PDA

View Full Version : 'Religion to Become Extinct'



Nachtengel
Saturday, June 27th, 2009, 12:44 AM
Teenagers even say family, friends, money, music and even reality television are more important than religion.

It also emerged six out of ten 10 children (59 per cent) believe that religion "has a negative influence on the world".

The survey also shows that half of teenagers have never prayed and 16 per cent have never been to church.

The study of 1,000 teenagers aged 13 to 18 was carried out by Penguin to mark this week's publication of controversial novel 'Killing God' by Kevin Brooks.

The book is about a 15-year-old girl who questions the existence of God.

Kevin Brooks, the author, said: "I can't say I am surprised by the teenagers' responses.

"Part of the reason that I wrote Killing God was that I wanted to explore the personal attitudes of young people today, especially those with troubled lives, towards organised religion and the traditional concept of God.

"How can the moralities of an ancient religion relate to the tragedies and disorders of today's broken world? And why do some people turn to God for help while others take comfort in drugs and alcohol?

"These are just some of the questions I wanted to consider... And I wasn't looking for answers."

The research also found 55 per cent of young people are not bothered about religion and 60 per cent only go to church for a wedding or christening.

Only three out of 10 teenagers believe in an afterlife and 41 per cent believe that nothing happens to your body when you die, but one in 10 reckon they come back as an animal or another human being.

A Church of England spokesman said: "Many teenagers aren't sure what they believe at that stage of their lives, as is clear from the number who said they don't know whether they believe in God.

"On the other hand many of these results point to the great spirituality of young people today that the Church is seeking to respond to through new forms of worship alongside tradition ones."

Hanne Stinson, chief executive of The British Humanist Association, said: "It confirms that young people - like adults - do not need a religion to have positive values.

"The 'golden rule', which is often claimed by religions as a religious value, is in reality a shared human value - shared by all the major religions and the non-religious and almost every culture - that predates all the major world religions."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/5603096/Two-thirds-of-teenagers-dont-believe-in-God.html

Hanna
Monday, June 29th, 2009, 07:30 PM
Its not a question to believe or not to believe; for some its a question of existentialism and for some its not.

Chlodovech
Monday, June 29th, 2009, 09:02 PM
"The 'golden rule', which is often claimed by religions as a religious value, is in reality a shared human value - shared by all the major religions and the non-religious and almost every culture - that predates all the major world religions."

That's rich. :nope "Golden rule"? What's that? "Moderation"? "Do not unto others..."? Stinson is a reductionist; religion is about more than a set of rules to live your life by. The notion that there's an independent eternal system of values that is part of the human condition, remaining stabile, everywhere, in all ages - as she seems to suggest, is pretty religious, and a total denial of history (in favor of the future, of multiculturalism, with its various convictions and creeds of faith?). And mankind is not fundamentally good, please someone tell Stinson.

So religion, or at least what she considers the bright side of religion, was really masked humanism all along? Kumbaya My Lord!

Nachtengel
Saturday, August 29th, 2009, 07:12 PM
Today more evidence has been released that once again shows that religion (particularly the Abrahamic religions) is losing ground and will be a thing of the past. The days of Churches on every street corner are numbered.

New research shows that roughly 30 to 40 percent of young people no longer attend church. That number used to be around 5 to 10 percent. According to Harvard University professor Robert Putnam, this trend started in the 1990s and continues today. Putnam does point out that this doesn’t necessarily mean that these young people are atheists, just that they no longer attend church. He speculated that the Religious Right has tainted most young people’s view of organized religion and that many now see organized religion as a “source of intolerance and rigidity and doctrinaire political views."

The fact is that if religion loses the youth of America, it will eventually be phased out. Within the last few years more and more atheist groups have started to organize and become outspoken. More authors like Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and Dennett have been speaking out about religion and more people have been coming out as non-believers. Just a few weeks ago, the popular Daily Show host Jon Stewart revealed that he doesn’t believe in God. His show attracts a large number of young people and most of them look up to him. Bill Maher has also recently joined the fight against religion after sitting on the sidelines for years.

While Putnam’s poll shows only 30 to 40 percent of young people have stopped going to church, he also has pointed out that this trend is continuing. I predict that within the next decade of so, that number will double. As rational thought and secular values start to compete with religious indoctrination, we will see more and more people young and old start to reject the ancient superstitions of the past in favor of the science and reason of the future.

http://www.examiner.com/x-8928-Philadelphia-Atheism-Examiner~y2009m5d6-Religions-days-are-numbered

Agree or disagree? Why?

Ocko
Sunday, August 30th, 2009, 12:03 AM
Official religion organizations are not the same as religion. To be religious you have to make religious exercises in order to see what is hidden. religious exercise mean the transformation of oneself in an in organ of perception of a world different than that what we BELIEVE is reality. If you don't make those exercises or don't use the religion you proclaim to have for transforming you you are just pretender.

It is if you can see the moon and tell it to somebody and he tells you it doesn't exist. You tell him just look and he says he doesn't need to look he knows it doesn't exist.

The number of people who BELIEVE God/or GODS don't exist might rise. But are those numbers any kind of proof? If million people believe the moon doesn't exist but you can see it, who do you believe?

The transformation of oneself is the essence of any religious instruction. If you can see and you read religious instructions they basically all say the same in a different way. They use different pictures. and that from cultures as far apart as the Maya culture (their holy book is called Popul -Voh) to Islam. If there is apparently no outward connection there is obviously for the one who knows something behing the screen which is the same.

The transformation of oneself is not an easy task and takes a long time, most people don't even start, from the few who start, only very very few succeed.

so who cares for the many?

A men saw a pearl of great prize. He went and sold everthing to gain that pearl.

A religious student is going to lose everthing, his illusions, his convictions, his friends, his believe who he is. That is scary for most people and they get stuck somewhere.

Jesus gave a picture of Camel going through a needleoer would be easier than a rich guy getting salvation. The needleoer was a very small gate in the walls of Jerusalem. (Eretz Shalom means the state of peace). the Camels who had to go through that gate had to be unloaded by all their burdens.

A men has to give up all his burdens to reach the (internal) state of peace.

Kogen
Sunday, August 30th, 2009, 01:27 AM
Well these are just American figures? Here it has decreased, but not extremely. I have only seen a single Temple here coverted into something else, while actually seeing several new types of Churches built. If anything, I would say Protestantism is spreading here with Catholic numbers are dropping.

And since cultural things such as Christmas, our school system, marriage, et cetera all use Churches, they will not be going anywhere. I am not sure how Americans do any of this (from my understand, it is less associated with school?).

And if you look at other places, there are Mosques simply replacing the Churches, so 'religion' is going no where.

Pilgrim
Sunday, August 30th, 2009, 02:08 AM
Orthodoxy is also gaining ground in the east as people return after the fall of communism and in the west as people seek the ancient Christian faith, abandoning both Protestantism and Catholicism. The Metropolitans of the Autocephalous Churches have met recently to create synods in the west. there is also an autocephalous Church in the americas, the OCA, as well as the British Orthodox Church in England.

SwordOfTheVistula
Sunday, August 30th, 2009, 08:30 AM
And since cultural things such as Christmas, our school system, marriage, et cetera all use Churches, they will not be going anywhere. I am not sure how Americans do any of this (from my understand, it is less associated with school?).

That is true, most people here go to public schools, which are strictly religion-free zones. The Catholic church maintains a large school system as well, along with a handful of smaller church schools and some generic 'Christian schools', all of which are private schools, meaning they get no government funding although they can make use of some state resources such as school buses. Some older private schools are ostensibly associated with the Anglican/Episcopalian church but are essentially secular in nature.

Marriages here are licensed by the state but can be performed either by a designated state official or by a clergy from any religion, the majority of people get married by clergy. This is where it ends, the rest is all state-run, for example if you get married by a Catholic priest, and then want a divorce, you get one through the state even if the Catholic church doesn't want to grant one.


Also many people participate in organized religion for the above reasons even if they are secular in nature. For example, a popular regional radio host here has essentially said he is an atheist and doesn't believe in God, yet he sends his children to Catholic schools, even remarking that he likes the fact that a portrait of the founder of Opus Dei (hardline conservative Catholic organization) is prominently displayed by the school, and strongly objects to attempts to remove Christian symbols such as Christmas trees and term 'Merry Christmas' from public society. For many people organized religion serves cultural and social purposes, even if those people are effectively secular/nonbelievers in nature.

Elessar
Tuesday, March 22nd, 2011, 05:28 AM
Religion to become extinct, says model of census data

By Jason Palmer
Science and technology reporter, BBC News, Dallas

A study using census data from nine countries shows that religion there is set for extinction, say researchers.

The data reflect a steady rise in those claiming no religious affiliation.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/51778000/jpg/_51778296_51778294.jpg
In the UK, Wales has the highest proportion of religiously "non-affiliated"

The team's mathematical model attempts to account for the interplay between the number of religious respondents and the social motives behind being one.

The result, reported at the American Physical Society meeting in Dallas, US, indicates that religion will all but die out altogether in those countries.

Nonlinear dynamics is invoked to explain a wide range of physical phenomena in which a number of factors play a part.

One of the team, Daniel Abrams of Northwestern University, put forth a similar model in 2003 to put a numerical basis behind the decline of lesser-spoken world languages.

At its heart is the competition between speakers of different languages, and the "utility" of speaking one instead of another.

"The idea is pretty simple," said Richard Wiener of the Research Corporation for Science Advancement.

"It posits that social groups that have more members are going to be more attractive to join, and it posits that social groups have a social status or utility," he told BBC News.

"For example in languages, there can be greater utility or status in speaking Spanish instead of [the dying language] Quechuan in Peru, and similarly there's some kind of status or utility in being a member of a religion or not."

The team took census data stretching back as far as a century from countries in which the census queried religious affiliation: Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Switzerland.

"In a large number of modern secular democracies, there's been a trend that folk are identifying themselves as non-affiliated with religion; in the Netherlands the number was 40%, and the highest we saw was in the Czech Republic, where the number was 60%," Dr Wiener said.

The team then applied their nonlinear dynamics model, adjusting parameters for the relative social and utilitarian merits of membership of the "non-religious" category.

They found, in a study published online, that those parameters were similar across all the countries studied, suggesting that similar behaviour drives the mathematics in all of them.

And in all the countries, the indications were that religion was headed toward extinction.

"I think it's a suggestive result," Dr Wiener said.

"It's interesting that a fairly simple model captures the data, and if those simple ideas are correct, it suggests where this might be going.

"Obviously much more complicated things are going on with any one individual, but maybe a lot of that averages out."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12811197

Hilderinc
Tuesday, March 22nd, 2011, 05:41 AM
They are of course speaking of native Christians. They make no mention of the growing number of Muslim immigrants (and Mestizo Catholics in the US.)

Elessar
Tuesday, March 22nd, 2011, 05:48 AM
Of course. In the modern sense "religious" has come to mean "Christian". Nobody describes a person as "religious" when said person is Muslim, Jewish or Hindu, they describe them by their given affiliation.

Curious, however, that this projection is in direct correlation with the "extinction" of the European races. I believe the case could surly be made that religious solidarity equals cultural/racial solidarity.

Grey
Tuesday, March 22nd, 2011, 06:36 AM
Phases of rise and decline

Spring: Intuition, powerful cultural creation from awakening souls, unity and abundance.

* Religion: Birth of a grand myth signifying a new conception of God. Fear and longing for the world. Earliest metaphysical organization of the world. High scholasticism.
* Art: Religious art considered as an integrated part of religious devotion. Gothic cathedrals, Doric temples. Development of Ornamental art as against the persistent, ahistorical type of Imitative art.
* Politics: Feudalism, warrior aristocracies. Division between two primary Estates: Nobility, which is the estate proper, contains within itself the highest aspirations of its race and is therefore symbolic of the particular people in question, as well as being representative of Time in the sense of Directedness and Destiny; and Priesthood, which is the anti-Estate, pursuing eternal Truth and attempting to subordinate Blood to Intellect primarily through asceticism, but also through scholasticism.

Summer: Maturing consciousness. Earliest urban-civil society and critical thought.

* Religion: Reformation: revolt of the religious moderates against the early religion. Beginnings of a purely philosophical movement. Contrasting idealistic and realistic systems. Mathematical breakthroughs leading to a new conception of the world. Rationalism. The depletion of mysticism from religion.
* Art: Development of high artistic traditions. Both artistic medium and style express the fundamental nature of the soul of the culture. Struggle between different artistic mediums, representing the culture's striving to discover its proper mode of self-representation.
* Politics: Absolutist states. Conflicts between aristocracy and monarchy. The political centre shifts from castles and estates to the cities.

Autumn: Urban rise. High point of disciplined organizational strength.

* Religion: Faith in the omnipotence of rationality. Cult of Nature. The height of mathematical thought. The last idealists. Theories of knowledge and logic.
* Art: Fulfillment of high artistic potentials of culture- sculpture in Greece, contrapuntal music in the West. At the beginning of Autumn, art possesses complete freedom to manifest the Destiny-vision of a people through its particular perfected formal technique. However, the end of Autumn witnesses the exhaustion of the possibilities of that technique, leading to craft-art in imitation of the great style as well as artistic revolt.
* Politics: Struggles between the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie. Revolutions. Napoleonism.

Winter: Coming fissure in the world-urban civilization. Exhaustion of mental organization strength. Irreligiousness rises.

* Religion: Materialism: Cults of science, utility, and luck. Ethical-social ideals: philosophy without mathematics, skepticism. The last mathematical thinkers. Decline of abstract thinkers, and the rise of specialized academic philosophy. Spread of the last ideas.
* Art: End of symbolic art. All art becomes meaningless subjects of fashion.
* Politics: Democracy, the rule of the rich, followed by caesarism and bureaucracy.

[Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Decline_of_the_West#Phases_of_rise_a nd_decline)]

Hersir
Tuesday, March 22nd, 2011, 11:26 AM
But more and more people say they are spirutual

Æmeric
Tuesday, March 22nd, 2011, 04:55 PM
The establishment is doing its best to kill Christianity, which is really what they mean by religion becoming extinct - it isn't Hinduism or Islam that is facing a crisis. But the religious have more children then those who are secular. Longterm Christianity will make a comeback.

Hrogar
Tuesday, March 22nd, 2011, 05:29 PM
But more and more people say they are spirutual

Indeed people are still spiritual, but they feel they lack a religion they can relate to. Christianity has lost its appeal and also credibility with the people. So now they can only choose between monotheistic religion or atheism, since most don't know about our pagan religions. This means they reject christianity and other monotheistic religions and while still being spiritual, they chose the only real alternative they know, which is atheism.

velvet
Tuesday, March 22nd, 2011, 05:51 PM
Hopefully not. Enough of superstitions and retarded anti-truths.

It's time for humanity to mature. Christianity cannot provide a spiritual environment anyway, "god" is the very antithesis to spiritualism.

Spiritualism will find new niches, although the elites want us so much to be materialistic, many people arent. And while today still many convert to one of the big religions (interestingly in the West not so much to Christianity, which they already left behind, but to Islam, which is for various reasons not desireable, but understandable), matured humans able to deep thought will not be satisfied with either and so there will come about other streams, maybe in form of Buddhist-like spiritualism, more likely though a self-aligning to ancestor cults, because they provide the necessary cultural identity and automatically close them for outsiders (which in fact is the very meaning of "identity") - a desire present in many people despite all the brainwash for world openness and tolerance. Which in fact doesnt have to be a contradiction anyway.

In fact, an own identity is the precondition for world-openness and the tolerance required in contact with other people with their own identity. When you dont possess a position and identity, you must see everyone as a threat, simply because they have an identity that gives them a cultural framework, while you swim around lost in a sea of relativities with no fix point to orientate on.

The only viable way to go is to return to Heathenism, to the mixed ancestor - gods cult it once was.

Christianity is completely useless for this task to give an identity. It is universal, and with that meaningless. It gives no identity (it takes identity away), and it doesnt even give a cultural framework. Christianity to all times and in all countries (ab-)used the already present culture, because it does not have one. Our culture, even though twisted and corrupted, is still pagan through and through.

Take the real thing and help to resurrect that instead of a univeral dead horse.

Hersir
Tuesday, March 22nd, 2011, 05:56 PM
Christianity bound our people more together than heathenism did.

velvet
Tuesday, March 22nd, 2011, 06:28 PM
Christianity bound our people more together than heathenism did.

Crusades

The Crusades were a series of military campaigns—usually sanctioned by the Papacy—that took place during the 11th through 13th centuries in response to the Muslim Conquests. Originally, the goal was to recapture Jerusalem and the Holy Land from the Muslims, and support the besieged Christian Byzantine Empire against the Muslim Seljuq expansion into Asia Minor and Europe proper. Later, Crusades were launched against other targets, either for religious reasons, such as the Albigensian Crusade, the Northern Crusades, or because of political conflict, such as the Aragonese Crusade. In 1095, at the Council of Clermont, Pope Urban II raised the level of war from bellum iustum ("just war"), to bellum sacrum (holy war).


French Wars of Religion

In 16th Century France there was a succession of wars (eight) between Roman Catholics and Protestants (Hugenots primarily). These series of wars were known as the Wars of Religion.


Thirty Years War

In the first half of the 17th century, the German states, Scandinavia (Sweden, primarily) and Poland were beset by religious warfare. Roman Catholicism and Protestantism figured in the opposing sides of this conflict, though Catholic France did take the side of the Protestants but purely for political reasons.


Taiping Rebellion

Inspired by a formerly illegal Protestant missionary tract in China, the core of the Taiping faith focused on the belief that Shangdi, the high God of classical China, had chosen the Taiping leader, Hong Xiuquan, to establish his Heavenly Kingdom on Earth.

The Taiping rebels, professing this new creed, were able to mount their rebellion and recruit multitudes of followers in their sweep through the empire. The Taiping rebels denounced the divine pretensions of the imperial title and the sacred character of the imperial office as blasphemous usurpations of Shangdi’s title and position. In place of the imperial institution, the rebels called for a restoration of the classical system of kingship. Previous rebellions had declared their contemporary dynasties corrupt and therefore in need of revival; the Taiping, by contrast, branded the entire imperial order blasphemous and in need of replacement.

The Bible, in particular a Chinese translation of the Old Testament, profoundly influenced Hong and his followers, leading them to understand the first three of the Ten Commandments as an indictment of the imperial order. The rebels thus sought to destroy imperial culture, along with its institutions and Confucian underpinnings, all of which they regarded as blasphemous. Strongly iconoclastic, the Taiping followers smashed religious statues and imperially approved icons throughout the lands they conquered.

The Guinness Book of World Records calls this the "bloodiest civil war" with some 20 million estimated dead.




The Northern Crusades[1] or Baltic Crusades[2] were crusades undertaken by the Christian kings of Denmark and Sweden, the German Livonian and Teutonic military orders, and their allies against the pagan peoples of Northern Europe around the southern and eastern shores of the Baltic Sea. Swedish and German Catholic campaigns against Russian Eastern Orthodox Christians are also sometimes considered part of the Northern Crusades.[1][3] Some of these wars were called crusades during the Middle Ages, but others, including most of the Swedish ones, were first dubbed crusades by 19th century romantic nationalist historians. The east Baltic world was transformed by military conquest: first the Livs, Latgallians and Estonians, then the Semigallians, Curonians, Prussians and the Finns underwent defeat, baptism, military occupation and sometimes extermination by groups of Danes, Germans and Swedes.[4]


Wendish Crusade

The campaigns started with the 1147 Wendish Crusade against the Polabian Slavs (or "Wends") of what is now northern and eastern Germany. The crusade occurred parallel to the Second Crusade to the Holy Land, and continued irregularly until the 16th century.


Livonian Crusade

By the 12th century, the peoples inhabiting the lands now known as Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania formed a pagan wedge between increasingly powerful rival Christian states – Greek Orthodox Church to their east and Catholic Church to their west. The difference in creeds was one of the reasons they had not yet been effectively converted. During a period of more than 150 years leading up to the arrival of German crusaders in the region, Estonia was attacked thirteen times by Russian principalities, and by Denmark and Sweden as well. Estonians for their part made raids upon Denmark and Sweden. There were peaceful attempts by some Catholics to convert the Estonians, starting with missions dispatched by Adalbert, Archbishop of Bremen in 1045-1072. However, these peaceful efforts seem to have had only limited success.

Campaign against Livonians (1198–1212)

Moving in the wake of German merchants who were now following the old trading routes of the Vikings, a monk named Meinhard landed at the mouth of the Daugava river in present-day Latvia in 1180 and was made bishop in 1186. Pope Celestine III proclaimed a crusade against the Baltic heathens in 1195, which was reiterated by Pope Innocent III and a crusading expedition led by Meinhard's successor, Bishop Berthold of Hanover, landed in Livonia (part of present-day Latvia, surrounding the Gulf of Riga) in 1198. Although the crusaders won their first battle, Bishop Berthold was mortally wounded and the crusaders were repulsed.

In 1199, Albert of Buxhoeveden was appointed by the Archbishop Hartwig II of Bremen to Christianise the Baltic countries. By the time Albert died 30 years later, the conquest and formal Christianisation of present-day Estonia and northern Latvia was complete. Albert began his task by touring the Empire, preaching a Crusade against the Baltic countries, and was assisted in this by a Papal Bull, which declared that fighting against the Baltic heathens was of the same rank as participating in a crusade to the Holy Land.


Etc etc etc




Christianity divided the European people, killed them en masse because they "believed in the wrong gods" or in the "wrong version of the bible".

All this bloodshed only ended, more or less, with the Europe-wide introduction of the French Revolution inspired constitutions, which took away the influence of the church to continually being able to wage wars.

And although today many people deny it, the English-Irish conflict is a religious war too. The Irish most likely would have accepted the defeat if it werent for the English will to impose Protestantism on their people.


Yeah, great unifying force this christianity..... :|

RoyBatty
Tuesday, March 22nd, 2011, 06:29 PM
One of the team, Daniel Abrams of Northwestern University

Jew?



"The idea is pretty simple," said Richard Wiener of the Research Corporation for Science Advancement.

Jew again?



The team took census data stretching back as far as a century from countries in which the census queried religious affiliation: Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Switzerland.


Forget about religion, the entire national identities of these countries are being driven into extinction.

The Christian haters keep forgetting one thing, and that is that for better or worse that the religion they hate so much forms part of the National Identity. Once you remove that religion you in effect also erase a part of that National Identity leaving the masses confused and open to "New World (Order)" type suggestions and henceforth easy to target and reprogram.

velvet
Tuesday, March 22nd, 2011, 06:42 PM
The Christian haters keep forgetting one thing, and that is that for better or worse that the religion they hate so much forms part of the National Identity. Once you remove that religion you in effect also erase a part of that National Identity leaving the masses confused and open to "New World (Order)" type suggestions and henceforth easy to target and reprogram.

Yeah, worked great in the past to prevent this :oanieyes

The question remains, why religion should be "universal" christianity. Universal is pretty much the opposite of "identity", specially when we talk about cultural identity.

Out culture, whether you like it or not, is pagan anyway. Your holy days, your saints, your myths, your fairy tales, all pagan. We had an identity already, until christianity came and told people that universality is the way to go. But in fact, christianity is a mere cover over a deep rooted pagan identity, and those who wish for an identity for their people into the future, will have to recognise that only Paganism can offer this identity - amidst a sea of 2bio non-white christians.

It is irrelevant if christianity once served a purpose, for the last centuries it did not. And it cannot do anything against the tide that threatens to wash us away - because it is the root cause with its universality and cultural relativism.

The original religion was replaced once, so it can also be reversed.

Specially considering that most people in Europe are not christians anyway. :shrug

Schattenjäger
Tuesday, March 22nd, 2011, 08:38 PM
I am of opinion that great religions will prevail and trendy sects will disappear. Also I wonder how authors conceived the disappearance of islam... stupidity at best.

Buddhism and Taoism are the only religions that aren't conflicted with science (in that way that science confirms their models of universe) so I guess they too have a chance to endure.

When white people will get common sense, they may finally adopt confucianism with its pro-folk social doctrines - in order to preserve whatever will remain of the white race.

Hersir
Tuesday, March 22nd, 2011, 08:47 PM
Crusades

Yeah, great unifying force this christianity..... :|


Maybe it was a response to muslim invasion in Europe? You know, Christian European armies united and withstood the muslim hordes that came to overtake us. I am interested in my forefathers heathen ways, but I'm a realist too.

Hrogar
Tuesday, March 22nd, 2011, 09:31 PM
Maybe it was a response to muslim invasion in Europe? You know, Christian European armies united and withstood the muslim hordes that came to overtake us. I am interested in my forefathers heathen ways, but I'm a realist too.

Christians also united to kill fellow Europeans in their self-rightious crusades. The bottom line is that religion will not be a binding factor. It has hardly ever been in the last 1600 years.

The only real binding factor will be a shared sense of identity and destiny as a people. We fortunately don't need religion for that.

Plantagenet
Tuesday, March 22nd, 2011, 09:43 PM
It's time for humanity to mature. Christianity cannot provide a spiritual environment anyway, "god" is the very antithesis to spiritualism.

Most spiritual systems have a belief in God, be it a theistic, deistic, or impersonal panentheistic conceptualization of God, so how is God the antithesis to spiritualism? That's like me saying the sun is the antithesis to daylight. Christianity can provide a spiritual environment and has done so in the West for centuries, and continues to do so for many people.


The only viable way to go is to return to Heathenism, to the mixed ancestor - gods cult it once was.

Problem with this is any attempt to re-create heathenism in a modern era would be a reconstruction, and hence an entirely new spiritual system altogether and would only superficially resemble the heathenism of the past. Secondly, no one except a fringe element of society will take heathenism seriously, I'd say we would have a better chance at revitalizing Christianity and removing its lesser, corrupted, and anti-intellectual elements than ever seeing a Europe converting en masse to heathenism. Actually I'd say there would be a greater chance of Europe becoming Buddhist or Islamic rather than heathen, and both of those religions are far more foreign to Western identity than Christianity.



Christianity divided the European people, killed them en masse because they "believed in the wrong gods" or in the "wrong version of the bible".

Christianity also made the idea of Europe possible, and the term Europe, aside from its geographical connotations, is just a modern term for what was once "Christendom." Without Christianity there would be no Western civilization, nor any incentive for the various European ethnicities and cultures to unite against foreign incursions throughout history. People are divided and fight among each other, and this is a universal fact. This occurred in pre-Christian Europe, Christian Europe, and in the modern secular world.


All this bloodshed only ended, more or less, with the Europe-wide introduction of the French Revolution inspired constitutions, which took away the influence of the church to continually being able to wage wars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1800-1899

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1900-1944

Yeah, those constitutions really did a whole lot to end bloodshed. Nevermind that the greatest inter-European bloodshed and destruction occurred in our modern, secular era--that being the Great War and World War II.



It is irrelevant if christianity once served a purpose, for the last centuries it did not. And it cannot do anything against the tide that threatens to wash us away - because it is the root cause with its universality and cultural relativism.

I think the fact that Christianity has become corrupted and its modern adherents, much like their atheists counterparts, support universality and cultural relativism is not because of Christianity itself, but because of modern, post-Enlightenment values and beliefs being transplanted onto Christianity and society as a whole. Really, Christianity is diametrically opposed to cultural relativism because it believes in an objective truth and objective morality in contrast to the modern relativist views.


Christians also united to kill fellow Europeans in their self-rightious crusades. The bottom line is that religion will not be a binding factor. It has hardly ever been in the last 1600 years.

The only real binding factor will be a shared sense of identity and destiny as a people. We fortunately don't need religion for that.

Pagans also united to kill fellow Europeans in their self-righteous wars against Christendom. Pagan Europeans were slaughtering each other in the pre-Christian world and atheist Europeans were slaughtering each other in the post-Christian landscape of our modern era. Guess thats ok though.

As for religion not being a binding factor, from about the 9th century to the early 18th century Christianity was the major binding factor and civilization of Europe. Religion continues to be a binding factor in the non-European world to this day.

Elessar
Tuesday, March 22nd, 2011, 09:48 PM
The fact of the matter is, the study is true, whether it was conducted by Jews or not, the evidence is right in front of you. It doesn't matter if you're a Pagan, Atheist, or a Christian, the same problem afflicts all of us.

If we spent as much time trying to cooperate inter-religiously rather than come up with our own medieval Holocaust stories maybe we'd get somewhere. The "Christians kill pagans kill Christians kill Muslims kill Jews kill Christians" rants are quite the eyesore.

Here we have the interrelationship of established religion and the established secular democracy, one cannot be equal with he other, as the conflict of interest and "human rights" comes into play. Then the third party of scientific advances comes into play. We can now, supposedly, explain the meaning and origin of life, so what use is the teachings of Christ, Krishna, Buddha, Confucius, Muhammad, even Odin, when the human condition is subjectified and sedated in our modern world. Everything you need is within arms reach. One doesn't need to know the pattern of the game in the forest, what the weather will be like for a sufficient harvest, the fundamental questions which are answered in nearly every ancient holy book. Modern man has turned his back on God, thus has turned his back on himself.


Enough of superstitions and retarded anti-truths.

It's time for humanity to mature. Christianity cannot provide a spiritual environment anyway, "god" is the very antithesis to spiritualism.

I guess every God, prophet, and guru is full of bologna then :oanieyes

The problem religion has in the modern day (mainly Occidental and Semitic traditions) is that we take myths as being literally true, or in the case of Christianity, it's own myth being somehow the only truth. I couldn't care less if you proved to me Christ never lived, what matters is the principle.

St. Athanasius once wrote: "God became man so that man might become God", here's the catch, you have to actually live a virtuous life in accordance with the principle to attain religious fulfillment. Basically saying that "Here's the blueprint, try your best to go according to plan". Simply saying your pagan or christian doesn't do much in the way of living the principle rather than reciting it.

Thus, Kali Yuga:


In relation to rulers

* Rulers will become unreasonable: they will levy taxes unfairly.
* Rulers will no longer see it as their duty to promote spirituality, or to protect their subjects: they will become a danger to the world.
* People will start migrating, seeking countries where wheat and barley form the staple food source.

In human relationships

* Avarice and wrath will be common. Humans will openly display animosity towards each other.
* Ignorance of dharma will occur.
* People will have thoughts of murder with no justification and will see nothing wrong in that.
* Lust will be viewed as socially acceptable and sexual intercourse will be seen as the central requirement of life.
* Sin will increase exponentially, whilst virtue will fade and cease to flourish.
* People will take vows and break them soon after.
* People will become addicted to intoxicating drinks and drugs.
* Men will find their jobs stressful and will go to retreats to escape their work.
* Gurus will no longer be respected and their students will attempt to injure them. Their teachings will be insulted, and followers of Kama will wrest control of the mind from all human beings. Brahmins will not be learned or honoured, Kshatriyas will not be brave, Vaishyas will not be just in their dealings and Shudras will not be honest and humble in their duties and to the other castes.

The thread subject is nothing to rejoice over other than the fulfillment of end-time prophecy.

Hrogar
Tuesday, March 22nd, 2011, 09:49 PM
Pagans also united to kill fellow Europeans in their self-righteous wars against Christendom.

Do you really want to start an argument with me on whom started to confrontation between christians and pagans? I dare you.



As for religion not being a binding factor, from about the 9th century to the early 18th century Christianity was the major binding factor and civilization of Europe. Religion continues to be a binding factor in the non-European world to this day.

Uhm, catholics and protestants have been at each other's throat for centuries. Arianists were hunted by other christians. Moslim factions are killing each other in the Middle East. And so on. Nice bonding.

We can't put our faith in religion. Only folk identity, shared destiny, and virtues like honor, pride, strength, discipline and such will help us forward.

Hrogar
Tuesday, March 22nd, 2011, 09:54 PM
The problem religion has in the modern day (mainly Occidental and Semitic traditions) is that we take myths as being literally true, or in the case of Christianity, it's own myth being somehow the only truth.


Stephen McNallen once put it very nice: Myth is that which never happened, but is always true.
True in this context meaning valuable and not strict truth.

Plantagenet
Tuesday, March 22nd, 2011, 10:05 PM
Do you really want to start an argument with me on whom started to confrontation between christians and pagans? I dare you.

Separate conflicts arise throughout time for various reasons, so its not about who started what. Decrying that Christians killed fellow Europeans but excusing the same behavior when Pagans kill fellow Europeans is hypocrisy. As to who started the initial conflicts between Christianity and the non-Christian and pagan world, try these articles out for starters--

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_New_Tes tament

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Roman_E mpire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_in_Lyon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletian_Persecution

When Christians finally gained the upper hand and had a history of being persecuted and killed by their foes, why wouldn't they complete their victory? Why wouldn't they increase their own power at the expense of their enemy when it is obvious that the enemy would do just that if he were on top?

