PDA

View Full Version : How Semitic is Christianity?



Teuton
Monday, December 8th, 2008, 11:22 AM
I've been wondering this question for a while.

Of course, Christianity's origins is Semitic, but Christianity didn't flourish in the Semetic countries, instead, it flourished in Europe.

I believe, although Christianity's roots are Semitic, it's European influence cannot be ignored, most Christian festivals usually have a Pagan counterpart. The tradition is all European.

In essence, I think Christianity is veering towards being more of a European religion than a Semitic one. It started in the Semitic countries, but it's basically European.



What are your views on the matter?

Psychonaut
Monday, December 8th, 2008, 12:00 PM
I'd say that the window dressings of Christianity, and Catholicism in particular, are very European, but at it's core it is a Middle Eastern religion. Everything from the monotheism, to the command ethic and shell-like cosmology is intimately tied to both the Semitic language family and the desert landscape. This issue is treated extensively in Oswald Spengler's The Decline of the West and Alain de Benoist's On Being a Pagan.

Blood_Axis
Monday, December 8th, 2008, 12:01 PM
Christianity was definetely a semitic religion, originally.

Sure, it has been greatly Europeanized, but the opposite also holds: European nations have received a lot of semitic influences from Christianity.

Where is the Germanic free spirit, the love for nature and the dynamic, everchanging thought and restlesness of mind, in a religion that teaches you to stagnate, to take everything as they say it is and to act and think like a 'slave' of God, treat women as slaves and Nature as object of consumption?

Where is the respective Hellenic free spirit and restlesness that led to groundbreaks in philosophy, astronomy and mathematics?
Modern Greeks think and act as slaves, mostly because of hardcore Orthodox influences.
The theocratic society that Greece has become, is not much different from the Islamic countries of the East --and yes, the majority of modern ways are predominantly of semitic origin.

Lyfing
Tuesday, December 9th, 2008, 02:39 AM
I‘d like to make an example of Easter here..


Eástre, the Goddess of Spring
The Saxon goddess Eástre, or Ostara, goddess of spring, whose name has survived in the English word Easter, is also identical with Frigga, for she too is considered goddess of the earth, or rather of Nature’s resurrection after the long death of winter.

This gracious goddess was so dearly loved by the old Teutons, that even after Christianity had been introduced they stilt retained a pleasant recollection of her, utterly refused to have her degraded to the rank of a demon, like many of their other divinities, and transferred her name to their great Christian feast. It had long been customary to celebrate this day by the exchange of presents of colored eggs, for the egg is the type of the beginning of life; so the early Christians continued to observe this rule, declaring, however, that the egg is also symbolical of the resurrection. In various parts of Germany, stone altars can still be seen, which are known as Easter-stones, because they were dedicated to the fair goddess Ostara. They were crowned with flowers by the young people, who danced gaily around them by the light of great bonfires, — a species of popular games kept up until the middle of the present century, in spite of the priests’ denunciations and of the repeatedly published edicts against them.

Myths of Northern Lands (http://www.vaidilute.com/books/guerber/guerber-03.html)


Now, we can go on and on with “comparative mythology” and say that the coming of Spring is like Jesus being resurrected. But, with Jesus “dying for our sins” a whole new book is opened. Instead of our Holy-days being, just, in tune with nature, they have taken on a whole new meaning of sin and eternal redemption/damnation. No longer is Spring celebrated as a return of things growing after a hard Winter, with Easter bunnies running around again and laying eggs, but now with Jesus dying for our sins on Good Friday and being resurrected on Easter Sunday, so that Adam’s eating of the apple in the Garden of Eden, with it’s immortality, can be (for)given again to those righteous enough, who believe and accept the Lord Jesus Christ as their saviour.

Since, I’m thinking of apples, I offer this quote of good ole’ Varg’s which goes with the Nietzsche one to follow..


Raven Te Adjutbitur

A heathen who finds a large apple tree goes over to it, climbs it, eats his fill, and takes as many apples as he can carry further on his journey. A Christian goes to the tree, sits under it, and asks "god" for the apples to fall down in his sweaty arms. After awhile, when the apples are overripe, they fall down, right in the apathetic Christian's arms. The Christian praises "the lord" for giving him food, not at least he takes this as proof that "god" exists and is with him. He gave probably the apples to him? The problem for the Christian is that sometimes he dies of hunger before the apples fall down in his cold arms, or that the heathen plucks and eats all the apples before some of them fall down to the un-enterprising Christian bum who sits there waiting for "god's will" to be complete. This irritates the Christian bum endlessly. And since there are 20 times as many Christian bums than there is heathens, then they can attack the heathen and hold him again so that he cannot climb up in the tree after the apples. They can coerce him to do so for them. Sit and wait for "god" to give them apples, or to die of hunger if "god" means that they have not earned it. "God's ways are inscrutable." If the heathen sneaks up in the tree at night and takes some of the apples while the Christian sleeps, the Christian puts him in prison. He breaks the law, "god's" law which they are representative of, actually they found the law because it is "god's will" and they attend to god's interests, obviously. They have found a law which makes you a law breaker if you deny this also, to violate "god's will" is blasphemy and blasphemy is punishable by law. This is a characterized example of the Jewish -Christian mentality, only that heretic means "one who dares to think for themselves" says rather much about this funny Jewish religion! Take their shirt and hold it for themselves, we will not have it, and we won't rather have them. Become alive and feel their nature, first then they will be able to say that they live, they will become worthy people! Crush Christianity and all it stands for, we are Norwegian, not slaves for the Jews! The largest warriors live as an arrow, not a target. The arrow goes through the room, directs, quickly, lively and in motion (it has a direction and a purpose). A target stands in silence, still and only waits for something to happen. The heathen purpose.

-Vargsmal

To attribute eternal/perpetual return of the seasons with a moral tone does not enter my mind nor did it my ancestors…


Would anyone care to learn something about the way in which ideals are manufactured? Does anyone have the nerve?…Well then, go ahead! There’s a chink through which you can peek into this murky shop. But wait just a moment, Mr. Foolhardy; your eyes must grow accustomed to the fickle light…all right, tell me what’s going on in there, audacious fellow; now I am the one who is listening.

“I can’t see a thing, but I hear all the more. There’s a low, cautious whispering in every nook and corner. I have a notion these people are lying. All the sounds are sugary and soft. No doubt you were right; they are transmuting weakness into merit.”

“Go on”

“Impotence, which cannot retaliate, into kindness; pusillanimity into humility; submission before those one hates into obedience to One of whom they say that he has commanded this submission--they call him God. The inoffensiveness of the weak, his cowardice, his ineluctable standing and waiting at doors, are being given honorific titles such as patience; to be unable to avenge oneself is called to be unwilling to avenge oneself--even forgiveness (“for they know not what they do--we alone know what they do.”)
Also there’s some talk of loving one’s enemy--accompanied by much sweat.”

