Clinias wrote:

There is no "spiritual order". The Catholic Church has always taught the "Moral Order". And the Moral Order is God, Spirits (angels), Patrida (fatherland/nation/race), Family, Departed (forefathers of family/fatherland/nation/race). The Moral Order includes all in it, the spiritual and the natural realms. 

Let's suppose so. Are both realms with all their elements equal or does one have priority over the other? And, very importantly, why?

On the French Revolution and the Italian Risorgimento.

Both of these movements is part of the Modern Republican movement. The Father of Modern Republicanism is the atheist Machiavelli which clearly and openly called for the "elimination of the ancient life". Modern Republicanism is just another word for Democracy. 

The German Classicist Karl Otfried Müller was very prescient when he observed:

A democracy likes a large mass and hates all divisions.

And he is describing what happened in Athens. What does that describe?  The essence of Gnosticism! That was Modern Republicanism. The nationalism of the French Revolution and in the Italian Risorgimento is mixed with the Modern Republican movement. Democracy, this hatred of division is what was called by the Greeks "synoceism". (All philosophers need a classical education.)

The trajectory of Modern Republicanism is: The English Civil Wars, Oliver Cromwell's Republic---to---The American Revolution---to---The French Revolution---to---The Italian Risorgimento---to---Hitler's Revolution. 

Modern Republicanism ended Western Civilization!  The atheist Thomas Paine said that: The change of government is a change in civilization. Paine said that twice in his pamphlet Agrarian Justice! Of course, the nationalism of the French, Italians and the Germans (i.e. the Anchluss), is about "ending all divisions" and loving a large mass. 

Modern Republicanism is the carrier of a new civilization. Machiavelli is called the Father of Modern Republicanism. He called for the elimination of the ancient regime. Thomas Paine, another Atheist, continues it. Modern Republicanism is the vehicle for a new civilization, and that of Judeo-Masonic-Bolshevism. The Masons were heavily involved in both the American, French and Italian revolutions. And the basic word is "unification", a Gnostic meme as in "United States", as in "European Union", as in the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". What word reappears? Cognates of "unity". 

I did a study of what is a republic and it is all laid out here with over 150 references, the classical definition and its change into a different meaning: [url=https://www.academia.edu/5280564/​]Classical definition of a republic 5th Rev.[/url]

All these revolutions were a mix of things. One must separate out what is modern republicanism and what is nationalism and of course they intertwined and intersected in many ways as well. Nationalism was mixed with modern republicanism which is democracy. Democracy hates all divisions---democracy is a movement of Gnosticism. That is why one sees the destruction of local and small ethnicities in these revolutions; the submergence/disappearance of provinces and local control over provinces in these revolutions/unifications. 

There are many problems to be sorted out. What many people see as a "problem" of nationalism is really the workings of Modern Republicanism. 



 

Last edited by Clinias (3/06/2018 4:46 pm)

I don't necessarily agree with a lot of what Clinias says, but background to that verse is Christ saying that a coin is Caesar's because it has his image on it. But we, including Caesar, are made in God's image, as the Bible itself says.

Whatever the correct Christian position is on the state, it isn't one of radical dualism, where the state is ulterly outside the consideration or thought for Christians as Christians.

I am not Clinias. In a discussion thread, one might get queries from different posters whose interpretations of one's views are mutually exclusive.

​I admit I was interpreting your comments in the light of past comments from you where you most certainly have very strongly differentiated the citizen from the Christian, to the point of claiming there are different, clashing varieties of morality for each. 

​I don't know if the duties of a Christian and citizen can clash in theory; indeed, I'm inclined to think they can't, as that would imply one was crossing its allotted boundaries and encroaching on the other. But I agree they may in practice, and I'm certainly not saying that being a good citizen is the same as being a good Christian. I would say that being a good citizen (at least in an ideal state) is part of being a good Christian, but it certainly doesn't exhaust it, nor is it even the highest part. For every state that isn't ideal, things get more complicated.

​On nationalism, I have no desire to get drawn into a deep discussion, but I'm inclined to agree that at least some of Clinias's emphasises are misplaced. Nationalism is an ill-defined term. It can mean lots of things, from the belief that, at least in some circumstances, the nation-state is the still the best place to lodge sovereignty to far stronger views on the importance of loyalty to one's nation and, perhaps, race. I agree that the Christian cannot accept the thesis that the nation should take precedence over his identity and faith as a Christian. Obviously, nothing can taken precedence over it. Similarly, I'm certainly not comfortable with too strong an emphasis on race, as is common with more hardline nationalists. But I do think that the nation-state is the best, most realistic way for Britain to be organised today, and I have nothing against a prudent and temperate affection and loyalty to one's nation 

I asked a question at post #24:

"The OP is “Is Christianity incompatible with nationalism?” Well, that is very similar to the Marxist phrase “"Nationalism and Marxism are incompatible." (from Marxist.org)”. The other title of Marxism is International socialism. ...If Nationalism is incompatible with Marxism and If Nationalism is Incompatible with Christianity, then they have the same goals. Then the question is, Is Christianity, Marxism? If not, what is the difference between the teachings of Marxism on nationalism and the teachings of Christianity on Nationalism?"