Robbensvolk
Tuesday, March 22nd, 2011, 10:22 PM
I can tell you this much, White Gentiles might be getting fed up with Christianity, which is a good thing for us, ethnically and racially, but Judaism and Islam aren't going anywhere any time soon. The Jews invented their religion as a shield for their racial and ethnic group. Whereas once we had folk based "religions" and beliefs that were replaced by manipulation, coersion and brute force by Christianity. I'd say, a lot of these "unaffiliated" people are probably reconstructed Heathens and Pagans or at least open to the idea of a sort of pre-Christian European philosophy. More good news for us because monotheism, especially Christians and Muslims who want everybody to think like them has been and can only be detrimental for us. die Juden don't proselytize( except for Khazars, whatever) because you have to be a Jew to be a Jew, as everybody knows. Common sense, right. By the same token, you have to be a German to be a German! Any man is what he carries in his blood. As long as we get away from monotheism and into a direction of our own indigenous culture we are heading the right way. This is actually one trend that can be seen as positive globally. Let the zionists and islamists bang it out on their own turf, if they have any.

Schoppi
Tuesday, March 22nd, 2011, 10:25 PM
But the next day, Gizurr and Hjalti walked to the Lögberg and presented their mission there. And it is said that it was amazing how well they spoke. And because of that it turned out that one person named another as a witness, and each side—the Christian and the heathen people—declared the other outside their laws, and walked then from the Lögberg. Then the Christian men asked Hall of Síða to present their laws—the ones which the Christians had to follow. But he passed on the responsibility by striking a deal with Þorgeirr, that Þorgeirr the law-speaker should present them, though he was still heathen then. And afterwards, when everyone returned to their huts, Þorgeirr laid himself down and drew his cload over himself and stayed there all of that day and the following night and didn’t say a word. But the next morning he got up and announced that everyone had to go to the Lögberg.

And when the people had arrived there, he began his account, and said that it seemed to him that everyone’s situation would be untenable if they did not all share one law here in this country, and spoke before the people in various ways, that that must not be allowed to happen; and he said that the discord would ensue which was a certain outcome, that fighting would take place between people and the land be laid waste. He spoke about how the kings of Norway and Denmark had had discord and wars between themselves for a long time, until the people of those countries made peace between them, even though they didn’t want it. And the way that negotiation turned out was that at times they sent each other precious gifts, and while they lived, that peace held. ‘And now it the idea suggests itself to me’, he said, ‘that we also should not accept the course where people fall into the greatest opposition, and let us settle on a compromise between them, so that both have their way to an extent, and we all have one law and one set of customs. It must be true that when we break the law in two, we will will also break our peace.’ And he closed his speech, such that both sides agreed that all had to have one law—the one which he suggested.

As you can see, Christianity brought total distress to our ancestors. No binding at all. When Christianity was declared the one and only religion, it was just for the matter of peace.

Source: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/%C3%8Dslendingab%C3%B3k

Hrogar
Tuesday, March 22nd, 2011, 10:27 PM
Separate conflicts arise throughout time for various reasons, so its not about who started what.

Yes, true. But this is a bit of a useless generalization of this discussion. Shit happened all throughout history and will continu to do so.


Decrying that Christians killed fellow Europeans but excusing the same behavior when Pagans kill fellow Europeans is hypocrisy.

Where did I excuse that? Stop calling me a hypocrite and start reading and using your brains.


As to who started the initial conflicts between Christianity and the non-Christian and pagan world, try these articles out for starters--

I know these articles and read them.
What does the Roman empire have to do with germanic paganism? Please stick to the discussion.




Why wouldn't they increase their own power at the expense of their enemy when it is obvious that the enemy would do just that if he were on top?

You might want to stop murdering people on a large scale just because it's insane to keep up a murdering streak. Common sense and such?!

Juthunge
Tuesday, March 22nd, 2011, 10:33 PM
Separate conflicts arise throughout time for various reasons, so its not about who started what. Decrying that Christians killed fellow Europeans but excusing the same behavior when Pagans kill fellow Europeans is hypocrisy. As to who started the initial conflicts between Christianity and the non-Christian and pagan world, try these articles out for starters--

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_New_Tes tament

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Roman_E mpire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_in_Lyon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletian_Persecution

When Christians finally gained the upper hand and had a history of being persecuted and killed by their foes, why wouldn't they complete their victory? Why wouldn't they increase their own power at the expense of their enemy when it is obvious that the enemy would do just that if he were on top?
While I agree with much of what you've said in other posts I think this was a bad argument.

Christians at that time were intruders, enemies of the Roman state even who threatened public order by refusing to acknowledge the (divine) authority of the Emperor, a sentiment they apparently inherited from their Jewish roots.
Religion was subordinate to loyalty to the state and the Emperor, the Imperial cult being an essential mean of identification.
Foreign beliefs were tolerated and even incorporated as long as they pledged such loyalty.

In my book native people of a region defending their customs and their beliefs have got law on their side when dealing with intruders who are trying to change those customs and beliefs. Especially if they threaten the integrity of the state in that process.


Regardless of this, Germanic heathens aren't Roman heathens, there was no universal heathenism. Heathenism is actually the very contrary of universalism.

Elessar
Tuesday, March 22nd, 2011, 10:39 PM
Regardless of this, Germanic heathens aren't Roman heathens, there was no universal heathenism. Heathenism is actually the very contrary of universalism.

Yes and No. European pagan mythologies and religions all flow from the same well: the Aryan "urheimat" if you will, of the European diaspora. They share more in common than they do apart. The fact that all these share a common ancestor and all answer the same questions across the board is universal in itself

Plantagenet
Tuesday, March 22nd, 2011, 10:44 PM
Where did I excuse that? Stop calling me a hypocrite and start reading and using your brains.

I wasn't referring to you specifically, but rather directed that at people who seem to want to blame Christianity for everything and strongly emphasize whatever wrong doings or negative actions occurred under Christianity and largely ignore when the same things happened or were done by pagans, atheists, non-Christians etc.


I know these articles and read them.
What does the Roman empire have to do with germanic paganism? Please stick to the discussion.

I thought we were discussing paganism in general? As you know, the Roman Empire was a pagan entity.


You might want to stop murdering people on a large scale just because it's insane to keep up a murdering streak. Common sense and such?!

I'd say to destroy your opponent and secure your own position of power rather than slacken, weaken, and allow your opponent to destroy you is also an exercise in common sense.


While I agree with much of what you've said in other posts I think this was a bad argument. Christians at that time were intruders, enemies of the Roman state even who threatened public order by refusing to acknowledge the (divine) authority of the Emperor, a sentiment they apparently inherited from their Jewish roots. Religion was largely subordinate to loyalty to the state and the Emperor.
Foreign beliefs were tolerated and even incorporated as long as they pledged such loyalty.

So, if you were a Christian during this time and you fervently believed that there was only one divine authority, that of God, would you betray your innermost convictions just for safety or would you risk death for your beliefs?


In my book native people of a region defending their customs and their beliefs have got law on their side when dealing with intruders who are trying to change those customs and beliefs. Especially if they threaten the integrity of the state in that process.

Perhaps you are correct, from the Roman point of view the Christians could be seen as a threat. But one must remember that the Romans were only natives of Italy, they were the foreigners implementing their beliefs in Palestine and all across the rest of the Roman world.

However, looking at it from the Christian point of view, if you had been persecuted and murdered for your beliefs historically, and you finally reached the point where your religion had the upper hand, would you make sure you completely secured your victory or would your risk annihilation?

Juthunge
Tuesday, March 22nd, 2011, 10:53 PM
Yes and No. European pagan mythologies and religions all flow from the same well: the Aryan "urheimat" if you will, of the European diaspora. They share more in common than they do apart. The fact that all these share a common ancestor and all answer the same questions across the board is universal in itself

This is certainly true.

When I used universal(ism) I was talking about the idea that a whole diverse heathen world was responsible for what Roman heathens did. And those actually did it for secular and not for spiritual reasons even.
Thinking about it I guess I meant to say universality not "universalism".



So, if you were a Christian during this time and you fervently believed that there was only one divine authority, that of God, would you betray your innermost convictions just for safety or would you risk death for your beliefs?

Largely irrelevant for the topic at hand. They brought it upon themselves and reason of state is more important and logical to me.



Perhaps you are correct, from the Roman point of view the Christians could be seen as a threat. But one must remember that the Romans were only natives of Italy, they were the foreigners implementing their beliefs in Palestine and all across the rest of the Roman world.

Romans didn't go around spreading their belief or customs forcefully, on the contrary they used the Interpretatio Romana to allocate a Roman deity to every deity of a people they conquered.
This forceful implemention of belief on the other hand happened when Christianity took over. As you know Christianity soon enough spread to and focused on non-Palestinian regions of the Roman Empire and after they became state religion they outlawed any other native cult and religion.



However, looking at it from the Christian point of view, if you had been persecuted and murdered for your beliefs historically, and you finally reached the point where your religion had the upper hand, would you make sure you completely secured your victory or would your risk annihilation?

As I said Christians were largely not persecuted for their actualy belief but for their refusal of pledging loyalty to the Emperor which at least in the eyes of the Romans was more of a secular than a religious thing.

Then again, shouldn't a good Christian remember the oppressed ones and make sure they at least have got a chance to survive? At one point heathens didn't pose much of a threat to Christian dominance anymore. Where's Christian charity in that aspect?

Hilderinc
Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011, 12:32 AM
It's sad that Germanics can argue about anything. Even petty details such as one's religion's significance throughout history...

It's unfortunate that our Germanic ancestor's religion was destroyed and the "Semitic desert religion" imposed upon them, but Christianity has been with us for 1000 years and will remain with us for just as long. Regardless of how much either religion has contributed to the success of Europe or individual peoples within, the "Western world" we live in today is based on the "Christian society" 100x more than it is on the principles of "The Old Way."

Religion, in whatever form, is a binding factor among people. This is amplified when religion is combined with a specific group of people (whether this mean tribe, ethnicity, local region, etc.) We can see many examples of this. Arab Muslims, Jews, Mestizo Catholics, the Mennonites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mennonite) (German Protestants), it is also important in the small town of around 100 people (I will expand on this idea in a moment.)

There used to be a time where Europe, and individual European nations, were bonded by Christianity (and before this by forms of Paganism, Celtic Paganism, Germanic Paganism, Hellenistic Paganism, etc.) Being happy over or advocating speeding up the destruction of the only binding our people have left (our culture has been largely destroyed and any practice of it demonized by media and government(s)) is not something we can afford to do. There is no alternative, this is the last thing we have left.

In the "small town where everyone knows each other," one of the main reasons everyone knows each other is because they all go to the same town church. It is just as much a community get together as it is a religious thing. In a society where everyone is anti-social and would rather type on a computer or 'text' on their phone, any form of community bonding is important. It is impossible to re-establish a culture or strengthen a community or society without having some form of common bond. Religion has always been this means, in whatever religion it has been. Regardless of the teachings of the religion, or what events it has caused or provided with the inspiration to cause, its main purpose is to provide a common belief to strengthen a community.

Beggars can't be choosers, if we ever want our culture and people to regain their former status, we can't afford to argue over silly things like minor religious differences. We must take what we can get, and use the tools available to us.



Let's stop arguing and work out a solution. Just because we are on the internet does not mean we are not also in "real life." If we want changes to happen they must come from us. Arguing over historical details will not change our situation in the present, or in the future.

Plantagenet
Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011, 12:53 AM
Largely irrelevant for the topic at hand. They brought it upon themselves and reason of state is more important and logical to me.

I don't think it is irrelevant. I suppose if I refused to accept political correctness, multiculturalism, and inter-racial mixing and I were ostracized from society or actually came to physical harm for my belief, I would have brought it upon myself, which is true, but at least I would be honorable and brave enough to never compromise my innermost values and beliefs.


Romans didn't go around spreading their belief or customs forcefully, on the contrary they used the Interpretatio Romana to allocate a Roman deity to every deity of a people they conquered.

If they didn't force their beliefs, then why did they persecute Christians who refused to acknowledge the divine authority of the Emperor, which would be explicitly against Christian belief?


Then again, shouldn't a good Christian remember the oppressed ones and make sure they at least have got a chance to survive? At one point heathens didn't pose much of a threat to Christian dominance anymore. Where's Christian charity in that aspect?

I don't think heathens ceased to pose a threat to Christendom. Perhaps Greco-Roman heathens became a minority, but that doesn't mean they could never rise up against the Christians again. The Christians were once the minority and they rose to the top, perhaps it was a lessoned learned and better to be prevented?

Heathens continued to pose a threat to Christian civilization, be it in the form of the Huns, the Magyars, the Slavs, the Pechenegs, the Vikings, or Muslims (though of course they were not heathen in the sense of European paganism, but were heathens in the eyes of Christians.) It would be imprudent not to achieve complete victory and risk a future defeat.

RoyBatty
Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011, 09:14 AM
I am of opinion that great religions will prevail and trendy sects will disappear. Also I wonder how authors conceived the disappearance of islam... stupidity at best.

Indeed!

I suspect this article was rather aimed at a "Western Audience", deals mostly with the removal of Christianity from "Western Countries" and deliberately doesn't address Islam.

The idea being to encourage the herd to abandon their old mainstream religions so that they can embrace "humanitarianism", "atheism" etc. The UK has a very vocal "atheist" mafia who aggressively position their Atheist Church / Cult as a replacement for Christianity in particular. (They never let an opportunity slip to attack Christian figures yet are noticeably silent when it comes to attacking Judaism, for example).

This "Atheist Church" of course teaches their own set of multi-culti / universalist values to the mindless masses seeking some sense of purpose in life.

Hrogar
Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011, 10:56 AM
I suspect this article was rather aimed at a "Western Audience", deals mostly with the removal of Christianity from "Western Countries" and deliberately doesn't address Islam.

Come on guys, it's a fact that the number of christians has been dropping for many years. This is not news. The only 'new' part is that they use statistics to extrapolate from existing numbers, that if this trend continues the number of christians will eventually reach zero. It's not a miraculous prediction, but a statistical extrapolation. Whether or not this trend will indeed continue until christianity is completely abandoned is very hard to tell.

And whether we like it or not is even a completely different discussion. And given the history of this forum, we most likely will not be able to avoid such a discussion :-D:



The idea being to encourage the herd to abandon their old mainstream religions so that they can embrace "humanitarianism", "atheism" etc. The UK has a very vocal "atheist" mafia who aggressively position their Atheist Church / Cult as a replacement for Christianity in particular.

Atheism is not a single entity. It's only a common name for a plethora of very different non-religious groups. There is no such thing as 'the atheist world view'. And a common agenda for all atheists is even more unrealistic.


This "Atheist Church" of course teaches their own set of multi-culti / universalist values to the mindless masses seeking some sense of purpose in life.

There is one thing that some groups of christians, some groups of atheists and probably some other groups I forgot to mention, have in common. And that is universalistic agenda for a multicult society.

So it would be nice if all universalists/multiculturalists would gather in one corner and all non-multiculturalists in the other. Then we can have a clean head-bashing contest. :-D:

Anlef
Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011, 01:03 PM
Atheism is not a single entity. It's only a common name for a plethora of very different non-religious groups. There is no such thing as 'the atheist world view'. And a common agenda for all atheists is even more unrealistic.

What began as a response to your post ended up being the beginning of another thread, entitled "The Problem with the Term Atheism" (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=139854).

Jäger
Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011, 02:23 PM
Secondly, no one except a fringe element of society will take heathenism seriously, ...
I guess that was the same with Christianity once. The masses just imitate anyways, you need only a few who take it seriously, those who are at the top.


Without Christianity there would be no Western civilization, nor any incentive for the various European ethnicities and cultures to unite against foreign incursions throughout history.
A mere unsubstantiated claim. There have been countless of incentives for alliances against common foes apart from religion, and who can say what we had gotten instead of "Western civilization" wouldn't have been better?
Historical guess work should stay out of this discussion.


Yeah, those constitutions really did a whole lot to end bloodshed. Nevermind that the greatest inter-European bloodshed and destruction occurred in our modern, secular era--that being the Great War and World War II.
velvet said "Europe-wide", Germany got its American dictated French-spirited constitution only after WW2.
However, I don't agree with her either.


I think the fact that Christianity has become corrupted and its modern adherents, much like their atheists counterparts, support universality and cultural relativism is not because of Christianity itself, but because of modern, post-Enlightenment values and beliefs being transplanted onto Christianity and society as a whole.
Can you name a specific example of a corruption of Christian views? Like "before" and "after"?


As for religion not being a binding factor, from about the 9th century to the early 18th century Christianity was the major binding factor and civilization of Europe. Religion continues to be a binding factor in the non-European world to this day.
You understand this is no argument, this is just the repetition of a claim.
There are various reasons for bonding, religion itself is none, although it can carry those reasons in itself (e.g. symbolism like the cross), they have to be specifically utilized though.
The proof for this assertion is the already established empiricism that Christians fight Christians at least as much as they fight non-Christians.

Schattenjäger
Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011, 02:30 PM
Without Christianity there would be no Western civilization, nor any incentive for the various European ethnicities and cultures to unite against foreign incursions throughout history.

This is totally bullshit statement. Western Civilization wouldn't exist without heritage and achievements of the Ancient Greece, which christians later acquired and presented as theirs. You seem deliberately ignoring fact that before christianity existed advanced graeco-roman world, which was de facto "western civilization" and gave birth to all great ideas of the West. Christianity is only another chapter in the history of western civilization, and is a subject of many controversies - mainly becouse of its un-western origin.

Christianity without greek philosophy, science and literature, roman law and art is NOTHING. It is then intelectually limited to a gang of jews telling themselves some desert fairy tales.

Your deliberate manipulation of historical facts and blind devotion makes me wonder sometimes, if you're some catholic priest or pastor who's job is, to defend his parasitic institution from a rightful demise.

velvet
Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011, 04:24 PM
Most spiritual systems have a belief in God, be it a theistic, deistic, or impersonal panentheistic conceptualization of God, so how is God the antithesis to spiritualism? That's like me saying the sun is the antithesis to daylight. Christianity can provide a spiritual environment and has done so in the West for centuries, and continues to do so for many people.

Just because many people believe in something, doesnt mean that it is truth, and even less 'the' truth.

Millions of people today believe in the multicultural society, they believe in the holohoax, and a reasonable number believe that steaks come from the supermarket.



Problem with this is any attempt to re-create heathenism in a modern era would be a reconstruction, and hence an entirely new spiritual system altogether and would only superficially resemble the heathenism of the past.

You say that as if that would be automatically a bad thing. This however is not the case.


Secondly, no one except a fringe element of society will take heathenism seriously, I'd say we would have a better chance at revitalizing Christianity and removing its lesser, corrupted, and anti-intellectual elements than ever seeing a Europe converting en masse to heathenism.

As Jäger pointed out correctly, it is enough when a reasonable number of people take it serious, which is already the case and the numbers are growing too.

And I must ask the question as well, name its "lesser, corrupted and anti-intellectual elements" and dont forget to explain what then remains from Christianity.



Actually I'd say there would be a greater chance of Europe becoming Buddhist or Islamic rather than heathen, and both of those religions are far more foreign to Western identity than Christianity.

You forget that Christianity has been on the very same level alien to Europe, and it remained that alien until Luther translated the bible in the 15th century. Until then there was absolutely no difference in the alienness of Islam and Christianity, and the level of alienness only decreased very slowly and more often than not, against the will of the church.


The "Western Identity" moved to America as the heir of the Roman Empire and the later HRE.

The fight for this "western identity" left Europe a burnt ground. I cannot and dont want to speak for America, keep your Western Identity, keep Christianity if you want, but Americans need to realise that the world is a different one in Europe, and that this topic cannot be answered by Americans for Europe, that there is no single answer from both entities to this question.



Yeah, those constitutions really did a whole lot to end bloodshed. Nevermind that the greatest inter-European bloodshed and destruction occurred in our modern, secular era--that being the Great War and World War II.

I said "more or less", I didnt claim that there have been no wars. I just say that one (of many) of the main driving forces for war, the church, lost influence. This of course is no guarantee for no wars, it only takes religion as a motivator for war out of the equation. And even this was not the case, as can be seen on the North-Ireland conflict that goes on to this day.



I think the fact that Christianity has become corrupted and its modern adherents, much like their atheists counterparts, support universality and cultural relativism is not because of Christianity itself, but because of modern, post-Enlightenment values and beliefs being transplanted onto Christianity and society as a whole. Really, Christianity is diametrically opposed to cultural relativism because it believes in an objective truth and objective morality in contrast to the modern relativist views.

The implantation of christianity in Europe was an act of cultural relativism. It replaced the folk-centered belief and replaced it with a "god for all people".

That christianity is intolerant against other beliefs is not due to it not being relativistic - as a precondition to its implantation - but due to that it is a political power tool.

While you will deny this, that it was used as a political power tool, you continue to claim that it would have "united Europe". This is an impossible thing though when it was not used as a political power tool. In fact, Christianity is absolute fascist in its opinion of and dealing with people who believe something else.

And as a "god for all people" it is by its very definition relativistic, because it denies the exclusivity of a god or gods for only one folk.

These ideas are not a corruption of christian belief, sorry, they ARE Christianity.

This making up of Europe means Christendom is complete nonsense. Christianity was not invented by Europeans, it does not base in European folklore, customs or traditions, it does not even contain one single mention of Europeans, it is Jewish through and through, and only makes sense in the environment of the Jewish conception of the world on top. The bible contains Jewish history, Jewish customs, Jewish tradition, Jewish world view, the messiah is a Jew, all Apostles are Jews.

There is not a single word about Europeans in it, and if Gentiles are mentioned, only as the abhorrent barbarians, a despiseable lot and enemies of Jews.

Why dont you realise that this has nothing to do with us as a people? That is it cultural relativism to implant this alien cult on us? How can you deny that this must have a damaging effect on us?



Pagans also united to kill fellow Europeans in their self-righteous wars against Christendom. Pagan Europeans were slaughtering each other in the pre-Christian world and atheist Europeans were slaughtering each other in the post-Christian landscape of our modern era. Guess thats ok though.

Holger Danske - Heathen - sided with Charlemagne - Christian - to kick out the invading Sarrazenes. Despite that Charlemagne also waged war against Denmark to include it into the HRE.

A perfectly normal response to invading enemies: you fight back. Because if you dont, you lose your country, your homeland, your folk.

There is no miraculous 'belief' required, only common sense.

And the Heathens obviously also figured that Islam as such poses a threat, a so big threat that Holger put his rightful war against invading Charlemagne to rest to side with his enemy against the Islamists.



As for religion not being a binding factor, from about the 9th century to the early 18th century Christianity was the major binding factor and civilization of Europe. Religion continues to be a binding factor in the non-European world to this day.


Look, I dont deny that a faith is an important sociological and cultural factor.

But, cult and culture are the same. Our culture is Pagan through and through, while Christianity replaced the cult with something foreign. Just look into Russia or South America to see how different Christianity is there from European Christianity. Christianity does not possess culture or tradition or customs, it only has a "god for all people".

But when you cut off the roots of culture, the cult, you also cut off the life-giving force of it. That is the reason why our culture is dying, because it is emptied out of any real value and replaced with platitudes.


The problems we face, for why not only our culture is dying but also our folk, cannot possibly repaired by reingiting Christianity.

Our folk needs pride in itself to withstand the tides, and recognising the role of cult ("religion") in this, this pride comes from the myths telling about the ethnogenesis of a people, the gods that played a role in this folk-creation and the need of this folk to thank these gods for protecting them against foes, the need of this folk to attribute all the precious gifts to the god/gods he/they gave them to become what they are and so on.

A Jewish messiah CANNOT be the solution to this problem. A Jewish messiah and a Jewish god CANNOT offer this folk-centeredness, this is an oxymoron for all other peoples except for Jews.

A "god for all people" is an absurd idea, unless ALL PEOPLE are the same.

And a "god for all people" is also superfluous. Why should one have such a god? It fulfills absolutely no purpose FOR A FOLK, in fact such a god is an antithesis to the very idea of different folks.


We need gods that chose us - as a folk - as his / her / their chosen people. We need these myths that tell about our ethnogenesis (not Jewish genealogy), the genesis of our nations (not Israel's), we need the gods to worship this genesis for us to take pride in our past, our history, our folk, our nations.


In "Western Identity" we are not even mentioned. It is a Jewish god and a Jewish messiah who are worshipped, it is Greek (not Germanic) philosophy that is cheered, it is Roman Empire politics and bureaucracy that is the base for the structures of our countries.


Where are WE in all this? Where is our folk supposed to take pride from when they are constantly told that before they were enlightened by all this foreign stuff, they were uncivilised barbarians and a worthless bunch of greedy warmongerers? Since more than a millenia we - Germanics - are told that we are worth nothing by ourselves, that everything we ever created and were was only and alone due to foreign enlightenment and merit.


White selfhate anyone? It comes from the "Western Identity". It is absolutely not surprising that our people under these preconditions are gullible for race mixing, after all, this is the mantra of the last millenia throughout that everything good comes from the South, from foreign people, other people than our own.

Hersir
Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011, 04:27 PM
I think we have more important things to worry about than wanting to recreate a Scandinavian lifestyle for Germanic europeans, time to be realistic. Our society is based on christianity and there was a germanisation of early christianity. Just look how it absorbed old customs like yule, easter, midsummer etc.

Elessar
Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011, 04:56 PM
Just look how it absorbed old customs like yule, easter, midsummer etc.

Though that's probably not what was intended at the time, Catholicism is more pagan than people give credit for. Just about every ritual function and holiday circles around ancient Euro Pagan tradition. One year it was Jupiter on the frescoes and murals of the temples, the next year Christ.

I would daresay the more modern Christian sectarianism, like Protestantism and Lutheranism and their subsequent American inventions, are degenerate (I use that term lightly) routes. Exchanging ancient church ritual for going to Mega-church and standing up with your hands raised saying "I know Jesus loves me", exchanging Intuition for "My boss is a Jewish carpenter", or more realistically like most protestants: staying at home rather than actually going to church, doesn't hold the same effect.

Æmeric
Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011, 04:57 PM
I think we have more important things to worry about than wanting to recreate a Scandinavian lifestyle for Germanic europeans, time to be realistic. Our society is based on christianity and there was a germanisation of early christianity. Just look how it absorbed old customs like yule, easter, midsummer etc.

Something that is overlooked about Judaism 2,000 years ago (was it called Judaism back then :chinrub) is that there were different branches of Judaism. Roughly 10% of the Roman Empire was Jewish (again not sure if that would have been the correct term at the time), around 8 million people. Besides Palestine, Mesopotamia (modern Iraq) had a significant population of Jews, as did Egypt & Asia Minor. Not all of these persons were descendents of Abraham, most were probably the result of proselytizing in the 3-4 hundred years before Christ. It was most common in those areas that had been part of the empire of Alexander the Great. Judaism had been heavily Hellenized in Asia Minor & even to an extend in Palestine & Egypt. So what some call a "desert faith" had already already undergone a significant Westernization (Hellenic) prior to Christ. Christianity continued to evolve under the Romans, Celts & Germanics (Protestant Reformation).

Judaism has also evolved away from Christianity over the last 2,000 years, Tahmudic Judaism coming out of Mesopotamia which was the center of Judaica immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

As for Christianity going extinct in the West that is just wishful thinking among certain anti-Christian Secularist intellectuals. Christianity will have to adapt, the US sects will need to abandon pre-millenialism (which is the justification for pro-Israelism) & adopt a racial seperatism (that can be justified on Old Testament scripture) but it will survive.

Elessar
Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011, 05:17 PM
I can smell your Politics: Traditionalism in this post.

Nay, what you smell is the perennial tradition of Religion.

Plantagenet
Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011, 05:57 PM
I guess that was the same with Christianity once. The masses just imitate anyways, you need only a few who take it seriously, those who are at the top.

Well good luck with that. We may never know but I am willing to bet its almost a 100% certainty that heathenism will not become a major religion or spiritual system in Europe.


A mere unsubstantiated claim. There have been countless of incentives for alliances against common foes apart from religion, and who can say what we had gotten instead of "Western civilization" wouldn't have been better?
Historical guess work should stay out of this discussion.

The only historical guess work involved would be guessing as to what would have or could have happened aside from the Christian Western Civilization uniting various European ethnic groups and cultures, which is actually what occurred historically.


You understand this is no argument, this is just the repetition of a claim.
There are various reasons for bonding, religion itself is none, although it can carry those reasons in itself (e.g. symbolism like the cross), they have to be specifically utilized though.
The proof for this assertion is the already established empiricism that Christians fight Christians at least as much as they fight non-Christians.

I think the fact that Christians fought other Christians more than non-Christians is due to regional politics more than anything. Take France for example, they were entirely surrounded by Christian kingdoms/states throughout their history, and thus its quite obvious that their enemies, most of the time, would be other Christians. This has more to do with regal and national interests rather than religious interests. However, what incentive would there be for Polish, German, Italian, French, English, Spanish, Portuguese, Danish, Byzantine, Georgian, and other people to unite together against Islam if it were not their common religion?


This is totally bullshit statement. Western Civilization wouldn't exist without heritage and achievements of the Ancient Greece, which christians later acquired and presented as theirs. You seem deliberately ignoring fact that before christianity existed advanced graeco-roman world, which was de facto "western civilization" and gave birth to all great ideas of the West. Christianity is only another chapter in the history of western civilization, and is a subject of many controversies - mainly becouse of its un-western origin.

Yes, Greco-Roman heritage is one of the foundational cornerstones of Western Civilization. No one is denying that. However, the other cornerstone is that of Christianity. When most people speak of Western Civilization, they are speaking of the Europe of the post-ancient world into the modern era. During that time, Christianity was the dominant culture and religion, and influenced nearly every domain of European civilization.


Concepts of what is the West arose out of legacies of the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire. Later, ideas of the west were formed by the concepts of Christendom and the Holy Roman Empire. What we think of as Western thought today is generally defined as Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian culture, and includes the ideals of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.


With the rise of Christianity in the midst of the Roman world, much of Rome's tradition and culture were absorbed by the new religion, and transformed into something new, which would serve as the basis for the development of Western civilization after the fall of Rome. Also, Roman culture mixed with the pre-existing Celtic, Germanic and Slavic cultures, which slowly became integrated into Western culture starting, mainly, with their acceptance of Christianity.


Much of the basis of the post-Roman cultural world had been set before the fall of the Empire, mainly through the integrating and reshaping of Roman ideas through Christian thought. The Greek and Roman paganism had been completely replaced by Christianity around the 4th and 5th centuries, since it became the official State religion following the baptism of emperor Constantine I. Roman Catholic Christianity and the Nicene Creed served as a unifying force in Western Europe, and in some respects replaced or competed with the secular authorities. Art and literature, law, education, and politics were preserved in the teachings of the Church, in an environment that, otherwise, would have probably seen their loss. The Church founded many cathedrals, universities, monasteries and seminaries, some of which continue to exist today. In the Medieval period, the route to power for many men was in the Church.


The West actively encouraged the spreading of Christianity, which was inexorably linked to the spread of Western culture.


The sense of unity among these Germanic states was institutionalized in a federation of increasingly independent states, some of them very small, called the Holy Roman Empire, which fused Germanic aristocratic political traditions, Roman Catholic Christianity, and the traditions of imperial rule inherited from the Romans (even though the Holy Roman Empire was never as tightly knit administratively or as militarily powerful as the Roman Empire).

In looking at this slow emergence of a distinctive civilization, it’s impossible to overestimate the importance of Christianity and the Roman Catholic Church which, in effect, created the unique mix of traditions which enabled Western Europe to emerge at all.


Among scholarly interpreters of the West, it has been widely understood that Western civilization was formed from three distinct traditions: (1) the classical culture of Greece and Rome; (2) the Christian religion, particularly Western Christianity; and (3) the Enlightenment of the modern era.


Your deliberate manipulation of historical facts and blind devotion makes me wonder sometimes, if you're some catholic priest or pastor who's job is, to defend his parasitic institution from a rightful demise.

No, I am not even a Christian, but I do wish to defend historical fact from untruth, revisionism, and error.


Just because many people believe in something, doesnt mean that it is truth, and even less 'the' truth.

Millions of people today believe in the multicultural society, they believe in the holohoax, and a reasonable number believe that steaks come from the supermarket.

This has no bearing on the statement you made about God being the antithesis to spirituality.


You forget that Christianity has been on the very same level alien to Europe, and it remained that alien until Luther translated the bible in the 15th century. Until then there was absolutely no difference in the alienness of Islam and Christianity, and the level of alienness only decreased very slowly and more often than not, against the will of the church.

I am sorry velvet, but what you are saying here has no basis in history, and no scholar, or even amateur historian, would ever accept what you are stating. I suggest reading some history books and re-thinking your fiery anti-Christian bias.


I said "more or less", I didnt claim that there have been no wars. I just say that one (of many) of the main driving forces for war, the church, lost influence. This of course is no guarantee for no wars, it only takes religion as a motivator for war out of the equation. And even this was not the case, as can be seen on the North-Ireland conflict that goes on to this day.

