The Weaver


My life is but a weaving
Between my Lord and me,

I cannot choose the colours

He worketh steadily.

Oftimes He weaveth sorrow,
And I in foolish pride
Forget He sees the upper
And I, the underside.

Not till the loom is silent
And the shuttles cease to fly
Shall God unroll the canvas
And explain the reason why.

The dark threads are as needful
In the Weaver’s skillful hand
As the threads of gold and silver
In the pattern He has planned.

~  Author Unknown

48 thoughts to “The Weaver”

  1. A beautifully optimistic sentiment. After watching a movie called “The Passion”, last evening, however, I wonder how Jesus could have reconciled Himself to that attitude when He was crucified… The enormity of that act inspires deep consideration. Easter is upon us!

  2. Dark threads are not needed
    just cuz they exist
    their fabric to be weeded
    and pummeled into grist

    Praise Jesus


  3. The following is an excerpt from Cesar Tort’s web site The West’s Darkest Hour. I urge everyone to visit his web page and read this eleven part series (to date), “Why Europeans must reject Christianity.”

    As we enter a new dark age of speech and thought suppression, one must consider the Church’s role in bringing forth the first dark age of speech and thought suppression. It is imperative that non-Jews fully understand the wholly destructive influence the three Judaic religions have wrought on the non-Jewish nations of western culture.

    I personally know Christians that maintain ideas of a flat earth and the geocentric concept of the solar system. Christians who believe dinosaurs and dragons were present with man and a race of giant demi-gods existed that walked among men. White civilization is rejecting its ancient cultural heritage in favor of religious fervor, of merely believing in Jewish fantasies instead of seeking proof and truth.

    There is a creative force of intelligence and design. Non-Jews need to recognize the Jew’s religious nature that for millennium, has merely been a vehicle to enrich Jews (primarily those among the elite). Knowing this, non-Jews must reject the Jew’s definition and description of that force.

    Why Europeans must reject Christianity, 10

    by Ferdinand Bardamu

    Section IV: Christianity and the narrowing of the Western intellectual horizon

    Christians declared all-out war on the secular foundations of the Roman state. In doing so, they inevitably attacked Rome’s tradition of great art and architecture, as well as the vast storehouses of scientific and technical knowledge that had been accumulated over the centuries. Christians who desired the total eradication of paganism had nothing viable with which to replace the secular culture of the late antique world.

    Many Christians, conscious of the inferiority of their own religious traditions when compared to the majestic scientific and philosophical achievements of Western culture, attacked secular learning out of envy and spite. This intellectual poverty of the Christian religion induced a significant narrowing of Western intellectual horizons. The entrenchment and consolidation of the Nicene state religious cult obviated the necessity of a classical education for worldly success. Many pursued a religious vocation instead, an option that suddenly became attractive as the Christian church increased in power and influence.

    The 4th century witnessed the dismantlement of the public education system by zealous Christians, who were disgusted with the paganism of the classical academic curriculum. The Christian emperors, unlike their pagan antecedents, did not patronize secular philosophy and science; the administrative apparatus responsible for disbursement of state funds, now controlled by an ecclesiastical bureaucracy, withheld them in the case of teachers who specialized in the classics. This angered many of the last remaining pagans of late antiquity, who bitterly complained about the role of Christianity in spreading a general lack of interest in pursuing a secular education.

    A man with a classical education was no longer as highly esteemed as he once was before the age of Constantine. The leaders of the empire’s most powerful institution, the church, contemptuously dismissed their learning as mere “worldly wisdom.” In the eyes of the church, reliance on the faculty of reason alone was the mark of demonic possession, a path fraught with snares for lost souls on the way to eternal damnation in the fires of hell.

    This made the educated man condescending and arrogant, as well as too sophisticated for the simple message of the gospels, which he derided as a collection of childish fables. An educated man would also question Christian doctrine, even embrace heresy, making him especially dangerous from an ecclesiastical point of view. The existence of the classical curriculum posed a significant obstacle to the imperial policy of Christianization. By downgrading and marginalizing the pursuit of a secular education, the church was able to gradually eliminate this threat, producing a more docile public, like the sheep in the parables of Jesus. From now on, Christians like Martin of Tours would have more important things to do than learn how to read and write.