“Go on”

“I’m sure they are quite miserable, all these whisperers and smalltime counterfeiters, even thought they huddle close together for warmth. But they tell me that this very misery is the sign of their election by God, that one beats the dogs one loves best, that this misery is perhaps also a preparation, a test, a kind of training, perhaps even more than that: something for which eventually they will be compensated with tremendous interest--in gold? No, in happiness. They call this bliss.”

“Go on”

“Now they tell me that not only are they better than the mighty of this earth, whose spittle they must lick ( not from fear--by no means--but because God commands us to honor our superiors), but they are even better off, or at least they will be better off someday. But I’ve had all I can stand. The smell is too much for me. This shop where they manufacture ideals seems to me to stink of lies.”

“But just a moment. You haven’t told me anything about the greatest feat of these black magicians, who precipitate the white milk of loving-kindness out of every kind of blackness. Haven’t you noticed their most consummate sleight of hand, their boldest, finest, most brilliant trick? Just watch! These vermin, full of vindictive hatred, what are they brewing out of their of poisons? Have you ever heard vengeance and hatred mentioned? Would you ever guess, if you only listened to their words, that these are men bursting with hatred?”

“I see what you mean. I’ll open my ears again--and stop my nose. Now I can make out what they seem to have been saying all along ‘We, the good ones, are also the just ones.’ They call the thing they seek not retribution but the triumph of justice; the thing they hate is not their enemy, by no means--they hate injustice, ungodliness; the thing they hope for and believe in is not vengeance, the sweet exultation of vengeance (‘sweeter than honey’ as Homer said) but ‘the triumph of God’ who is just, over the godless’; what remains to them to love on this earth is not their brothers in hatred, but what they call their ‘brother in love’-- all who are good and just.”

“And what do they call that which comforts them in all their suffering--their phantasmagoria of future bliss?”

“Do I hear correctly? They call it Judgment Day, the coming of their kingdom, the ‘Kingdom of God.’ Meanwhile they live in ‘faith,’ in ‘love,’ in ‘hope.’”

“Stop! I’ve heard enough.”

From The Birth of Tragedy & the Genealogy of Morals translated my Francis Golffing..pages 180-182

Morality is not handed down from “on high“, but comes from one’s own with one’s own ( meaning community’s (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=93166) ) heart. And, to take a Holy-day and pervert it to such an extreme is a shame, not to mention, in no way European, let alone Germanic.

Later,
-Lyfing

EQ Fighter
Tuesday, December 9th, 2008, 07:00 AM
Lyfing

Morality is not handed down from “on high“, but comes from one’s own with one’s own ( meaning community’s ) heart. And, to take a Holy-day and pervert it to such an extreme is a shame, not to mention, in no way European, let alone Germanic. Well you can call anything Morality.
But it helps if it lines up with Objective Reality.

Christianity is definitely Semitic in origin. But the start of Christianity as we know it started in 313, at the Edict De Milion. From that point on it was mostly a mixture of Semitic background and certain aspects of paganism which Europeans did not want to give up.

The Irony here is that Christians are pagans from a Jewish/Muslim perspective.

SouthernBoy
Tuesday, December 9th, 2008, 07:04 AM
What are your views on the matter? They are in agreement. :)

Maelstrom
Tuesday, December 9th, 2008, 09:43 AM
I have always held the belief that Christianity was as a malleable piece of steel, moulded by European ideas until it cooled; hard, before being turned back towards the East as a weapon.

I am no expert on the subject at hand though I would find it reasonable to say that to believe that Roman, or even ancient Germanic Christianity, resembled anything of today's would be utter folly.

hildolf
Tuesday, December 9th, 2008, 09:55 AM
A semitic religion suger-coated with a bit of paganism, is still a semitic religion.

Regardless of the sugercoating I found it a bitter pill to swallow, so didn't.

SwordOfTheVistula
Tuesday, December 9th, 2008, 11:38 AM
It's hard to say, as Christianity has been the 'only game in town' for Europe for over 1500 years and in Germanic countries for over 1000 years. It seems more like they copied semitic trappings onto European pagan religions than vice versa.

Most of the 'desert oriented' stuff was never used in the first place-the dietary restrictions, head covering and feet washing, all the regulations dealing with transient herds of animals.

Catholicism is quite similar to pagan religions, not really a monotheistic religion, with a 'father god' (Jesus), 'mother god' (Mary), and assorted lesser gods which are often prayed to directly and have their own holy day (saints).

The 'apples' fable from Varg doesn't really jive with the reality of life under Christianity: a Christian who advocated sitting around waiting for apples to fall would probably have been burnt alive as a 'heretic' in the middle ages or denounced as a 'communist' in the mid-20th century. Until very recent times, at least in Germanic countries, common folklore which was characterized as 'Christian' were such phrases as "Protestant work ethic", "God helps those who help themselves", and "idle hands make a Devil's play"

Christianity does incorporate some elements of Judaism which were designed for a more urban society (codified written system of laws) and an ethnically/racially contested world (all the racial stuff in the old testament), but it is likely that a European/Germanic pagan religion would have evolved in this direction anyways as their world changed, they became more sedentary, urbanized, and technologically advanced, and their contact with other cultures increased.

The movement towards a more ethereal/spiritual god concept instead of the anthropomorphic figures found in pagan mythology was also likely to happen as understanding of the natural world increased. You can prove that tides are caused by the gravitational pull of the moon instead of the ocean god, or that sunrise and sunset are the result of movement by galactic bodies, but a magical invisible omnipresent spirit which sometimes 'acts in mysterious ways' is difficult or impossible to disprove. "We looked under this here volcano, and no sign of any giant mountain god living under there" vs "you can't see or detect him in any way...but he's there alright!"

Additionally, many or all elements of the semitic religions are alleged to have been copied from Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, or Hindu sources, and these in turn are alleged to have been derived from ancient nordic sources.

Psychonaut
Tuesday, December 9th, 2008, 11:44 PM
Most of the 'desert oriented' stuff was never used in the first place-the dietary restrictions, head covering and feet washing, all the regulations dealing with transient herds of animals.

Perhaps they didn't import the desert clothing and practices, but Christian/Jewish/Muslim cosmology does seem to have been shaped by the desert landscape, just as European pagan cosmologies were shaped by the forests. This is the reason that Middle Eastern cosmologies purport that the Earth is a flat disk covered by a hemispherical dome; it is a natural expansion of the perspective that the desert provides.

Anfang
Wednesday, December 10th, 2008, 12:17 AM
Lyfing
Well you can call anything Morality.
But it helps if it lines up with Objective Reality.

Christianity is definitely Semitic in origin. But the start of Christianity as we know it started in 313, at the Edict De Milion. From that point on it was mostly a mixture of Semitic background and certain aspects of paganism which Europeans did not want to give up.

The Irony here is that Christians are pagans from a Jewish/Muslim perspective.


The Irony is that all three, Judaism Christinity and Islam, are Irrevocably Irredeemably and hamfully Semitic.

