God and morality

[popeye1945]

Does "our own" mean the same thing for large societies as it does for a small group or "gang"?

YES! The proverbial group is the one you belong to.

Can a person belong to both a gang and a nation? And if so, does one override the other if push comes to shove?

That is why, presently, in the States, they are changing the laws so that a politician in government cannot hold dual citizenship. So, yes, they can conflict. Muslims establishing places in government is the formation of a fifth column in the midst of the America they hate.

[Gary Childress]

YES! The proverbial group is the one you belong to.

Can a person belong to both a gang and a nation? And if so, does one override the other if push comes to shove?

That is why, presently, in the States, they are changing the laws so that a politician in government cannot hold dual citizenship. So, yes, they can conflict. Muslims establishing places in government is the formation of a fifth column in the midst of the America they hate.

Is a person who is both a member of a gang and a member of a nation someone with "dual citizenship"?

[popeye1945]

Can a person belong to both a gang and a nation? And if so, does one override the other if push comes to shove?

That is why, presently, in the States, they are changing the laws so that a politician in government cannot hold dual citizenship. So, yes, they can conflict. Muslims establishing places in government is the formation of a fifth column in the midst of the America they hate.

Is a person who is both a member of a gang and a member of a nation someone with "dual citizenship"?

Not if they are homegrown.

[Gary Childress]

That is why, presently, in the States, they are changing the laws so that a politician in government cannot hold dual citizenship. So, yes, they can conflict. Muslims establishing places in government is the formation of a fifth column in the midst of the America they hate.

Is a person who is both a member of a gang and a member of a nation someone with "dual citizenship"?

Not if they are homegrown.

So if someone is "homegrown" (born in a particular nation) they cannot be someone with "dual citizenship" with another nation? Or what does "homegrown" mean?

[popeye1945]

Is a person who is both a member of a gang and a member of a nation someone with "dual citizenship"?

Not if they are homegrown.

So if someone is "homegrown" (born in a particular nation) they cannot be someone with "dual citizenship" with another nation? Or what does "homegrown" mean?

Well, if they are not political organizations, the government doesn't really worry about them; Satan's Choice is not a threat, nor are street gangs. Muslim military ideology is another thing. The nation needs to wake up and understand that these are enemies by their own definition.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I desire to shine a light onto some things which you apparently cannot see or are willfully ignoring.

You are defending some aspects of Catholicism. If you answered some "knotty questions", then it would show that you have thought about the questions and answers. In terms of "mass migration", the church is arguing that it's not socially and economically harmful to the host country and that the needs of migrants outweigh any small harm to the hosts.

One can say that Francis' position on was in line with the teachings of Jesus. It's not radical from the Christian perspective. You can start with Matthew 5:43-48

First it is clear that many pronouncements have been made by Church authorities in respect to immigration. And it is indeed true that Francis held to radical notions about this issue innour immediate present. You might even say that he favored the massive illegal migration into the US that has become a hot topic, as well as that of Europe.

But again I point out that Catholic opinion is not monolithic. And Francis’s ideas, interpretations and actions aroused much opposition. The politics here are quite complex and I assume of zero interest to you.

But in my view, based on my limited reading of the material, it would not be possible to argue coherently for the recent immigration flux either in the US or in Europe, nor to claim that encouraging it and allowing it is defensible in a strict Christian sense. I already outlined enough of the common sense reasoning in other posts. In Europe certainly and beyond any doubt (France and England are examples) the allowed and encouraged influx has done tangible harm to the native culture. Full stop. That does not reflect or encourage “charity”. It is provoking civil conflict.

I think that you are arguing that despite consequences as these that it is Christian to allow it or encourage it, but I think that argument cannot stand.

[MikeNovack]

That is why, presently, in the States, they are changing the laws so that a politician in government cannot hold dual citizenship. So, yes, they can conflict. Muslims establishing places in government is the formation of a fifth column in the midst of the America they hate.