    The final triumph of orthodoxy over reason is enshrined in the church’s canon law, which forbade clergy and laity from reading the secular literature of antiquity. This canonical prohibition was famously enforced by Pope Gregory I, who severely reprimanded his bishops for instructing students in classical literature. “One mouth cannot praise both Christ and Jupiter at the same time,” thundered Gregory from the Papal See in Rome.

    The Church controlled all medieval scriptoria in Europe. Advice to monks from church leadership, ordering them to despise all secular knowledge as “foolishness in the eyes of god,” exercised a damaging influence on the scribal transmission of classical literature, merely strengthening the clerical refusal to not copy works of pagan origin. What followed was the inevitable loss of the knowledge needed to run an advanced pre-industrial society.

    This only worsened and prolonged the Dark Ages, reducing Europeans to a Neolithic existence in the process. Gregory’s hatred of Rome’s secular past was so fierce he was rumored to have personally hunted down and burnt every copy of Titus Livy’s History he could get his hands on. The Library of the Palatine Apollo, first established by Augustus in Rome, was burnt to the ground on his orders. This was to protect the faithful from being contaminated by the “poison” of secular Greek and Latin literature.

    Isidore of Seville was the only real “intellectual” for 200 years of western European history. His Etymologies, the most popular and widely used textbook of the Middle Ages, was written in support of Christian “fundamentalism.” Although unsurpassed in topical comprehensiveness, Isidore’s intellectual depth and range of knowledge are considerably inferior to the Roman encyclopedists who preceded him.

    Isidore lived in a geocentric universe enclosed within a rotating star-studded sphere, not unlike the cosmology of the ancient Hebrews. Between the flat earth and the outer sphere are seven concentric inner spheres. The concept of infinite space was completely alien to Isidore’s way of thinking; the universe is a small place with definite boundaries. The fact that all knowledge could be summarized in a single volume shows how drastically intellectual horizons had narrowed under Christian influence. Isidore regarded all pagan science and philosophy as heresy anathema to right-thinking Christians.

    The church, using the Etymologies as a guide, censored and suppressed the pagan literature quoted in its pages. Isidore further denigrated intellectual curiosity as “dangerous” and “harmful.” Isidore’s widely influential Monastic Rule warned monks of the dangers of reading pagan literature; the rule stated that ideally monks should be completely ignorant of all secular knowledge. Isidore’s condemnation of secular knowledge reinforced the prevailing “fundamentalist” orthodoxy of the church, which demanded the censorship and suppression of all pagan science and philosophy.

    1. Arch –

      Good one.

      I particularly agree with this:

      “There is a creative force of intelligence and design. Non-Jews need to recognize the Jew’s religious nature that for millennium, has merely been a vehicle to enrich Jews (primarily those among the elite). Knowing this, non-Jews must reject the Jew’s definition and description of that force.”


      Most disregard and hide our creative abilities, and follow the wrong forces…. Too many follow jew religious ideas. That give jews power. That MUST stop before anyone can escape the jew grip on their minds and HABITS..!!

      1. Pat

        I wonder if Ol’ Tom Paine considered the crucifixion ITSELF a jew religious idea. One that empowered the jews in getting the world to think they killed him when the truth could be that they never laid a HAND on him!

        How’s that fer “anti-christian” thinking?


      2. B-Hawk –

        Good to see ya…

        I doubt he would have remarked that as you wrote.

        Tom wrote:

        “My own opinion is, that those whose lives have been spent in doing good, and endeavouring to make their fellow-mortals happy, for this is the only way in which we can serve God, will be happy hereafter: and that the very wicked will meet with some punishment. This is my opinion. It is consistent with my idea of God’s justice, and with the reason that God has given me.”

        He believed in a Creator God…… and NOT any religions. He would not believe anything jews wrote about…. in the NT.

        He wrote:
        “The book called the New Testament, which I hold to be fabulous and have shown to be false…”


      3. If the primary message of Christ is that Creation itself is the supreme act of love, and that those who accept this will experience eternal consciousness in it’s Divine embrace, then I challenge someone to tell me why it took him dying on a cross in excruciating pain to IMPART the message? Tell me what makes that an exemplary act of an avatar? Could it be that this is merely more rationalizing of jew lies?

        Christ conquered death…those who choose life will do the same

      4. @ Brownhawk

        “…I challenge someone to tell me why it took him dying on a cross in excruciating pain to IMPART the message?”

        The Father tried spiritually giving direction to man. Those lusting for power and wealth falsified the Father’s spiritual direction. They presented the Father as a hate filled killer, eliminated the commandment of loving each other, established a cult of killing animals to keep the Father happy, and then had the balls to call themselves the chosen of the Father.