Right now the greatest threat to us is the Muslims on a very real and physical level. That tens of thousands of left radicals showed up to attack those who were demonstrating against the Planned giant Mosque in Cologne
shows that Christians dont even get this. At least Now there is a German Pope.
On the practical level we must support the germanic Christians. But we must have zero illusions as to Christianity's ultimate imcompatabily with the German Volk.

Philosophically I agree with lyfing's long post above.

Aemma
Wednesday, December 10th, 2008, 01:55 AM
I think that what we cannot forget in this discussion is the fact that Christianity, though having had its start as a cultic offshoot of Judaism, is in the end fundamentally a Pauline religion, one based primarily on the writings of the 'apostle of the gentiles' St. Paul himself. Since St. Paul was a Roman, one cannot deny that early Christianity has been heavily influenced by Roman perceptions of the world and thought overlaying its Judaic beginnings.

Although the Christian Bible does contain both Old and New Testaments, it is really the New Testament which remains its primary defining piece of Scripture. The Old Testament remains a type of genealogical adjunct (in the manner of the George Lucas prequel if you will) with a primary purpose of legitimizing, to a certain degree, historical Jesus's royal lineage. But more than this, although the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John describe Jesus as an historical figure who preached what could be seen for its day given the socio-political climate of the time as a revolutionary message of loving thy neighbour and turning the other cheek, I would argue that St. Paul's epistles still remain to this day the fundamental works upon which the Roman Catholic Church, and hence Christianity is based.

Evidently with time, the term 'Christianity' has come to encompass more than what was first meant as the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. To wit, we now have many denominations. But on the whole, though I agree that there exists a basis in semetic thought and culture, I think a good argument can be made that the impact of the Westernization, hence Romanization, of this once Jewish cult, has allowed it to morph into an entity that goes beyond its humble Judaic beginnings.

Frith...Aemma

Anfang
Wednesday, December 10th, 2008, 02:18 AM
I think that what we cannot forget in this discussion is the fact that Christianity, though having had its start as a cultic offshoot of Judaism, is in the end fundamentally a Pauline religion, one based primarily on the writings of the 'apostle of the gentiles' St. Paul himself. Since St. Paul was a Roman, one cannot deny that early Christianity has been heavily influenced by Roman perceptions of the world and thought overlaying its Judaic beginnings.

Although the Christian Bible does contain both Old and New Testaments, it is really the New Testament which remains its primary defining piece of Scripture. The Old Testament remains a type of genealogical adjunct (in the manner of the George Lucas prequel if you will) with a primary purpose of legitimizing, to a certain degree, historical Jesus's royal lineage. But more than this, although the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John describe Jesus as an historical figure who preached what could be seen for its day given the socio-political climate of the time as a revolutionary message of loving thy neighbour and turning the other cheek, I would argue that St. Paul's epistles still remain to this day the fundamental works upon which the Roman Catholic Church, and hence Christianity is based.

Evidently with time, the term 'Christianity' has come to encompass more than what was first meant as the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. To wit, we now have many denominations. But on the whole, though I agree that there exists a basis in semetic thought and culture, I think a good argument can be made that the impact of the Westernization, hence Romanization, of this once Jewish cult, has allowed it to morph into an entity that goes beyond its humble Judaic beginnings.

Frith...Aemma


Well I completely disagree, and althoug this is a forum for exchanging thoughts, I do not think that I want to or even can word the unsurmountable imcompatabilities of the Christian with the elements that make us germanic.

We do not need any interlocutor to "God". What is more , The jesusgod is constructed as a Noun, a thing in itself separate from all of us, where The Goddess mother of all is an action a being-ness not a being. . Christinsanity's myths and theological constructs, by legitimating male superiority and displacing evil onto the female as the prototypical Other, for one.
If Eve was the first Woman, then Eve was HOLY no matter how many apples. This is one central difference.
The concept of God as a static noun (supreme being) rather than active verb (Be-ing). To "'hypostatize transcendence,' to objectify God as a 'being,"' is to envisage transcendent reality as finite. 'God' then functions to legitimate the existing … status quo, and that Stus quo is not
a healthy one for as long as only males have decided the way towards the Future.
Odin went to the female Norns, he went to the Seeress.The Jewish religion obliterated the concept of the goddess, and completely destroyed the idea of the female aspect of god, and this is a fundamental aspect of "Christianity" as well.

Lyfing
Wednesday, December 10th, 2008, 03:00 AM
Joseph Campbell came up with something he called the four functions of mythology. The second of which deals with cosmology..


The second is a cosmological dimension deals with the image of the world that is the focus of science. This function shows the shape of the universe, but in such a way that the mystery still comes through. The cosmology should correspond to the actual experience, knowledge, and mentality of the culture. This interpretive function changes radically over time. It presents a map or picture of the order of the cosmos and our relationship to it.

http://www.folkstory.com/campbell/scholars_life.html

So, does anyone really think nowadays that the world was created in six days, or that woman was made from man’s rib? Or, even that there was a Garden of Eden where a snake caused Eve to cause Adam to sin and get kicked out of it causing him to have to sweat for a living? Hardly. And, likewise, does anyone really think Othin, Haenir, and Lothur walked the seashore of southernmost Scandinavia and made Ask and Embla out of trees by giving them soul, sense and blooming hue? Hardly. But, the mystery still comes through. With the latter we have the Semetic mystery of ressentiment, and with the former we have the mystery of the great ash ( tree ) Yggdrasil.

And, further, does anyone think that Jesus, the second Adam, died on Good Friday and was resurrected on Easter Sunday? Or, that Easter bunnies hop around laying eggs for little kids to find? Hardly. But, the mystery still comes through. With the latter we have the Semetic mystery of ressentiment, and with the former we have the mystery of how bunnies turn up the same time eggs do.;)

I should maybe go into his third function of morality, or even his first and fourth. As they are all connected and none of them stand alone.

The following I once posted in this thread (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=96434)..I find it appropriate again here with talk of ressentiment and science..


3. The Social Prospect

Nor is the situation more comforting in the moral, social sphere of our third traditional mythological function: the validation and maintenance of an established order. In the words of the late John Dewey (1859-1952)

Christianity proffered a fixed revelation of absolute, unchanging Being and truth; and the revelation was elaborated into a system of definite rules and ends for the direction of life. Hence “morals” were conceived as a code of laws, the same everywhere and at all times. The good life was one lived in a fixed adherence to fixed principles.
In contrast with all such beliefs, the outstanding fact in all branches of natural science is that to exist is to be in process, in change…
Victorian thought conceived of new conditions as if they merely put in our hands effective instruments for realizing old ideals. The shock and uncertainty so characteristic of the present marks the discovery that the older ideals themselves are undermined. Instead of science and technology giving us better means for bringing them to pass, they are shaking our confidence in all large and comprehensive beliefs and purposes.