HOWEVER -- that can be complicated in cases where the person is UNABLE to not have dual-citizenship. In other words, they can declare giving up a citizenship but the country in question might refuse to recognize that.

Consider the role this played in US history during the led-up to the War of "1812" << Britain refused to recognize born in Britain not British subjects >> Back when I was in university, a classmate a classmate could not risk entering Greece because would have been drafted (he was born in the US but his PARENTS had come from Greece)

The laws should be framed accordingly, requiring only that the person renounce any other citizenship they might hold) and that "dual-citizenship" not apply to situations were only {POTENTIAL (some other country would grant citizenship "by right" to this person if/when asked for)

And stop this Islamophobia! You are NOT properly describing all Muslims.

[Alexis Jacobi]

If there are factions and debates within Catholicism, or in Christianity, then it's not an objective morality or theology.

I think I sort of get what you are trying to argue, but it seems silly to even attempt to respond. I suppose you would have to examine the basis of Christian and Catholic social doctrine as it developed in an historical process. Indeed over centuries. Was everything decided and determined beforehand? Obviously not.

There are debates and conflicts within the Catholic world, as within the Christian world. I do not think it changes the fact that there exists a common thread, a general impetus, or foundations.

And perhaps it has no more authority backing it up than something like secular humanism.

Depends on how you define “authority”, doesn’t it? I think you need to clarify what you are really driving at.

It seems unlikely that the critical change came in the 1950s and 1960s since the Protestants had issues hundreds of years prior to that time. The important question would be ... was the position of the church closer to what Jesus taught before or after that time?

Within Catholicism I can assure you that the 1950s and 1960s (Vatican ll) ushered in changes that have very much damaged Catholicism. However, the time itself was independently radical and it is debated coherently if a rigid and traditional Catholic Church could have staved off the degeneration. It might have made it worse (say some).

was the position of the church closer to what Jesus taught before or after that time?

That is the more interesting question of your group. The body of Church teaching is accumulative. Yes, the Gospel Jesus is the chief inspiration no doubt. But the Gospel Jesus is not the only source or influence. Christian revelation encountered the Greek world and the Greek philosophical schools and Catholic Christianity arises from a synthesis.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, this occurs, and these individuals end up in prison.

No, they usually don't.

There's nothing about seeking one's own interests that makes what you do guaranteed to be illegal...it may just be selfish. And selfishness isn't a crime. It's usually not punished at all. But it's still the opposite of the interests of others.

So what is in one person's interest is never also in the interest of anyone else? Is that correct?

You should read what I write, Gary...not invent things and try to put them in my mouth. What I said is that selfishness is not usually treated as illegal. And it's pretty darn common. Selfish people don't inevitably end up in prison, as popeye says.

[promethean75]

"You should read what I write, Gary...not invent things and try to put them in my mouth."

It was actually a question that he aksed there. You'll note the question mark at the end indicating the mood of the statement.

So, Gary is not putting words in your mouf... but he is, indeed, aksing if you have words in your mouf.

[Immanuel Can]

So, Gary is not putting words in your mouf... but he is, indeed, aksing if you have words in your mouf.

My "mouf" will speak for itself, thanks.

[Gary Childress]

No, they usually don't.

There's nothing about seeking one's own interests that makes what you do guaranteed to be illegal...it may just be selfish. And selfishness isn't a crime. It's usually not punished at all. But it's still the opposite of the interests of others.

So what is in one person's interest is never also in the interest of anyone else? Is that correct?

You should read what I write, Gary...not invent things and try to put them in my mouth. What I said is that selfishness is not usually treated as illegal. And it's pretty darn common. Selfish people don't inevitably end up in prison, as popeye says.

I know you said that. I read it. I was asking about the part of your comment I highlighted in red.

[Immanuel Can]

So what is in one person's interest is never also in the interest of anyone else? Is that correct?

