Bokelskere.no

The union of Church and State was in all times looked upon
by many of the Lord's disciples as contrary to His teaching;

but whenever the Church had the power of the State at its command,
it used it for the forcible suppression of any who dissented
from its system or in any way refused compliance with its demands,

and great numbers through indifference or interest or fear
yielded at least an outward obedience.
There were, however, always some who could not be induced to
do this, but who still endeavoured to follow Christ and keep
the teachings of His Word and the doctrine of the Apostles.

These were continually objects of persecution.

The history of the centuries which followed Constantine unfolds
the growth in worldliness and ambition of the clergy,
both of the Eastern and Western Catholic churches,

until they claimed entire dominion
over the possessions and consciences of mankind,

enforcing these claims with a violence and guile that knew no limits.

It also reveals vistas here and there of the path of tribulation
trodden by countless saints who, at all times, and in various places,
have suffered all things at the hands of the dominant World-Church,
rather than deny Christ or be turned back from following Him.

The true histories of these have been obliterated as far as possible;

their writings, sharing the fate of the writers, have been destroyed
to the full extent of the power allowed to their persecutors.

Not only so, but histories of them have been promulgated by
those to whose interest it was to disseminate the worst inventions
against them in order to justify their own cruelties.

In such accounts they are depicted as heretics,
and evil doctrines are ascribed to them which they repudiated.

They are called "sects", and labels are attached to them which
they themselves would not acknowledge.

They usually called themselves Christian or Brethren, but
numerous names were given to them by others
in order to create the impression that they represented many new,
strange, and unconnected sects,

opprobrious epithets being applied to them to bring them into disrepute.
It is therefore difficult to trace their history;

what their adversaries have written of them must be suspected;
words from their own lips wrung out by torture are valueless.

There is, however, in spite of these hindrances, a large body of
trustworthy evidence, continually being added to by further
investigation, which shows what they were and did, what they believed
and taught; and these their own records afford a safe guide to
their faith and practice.

Even in the first three centuries there were numerous bodies of
Christians who protested against the growing laxity and worldliness
in the Church,
and against its departure from the teachings of Scripture.

Movements of revival have never ceased to be repeated, and even
when no connection between one and another is visible,
the underlying cause is the same — a desire to return to
the practice of some New Testament truth.

In the early centuries Asia Minor and Armenia were frequently
the scene of such revivings,
as well as being the refuge of churches that had from the first,
in varying degree, maintained purity of doctrine and godliness of life.
(...)

The claim of these numerous congregations to be the true descendants
of the Apostolic churches
(not necessarily in a natural sense from father to son, though that
might often be the case, but as having maintained in unbroken succession
their spiritual characteristics)
is not invalidated by the large gaps in their history of which
at present we possess no account.

These are the natural consequence of the determined efforts that
were unceasingly made, first by the Pagan Roman Empire
and then
by the State Churches, to destroy the people and their histories.

These efforts had, to a large extent, their intended effect.

There can be no doubt that in many districts, and at different
times, such efforts were entirely successful,
and that priceless testimonies of saints and churches have been
utterly wiped out,
never to be known again until the Day of Judgment comes.

Rather is it a matter for surprise that so much has been preserved,
and the existence of these numerous bodies of Christians of
primitive doctrine and practice can be accounted for
only in the way they themselves explain it,
namely, by their adherence to the New Testament teaching.

The absence of organization among them
and of any earthly controlling centre,
with the fact that they recognised the independence of each
congregation, would lead to variety in the different churches.
Then the characteristics of prominent leaders among them would
also cause one generation to differ to some extent from another
in spirituality or in the particular line of teaching emphasised.

But they all claimed to draw their doctrine from the Scripture
and to continue the Apostolic tradition,
and this claim must be allowed, since nothing sufficient can be
urged against it, nor can the contrary be proved.

( Per Steinar Runde omtaler ) :

Når Anfindsen .. definerer det han ser som ulike typar fundamentalisme,
skriv han berre to sider om høvesvis kristen, islamsk
og islamofobisk fundamentalisme,
men heile tretten om «humanistisk» fundamentalisme.
Det gjev ein peikepinn om vektlegginga.

Sjølvsagt er det ikkje grunnleggjande menneskerettar han har noko
i mot, men ein humanisme som ikkje set grenser for innvandring
eller stiller krav til innvandrarar om å tilpasse seg kultur og
normer i landet dei har kome til.
Men mest kritisk er han til dei som nektar for fakta,
og politikarar og media som hindrar informasjon og rettkomen kritikk
av ugjerningar gjort av innvandrarar.