Such a phenomenon is, however, transitory. The impact of the new forces is for the time being negative. Faith in the divine author and authority in which Western civilization confided, inherited ideas of the soul and its destiny, of fixed revelation, of completely stable institutions, of automatic progress, have been made impossible for the cultivated mind of the Western world. It is psychologically natural that the outcome should be a collapse of faith in all fundamental organizing and directive ideas. Skepticism becomes the mark and even the pose of the educated mind. It is the more influential because it is no longer directed against this and that article of the older creeds but is rather a thematic participation on the part of such ideas in the intelligent direction of affairs.
It is in such a context that a thoroughgoing philosophy of experience, framed in the light of science and technique, has its significance…
A philosophy of experience will accept at its full value the fact that social and moral existences are, like the physical existences, in a state of continuous if obscure change. It will not try to cover up the fact of inevitable modification, and will make no attempt to set fixed limits to the extent of changes that are to occur. For the futile effort to achieve security and anchorage in something fixed, it will substitute the effort to determine the character of changes that are going on and to give them in the affairs that concern us most some measure of intelligent direction…


Wherever the thought of fixity rules, that of all-inclusive unity rules also. The popular philosophy of life is filled with desire to attain such an all-embracing unity, and the formal philosophies haved been devoted to an intellectual fulfillment of the desire. Consider the place occupied in popular thought by search for the meaning of life and the purpose of the universe. Men who look for single purport and a single end either frame an idea of them according to their private desires and tradition, or else, not finding any such single unity, give up in despair and conclude that there is no genuine meaning and value of life’s episodes.
The alternatives are not exhaustive, however. There is no need of deciding between no meaning at all and on single, all poses in the situations with which are confronted-one, so to say, for each situation. Each offers its own challenge to thought and endeavor, and presents its own potential value.

In sum: the individual is now on his own. “It is all untrue! Anything goes!” (Nietzsche). The dragon “Thou Shalt!” has been slain-for us all. Therin the danger! Anfortas too was installed thorough no deed, no virtue of his own, upon the seat of power: Lord of the World Center, which, as Cusanus knew, is in each. The wheel on the head of the Bodhisattva, revolving with its painful cutting edge : Who can bear it? Who can teach us to bear it as a crown, not of thorns, but of laurel: the wreath of our own Lady Orgeluse?

The nihilist’s question, “Why?” {wrote Nietzsche} is a product of his earlier habitude of expecting an aim to be given, to be set for him, from without- I.e. by some superhuman authority or other. When he has learned not to believe in such a thing, he goes on, just the same, from habit, looking for another authority of some kind that will be able to speak unconditionally and set goals and tasks by command. The authority of Conscience now is the first to present itself (the more emancipated from theology, the more imperative morality becomes) as compensation for a personal authority. Or the authority of Reason. Or the Social Instinct ( the herd ). Or History, with an immanent spirit that has a goal of its own, to which one can give oneself. One wants, by all means, to get around having to will, to desire a goal, to set up a goal for oneself: one wants to avoid the responsibility (-accepting fatalism ). Finally: Happiness, and with a certain Tartuffe, the Happiness of the Majority.
One says to oneself: 1. A definite goal is unnecessary, 2. Is impossible to foresee.
And so, precisely when what is required is Will in its highest power, it is at its weakest and most faint-hearted, in Absolute Mistrust of the Organizational Force of the Will-to-be-a-Whole.

Nihilism is of two faces:
A. Nihilism, as the sign of a heightened power of the spirit: active nihilism.
B. Nihilism, as a decline and regression of the power of the spirit: passive nihilism.
Attempts to escape from nihilism without transvaluing earlier values only bring about opposite escape: a sharpening of the problem.

Pages 621-623 Creative Mythology

Later,
-Lyfing

Aemma
Wednesday, December 10th, 2008, 03:21 AM
Well I completely disagree, and althoug this is a forum for exchanging thoughts, I do not think that I want to or even can word the unsurmountable imcompatabilities of the Christian with the elements that make us germanic.

We do not need any interlocutor to "God". What is more , The jesusgod is constructed as a Noun, a thing in itself separate from all of us, where The Goddess mother of all is an action a being-ness not a being. . Christinsanity's myths and theological constructs, by legitimating male superiority and displacing evil onto the female as the prototypical Other, for one.
If Eve was the first Woman, then Eve was HOLY no matter how many apples. This is one central difference.
The concept of God as a static noun (supreme being) rather than active verb (Be-ing). To "'hypostatize transcendence,' to objectify God as a 'being,"' is to envisage transcendent reality as finite. 'God' then functions to legitimate the existing … status quo, and that Stus quo is not
a healthy one for as long as only males have decided the way towards the Future.
Odin went to the female Norns, he went to the Seeress.The Jewish religion obliterated the concept of the goddess, and completely destroyed the idea of the female aspect of god, and this is a fundamental aspect of "Christianity" as well.

Anfang, chill, Man! I spoke of nothing with which you are taking exception here. I didn't even mention anything about Germanic thought or Germanic elements in my post. I said that Christianity is basically a *Roman* religion, nothing more nothing less. My POV has more to do with a socio-political/historical take on Christianity than anything else and how its very cultural essence (being in effect a Roman religion) afforded it an opportunity to spread into parts of the world which indeed were conquered and hence were part of the Roman Empire.

I'm not disputing points of comparative 'theology' or offering an examination of that particular belief system as it might be applied to a Germanic Weltanschauung (or even vice versa). I hold similar views to what you have just posted...with some notable exceptions mind you. But nothing more, nothing less. I am also Heathen as you are fully aware. I was however relating the fact that within academia, there has been a theory put forth that Christianity is more of a Roman religion than anything else. That's all that I wanted to share in this discussion, nothing more, nothing else.

But since I'm here I would also like to add this: I would caution us all perhaps to realise that we do have folk here who are Christian. Regardless of what political views one might harbour with respect to this religious tradition, it also remains part of our folk history (past, present, and more than likely future) and as such it deserves some measure of respect in as much as it is a belief system shared by some of our comrades here. Some of us who are non-Christian might not like Christianity's message and its impact on the world (and here we could go into many different things) but again discussions about this might be better held in a different Hall, not here, or at least not in this thread. The initial question was a simple academically-focused one from my perspective which I sought to answer in like manner. So with all due respect Anfang, I fail to see the reason for the uppitiness of your post, Man. Cut me some slack...sheesh!

Frith...Aemma

Anfang
Wednesday, December 10th, 2008, 04:01 AM
I'm not disputing points of comparative 'theology' or offering an examination of that particular belief system as it might be applied to a Germanic Weltanschauung (or even vice versa). I hold similar views to what you have just posted...with some notable exceptions mind you. But nothing more, nothing less. I am also Heathen as you are fully aware. I was however relating the fact that within academia, there has been a theory put forth that Christianity is more of a Roman religion than anything else. That's all that I wanted to share in this discussion, nothing more, nothing else.

Respectfully Aemma, but a discussion of religion *is* and examination of a belief system. I addressed the thread topic.

Further I said that for practical purposes we have to support the Christians in the struggle against Islamics who present the front line of the threat to Germany now.