I would like Seigneur, and other people who agree that Christianity is incompatible with nationalism, give an answer. You have asked me questions, and I have answered them. I would like the above to be answered. What is the difference between the nation-killing of International Socialism and the Christians abandoning their race. I mean something as simple as one's racial identity is nationalism, Seigneur obviously calls into question anything to do with one's racial group is nationalism and is verboten. 

----------------

FZM wrote:

 I don't really understand what you mean when you use the terms 'race' and 'nation'. So what do you mean by race and nation? How should we differentiate between different races and different nations?  

This thing about "race", and "nation" is only an English thing. A native Greek speaker would not be using those words! This is a sign of creating a problem that is provincial and has no bearing in other cultures. A native Greek speaker reading his Bible would constantly see the Greek word "ethnos" He has no trouble understanding that term. In the classroom or talking to his friends he would use the term "ethnos". He is NOT confused over his own language! This problem is peculiar to only the Anglosphere! So trying to make a mountain out of a molehill which only exists in the Anglo-sphere is very superficial. Russians probably don't have this problem either. They wouldn't be using Latin or French words in their academic articles either!

----------------
Prof. Keith Burgess Jackson over at his website quotes from a book  about the Lakotas:

 Almost three decades have passed since the Supreme Court [url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17619608569271514941&q=united+states+v.+sioux+nation&hl=en&as_sdt=6,44&as_vis=1]upheld[/url] the Indian Claims Commission's award of $102 million to the Lakotas. Since then, the award has continued to gain interest. By 2007, the figure was close to $750 million.Over the years, some Lakotas and other Sioux have argued that the tribes should take the money. Some have suggested that funds be distributed directly to families and individuals; others that they be invested in social programs; still others that they be used to purchase lands in the Black Hills and elsewhere. The large majority of Lakotas, however, continue to believe that accepting the money would be the same as endorsing the legitimacy of the government's original taking of the Hills. "The Black Hills are not for sale" remains a fundamental tenet of Lakota nationalism.

(Jeffrey Ostler, The Lakotas and the Black Hills: The Struggle for Sacred Ground, The Penguin Library of American Indian History, ed. Colin G. Calloway [New York: Viking, 2010], 188 [endnote omitted]) {ref: http://keithburgess-jackson.typepad.com/just_philosophy/2018/03/jeffrey-ostler-on-lakota-principle.html }

I guess the simple practice of working to one's tribal/national best interests is incompatible with Christianity?!?! How is Prof. Jeffrey Ostler using that term "nationalism"?  Is it evil. Is Lakota nationalism, evil? What makes the above incompatible with Christianity?  How? These people who say Christianity is incompatible with nationalism are making themselves look ridiculous, painting oneself into a corner, or maybe scootin' themselves over the cliff? 

-------

Leviticus 19:19 King James Version (KJV)=12px19 

Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

That has nothing to do with Jewish Law. Here God is speaking to them about the Natural Order. Here God is expressing His Will. Not even breeds of cattle are to be mixed together but kept separate so their identity and purity of breed remain. 

Again, God says, "Thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled [diverse, in other translations] seed". As St. Paul extrapolated the verse about muzzling the oxen treading the grain to pertain to the clergy receiving recompense for their labor, this verse, connected to the second, surely can be extrapolated to condemn the propaganda of diversity and multiculturalism by the American Catholic hierarchy, right?  I mean one scripture verse is as good as another one, right?  When Jesus says, "Man Lives by EVERY word that proceeds out of the mouth of God", isn't this verse just as valid?

That verse speaks to the Natural Law. God is speaking about the Natural Order here, and not to the Hebrews. That verse is quite salient to any culture at anytime. It speaks to what God wants. That verse is universal. And yet, the practice of the Catholic Church today, is completely abrogating that verse!  Now, if one's nationalism incorporates that verse into his ideology of nationalism---how is that incompatible with Christianity?  See, how the other side is becoming more ridiculous! I would think that verse is fundamental to anybody's nationalism.