The complexity of these religious conflicts extend into the non-religious realm and often have a multitude of reasons, mostly secular and purely political, for these conflicts to erupt in the first place. Its never quite is simple as, "Hey! You are a Protestant! I'm a kill you now." or "Stupid Papal pawn. Lets fight to the death." This is not to say that conflicts between the religions did not happen, because of course they did. However, often the major religious wars are far more complex than simply Catholic vs Protestant.


This making up of Europe means Christendom is complete nonsense. Christianity was not invented by Europeans, it does not base in European folklore, customs or traditions, it does not even contain one single mention of Europeans, it is Jewish through and through, and only makes sense in the environment of the Jewish conception of the world on top. The bible contains Jewish history, Jewish customs, Jewish tradition, Jewish world view, the messiah is a Jew, all Apostles are Jews.

Why dont you realise that this has nothing to do with us as a people? That is it cultural relativism to implant this alien cult on us? How can you deny that this must have a damaging effect on us?

Which became, through the adoption of Christianity by European people, part of the religious-cultural tradition of Europe from the time of Constantine until close to our modern era. Read the quotes I posted above in response to Schattenjäger.


A Jewish messiah CANNOT be the solution to this problem. A Jewish messiah and a Jewish god CANNOT offer this folk-centeredness, this is an oxymoron for all other peoples except for Jews.

A "god for all people" is an absurd idea, unless ALL PEOPLE are the same.

And a "god for all people" is also superfluous. Why should one have such a god? It fulfills absolutely no purpose FOR A FOLK, in fact such a god is an antithesis to the very idea of different folks.

We need gods that chose us - as a folk - as his / her / their chosen people. We need these myths that tell about our ethnogenesis (not Jewish genealogy), the genesis of our nations (not Israel's), we need the gods to worship this genesis for us to take pride in our past, our history, our folk, our nations.

In "Western Identity" we are not even mentioned. It is a Jewish god and a Jewish messiah who are worshipped, it is Greek (not Germanic) philosophy that is cheered, it is Roman Empire politics and bureaucracy that is the base for the structures of our countries.

Where are WE in all this? Where is our folk supposed to take pride from when they are constantly told that before they were enlightened by all this foreign stuff, they were uncivilised barbarians and a worthless bunch of greedy warmongerers? Since more than a millenia we - Germanics - are told that we are worth nothing by ourselves, that everything we ever created and were was only and alone due to foreign enlightenment and merit.

White selfhate anyone? It comes from the "Western Identity". It is absolutely not surprising that our people under these preconditions are gullible for race mixing, after all, this is the mantra of the last millenia throughout that everything good comes from the South, from foreign people, other people than our own.

Did you ever stop to consider that perhaps a person religious beliefs, which deal with questions such as "Why am I here? Where am I going? What is the nature of man? What is life and its purpose? What is death and what lies beyond death?" might have nothing to due with folkish nationalism? That if Taoism were the Truth, for example, though it is totally alien to Western culture and history, it would be the wise choice for someone looking for spiritual truth to adopt it on its basis of truth? Not everything has to do with folkish nationalism. Should I never eat pizza again because it is non-Germanic?

In any case, I don't think Western man has hated himself and admired the Jews for the past 1000 to 1700 years, in fact the opposite seems to have been the case. Actually, it would seem to me that Western man has more self-hatred today, when Christianity is dying and atheistic secularism is replacing it, than any other time in history.

Juthunge
Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011, 06:07 PM
Roughly 10% of the Roman Empire was Jewish (again not sure if that would have been the correct term at the time), around 8 million people.


Could you come up with a source for that? I have never heard of this claim before.

Hersir
Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011, 06:14 PM
Could you come up with a source for that? I have never heard of this claim before.

Judea was under Roman rule, but I doubt there were was many as 8 million jews in that time.

Elessar
Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011, 07:01 PM
Wouldn't you be a Germanic heathen, then? ;)

How do you come to that conclusion?

Jäger
Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011, 07:01 PM
Well good luck with that.
The question is of course whether you would work against it.


The only historical guess work involved would be guessing as to what would have or could have happened aside from the Christian Western Civilization uniting various European ethnic groups and cultures, which is actually what occurred historically.
My point exactly.


I think the fact that Christians fought other Christians more than non-Christians is due to regional politics more than anything.
I agree, yet somehow you belittle those very same regional politics in their effect on bonding. They can cause war, but not unity?


However, what incentive would there be for Polish, German, Italian, French, English, Spanish, Portuguese, Danish, Byzantine, Georgian, and other people to unite together against Islam if it were not their common religion?
You know that France fought with the Ottoman Empire against the Germans? What was their incentive for doing so? Those incentives can cause alliances with a foreign ethnicity, but not with European ones?

For the record, I fully acknowledge that religion can be used as a bonding tool, quite a strong one, but it is not the only one, which is proven by the fact that Christians fought with non-Christians against Christians.

[edit]
Do you have an example yet?

velvet
Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011, 07:07 PM
Not secular atheism is the problem, but Cultural Marxism and Liberal Free Market Capitalism that took the role of the social engineerer.

And indeed the lack of Folkish Nationalism is the main problem for why we even listen to these agitators for degeneracy and folkish suicide. A people with folkish pride would hunt those people to the devil.


Did you ever stop to consider that perhaps a person religious beliefs, which deal with questions such as "Why am I here? Where am I going? What is the nature of man? What is life and its purpose? What is death and what lies beyond death?" might have nothing to due with folkish nationalism? That if Taoism were the Truth, for example, though it is totally alien to Western culture and history, it would be the wise choice for someone looking for spiritual truth to adopt it on its basis of truth?

You do realise that this "claim of truth" delivered out by Christianity was the argument for adopting it, and that it is the continued argument to keep Christianity?

When you do not want to adopt Taoism because it is alien to Germanics, regardless of its merits for truth or a proper life style, you have eradicated the main argument for Christianity in Europe. ;)


And, you argue from a today's standpoint, where everything in "western culture" is somehow perverted and twisted to fit together with the fluffy Christianity that came about after it went through several cleaning and adapting cycles (corrupted to the point that it doesnt even vaguely resembles "christianity" anymore), the Enlightenment, the Renaissance (both actually anti-christian movement), progress in science (more often than not violating church doctrine), the various Revolutions, most notably the French.

You even deny the inherent alienness that it had when it first came to European people - who also had a common religion. European Paganism was not so much different among the various European people, they share a common origin of their religion. The distinctive elements among the various people emerging from that common Indo-European folk and culture and cult indeed are those myths and legends containing the founding of nations, as an embodiment for the memories that created a self-awareness of their ethnicity, their folk, their nation.

And it is this - Folkish Pride and Nationalism - what we would need to withstand the tides that threaten to wash us away into a sea of "all equal humanity".



Catholicism is more pagan than people give credit for. Just about every ritual function and holiday circles around ancient Euro Pagan tradition.

Indeed.

But can someone explain me why it would be preferable to keep a deeply corrupted christianity instead of cleaning the culture from alien elements?

Right now both is corrupted, a "clean" christianity would look exactly the same like Islam, while Heathenism would after all continue our tradition. It is not alien, since we are the creators of this tradition and culture.

The word "Catholicism" by the way translates to universal. How does anything universal help us?

Hersir
Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011, 07:22 PM
But can someone explain me why it would be preferable to keep a deeply corrupted christianity instead of cleaning the culture from alien elements?

How do you see that happening? Our cultures has been affected by others for many thousand years. Like we got the runes becaus of other alphabets.

Plantagenet
Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011, 07:39 PM
I agree, yet somehow you belittle those very same regional politics in their effect on bonding. They can cause war, but not unity?

Of course they can, but I sincerely doubt it would be on such a scale that such distant peoples as Spaniards and Englishman would see a regional interest in allying with Greek Byzantines from Ionia and Georgians. But like you said, this enters the realm of historical guesswork.


You know that France fought with the Ottoman Empire against the Germans? What was their incentive for doing so? Those incentives can cause alliances with a foreign ethnicity, but not with European ones?

Somehow I was pretty sure you would respond with this. Their incentive was the increase of their own power by the foregoing of higher ideals, a first step into the modern era so to speak. The French also caused quite the uproar throughout Christendom because of their actions, and it is one of the many reasons that there existed a strong enmity between the French and Germans throughout their history. Perhaps it is why this was said of Louis XIV--


"The Most Christian Turk, the most Christian ravager of Christendom, the most Christian barbarian who had perpetrated on Christians outrages of which his infidel allies would have been ashamed"


For the record, I fully acknowledge that religion can be used as a bonding tool, quite a strong one, but it is not the only one, which is proven by the fact that Christians fought with non-Christians against Christians.

Well we are in agreement.


Not secular atheism is the problem, but Cultural Marxism and Liberal Free Market Capitalism that took the role of the social engineerer.

You realize that Jewish-Marxist propaganda also peddles anti-Christian sentiment and promotes secular atheism right?


You do realise that this "claim of truth" delivered out by Christianity was the argument for adopting it, and that it is the continued argument to keep Christianity?

Yes, and people believed that it was the truth, and many still do. Aside from this, looking back from the vantage point of the modern era, Christianity is inexorably tied up with Western culture and history, and the eradication of Christianity would be the eradication of one element, once one of the most important elements, of Western civilization.


When you do not want to adopt Taoism because it is alien to Germanics, regardless of its merits for truth or a proper life style, you have eradicated the main argument for Christianity in Europe. ;)

You have misinterpreted me. I never said not to adopt Taoism, if it were the truth. My point was that, when the European people adopted Christianity, they were not thinking of folkish nationalism (which didn't even really exist as we think of it at that time) but spiritual matters. However, I feel that if one did wish today to take into consideration the preservation of cultural history as a matter of choosing a religion for Europe, no major religion compares as well as Christianity for that purpose.


But can someone explain me why it would be preferable to keep a deeply corrupted christianity instead of cleaning the culture from alien elements?

Right now both is corrupted, a "clean" christianity would look exactly the same like Islam, while Heathenism would after all continue our tradition. It is not alien, since we are the creators of this tradition and culture.

The word "Catholicism" by the way translates to universal. How does anything universal help us?

Though Western Christianity has pagan elements, I wouldn't say that it is essentially pagan at its heart, nor would I say that if you removed corrupted elements from Christianity that it would be paganism. If you cleansed Christianity of its lesser elements it most certainly would not look exactly like Islam....where do you come up with this stuff?

The fact that Christianity is universal in its scope does not entail that if the West were Christian it would have to accept globalization or invite non-European Christians to come immigrate to our countries. I think nearly all religions or spiritual systems are universal in their scope, except perhaps Judaism.

Elessar
Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011, 07:51 PM
Right now both is corrupted, a "clean" christianity would look exactly the same like Islam
lolwut?


while Heathenism would after all continue our tradition. It is not alien, since we are the creators of this tradition and culture.
Heathenism is, for all intents and purposes, a dead religion.
I know, it sucks, and I wish it wasn't, but it doesn't change that fact that documentation of religious practice is secondhand and scant at best, not to mention the 1000 year gap of practitioners. It's a sort of "Religious Necromancy" to claim you know how our ancestors conducted business with the divine. I myself am not against heathenism, just don't find it worthwhile to try to revive something long since lost. Nevertheless, I think it's fantastic that Euro folk are discovering their roots and realizing that we have an identity other than the passive, docile, sedated modern West.

In my expedition into Germanic spirituality, I don't find a text that rivals the Baghavad-Gita, Dhammapada, the Upanishads, or even so far as the dialogues of Plato. The Germanic myths definitely have their merit however and are an intrinsic part of our identity.
Nevertheless, our ancestors didn't commit their metaphysics to paper (or if they did, it's lost within a maze of kennings and grandiloquence) and they were unable to keep the chain of oral tradition from being broken. Germanic heathenry thus stands as a monument to their failure, and a reminder to us in the present of this mistake of theirs that we need to rectify. We rectify it by filling the void in our understanding of religious tradition with an understanding from others who did not fail to maintain traditional continuity. This doesn't mean bending over and embracing the doctrine of multiculturalism.

You make it sound like you're a race traitor is you're not a Heathen.


The word "Catholicism" by the way translates to universal. How does anything universal help us?
God is universal. Brahman=Atman. Every culture interprets it differently. There is no "Universal Religion", rather Religion itself is universal. Like you've pointed out before, every culture interprets Christ differently. The attempt to change the nature of the absolute into a tribalistic 'our gods for us' is akin to the cult of the Israelites: Judaism.

Therein lies your anger over "Universalism". This is where religion is not used as a vehicle for worship but a political ploy (i.e. Judaism). Anyone with a modicum of clarity can see that every culture and race knows God, yet worships him in their own matter that suits their culture. Islam does not suit our culture. Judaism does not suit our culture. Heathenism did. Christianity does. Buddhism could if given the chance. But that's beyond the point.

What I don't understand is how people can actually believe there are more than one tribe of gods that rule over the earth. Germanic lands are created and ruled by Germanic Gods, Semitic lands are ruled and were created by Semitic Gods, so on and so forth. How could the earth have been made by more than one pantheon? Why would the Germanic gods create the world for the other races? This is simply how the ancient tribes saw the Earth, and it served them. We don't live in the same time or place as they did. Culture is not static. Culture changes, and with it all facets, including religion.
God is one. Even the ancients knew this.

"To what is called many the wise call one" -Rig Veda

Hamar Fox
Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011, 08:14 PM
To me, it doesn't really matter if Christianity dies or not. The same proportion of idiots will exist in the population, only now they'll turn to laughable 'new age' shit, wiccanism, chi energy and other stuff that's too stupid for me to comprehend. I've concluded religiosity is a disposition of character. Some people have no problem believing whatever they want to be true is true, and such people can't understand me any more than I can understand them. I do, however, use stats of a nation's religiosity as a rough gauge of how moronic that nation is in contrast to others. Sadly, though, as I say, 'no affililiation' doesn't necessarily means those people don't try to spiritually connect with Gaia through pebbles and shit, so sadly this article doesn't necessarily mean people are getting smarter.

Plantagenet
Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011, 08:22 PM
To me, it doesn't really matter if Christianity dies or not. The same proportion of idiots will exist in the population, only now they'll turn to laughable 'new age' shit, wiccanism, chi energy and other stuff that's too stupid for me to comprehend. I've concluded religiosity is a disposition of character. Some people have no problem believing whatever they want to be true is true, and such people can't understand me any more than I can understand them. I do, however, use stats of a nation's religiosity as a rough gauge of how moronic that nation is in contrast to others. Sadly, though, as I say, 'no affililiation' doesn't necessarily means those people don't try to spiritually connect with Gaia through pebbles and shit, so sadly this article doesn't necessarily mean people are getting smarter.

So let me see if I understand you. Anyone who believes in any sort of spiritual system or possesses religiosity= idiot/moron? Is that about right?

OneWolf
Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011, 08:33 PM
I don't think religion will ever become extinct.People,in general,need something
to believe in,something that gives us hope in good times and in bad.

I know in America,Christianity is supreme and most folks around where I live
would rather kill you than to listen to someone ridicule it.I know I have had
some pretty heated discussions with some people about the Bible and it
almost always ends in an uneasy truce.It is safe to say that Christianity,at
least in America,is safe for some time to come.

To me,it does not matter what one believes.For instance I worship the Mother
Earth and that may sound funny to some people but she is the one that is really
in control of our existence.She gives and she takes away.;)

Hamar Fox
Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011, 09:09 PM
So let me see if I understand you. Anyone who believes in any sort of spiritual system or possesses religiosity= idiot/moron? Is that about right?

Bingo.

Hersir
Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011, 10:15 PM
Bingo.

Religion has been good to bind our peoples together.
I am not religious though.

Hamar Fox
Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011, 10:22 PM
Religion has been good to bind our peoples together.
I am not religious though.

Yes and no. Certain religions/beliefs can have cultural benefits. I don't think that literal belief in a deity or deities is necessary for the practising of beliefs like, say, paganism.

Atheism definitely correlates with intelligence, though.

The darker the shade, the stronger the belief:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/47/Europe_belief_in_god.svg/655px-Europe_belief_in_god.svg.png

A global map would make the trend even clearer. But even within Europe, on the one extreme, you have utter morons like Poles, Bulgarians and Turks, and on the other, North West Europeans (minus the Irish).

Hrogar
Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011, 10:23 PM
Religion has been good to bind our peoples together.
I am not religious though.

Religions have the tendency to bind people in calm times and set them up to kill each other when the going gets tough. History is filled with individuals, masses and armies killing (partly) because of religion.

Religion might be important for people, but it certainly doesn't bind people with different views on life, the world and divinity. We do need folk identity for that.
And when we finally have established a folk identity, religious differences will no longer be a major issue. The folk always has to prevail above religion and politics, or else we're in danger as a people.



On the one extreme, you have utter morons like Poles, Bulgarians and Turks, and on the other, North West Europeans (minus the Irish).

LOL
I really appreciate well balanced political correct statements. :D

velvet
Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011, 10:41 PM
lolwut?

Look into christian societies throughout the centuries, before the Enlightenment maybe. This is really not what you want for your people :shrug


Heathenism is, for all intents and purposes, a dead religion.
I know, it sucks, and I wish it wasn't, but it doesn't change that fact that documentation of religious practice is secondhand and scant at best, not to mention the 1000 year gap of practitioners. It's a sort of "Religious Necromancy" to claim you know how our ancestors conducted business with the divine. I myself am not against heathenism, just don't find it worthwhile to try to revive something long since lost. Nevertheless, I think it's fantastic that Euro folk are discovering their roots and realizing that we have an identity other than the passive, docile, sedated modern West.

Well, Christianity is dead as well. At least in Europe. It would be very much the same Religious Necromancy to try to resurrect Christianity.

And when this is required, to have a religion governing societal order and not common sense, under these preconditions that right now it is just not a religion governing and not even playing a significant role, we could just as well chose to resurrect the one form that emerged from us as a people, from our characteristic traits, from our way to think, from our view onto the world.

When you think that religion should be the governing force of society, then religion's business obviously is not limited to dealing with the divine. And then you must take into consideration, when you think responsible with the wellbeing of your people in mind, other factors than the dealing with the divine alone.

When you think that the wellbeing of your people is important, and I do, including considering the past errors made and the reasons for why they failed (which btw was not least due to being conquered and subdued, and not only their own failures), then you want that your folk learns Folkish Pride; because I agree, the awareness of nations was only infantile developed among Germanics when they were faced with the Roman Empire expanding into their territory.

Still, the Roman Empire never conquered us (northern Europe), it was Christian infiltration and treaties that included the more northern parts step by step into the by then already HRE of German Nation. The only little known Frisian Empire withstood the inclusion relatively long and reestablished Heathen rule twice, last in the 15th century. There was much resistance against Christianity, it was by far not a voluntary mass conversion, but by force and prosecution of Heathens, regardless of how much people want to ignore this.



In my expedition into Germanic spirituality, I don't find a text that rivals the Baghavad-Gita, Dhammapada, the Upanishads, or even so far as the dialogues of Plato. The Germanic myths definitely have their merit however and are an intrinsic part of our identity.
Nevertheless, our ancestors didn't commit their metaphysics to paper (or if they did, it's lost within a maze of kennings and grandiloquence) and they were unable to keep the chain of oral tradition from being broken. Germanic heathenry thus stands as a monument to their failure, and a reminder to us in the present of this mistake of theirs that we need to rectify.

Again, the chain was broken through conquest and the enforcement of Christianity, not because they had failed. They failed to defend their lands ultimately, yes, after an endless stream of conquering Roman and HRE armies (remember, history is written by the victors). And since from then on Heathens were persecuted and killed, while the church took over the role of the governing force and controlled the stream of knowledge, it is hardly an internal error of Heathenry, since we also do still have knowledge of the original belief.

They are not thrown after you like the bible is, true, you must look for them and dig for them, but there are deep studies of original Germanic Heathenry throughout the centuries, because it was by far not eradicated. The many laws prohibiting this or that Heathen practice and custom throughout the centuries are also proof for that Heathenry was still present. Otherwise there is no need to make new laws for that. And, I would really love to have a look into the library of the Vatikan, and see what writings they stole from us and other people.



We rectify it by filling the void in our understanding of religious tradition with an understanding from others who did not fail to maintain traditional continuity. This doesn't mean bending over and embracing the doctrine of multiculturalism.

You make it sound like you're a race traitor is you're not a Heathen.

We did not just "fill a void" (and for doing so, indeed only the Vedic tradition can possibly do this for us in a meaningful manner), we got an entire alien religion and world view imposed on us.

A religion, btw, that was a "new age" invention par excellance. Just as a side note.

If we would have voluntary adopted ideas, it would be an entire different thing when these ideas were convincing to serve a purpose and become then incorportated in our world view and our religion, while keeping both intact, just expanding it with a new idea. This though simply was not the case.



God is universal. Brahman=Atman. Every culture interprets it differently. There is no "Universal Religion", rather Religion itself is universal.

But why then do you think that Christianity is universal and can be transplanted on every people?


Like you've pointed out before, every culture interprets Christ differently. The attempt to change the nature of the absolute into a tribalistic 'our gods for us' is akin to the cult of the Israelites: Judaism.

But "christ" is not the "absolute" (let's assume for a moment I would agree that there is this absolute, for the sake of argument). "Christ" was a human who had, if we want to believe those confused scriptures, died a pretty human death. "Christ" was a member of the Jewish tribe, and when you attribute him with the messiah status, the savior, then this does happen in the context of the Jewish tribe alone, in the context of Jewish tradition, Jewish history, Jewish customs and politics and society. And there is, btw, no proof that he died for the guilt of "all humans" (in this context it should be remembered that the Jewish scriptures are very clear in the notion that only Jews are humans and Gentiles are "beasts with speech", Jesus being a Jew this was his view on things too). So even if he said so, and it actually is the case that he died for "all humans", this still only means Jews.



Therein lies you anger over "Universalism". This is where religion is not used as a vehicle for worship but a political ploy (i.e. Judaism). Anyone with a modicum of clarity can see that every culture and race knows God, yet worships him in their own matter that suits their culture. Islam does not suit our culture. Judaism does not suit our culture. Heathenism did. Christianity does. Buddhism could if given the chance. But that's beyond the point.

No, it's exactly the point. The point "what would be good for us".

As you acknowledged above, it is great that people start to dig into their own folkish roots again, and this brings us back to the thread topic, because Christianity is dying.

If it would suit us, people would stream en masse back into the still everywhere present churches of uncountable different subsects of Christianity. But they dont. They convert to all sorts of other religions, including Islam, Buddhism, even Scientology in the desperate search for a spiritual home, but they dont return to Christianity.



What I don't understand is how people can actually believe there are more than one tribe of gods that rule over the earth. Germanic lands are created and ruled by Germanic Gods, Semitic lands are ruled and were created by Semitic Gods, so on and so forth. How could the earth have been made by more than one pantheon? Why would the Germanic gods create the world for the other races? This is simply how the ancient tribes saw the Earth, and it served them.

How can you believe that god formed humans from mud? How can you believe that god cut the woman from Adam's rip? How can you believe that god kicked humans out of paradise (very earthly thing that, with plants and animals and landscapes and night and day and so on) because Eve ate from the tree of knowledge (recognition / realisation) in an act of vengeance for this blasphemy?

Symbolism? Aha.

Serious, indeed ancient people who had not yet much contact with other people (and this was the case when these myths came to be, most likely they were born already with the Kurgan (Aryan?) culture, ~5000 years ago) had a rather "narrow" view of the "world". The world referred to the land they inhabited - the "world" they knew directly, and to all times among all people around the world the term "humans" referred to this one folk that told the tale.

It is not that they have been ignorant of the "entire earth". It just did not concern them, since it was not important for them.

Important was their land, the land on which they farmed and lived from, also an extended sense for their tribe beyond their village borders. Indeed, why would the gods care for the rest of the world? And even more, why would the folk care about the rest of the world? It was this what gods were for, and it is the folk that was created by these gods (which is a rather narrow interpretation by christian recordists, because they never properly seperated the divine forces from the ancestral forces, which were both part of Heathenry).

Yet, also Heathenry has a cosmology, the Völuspa. Try reading it with astrophysical science knowledge in mind and also the different generations of gods. It comes pretty close to current scientific knowledge actually, just like the Vedic cosmology. But I disgress.


Before the idea of an "universal" god emerged in the multiracial slums of the eastern parts of the Roman empire, of a god that would be valid for everyone (in the actual manifestation as emerged among a specific people), the very idea of such a god was absurd. And it even remains actually an absurd idea, when you acknowledge that different people will make of the "universal idea of the divine" something entirely different, something that suits them, which will still not be "universally suitable for all people" though.

You said so somewhere, and it is indeed the point why I think, following this argument, that Christianity cannot be valid for us. It maybe served the "nobility" (in marks because this nobility emerged from Christian rule), it certainly served the priests to acquire power and influence, but did it ever serve in an absolute positive way our people as a whole? The answer is no, and it doesnt suit us either.

Again, Christianity started to die the moment people were given the choice again.



We don't live in the same time or place as they did. Culture is not static. Culture changes, and with it all facets, including religion.

Indeed. It is obviously changing, and the moment people were given the choice again, they decided against christianity.

Maybe it is simply an outdated concept, and obviously bears no more merit nor function today. Which is not surprising, as it manifests a foreign people from 2000 years ago. How could this serve any purpose today, in our lands, for our people?

Plantagenet
Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011, 10:51 PM
Atheism definitely correlates with intelligence, though.

Perhaps as a general tend today, you may be correct. Your average atheists probably is somewhat more intelligent than your average non-atheist today, but I don't think its necessarily true that atheism is strictly the belief of intellectuals. The trend of atheism may also be because of the lack of a spiritual environment within modern society and a society that is saturated with presuppositions of scientific naturalism and often scorns religiosity or mystical experience. Or perhaps Francis Bacon was right when he said,

"A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion."

I think Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon, Galileo, Voltaire, Descartes, Pascal, Swedenborg, Bach, Leibniz, Kepler, Leonhard Euler, Faraday, Max Planck, and Einstein would disagree with that assessment. In all probability the fellows on these lists would disagree with you as well--

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_scientists

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hindus#Scientists_.2F_Inventors_ .2F_Engineers_.2F_Doctors

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hindus#Mathematicians



A global map would make the trend even clearer. But even within Europe, on the one extreme, you have utter morons like Poles, Bulgarians and Turks, and on the other, North West Europeans (minus the Irish).


A new European league of IQ scores has ranked the British in eighth place, well above the French, who were 19th. According to Richard Lynn of the University of Ulster, Britons have an average IQ of 100. The French scored 94. But it is not all good news. Top of the table were the Germans, with an IQ of 107. The British were also beaten by the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, Italy, Austria and Switzerland.

Germany 107
Netherlands 107
Poland 106
Sweden 104
Italy 102
Austria 101
Switzerland 101
UK 100
Norway 100

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article697134.ece

According to this list, the Poles, Italians, and Austrians are among the top scorers of IQs, and they are also among the higher in terms of religiosity according to your map. The Swiss and Bavarians are usually more religious, and also higher up in terms of IQ than say France, which is known to be one of the most secular and atheistic states in Europe, and also scored one of the lowest IQs.


When merging the 16 German states into one league table with the other 28 OECD countries that report PISA 2003 performance data, Bavaria (IQ 102) takes 5th place internationally, while the largest state of Germany, North Rhine-Westphalia (IQ 94) takes 35th place and the city state of Bremen 39th place (IQ 92) out of the 44 countries and states (Wößmann, 2007).



Well, Christianity is dead as well. At least in Europe. It would be very much the same Religious Necromancy to try to resurrect Christianity.


Why do you keep saying this when its a false statement? Do you think if you repeat this mantra enough it will become true or people will begin to believe you?

Stormraaf
Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011, 11:34 PM
Curious, however, that this projection is in direct correlation with the "extinction" of the European races. I believe the case could surly be made that religious solidarity equals cultural/racial solidarity.

But since Christianity is not an ethnic religion, Christian religious solidarity only appears to effectively fill that role for as long as the religious community is coincidentally mono-ethnic and defensive of its ethnic homogeneity for reasons besides, and despite of, Christianity's edicts. When a community's ethnic solidarity comes under assault from universalism and egalitarianism, Christianity simply fails to provide support for the group's ethnic cohesion to withstand it.

(A lot of previously Christian Afrikaners were disillusioned this way when the political tide swung against us and the churches swung right along, providing them with no answers to make sense of it. Today, white Christians in SA are either feverishly racial-egalitarian or scrambling to form sects with a Judaic instead of Hellenic basis and pseudo-ethnic connotations, a sure sign that being deprived of an actual ethnic faith is starting to show symptoms.)


Problem with this is any attempt to re-create heathenism in a modern era would be a reconstruction, and hence an entirely new spiritual system altogether and would only superficially resemble the heathenism of the past.

I would argue the opposite: superficially heathenism in its new form would not resemble the heathenism of the past, but its nucleus (the principle ideals and philosophies, beneath the layers which we are free to position so as to best arm ourselves for the modern world and for its qualities to best resonate within ourselves) would be true to our ancestors' core values, which have in fact been well researched.


Decrying that Christians killed fellow Europeans but excusing the same behavior when Pagans kill fellow Europeans is hypocrisy.

In our case it's decrying that Christians killed fellow Europeans in an act of propagating foreign-born memes but excusing pagans for killing fellow Europeans in an act of defending their heritage and way of life. That's not hypocrisy, that's being of a preservationist mindset.


Beggars can't be choosers, if we ever want our culture and people to regain their former status, we can't afford to argue over silly things like minor religious differences.

To the contrary, our spiritual health is not in the least a minor issue. Now, my priority is not the disparagement of Christianity, and I do acknowledge that Heathenry is itself currently too much of a fringe and misunderstood element to be used as a rallying banner, but to allow us to get on the same page calls for Christians to at least respect heathen values as legitimate and honoured Germanic heritage, and for the rest of us not to tolerate proselytisation such as that the answer to the challenges we face is "turning back to God".

velvet
Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011, 11:38 PM
You realize that Jewish-Marxist propaganda also peddles anti-Christian sentiment and promotes secular atheism right?

And? How is this an argument for christianity?



Yes, and people believed that it was the truth, and many still do. Aside from this, looking back from the vantage point of the modern era, Christianity is inexorably tied up with Western culture and history, and the eradication of Christianity would be the eradication of one element, once one of the most important elements, of Western civilization.

Again, please realise that America is very different from Europe. Europe is a seperate entity, with a seperate history and a seperate development.

We already HAVE civilisation, and it would not crumble if you take out Christianity either. Actually, Christianity is already taken out. Christians are an absolute minority in Europe, and not due to immigrants. We already grew out of Christianity.



You have misinterpreted me. I never said not to adopt Taoism, if it were the truth. My point was that, when the European people adopted Christianity, they were not thinking of folkish nationalism (which didn't even really exist as we think of it at that time) but spiritual matters. However, I feel that if one did wish today to take into consideration the preservation of cultural history as a matter of choosing a religion for Europe, no major religion compares as well as Christianity for that purpose.

Of the "major" religions Christianity may well be the least bad choice.

But you make the mistake to assume that only a major religion was a valid choice.

I will never really understand this "bigger, wider, faster" mentality, really. It is a non-argument in the context of the question what would be good for us.



Though Western Christianity has pagan elements, I wouldn't say that it is essentially pagan at its heart, nor would I say that if you removed corrupted elements from Christianity that it would be paganism.

Christianity indeed is probably the only religion on earth that cannot be reduced back into a pagan belief. This is because christianity is a new age invention (even though a new age invention from 2000 years ago), and not a grown faith.

You misunderstood me though. We need to clean out the christian elements from Paganism.


If you cleansed Christianity of its lesser elements it most certainly would not look exactly like Islam....where do you come up with this stuff?

Look at pre-Enlightenment Christian societies, they were third world slums, sorry. Christianity makes systematic jihad (holy war) against differently minded people, it conquers in the name of god, it kills people in the name of god for sins, like the Muslims stone people to death for committing sins. The pope fulfills the same role as the Islamic Caliph (in fact, the Caliph is modelled after the pope), and so on and so forth.


The fact that Christianity is universal in its scope does not entail that if the West were Christian it would have to accept globalization or invite non-European Christians to come immigrate to our countries. I think nearly all religions or spiritual systems are universal in their scope, except perhaps Judaism.

Actually, no pre-christian religion ever was universal in its scope. This only ceased to be a dominant factor with some few sects like Mithraism and Zoroastrianism in pre-christian times. It was still one factor of the resulting religion though. Only Christianity removed this factor entirely. Not least out of necessity, because Christianity was born in the multiracial slums of the eastern part of the Roman empire, there it took root, and there it had to please people with countless different cultural backgrounds to be accepted - which is the reason why it became necessarily a "universal" religion.

Sure, if the West were christian, this would not automatically mean that we would have to accept immigrants, but to not accept immigrants, Christanity is not required either.