I come from the Most conservative Catholic family imaginable. The history of Christian religion is one of my fortes.
You mention the Romanization of Christianity, well, here are two points=

1) at the time of jesus, the mediterraenian world was about 10% Jewish, surprise surprise, and many Jews lived in Italy and other parts of the Roman Empire. The mediterreanian world including rome was already influnced intellectually and ethniclay by the middle east. However, Our Germanic ancestors had no semitic influnce. It is said that Nero Kicked his pregnant Wife Poppea to death because she was becoming Jewish, and actually tried to influence people including Nero in that Direction. In those days dome jews were more disposed to sharing their religion than now. Romans and greeks also influenced the jews themselves, particularly the greeks who were not latinates and less inclined towards Womens' rights by the way.

2) while cousins to Germanics, Latins are not Germanics, they are only a separate branch of Indo Europeans. For whatever reasons, they were more open to absorbing cultures themselves and intergrating. Thus Roman Gods were etruscan and Greek, Roman architechture heavily influnced by greek architecture. Roman swords after hanibal were Spanish falcatas, and so forth.


But since I'm here I would also like to add this: I would caution us all perhaps to realise that we do have folk here who are Christian. Regardless of what political views one might harbour with respect to this religious tradition, it also remains part of our folk history (past, present, and more than likely future) and as such it deserves some measure of respect in as much as it is a belief system shared by some of our comrades here. Some of us who are non-Christian might not like Christianity's message and its impact on the world (and here we could go into many different things) but again discussions about this might be better held in a different Hall, not here, or at least not in this thread. The initial question was a simple academically-focused one from my perspective which I sought to answer in like manner. So with all due respect Anfang, I fail to see the reason for the uppitiness of your post, Man. Cut me some slack...sheesh!

This is the first time that I have seen you try to control the discourse with a variety of Coersion and it is dissapointing. I do not see you posting admonishments of this kind in the Volkisch forum when Christians come to talk about "The error of heathenism" and such othe threads. Frankly I am disappointed. You asked a question and I answered it Clearly as Lyfing answered it also clearly. It is surprising that you say that you are a heathen and write such a last paragraph.


My answer was exactly an academically focused one from a theological and historical POV . My observations were academically focused criticisms of the intellectual structure of a religion, not of you.

So, you can cut *me* some slack.

Aemma
Wednesday, December 10th, 2008, 04:52 AM
Respectfully Aemma, but a discussion of religion *is* and examination of a belief system. I addressed the thread topic.

Further I said that for practical purposes we have to support the Christians in the struggle against Islamics who present the front line of the threat to Germany now.

I come from the Most conservative Catholic family imaginable. The history of Christian religion is one of my fortes.
You mention the Romanization of Christianity, well, here are two points=

1) at the time of jesus, the mediterraenian world was about 10% Jewish, surprise surprise, and many Jews lived in Italy and other parts of the Roman Empire. The mediterreanian world including rome was already influnced intellectually and ethniclay by the middle east. However, Our Germanic ancestors had no semitic influnce. It is said that Nero Kicked his pregnant Wife Poppea to death because she was becoming Jewish, and actually tried to influence people including Nero in that Direction. In those days dome jews were more disposed to sharing their religion than now. Romans and greeks also influenced the jews themselves, particularly the greeks who were not latinates and less inclined towards Womens' rights by the way.

2) while cousins to Germanics, Latins are not Germanics, they are only a separate branch of Indo Europeans. For whatever reasons, they were more open to absorbing cultures themselves and intergrating. Thus Roman Gods were etruscan and Greek, Roman architechture heavily influnced by greek architecture. Roman swords after hanibal were Spanish falcatas, and so forth.



This is the first time that I have seen you try to control the discourse with a variety of Coersion and it is dissapointing. I do not see you posting admonishments of this kind in the Volkisch forum when Christians come to talk about "The error of heathenism" and such othe threads. Frankly I am disappointed. You asked a question and I answered it Clearly as Lyfing answered it also clearly. It is surprising that you say that you are a heathen and write such a last paragraph.

I am disapointed.
My answer was exactly an academically focused one from a theological and historical POV . My observations were academically focused criticisms of the intellectual structure of a religion, not of you.

So, you can cut *me* some slack.

Anfang, must we really do this? I don't see the need for this kind of exchange between the two of us. You posted and I posted. We don't have to agree with one another but honestly neither one of us needs to get hostile. And I'm sorry but this medium being limited as it is did make it so that I thought you were criticising me personally. So chalk it up to that please.

As for controlling the discourse via coersion...come on Anfang. A tad strong I think. It was a reminder and more so a reflection of my upbringing and wanting to at least respect the other people in the Hall. But fair enough, I have just re-read this:
Christianity Forum dedicated to general Christianity (regardless of denominational or individual beliefs), Christian issues & topics, the history and influence of Christianity on the Germanic nations and Germanic world. So it seems we are free to express whatever opinions be they good, bad or otherwise. Great! I'm just as new here as you are Anfang, yet not as prolific a poster. You have perhaps ironed out the bugs in terms of what you feel comfortable with in terms of posting, I'm still trying to get my sea legs and learn the culture of this board. So a bit of understanding from you would be nice.

And please note that I did post on the Error of Heathenism thread. I did attempt to counter some of exit's posts and frankly just haven't had time to return to the thread. But you remind me that that is a worthy thread to revisit. So thank you.

And comments like this
It is surprising that you say that you are a heathen and write such a last paragraph. are just as disappointing from my end.

Frith...Aemma

Chlodovech
Wednesday, December 10th, 2008, 06:51 AM
There have always been Christian thinkers who wanted to get rid of the influence of Judaism on the teachings of the Church, some were very popular in their day.

Maybe I'm missing something, but where does the bible mention God being male? Sure, Christianity is patriachal, but that fact doesn't shed light on God's sex. To me it's human, all too human, to give God characteristics that are typical for men and/or women. Like sex, or being old or young, or small or tall, that's definitely not the God I worship, although it's definitely a being, not a force, and not part of the creation.


I do not think that I want to or even can word the unsurmountable imcompatabilities of the Christian with the elements that make us germanic.

I don't think it's all that dramatic, although it could be argued that Christians are not as one with nature as people adhering to a nature religion or New Age.

Nonetheless, Christianity instills a great will in any workforce, and Germanics are known for their professionalism when at work. Yes, Christianity loaths the individual (however, the Havamal says that 'You, yourself are nothing), but 2000 years of expansionism proves it isn't a meek religion, if anything, Roman Catholicism made the Germanic tribes more warlike towards outsiders, and brought them a sense of unity that was never witnessed before, which helped them to fight off the threats coming from the east.
Christianity might be a very mysterious spiritual collectivism, and the essence of it is perhaps never written down, yet I doubt there would even be, let's say, a Germany without Christianity arriving in our areas of settlement.