Særleg er han skeptisk til antirasistiske organisasjonar som berre
ser trakassering retta mot innvandrarar og ikkje rasismen retta mot
andre innvandrargrupper eller mot nordmenn.

I kapittel tre skriv Anfindsen om dei utfordringane vi står overfor som
samfunn. Og det handlar ikkje om kristen fundamentalisme,
men om den muslimske og mangelen på sann og ærleg omtale av denne.

Når Obama seier at «ISIL ikkje er islamsk» og Cameron kallar islam
«ein fredens religion», er det rett og slett ikkje sant (..)

«Og dessverre er det ikke slik at ekstremistene utgjør en forsvinnende
liten minoritet av muslimene
(noe en del journalister og politikere stadig forsøker å trøste seg/oss
med).
Sannheten er at ekstremistene utgjør en stor minoritet; stor nok i
massevis til å kunne påføre resten av verden enorme mengder død,
lidelse og problemer.
Med et skremmende potensial for økt oppslutning i årene som kommer….
Det er på tide å snakke sant om de utfordringene fundamentalistisk
islam stiller oss overfor.
Det motsatte er ikke bare et svik mot storsamfunnet –
det er også et svik mot våre muslimske brødre og søstre,
som man i så fall gjør en bjørnetjeneste.» (boksitat)

For ytringsfridom og mot multikultur

Nesten like skarp er Anfindsen mot dei som vil innskrenke ytringsfridom
og demokrati. Han nemner konkret kronikken «Uakseptable ytringer»
av Vetlesen, Ishaq, Bangstad og Hylland Eriksen i Aftenposten frå
august 2011,
samt politikarar og antirasistar som prøver å kneble folk ved å
karakterisere legitime synspunkt som hatefulle
og som påstår at sjølv grunngitt kritikk skriv seg frå hat
mot dei den er retta mot.

(utdrag fra Rundes grundige omtale av Anfindsens skrift, kan leses her )

Akk, Lygia, det er skjønt å leve når man elsker.

Kent Andersen, Frp-politiker, ateist og kommentator i Document, oppsummerer sitt syn på islam (men altså ikke over muslimer, ikke over de med mørk hud) som ideologi på sin karakteristiske harde måte: "Det er ikke noe å lære av islam. Den bidrar ikke med noe, og tilfører ingenting av verdi. Den har naturligvis verdi for de troende rent personlig, men samfunnsmessig er islam en ørken: Ingen kunnskap, ingen fremgang, ingen teknologi, ingen nyvinninger, ingen frihet, ingen glede, ingen kreativitet, ingen musikk- eller kunstutvikling, ingen kjærlighet, ingen likestilling, ingen respekt og ingen raushet. Bare stillestående underkastelse, fatalisme, kvinnehat, machoverdier, synd, brutalitet, gruppepress, vold, slaveri, dødsstraff og mørke - samt en ekkel understrøm av kjærlighetsløs sex på mannepremisser for å lage flere muslimske menn. Se til Iran eller Pakistan og grøss."

Jalving poengterer: "Innerst inne ved det borgerlige mennesket godt at et kontinent, en kultur og en nasjon som ikke vil forsvare seg, er dømt til å bli invadert eller gå under i et langstrakt sukk. Det er logikk for høns, men ikke for høyrefløyen. Hvorfor? Fordi den har mistet sine instinkter og er blitt uborgerlig. Å være uborgerlig betyr å dyrke menneskerettigheter fremfor borgerrettigheter og borgerplikter. Å være uborgerlig innebærer en forkjærlighet for "verdenssamfunnet", mens den borgerlige etikken tilsier at man har plikt til å passe på sitt konkrete hjem.

“This is why tyrants of all stripes, infernal servants,
have such deep-seated hatred for the nomads -

this is why they persecute the Gypsies and the Jews,
and why they force all free peoples to settle,
assigning the addresses that serve as our sentences.

What they want is to create a frozen order, to falsify time's
passage. They want for the days to repeat themselves, unchanging,
they want to build a big machine where every creature will be
forced to take its place and carry out false actions.

Institutions and offices, stamps, newsletters, a hierarchy, and
ranks, degrees, applications and rejections, passports, numbers,
cards, elections results, sales and amassing points,
collecting, exchanging some things for others.

What they want is to pin down the world
with the aid of barcodes, labelling all things,
letting it be known that everything is a commodity,
that this is how much it will cost you.

Let this new foreign language be illegible to humans,
let it be read exclusively by automatons, machines.
That way by night, in their great underground shops,
they can organize reading of their own barcoded poetry.

Move. Get going. Blessed is he who leaves.
”