And even more, the presence of Christianity would be no guarantee against immigration anyway. It has never been.

Hamar Fox
Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011, 11:42 PM
Perhaps as a general tend today, you may be correct. Your average atheists probably is somewhat more intelligent than your average non-atheist today, but I don't think its necessarily true that atheism is strictly the belief of intellectuals. The trend of atheism may also be because of the lack of a spiritual environment within modern society and a society that is saturated with presuppositions of scientific naturalism and often scorns religiosity or mystical experience.

I agree that context is important. An atheist in an overwhelmingly religious society is likely to have different (and superior) intellectual and dispositional properties compared to an atheist in a society where atheism is mainstream. But the spiritual environment is hard to separate from the race that creates and maintains it. Let's say that Protestantism laid the groundwork for the mass atheism/agnosticism in NW Europe today, then is that pure happenstance, or is Protestantism -- a much, much less involved religion than Catholicism -- the religion of superior races, races of conquerers who recognise no authority higher than themselves etc.?


I think Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon, Galileo, Voltaire, Descartes, Pascal, Swedenborg, Bach, Leibniz, Kepler, Leonhard Euler, Faraday, Max Planck, and Einstein would disagree with that assessment. In all probability the fellows on these lists would disagree with you as well--

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_scientists

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hindus#Scientists_.2F_Inventors_ .2F_Engineers_.2F_Doctors

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hindus#Mathematicians

The problem is that the religious were at one time 99.9% of the population. Of course they dominated achievement. None of the 'proofs' of God that so convinced them of his existence stand firm today, so the context of religiosity for historical figures was different from that of the religious today.


According to this list, the Poles, Italians, and Austrians are among the top scorers of IQs, and they are also among the higher in terms of religiosity according to your map. The Swiss and Bavarians are usually more religious, and also higher up in terms of IQ than say France, which is known to be one of the most secular and atheistic states in Europe, and also scored one of the lowest IQs.


Even if we accept the validity of IQ research, most of it tends to be extremely shoddy. IIRC, the various nationalities on that list weren't even subject to a single standardised test. It was a meta-analysis; i.e. one that patches together a bunch of different tests by a bunch of different people and acts as though they demonstrate anything other than the laziness of the researcher. Poles are among the most stupid people I've ever met, both online and IRL. Obviously they aren't as intelligent as the French. Not even close, as the histories and record of achievements of those two nations well testify. In fact, I have reason to doubt that the particular study on the 'French' controlled for ancestry. Keep in mind that while the researcher who conducted the meta-analysis had racial concerns, he pieced research together from researchers who lacked such concerns. The same of course could be true of all the Western European nations in the study. But at any rate, any study that found Poles to be smarter than even Australoids is clearly flawed :D

Æmeric
Thursday, March 24th, 2011, 12:03 AM
Could you come up with a source for that? I have never heard of this claim before.

Jewish Population Numbers Through History (http://www.sephardicgen.com/popul.htm)

"Jews in Roman Empire:

25% of Roman population in Eastern Mediterranean
10% of entire Roman Empire
48 C.E. Roman census: 7 million Jews (mostly in Judea, Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor, Babylon, Iran, Yemen and Ethiopia) for an estimated total of 8 million world wide. "



The Diaspora During the Roman Empire (http://books.google.com/books?id=z4eaj09hscAC&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=jews+in+the+roman+empire+population&source=bl&ots=X30Kqmp6qc&sig=ehYIPRPl6iUs6g4_kgN8zQijrkQ&hl=en&ei=mHiKTdmmLqOB0QHLzKnfDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CEsQ6AEwCDgU#v=onepage&q=jews%20in%20the%20roman%20empire%20pop ulation&f=false)

Land & Economy in Ancient Palestine (http://books.google.com/books?id=20Dbc1ywdYkC&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=jews+in+the+roman+empire+population&source=bl&ots=cEEJAxioab&sig=nRww0JGyXh7nk1xKL4OXDQrax60&hl=en&ei=pXqKTa-yA6OU0QHqo7mNDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFIQ6AEwCDge#v=onepage&q=jews%20in%20the%20roman%20empire%20pop ulation&f=false)

The Myth of the Jewish Race (http://books.google.com/books?id=oU9iNYsObjIC&pg=PA97&lpg=PA97&dq=jews+in+the+roman+empire+population&source=bl&ots=6OfCM2rihn&sig=YIREUInQVM_HXEDtqk2pUSiCha0&hl=en&ei=hHuKTZLoB5Cw0QGtsvyBDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBjgy#v=onepage&q=jews%20in%20the%20roman%20empire%20pop ulation&f=false)

Plantagenet
Thursday, March 24th, 2011, 12:29 AM
I would argue the opposite: superficially heathenism in its new form would not resemble the heathenism of the past, but its nucleus (the principle ideals and philosophies, beneath the layers which we are free to position so as to best arm ourselves for the modern world and for its qualities to best resonate within ourselves) would be true to our ancestors' core values, which have in fact been well researched.

However, in the end, it would still be a reconstructed religion based on fragmented evidence and thus not really be what our ancestors once believed in/practiced, even if it does fall in line with their core values. Our ancestors stuck to their core values during most of their history, which obviously includes the portion of time in which they were Christians. So if Christianity were able to foster and preserve such values throughout history, why should it be unable to do so today (assuming that our ancient values can even be recovered, which are mostly dead in the West anyway)?


In our case it's decrying that Christians killed fellow Europeans in an act of propagating foreign-born memes but excusing pagans for killing fellow Europeans in an act of defending their heritage and way of life. That's not hypocrisy, that's being of a preservationist mindset.

So after the Germans, French, and English became Christians and pagan Vikings and Magyars attacked and slaughtered them, it is OK because they practiced their native faith while the others converted to a new faith? However, if those some Christians retaliated or attacked pagans they were in the wrong because they practiced a faith that was born in a foreign land?What about modern Christians who defend their heritage and way of life against secular atheism, which is obviously a fairly new movement in comparison with Christianity, which has been part of Western culture as early as the time of Constantine?


And? How is this an argument for christianity?

It isn't, just hoping that you realize that the cultural Marxism being pushed for also includes anti-Christianity because cultural Marxism is inherently anti-Western, and as I've pointed out, Christianity is one of the cornerstones of Western civilization.


Again, please realise that America is very different from Europe. Europe is a seperate entity, with a seperate history and a seperate development.

We already HAVE civilisation, and it would not crumble if you take out Christianity either. Actually, Christianity is already taken out. Christians are an absolute minority in Europe, and not due to immigrants. We already grew out of Christianity.

America is an extension of Western civilization and was founded by and histories are filled with European people until very recently. However, I fail to see your point. Are you honestly trying to imply that Christianity was not one of the major elements of Western civilization? Modern Western civilization does not in anyway resemble the West of the past, and if it did I don't think so many of us would be posting on forums like these.

Congratulations, Christianity has become a minority in some European countries. But then so have nationalists and racialists. Just another step toward the decline and destruction of our civilization. However, as I have pointed out before, it would seem that the European nations in which Christianity has not died (Italy, Poland, Ireland, Austria, Spain, Croatia, Greece, Bavaria) have a far healthier racial and folkish outlook than many of the countries in which Christianity is dying (France, Britain, Netherlands, Sweden, Germany).



Look at pre-Enlightenment Christian societies, they were third world slums, sorry.

Look at pagan Germanic societies, they were illiterate forest dwellers with no civilization. Compared to the Christian Byzantine Empire of the same period, which was among the most advanced civilizations on Earth at the time, they were barbarians.


I agree that context is important. An atheist in an overwhelmingly religious society is likely to have different (and superior) intellectual and dispositional properties compared to an atheist in a society where atheism is mainstream. But the spiritual environment is hard to separate from the race that creates and maintains it. Let's say that Protestantism laid the groundwork for the mass atheism/agnosticism in NW Europe today, then is that pure happenstance, or is Protestantism -- a much, much less involved religion than Catholicism -- the religion of superior races, races of conquerers who recognise no authority higher than themselves etc.?

So atheists no matter what will always have the superior intellect? Well, we can see that you are really partial observer :D

Is Protestantism the religion of superior races? Why then would France have been the leading European country for centuries, and also the dominant European country besides England, and also be Catholic? Why is it when the major powers arose in Europe, Austria-Hungary was one of them, and were also Catholic?


The problem is that the religious were at one time 99.9% of the population. Of course they dominated achievement. None of the 'proofs' of God that so convinced them of his existence stand firm today, so the context of religiosity for historical figures was different from that of the religious today.

Irregardless, their existence disproves the idea that atheism correlates with higher intelligence. However, it isn't set in stone that God doesn't exist today. Either way, even today we have scientists and philosophers who believe in God. Einstein was not a theist in the personal God sense, but he was against atheism, and did believe in a divinity. Max Planck was a Christian and isn't so far removed from the modern era. One of the most renowned atheist philosophers of the modern era, Anthony Flew, renounced his atheism and became a deistic believer in God based upon his interpretation of scientific evidence. Georges Lemaître was a Catholic priest that lived in the modern era and also was the originator of the Big Bang theory.


Even if we accept the validity of IQ research, most of it tends to be extremely shoddy. IIRC, the various nationalities on that list weren't even subject to a single standardised test. It was a meta-analysis; i.e. one that patches together a bunch of different tests by a bunch of different people and acts as though they demonstrate anything other than the laziness of the researcher. Poles are among the most stupid people I've ever met, both online and IRL. Obviously they aren't as intelligent as the French. Not even close, as the histories and record of achievements of those two nations well testify. In fact, I have reason to doubt that the particular study on the 'French' controlled for ancestry. Keep in mind that while the researcher who conducted the meta-analysis had racial concerns, he pieced research together from researchers who lacked such concerns. The same of course could be true of all the Western European nations in the study. But at any rate, any study that found Poles to be smarter than even Australoids is clearly flawed :D

Then if an IQ tests confirms Germans have a higher IQ than Africans, should I not accept it because it is extremely shoddy? The Poles can't be too stupid if their country is still white and they have healthier nationalistic and folkish views than the French, who are allowing their nation to die and refuse to even have race placed on their censuses. However, if we wish to go by pure anecdotal evidence, I can say in my time most of the atheists I've met have been idiots totally ignorant of philosophy. Does that mean that they are?

Hilderinc
Thursday, March 24th, 2011, 12:40 AM
To the contrary, our spiritual health is not in the least a minor issue. Now, my priority is not the disparagement of Christianity, and I do acknowledge that Heathenry is itself currently too much of a fringe and misunderstood element to be used as a rallying banner, but to allow us to get on the same page calls for Christians to at least respect heathen values as legitimate and honoured Germanic heritage, and for the rest of us not to tolerate proselytisation such as that the answer to the challenges we face is "turning back to God".

What I meant was this is not the time to put any deep worry or thought into spiritual matters, as these matters are one of the only aspects of "Germanicness" that are not under 'direct threat.'

Our [Germanic] art, architecture, music, and other similar things have not been produced with the quantity and enthusiasm as they once were, in fact, their quality and greatness has also deteriorated. Our language is also under threat, with new 'young urban dialects' and 'text speak,' and the general dumbing down of people so they are not able to comprehend higher level words of their own native language. Our genetic makeup is also under threat, I needn't say why. And one of the most important things of "Germanic society," the society itself, has been greatly eroded; people are no longer active in their community, nor do they really care about the status of their community... Yet, Germanic Paganism is growing, and there are still as many Christians as ever. Even if many may be 'losing interest,' they still hold affinity towards Christian ideas and overall acceptance of Christianity over other religions.


I did not mean in any way that spiritual matters are not important, they are just as important as all other aspects of Germanic life, such as language, culture, art, etc. (If not even more important.)

Hamar Fox
Thursday, March 24th, 2011, 01:02 AM
So atheists no matter what will always have the superior intellect? Well, we can see that you are really partial observer :D

No, not no matter what. I think the fact that I had no religious upbringing does actually make me impartial, however. I can look at the issue and see that the existence of God has no strong supporting arguments. For me, it's a purely philosophical issue. For those who are born into religious families/societies, then it's so much more than that. It's about identity, family relations, social relations, threat to emotional buffers, life goals etc.

I've met religious people who seemed intelligent, although they found it hard to defend their beliefs under scrutiny. My position is that free of any cultural pressures or circumstances that bias one towards religion, all intelligent people would be atheist. But since such freedom is rare, then otherwise intelligent people can still fall into untenable beliefs.


Is Protestantism the religion of superior races? Why then would France have been the leading European country for centuries, and also the dominant European country besides England, and also be Catholic? Why is it when the major powers arose in Europe, Austria-Hungary was one of them, and were also Catholic?

My point was it's impossible to free context from the race that created that context. You could argue a race is less religious due to factors A, B & C, but the fact that the race is also responsible for factors A, B & C obscures the problem somewhat.


Irregardless

Bushism :D


[...]their existence disproves the idea that atheism correlates with higher intelligence.

No it doesn't, because I don't accept the validity of the tests, or at least the meta-analysis of them.


However, it isn't set in stone that God doesn't exist today. Either way, even today we have scientists and philosophers who believe in God. Einstein was not a theist in the personal God sense, but he was against atheism, and did believe in a divinity.

He was far from a great qualitative thinker. His philosophical reflections were generally quite poor. Scientists (at least modern ones) tend to be bad philosophers.


One of the most renowned atheist philosophers of the modern era, Anthony Flew, renounced his atheism and became a deistic believer in God based upon his interpretation of scientific evidence.

Never heard of him.


Then if an IQ tests confirms Germans have a higher IQ than Africans, should I not accept it because it is extremely shoddy?

If it's shoddy, then it can't confirm anything. You could use other means to determine how much more intelligent Germans are than Africans.


The Poles can't be too stupid if their country is still white and they have healthier nationalistic and folkish views than the French, who are allowing their nation to die and refuse to even have race placed on their censuses.

Poles have allowed millions of Jews, Gypsies, Tatars, Armenians etc. pollute their gene pool for centuries. But even if they had kept their country white, so? Nigerians have kept their country black, but they're still retards.


However, if we wish to go by pure anecdotal evidence, I can say in my time most of the atheists I've met have been idiots totally ignorant of philosophy. Does that mean that they are?

The absence of Polish achievement throughout history is more than anecdotal.

Plantagenet
Thursday, March 24th, 2011, 02:29 AM
No, not no matter what. I think the fact that I had no religious upbringing does actually make me impartial, however. I can look at the issue and see that the existence of God has no strong supporting arguments. For me, it's a purely philosophical issue. For those who are born into religious families/societies, then it's so much more than that. It's about identity, family relations, social relations, threat to emotional buffers, life goals etc. .

I have to agree with you about people who were raised in a religious household, often their vision is skewed, but not always. But what about cases where people raised outside of a religion, or were raised as atheists, later convert to a certain religion? Cases like this do exist, and cases where intelligent individuals had done just that also exist.

I know for my sake, I was raised as an atheist (or at least non-religious), and throughout most of my early life I was an atheist with no spiritual or religious inclination. Then when I was about 18, I had a life changing transcendent mystical experience. I did not have the proper context in which to categorize or understand what happened to me, but I mostly certainly knew I experienced Divinity of some sort. I had this same type of mystical experience occur two more times within the next year. I began to investigate and look for individuals who had a similar experience as I did, and I came to discover that what I had experienced was in common with mystical experiences across time and cultures. From this point onward I ceased to be an atheist and began a journey to find out spiritual truth.


I've met religious people who seemed intelligent, although they found it hard to defend their beliefs under scrutiny. My position is that free of any cultural pressures or circumstances that bias one towards religion, all intelligent people would be atheist. But since such freedom is rare, then otherwise intelligent people can still fall into untenable beliefs.

Then why has belief in God or a higher power been an almost universal human occurrence, spread out across all cultures? Why have distinct cultures of different times all possess a variety of similar beliefs in a higher power and similar descriptions of mystical experiences? Surely not all of them were unintelligent idiots.


Bushism :D

Yeah, I suppose thats what happens when you find yourself bombarded with the word. I'm American so I have the right to say it :D At least it sounds lofty.


No it doesn't, because I don't accept the validity of the tests, or at least the meta-analysis of them.

What tests? I was referring to the fact that some of the greatest geniuses in history believed in God. Even in the absence of modern scientific evidence in which some of the figures lived, I think their shining genius would still allow them to conclude whether or not belief in a God was an irrational belief.


He was far from a great qualitative thinker. His philosophical reflections were generally quite poor. Scientists (at least modern ones) tend to be bad philosophers.

Though some would argue his mind had a great understanding of the nature of space-time and therefore would qualify him above a laymen to make a statement about the existence of a God. I think the fact that modern scientists tend to be bad philosophers should be also indicative of the general unreliability of their stances on the existence of God.


Never heard of him.

What?! You are an atheist and you haven't heard of Anthony Flew? He was one of the most preeminent philosophers of religion in recent times, and one of modern atheism's most respected philosophers.


Poles have allowed millions of Jews, Gypsies, Tatars, Armenians etc. pollute their gene pool for centuries. But even if they had kept their country white, so? Nigerians have kept their country black, but they're still retards.

I don't think thats a fair comparison. Nigerians kept their country black because no one that isn't black wants to move to Nigeria. Hell, even blacks from the West wouldn't want to move to Nigeria.

Still, while France declines and becomes a multicultural, multiracial hell hole, Poland will still be a white nation (or so we can hope.)


The absence of Polish achievement throughout history is more than anecdotal.

C'mon, they are not entirely without accomplishment. They had Copernicus, they had the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, they had Chopin, and Jan Sobieski saved Europe from the Turks at Vienna. Plus this list doesn't seem too shabby--

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Polish_people

Juthunge
Thursday, March 24th, 2011, 02:47 AM
C'mon, they are not entirely without accomplishment. They had Copernicus, they had the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, they had Chopin, and Jan Sobieski saved Europe from the Turks at Vienna. Plus this list doesn't seem too shabby--

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Polish_people

Copernicus was German, Chopin half-French. ;) I'm not arguing with Sobieski though, probably the most important person that was ever to be born in Poland.

Plantagenet
Thursday, March 24th, 2011, 03:59 AM
Copernicus was German, Chopin half-French. ;) I'm not arguing with Sobieski though, probably the most important person that was ever to be born in Poland.

Yeah, Köppernig right? I suppose one could call him ethnically German and still attribute to him a partial Polish nationality since he was a subject of the kingdom of Poland and spoke Polish. I also think I read somewhere that his father was Slavic while it was his mother that was German. Either way, it remains an often heated contention between German and Poles as to who Copernicus belongs to.

Hamar Fox
Thursday, March 24th, 2011, 09:14 AM
I have to agree with you about people who were raised in a religious household, often their vision is skewed, but not always. But what about cases where people raised outside of a religion, or were raised as atheists, later convert to a certain religion? Cases like this do exist, and cases where intelligent individuals had done just that also exist.

I know for my sake, I was raised as an atheist (or at least non-religious), and throughout most of my early life I was an atheist with no spiritual or religious inclination. Then when I was about 18, I had a life changing transcendent mystical experience. I did not have the proper context in which to categorize or understand what happened to me, but I mostly certainly knew I experienced Divinity of some sort. I had this same type of mystical experience occur two more times within the next year. I began to investigate and look for individuals who had a similar experience as I did, and I came to discover that what I had experienced was in common with mystical experiences across time and cultures. From this point onward I ceased to be an atheist and began a journey to find out spiritual truth.

I can't really comment on your experience. I'd have to know your specific definition or conception of God before I could refute it. As is seen in this thread: http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=138360&highlight=paranormal -- a lot of people make things up.


Then why has belief in God or a higher power been an almost universal human occurrence, spread out across all cultures? Why have distinct cultures of different times all possess a variety of similar beliefs in a higher power and similar descriptions of mystical experiences? Surely not all of them were unintelligent idiots.

The intellectual path of least resistance. We no longer lack understanding of why there are seasons, good harvests and bad harvests, why the sun rises etc. It's fairly easy to show that essentially everything the ancients believed was wrong. I'm fairly sure no doctor would tell you headaches are caused by demonic possession. God is no different.


What tests? I was referring to the fact that some of the greatest geniuses in history believed in God. Even in the absence of modern scientific evidence in which some of the figures lived, I think their shining genius would still allow them to conclude whether or not belief in a God was an irrational belief.

Few philosophers ever conceived of God as the common pious man did. For example, Kant and Hegel's 'Gods' were certainly misnamed -- an unoriginal word used to label an original concept. If they weren't biased by the circumstances of their birth, they would have called their ideas something else.

As for the people you listed, most of them were religious by default, being born into religious societies. They weren't impartial observers of the debate whose great genius just had to make them take the side of theism.


Though some would argue his mind had a great understanding of the nature of space-time and therefore would qualify him above a laymen to make a statement about the existence of a God.

Not really. Nobody revealed the imperfections of the universe more than Einstein.


What?! You are an atheist and you haven't heard of Anthony Flew? He was one of the most preeminent philosophers of religion in recent times, and one of modern atheism's most respected philosophers.

Because I'm not a member of any 'atheist community' (which only exists really in the US, where religion is still relevant). I also bite my nails, but couldn't name a single authority on nail-biting techniques. I actually don't need the arguments of others, because as of yet my own have never failed me.


I don't think thats a fair comparison. Nigerians kept their country black because no one that isn't black wants to move to Nigeria. Hell, even blacks from the West wouldn't want to move to Nigeria.

Just as no one (except Gypsies and the persecuted Jews of yore) wants or ever wanted to move to Poland -- unless to claim it for their own. Poles have never consciously attempted to keep non-whites out of their country. It was a haven for Jews through history, and this was reflected in the massive Jew population of that country pre-1939.


Still, while France declines and becomes a multicultural, multiracial hell hole, Poland will still be a white nation (or so we can hope.)

Which is why the IQ results for the French are invalid, unless the researcher specifically states every participant had 8 French great-grandparents. Sadly, very few pure French people remain. The country has been bombarded by other-European immigrations for a century now, and non-European immigration for almost as long (they definitely got a head start on other European nations). Whenever I view a French national's biography, it almost always mentions non-French, and more often than not, non-European heritage.

Examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Green#Early_life

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliette_Binoche#Early_life_and_career

Of course, the Poles themselves have contributed to the destruction of the French as a people, as can be seen in Binoche's heritage.


C'mon, they are not entirely without accomplishment. They had Copernicus, they had the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, they had Chopin, and Jan Sobieski saved Europe from the Turks at Vienna. Plus this list doesn't seem too shabby--

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Polish_people

Models, TV personalities, sportsmen etc. don't count. I didn't view the biography of every scientist there, but, as expected, a large percentage seemed to be Jews. Most English, German, Dutch, French achievement is English, German, Dutch and French, while Poles and other Slavs have always been intellectually outmatched by their jew populations.

A lot of articles were also stubs; which is to say, they're about nobodies.

Jäger
Thursday, March 24th, 2011, 12:54 PM
Well we are in agreement.
Since you avoid all of my direct questions, I am not so sure of this.

velvet
Thursday, March 24th, 2011, 02:22 PM
However, in the end, it would still be a reconstructed religion based on fragmented evidence and thus not really be what our ancestors once believed in/practiced, even if it does fall in line with their core values. Our ancestors stuck to their core values during most of their history, which obviously includes the portion of time in which they were Christians. So if Christianity were able to foster and preserve such values throughout history, why should it be unable to do so today (assuming that our ancient values can even be recovered, which are mostly dead in the West anyway)?

Maybe you havent yet noticed, but Christianity failed to defend the "West", which is IMO not a united entity anyway.

There are people LIVING Heathenism, all "christian" holydays and customs are PAGAN anyway. For the few remaining Christians (again: in Europe) they would hardly feel the difference, and the next generation would see a grown faith rooting in the mindset of people.



So after the Germans, French, and English became Christians and pagan Vikings and Magyars attacked and slaughtered them, it is OK because they practiced their native faith while the others converted to a new faith? However, if those some Christians retaliated or attacked pagans they were in the wrong because they practiced a faith that was born in a foreign land?What about modern Christians who defend their heritage and way of life against secular atheism, which is obviously a fairly new movement in comparison with Christianity, which has been part of Western culture as early as the time of Constantine?

Did it ever occure to you that Constantine was not an Indo-European Roman, but a Shemitic Easterner? That he came to power when Rome had already ceased to be the power center of the Roman empire, in fact, the Roman empire was in the process of dissolving and falling apart (have a look here: The Race Change in Ancient Italy (http://www.giveshare.org/babylon/racechange.html)), due to - oh how surprising - Jewish infiltration, the restructuring around the Senatorial Dictatorship with the illusion of the Rebublic? That it is exactly like today, the minority group Jews takes over control?

That it was a Shemitic Easterner who imposed Christianity as the state religion on the remaining Roman empire debries?

Did it ever occure to you that Christians invaded our territories, and where not attacked for an "alien faith" but for invading our territories and trying to install their power structures?

But then - of course - the tschandala starts whining, mimimi, we are discriminated by these evil godless people, they attack us just because we want to grab their land and destroy their holy sites and kill their people and priests. We are the good ones, we Christians bring salvation, how can they object to this?



It isn't, just hoping that you realize that the cultural Marxism being pushed for also includes anti-Christianity because cultural Marxism is inherently anti-Western, and as I've pointed out, Christianity is one of the cornerstones of Western civilization.

It once was, but it isnt any longer. Anti-Christian sentiments based on common sense and truth (not propaganda) are way older than the 1960s Cultural Marxism, even way older than the early stages of the Frankfurt School in the 1930s. The Enlightenment was anti-christian, the Renaissance was anti-christian (and again, both movements unfortunately helped Christianity to survive in Europe, because the church fundamentally changed then), and the secularization in the wake of the French Revolution allowed thinking people again to publish their works.

Anti-Semitism, Anti-Christianity and Pro-European, Pro-Folkish, Aryan movements spread like wildfire throughout Europe from the early 19th century, look Steiner, Blavatsky, Nietzsche and countless others, trying to get out of the christian trap.



America is an extension of Western civilization and was founded by and histories are filled with European people until very recently. However, I fail to see your point. Are you honestly trying to imply that Christianity was not one of the major elements of Western civilization? Modern Western civilization does not in anyway resemble the West of the past, and if it did I don't think so many of us would be posting on forums like these.

Again, you fail to see that the "West" including its empire moved to America. Europe is no longer an entity of the "West" (although America did much, including bombing us into the ground twice, to keep us in).

I care not much about the past, really, I cant change it anyway. But I maybe can change the path for our future - for that we have a future. Whatever Christianity allegedly accomplished in the past (of which I would dispute much as well; history is written by the victors), I see no more use for Christianity in this day and age, and I dont want my people living under Christian rule in the future either.

I want my people to prosper, to have a positive look into their future, I want them to believe in themselves and their strengths, I dont want them to punish themselves any longer with imagined sins, constant feelings of guilt and shame.



Congratulations, Christianity has become a minority in some European countries. But then so have nationalists and racialists. Just another step toward the decline and destruction of our civilization. However, as I have pointed out before, it would seem that the European nations in which Christianity has not died (Italy, Poland, Ireland, Austria, Spain, Croatia, Greece, Bavaria) have a far healthier racial and folkish outlook than many of the countries in which Christianity is dying (France, Britain, Netherlands, Sweden, Germany).

This though is mere coincidence.
Btw, for the time being Bavaria is part of Germany, but you're right, they dumped the enforced "guest workers" of course not in their backyard, but in the north and the Ruhrpott, while making sure that it was their businesses who profitted from that. Yeah, great folkish outlook to deliberately destroy the rest of Germany for their greed.

Interesting btw, that it was the so-called "left" SPD who objected strongly against the import of wage-dumper Turks, while the "Christian" CDU pushed that through, against parliamentary opposition, against protests by German workers, against protests through the worker unions.

And while Bavaria kept itself more or less clean of the immigrants, they ran one campaign after another for tolerance and integration. Just like today, when Merkel (CDU) wants future imams to have studied in Germany (for that they speak German) and for that initiated in several universities Islam studies already. The oh-so christian Bavaria also was the first federal state to allow Sharia Law. Yeah, because they defend their christian heritage so well, they give more and more power into the hands of Muslims.

Or the many churches, more often than not Catholic churches, that are given to Muslim immigrants, sometimes to illegal immigrants to protect them from being sent back, often for that they have a place to worship and they spray their half moon all over the place and vandal the buildings. Because christians must help and support Muslims, christians must help and support Jews, christians must help and support all the poors and havenots of the world. I've once heard, several years ago already, that each year the various churches collect aid donations that are transfered to the third world in sums of more than 6 billion Euros. Each Year.

That's christianity for you.


Look at pagan Germanic societies, they were illiterate forest dwellers with no civilization. Compared to the Christian Byzantine Empire of the same period, which was among the most advanced civilizations on Earth at the time, they were barbarians.

Cool, no consumerism yet. No Free Market Capitalism. No cities that eat up the gene pool. No Jews.

Serious. It's not that we hadnt yet trade centers, we just were no city people. It was not the Byzantine empire that sailed to America 300 years earlier than Columbus (who wanted to discover India and didnt even realise that he was somewhere else :oanieyes), we North Europeans did.

It is btw interesting that everyone argues for a rural lifestyle, because rural people are more healthy and less prone to brainwash, while at the same time praising "Western Civilisation" that brought cities and ever bigger cities where the rural values and life style and customs and culture were washed away in an ever more anonyme mass.



Irregardless, their existence disproves the idea that atheism correlates with higher intelligence. However, it isn't set in stone that God doesn't exist today. Either way, even today we have scientists and philosophers who believe in God.

And what does that prove? Belief is no measure for truth. Actually, belief is the conviction that something is true despite reality offering no arguments to support a claim.


Einstein was not a theist in the personal God sense, but he was against atheism, and did believe in a divinity.

Einstein was a Jew.


Max Planck was a Christian and isn't so far removed from the modern era.

One year later, Planck, having been the president of the KWG since 1930, organized in a somewhat provocative style an official commemorative meeting for Haber. He also succeeded in secretly enabling a number of Jewish scientists to continue working in institutes of the KWG for several years. In 1936, his term as president of the KWG ended, and the Nazi government pressured him to refrain from seeking another term.

As the political climate in Germany gradually became more hostile, Johannes Stark, prominent exponent of Deutsche Physik ("German Physics", also called "Aryan Physics") attacked Planck, Sommerfeld and Heisenberg for continuing to teach the theories of Einstein, calling them "white Jews." The "Hauptamt Wissenschaft" (Nazi government office for science) started an investigation of Planck's ancestry, but all they could find out was that he was "1/16 Jewish."



One of the most renowned atheist philosophers of the modern era, Anthony Flew, renounced his atheism and became a deistic believer in God based upon his interpretation of scientific evidence. Georges Lemaître was a Catholic priest that lived in the modern era and also was the originator of the Big Bang theory.

Yeah, "god" is so convincing because it bears no connection to reality and makes the world so much easier.

But only because many people believe in something (like the holohoax, or that steaks miraculously grow in supermarkets), doesnt make it true.

And actually it is sad that many arguably intelligent people waste their intellectual abilities to ponder over a "metaphysical god", who is today, in the age of science, so far pushed away from knowledge that the metaphysical spheres become totally ridiculous.

Hrogar
Thursday, March 24th, 2011, 03:23 PM
Look at pagan Germanic societies, they were illiterate forest dwellers with no civilization. Compared to the Christian Byzantine Empire of the same period, which was among the most advanced civilizations on Earth at the time, they were barbarians.


Sorry, but you if you really believe this nonsense, you have an extremely superficial view of civilization.

Civilization never resides in buildings, weapons or theater plays, but in the way people relate to each other and in the ideals the uphold.

And when you look at the Germanic peoples, if you really study them instead of just repeating others' ill-informed opinions, you will find that the Germanic society was based on higher ideals and values than those of the decadent byzantines.

Jäger
Thursday, March 24th, 2011, 03:32 PM
It's fairly easy to show that essentially everything the ancients believed was wrong.
They were all right! Contrary to the Christian belief that only one God can exist, ancient Germanics knew that Gods are similar to humans, and thus if we acquire more and more knowledge until we have nothing mystic left, what else would we be other than Gods ourselves?
The Gods just did that, that's why they can sometimes battle fate, and why Odin has only one eye :)
The path is to become a God, by trying to interpret their work, it's a cycle.

Plantagenet
Thursday, March 24th, 2011, 05:38 PM
I can't really comment on your experience. I'd have to know your specific definition or conception of God before I could refute it. As is seen in this thread: http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=138360&highlight=paranormal -- a lot of people make things up.

Well I am not so bold as to have conceived a specific definition of God, or even that it is a personal theistic God at all. The only thing I can say for sure is that I believe this God to transcend our normal consciousness of day-to-day experience and physical universe, and to exist in a timeless, space-less, uncaused state. This is why I haven't settled on a specific philosophy or religion because I am still unsure. However, I assure you, I have no reason to lie about my experience.