I'm a staunch monotheist and a folkish Christian, a Germaanse Christen, and I'm as deeply intrigued by Christian mysticism as by Friedrich's paintings, and long walks through nature. That there is a Germanic man and woman, and their language, and their abilities and characteristics, and a soul for this folk, is God's will to me, a deep mystery, and not a random rolling of the dice. I consider myself as Germanic as my heathen, agnostic and atheist friends living out here, in the countryside. It can not be otherwise.


We do not need any interlocutor to "God".

Christians pray directly to God too, the communication between God and man is not limited to the priesthood. But without priests there wouldn't be much of a religion, not even a heathen one.

Anfang
Wednesday, December 10th, 2008, 08:24 AM
There have always been Christian thinkers who wanted to get rid of the influence of Judaism on the teachings of the Church, some were very popular in their day.

Like Martin Luther


Maybe I'm missing something, but where does the bible mention God being male? Sure, Christianity is patriachal, but that fact doesn't shed light on God's sex. To me it's human, all too human, to give God characteristics that are typical for men and/or women. Like sex, or being old or young, or small or tall, that's definitely not the God I worship, although it's definitely a being, not a force, and not part of the creation. Nothing against you, but isnt it interesting that statements such as this one
above are only made when defending from the charge of "over-patriarchy" that is the complete erasing of the female voice by postulating a single creator who just happens to be called ":He" all the time.



I don't think it's all that dramatic, although it could be argued that Christians are not as one with nature as people adhering to a nature religion or New Age.


Nonetheless, Christianity instills a great will in any workforce, and Germanics are known for their professionalism when at work. Yes, Christianity loaths the individual (however, the Havamal says that 'You, yourself are nothing), but 2000 years of expansionism proves it isn't a meek religion, if anything, Roman Catholicism made the Germanic tribes more warlike towards outsiders, and brought them a sense of unity that was never witnessed before, which helped them to fight off the threats coming from the east.
Christianity might be a very mysterious spiritual collectivism, and the essence of it is perhaps never written down, yet I doubt there would even be, let's say, a Germany without Christianity arriving in our areas of settlement. This is a very interesting statement in itself, and probably worthy of its own thread. I do not agree , but you said some very juicy things. As an ex catholic, I understand where you are coming from. There is something there to explore.


I'm a staunch monotheist and a folkish Christian, a Germaanse Christen, and I'm as deeply intrigued by Christian mysticism as by Friedrich's paintings, and long walks through nature. That there is a Germanic man and woman, and their language, and their abilities and characteristics, and a soul for this folk, is God's will to me, a deep mystery, and not a random rolling of the dice. I consider myself as Germanic as my heathen, agnostic and atheist friends living out here, in the countryside. It can not be otherwise. I did not say that You are out of the Volk. And we may be able to coexist.
There is much to discuss. Remember that the Christians were the ones that attacked the heathens because we were heathens, heathens did not attack the Christians because they were christians. From my perspective, the Christians do owe something to the Non Christian Germanics.



Christians pray directly to God too, the communication between God and man is not limited to the priesthood. But without priests there wouldn't be much of a religion, not even a heathen one.

I hate to quote myself, it seems pompous, but It's bedtime-

." Christinsanity's myths and theological constructs, by legitimating male superiority and displacing evil onto the female as the prototypical Other, for one.
If Eve was the first Woman, then Eve was HOLY no matter how many apples. This is one central difference.
The concept of God as a static noun (supreme being) rather than active verb (Be-ing). To "'hypostatize transcendence,' to objectify God as a 'being,"' is to envisage transcendent reality as finite. 'God' then functions to legitimate the existing … status quo,"

Judaism Christianity and Islam are male centered. They are. When I visited Iceland many years ago, I thought I was in another planet. It was so refreshing. There are still feminine energies that direct the folk *along* together and balanced with male ones. It was magic. there is a little of that left in North West Germany and Scandinavia but not like in Iceland. Asatru in iceland is different than here because Asatru has ben so permeated by Patriarchal though which is the influence of Christianity. of this, I am sure.

SwordOfTheVistula
Wednesday, December 10th, 2008, 03:28 PM
We do not need any interlocutor to "God". What is more , The jesusgod is constructed as a Noun, a thing in itself separate from all of us...
The concept of God as a static noun (supreme being) rather than active verb (Be-ing). To "'hypostatize transcendence,' to objectify God as a 'being,"' is to envisage transcendent reality as finite.

In the original biblical (semitic origin) Christianity, God does not have any anthropomorphic nature, and instead is portrayed as a sort of omnipresent being. Depicting God as a finite noun is strictly forbidden in the semitic religions. The 2nd commandment of the Old Testament forbids any construction or worship of 'graven images'. Islam and Judaism forbid any depiction of God as a finite physical figure, and Islam even forbids any depiction of the prophet Muhammad (this was the real issue at stake in the Danish cartoons incident). Most Christian churches follow this line, with Jesus as the 'son of God' not as an avatar of God except for the Catholics, and do not display anthropomorphic images of God. Jesus is depicted as a human figure, usually as a figure resembling a Norwegian Hippie who acts as an instructor and emissary of God's word but not as God himself. With regards to the one exception to this rule, the Catholics, the depiction of God in anthropomorphic terms including Jesus as a physical of God appears to have been derived from the pagan tradition, with Jesus acting as 'God' or the 'father God' and Mary acting as a 'mother God' as in the Roman pantheon, and the Renaissance era depictions of God as an elderly man in a robe look similar to the depictions of ancient philosophers (both being figures from which knowledge is derived from)

Plato, on the left, in Raphael's 'School of Athens'
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/Aristotle_Plato.jpg

God, on the right, in Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel:
http://www.success.co.il/knowledge/images/Pillar2-Supernatural-GodCreates-Man-Sistine-Chapel.jpg

These type of depictions have in the past often been used by Protestants to label the Catholics as 'pagans' and 'not true Christians', although this diminished significantly in the mid 20th century due to the integration of Catholics into the WASP/American culture and the desire to combat mutual enemies such as communism and 'secular humanism'.

As an example:
http://www.chick.com/tractimages50020/0071/0071_12.gif
http://www.chick.com/tractimages50020/0071/0071_13.gif
http://www.chick.com/tractimages50020/0071/0071_14.gif
http://www.chick.com/tractimages50020/0071/0071_20.gif


'God' then functions to legitimate the existing … status quo, and that Stus quo is not
a healthy one for as long as only males have decided the way towards the Future.
Odin went to the female Norns, he went to the Seeress.The Jewish religion obliterated the concept of the goddess, and completely destroyed the idea of the female aspect of god, and this is a fundamental aspect of "Christianity" as well.[/QUOTE]


at the time of jesus, the mediterraenian world was about 10% Jewish, surprise surprise, and many Jews lived in Italy and other parts of the Roman Empire...In those days dome jews were more disposed to sharing their religion than now.

Judaism did have many converts at the time, and it appears quite possible that Christianity was created as an 'export version' of Judaism which allowed Judaism to maintain racial purity and separateness from the mass of the Roman Empire. The Roman government, seeing the success of this religion, eventually decided to co-opt it and modified it in their own image.