You should read what I write, Gary...not invent things and try to put them in my mouth. What I said is that selfishness is not usually treated as illegal. And it's pretty darn common. Selfish people don't inevitably end up in prison, as popeye says.

I know you said that. I read it. I was asking about the part of your comment I highlighted in red.

Selfishness is the opposite of the interests of others. Yes. That's true. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

[Gary Childress]

You should read what I write, Gary...not invent things and try to put them in my mouth. What I said is that selfishness is not usually treated as illegal. And it's pretty darn common. Selfish people don't inevitably end up in prison, as popeye says.

I know you said that. I read it. I was asking about the part of your comment I highlighted in red.

Selfishness is the opposite of the interests of others. Yes. That's true. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

My question was to determine if YOU knew that. The way you worded it sounded like you thought self-interest was always the opposite of collective interest.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Of course, you may not care about what Jesus taught. You may only interested in the RCC as a "successful corporation" which delivered growth and profit to Europe. Some of what you write, sounds like that. So it then becomes a discussion of management rather than theology.

I have a few thoughts on that topic. You are right in a sense that I am interested in a “successful corporation” though I would put it differently. I find that I am most essentially interested in Europe, European culture & history, the people of Europe (and yes as a diverse “race” which indeed it is), and in all of that there are a few different strains: practical, spiritual, and religious.

You must take into account that along the intellectual path I traveled I exposed myself to what are now ‘forbidden texts” such as Madison Grant’s The Passing of the Great Race and Lothrop Stoddard’s The Rising Tide of Color. These were accepted texts and ideas in the early 20th century but, in processes of transvaluation of values, what was esteemed and valued at one moment, is reviled, critiqued and excluded in another.

By disposition I have “racialist” tendencies, but this is very different from “being a racist”. So I define myself as chauvinistic in respect to Europe. (Better put: a modified chauvinism). And I feel no shame in this. I see no reason why any people should be forced to deny their own self-unity or to accept doctrines of views that cause them to turn against themselves. And my view is that European man has undergone a process of “turning against himself”. This is a catastrophe and a crisis. So this must be considered if we are to think about “charity in the Christian sense”.

I already explained that by way of contact with Bork and Weaver (and Nietzsche) that I began a process of quite radical examination and self-examination. I forced myself to read what are the essential forbidden texts. I read Houston Chamberlain and though I tried to read Mein Kampf I just couldn’t get through it. But more interesting was Hans FK Gunther’s The Religious Attitudes of the Indo-Europeans. I read early Huxley and I can assure you that Proper Studies would be condemned as ‘fascistic’ today. It is radical (Interwar) material. I guess people should feel relief he took mescaline and tripped-out on his trousers …

What I can report to you now is that in the most essentialist way, and also a hair romantically, I seem to be most concerned about the processes of both unity and of disunity in Europe. (America’s relationship to ‘that’ is complex naturally, but I am not at all a fan of Americanism. In its present state it represents derangement and is also dangerous).

When we think of “Europe” and “Christian culture” we have to consider at least 1,000 years of complex history. It begins with Roman conquest and the establishment of civic traditions. It is all extremely gritty, tooth and nail, violent in so many ways (like all human history) but there is a process and a trajectory and the influence of Christian philosophy (how else to put it?) permeates it.

Ultimately, I would submit to an overarching and undergirding civilized and yes Christian structure rather than any tendentious alternative as are sprouting up in our present.

I am merely a particle spun out of a degenerate culture and civilization and long ‘causal chains’ of events that one lives through and one embodies most often unconsciously until there is a point where one can become “self-conscious” and then choose to modify oneself, recondition oneself and deliberately choose the higher and the better routes.

What are those higher and better routes?

My closest contact with Christian ethics has come by way of Catholic moral teachings and as I say Catholic ‘social doctrines’. These are all elaborated expositions whose base is the Gospel Jesus as well as the Jewish Prophets and expressed through Greek intellectual concepts.