The intellectual path of least resistance. We no longer lack understanding of why there are seasons, good harvests and bad harvests, why the sun rises etc. It's fairly easy to show that essentially everything the ancients believed was wrong. I'm fairly sure no doctor would tell you headaches are caused by demonic possession. God is no different.

C'mon, its not as simple as that is it? Surely the ancients weren't wrong about everything. Was Plato and Aristotle wrong about many of their philosophical positions? Was Democritus wrong about atomic theory? Our scientific knowledge has advanced, but the existence or non-existence of God lies outside of the observable universe, and thus I think science is inept lending 100% proof for the existence or non-existence of God and as it things currently stand cannot give us a complete answer.


Few philosophers ever conceived of God as the common pious man did. For example, Kant and Hegel's 'Gods' were certainly misnamed -- an unoriginal word used to label an original concept. If they weren't biased by the circumstances of their birth, they would have called their ideas something else.

They still conceived of a God, and there were many philosophers who conceived of God in a similar manner to mainline Christian theology, most famous of all being Thomas Aquinas, but also including such great names as Rene Descartes, Leibniz, Pascal, Kierkegaard, and of course modern philosophers such as William Lane Craig, J.P Moreland, Alvin Plantiga, and G.K Chesterton.


As for the people you listed, most of them were religious by default, being born into religious societies. They weren't impartial observers of the debate whose great genius just had to make them take the side of theism.

Most of the people born into the world today are secular by default, and born into non-religious secular societies. They aren't impartial observers by that logic either.


Not really. Nobody revealed the imperfections of the universe more than Einstein.

Though it still stands that he believed in a higher power.


Because I'm not a member of any 'atheist community' (which only exists really in the US, where religion is still relevant). I also bite my nails, but couldn't name a single authority on nail-biting techniques. I actually don't need the arguments of others, because as of yet my own have never failed me.

Then I feel it would be a good service to you to read some Christian, and non-Christian philosophers who posit the existence of a God or a higher power, and perhaps even watch some of the modern philosophical debates between theists and atheists, because the matter surely is not settled.


Just as no one (except Gypsies and the persecuted Jews of yore) wants or ever wanted to move to Poland -- unless to claim it for their own. Poles have never consciously attempted to keep non-whites out of their country. It was a haven for Jews through history, and this was reflected in the massive Jew population of that country pre-1939.

Then why did parts of Poland and Polish cities often have significant German populations throughout history?


Which is why the IQ results for the French are invalid, unless the researcher specifically states every participant had 8 French great-grandparents. Sadly, very few pure French people remain. The country has been bombarded by other-European immigrations for a century now, and non-European immigration for almost as long (they definitely got a head start on other European nations). Whenever I view a French national's biography, it almost always mentions non-French, and more often than not, non-European heritage.


Which can't make the modern French all that intelligent if they allowed such a thing to occur to their nation and people, can it? I would agree with you that France used to be among the greatest nations on Earth, along with England, Germany, and Italy, and obviously surpasses Poland, but where Poland will survive into the future, it would seem that France will not unless drastic changes occur within the next 10-50 years.


Maybe you havent yet noticed, but Christianity failed to defend the "West", which is IMO not a united entity anyway.


Christianity failed to defend the West? Yet the West was defended multiple times throughout its history via the uniting of Christian forces against external foes? How about the fact that the West was in a far healthier state during the time it was Christian and is dying during the same time where Christianity is dying? Sure that makes a whole load of sense.


Did it ever occure to you that Constantine was not an Indo-European Roman, but a Shemitic Easterner? That he came to power when Rome had already ceased to be the power center of the Roman empire, in fact, the Roman empire was in the process of dissolving and falling apart (have a look here: The Race Change in Ancient Italy (http://www.giveshare.org/babylon/racechange.html)), due to - oh how surprising - Jewish infiltration, the restructuring around the Senatorial Dictatorship with the illusion of the Rebublic? That it is exactly like today, the minority group Jews takes over control?

That it was a Shemitic Easterner who imposed Christianity as the state religion on the remaining Roman empire debries?

Did it ever occure to you that Christians invaded our territories, and where not attacked for an "alien faith" but for invading our territories and trying to install their power structures?

Did it ever occur to you that Constantine was not a Semite, and that his father was of Greco-Roman Origin and his mother was a Greek as well? Did it ever occur to you that the Roman Empire survived in the East until 1453? Did it ever occur to you that those power structures the Romans installed were the basis of our civilization?


It once was, but it isnt any longer. Anti-Christian sentiments based on common sense and truth (not propaganda) are way older than the 1960s Cultural Marxism, even way older than the early stages of the Frankfurt School in the 1930s. The Enlightenment was anti-christian, the Renaissance was anti-christian (and again, both movements unfortunately helped Christianity to survive in Europe, because the church fundamentally changed then), and the secularization in the wake of the French Revolution allowed thinking people again to publish their works.

Yeah, its really based on common sense alright. I am sure thats why there are people far more intelligent than you and I, professional historians no less, who would flat out laugh at everything you just stated in paragraph. The Renaissance was not anti-Christian, I think that is a given to anyone who even glances inside a history book. The Enlightenment is not as simple as you make it out to be, because not every Enlightenment was anti-Christian.


The term ‘Christian Enlightenment’ no longer raises eyebrows; but this is a relatively recent phenomenon. A widespread consensus used to exist that the very essence of the Enlightenment – what made the Enlightenment ‘enlightened’ – was its attack on religion. According to Paul Hazard's influential interpretation, the express aim of the Enlightenment was to ‘put Christianity on trial’ and even to annihilate ‘the religious interpretation of life’; similarly, Peter Gay described the Enlightenment as a ‘war on Christianity’. Many scholars before and after agreed with this point of view. They described the Enlightenment as being – by its very nature – anti-Christian, anti-Church and even anti-religious.

We now know, however, that the relationship between Christianity and the Enlightenment was far more complex and interesting. We realize that these previous interpretations were overly focused on France, and erroneously tended to posit a single Enlightenment. Over the past few years, scholars have been ‘pluralizing’ the Enlightenment, the result being that we now see it not so much as a unified and Francophone phenomenon, but rather as a ‘family of discourses’ with many regional and national variations across Europe and in America. It has become clear that earlier interpretations were based on an impoverished view of religious traditions and perhaps even an outright disdain for them.


I want my people to prosper, to have a positive look into their future, I want them to believe in themselves and their strengths, I dont want them to punish themselves any longer with imagined sins, constant feelings of guilt and shame.

What about the imagined sins and feelings of guilt and shame that modern Westerners are taught to feel when they look back at their Christian past, which they envision to be racist, misogynist, imperialistic, anti-science, anti-reason, dark, ugly, and thus inferior to other races, civilizations, and cultures thanks to cultural Marxist propaganda and indoctrination?


Cool, no consumerism yet. No Free Market Capitalism. No cities that eat up the gene pool. No Jews.

Serious. It's not that we hadnt yet trade centers, we just were no city people. It was not the Byzantine empire that sailed to America 300 years earlier than Columbus (who wanted to discover India and didnt even realise that he was somewhere else :oanieyes), we North Europeans did.

It is btw interesting that everyone argues for a rural lifestyle, because rural people are more healthy and less prone to brainwash, while at the same time praising "Western Civilisation" that brought cities and ever bigger cities where the rural values and life style and customs and culture were washed away in an ever more anonyme mass.

No one is saying a rural lifestyle is bad, but if you really hate civilization and the advancements it brought us, then do us a favor. Stop using the internet, stop using the computer, never drive in a car, never ride in in airplane, never use a refrigerator, never use electricity, never use a phone, and go live in a thatched cottage in the woods and forget how to read. If you or your children ever get sick, do not take them to the doctor and never use modern medicines or surgery. If someone robs you at gunpoint, use a sword to defend yourself. Stop listening to all the modern music (and Western classical) you may enjoy as well.

You realize Leif Erickson was a Christian right? Just making sure.


And what does that prove? Belief is no measure for truth. Actually, belief is the conviction that something is true despite reality offering no arguments to support a claim.

And yet you believe in atheism, which makes a claim, ie the claim that there is no God. There is no being called God. Atheism is a philosophical position which posits that there is no God, not mere agnosticism which suspends judgement as to whether there is a God or not. In philosophy if you make a claim, you must be willing to provide proof for such a claim. I doubt you can prove the non-existence of God when top philosophers and scientists still debate the issue to this day.


Einstein was a Jew.

Your point being? If a Jew says that the Earth revolves around the Sun, is he wrong automatically because he is Jewish? If a Jew says we need oxygen to breathe, is he wrong because he is Jewish?


One year later, Planck, having been the president of the KWG since 1930, organized in a somewhat provocative style an official commemorative meeting for Haber. He also succeeded in secretly enabling a number of Jewish scientists to continue working in institutes of the KWG for several years. In 1936, his term as president of the KWG ended, and the Nazi government pressured him to refrain from seeking another term.

As the political climate in Germany gradually became more hostile, Johannes Stark, prominent exponent of Deutsche Physik ("German Physics", also called "Aryan Physics") attacked Planck, Sommerfeld and Heisenberg for continuing to teach the theories of Einstein, calling them "white Jews." The "Hauptamt Wissenschaft" (Nazi government office for science) started an investigation of Planck's ancestry, but all they could find out was that he was "1/16 Jewish."[/size]

Yup, that information really detracts from his ability to make an informed decision. Thanks for showing me the light.


Yeah, "god" is so convincing because it bears no connection to reality and makes the world so much easier.

But only because many people believe in something (like the holohoax, or that steaks miraculously grow in supermarkets), doesnt make it true.


In your opinion. Just because you believe there is no God does not make it true. When the greatest minds in history have debated this question, and modern philosophers and scientists still debate the answer to this question, I think it would be nothing short of arrogance to believe you know the answer.


Sorry, but you if you really believe this nonsense, you have an extremely superficial view of civilization.

Civilization never resides in buildings, weapons or theater plays, but in the way people relate to each other and in the ideals the uphold.

And when you look at the Germanic peoples, if you really study them instead of just repeating others' ill-informed opinions, you will find that the Germanic society was based on higher ideals and values than those of the decadent byzantines.

I agree with you to some extent. While the Greco-Roman values and ideals began to decline, the Germanic people held high values. I responded in such a manner because velvet pointed out that pre-Enlightenment cities were slums.

Wulfram
Thursday, March 24th, 2011, 06:06 PM
...thus if we acquire more and more knowledge until we have nothing mystic left, what else would we be other than Gods ourselves?

How would it be possible to know if we have attained enough knowledge that mysticism ceases to be an influence? At what point can one reach before they decide that there is nothing left to learn? In order to do this you would have to know exactly how much there is to attain. If you cannot see all of it at once then how would you know where it begins or ends? If you cannot do this then the attainment of mysticism is as full of endless possibilities as the universe. The only possible entity that can see where it all begins and ends is the very creator itself. If we cannot see it all as god can then we cannot possibly be gods ourselves.

At best we can try to live as how they would but nothing more than approximations.
Admittedly, Germanics (and Celts ;)) are the closest thing to gods that we have on this planet.


The Gods just did that, that's why they can sometimes battle fate, and why Odin has only one eye :)

The third eye? The same one that you claim to have?
Do you feel you are an actual god, or that you have the power to be one?


The path is to become a God, by trying to interpret their work, it's a cycle.

While still on this earth? I feel that as puny humans we are not worthy at this stage to become anything while confined here.
If we are to become gods it is certainly not in this present existence.
How would one even begin to know where to start and just how much will be needed?

Hrogar
Thursday, March 24th, 2011, 06:08 PM
You realize Leif Erickson was a Christian right? Just making sure.


More specifically, Leif Erickson was a pagan who converted to christianity because his king told him to.

Jäger
Thursday, March 24th, 2011, 06:47 PM
How would it be possible to know if we have attained enough knowledge that mysticism ceases to be an influence?
Through our knowledge.


At best we can try to live as how they would but nothing more than approximations.
How would you know how they lived?


The third eye?
Nah, Odin has two then :D


Do you feel you are an actual god, or that you have the power to be one?
No.


While still on this earth? I feel that as puny humans we are not worthy at this stage to become anything while confined here.
I understand, you don't believe in the advancement of your body.
Germanics have countless stories of shape shifters, souls present in animal and human form, yet, you detest the idea that your ancestors once might have been anything else than readily made human bodies.
Still, maybe not when on this earth, maybe we are on earth 12 then, or whatever we call our new planets :).

velvet
Thursday, March 24th, 2011, 06:55 PM
Christianity failed to defend the West? Yet the West was defended multiple times throughout its history via the uniting of Christian forces against external foes?

Ehm, do you know that we write the year 2011?

All this blah blah about battles from a millenia ago really does not help our present. And this day and age, Christianity fails to defend the west. Nice that you deliberately ignore what the Church and Christians are doing here to redistribute our lands to invading scum.


How about the fact that the West was in a far healthier state during the time it was Christian and is dying during the same time where Christianity is dying? Sure that makes a whole load of sense.

I answered this already. The problem is not secular atheism, but that Liberal Free Market Capitalism and Cultural Marxists run the social engineering machinery.

And that these systems now run our countries, started in Christian times, when all of Europe was nominally Christian. 17th century, 18th century. Christians failed to defend the "West" against these tides, and against the oh-so hated Jews (not really, they were reinvited time and again by Christians, after all, they are the people of their savior) taking over.


Did it ever occur to you that Constantine was not a Semite, and that his father was of Greco-Roman Origin and his mother was a Greek as well? Did it ever occur to you that the Roman Empire survived in the East until 1453? Did it ever occur to you that those power structures the Romans installed were the basis of our civilization?

Did you read the link I posted? Constantine was for sure not a Roman. It is by the way a little hard to determine such details, because it was common practice that people took Roman names in Rome, or Greek names in Greece. Like Jews still take names sounding like the names common in the country they infest.



Yeah, its really based on common sense alright. I am sure thats why there are people far more intelligent than you and I, professional historians no less, who would flat out laugh at everything you just stated in paragraph. The Renaissance was not anti-Christian, I think that is a given to anyone who even glances inside a history book. The Enlightenment is not as simple as you make it out to be, because not every Enlightenment was anti-Christian.

Maybe not every, but some.



What about the imagined sins and feelings of guilt and shame that modern Westerners are taught to feel when they look back at their Christian past, which they envision to be racist, misogynist, imperialistic, anti-science, anti-reason, dark, ugly, and thus inferior to other races, civilizations, and cultures thanks to cultural Marxist propaganda and indoctrination?

Yeah, and try to imagine how people would react hadnt they never learned to feel shame by christianity. This sort of brainwash is so successful because people are since millenia used to feeling shame and guilt.



No one is saying a rural lifestyle is bad, but if you really hate civilization and the advancements it brought us...

I said neither. I just point out the contradiction between a "rural life style" and "western civilisation" which is a city and cosmopolitan life-style. In cities, people, all those wanna-be cosmopolitans, are way more prone to degeneracy and basically the alienation from their culture and values.

I also dont hate technical advance, in fact I love it and even made it my occupation, what I hate is "modernity" with its rasant bypassing time, consumerism for consumerism's sake, profit for profit's sake, hunting behind the latest 'must-have' product, the reduction of life, the rampant egoism and individualism. It's because Liberal Free Market Capitalism dictates the direction of life: as someone lately pointed out "The only Freedom people have in the west is to go shopping". Consume, consume, consume, and when you're out of money, take a loan to consume more.

Again, this all started when Europe still was nominally fully Christian.



And yet you believe in atheism

Eh, no, I AM atheist. I dont believe in atheism.


which makes a claim, ie the claim that there is no God. There is no being called God. Atheism is a philosophical position which posits that there is no God, not mere agnosticism which suspends judgement as to whether there is a God or not. In philosophy if you make a claim, you must be willing to provide proof for such a claim. I doubt you can prove the non-existence of God when top philosophers and scientists still debate the issue to this day.

The point is the ABSENSE of any proof FOR god. So far, no philosophic intellectual exercise was convincing, since they all end up in circular argumentation.



In your opinion. Just because you believe there is no God does not make it true. When the greatest minds in history have debated this question, and modern philosophers and scientists still debate the answer to this question, I think it would be nothing short of arrogance to believe you know the answer.

I'm not completely blank in terms of Astrophysics and Quantum Mechanics, there was a time in my life when I digged deep into these things. It all makes perfectly sense - without a god involved in any of the processes.

Probably there have been equally many people throughout history who where likewise intelligent, but you never read their works, maybe because they have been censored by the church. Apart from that you wouldnt accept their arguments anyway, because you want to believe those more who accept the assumption that somewhere in all this MUST be some god.



I agree with you to some extent. While the Greco-Roman values and ideals began to decline, the Germanic people held high values. I responded in such a manner because velvet pointed out that pre-Enlightenment cities were slums.

Ever heard of the Dark Ages? They were called that because famine and pest held large areas of now Christian Europe in their grip. The Black Death wiped out a third of all of European people. Could it be correlated to the little detail that the church closed all the public bath houses built by the Romans? :scratch

Wulfram
Thursday, March 24th, 2011, 07:01 PM
Through our knowledge.

This says absolutely nothing. Care to have another try?


How would you know how they lived?

Fair enough


Nah, Odin has two then :D

STILL reluctant to explain how you think you have the third eye?
You know, you can always PM me if you feel uncomfortable sharing it with the public.


No.

Please elaborate.


I understand, you don't believe in the advancement of your body.

I want to believe it. I also want to believe in UFOs and the Loch Ness monster, but if I don't have anything tangible to work with then I must remain skeptical, but not to the point where I am an outright debunker.


Germanics have countless stories of shape shifters, souls present in animal and human form, yet, you detest the idea that your ancestors once might have been anything else than readily made human bodies.

Did I say that I detest it? I am open to the idea. Believe me, I have reached a stage in my life where I am ready to experience such things. But exactly how does one go about preparing oneself? Care to help getting me started?


Still, maybe not when on this earth, maybe we are on earth 12 then, or whatever we call our new planets :).

:shrug Who knows?

Hamar Fox
Thursday, March 24th, 2011, 07:19 PM
Well I am not so bold as to have conceived a specific definition of God, or even that it is a personal theistic God at all. The only thing I can say for sure is that I believe this God to transcend our normal consciousness of day-to-day experience and physical universe, and to exist in a timeless, space-less, uncaused state. This is why I haven't settled on a specific philosophy or religion because I am still unsure.

Well, pose yourself this question: Is the universe an extension of God, or was it spun into existence without precedent? That is, did God craft the universe within the limits of laws, dimensions that already existed (such as time-space, matter etc.?) or is the universe an act of pure origination, unrelated to anything else? If that latter, which I presume based on what you say above, then how can God be conceived in terms of the existent (i.e. by concepts derived from experience, concepts present in our reality), by beings that bear no relations to him, think in concepts that by definition have no relation to him (i.e. being bound to laws he created, but is not himself bound to), and exist in universe that is purely original; i.e. not God or similar to God?

Further questions would be, if God is timeless, how can he be sentient (what with thought being an inherently temporal process), how can he create or act at all (all acts, again, being inherently temporal)? Also, if he exists beyond space-time, he must be absolute, unchanging, so then how can something absolute be anything in relation to itself, and therefore how can it, again, be sentient, conscious, and so on.

If you want to say that the creation of the universe wasn't pure creation, but rather a remoulding of what already existed, then how is God even necessary to explain anything? If time, space etc. already existed, then what was this God's role? He himself is dependent on laws of which he's not the author. He's therefore not absolute.


However, I assure you, I have no reason to lie about my experience.

I don't think most people really lie about things like this. They just embellish events, probably even to themselves, to the point that the line between actuality and imagination becomes blurred. If we were to believe everything we were told online, the world would be remarkably more colourful than it actually is.


C'mon, its not as simple as that is it? Surely the ancients weren't wrong about everything. Was Plato and Aristotle wrong about many of their philosophical positions?

Well, they were definitely wrong about most things, however interesting and crucial to the development of thought they may have been. Does anyone think Plato's forms actually exist? Does anyone think painters and poets are abominable liars? Nah.


Was Democritus wrong about atomic theory?

No, but he reached the right conclusion via the wrong reasons.


Our scientific knowledge has advanced, but the existence or non-existence of God lies outside of the observable universe, and thus I think science is inept lending 100% proof for the existence or non-existence of God and as it things currently stand cannot give us a complete answer.

This is why I like people to lay down at least a rough idea of what they think God is. We can then subject the concept to logical scrutiny and see if it remains valid. Of course, we can question whether logic itself is a valid means of understanding the universe (itself containing the assumption that the human intellect and its methods of understanding are infallible and adequate for the understanding of all things). I enjoy these kinds of discussions, but when I don't have a real idea of what the religious really believe God is, my arguments are usually just shots in the dark.


They still conceived of a God, and there were many philosophers who conceived of God in a similar manner to mainline Christian theology, most famous of all being Thomas Aquinas, but also including such great names as Rene Descartes, Leibniz, Pascal, Kierkegaard, and of course modern philosophers such as William Lane Craig, J.P Moreland, Alvin Plantiga, and G.K Chesterton.

Aquinas' arguments were really weak, though. Kierkegaard didn't really attempt to prove God, his philosophy was just grounded within an assumption of the existence of God.


Most of the people born into the world today are secular by default, and born into non-religious secular societies. They aren't impartial observers by that logic either.

Most? NW Europeans, Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders and Chinese don't equal most people in the world.


Then why did parts of Poland and Polish cities often have significant German populations throughout history?

Because those places were part of Germany. Land is land, but Germans didn't migrate to Poland to be among Poles or to reap the benefits of the magnificent society and culture Poles had created.


Which can't make the modern French all that intelligent if they allowed such a thing to occur to their nation and people, can it? I would agree with you that France used to be among the greatest nations on Earth, along with England, Germany, and Italy, and obviously surpasses Poland, but where Poland will survive into the future, it would seem that France will not unless drastic changes occur within the next 10-50 years.

But we're only talking about relative intelligence. Nations that scored highly in that list also don't make any attempt to preserve their people, so an IQ of 92 (or whatever, I don't want to go back a page) isn't necessary in explaining how screwed up France is. Also, the French have always been disinterested in race and preservation, even at the peak of their civilisation, at least in contrast to the English and even the Spanish. Former French colonies (Lousiana, Quebec etc.) are known for race-mixing with Africans and Amerindians respectively, while England's colonies had much less, and mixed people were less accepted.

Keep in mind, also, that intelligence and instinct rarely go hand in hand. Intelligence often wars with the instincts. Instincts are the wisdom of the race, passed down through the ages. The actions of an idiot who submits to instinct will be healthier and 'smarter' from the perspective of the species, the race, simply because instinct is the perspective of the race. Intelligence of the individual man can't rival the wisdom of nature, though it tries, so while these people are more clever, on an individual level, the simpleton who submits to instinct will (nearly) always act in a way that is healthier to the whole.

Plantagenet
Thursday, March 24th, 2011, 07:44 PM
Ehm, do you know that we write the year 2011?

All this blah blah about battles from a millenia ago really does not help our present. And this day and age, Christianity fails to defend the west. Nice that you deliberately ignore what the Church and Christians are doing here to redistribute our lands to invading scum.

And what of it? I admit that Christianity has become largely degenerated, anti-intellectual, anti-philosophical, and anti-mystical, which is a corruption of its earlier forms. In the same manner the West has become corrupted. If we believe it possible to heal the West of its corruption and inner sickness, why can't Christianity be healed along with it?

You are the one that makes blanket statements regarding Christianity throughout its history, blatantly ignoring that it has been the religion of the West for most its history (or at least during the time it was recognizable as what we understand the West and Europe to be today, ie the West of post-antiquity.) Some Christians may support multiculturalism and multi-racialism, but by no means implies all of them do. In fact, here in America, it is often the Christians who are anti-immigration, anti-leftism, anti-multiculturalism, and so forth, even if many of them are misguided neo-Conservatives. Most leftists encourage the demise of traditional Western civilization and are supportive of immigration, and the vast majority of those leftists I've encountered have been atheists.


I answered this already. The problem is not secular atheism, but that Liberal Free Market Capitalism and Cultural Marxists run the social engineering machinery.

And that these systems now run our countries, started in Christian times, when all of Europe was nominally Christian. 17th century, 18th century. Christians failed to defend the "West" against these tides, and against the oh-so hated Jews (not really, they were reinvited time and again by Christians, after all, they are the people of their savior) taking over.

You mean late 18th and 19th centuries. However, anti-Christianity and secular atheism are symptoms of the same disease that infects our modern civilization.


Did you read the link I posted? Constantine was for sure not a Roman. It is by the way a little hard to determine such details, because it was common practice that people took Roman names in Rome, or Greek names in Greece. Like Jews still take names sounding like the names common in the country they infest.


Constantine, named Flavius Valerius Constantinus, was born in the military city of Naissus, Moesia, in present-day Niš, Serbia, on the 27th of February of an uncertain year,[28] probably near 272.[29] His father was Flavius Constantius, a native of Moesia (later Dacia Ripensis).

Constantine's mother was Helena, possibly a Bithynian Greek of humble origin.


If Constantine was Jewish, why would he have been against Jews--

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great_and_Judaism


Yeah, and try to imagine how people would react hadnt they never learned to feel shame by christianity. This sort of brainwash is so successful because people are since millenia used to feeling shame and guilt.

I think Christian shame and guilt is regulated to the committing of sins, of making a breach in the accepted morality, or shame or guilt felt my immoral actions. Non-Christians also often feel guilt and shame for what they perceive to have been evil deeds they committed. I would argue that it would be better to feel ashamed of immoral deeds rather than feeling inherently ashamed of your own identity, history, culture, and civilization.


I also dont hate technical advance, in fact I love it and even made it my occupation, what I hate is "modernity" with its rasant bypassing time, consumerism for consumerism's sake, profit for profit's sake, hunting behind the latest 'must-have' product, the reduction of life, the rampant egoism and individualism. It's because Liberal Free Market Capitalism dictates the direction of life: as someone lately pointed out "The only Freedom people have in the west is to go shopping". Consume, consume, consume, and when you're out of money, take a loan to consume more.

All products of the seeds sown during the Enlightenment you praise so highly.


The point is the ABSENSE of any proof FOR god. So far, no philosophic intellectual exercise was convincing, since they all end up in circular argumentation.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There are many convincing arguments for theism which fall in line with modern cosmology and physics, read some philosophy books that make you question your views rather than reading only what confirms your views.


Probably there have been equally many people throughout history who where likewise intelligent, but you never read their works, maybe because they have been censored by the church. Apart from that you wouldnt accept their arguments anyway, because you want to believe those more who accept the assumption that somewhere in all this MUST be some god.

I don't want to believe in anything. I am a truth seeker, and am not pre-disposed to any single philosophy or specific religion in regards to the existence or non-existence of God. However, as I described earlier, I have had a mystical experience which had qualities similar to mystical experiences described across time and culture, so though I profess that philosophically I possess no specific convictions, from my own experience I draw the conclusion that there is a Divinity of some sort.


Ever heard of the Dark Ages? They were called that because famine and pest held large areas of now Christian Europe in their grip. The Black Death wiped out a third of all of European people. Could it be correlated to the little detail that the church closed all the public bath houses built by the Romans? :scratch

The idea of the Dark Ages is a myth. Famine and disease can strike in any time period. Every hear of the 1918 flu pandemic? I suggest reading some of these articles for starters--

http://failuremag.com/index.php/feature/article/shedding_light_on_the_dark_ages

http://listverse.com/2009/01/07/top-10-myths-about-the-middle-ages/

http://listverse.com/2008/06/09/top-10-reasons-the-dark-ages-were-not-dark/

http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/renaissance.html

Jäger
Thursday, March 24th, 2011, 08:16 PM
If you want to say that the creation of the universe wasn't pure creation, but rather a remoulding of what already existed, then how is God even necessary to explain anything? If time, space etc. already existed, then what was this God's role? He himself is dependent on laws of which he's not the author. He's therefore not absolute.
How order came from chaos. Order and chaos being human abstractions and thus need (Godly) force to exist. That's why humans fight with Gods against Giants, Dragons etc., order vs. chaos.
That Gods are not absolute in Germanic spiritualism is the most contradicting spiritual element between the Semitic religions and Germanic ones.

@Plantagenet, can you now name a specific example of a corruption of Christian values?

Melisande
Thursday, March 24th, 2011, 10:06 PM
Just as some people are atheist, I am imaginative. It's just part of who I am, and I do not look down on my own imagination. It exists for a reason. It is not explainable in terms of rational empirical science.

Specific types of imagination (such as the ability to imagine the future) are very handy. There is no clear distinction between the now and the future, time doesn't come divided up like that. There is no clear distinction between the sort of imagination I have (which definitely has rules built into it, not sure how that happened, I just came packaged that way) and reality.

Reality and imagination are not distinct from each other. Imagination helps us understand the holes in our knowledge. If we try to study history, at all, and we lack historical imagination, then history is just a long linear saga of words; when in fact, events of the past are complex. If a person doesn't think historical imagination is important, then they're missing a lot of what really happened in history - which should properly be imagined, studied and internalized, so that some sort of progress can take place.

The nature of consciousness is such that imagination is included within human consciousness (not for all humans, apparently, but for many). That our ancestors relied on this ability (imagination) to aid them in existence is not something I choose to overlook. I do not feel superior to my ancestors, not at all.

Is consciousness real? I think it is. Is it purely physical? Not that we are able to detect or prove at present, although there seem to be relationships between matter and consciousness (at least for Homo sapiens). What are the limits of consciousness?

I think that's a very good question, but not one that is easily answerable from a purely empirical and rational point of view.

velvet
Thursday, March 24th, 2011, 10:10 PM
And what of it? I admit that Christianity has become largely degenerated, anti-intellectual, anti-philosophical, and anti-mystical, which is a corruption of its earlier forms. In the same manner the West has become corrupted. If we believe it possible to heal the West of its corruption and inner sickness, why can't Christianity be healed along with it?

I'm not sure whether I really want to heal "the West", or whether it wouldnt be better for Europe (again, America is your problem, not mine) if we leave that epoch behind and have a change, one that is better thought through. One that serves for a change my people, and not only corrupt "nobilities" and banksters who earn their money with war mongering to "free Jerusalem" (wasnt any different 1000 years ago).

So, honestly, in my future Germany / Europe there is no longer need for Christianity.


You mean late 18th and 19th centuries. However, anti-Christianity and secular atheism are symptoms of the same disease that infects our modern civilization.

No, I did mean the 17th century. The Bank of England became a private bank already in 1684, an act that marked already the first stage of success.

It might be the case that secular atheism (which seems to be in America some sort of religion too, which is a rather weird thought) are symptoms of the same desease. This however doesnt mean that it is wrong in itself. Actually, it is an appreciated development, because it makes room for alternative models. Within a still totalitarian christian environment, this probably would be much harder or even impossible, because people who would think so would be burnt on the stake as witches and heretics.



I think Christian shame and guilt is regulated to the committing of sins, of making a breach in the accepted morality, or shame or guilt felt my immoral actions.

Having sex with your partner isnt a sin, yet it was not "accepted moral" to do it unless strictly for procreation. And please keep on your clothings, and woe betides those who dare having fun. Giving birth isnt a sin, yet women needed a cleansing ritual to be cleansed from the shame of maculate conception. Feel free to expand on "moral".

Seriously, thats total shit, and one must assume that some sort of impotent made up these "morals" out of frustration to punish the rest of mankind for his inabilities and shortcomings. :shrug



Non-Christians also often feel guilt and shame for what they perceive to have been evil deeds they committed. I would argue that it would be better to feel ashamed of immoral deeds rather than feeling inherently ashamed of your own identity, history, culture, and civilization.

True, and this is exactly the reason why I want Heathenism, for that my people have an identity, their OWN history, their OWN culture, not this mish-mash we have now.

It is btw a very big difference to feel guilt for an actual deed that hurt or damaged someone (often crime by law), than to "feel guilt" for "immoral acts" such as flirting with the girl next door.



Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Okay, I pose: a pink rabbit lives in the center of every black hole. Prove me wrong.



There are many convincing arguments for theism which fall in line with modern cosmology and physics, read some philosophy books that make you question your views rather than reading only what confirms your views.

I often read stuff that battles my views, to which I btw came through reading a lot of different stuff. Once though you have accumulated a substancial degree of certain knowledge (ie proven physical things in contrast to relying on mere theories and axioms), and have understood WHY things function how they do, freakish arguments are funny to read, but not any longer can shake knowledge and understanding.

You may call this arrogance, I call it a firm base to expand on this knowledge. I dont say I have the "final truth" - only religions do that anyway, there is still a lot to learn. But my base knowledge allows me to distinguish between "possible", "impossible" and "complete bullcrap" quite certain meanwhile.

I dont dispute your spiritual experience, but still I dare to say that a god that created the universe and made humans from a ball of mud falls into the category "complete bullcrap".