As regards Christianity vs Heathenism on the gender issue, why were conversions to Christianity generally initiated by the wife of the ruler?

Anfang
Wednesday, December 10th, 2008, 04:06 PM
In the original biblical (semitic origin) Christianity, God does not have any anthropomorphic nature, and instead is portrayed as a sort of omnipresent being. Depicting God as a finite noun is strictly forbidden in the semitic religions. The 2nd commandment of the Old Testament forbids any construction or worship of 'graven images'. Islam and Judaism forbid any depiction of God as a finite physical figure, and Islam even forbids any depiction of the prophet Muhammad (this was the real issue at stake in the Danish cartoons incident). Most Christian churches follow this line, with Jesus as the 'son of God' not as an avatar of God except for the Catholics, and do not display anthropomorphic images of God. Jesus is depicted as a human figure, usually as a figure resembling a Norwegian Hippie who acts as an instructor and emissary of God's word but not as God himself. With regards to the one exception to this rule, the Catholics, the depiction of God in anthropomorphic terms including Jesus as a physical of God appears to have been derived from the pagan tradition, with Jesus acting as 'God' or the 'father God' and Mary acting as a 'mother God' as in the Roman pantheon, and the Renaissance era depictions of God as an elderly man in a robe look similar to the depictions of ancient philosophers (both being figures from which knowledge is derived from)





Please read what I wrote. I do not mean to be pedantic, There is no correlation between the Theology of the Chrsitians and what i wrote above. The two concepts exist on different planes. The only thing that one could connect with Ral germanic heathenism would be Either some aspects of *ancient* (not modern) hinduism and more recently, the work of Martin Heidegger, most specifically "Zeit und Sein" (Time and Being)
Nietzsche was popular with NS because more people could understand him as Heidegger is a tough read. As of the last few years Heidegger is beginning to be forgiven by academia for his Support of NS, which he dropped as soon as he understood that NS was not operating on a high level philosophically.
I strongly recommend Zeit und Sein.



These type of depictions have in the past often been used by Protestants to label the Catholics as 'pagans' and 'not true Christians', although this diminished significantly in the mid 20th century due to the integration of Catholics into the WASP/American culture and the desire to combat mutual enemies such as communism and 'secular humanism'.

As an example:
http://www.chick.com/tractimages50020/0071/0071_12.gif
http://www.chick.com/tractimages50020/0071/0071_13.gif
http://www.chick.com/tractimages50020/0071/0071_14.gif
http://www.chick.com/tractimages50020/0071/0071_20.gifMore Situationalist nonsense.






Judaism did have many converts at the time, and it appears quite possible that Christianity was created as an 'export version' of Judaism which allowed Judaism to maintain racial purity and separateness from the mass of the Roman Empire. The Roman government, seeing the success of this religion, eventually decided to co-opt it and modified it in their own image.This is probably true.


As regards Christianity vs Heathenism on the gender issue, why were conversions to Christianity generally initiated by the wife of the ruler?Not to be rude, but, why do rats eat rat poison? because at first, it tastes yummy.

Teuton
Wednesday, December 10th, 2008, 04:52 PM
As an example:
http://www.chick.com/tractimages50020/0071/0071_12.gif
http://www.chick.com/tractimages50020/0071/0071_13.gif
http://www.chick.com/tractimages50020/0071/0071_14.gif
http://www.chick.com/tractimages50020/0071/0071_20.gif


That is one of the most biased and one-sided arguments I've seen in all my life.:-O

Even to the extent of blatantly lying!

Anfang
Wednesday, December 10th, 2008, 05:06 PM
That is one of the most biased and one-sided arguments I've seen in all my life.:-O

Even to the extent of blatantly lying!


Teuton, don't fret on this, prots and catholics have allways shovelled crap at each other. My uncle who was a priest seldom used the word "protestant" Without using "heretic".

At the mostly irish Catholic Gradeschool I attended
the nuns loved when recess ended when they, the Nuns would clang the bell signaling time to go back to class,at the door of the couryard, and as the Irish kids taught everyone else many kids would often chant "Catholic catholic ring a bell, protestant protestant go to hell!"
The nuns would smile away.

Psychonaut
Thursday, December 11th, 2008, 12:03 AM
Maybe I'm missing something, but where does the bible mention God being male?

This was one of my favorite issues when I was studying theology in college. The Old Testament betrays its polytheistic and eventually henotheistic origins via the gendering pluralizing of the divine names. Here's a quick rundown:

Elohim is morphologically both plural and feminine, but is generally used as a singular masculine name.

Yahweh is a third person masculine singular.

Adonai is morphologically a plural masculine, but is used singularly.

The "El" names (i.e. El-Shaddai) are generally singular masculine names.

There's an exhaustive list of this here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism) in case you're interested.

Aemma
Thursday, December 11th, 2008, 02:07 PM
As regards Christianity vs Heathenism on the gender issue, why were conversions to Christianity generally initiated by the wife of the ruler?

Interesting question SwordOfTheVistula. I'm just wondering if you had anybody particularly in mind when you asked this question. It sounds like you did/do? :)

I'm not certain however that we can rightly say that conversions to Christianity were generally initiated by the wife of the ruler, although on the surface some historical accounts might give that impression. If anything, conversions of a People occurred as the result of the 'backroom wheeling and dealing' between leaders and chiefs and kings of the day--all of whom were male by the way. ;) And marriages at the time were more than anything else politically-motivated alliances meant to solidify partnerships between the inordinate amount of territorial rulers--again wheeled and dealed in the backrooms by male leaders. For all intents and purposes, conversion itself was a very real bargaining chip in some key negotiation processes.

Frith...Aemma

SwordOfTheVistula
Thursday, December 11th, 2008, 04:46 PM
Interesting question SwordOfTheVistula. I'm just wondering if you had anybody particularly in mind when you asked this question. It sounds like you did/do? :)

It was alleged that Christianity was far less friendly to women than the Heathen religions, but there are a number of historical accounts of prominent heathen rulers being converted to Christianity by their wives such as Ethelbert of Kent in England Clovis I of the Franks in France.

onicodnem
Monday, December 15th, 2008, 09:37 AM
Christianity is very Semitic.

Trouble is, the Jews and their Talmud are NOT Semitic, but Khazar and Babylonian, respectively.

The error most Germanophiles make about Christianity is assuming that today's "Jews" are the same people with the same mentality of the Hebrews of the Bible, and that's just not the case. They also err in assuming that Talmudic ideology, often peddled by "Christian" churches, is the faith of Jesus Christ.

When you dig into the true past, you find shocking discoveries. Look up Paleo-Hebrew and the script it was written in. Then compare it to Runic. They're clearly sister scripts. The ancient Hebrews and Aryans of today have plenty in common. Abram/Abraham was originally from the Land of the Blue Eyed People in Ur (Sumeria).