        Because the Father is a loving God as Jesus said in John 3:16, he sent his Son in the flesh to reestablish the truth by his words and by example, man to man. Jesus had to die and be resurrected to prove his message to be valid. Obviously, it worked since we still celebrate his resurrection 2,000 years later in spite of the efforts of those still denying his existence and message.

        Happy Easter!

      5. Sorry Ungenius

        I used to think that way, but I’m having serious doubts about Jesus NEEDING to die in order for the message to be valid

        I hope we can pursue this farther down the road, as long as darkmoon can stay above water that is!


    2. Arch, 3 and a half billion of the earths 6 billion people BELIEVE in the true G D, are WE all wrong?.

      1. @ Harry
        (re Arch Stanton)

        No, Harry, if 3.5 billion people believe in Christianity and Arch Stanton doesn’t, then 3.5 billion people are wrong. This is because Arch Stanton, who has a very high opinion of his own intellect and a very low opinion of everyone else’s, is ALWAYS right. He is the soul of tolerance too, respecting your right to remain unmolested with your religious beliefs while he defecates gloriously on them.

        This man has verbal intelligence and book learning, but he has the emotional intelligence of a retard. He abuses this website frequently by pasting long off-topic comments here. He doesn’t do this on the Occidental Observer because he knows damn well he wouldn’t get away with it there! Kevin Mac wouldn’t let him. But he gets away with it here, and being a man without moral principle, he takes advantage of Lasha Darkmoon’s easy natured kindness to spit on her most cherished religious beliefs.

      2. @ Harry

        “…Arch, 3 and a half billion of the earths 6 billion people BELIEVE in the true G D, are WE all wrong..?”

        Classical argumentum ad populum :

        “In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for “argument to the people”) is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: “If many believe so, it is so.”

      3. FR, I don’t claim that due to the numbers the 3.5 billion must be right, I ask, are WE all wrong?.

      4. franklin, argumentum ad populum, just like its siamese twin, that someone is right by fiat of authority, judicial, academic or ecclesiastical boils down to the same thing: inability to distinguish quality from quantity, a designer label fallacy that an expensive t-shirt is automatically better better than a cheap one.

        and guess who has instilled this pavlovian response in the people – yes.

        arch has a right to speak his mind but without aggressively asserting some doctrine, “i am right because i am right, which gives me the right”, which is the essence of judaism, “we are chosen by our tribal g-d, which we impose onto you, the goyim as the universal creator and for this reason you must meekly as good noahides accept our superiority in allmatters, throw away your minds, your freedom of thought, speech and decision, this is the prerogative of the chosen and your worthless souls are our master’s property”.
        see it spelt out here in micah 4:5

        “For all peoples go forward, each in the name of its god, while WE go forward in the name of Yahweh OUR god for ever and ever”

        can it possibly be any clearer, the astronomical hypocrisy, how JEW perfectly understands that his shit deity is just a domestic demon that he sells to you as the Creator of Cosmos? why? in order to put you in the shackles of eternal slavery, that’s why, and anyone arguing that Jesus comes from this moral septic hole is worse than jew. much worse. iscariot did it for 30 silver pieces, the going price of a slave back then but these others do it for free, snap this gyve around my neck and toss the key away.
        i.e., jew prevarication in saecula saeculorum, as befits their father, the liar, the murderer.

        whether arch realizes it or not, irrelevant to everybody but himself, is to come to full realization that the above circularity is the exact opposite, an insult to the Logos principle of Christ.

        reject Christ, what do i care but don’t sell me fallacies in support, like “because it is the product of judaism”.
        such fake reasoning is music to jew’s long pointy ears.

      5. as an added point, i get tired of hearing stuff like “scientific method has supplanted the religious mumbo jumbo” and how “science disproves existence of supernatural”.
        such arguments are as disingenuous as they are specious, a haymaker insult to both science and religion.

        because the scientific method is very clear in delineating its boundaries, to what can be replicated and observed under controlled conditions.
        this is an absolute KEY point.
        a good scientist recognizes it and does not prostitute it in other realms, especially the non-material ones.
        if science is acknowledged to be founded on a systems of various strictly defined, invariable metrics, then to try to extend it into spheres expressly defined as beyond such metrics is a criminal folly.

        because there is hardly a greater fool than the one asserting that what he doesn’t see cannot possibly exist.
        or setting up tainted straw man, like “there are corrupt clergy, msm is full of such stories, they mislead sheeple into submission to zionism, therefore there ain’t no god” … bravo, what virtuosity of impeccable logic, don’t let the punch bowl detract from the beauty of the turd.