I don't want to believe in anything. I am a truth seeker, and am not pre-disposed to any single philosophy or specific religion in regards to the existence or non-existence of God. However, as I described earlier, I have had a mystical experience which had qualities similar to mystical experiences described across time and culture, so though I profess that philosophically I possess no specific convictions, from my own experience I draw the conclusion that there is a Divinity of some sort.

Okay, you had an experience. The interpretation of this experience though relies entirely on your cultural context. You grew up within a still pretty much christian world, with christian terms, christian pre-definitions, christian ideas. You cannot even do anything else than to interprete it with christian terms, because even if you read up on other philosophies, unless you lived them and within them, your scope of thought is limited to christian ideas (specially when you accept the Christian definition of "god", which is a rather... ehm, isolated occurence; the arrogance of this "god" is unprecedented in history).

If you were grown up among Hindus, you would of course interprete your experience in Hindu terms, if you were an Aboriginy you would interprete it terms of their belief and so on.

I dont want to belittle your experience, I just say that the interpretation thereof, apart from the problem that your description will not be objective (another psychological phenomenon), isnt free of pre-defined ideas.

Which is also the reason why I reject philosophical exercise by religious people as "proof".



The idea of the Dark Ages is a myth. Famine and disease can strike in any time period.

Yippieh, more history forging. Yeah, I lately read that some people suggest that the massaker of Saxons by Charlemagne is a myth, which happened in a time of written history, for which there are written documents telling about it. But uhm, nah, we should... eh... 'reinterprete' that, because... uhm, it really makes look church bad...

Thanks, no need for more historic revisionism, it is already forged and twisted enough.

Hamar Fox
Thursday, March 24th, 2011, 10:35 PM
Just as some people are atheist, I am imaginative. It's just part of who I am, and I do not look down on my own imagination. It exists for a reason. It is not explainable in terms of rational empirical science.

Specific types of imagination (such as the ability to imagine the future) are very handy. There is no clear distinction between the now and the future, time doesn't come divided up like that. There is no clear distinction between the sort of imagination I have (which definitely has rules built into it, not sure how that happened, I just came packaged that way) and reality.

Reality and imagination are not distinct from each other. Imagination helps us understand the holes in our knowledge. If we try to study history, at all, and we lack historical imagination, then history is just a long linear saga of words; when in fact, events of the past are complex. If a person doesn't think historical imagination is important, then they're missing a lot of what really happened in history - which should properly be imagined, studied and internalized, so that some sort of progress can take place.

The nature of consciousness is such that imagination is included within human consciousness (not for all humans, apparently, but for many). That our ancestors relied on this ability (imagination) to aid them in existence is not something I choose to overlook. I do not feel superior to my ancestors, not at all.

Is consciousness real? I think it is. Is it purely physical? Not that we are able to detect or prove at present, although there seem to be relationships between matter and consciousness (at least for Homo sapiens). What are the limits of consciousness?

I think that's a very good question, but not one that is easily answerable from a purely empirical and rational point of view.

It's not quality of imagination, but an understanding of the distinction between imagination and reality that separates the irreligious from the pious or from the superstitious in general. I've lived in my imagination my entire life. It's unlikely there are people with a more vivid and well-used imagination than me. In fact, it's probably my control over my imagination that helps me understand that what my mind conjures up is a part of me and not a part of reality, something that extends beyond myself and spans the existence of all others. I think there are people who don't understand the power of their imagination who, for that reason, can't distinguish an event from their re-imagining of it. Again, take a look at this thread: http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=138360&highlight=paranormal

There's a reason all these colourful events were experienced by so many on one forum alone, yet not one instance -- in the history of ever -- has ever been recorded by objective means. Why? Objective means can only measure reality, not imagination. People live in their imaginations all the time, society is one big collective imagination -- paper has value only because we collectively imagine so etc. -- and this is rarely reflected on. We're not an objective species or a rational one, we simply have the ability to be rational and objective (though the latter is questionable). This means only the minority who can distinguish between thought and reality can even start to sensibly approach matters of God or superstition.

Melisande
Thursday, March 24th, 2011, 10:48 PM
I understand and respect the objectivist view of reality, I just don't believe that just because something is invisible (like Justice) that's not part of reality.

Many aspects of reality are not empirically recordable.

Plantagenet
Thursday, March 24th, 2011, 11:23 PM
@Plantagenet, can you now name a specific example of a corruption of Christian values?

I think perhaps it should be rephrased. A corruption of the values of Christians, ie Westerners. I think the values held by Christian men from the medieval period until close to our modern era were more aristocratic, virile, spiritual, and honorable than Christian or non-Christian Westerners today. I think the evidence can be seen by the fierce resistance offered by Westerner's of the past to foreign incursion in comparison to the willing complacency offered by Westerners today in the face of foreign incursion (though now referred to by a more benign word, immigration.) Another example would be the belief in a hierarchy of being during the medieval period, whereas Christians and non-Christians today often live by the mantra of equality, which was an idea that took root and expanded during the Enlightenment.


I'm not sure whether I really want to heal "the West", or whether it wouldnt be better for Europe (again, America is your problem, not mine) if we leave that epoch behind and have a change, one that is better thought through. One that serves for a change my people, and not only corrupt "nobilities" and banksters who earn their money with war mongering to "free Jerusalem" (wasnt any different 1000 years ago).

So, honestly, in my future Germany / Europe there is no longer need for Christianity.

Your opinion is appreciated. When you reach old age, look back and see if the change that has come to Europe is something to your liking or anything close to what you envision.


Having sex with your partner isnt a sin, yet it was not "accepted moral" to do it unless strictly for procreation. And please keep on your clothings, and woe betides those who dare having fun. Giving birth isnt a sin, yet women needed a cleansing ritual to be cleansed from the shame of maculate conception. Feel free to expand on "moral".

Seriously, thats total shit, and one must assume that some sort of impotent made up these "morals" out of frustration to punish the rest of mankind for his inabilities and shortcomings. :shrug

Where does the Christian doctrine state one cannot have sex unless it is for procreation? Without contraception, what is the ultimate purpose and effect of having sex in the first place? And I wouldn't say that Christian Westerners never had fun during their entire history. You look at the history of Christianity through eyes dimmed with bias and saturated with popular myth.

Besides, I don't see what is impotent about loving God and loving thy neighbor (ie treating your fellow man with the same respect and decency you would wish to be treated with.) I also don't see how not stealing, not murdering, not committing adultery, not bearing false witness, respecting your elders, and not being covetous are at all harmful to society.


True, and this is exactly the reason why I want Heathenism, for that my people have an identity, their OWN history, their OWN culture, not this mish-mash we have now.

It is btw a very big difference to feel guilt for an actual deed that hurt or damaged someone (often crime by law), than to "feel guilt" for "immoral acts" such as flirting with the girl next door.

So German Christian culture that has flourished since as early as the 6th century until close to the modern era is not their identity, their history, and their culture? All the Christian German philosophers, artists, architects, musicians (you know Bach, Beethoven, Wagner) are not your culture? Where does Christianity say, "Thou shalt not flirt." ?


Okay, I pose: a pink rabbit lives in the center of every black hole. Prove me wrong..

I cannot prove you wrong, however a pink rabbit living in the center of a black hole would defy everything we know about the laws of nature and of life itself. Positing that there is a timeless, space-less, uncaused, immutable first cause or underlying source for all of existence seems a lot more likely, or at least actually possible, compared to your suggestion.


You may call this arrogance, I call it a firm base to expand on this knowledge. I dont say I have the "final truth" - only religions do that anyway, there is still a lot to learn. But my base knowledge allows me to distinguish between "possible", "impossible" and "complete bullcrap" quite certain meanwhile.

If you don't have the final truth, you wouldn't posit a claim, and hence you would be agnostic. However, you say you are an atheist, and therefore make the claim that there is no God. That is a final truth in regards to the question of the existence of God.


I dont dispute your spiritual experience, but still I dare to say that a god that created the universe and made humans from a ball of mud falls into the category "complete bullcrap".

I am pretty sure the vast majority of Christians, both historically and today, believe that Genesis is an allegory of the human condition. Only retarded fundamentalists and Biblical literalists will tell you the Earth is 6000 years old, the world was created in 6 days, and man was made from mud etc.


Okay, you had an experience. The interpretation of this experience though relies entirely on your cultural context. You grew up within a still pretty much christian world, with christian terms, christian pre-definitions, christian ideas. You cannot even do anything else than to interprete it with christian terms, because even if you read up on other philosophies, unless you lived them and within them, your scope of thought is limited to christian ideas (specially when you accept the Christian definition of "god", which is a rather... ehm, isolated occurence; the arrogance of this "god" is unprecedented in history).

If you were grown up among Hindus, you would of course interprete your experience in Hindu terms, if you were an Aboriginy you would interprete it terms of their belief and so on.

I dont want to belittle your experience, I just say that the interpretation thereof, apart from the problem that your description will not be objective (another psychological phenomenon), isnt free of pre-defined ideas.

Except I grew up in an entirely secular environment, neither of my parents were Christians, I was not raised with Christian morals or Christian theology, none of my friends were Christians, I never went to Church, and I was an atheist without the slightest hint of religiosity, belief in the paranormal or supernatural all my life. That experience changed all of that. Its hard to put into words what happened to me, because it was beyond normal sensory experience, and thus there are no words to describe it with any sort of precision. This is why the Hindus describe the same experience with negation, "neti neti", not this not that. However, I can say, there was a definite sense of Divine, and a more powerful sensation of Truth than I had ever felt in my life. It had a truer quality than the statement 2+2= 4, if that makes sense. It was as if everything I took for knowledge prior to that experience could be brought into question, but that experience could never be questioned. Transcending space and time and experiencing a spiritual realm is the only way I can describe it.

When I first had my experience, I found that Hinduism (or at least Vedanta), Buddhism, Taoism, and Sufism is what resonated most deeply with my experience. However, I think it would be dishonest on my part if I did not at least consider theism and Christianity, which is why I toy with each and every spiritual and philosophical system in order clarify further what happened to me and find a method by which I could reach such knowledge/experience again.

And even though I accept the existence of a higher power/something beyond the physical universe, I do not believe in ghosts or any other similar phenomena.


Yippieh, more history forging. Yeah, I lately read that some people suggest that the massaker of Saxons by Charlemagne is a myth, which happened in a time of written history, for which there are written documents telling about it. But uhm, nah, we should... eh... 'reinterprete' that, because... uhm, it really makes look church bad...

Thanks, no need for more historic revisionism, it is already forged and twisted enough.

So, history that agrees with your viewpoint=actual history, and history that disagrees with your view point=forged, revisionist history. Gotcha. You can find the information I posted various history books of the Middle Ages, by the way.

Jäger
Thursday, March 24th, 2011, 11:33 PM
I think perhaps it should be rephrased. A corruption of the values of Christians, ie Westerners.
Well, then Christianity failed in protecting such values, why should we even try to (re-)establish the Christian faith again?

Plantagenet
Thursday, March 24th, 2011, 11:39 PM
Well, then Christianity failed in protecting such values, why should we even try to (re-)establish the Christian faith again?

Well, then Western civilization failed in protecting such values, why should we even try to try to reestablish or restore Western civilization again? White Europeans failed in protecting such values, why should we even try to restore White Europeans to their former position again?

My personal opinion is keeping Christianity alive, or restoring it to its former glory, would be a better option for those that are spiritually inclined in the West than adopting a foreign religion.

Jäger
Friday, March 25th, 2011, 08:27 AM
Well, then Western civilization failed in protecting such values, why should we even try to try to reestablish or restore Western civilization again?
We certainly should not! The "West" has to perish.


White Europeans failed in protecting such values, why should we even try to restore White Europeans to their former position again?
That's a wrong analogy, because we certainly won't restore those Europeans who failed to protect it, rather we will destroy them!


My personal opinion is keeping Christianity alive, or restoring it to its former glory, would be a better option for those that are spiritually inclined in the West than adopting a foreign religion.
You yourself said that spiritual truth is independent of the people who believe in it.
This in itself is already a universalist interpretation, and contrary to Germanic belief -- that's why Germanic Gods were often named after the people!

Bernhard
Friday, March 25th, 2011, 08:48 AM
You yourself said that spiritual truth is independent of the people who believe in it.
This in itself is already a universalist interpretation, and contrary to Germanic belief --

Is it?

"Then said Gangleri: 'Exceeding many names have ye given him [Odin]; and, by my faith, it must indeed be a goodly wit that knows all the lore and the examples of what chances have brought about each of these names.' Then Hárr made answer: 'It is truly a vast sum of knowledge to gather together and set forth fittingly. But it is briefest to tell thee that most of his names have been given him by reason of this chance: there being so many branches of tongues in the world, all peoples believed that it was needful for them to turn his name into their own tongue, by which they might the better invoke him and entreat him on their own behalf.'"

Source: Gylfaginning (http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/pre/pre04.htm)


that's why Germanic Gods were often named after the people!


Which ones would that be? I only know of Bragi, the God of poetry and the poet Bragi Bodasson, but according to some scholars it's also possible that the poet was named after the God.

Jäger
Friday, March 25th, 2011, 11:07 AM
Is it?
Yes. It is not about the different names of Odin, but e.g. how he was victorious over the Swedish Tiuz.
This was a battle of people, because they are the sons of their Gods.


Which ones would that be?
Ingwio (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yngvi), Istvio, Irmino, the sons of Tuisto (Mannus).

velvet
Friday, March 25th, 2011, 02:27 PM
Your opinion is appreciated. When you reach old age, look back and see if the change that has come to Europe is something to your liking or anything close to what you envision.

That would depend on whether I, or people who have similar ideas, actually have an influence on the future direction, or whether the current development, driven by a completely undesireable bunch of people, continues.

In the latter case, which unfortunately seems as things stand right now likely, I can answer this question already today, and no, I dont like it.



Where does the Christian doctrine state one cannot have sex unless it is for procreation? Without contraception, what is the ultimate purpose and effect of having sex in the first place? And I wouldn't say that Christian Westerners never had fun during their entire history. You look at the history of Christianity through eyes dimmed with bias and saturated with popular myth.

Yeah, right, all the negative things are labelled "myths", while all the fluffy stuff of which the half is made up anyway, is called "the truth".

But it is at best only one side of the coin, but truth means looking at both sides of the coin.

An example. You cheer the crusades, because you claim that they "defended Europe against Islam" (this isnt true at all, the initial ones were to free Jerusalem, arguably not in Europe, from Muslim occupation). The dark side of that coin however is that the crusade armies left on their way down to Jerusalem burnt soil, literally, they raped and killed fellow Germanics, stole their harvests and possessions and burnt down their villages.

Btw, there were methods for contraception, which though were outlawed by the church. Something that is still true today. Although AIDS runs rampant specially through the African world, the Pope condemns the use of condoms (see below).



Besides, I don't see what is impotent about loving God and loving thy neighbor (ie treating your fellow man with the same respect and decency you would wish to be treated with.) I also don't see how not stealing, not murdering, not committing adultery, not bearing false witness, respecting your elders, and not being covetous are at all harmful to society.

I didnt say that such rules are harmful for society, actually they are quite good. I just doubt that one needs a "god" to come to these conclusions. And even less I think that stoning to death or burning on the stake is an appropiate punishment for a failure.

In fact, I find it harmful if such rules (and there are really ridiculous ones too) base not common sense.

And for "loving god". I cant really see why loving a revenging god would be good in any form. This is like Stockholm syndrome, really.

Another example. You will praise the Cathedral architecture. Which in itself isnt bad at all I agree, they are a wonderful piece of art. I just think that the price was too high. To pay the building, the church taxed the people disproportionally and left them starving, the locals were abused as cheap labor (unpaid or so underpaid that they still starved, not rarely to death), many died during the building phase, and Cathedrals were the start for cities, including the slums with poor people living in its proximity because they hoped for work. And when the Cathedral/church was done, the clerics hunted the poor people away, for that they dont insult "god" with their presence.

They were also built out of the wrong reasons and for the wrong purpose. They did not serve the people, their wellbeing, the community. They served the church to manifest their power position to exercise control over the people - and their spiritual matters. It was not an "offer", it was a command with no more other options. Not least because churches and cathedrals were, by a command of a papal bull, built on Heathen holy sites and lay lines. The church accumulated tons of gold in some of these buildings, while outside the people starved.



So German Christian culture that has flourished since as early as the 6th century until close to the modern era is not their identity, their history, and their culture? All the Christian German philosophers, artists, architects, musicians (you know Bach, Beethoven, Wagner) are not your culture?

You still havent noticed that it is the 21th century.
Of course it is our history, and things that already happened cannot be changed anymore.

But, when you talk about revitalising THIS christian culture, that of the 8th or 10th or 15th century, with exactly the same parameters, that Christianity rules, also literally, because back then the church approved kings and all that. No, it is not possible to go back to this. And it is also not desireable. For a whole host of reasons.

All these great people of the past were first of all Germanics. Their race gave them superior intellect and talent, this is the precondition to their greatness. That they created in "the name of the christian god" does not nullify their greatness. If there was no christianity, but still Heathenism, they would have created superior art in the name of Odin, Thor or Freya.



I cannot prove you wrong, however a pink rabbit living in the center of a black hole would defy everything we know about the laws of nature and of life itself. Positing that there is a timeless, space-less, uncaused, immutable first cause or underlying source for all of existence seems a lot more likely, or at least actually possible, compared to your suggestion.

But how can you know? Why would this rabbit be required to fall under the earthly known definition of life? The fact that it lives in the center of a black hole actually excludes this possibily. It would certainly not be dependent on Natural Law either.

And what tells you that god is not a pink rabbit in the center of a black hole? Since you say you dont have real knowledge of god, only feel some sort of divine, this possibility is by no means excluded, and even less impossible.

To pose a god like christians do, or monotheists in general, is on the very same level ridiculous, and on top a pointless exercise in philosophical pondering, however artful the result may be.

A logical conclusion based on wrong assumptions remains wrong, regardless of how "logical" the chain is laid out.


If you don't have the final truth, you wouldn't posit a claim, and hence you would be agnostic. However, you say you are an atheist, and therefore make the claim that there is no God. That is a final truth in regards to the question of the existence of God.

No, I say there is no god as posited by monotheistic religions, ie a god that is time-less, space-less, uncaused, immutable and so on.

It is endless chain of nonsensical claims. When god was there before the universe (which must be the case when he created it), then there was something before. A space, a time, matter within which he existed. Then he is not time-less and not space-less, and his existence already has a cause. When he created / caused the universe, then he is outside of this, which means the universe exists within something else, another universe with another world on which "god" lives. Maybe "god" then is a mad scientists trying to creating life artificially in a laboratory, since we exist, this experiment was obviously successful. But maybe "god" hasnt noticed, because compared to him, we are so tiny that he yet has to invent technology to detect us. But maybe we do not exist, and we are a product of the fantasy of a psychic force construct (think Matrix) in which countless "unconceiveable" creatures are milked for energy, and we are just a byproduct of a collective hallucination.

With the ongoing development of physical discovery and understanding, the "meta-physical" world has become so small, that you must go into such completely ridiculous claims to be able to uphold the claim that somewhere "outside of our understanding, outside the physical world, outside the human understanding, outside everything" is this god. One day, in the not so distant future, we will understand much much more of the internal functions that drive the universe, which means that the room for god must by definition become ever more ridiculous. 2000 years ago, people said that god is in the smallest units of everything. Today, we can look into these smallest units, we can look into atoms and we can look into Quantum Mechanics and take apart genes and alleles to their acid composition, and there still is no god, not even a hint for one. 2000 years ago, some people (specially the Easterner, Indians and Asians, but also other Pagan people) understood a lot about the universe, surprisingly lot considering the technological development back then (although they already had mechanical computers), but people posed that when they will understand and discover more, they will also discover god somewhere in the endlessly huge. We have developed technology that allows us to look deep into the universe and even back in time through that, but there is no god. Only physics. When we one day understand the processes in detail of how the universe came to be, we also can answer the question why. Where is "god" supposed to go then?



I am pretty sure the vast majority of Christians, both historically and today, believe that Genesis is an allegory of the human condition. Only retarded fundamentalists and Biblical literalists will tell you the Earth is 6000 years old, the world was created in 6 days, and man was made from mud etc.

Okay, at least you're not a complete moron then.

But seriously, there are quite some people who claim exactly that. And they are not really a minority either.

Objection to "Creation by God", or recently, as the current pope is a big fan of "Intelligent Design" (as opposed to evolution), is still not wanted:
Pope sacks astronomer over evolution debate (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-401950/Pope-sacks-astronomer-evolution-debate.html)

"Then a Brazilian bishop excommunicated the mother of a nine-year-old girl who had an abortion after being raped by her stepfather and was bearing twins. For good measure, he also excommunicated the doctors who performed the abortion."

"Then the Pope said condoms were not the answer to Africa's fight against HIV and Aids and might make the problem worse."
(both by Benedict)



John Paul recognised only in 1992 that the process against Galileo was wrong:

Vatican Science Panel Told By Pope: Galileo Was Right

Moving formally to rectify a wrong, Pope John Paul II acknowledged in a speech today that the Roman Catholic Church had erred in condemning Galileo 359 years ago for asserting that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

The address by the Pope before the Pontifical Academy of Sciences closed a 13-year investigation into the Church's condemnation of Galileo in 1633, one of history's most notorious conflicts between faith and science. Galileo was forced to recant his scientific findings to avoid being burned at the stake and spent the remaining eight years of his life under house arrest.

John Paul said the theologians who condemned Galileo did not recognize the formal distinction between the Bible and its interpretation.

"This led them unduly to transpose into the realm of the doctrine of the faith, a question which in fact pertained to scientific investigation.

Though the Pope acknowledged that the Church had done Galileo a wrong, he said the 17th-century theologians were working with the knowledge available to them at the time.

Not that it wasnt scientific fact since around 300 BCE that the earth was a sphere and revolves around the sun, and that the earth - therefore - cannot be the center of the universe either.


Do we really want freaks like this govern our lives? You really cant be serious about this.

The secularization of society and the careful seperation of religion, state and science (and make all independent) was the best thing that ever happened to the "West". Without this seperation, people like Newton, Henry Ford and Konrad Zuse either never had made their inventions or have been tried for "devilish work".




Except I grew up in an entirely secular environment, neither of my parents were Christians, I was not raised with Christian morals or Christian theology, none of my friends were Christians, I never went to Church, and I was an atheist without the slightest hint of religiosity, belief in the paranormal or supernatural all my life.

If you didnt live completely locked away under a stone, you did take in all these ideas. They are all around you, every day, some laws base(d) on them, the expectations of society for you to be a decent person are based on them and so on. You cannot escape them, even if you dont pay attention to them.


That experience changed all of that. Its hard to put into words what happened to me, because it was beyond normal sensory experience, and thus there are no words to describe it with any sort of precision. This is why the Hindus describe the same experience with negation, "neti neti", not this not that. However, I can say, there was a definite sense of Divine, and a more powerful sensation of Truth than I had ever felt in my life. It had a truer quality than the statement 2+2= 4, if that makes sense. It was as if everything I took for knowledge prior to that experience could be brought into question, but that experience could never be questioned. Transcending space and time and experiencing a spiritual realm is the only way I can describe it.

I know such experiences, but they are products of my intellect, of my unconsciousness trying to tell me something, indeed, point me to a truth. A truth unquestionable by "rational" or "logical" arguments. Objective truth told by instinct. Oh, I agree, they transcent (our very limited perception of) time and space, they are echoes of a long under sophisticated bullcrap buried memories, of a collective folk memory, a folk "created" by that instinct. It is a divine experience indeed, it offers unshakeable certainty about "right" and "wrong".



So, history that agrees with your viewpoint=actual history, and history that disagrees with your view point=forged, revisionist history. Gotcha. You can find the information I posted various history books of the Middle Ages, by the way.

As said above, there are always two sides of a coin. Truth is to look at both and accept both, and not to reinterprete the "dark side" to make it look fluffy. There's also archeological evidence for massacres not only of Saxons, so there is no point to wipe these details under the carpet.

But this sort of "history writing" is symptomatic for the church, and also people who defend christianity. While they on one hand praise the conquering by the "noble knights for god", they dont want to hear about the deaths, the suffering, the raping of the conquered. This is wrapping the blood thirsty wolf in sheep fur, really, and has nothing to do with truth seeking.

Bernhard
Friday, March 25th, 2011, 04:15 PM
Yes. It is not about the different names of Odin, but e.g. how he was victorious over the Swedish Tiuz.
This was a battle of people, because they are the sons of their Gods.

The different names (be it Odin, Zeus or Jupiter) existed because all people worshipped him in their own way, according to their own being, culture and language. (The Interpretatio Romana shows this as well.) Thus ancient Germanics believed in the objective existence of Odin (as they themselves called the Supreme Being) which makes him universal. The fact that some tribes preferred certain Gods over others does not mean that they did not acknowledge the existence of other Gods. Even within a tribe the importance of a certain deity varied according to the class to which someone belonged, but Odin was still at the top of the pantheon.

Personally I don't think such a universalist polytheism (in its literal meaning) is tenable though, theologically speaking. And I agree that the ethnic composition of a society could influence the pantheon, but this does not mean that ancient Germanics saw their Gods as beings who were bound to their own ethnic group. Their Gods were seen as Gods, rulers of the entire world, named and described differently by different ethnic groups. Another (universalist) possibility would be that they thought their Gods to be aspects of the One, like the Vedics thought it to be. There is no evidence for this though.


Ingwio (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yngvi), Istvio, Irmino, the sons of Tuisto (Mannus).

Who were the people after whom these Gods were named then?

Hamar Fox
Friday, March 25th, 2011, 05:54 PM
How order came from chaos. Order and chaos being human abstractions and thus need (Godly) force to exist. That's why humans fight with Gods against Giants, Dragons etc., order vs. chaos.
That Gods are not absolute in Germanic spiritualism is the most contradicting spiritual element between the Semitic religions and Germanic ones.

I doubt anyone believes in the literal existence of polytheistic Gods. I doubt even most pagans or Greeks of the day literally believed their Gods existed. It was just metaphor and parable. These beliefs may be culturally valuable but are obviously philosophically untenable.

Jäger
Friday, March 25th, 2011, 06:34 PM
It was just metaphor and parable. These beliefs may be culturally valuable but are obviously philosophically untenable.
In what way are these parables and metaphors untenable?
Evidently there are things we can't understand, because we don't know any way to get knowledge thereof (e.g. our mind), yet, we feel them as very real. What better way to explain their sensation as through parables and metaphors, or analogies in general?
The premise is logically sound, there is no order without force, where we find order, and humans are not responsible for, we must assume Godly order.

Plantagenet
Friday, March 25th, 2011, 07:34 PM
An example. You cheer the crusades, because you claim that they "defended Europe against Islam" (this isnt true at all, the initial ones were to free Jerusalem, arguably not in Europe, from Muslim occupation). The dark side of that coin however is that the crusade armies left on their way down to Jerusalem burnt soil, literally, they raped and killed fellow Germanics, stole their harvests and possessions and burnt down their villages.

However, Jerusalem was part of the Christian world and part of the Byzantine Empire for much longer than it was under Muslim occupation. The crusades were a response to the aggressive imperialistic policies of Islam, which has always had as a goal the subjugation of Europe and Christianity. It may seem nonsensical to you, but to those men that fought in the crusades, they were fighting a spiritual war against evil and the reconquest of their holiest sites. Rape and death follows every war throughout history, so this is not limited to the crusades. However, where is your source for the claim that they raped and killed fellow Germanics?


I didnt say that such rules are harmful for society, actually they are quite good. I just doubt that one needs a "god" to come to these conclusions. And even less I think that stoning to death or burning on the stake is an appropiate punishment for a failure.

Except if you read some history books you would see that law as quite fair and just in the medieval period, and that capital punishment was only used in the most extreme cases.


Myth: The death penalty was common in the Middle Ages

Despite what many people believe, the Middle Ages gave birth to the jury system and trials were in fact very fair. The death penalty was considered to be extremely severe and was used only in the worst cases of crimes like murder, treason, and arson. It was not until the Middle Ages began to draw to a close that people like Elizabeth I began to use the death penalty as a means to rid their nations of religious opponents. Public beheadings were not as we see in the movies – they were given only to the rich, and were usually not performed in public. The most common method of execution was hanging – and burning was extremely rare (and usually performed after the criminal had been hanged to death first).


Another example. You will praise the Cathedral architecture. Which in itself isnt bad at all I agree, they are a wonderful piece of art. I just think that the price was too high. To pay the building, the church taxed the people disproportionally and left them starving, the locals were abused as cheap labor (unpaid or so underpaid that they still starved, not rarely to death), many died during the building phase, and Cathedrals were the start for cities, including the slums with poor people living in its proximity because they hoped for work. And when the Cathedral/church was done, the clerics hunted the poor people away, for that they dont insult "god" with their presence.

For some reason I doubt this is true. Do you have a source for this claim? Because it is contrary to everything I have ever read.


Beginning in the 5th century, papal decretals (laws on ecclesiastical questions) imposed on the bishops a division of the bishopric's income, in such a way that a quarter of his income had to be allocated for the architectural/structural maintenance of the public church buildings (pro fabricis ecclesiae) of the diocese.


The duties of the clergy, by God’s will, were to get the cathedral built by gathering the vision, labor and finances necessary. Often, the clergy raised the funds necessary by persuading the nobility to curtail their spending on luxuries. Instead, the nobility were influenced to contribute heavily to the cathedral.

Gifts to the clergy were often considered damnation deductible. Gifts ranged from money to people (laborers) to masterpieces of art. The nobility not only took pride in the magnificence of their local cathedral, but they also saw their contributions as signs of repentance.

It might have been the Clergy’s vision and the Nobility’s pocketbooks that designed and paid for the cathedrals, but it was the devotion, physical labor, and strength of the Peasantry that got the cathedral built.


They were also built out of the wrong reasons and for the wrong purpose. They did not serve the people, their wellbeing, the community. They served the church to manifest their power position to exercise control over the people - and their spiritual matters. It was not an "offer", it was a command with no more other options. Not least because churches and cathedrals were, by a command of a papal bull, built on Heathen holy sites and lay lines. The church accumulated tons of gold in some of these buildings, while outside the people starved.

Total BS, sorry. I recommended getting a collection of books on medieval history and really absorbing the material.


Myth: The poor were kept in a state of near starvation

This is completely false. Peasants (those who worked in manual work) would have had fresh porridge and bread daily – with beer to drink. In addition, each day would have an assortment of dried or cured meats, cheeses, and fruits and vegetables from their area. Poultry, chicken, ducks, pigeons, and geese were not uncommon on the peasants dinner table. Some peasants also liked to keep bees, to provide honey for their tables. Given the choice between McDonalds and Medieval peasant food, I suspect the peasant food would be more nutritious and tasty.


You still havent noticed that it is the 21th century.
Of course it is our history, and things that already happened cannot be changed anymore.

Using that same logic, I could say that it is the 21st century, things have happened (immigration, political correctness, multiculturalism etc.) that cannot be changed anymore.


All these great people of the past were first of all Germanics. Their race gave them superior intellect and talent, this is the precondition to their greatness. That they created in "the name of the christian god" does not nullify their greatness. If there was no christianity, but still Heathenism, they would have created superior art in the name of Odin, Thor or Freya.

No one denies that the racial quality of the Germanic people endowed them their talent to achieve. However, when you say that if they were still heathens it would be the same, you are entering the realm of historical guesswork and hypothesis. Christianity is what brought the Germanic people into the sphere of Western (Greco-Roman) civilization. The most glorious period of Germanic history was during the time that they, along with the rest of Europe, were Christian. These are the historical facts.


John Paul recognised only in 1992 that the process against Galileo was wrong:

I recommend that you read this article, and really read it and reflect on it--

http://www.traditioninaction.org/History/A_003_Galileo.html


The secularization of society and the careful seperation of religion, state and science (and make all independent) was the best thing that ever happened to the "West". Without this seperation, people like Newton, Henry Ford and Konrad Zuse either never had made their inventions or have been tried for "devilish work".

This is pure opinion and speculation. Newton still lived in a very religious society and was able to become the greatest scientist who may have ever lived. The same applies to Da Vinci, Copernicus, Francis Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, and Pascal. They were all pre-Enlightenment scientists and all lived in a very religious atmosphere and yet were all able to accomplish their great feats.


I know such experiences, but they are products of my intellect, of my unconsciousness trying to tell me something, indeed, point me to a truth. A truth unquestionable by "rational" or "logical" arguments. Objective truth told by instinct. Oh, I agree, they transcent (our very limited perception of) time and space, they are echoes of a long under sophisticated bullcrap buried memories, of a collective folk memory, a folk "created" by that instinct. It is a divine experience indeed, it offers unshakeable certainty about "right" and "wrong".

I am sorry to doubt you, but I sincerely doubt that you had a mystical experience in the same manner that I or many others have had throughout history. First what you describe sounds nothing like what I speak of, and secondly if you did have such an experience you would most certainly not be an atheist and praise secularism as much as you do, I can guarantee you that.

