition or alleged fact without knowledge” is by 1530s; it is also “sometimes used to include the absolute conviction or certainty which accompanies knowledge”
faith: From early 14c. as “assent of the mind to the truth of a statement for which there is incomplete evidence,” especially “belief in religious matters” (matched with hope and charity). Since mid-14c. in reference to the Christian church or religion; from late 14c. in reference to any religious persuasion.
trust: from Old Norse traust “help, confidence, protection, support,” from Proto-Germanic abstract noun *traustam (source also of Old Frisian trast, Dutch troost “comfort, consolation,” Old High German trost “trust, fidelity,” German Trost “comfort, coâ¦See More
confidence: From mid-15c. as “reliance on one’s own powers, resources, or circumstances, self-assurance.” Meaning “certainty of a proposition or assertion, sureness with regard to a fact” is from 1550s.
Deconflation into series allows us to see the insane precision ofthe huge vocabulary in the english language Decidability > Confidence(self) > Trust(other) > Belief(possibility) > Faith(religion-higher power, beyond ken)
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1544380948 Timestamp) GENDER BIOCHEMISTRY by Bill Joslin As far as I can tell – testosterone in men increases in-group loyalty and bonding (ingroup preference) but not out-group hostility. Oxytocin in women increases out-group hostility. This makes sense. Women in charge of young (reduced mobility and defense) by being outgroup sensitive would afford “proximity” sensing for a group (enemies are at the gates). Men who must then defend, do so cooperatively and this ingroup loyalty would have men fight to protect each other (opposed to fighting to kill an enemy or flee and abandon brothers). The two together: female-low resolution high sensitivity may not provide much detail in assessing the quality of a threat (those strangers might not be hostile, they might be, but might not be) – where as men, driven by loyalty will approach and assess the threat (they are not necessarily out-group hostile) and if it is a threat will not flee, but rather stand and defend. So we have a binary, at a distance, early warning (female) coupled with a spectrum, approach and assess defense (male). Our current migrant sentiment might be best seen as a female out-group hostility turned in on the ingroup (toward their own males due to feminist political power seeking) coupled with or playing off males low outgroup hostility and high loyalty (to their woman). We might harp on the girls in Curt’s circles – but it is the gals through mate selection who drive changes in males (hypergamy creates male hierarchy and selects for robustness and agression or the inverse as laid-out above). Girls maketh the man. It’s then males that provide a counter-balance. Women drive changes, men constrain the tails.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1544310847 Timestamp) by Alex Macleod The magical yellow vest is great, because it has no significance or association (not even the motoring association really) and is anonymous, anyone can ‘take up arms’ under this banner, for any purpose, and it can deflect all the accusations thrown at known flags and regalia of left or right or centre. The powers are much diminished in their ability to ‘know your enemy’.
-
Curt Doolittle shared a link.
(FB 1544393014 Timestamp) THE GERMANIZATION OF CHRISTIANITY The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity: A Sociohistorical Approach to Religious Transformation —“While historians of Christianity have generally acknowledged some degree of Germanic influence in the development of early medieval Christianity, Russell goes further, arguing for a fundamental Germanic reinterpretation of Christianity. This first full-scale treatment of the subject follows a truly interdisciplinary approach, applying to the early medieval period a sociohistorical method similar to that which has already proven fruitful in explicating the history of Early Christianity and Late Antiquity. The encounter of the Germanic peoples with Christianity is studied from within the larger context of the encounter of a predominantly “world-accepting” Indo-European folk-religiosity with predominantly “world-rejecting” religious movements. While the first part of the book develops a general model of religious transformation for such encounters, the second part applies this model to the Germano-Christian scenario. Russell shows how a Christian missionary policy of temporary accommodation inadvertently contributed to a reciprocal Germanization of Christianity.”— https://www.amazon.com/Germanization-Early-Medieval-Christianity-Sociohistorical/dp/0195104668/
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1544306457 Timestamp) A PROFOUND LESSON IN AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL MEANING —“Curt, First of all, I’ll correct a point you make that is actually mistaken. It’s commonly made by leftists in connection with the First Amendment: …”The rule of law does not protect the people other than it limits the state, under the courts, to actions permitted in the constitution…”… No, it also obliges the state to protect its citizens from infringement of rights posed by others. … Two, the constitution is not absolutist. It is not law that encodes in itself as law indelibility. That being said, although I am not a constitutional law expert, I believe that it does enshrine a set of principles that cannot be controverted by subseqâ¦See More —“…rule of law…obliges the state..”—- Does it? Read the constitution and find that. You wont. And its very interesting that you wont. The inference is in the preamble, and in the second paragraph of the declaration. Why? under our constitution we are all just ordinary peers (equals) contracting the services of government from one another and we are all responsible for one another under that rule of traditional english, anglo saxon, germanic proto germanic, common law we call tort under nomocracy. Government without rulers: rule of law. We bear the burden. We bear that burden in order to prevent the redevelopment of Rule. The rule the left has sought to restore. By circumventing the constitution via the weakness in it: the supreme court’s ability to make law. “Every man a citizen, a sheriff, a warrior, a sovereign”. We are not continental serfs, or obliged britons. We are americans – and the state but a service like any other we consume. and if that is no longer the case, then we are equally permitted under our declaration and constitution to replace this government which restores our rule and revokes rule from that government-become-ruler. Curt Doolittle