      6. @Lobro

        Yes, science is the method to investigate the material world by means of physical observation and reasoning. By definition it can only make pronouncements about the material world. It is a fallacy to conclude that a supra-material world does not exist because it cannot be perceived by physical senses.

      7. @ Harry

        If 3,5 billion people are not wrong, then they must be right. Not wrong = right.

      8. franklin, when i think a bit more about it, the following strikes an audible chord.

        the priceless gift of scientific method, itself a gift of merciless mathematical abstraction, pruning out the redundant and confusing, is the need for clarity and precision in setting out one’s first principles, the axioms and the rules of inference, from which everything follows.
        where mathematics can propose ANY axioms whatever and follow wherever they lead (like a board game defined by pieces and rules of play, completely abstract, no need for similes to the physical world), physical sciences are constrained by the empiricism of observation, acknowledgment of relativity of instrument accuracy and possibility of latent confounders and cofactors, so that it is based part on accuracy and part on probabilistic schemes.
        all of this is part of scientific honesty – thanks.

        but, science had its own galileo moment when gödel published his magnum opus, the proof of undecidability and incompleteness theorem, whereby he proved mathematically that any logical system that maps isometrically, i.e., one-to-one, to an equivalent arithmetic, algebraic or geometric system MUST contain propositions that are meta-mathematically true, obvious to a child, but unprovable within the system itself and moreover, the impossibility of proving within such a system (a non-trivial system with potentially an infinitude of valid propositions that can be tackled with deductive tools at disposal) the assertion of consistency, i.e., that it does not harbor a contradiction, a statement both true and false, which instantly collapses the entire system into complete bullshit – because then, working backwards from this contradiction, every statement can be shown to be both true and false.

        which, metaphysically speaking (and we are all ultimately interested in the METAphysical truth, aren’t we) brings us back to the drawing board.
        note: at no point did i say that science is wrong or math is wrong, only that neither can lead us to the ultimate truth, if there even is such a thing.
        but it does bestow on us the priceless gift of humility.

      9. FR, the point I TRY to make is, not that I ,you the 3.5 billion , or the other 3 to 4 billion are right or wrong but that an individual, Arch, I, you, or anyone , should take into account the beliefs/convictions/understanding of others , before declaring They are Right, the 3.5 billion that believe in one G D believe,
        what are the odds.

        Thank you for corresponding.

      10. Sigh, much as I would like, I suppose I just cannot quit.

        Once again ~

        Jesus was against the Temple, a Jewish religious order based on bloody sacrifice. Jesus died on the cross as the final sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb. The sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb was a yearly event that delivered the nations, or tribes, of Israel from their sins. This blood sacrifice only applied to ISRAEL, “gentiles” were nowhere in the picture. This is why Jesus commanded his disciples not to address the gentiles in Matthew 10 and 15.

        When one understands this, the Gospels become quite clear on the issues Jesus was addressing having nothing to do with anyone outside the Temple. The last supper symbolized this final blood sacrifice that would negate the need for further blood sacrifice by Temple Jews. Jesus invoked his disciples to consume bread and wine as a symbolic gesture of the sacrifice he was about to make that would deliver his people from their sins once and for all; sins that until that point, had to be continually atoned for with a blood sacrifice.

        The “last supper” was in fact a cynical mockery, mirroring the Temple priest’s ceremonial consumption of the Paschal lamb’s meat and blood. The drinking of blood was heavily proscribed by the priest’s own laws, but in the usual hypocritical manner, as pointed out by Jesus in Matthew 23, the elite the priests broke their own laws when it suited them.

        When one knows the Jew’s religion, their culture and customs all this becomes quite clear. Christians are unaware of these matters because the stories have been re-framed for purposes never intended either by Jesus or the Jews.

        If one desires to pursue truth from a Christian standpoint, than Orthodox Christianity holds the key. Other Christian sects are empty dead ends focused on nothing more than feel good platitudes. However, be aware that the truth is not what one might expect. Therein lies the fundamental problem of human nature, when the truth does not fit one’s preconceived notions, than it is rejected out of hand before any investigation is attempted.