Bernhard
Friday, March 25th, 2011, 08:05 PM
I doubt anyone believes in the literal existence of polytheistic Gods. I doubt even most pagans or Greeks of the day literally believed their Gods existed. It was just metaphor and parable. These beliefs may be culturally valuable but are obviously philosophically untenable.

You should read the de Mysterii of Iamblichus. It's a philosophical treatise which explains the nature of the Gods as he and his contemperaries viewed them and how the interactions between humans and Gods are possible.
Democritus of Abdera, as an atomist, even believed that the Gods actually existed somewhere as material beings. I agree, it's quite absurd. But most philosophers at least were well aware of the fact that the myths expressed the divine symbolically, but they also believed in the reality of the Gods, although many put more emphasis on God (singular).

Vindefense
Friday, March 25th, 2011, 08:24 PM
Not least because churches and cathedrals were, by a command of a papal bull, built on Heathen holy sites and lay lines. The church accumulated tons of gold in some of these buildings, while outside the people starved.

In stark contrast to the aesthetic beauty of the old temples, the new were epicenters of excess. The last line above though is the clincher and its hard for me to imagine the Catholic Church as anything but man's worship of vanity.

Hamar Fox
Friday, March 25th, 2011, 08:45 PM
In what way are these parables and metaphors untenable?

In philosophy, God only serves as an explanation of things. Where Gods are bound to the laws and forms of the existent, then they don't provide an explanation of the origin of the existent and are therefore superfluous. The more anthropomorphic a conception of God/s becomes, the more unphilosophical the conception becomes, and the more obvious its origin in the human psyche becomes.


Evidently there are things we can't understand, because we don't know any way to get knowledge thereof (e.g. our mind), yet, we feel them as very real.

That's the difference between them and me. I recognise that what my mind can't know, it can't know. The religious recognise there are things they can't know, but then attempt to know them anyway. Stupidity follows.


What better way to explain their sensation as through parables and metaphors, or analogies in general?
The premise is logically sound, there is no order without force, where we find order, and humans are not responsible for, we must assume Godly order.

More like natural order. The difference? Lack of consciousness, awareness of the process. It's a natural tendency, and also pure fallacy, to suppose there is any 'will' in things that our imagination hasn't itself invested.

Melisande
Friday, March 25th, 2011, 10:45 PM
In philosophy, God only serves as an explanation of things. Where Gods are bound to the laws and forms of the existent, then they don't provide an explanation of the origin of the existent and are therefore superfluous. The more anthropomorphic a conception of God/s becomes, the more unphilosophical the conception becomes, and the more obvious its origin in the human psyche becomes.



That's the difference between them and me. I recognise that what my mind can't know, it can't know. The religious recognise there are things they can't know, but then attempt to know them anyway. Stupidity follows.



More like natural order. The difference? Lack of consciousness, awareness of the process. It's a natural tendency, and also pure fallacy, to suppose there is any 'will' in things that our imagination hasn't itself invested.

Can you say which fallacy that is? And, why should we suppose anyone but our own self has will, then?

I certainly wonder about the amount of will possessed by many humans - although they appear to be conscious. And consciousness, where it exists, can create/change all manner of situations - without willing it (will itself is not the only way to make things happen; unfortunately unwilled things happen a lot - that's how humans get themselves into trouble).

I think I understand what you're saying (and it's a good argument against any form of intelligent invisible agent) but I'm confused about the "will" part. Do non-human animals possess will, in your view?

velvet
Friday, March 25th, 2011, 10:56 PM
However, Jerusalem was part of the Christian world and part of the Byzantine Empire for much longer than it was under Muslim occupation. The crusades were a response to the aggressive imperialistic policies of Islam, which has always had as a goal the subjugation of Europe and Christianity. It may seem nonsensical to you, but to those men that fought in the crusades, they were fighting a spiritual war against evil and the reconquest of their holiest sites. Rape and death follows every war throughout history, so this is not limited to the crusades. However, where is your source for the claim that they raped and killed fellow Germanics?

I've seen that at least in two tv documentations being mentioned. Forgot the title though, but since they were in German, they arent of much use for you anyway.

You still dont really understand that the Byzantine empire was NOT the same entity as the Roman empire, the Byzantine empire and the HRE came about after Rome's fall, and partly inherited former Roman territories, but by far not all. This is because Rome fell apart. Just about 100 years after Christianity became state's religion. Go figure.



Except if you read some history books you would see that law as quite fair and just in the medieval period, and that capital punishment was only used in the most extreme cases.

Yet, over the centuries, thousands were killed. Have a look into the Malleus Maleficarum to see how much pathologic madness the church developed to hunt down heretics, witches, and people who just happened to be learned in herbal lore.



Total BS, sorry. I recommended getting a collection of books on medieval history and really absorbing the material.

Maybe you should do the same for a change, and also read "opposing views".

Dont know whether google translate will spit out something that makes sense, but the following is from a book by Wolfgang Golther 1895 I think:


"Papst Gregor richtete um 600 ein Schreiben an den Bischof Augustinus, der die Angelsachsen bekehren sollte. Darin hiess es: Erstens muss man nicht die Tempel der Götzen zerstören, sondern die Götzen. Man mache Weihwasser und besprenge damit die Tempel; man errichte Altäre und lege Reliquien hinein. Sind der Angelsachsen Tempel gut gebaut, so entziehe man sie dem Dienst der Götzen dadurch, dass man sie zu christilichen Tempeln umweihe, und zwar aus dem Grunde, damit dieses heidnische Volk desto williger an die gewohnten Anbetungsstätten komme. Zweitens, weil die Angelsachsen ihren Göttern noch viele Stiere zu opfern gewohnt sind, so ist es geboten, ihnen diese Feierlichkeit zu belassen; nur muss man derselben einen christlichen Sinn unterlegen. Und so sollen sie am Tage der Kirchweih und an den Gedächtnistagen der heiligen Märtyrer, deren Reliquien zur Schau zu stellen sind, sich aus Baumzweigen Hütten rings um diejenigen Kirchen herrichten, welche aus Götzentempeln zu christlichen Tempeln umgeweiht werden und sollen so diese Feierlichkeit beim christlichen Mahle begehen, so dem heidnischen Götzen keine Tieropfer mehr darbringen, vielmehr behufs der Sättigung, Gott zum Lobe, Tiere schlachten und dem Geber aller guten Gaben für die Speisen danken. Diesen Menschen muss man einige äusserliche Freuden lassen, damit sie desto leichter zu den inneren Freuden hingeführt werden, denn es unterliegt keinem Zweifel, dass es unmöglich ist, diesen harten Gemütern auf einmal alles wegzunehmen, und zwar deshalb, weil derjenige, welcher einen hohen Standpunkt zu gewinnen bemüht ist, dies nur schritt-, nicht sprungweise erreicht".
{snip}
"Zwar befolgen die Bekehrer nicht immer so milde Grundsätze, wie Gregor empfiehlt. Mit Brand und Bruch ward oft genug der Götterdienst der Heiden niedergelegt. Aber im Grunde kam das gleiche Ergebnis heraus, hier eine freiwillige, dort eine widerstrebende Bewahrung heidnischer Bräuche"
(aus Wolfgang Golther - Germanische Mythologie)


This describes the sneaky (semitic) way of early Christian missionizers, with Charles Martel and Charlemagne a much more fierce and violent way started off, because they lost patience with the still largely Heathen Germanics.




Using that same logic, I could say that it is the 21st century, things have happened (immigration, political correctness, multiculturalism etc.) that cannot be changed anymore.

While "past cultural achievements" cannot be reversed (unless you can travel back in time and prevent the artist from creating), immigration, pc and multikult can.

Since you deliberately misunderstand me, I want to point out that I neither want to undo history nor past happenings (as said, this would be impossible), the NOW and TODAY seperates the past from the future, and I think we need another path into the future than that from the past. This path leads nowhere good, on it our demise waits.

It really doesnt matter that much what happened in the past in detail, in retrospective the overall development direction was not beneficial for us. As easily can be seen on today's world.



No one denies that the racial quality of the Germanic people endowed them their talent to achieve. However, when you say that if they were still heathens it would be the same, you are entering the realm of historical guesswork and hypothesis. Christianity is what brought the Germanic people into the sphere of Western (Greco-Roman) civilization. The most glorious period of Germanic history was during the time that they, along with the rest of Europe, were Christian. These are the historical facts.

Look, to all times under all religions or cults people created art for and in the name of their gods.

And again: this glorious time is gone, and much of it may be coincidence anyway and cant be attributed to christianity, as much as you want it were.

People develop, you really cannot do anything against that. We might have been late-starters compared to Rome, but then again, Rome's advance was stolen together from countless conquered people, so it wasnt their achievement alone. But a continued Pagan Rome and extended contact would have necessarily also changed us, either as reaction to Rome's aggression or by being absorbed into the empire and would benefit from their stolen technology as well.

As mentioned already, the Greek had already built mechanic computers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism), electricity was known already since Egypt's decline at least, and a lot other things that vanished for the next 1500 years, to only reemerge after the secularization again.

Sure, it is partly historical guess work to work out specific alternative scenarios, but there were a whole lot alternatives of which christianity was only one, and not the best of all either.

It is not about the past, for the umptiest time, but about the future, of which we dont have one as long as this sect is around.


I am sorry to doubt you, but I sincerely doubt that you had a mystical experience in the same manner that I or many others have had throughout history. First what you describe sounds nothing like what I speak of, and secondly if you did have such an experience you would most certainly not be an atheist and praise secularism as much as you do, I can guarantee you that.

Oh, cool, you know what I experienced... :oanieyes

But what makes you think that gods would want humans to do all this self-humiliation through the belief in the "original sin" (which was eating from the tree of knowledge / recognition / realisation), the afterlife and all this slave mentality? To me this seems an absurd idea to have such a religion governing everything, including every single aspect of your life.

Der Gott, der Eisen wachsen ließ, der wollte keine Knechte.

Jäger
Friday, March 25th, 2011, 11:19 PM
In philosophy, God only serves as an explanation of things. Where Gods are bound to the laws and forms of the existent, then they don't provide an explanation of the origin of the existent and are therefore superfluous.
This is a wrong premise, the Gods shall not explain the origin of things, but their meaning.


That's the difference between them and me. I recognise that what my mind can't know, it can't know. The religious recognise there are things they can't know, but then attempt to know them anyway. Stupidity follows.
You simply have to deal with reality, and those things we can't know are part of it, thus we have to handle them one way or another. The most logical, philosophical and reasonable way is to simply deduce a theory which will be tested and adjusted infinitely, the way of our ancestors and their cyclic understanding.


More like natural order. The difference? Lack of consciousness, awareness of the process. It's a natural tendency, and also pure fallacy, to suppose there is any 'will' in things that our imagination hasn't itself invested.
Huh? Exactly because there is no "will" there is no natural order.

Plantagenet
Friday, March 25th, 2011, 11:29 PM
You still dont really understand that the Byzantine empire was NOT the same entity as the Roman empire, the Byzantine empire and the HRE came about after Rome's fall, and partly inherited former Roman territories, but by far not all. This is because Rome fell apart. Just about 100 years after Christianity became state's religion. Go figure.

The Byzantine Empire is usually seen as the direct successor of the Roman Empire and continues unbroken from the time of ancient Rome. The Byzantines never referred to themselves as Byzantines, but as Romans, and so did their enemies. In either case, Byzantium and the West both shared in the same religion, and were culturally and spiritually related in that manner. As to the Western Roman Empire falling, it has little to do with Christianity and much to do with a complex array of causes that preceded its fall by centuries.


While "past cultural achievements" cannot be reversed (unless you can travel back in time and prevent the artist from creating), immigration, pc and multikult can.

And so can the degeneration and destruction of Christianity.


As mentioned already, the Greek had already built mechanic computers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism), electricity was known already since Egypt's decline at least, and a lot other things that vanished for the next 1500 years, to only reemerge after the secularization again.

The ancients were far from secular, they just weren't Christians. I think this has to do with the fact that Christianity was not yet founded. Most traditional societies were not secular in our modern understanding, and most of them believed in the higher power, and were host to a large number of mystical, spiritual, and religious systems.


Oh, cool, you know what I experienced... :oanieyes

I never said I did. I said I doubted it was the same thing I experienced, because if it were, your attitude toward religiosity, the existence of God, the importance of secularism, and your pronounced atheistic stance would be much different than if you had.


But what makes you think that gods would want humans to do all this self-humiliation through the belief in the "original sin" (which was eating from the tree of knowledge / recognition / realisation), the afterlife and all this slave mentality? To me this seems an absurd idea to have such a religion governing everything, including every single aspect of your life.


Hereditary original sin is a Catholic doctrine, not the doctrine of Christianity as a whole. For example, the Eastern Orthodox conception of original sin is quite different. The Catholic doctrine is summed up well in this sentence--


Though Adam's sinful act is not the responsibility of his descendants, the state of human nature that has resulted from that sinful act has consequences that plague them: "Human nature, without being entirely corrupted, has been harmed in its natural powers, is subject to ignorance, suffering and the power of death, and has a tendency to sin.

Furthermore, the fruit from which Adam ate was not the tree of knowledge, but the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It is not a concept which implies being against knowledge, nor do I feel it need imply self-humiliation or a slave mentality, which is certainly not qualities I would ascribe to European Christians during their triumphant history.

Hamar Fox
Saturday, March 26th, 2011, 12:07 AM
Can you say which fallacy that is? And, why should we suppose anyone but our own self has will, then?

I certainly wonder about the amount of will possessed by many humans - although they appear to be conscious. And consciousness, where it exists, can create/change all manner of situations - without willing it (will itself is not the only way to make things happen; unfortunately unwilled things happen a lot - that's how humans get themselves into trouble).

I think I understand what you're saying (and it's a good argument against any form of intelligent invisible agent) but I'm confused about the "will" part. Do non-human animals possess will, in your view?

Humans like to anthropomorphise the world around them. They see will and intention behind everything. Even the irreligious often speak of nature as if it were a sentient entity - nature wants the weak to perish, nature wants to thrive. The cold reality is that we're quite an insignificant dot on the universal horizon. Not only does will not exist outside of us, it doesn't actually exist in us -- yet we think the whole universe is 'will'. We base our theories of the universe not only -- egotistically -- on ourselves, but on a misunderstanding of ourselves. What we think is 'will' in us is actually just consciousness of law. It's basically causality reflecting on itself. We don't 'choose' to do anything any more than an apple 'chooses' to fall from a tree. If the apple were sentient, and the causes for the falling were internal -- too complex and well-disguised to be understood -- it would believe it had chosen to do so.

Of course it's ridiculous to think of a God, and an anthropomorphic God is even more laughable, yet people continue to believe in it because of deeply rooted psychological needs, and of course anthropocentric egotism. People will do anything to avoid the implications of being alone or of not being special, which is sadly why religion and other irrationalities will always exist. Only the strong can reject it.

Plantagenet
Saturday, March 26th, 2011, 12:19 AM
Only the strong can reject it.

So wait...not only are people with any religiosity or spirituality idiots...they are also weaklings? Whoa. I guess I better start rethinking my world-view.

Hamar Fox
Saturday, March 26th, 2011, 12:22 AM
So wait...not only are people with any religiosity or spirituality idiots...they are also weaklings? Whoa. I guess I better start rethinking my world-view.

I'd recommend it.

Melisande
Saturday, March 26th, 2011, 06:24 AM
Humans like to anthropomorphise the world around them. They see will and intention behind everything. Even the irreligious often speak of nature as if it were a sentient entity - nature wants the weak to perish, nature wants to thrive. The cold reality is that we're quite an insignificant dot on the universal horizon. Not only does will not exist outside of us, it doesn't actually exist in us -- yet we think the whole universe is 'will'. We base our theories of the universe not only -- egotistically -- on ourselves, but on a misunderstanding of ourselves. What we think is 'will' in us is actually just consciousness of law. It's basically causality reflecting on itself. We don't 'choose' to do anything any more than an apple 'chooses' to fall from a tree. If the apple were sentient, and the causes for the falling were internal -- too complex and well-disguised to be understood -- it would believe it had chosen to do so.

Of course it's ridiculous to think of a God, and an anthropomorphic God is even more laughable, yet people continue to believe in it because of deeply rooted psychological needs, and of course anthropocentric egotism. People will do anything to avoid the implications of being alone or of not being special, which is sadly why religion and other irrationalities will always exist. Only the strong can reject it.

So the "fallacy" is anthropomorphising? I'll think about that one for awhile.

I don't think anthropomorphizing is any more ridiculous (necessarily) than employing concepts like "germanicization." Indeed, I think if one is unable to apply a concept over a class of objects (regardless of the concept applied), we're at an impasse regarding generalizations of any kind. Humanity is itself a concept. So anthropo-anything is conceptual.

You could take the point of view that we're all just so many atoms of this and that off the periodic chart, but dehumanizing to that extent is repugnant to me, altogether.

Your views of human psychology (desperate attempts to avoid being alone, unjustified needs to feel special) do not overlap or coincide with my own. Therefore, I think you're generalizing as much as any religious person, and your beliefs are equally rooted in a leap of faith. But your leap involves...what?

Okay, so you're just atoms of carbon and hydrogen and so forth. What's the point of saying more, then? How do you rehumanize (anthropomorphize) yourself?

Is it all about being a bipedal primate? That's anthropos?

Jäger
Saturday, March 26th, 2011, 10:31 AM
Only the strong can reject it.
So even though they don't reject it because of their will, but just because they happen to be in a causal chain -- by chance -- which determines them to do so, they are the strong ones?

Hamar Fox
Saturday, March 26th, 2011, 10:40 AM
So even though they don't reject it because of their will, but just because they happen to be in a causal chain -- by chance -- which determines them to do so, they are the strong ones?

Correct. The reasons we have for our actions are largely accurate, only they're reflexive and not causal. The weak need to cushion themselves from the realities of life, the universe, they need direction that they can't forge for themselves etc. Religion is a combination of weakness and stupidity -- weakness for the reasons stated, stupidity because they try to fool even themselves.

Jäger
Saturday, March 26th, 2011, 11:59 AM
Correct. The reasons we have for our actions are largely accurate, only they're reflexive and not causal. The weak need to cushion themselves from the realities of life, the universe, they need direction that they can't forge for themselves etc. Religion is a combination of weakness and stupidity -- weakness for the reasons stated, stupidity because they try to fool even themselves.
This is a mere definition of yours, with an axiom as its fundamental base, it's circular reasoning.
I feel indeed stupid being lectured by you about philosophical tenets.

In any case, you at least agree that Religion won't become extinct, so we have to deal with it, how do you intend to do it?

Hamar Fox
Saturday, March 26th, 2011, 12:28 PM
This is a mere definition of yours, with an axiom as its fundamental base, it's circular reasoning.
I feel indeed stupid being lectured by you about philosophical tenets.

An argument would help.


In any case, you at least agree that Religion won't become extinct, so we have to deal with it, how do you intend to do it?

Simply to ignore them. I need to work on this, of course. When I see foolishness and flawed argumentation, I feel compelled to correct them. I do this even though I know intelligence and philosophical ability can't be imparted. Like I say, I need to learn to let idiocy slide.

velvet
Saturday, March 26th, 2011, 12:47 PM
The Byzantine Empire is usually seen as the direct successor of the Roman Empire and continues unbroken from the time of ancient Rome. The Byzantines never referred to themselves as Byzantines, but as Romans, and so did their enemies. In either case, Byzantium and the West both shared in the same religion, and were culturally and spiritually related in that manner. As to the Western Roman Empire falling, it has little to do with Christianity and much to do with a complex array of causes that preceded its fall by centuries.

Maybe you people in America have some trouble with geography because of the size of the land you inhabit, but serious, North-West Europe, the part where I come from (Frisia) and a lot north and east of it too (Scandinavia etc) NEVER was part of either the Roman Empire, and even less of the Byzantine Empire.

No matter how much you praise it, IT IS NOT EUROPEAN CULTURE, never was and never will be either. It's dead for more than 800 years too.

As I said before, and try to grasp it this time, the heir of the HRE (which conquered parts of Northern Europe, specially on the continent, but never all of Germania) - NOT the Roman empire - set over to the Americas with America's Independence.

There is no more empire in Europe. Get it. It's gone, dead, vanished. The Age of Reason has washed out all the christian superstitions, for the very most people, IF they identify as Christian at all today (as said, in all of these areas of north-western Europe it is less than 10 percent anyway), it is mere lip service to the "Western Identity", a superficial "confession" to something that is just still somehow there, of which most people though dont know anything what it means at all.

It's time for Europe to harvest the fruits of the Age of Reason.


And so can the degeneration and destruction of Christianity.

Maybe.

Doesnt mean that it would be right for Europe, and even less that it would be desireable to continue this nonsense.



The ancients were far from secular, they just weren't Christians. I think this has to do with the fact that Christianity was not yet founded. Most traditional societies were not secular in our modern understanding, and most of them believed in the higher power, and were host to a large number of mystical, spiritual, and religious systems.

And almost all of them are far better than Christianity ever was and ever could become.



I never said I did. I said I doubted it was the same thing I experienced, because if it were, your attitude toward religiosity, the existence of God, the importance of secularism, and your pronounced atheistic stance would be much different than if you had.

I already told you that I deny the existence of a god as posited by Christianity / monotheism. My gods are of a completely different nature. But I really dont want to call them gods, because the term is hijacked by monotheistic definitions and therefore completely void in this context.

They want something different than the snake-priest-voiced christian god, they are of a different nature, they play other roles in the lives of Heathens, they have in general a very different view of things, the world, humans and their future. Again: Der Gott, der Eisen wachsen ließ, der wollte keine Knechte (the god who let grow iron, did not want servants).



Hereditary original sin is a Catholic doctrine, not the doctrine of Christianity as a whole. For example, the Eastern Orthodox conception of original sin is quite different. The Catholic doctrine is summed up well in this sentence

Do you realise that everything other than Roman Catholic IS a corruption of "christian belief"?

When you want to fix christianity and free it from its corruptions, you will get Roman Catholicism again from before 1000CE - running Europe into oblivion once more.



Furthermore, the fruit from which Adam ate was not the tree of knowledge, but the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It is not a concept which implies being against knowledge, nor do I feel it need imply self-humiliation or a slave mentality, which is certainly not qualities I would ascribe to European Christians during their triumphant history.


Nietzsche called all those "triumphant history heroes" Anti-Christians-by-Deeds-and-Actions - who yet were not ashamed of calling themselves Christians. All this "glorious history" is not in line with actual christian teaching, it is one gross contradiction to christian teaching.

Hamar Fox
Saturday, March 26th, 2011, 12:51 PM
Anyway, I'm still interested in knowing what Plantagenet's divine experiences were.

Vindefense
Saturday, March 26th, 2011, 01:09 PM
Simply to ignore them. I need to work on this, of course. When I see foolishness and flawed argumentation, I feel compelled to correct them. I do this even though I know intelligence and philosophical ability can't be imparted. Like I say, I need to learn to let idiocy slide.

What baffles me about Atheists, such as yourself, is your smug certainty about a matter that you claim none can be certain of.

Hamar Fox
Saturday, March 26th, 2011, 01:29 PM
What baffles me about Atheists, such as yourself, is your smug certainty about a matter that you claim none can be certain of.

Well, I'm confident in my abilities, but the reason for my heightened arrogance here is simply that in the past my tentativeness of tone (which only existed out of courtesy) has actually been used against me, used to imply I don't have confidence in what I'm talking about. I've used words like 'maybe' and whatnot to soften my tone in the past, purely out of politeness (although I knew there was no 'maybe' about it), and it hasn't worked for me, so I'm not interested in doing that anymore.

That covers the smugness. As for the certainty, all the arguments I've presented in my earlier posts remain unchallenged, for the most part unaddressed. I conclude from that that nobody actually has an argument against them.

Vindefense
Saturday, March 26th, 2011, 01:44 PM
Here is one compelling case against you: God Not Only Exists, He Is Inevitable (http://armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/God%281459255%29.htm)

Of course, if you are firm in your faith, you will not be shaken.

Jäger
Saturday, March 26th, 2011, 02:11 PM
As for the certainty, all the arguments I've presented in my earlier posts remain unchallenged, for the most part unaddressed. I conclude from that that nobody actually has an argument against them.
I showed you that the Gods have neither to be absolute, nor do they need to be the explanation for all origins.
If you take this away, your points are all moot, since they only refer to things you can't know, like the non-existence of "will".

Hamar Fox
Saturday, March 26th, 2011, 02:36 PM
I showed you that the Gods have neither to be absolute, nor do they need to be the explanation for all origins.
If you take this away, your points are all moot, since they only refer to things you can't know, like the non-existence of "will".

If you take those things away, they also cease to be 'Gods' or anything relevant to philosophy whatsoever.


Here is one compelling case against you: God Not Only Exists, He Is Inevitable (http://armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/God%281459255%29.htm)

Of course, if you are firm in your faith, you will not be shaken.

Interesting, but it's essentially just Hegelianism. The God of becoming is just an abstraction of the perceived direction of natural process. It assumes there is an 'end' to nature, or a gradually unfolding of it. It becomes a last-ditch attempt to anthropomorphise Nature into a God upon the realisation that the traditional God, the God of being, is impossible.

velvet
Saturday, March 26th, 2011, 02:51 PM
Here is one compelling case against you: God Not Only Exists, He Is Inevitable (http://armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/God%281459255%29.htm)

Good article, but the author - too - doesnt manage to properly distinguish between the god of being and the god of becoming, because although he emphasizes on the god of becoming in all reasoning and wording, he still makes him a god of being:

There is no reason why anyone who believes in Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection should not extend exactly the same rationale to the universe as a whole. Existence maximises itself, and God is its maximum expression. God is the final product of evolution, of the dialectic, of natural selection, of logical necessity.

At all corners the god of being shows up, when it should be the gods of becoming. It is an forever ongoing process that has no final product, and no maximum expression, because everything will forever be developing.

But it is a much better treaty on the nature of the gods than most other religious nonsense. And I fully agree with this:

"Atheists reject the type of God worshipped by Christians, Muslims and Jews: the God of Being. They are right to do so. He is an anti-God, a false God, a God of delusion and lies. This God is no God at all. He is Satan pretending to be God."

:thumbup

Jäger
Saturday, March 26th, 2011, 03:21 PM
If you take those things away, they also cease to be 'Gods' or anything relevant to philosophy whatsoever.
No. God is just a semantic abstraction we use for those above us, for those we call to.

Plantagenet
Saturday, March 26th, 2011, 05:49 PM
Maybe you people in America have some trouble with geography because of the size of the land you inhabit, but serious, North-West Europe, the part where I come from (Frisia) and a lot north and east of it too (Scandinavia etc) NEVER was part of either the Roman Empire, and even less of the Byzantine Empire.

You must forgive me for being an American. I am severely limited in my ability of understanding geography and history because of the land size of my country. Thank you for helping me grasp those facts.


No matter how much you praise it, IT IS NOT EUROPEAN CULTURE, never was and never will be either. It's dead for more than 800 years too.

Are you saying that the Romans and Greeks are not Europeans and their ancient cultures were not European culture?


There is no more empire in Europe. Get it. It's gone, dead, vanished. The Age of Reason has washed out all the christian superstitions, for the very most people, IF they identify as Christian at all today (as said, in all of these areas of north-western Europe it is less than 10 percent anyway), it is mere lip service to the "Western Identity", a superficial "confession" to something that is just still somehow there, of which most people though dont know anything what it means at all.

I'm glad you feel yourself able to speak for all European Christians everywhere and feel that we are in an age of reason.


It's time for Europe to harvest the fruits of the Age of Reason.

Yes, and it would appear the fruits you are harvesting is the decline and fall of European civilization, the immigration of Turks and Africans, the rise of Islam, the rise of cultural Marxism, and the degradation of the higher values once held by European people. Are you sure the fruit is not poisoned?


Nietzsche called all those "triumphant history heroes" Anti-Christians-by-Deeds-and-Actions - who yet were not ashamed of calling themselves Christians. All this "glorious history" is not in line with actual christian teaching, it is one gross contradiction to christian teaching.

Haha, I am sure the actual heroes would strongly disagree.

Nietzsche also said, "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood." and "Germany is a great nation only because its people have so much Polish blood in their veins." So I guess according to Nietzsche, unless you happen to be part Polish velvet, your people have nothing to do with the greatness of Germany and you have bad blood.


Anyway, I'm still interested in knowing what Plantagenet's divine experiences were.

I've already described them to you Hamar. As to your skepticism, I can appreciate that because prior to my experience I would not have believed it to be possible and would have been a skeptic as well.. Whether you take my word for it or wish to stand upon your pedestal of higher knowledge and laugh, it is of no consequence. Though if I were you I would not stand so convinced of my knowledge of the cosmos and the existence or non-existence of God.

Hamar Fox
Saturday, March 26th, 2011, 06:06 PM
I've already described them to you Hamar. As to your skepticism, I can appreciate that because prior to my experience I would not have believed it to be possible and would have been a skeptic as well.. Whether you take my word for it or wish to stand upon your pedestal of higher knowledge and laugh, it is of no consequence. Though if I were you I would not stand so convinced of my knowledge of the cosmos and the existence or non-existence of God.

Where did you describe them to me? I've read all parts of your posts in this thread that were addressed to me, as far as I know. If I missed a post where you explained what happened, then please link to it or copy/paste it for me. I mean, I experience the non-existence of God 24/7, so I want to know if your experiences trump mine.



Nietzsche also said, "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood." and "Germany is a great nation only because its people have so much Polish blood in their veins." So I guess according to Nietzsche, unless you happen to be part Polish velvet, your people have nothing to do with the greatness of Germany and you have bad blood.

He was deep in insanity by that time. No genealogist would tell you Nietzsche was of Polish heritage. Nietzsche had an irrational hatred of his own people by the end of his life. Obviously, the reason for Germany's greatness and superiority to Poland can't be because of Polish blood. I mean, Germany is better than Poland because Germany has more Polish blood than Poland?

Plantagenet
Saturday, March 26th, 2011, 06:31 PM
Where did you describe them to me? I've read all parts of your posts in this thread that were addressed to me, as far as I know. If I missed a post where you explained what happened, then please link to it or copy/paste it for me. I mean, I experience the non-existence of God 24/7, so I want to know if your experiences trump mine.

Read a few posts back where I described the sensation to velvet. An exact description of what I experienced is beyond words, because there are no words which can precisely describe what is beyond sensory experience. This is why mystics across time apparently believed it was only something that can be known personally, something that can be experienced first hand, not something that can be philosophically or logically defined. A rough analogy would be something like a blind man being able to temporally see light, color and objects, being in absolute awe, and then losing that sight and trying to describe the experience to everyone else, who are also blind.

Though if I had to say a general description I felt, it would be something that was ineffable, something that was powerful beyond imagination, the experience of transcending space, time, and the normal human condition/the normal human consciousness, the experience of ultimate truth, the experience of ultimate bliss, and a sense of something that was absolutely sacred, something that actually lent true meaning to the words sacred and holy. It was the experience of something wholly other, the experience of unity or absorption into this divine. It felt to me as though all of reality were in a bubble and that I was outside of that bubble. To put it simply, the single most powerful experience of my life and that has shaped the course of my life and interests thereafter.



He was deep in insanity by that time. No genealogist would tell you Nietzsche was of Polish heritage. Nietzsche had an irrational hatred of his own people by the end of his life. Obviously, the reason for Germany's greatness and superiority to Poland can't be because of Polish blood. I mean, Germany is better than Poland because Germany has more Polish blood than Poland?

Do you have a citation stating he was insane when he made that statement? Its not that I don't believe you, but I never heard that he was insane at the time.

velvet
Saturday, March 26th, 2011, 06:39 PM
You must forgive me for being an American. I am severely limited in my ability of understanding geography and history because of the land size of my country. Thank you for helping me grasp those facts.

I'm not so sure if you do.



Are you saying that the Romans and Greeks are not Europeans and their ancient cultures were not European culture?

The Spaniards are European too, they arent "my" people though. Or are you going to claim now that Romans and Greek were Germanic?

But actually, my point was that all these empire that you praise so much DO NOT EXIST ANYMORE. Not even as distant memories. They are dry information from a history book, nothing more.

And they dont exist anymore for 1500 years respectively 800 years. Greece never was an empire to begin with, and their culture was already wiped off, the twisted rests absorbed by Romans and the people who created it mixed away before CE, not only by Romans but all sorts of specially west-Asian scum and Shemites.

There is no point in worshipping the ashes of something that is not even our own history :oanieyes



I'm glad you feel yourself able to speak for all European Christians everywhere and feel that we are in an age of reason.

Since there are still Christians, one can really wonder.