Perhaps they didn't import the desert clothing and practices, but Christian/Jewish/Muslim cosmology does seem to have been shaped by the desert landscape, just as European pagan cosmologies were shaped by the forests. This is the reason that Middle Eastern cosmologies purport that the Earth is a flat disk covered by a hemispherical dome; it is a natural expansion of the perspective that the desert provides.

Problem is, the Aryans didn't originate in the forests of Europe. Our distant ancestors were a steppe people.

It is also a myth that the Bible claims Earth is a disc.

Psychonaut
Monday, December 15th, 2008, 11:11 PM
Trouble is, the Jews and their Talmud are NOT Semitic, but Khazar and Babylonian, respectively.

The Kazars were converted to Judaism, but not all Jews are descended from Kazars. This conversion is thought to be the reason for the prominence of R1a1 haplogroup in the Ashkenazi, however the common haplogroup amongst all Jews is still J2, which is clearly Middle Eastern in origin.


Problem is, the Aryans didn't originate in the forests of Europe. Our distant ancestors were a steppe people.

The problem with this statement is that most Europeans are not descended from the PIE steppe people. Outside of Eastern Europe, the Kurgan (R1a1) haplogroup is relatively rare. Most inhabitants of Western and Northern Europe bear either the R1b or I1a haplogroup, which means they are the descendants of the native Upper Paleolithic peoples of Europe. Thus, most of our ancestors did originate in the forests of Europe. Additionally, the Proto-Germanic language, which is the only IE language that really concerns us here, did originate in the forests as well, either in Sweden or Jutland.


It is also a myth that the Bible claims Earth is a disc.

Most critical scholars of the Bible would disagree with you here. The passage in question reads:


God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Here's what wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament) has to say about the word firmament, from which this description is derived:


Firmament is the usual English translation of the Hebrew "raqiya`" (pronounced rä·kē'·ah) meaning an extended solid surface or flat expanse, considered to be a hemisphere above the ground. The word is derived from the Hebrew raqa, meaning "to spread out" by stamping, stretching, beating, or making broad., e.g. the process of making a metal bowl by hammering metal flat, or "to make a spreading (of clouds)". Thus, in the Bible, Elihu asks Job “Can you beat out [raqa] the vault of the skies, as he does, hard as a mirror of cast metal (Job 37:18)?”

Svalbard
Thursday, January 1st, 2009, 02:34 AM
How can you guys embrace a religion that allmost ruined any trace of pagan religions(the real European religions) and weakened the nature and heart of Europe? Christianity and its followers destroyed traces of the past, and thereby took away information about our ancient history that we will never be able ro recover.

In Norway christians converted the population by forcing people to convert and burning down anything "pagan", and then building churches upon the ashes of the pagan holy places. The way i see it christianity did nothing but weakening the norwegian people and its idendity. Sure, in some centuries people will say Islam is an European religion, but it never will be, along with other Abrahamic religions.

rainman
Friday, January 2nd, 2009, 11:44 PM
Most Christian concepts come from a common Aryan root and influence. Most of the surface of x-ianity is Pagan. We all know yule and easter and such are pagan.

However the main difference is x-ianity teaches Jews are special people. Focuses almost solely on jewish history. That's the first problem.

Second: Christianity teaches weakness, subjegation, ignorance, abdication of self responsibility and intolerance/fear. Very little of which is found in the Bible but still are central core beliefs of x-ianity. If you took apart those cornerstones of Christianity you'd have a pretty strongly pagan religion.

Though by abdication of self responsibility I mean "forgiveness of sins" and "judge not". Weakness would mean no more "turn the other cheek".

But it doesn't matter what cloak they put on it. As long as it's a religion that teaches weakness, subjegation, ignorance it serves the purpose of the elite.

I've noticed they've done this with other religion as well. Book stores won't carry real Asatru books. Instead you have a form of Asatru that teaches you to feel good, expect problems to solve themselves (via karma or whatever) somehow Jewish mysticism is mixed into it, we are taught confrontation etc. is a last resort etc. Same with Wicca, Buddhism, Islam etc. They've bored inside all these religions and made fundamental changes to them so on the outside they look like the same religion, but inwardly they destroy people.

Nachtengel
Tuesday, June 30th, 2009, 12:38 AM
I've been wondering this question for a while.

Of course, Christianity's origins is Semitic, but Christianity didn't flourish in the Semetic countries, instead, it flourished in Europe.
This doesn't make it European. Semites (the Jews) lived in Europe for thousands of years, yet they are not Europeans.


I believe, although Christianity's roots are Semitic, it's European influence cannot be ignored, most Christian festivals usually have a Pagan counterpart. The tradition is all European.
Yes but like you correctly identified, these elements are pagan. If it hadn't been for the non-Christian influence, there would be no European (nor Germanic) elements in Christianity. This however still doesn't make Christianity an European religion, because its core element remains Semitic, its most important teachings are Semitic. One more thing, the pagan elements are just a happy accident. Christianity looks down on paganism and sought to destroy it.

As a conclusion, there is no European by adoption (ius soli). There is only European by origin (ius sanguis), so Christianity will always remain as Semitic as the "chosen" people it was designed for.

BurgMeister
Tuesday, January 12th, 2010, 07:06 PM
I've already mentionned the matter in the 'Is christianity alien to Germanics' thread.

Honestly, what's so wrong about the Semitic issue?
Our most Germanic Y-DNA haplogroups can be linked to the IJK group. J being very representative of Semitic speaking populations.

solkorset
Friday, January 15th, 2010, 05:40 PM
I think it's a mistake to consider christianity a unity. It has several sources. One of them is the Jahve-cult. Another source is aryan. If you consider the gospels there are several incompatible threads in there, sort of competing for predominance. I believe Jesus himself was aryan and his message very aryan, somewhat similar to persian Mazdaism and the teachings of Zarathustra. But his surroundings and later followers were mostly non-aryan. Until the germans became christianized and started emphasizing the aryan core of it.

I'm going to read the apocryphal Thomas gospel which was discovered in 1945 in Egypt and may be the truest rendering of Jesus' spirit.

Ocko
Saturday, January 16th, 2010, 12:01 AM
It seems the discussion is about 'the right' religion and whether it is one close to germanic essence.

Other than that it is the question, which one is the most useful.

It comes to the question what is religion all about? if you clarify this question the answer is easy.

Ocko
Saturday, January 16th, 2010, 12:10 AM
nowadays what one can observe is that zionists streamline christianity to their agenda.

+ Israel is God's chosen people and have to be supported because it is 'God s will'

+ Christianity is a brother religion and thus close to jewish Pharisaism.

+ The 'Guilt' button is inherent in christian religion. 'Killing million of jews' in the Holocaust is something all white people have to redeem.

That is the way they kill christianity from the inside

To kill it from the outside is:

+ Movies which mock christianity

+ forbidding the exhibition of christian symbols in public places

+ destruction of christian values (Family, monogamy etc) through an erosion by liberal and gay/lesbian/transgender propaganda