        Here is a movie that alludes to the secrets Christian orthodoxy holds.

        Here are three volumes describing those secrets.

        Note, Christians typically recoil in horror at the word “Gnostic” as they have been programmed to think of the Gnostics as a malevolent group that subverted Paul’s Christianity for evil purposes. Yet the Gnostics were the only group that preserved the esoteric knowledge taught to Jesus by the Essene brotherhood.

    3. Never mind about the arcane classical and scientific knowledge, how about reviving good old common sense?

      Wake up sheeple!

      You don’t need to be a “nuclear scientist” to figure out that an atomic bomb that is supposedly six million times hotter than the sun exploded undersea would instantly evaporate the water. To use, ironically, an example that Christians would understand, the atomic bombs exploded undersea at the Bikini Atoll would instantly part the sea, like it did for Moses in Exodus.

      It would look something like the scene in the “Prince Of Egypt – Parting and Crossing The Sea”:

      It wouldn’t make a mushroom cloud of seawater debris. LMAO 😆


      I was raised a Christian and I am not anti-Christian, but spirituality should not be conflated and confused with religion. I am also intelligent enough to know that the oligarchs have always used Religion to control the masses: Christianity in West; Islam in the middle-East; and Shintoism in the far-East; and even secularism can be used as a state-sponsored religion, as it was done in the case of the (((Young Turks))) who overthrew the Islamic Ottoman Empire in 1923.

      Arguably, before the Jews promoted the rise of nationalism in the 20th-century, practically all the wars ever fought were fought in the name of one Religion against another Religion. The so-called “Crusades” would be a prime example. Moreover, the underlying justification of British Imperialism was to” bring light and Christian civilization to the heathens”.

      In the case of China, the Rothschilds used Christianity to create the “Taiping Heavenly Rebellion” — China’s mid-19th-century civil war in which an estimated 50 million Chinese killed each other — so that, if we are to believe the official Kosher narrative, the Chinese could go to heaven when they died. Really?

      Call me a conspiracy kook but methinks the real reason was so that the RAT CABAL could better push their opium and usury vis a vis their (((Chinese Republicanism))) which has now been replaced with their (((Chinese Communist Party))) today. Mazel Tov!

    4. @ Arch Stanton

      I personally know Christians that maintain ideas of a flat earth and the geocentric concept of the solar system. Christians who believe dinosaurs and dragons were present with man and a race of giant demi-gods existed that walked among men.

      Your attempt to disparage Christianity on the grounds that some Christians believe in the Flat Earth theory and other half-baked ideas like this only demonstrates your own mind-numbing stupidity. You have acquired a fine vocabulary and the smattering of an education, Mr Stanton, but your logic is so flawed as to discredit you totally as a serious thinker. In fact, you strike me as little better than an intellectual moron, educated beyond your intelligence.

      What about all those Christians who have received Nobel prizes, Mr Stanton? Come, don’t tell me you are smarter than all these Christian super geniuses! Do you think you know more than all the great Christians listed below?

      According to 100 Years of Nobel Prize (2005), a review of Nobel prizes awarded between 1901 and 2000, 65.4% of Nobel Prize Laureates have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference (423 prizes). Overall, Christians have won a total of 78.3% of all the Nobel Prizes in Peace, 72.5% in Chemistry, 65.3% in Physics, 62% in Medicine, 54% in Economics and 49.5% of all Literature awards.” (See Role of Christianity in Civilization).

      By all means disparage Christianity if that’s what you need to do, but at least take the trouble to find out the names of the stellar luminaries you are disparaging. Ask yourself, in all honesty, if your own contributions to human welfare have been greater than those provided by renowned Christians—I pick out their names at random—like Pascal, Mozart, Beethoven, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, JS Bach, Botticelli, Tintoretto, Velazqez, Michaelangelo, Milton, Leonardo da Vinci, Copernicus, Galileo, Leibniz, Lavoisier, Marconi, Mendel, Tielhard de Chardin, Swedenborg, Albertus Magnus, Thomas More, JRR Tolkien, William Tyndale, William Wilberforce, Dietrich Bohhoeffer, Meister Eckhart, Erasmus, St Teresa of Avila, Joan of Arc, Florence Nightingale, and a thousand other illustrious names one could invoke in a long litany of praise.

    5. @ARCH. The beautiful verse “The Weaver” is not necessarily Christian. It is about the opposites that make up the universe. Only the Creator sees all. We see only a part of the picture. Every culture on earth (of any decency) has always known this, in its own way.

  4. @ Arch Stanton

    The following is an excerpt from Cesar Tort’s web site The West’s Darkest Hour. I urge everyone to visit his web page and read this eleven part series (to date), “Why Europeans must reject Christianity.”

    I reject Cesar Tort’s anti-Christaian propaganda, as I reject your attempt to come onto a pro-Christian website and think you can get away with attacking Christianity here. May I suggest that you would be better off posting your Christ-bashing comments on Cesar Tort’s site?

    Mr Tort’s puerile and pedestrian views on Christianity have already been dealt with in an excellent article by Lasha Darkmoon which I suggest you read. Darkmoon’s article, in my honest opinion, is ten times more satisfying and convincing than any anti-Christian hate peddled by the likes of Mr Tort and yourself. You clearly have an emotional problem with religion which you should deal with maturely in meditation and silence, not turn up here and parade your psychic sores for the rest of us to see. Frankly, I feel sorry for you, Mr Stanton, you poor lost soul.

    THE PLOT AGAINST CHRIST, by Lasha Darkmoon

    Since this happens to Lasha Darkmoon’s pro-Christian website, not Mr Tort’s site or your site, which are both resolutely anti-Christian, may I suggest that you are either very stupid or insensitive to think you can come onto this pro-Christian website and spew your Christ hatred here.

    1. Well said, Sardonicus. But full marks to this website for letting Mr Stanton parade his sores here in public. If the man has the intelligence I think he has, he must realize that it is neither sensible nor polite to enter a Christian church and openly defecate on the altar in an attempt to show his contempt for Christianity. If he does that, he must expect to be evicted at once.

  5. Thanks, I needed that; especially as the forces of darkness seem to be closing in.

  6. It is a nice poem. And the thought is healthy. But yours truly has read Kant’s metaphysics, and according to Kant the healthy thought in the poem contains an illusion. God is an _idea of Reason_, not a concept of the faculty of understanding. God is an idea that gives unity to our knowledge. And it is a natural illusion to reify this and think it pertains to reality, like a concept of the understanding. Thus, it is an illusion to think that God is actually causing history, therefore that things are guaranteed to turn out well.

      1. @HP
        The Buddhist site you referred me to was knowledgeable of Kant, but, in my opinion, it gave Kant a religious interpretation that does not belong. I see Kant as being very much a man of science. His interest was the material world, in his metaphysics. What he meant by “transcendental” are the conditions by which a material object of experience in general is possible.

    1. So you don’t believe in the concept of a spiritual realm, or in Biblical prophecy?

      1. @Harold
        I definitely don’t believe in Biblical foreknowledge of history. As for the spiritual dimention, years ago I had the so-called Enlightenment experience while high on LSD, and for several hours I looked at and saw Perfect Beauty or Suchness. So I confirm that True Being is infinitely beautiful and perfect. But the world we live in consists of real objects that stand in no rational relation with being-in-itself. Everything that happens has a cause that is an object of experience, in the world we live in, and there are no transcendent causes; i.e., no magic.

      2. @ Kendra Blewitt

        I definitely don’t believe in Biblical foreknowledge of history.

        So what you believe is aways correct, is it, because you believe it? And what if I believe the opposite of what you believe? Who is correct?

    2. @ Kendra Blewett

      Fair enough, buy I have also read Kant and I feel strongly that Kant is neither anti-God nor anti-Christian. I admire him profoundly and find that Kant actually strengthens, rather than weakens, my religious beliefs. You may find this of interest, as it is relevant to what you have just said in your very perceptive comment:

      As for the argument from design, he [Kant] believed that the order that believers see in the universe (and use as a proof of God’s existence) is a product of the human mind, not of the mind of God. Kant was not saying that God does not exist, but that no one can rationally or intellectually prove or disprove God’s existence.

      In fact, Kant did believe that the moral argument pointed towards God’s existence. He argued that, since human beings ought to strive for moral perfection (a concept he would have inherited from his Pietist upbringing), and that they cannot be successful unaided, then they need divine help to achieve the “highest good (summum bonum) in the world”. Therefore, God must exist; for this divine help can come from no other source.

      Frankly, Kendra, I find that very helpful. And I hope you do also.

      — Sardonicus,
      Zen Buddhist Monastery,

      1. @Sardonicus
        I agree that Kant was in no way anti-religious. Still, what I think makes Kant a truly historical figure is his metaphysics, not his religious philosophy or his ethics. And in his metaphysics he definitely says it is an illusion, thoughbe it a natural one, to reify the idea of God, the purpose of which was to give synthetic unity to our knowledge, and to think we are instead synthesizing the real sensual input we have, and are thus thinking of something that exists.

        I believe that many Christians of his day felt, like you, that their religious faith was strengthened by Kant

      2. Sardonicus –

        Greetings. I have been reading the Qu’ran (Koran?) lately, and am watching to find how it is “heretical” to Christianity, as some of my so-called “Christian” friends maintain. I do not see that, at all. Rather, it obviously promotes worship of The One Omnipotent God (which is our First Commandment), and I can find no fault therein. We “Christians” add Jesus, and it often confuses the issue. (To Whom did Jesus pray, if not The Father??)
        It does not offend me when thinkers like Arch Stanton articulate reasonable doubt, because I find it hard, myself, to accept that God didn’t microwave the motherfuckers when (((they))) crucified His Son. (I would have!) But, I sooth myself by reciting Isaiah 55:8. His ways and thoughts are higher than mine – so I TRUST Him. That is “faith”, and we cannot rationalize it. It is a gift from God.

      3. @ Sardonicus

        “In fact, Kant did believe that the moral argument pointed towards God’s existence. He argued that, since human beings ought to strive for moral perfection (a concept he would have inherited from his Pietist upbringing), and that they cannot be successful unaided, then they need divine help to achieve the “highest good (summum bonum) in the world”. Therefore, God must exist; for this divine help can come from no other source.”

        This would seem to comport with my view of the existence of a spiritual realm, in which originate the spiritual forces of “good” and “evil”; forces which modulate human behavior. And if such a realm does exist, it doesn’t seem very much of a stretch to posit that it exists outside of “time”.

      4. @ Harold Smith

        Well said, Harold! I feel sure you are on the right track. Don’t let these cynical scoffers and naysayers get you down!

        Lacking the inner strength that comes from divine love and faith, they do their best to mock others’ faith out of envy and spite.

      5. They are like spiteful children. If they can’t have your toy,
        they will do their best to destroy it.

  7. @ Kendra Blewitt

    So Kant says this and Kant says that, and Kendra Blewitt has read Kant. So? Is Kant omniscient? Is Kant’s word gospel truth? Why should we pay any more attention to Kant than we do to Kendra Blewitt?

  8. @Madame Butterfly
    The reason I don’t believe in Biblical prophesy is that I believe history is made by people, and that people are ultimately the initiators of their own actions. Thus God may influence history through the love of God existing in people, but not as a supernatural being who is making decisions. It’s all up to us what happens, and there’s no way this can be known beforehand — unless we are not free, which I deny.

  9. Frankly, I feel sorry for you, Mr Stanton, you poor lost soul.

    The ad hominem attacks by lesser thinkers, droning on about their short attention spans (aka “long posts”) detracts from the Site.

    I just check the Site rules, #13 in particular. Derogatory comments about Jesus Christ or Christianity are out. But I see none in this thread.

    Does ring fenced Christianity include the present day Church establishment?

    1. I have yet to read ferdinand-bardamu, but the thesis seems to be rejection of closed-mindedness, not a rejection of the message of Christ.

    2. @ Flan O’Brien

      Sardonicus has my full support. Your sneering reference to him as a “lesser thinker” is an ad hominem attack on him, in case you didn’t notice. So don’t pretend you’re a really nice guy who doesn’t stoop so low as to resort to ad hominem attacks. You clearly do. 🙂

      Two points.

      (1) Lasha Darkmoon is herself a dysfunctional and heretical Christian, so there is no “ring fencing” of orthodox Christianity on this site nor of the present day Church establishment which LD personally deplores, e.g. same-sex marriage, rampant abortion, tolerance of homosexuality etc etc — she is against all this, root and branch, and it is is found in the Protestant church, though not in Catholicism.

      (2) Arch Stanton’s anti-Christian ravings on a pro-Christian site, coming especially at the height of Easter, can only be construed as an ad hominem attack on Lasha Darkmoon. A sniper’s shot if ever there was one.

      I deplore above all Mr Stanton’s cowardice. Don’t you notice how discreetly he has skulked off, having detonated his poisonous little stinkbomb?

Comments are closed.