Yes, and it would appear the fruits you are harvesting is the decline and fall of European civilization, the immigration of Turks and Africans, the rise of Islam, the rise of cultural Marxism, and the degradation of the higher values once held by European people. Are you sure the fruit is not poisoned?

They are, by Christians who think one must help all these poor people.



Haha, I am sure the actual heroes would strongly disagree.

Of course. I already said that Nietzsche also said that they werent ashamed at all of calling themselves Christians. They dont even realise, and obviously people today have trouble with that too, how anti-christian they actually were by actions. Not that this wouldnt count already for the institution "church"....



I've already described them to you

You described very superficially something that you could just as well have read in some book, sorry. It gave no account of the divine whatsoever. But I understand your fear to give it to the scrutinity of "evil atheists".

Plantagenet
Saturday, March 26th, 2011, 06:53 PM
There is no point in worshipping the ashes of something that is not even our own history :oanieyes

Without the Greco-Romans, there would be no Western civilization. Not everything of value is something that is strictly accomplished by "your" people.


They are, by Christians who think one must help all these poor people.

You may be right that there are some Christians who encourage the decline of the West and immigration, but honestly the vast majority of of individuals I have encountered that support those views, both in real life and on the internet, have been atheists and most of them have hated Christianity.


You described very superficially something that you could just as well have read in some book, sorry. It gave no account of the divine whatsoever. But I understand your fear to give it to the scrutinity of "evil atheists".

I never once said atheists were evil, nor do I fear your scrutiny or whether you believe me. I know what I experienced, and I am sure there are others who understand what I experienced and have experienced the same thing. I cannot prove to you what I experienced, and even if I could, I doubt your strongly embedded bias would allow that proof to make a difference. There is a word for that--close minded.

Hamar Fox
Sunday, March 27th, 2011, 10:23 AM
Though if I had to say a general description I felt, it would be something that was ineffable, something that was powerful beyond imagination, the experience of transcending space, time, and the normal human condition/the normal human consciousness, the experience of ultimate truth, the experience of ultimate bliss, and a sense of something that was absolutely sacred, something that actually lent true meaning to the words sacred and holy. It was the experience of something wholly other, the experience of unity or absorption into this divine. It felt to me as though all of reality were in a bubble and that I was outside of that bubble. To put it simply, the single most powerful experience of my life and that has shaped the course of my life and interests thereafter.

And what were you doing at the time? Were you just, I don't know, brushing your teeth and then the visions came to you? I mean, did God time it so you weren't driving or anything at the time? That could be dangerous. God actually tends to time these visions and divine realisations shortly after the taking of acid, for some reason. Probably for reasons too complex for the blind to understand.

Also, why did God reveal himself to you specifically? Why even bother with the whole Jesus spreading his message thing, when he can just talk to people directly through epiphany?




Do you have a citation stating he was insane when he made that statement? Its not that I don't believe you, but I never heard that he was insane at the time.

All those remarks were made in Ecce Homo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecce_Homo_%28book%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nietzsche#Mental_breakdown_and_death_.28 1889.E2.80.931900.29

Just a year before his official breakdown. If you follow the progression of Nietzsche's thought, it becomes obvious that he hypothesised on his ancestry not on genealogical knowledge but on the basis of his belief that the spirit, the character of man is inherited from his racial ancestors. He simply couldn't reconcile, in his mind, the fact that he was German yet so different from them. His solution was to (falsely) claim Polish heritage.

Actually, Polish nationalists remind me quite a bit of Afrocentrists. They like to claim the great men of other nations because they have none of their own. Claiming Nietzsche and Colombus were Poles is at least as funny as claiming Beethoven and Haydn were negroes.

Plantagenet
Monday, March 28th, 2011, 03:45 AM
And what were you doing at the time? Were you just, I don't know, brushing your teeth and then the visions came to you? I mean, did God time it so you weren't driving or anything at the time? That could be dangerous. God actually tends to time these visions and divine realisations shortly after the taking of acid, for some reason. Probably for reasons too complex for the blind to understand.

First and foremost, I am not sure if God, in the personal theistic sense, is what I experienced. It may or may not have been. What I experienced may have been an impersonal God, in the sense of just being the divine ground of all being, the source of all existence or perhaps just a higher spiritual reality above our own. This is what I've made my goal to find out, and to experience once again.

As to what I was doing during my first mystical experience, I was relaxing outside at around midnight and I was listening to music and admiring the beauty of the full moon. Soon I found myself so relaxed that my eyes closed, and the thought that I had which led to the experience was something along the lines of, "There really is no such thing as time." After that thought I was led into that mystical experience which I described in my previous post.

Also note, I was not calling anyone blind or trying to project myself above anyone. My analogy was in reference to defining something that cannot adequately be defined in any way but has to be experienced.


Also, why did God reveal himself to you specifically? Why even bother with the whole Jesus spreading his message thing, when he can just talk to people directly through epiphany?

Well seeing that I am not a Christian, this should be irrelevant to me. However, supposing that I was Christian, I don't think the fact that people can experience higher realities would in anyway detract from the importance of Jesus in a theological sense, which to the Christian has more to do with just realizing there is a God. Aside from this, there is a strong tradition in Christianity, especially Eastern Orthodoxy, of the importance of mystical practice and experiencing transcendent realities.


Just a year before his official breakdown.

So then he wasn't actually insane when he made those statements.


If you follow the progression of Nietzsche's thought, it becomes obvious that he hypothesised on his ancestry not on genealogical knowledge but on the basis of his belief that the spirit, the character of man is inherited from his racial ancestors. He simply couldn't reconcile, in his mind, the fact that he was German yet so different from them. His solution was to (falsely) claim Polish heritage.

I never contested that he was German, merely pointed out that he made those statements.

Hamar Fox
Monday, March 28th, 2011, 09:38 AM
So then he wasn't actually insane when he made those statements.


Yes, it was a process. He was losing his mind steadily since he contracted syphilis in the 1870s. One year before an official breakdown, when your mind has been declining for 20 years, makes what you say a bit suspect.

velvet
Monday, March 28th, 2011, 11:59 AM
Without the Greco-Romans, there would be no Western civilization. Not everything of value is something that is strictly accomplished by "your" people.

I didnt say so, I just say that there isnt so much Greco-Roman culture here like you want to make it look.

Just yesterday there was a nice docu about ancient architecture in Rome and Greece (the Egypt one I missed), and for one, the Greek got their architectural greatness from the conquered Minoics, so it wasnt "Greek" cultural achievement, just like Rome stole much of their technology from conquered people too.

Both cultures, specially in their high times, are more like collections of technology and achievement of many different people and not a monolithic block carved from one culture, although they of course did also create themselves. The Romans invented concrete, streets today are still built based on the same principle and so on.

Either way, in both cases, all techniques and methods were already found, if our culture had been expanded with all this knowledge and methods, by the time of the middle ages we would have exceeded the greatness of Rome (simply because another several hundred years of constant development, refinement, specialisation etc). This however was not the case.

Quite to the contrary. The Romans had already built aquaeducts, flow water / waste water systems, PUBLIC bath houses for the use of everyone also in Aachen, Cologne and other cities (the border to the Roman empire was relatively in the middle of modern day Germany), streets that made transport and trade easy and so on; the resulting HRE though, now christian, closed all this down again, did not expand on it, did not use the already present achievements to advance our culture.

For around 1000 years, from ~500CE to ~1500CE, there is nothing of this. Sure, some Cathedrals were built, but no infrastructure expansion, no public schools like in Greece, no public forums like in Rome, no public libraries, no public hygiene, no nothing. Indeed, it re-emerges with the Renaissance (14th-17th century), but between the Roman culture and the Renaissance simply is a deep black hole of nothingness, of no advance but retrogression.

And when it reemerges during the Renaissance, wisdom and knowledge was won against much resistance from the knowledge-controlling clerics only.



You may be right that there are some Christians who encourage the decline of the West and immigration, but honestly the vast majority of of individuals I have encountered that support those views, both in real life and on the internet, have been atheists and most of them have hated Christianity.

But since also Christians support immigration, how do you come to the assumption that it could be a remedy to immigration?

Christianity would at best, if at all be against Muslim immigration (I told you that here churches are given to Muslims, so even this can be doubted), but it would not be against immigration as such, because Christianity only cares about the individual being Christian, not about ethnicity. Half of Africa is Christian, some parts of Asia are Christian, many Indians are Christian, Latin-America is Christian, and no Christian would have trouble with accepting other Christians into the community, regardless of their race.

That it was probably different 500 years ago was more due to given circumstances than due to ethnic convictions driven by Christianity. This never has been the case. There just were not yet "inviting" welfare systems, there was not yet mass transportation etc, only circumstances, not a willed effort to keep out immigrants.



I never once said atheists were evil, nor do I fear your scrutiny or whether you believe me. I know what I experienced, and I am sure there are others who understand what I experienced and have experienced the same thing. I cannot prove to you what I experienced, and even if I could, I doubt your strongly embedded bias would allow that proof to make a difference. There is a word for that--close minded.

Thanks, I return the compliment. You reject every "controversial" notion about Christianity, although you claim you are not Christian. But you defend it like only a Christian would defend it, and you present it as the only valid form of religion, despite it being a New Age invention drawn from Judaism and in contrast to all other religions (except Islam), belief systems and cults not a grown, developed faith.

I also just said that your description of your experience was rather superficial and doesnt offer really a picture of what nature your experience could have been. You're talking around the hot spot all the time. It wasnt even a serious try to describe what you experienced, "it transcends time and space" is a platitude, not a description of your emotional and/or intellectual perception.

Jäger
Monday, March 28th, 2011, 12:18 PM
But since also Christians support immigration, how do you come to the assumption that it could be a remedy to immigration?
I would like to know this as well, even more so because he already admitted that Christianity failed in this regard.


It wasnt even a serious try to describe what you experienced, "it transcends time and space" is a platitude, not a description of your emotional and/or intellectual perception.
A perception crippled through baptism to begin with.

Bernhard
Monday, March 28th, 2011, 03:56 PM
Yes, it was a process. He was losing his mind steadily since he contracted syphilis in the 1870s. One year before an official breakdown, when your mind has been declining for 20 years, makes what you say a bit suspect.

Indeed, with Nietzsche we also must keep in mind that the fact that his ideas were not appreciated by other people while he was still alive influenced him heavily. In his first work, The Birth of Tragedy, he is a lot more positive towards Germany. In his later years, even before his official breakdown, you can also notice a radicalisation in his tone up to the point that his arguments are not much more than insults. (It's quite funny actually to read what he writes about Socrates in the Götzendämmerung.) This also might be due to the fact that his ideas were not accepted and this influenced him mentally and made him an anry man, so to speak, perhaps towards his fellow Germans in general as well.


You're talking around the hot spot all the time. It wasnt even a serious try to describe what you experienced, "it transcends time and space" is a platitude, not a description of your emotional and/or intellectual perception.

Well, how would you describe something which transcends time and space when our expressions are limited by these very concepts?

velvet
Monday, March 28th, 2011, 05:33 PM
Well, how would you describe something which transcends time and space when our expressions are limited by these very concepts?

I was always of the impression that concepts were there to expand understanding, not to limit it, or language for that matter.

It might also be due to that some of the "commonly accepted concepts" are not at all suitable to reality, and then description of a perception becomes inherently flawed, or even impossible, because the concept is so narrow and limited that it is useless, and even contradicting to understanding.

For example, in theoretical physics time and space are not seperated concepts. So when you have an experience that "transcents" the concepts of wrongly seperated time and space, what did you really experience? Does it point to the divine? Or did you just break through the walls of the wrong concepts and had a glance on actual reality, that is not mysterious at all, but indeed probably frightening, because it questions the "commonly accepted concept"?

And what puzzles me also is that he claims to have had an "experience described countless times before", but if all of these people had the same troubles to pack it in words, I must wonder a) what they described and b) how anyone can possibly relate to it and then shout "Heureka, I had the »SAME« experience"?

Plantagenet
Monday, March 28th, 2011, 06:23 PM
Either way, in both cases, all techniques and methods were already found, if our culture had been expanded with all this knowledge and methods, by the time of the middle ages we would have exceeded the greatness of Rome (simply because another several hundred years of constant development, refinement, specialisation etc). This however was not the case.

And you realize that the loss of Greco-Roman knowledge and technology was due to the invasions of illiterate Germanic and non-Germanic barbarians, right? Just making sure. The Church and monks are who preserved what knowledge was not destroyed from the barbarian invasions.


(Catholic) monks taught metallurgy, introduced new crops, copied ancient texts, preserved literacy, pioneered in technology, invented champagne, improved the European landscape, provided for wanderers of every stripe, and looked after the lost and shipwrecked."


Most education for those who would not profess monastic vows, however, would take place in other settings, and eventually in the cathedral schools established under Charlemagne. But even if the monasteries’ contribution to education had been merely to teach their own how to read and write, that would have been no small accomplishment. When the Mycenaean Greeks suffered a catastrophe in the twelfth century B.C.—an invasion by the Dorians, say some scholars—the result was three centuries of complete illiteracy known as the Greek Dark Ages. Writing simply disappeared amid the chaos and disorder. But the monks’ commitment to reading, writing, and education ensured that the same terrible fate that had befallen the Mycenaean Greeks would not be visited upon Europeans after the fall of the Roman Empire.

This time, thanks to the monks, literacy would survive political and social catastrophe. Monks did more than simply preserve literacy. Even an unsympathetic scholar could write of monastic education: “They studied the songs of heathen poets and the writings of historians and philosophers. Monasteries and monastic schools blossomed forth, and each settlement became a center of religious life as well as of education.” Another unsympathetic chronicler wrote of the monks, “They not only established the schools, and were the schoolmasters in them, but also laid the foundations for the universities. They were the thinkers and philosophers of the day and shaped the political and religious thought. To them, both collectively and individually, was due the continuity of thought and civilization of the ancient world with the later Middle Ages and with the modern period.”


For around 1000 years, from ~500CE to ~1500CE, there is nothing of this. Sure, some Cathedrals were built, but no infrastructure expansion, no public schools like in Greece, no public forums like in Rome, no public libraries, no public hygiene, no nothing. Indeed, it re-emerges with the Renaissance (14th-17th century), but between the Roman culture and the Renaissance simply is a deep black hole of nothingness, of no advance but retrogression.

And when it reemerges during the Renaissance, wisdom and knowledge was won against much resistance from the knowledge-controlling clerics only.

Cool pseudo history. You realize what we know as the medieval period came to an end at around either the start of the Reformation (1517)? Some scholars even place the end of the medieval period later, but most agree this period lasted from about 500 A.D to 1500 A.D, give or take. During that time period there were many advancements, gunpowder and the printing press being two of the major ones which led to the modern period. Everything you just said is filled with misinformation and myth, so I am not going to bother taking it apart bit by bit.

Once more, I highly recommend reading some history books on the medieval period, but to start, do read the following articles, especially the first one--

http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/renaissance.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_technology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolingian_Renaissance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_of_the_12th_century
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_Middle_Ages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_European_scientists
http://www.getting-medieval.com/my_weblog/2008/05/top-ten-myths-a.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_music
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_art
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_literature
http://listverse.com/2008/06/09/top-10-reasons-the-dark-ages-were-not-dark/


But since also Christians support immigration, how do you come to the assumption that it could be a remedy to immigration?

I never said it would be a remedy to immigration, that would require a great change in society itself. However, it is quite obvious that just because a nation is largely Christian does not mean it need ignore the needs of the people and the good of the state, meaning there no explicit reason why a Christian nation should be required to encourage or allow non-white immigration.


That it was probably different 500 years ago was more due to given circumstances than due to ethnic convictions driven by Christianity. This never has been the case. There just were not yet "inviting" welfare systems, there was not yet mass transportation etc, only circumstances, not a willed effort to keep out immigrants.

Of course, modern globalization and transportation aids in the mass immigration of people across the globe. No one denies this. However, Europe didn't cease to be Christian 500 years ago, try 100 years ago, and even then those who were not Christian were a minority. The great decline of Christianity has mostly occurred in the post World War II period.


Thanks, I return the compliment. You reject every "controversial" notion about Christianity, although you claim you are not Christian. But you defend it like only a Christian would defend it, and you present it as the only valid form of religion, despite it being a New Age invention drawn from Judaism and in contrast to all other religions (except Islam), belief systems and cults not a grown, developed faith.

No, I reject mythical and falsified pseudo-history about Christianity with no foundation in historical reality and defend the history of medieval European civilization against the attack of post-Enlightenment propaganda. Christianity is not "New Age", which refers to 20th century pseudo-spirituality developed in the West, often based on Eastern mysticism.

Jäger
Monday, March 28th, 2011, 07:14 PM
I never said it would be a remedy to immigration, that would require a great change in society itself. However, it is quite obvious that just because a nation is largely Christian does not mean it need ignore the needs of the people and the good of the state, meaning there no explicit reason why a Christian nation should be required to encourage or allow non-white immigration.
So why even support Christianity then? Would you as eagerly support Islam? After all, you said it yourself, spiritual truth is not dependent on origin.

Plantagenet
Monday, March 28th, 2011, 07:46 PM
So why even support Christianity then? Would you as eagerly support Islam? After all, you said it yourself, spiritual truth is not dependent on origin.

Because whereas Christianity has been part of Western culture and civilization for anywhere between 1000-1700 years depending on the specific culture or ethnic group, Islam is totally alien and has been the foe of the West for most of its history. European Christianity became amalgamated with native European culture and philosophies while Islam is entirely non-European. This is not to say I don't appreciate spiritual truths that may be presented in foreign spiritual systems, such as Sufism for example. This is also not to say I support all forms of Christianity, I too am antagonistic to certain Christian sects and positions, such as liberal Christianity, anti-intellectual Christian televangelists, Young Earth Creationists, Biblical literalists, etc or forms of Christianity that is in its essence anti-traditional.

Cygnus
Monday, March 28th, 2011, 08:06 PM
Science has revealed centers in human brains that cause religious thought/experience/behavior – and like empathy, spatial intelligence, verbal intelligence, this trait is stronger in some than in others (does this mean some are destined for damnation? Maybe Calvin was right). They are evolutionary adaptations for individual sanity or group cohesion. Whether this was mere happenstance or supernatural design is something I don't know. I do know that, like race issues, ignoring this reality will ensure that problems keep cropping up. It's a human function that could exist in many forms whether or not one bans churches, certain books and certain rituals. Like race, if this essential human concept is ignored, or worked against, it will keep causing problems in the future. Certain secular cults, businesses, the self-help industry, political groups and other enterprises that operate in part or whole using religious language and behavior are evidence enough of implicit religious behavior in secular wrapping that most are not aware of.

It'd be best to acknowledge this reality and permit freedom for religious activity so long as it doesn't start interfering with the logic required for rulers of states that own intercontinental apocalypse-inflicting bombs.

Jäger
Monday, March 28th, 2011, 09:29 PM
Because whereas Christianity has been part of Western culture and civilization for anywhere between 1000-1700 years depending on the specific culture or ethnic group, ...
We already established that Christianity does not help us in our goals, it never did, so the only reason to support it, would be the belief in its spiritual truth, something you admitted not to be sure of.


... Islam is totally alien and has been the foe of the West for most of its history.
This is the truth of our ancestors, that people fight not only on a material level but also on a spiritual one, when Odin claimed supreme reign in Sweden, he had to fight off Tiuz, this was nothing else than a successful invasion of Sweden through humans.
The truth from our ancestors is simple and blatant, their logic and their willingness to not hide what they don't know are our Germanic way.


... etc or forms of Christianity that is in its essence anti-traditional.
So you try to preserve the ashes simply out of a traditional reason, this is highly dangerous, there is no value in protecting a wrong belief system, which ultimately did nothing to protect us, even worse, since it's widespread individual interpretation, helped in our decline.
To actually advance you have to be willing to forget some things about your past.
Why would you even want to reestablish the West, when it failed so miserably? Why not create a whole new Occident?

Plantagenet
Monday, March 28th, 2011, 10:08 PM
We already established that Christianity does not help us in our goals, it never did, so the only reason to support it, would be the belief in its spiritual truth, something you admitted not to be sure of.

What goals do you speak of? Racial preservation? I think that Christianity has aided us historically as a unifying ideology that bound the European people together and formed a common identity that made Western Civilization possible. This unifying ideology assisted us in repelling foreign invasions in the past, but really it is not the religion alone that will protect the people. It is the responsibility of the people to protect themselves and in that regard Westerners have failed themselves. And though many wish to deny it, it seems evident that the decline of Christianity is coinciding with the decline of the West and European people. Is this coincidence or correlation?

I think the value in Christianity is that it may offer spiritual truth, and compared to all other viable and realistic alternatives for a religion in Europe, it is the most Western and culturally bound up with our people.


Why would you even want to reestablish the West, when it failed so miserably? Why not create a whole new Occident?

I wouldn't say the traditional West, which in my mind is the Western world from around the post-Roman period up until the latter half of the 19th century, has failed us. It seems to me that modernity has failed us in regards to preservation of our people.

And what new Occident, which is just another word for West, would you wish to establish Jaegar? What spiritual system do you envision in this revolutionary new future? And how many people do you think will realistically follow your vision of the new Occident?

velvet
Monday, March 28th, 2011, 11:12 PM
And though many wish to deny it, it seems evident that the decline of Christianity is coinciding with the decline of the West and European people. Is this coincidence or correlation?

It is in so far correlation that Christianity failed to keep out Jews. And the entire rest relates to this initial failure.

Because it is not "secular atheism" or Heathenism that governs the world (so it can hardly be called their failure), but it is Jews with their Cultural Marxism, Liberal Free Market Capitalism, the Central Councils, the think tanks, the CFR, Trilateral Commission, the MSM, etc that governs and brainwashes the people, and muzzles their 'protests' not least also with the notion of the "Judeo-Christian West" and its values that after all include charity for the world and the brotherhood of all races.



And how many people do you think will realistically follow your vision of the new Occident?

Europe became christian through that it was made "state's religion", and suddenly millions of people were christian, most likely without even knowing it. :shrug

Can be done with everything that becomes the Leitkultur. This time maybe something that actually can serve as Leitkultur due to its inherent values, like Heathenism.


Christianity is not "New Age", which refers to 20th century pseudo-spirituality developed in the West, often based on Eastern mysticism

It cannot be New Age just because it was 2000 years ago and not in the 20th century? New Age refers to something made-up losely basing in something else, and exactly that was Christianity back then. :shrug

Plantagenet
Monday, March 28th, 2011, 11:55 PM
It is in so far correlation that Christianity failed to keep out Jews. And the entire rest relates to this initial failure.

Jews were in Europe in pre-Christian times, so I guess according to that logic it was the pre-Christian Greco-Roman world that takes the blame for the initial failure. The only reason Jews were not present in pre-Christian Germania and Northern Europe is because there was no flourishing civilization comparable to the Mediterranean for them to participate in at that time. However, Christianity was far better at combating the Jewish influence than pre-Christian Europe and our post-Christian world, as can be seen by this--

http://www.sunray22b.net/expulsions.htm

Nearly all of those expulsions occurred during Christian times. Perhaps you should also acquaint yourself with these articles-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_antisemitism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_badge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_hat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_ghettos_in_Europe

Jews were not of much influence until after the Enlightenment that you praise so highly, and they never became as powerful and influential as they are today until the late 19th and 20th centuries, which as I've pointed out coincides with the decline of Christianity in the West, a trend that Jewish propagandists actively encourage.


Europe became christian through that it was made "state's religion", and suddenly millions of people were christian, most likely without even knowing it. :shrug

Please, the history of the spread of Christianity is no where near as simple as this. I am starting to wonder if you have ever actually read any history books or are just purposely spreading misinformation.


It cannot be New Age just because it was 2000 years ago and not in the 20th century? New Age refers to something made-up losely basing in something else, and exactly that was Christianity back then. :shrug

Well I don't know if New Age refers to something different in the German language, but the usual definition is what I described in my previous post.

Jäger
Tuesday, March 29th, 2011, 06:51 AM
I think that Christianity has aided us historically as a unifying ideology that bound the European people together and formed a common identity that made Western Civilization possible.
We are not talking about the past, so far we have established that a) Christianity is not needed to offer unity b) it's current liberal interpretation is in line with its doctrine and dogma, and thus currently aids our decline.
"The West" has degenerated into a hedonistic materialistic world view, we have to rebuilt it anyways, and Christianity is almost dead.


I think the value in Christianity is that it may offer spiritual truth, and compared to all other viable and realistic alternatives for a religion in Europe, it is the most Western and culturally bound up with our people.
I think Christianity is a spiritual lie, it couldn't be further from the truth, and as long as most people are forcefully blinded (baptism) there is little hope for some kind of inner cure.
Since almost all Christians support infant baptism, it has to be outlawed by a state who seeks real spiritual truth, which then certainly can't be a Christian one.


I wouldn't say the traditional West, which in my mind is the Western world from around the post-Roman period up until the latter half of the 19th century, has failed us. It seems to me that modernity has failed us in regards to preservation of our people.
What a weak deduction, it is evident that "the West" simply couldn't cope with modernity.


And what new Occident, which is just another word for West, would you wish to establish Jaegar?
Super Germany. :)


What spiritual system do you envision in this revolutionary new future?
A new spirituality based on our ancient ancestors thoughts, and with room to grow freely into something completely new with our people.


And how many people do you think will realistically follow your vision of the new Occident?
This depends solely on our power position, at first they don't have to truthfully believe it, they will be caught up in the rites, and eventually fall for it. The same as with Christianity once.

Caledonian
Tuesday, March 29th, 2011, 07:02 AM
Not such a bad thing really.....;)

Caledonian
Tuesday, March 29th, 2011, 07:04 AM
Jew?



Jew again?



Forget about religion, the entire national identities of these countries are being driven into extinction.

The Christian haters keep forgetting one thing, and that is that for better or worse that the religion they hate so much forms part of the National Identity. Once you remove that religion you in effect also erase a part of that National Identity leaving the masses confused and open to "New World (Order)" type suggestions and henceforth easy to target and reprogram.

If you remove religion there is still a shared history and identity that is left which is very much so a indentifiable culture.

You don't need religion in order to have a shared culture or history.

velvet
Tuesday, March 29th, 2011, 12:43 PM
Jews were in Europe in pre-Christian times, so I guess according to that logic it was the pre-Christian Greco-Roman world that takes the blame for the initial failure.

We are Germanics, not Romans, not Greeks.
And it is indeed the case that it was the Hellenistic Greek Jew Paul who spread Christianity into the Hellenistic-Jewish community. And if you had read the link I posted some pages ago about the Race Change in Ancient Italy, you would have realised that it was not "Romans" who adopted Christianity, but that Christianity spread WITH the Hellenistic-Jews into the Roman Empire.


The only reason Jews were not present in pre-Christian Germania and Northern Europe is because there was no flourishing civilization comparable to the Mediterranean for them to participate in at that time.

Yes, exactly. Jews were not welcome here, Jews sticked out, they were shrill alien things that were neither wanted nor accepted.


However, Christianity was far better at combating the Jewish influence than pre-Christian Europe

Christianity came WITH the Jews, Christianity changed our culture in a way to allow the Jews to better hide, to not stick out so much anymore.

Yes, it's true that Jews have been kicked out time and again, and time again they have been re-invited by Christians, because they are the people of the Christian messiah. Why do you ignore this?


Jews were not of much influence until after the Enlightenment that you praise so highly, and they never became as powerful and influential as they are today until the late 19th and 20th centuries, which as I've pointed out coincides with the decline of Christianity in the West, a trend that Jewish propagandists actively encourage.

This is however not a bad thing. The Enlightenment brought back science and knowledge seeking and indeed common sense, in short "modernity" (development, advance). And since Christianity could not cope with this, it fails ever since.

It is however also part of the story that Christianity never managed to kick out the Jews entirely, and because they are trained in infiltrating power, it empowered them instead of us.

Probably also due to that our people were used to obeying blindly.

Oh, btw, the so-called "christian right-wing", specially in America, but also here, where the Jew Sarkozy and the Jew Cameron and the half-Jew Wilders etc defend the "judeo-christian West", is deeply infiltrated with Jews.

And the stupid Goyim thinks they would be "Christian".


Please, the history of the spread of Christianity is no where near as simple as this. I am starting to wonder if you have ever actually read any history books or are just purposely spreading misinformation.

Now, tell me, when in 380CE Christianity became state's religion in the Roman empire, how many people who lived outside the power centers, KNEW about this? And again, by that time the Roman empire's power center had moved from European Rome to non-European Byzantine, Constantinople, today's Istanbul, and this area was back then as well as today inhabited by Shemites (as the entirety of Middle-Eastern people including Jews and Arabs and some that vanished meanwhile, extinct through the mills of multiracial empires; multiracialsm is a trade mark of empires, a result by necessity).

But it is also fairly unimportant for Germanics; apart from the poor Bavarians and other South Western people, Germania was not yet part of the Roman empire, it did not affect us. It did not make us Christian. This only started centuries later.

When the various constitutions pinned down a state's religion for the not at all united, but carefully through state borders seperated Europe (a result of endless wars and disunity, not least over the "right" christian denomination) pinned down a state's religion, with the various Protestant countries establishing the King as head of Church, this event decided that ALL people now are Christians, and that newborns automatically become member of the state's church. How is that voluntary or a proof that all actually were Christians before? It isnt. It is actually rather a proof to the contrary.


Well I don't know if New Age refers to something different in the German language, but the usual definition is what I described in my previous post.

Christianity is still a made-up new religion drawn from Judaism. Call it what you like, but it is void of tradition, void of grown faith, void of grown communities. This pretty much meets the characteristics of a "New Age" religion.

And this was then subsequently imposed on Europe, through conquest most of all, and through "nobility" who decided that their kingdom, duchy whatever now is christian, a top-down thing, the people had to obey, they were not asked.

Plantagenet
Tuesday, March 29th, 2011, 06:36 PM
We are not talking about the past, so far we have established that a) Christianity is not needed to offer unity b) it's current liberal interpretation is in line with its doctrine and dogma, and thus currently aids our decline.
"The West" has degenerated into a hedonistic materialistic world view, we have to rebuilt it anyways, and Christianity is almost dead.

And why not rebuild Christianity along with it? I think the reason Christianity has its current liberal interpretation is because the West degenerated into a hedonisitic materialistic world-view, so if one is to rebuild the West why not rebuild Christianity which has been an intrinsic part of our culture for over a millennium along with it?


I think Christianity is a spiritual lie, it couldn't be further from the truth, and as long as most people are forcefully blinded (baptism) there is little hope for some kind of inner cure.
Since almost all Christians support infant baptism, it has to be outlawed by a state who seeks real spiritual truth, which then certainly can't be a Christian one.

I suppose we all are entitled to our own opinions, even if they are very kook-like.


Super Germany. :)

That is very informative. You think Germany will be able to stand alone against forces like China and Russia? I doubt it.


A new spirituality based on our ancient ancestors thoughts, and with room to grow freely into something completely new with our people.

I am going to guess its nearly 100% that this will not happen, but good luck anyway. We shall see how the future develops and see if my prediction is right.


We are Germanics, not Romans, not Greeks.
And it is indeed the case that it was the Hellenistic Greek Jew Paul who spread Christianity into the Hellenistic-Jewish community. And if you had read the link I posted some pages ago about the Race Change in Ancient Italy, you would have realised that it was not "Romans" who adopted Christianity, but that Christianity spread WITH the Hellenistic-Jews into the Roman Empire.

Of course, but the very basis of our civilization is derived from the Greco-Romans and they are fellow Indo-European people. Our histories are deeply entwined and Germanic people have been participating in the Roman Empire as early as the time of Augustus, mostly in a military capacity.


Christianity came WITH the Jews, Christianity changed our culture in a way to allow the Jews to better hide, to not stick out so much anymore.

Yes, it's true that Jews have been kicked out time and again, and time again they have been re-invited by Christians, because they are the people of the Christian messiah. Why do you ignore this?

Did you just totally ignore the links I sent you describing how Christians made it so Jews could NOT hide and had to stick out more and forced them to live in seperate ghettos?

The Christians hated the Jews because they were blamed for killing the central figure of their religion. Why would you like a group of people who killed the Son of God, your savior, a group who persecuted the early Christians, and were seen as enemies of your religion? Christians and Jews have been antaganositic foes for most of their history, why do you ignore this?


This is however not a bad thing. The Enlightenment brought back science and knowledge seeking and indeed common sense, in short "modernity" (development, advance). And since Christianity could not cope with this, it fails ever since.

This same modernity that is leading to our downfall and future servitude? What an exciting development and advance for our people!


It is however also part of the story that Christianity never managed to kick out the Jews entirely, and because they are trained in infiltrating power, it empowered them instead of us.

Depending on the kingdom or country, Christianity DID manage to kick out Jews entirely. A prime example of this would when Edward I of England expelled the Jews, and this lasted for nearly 400 years. Another example would be Spain after the Reconquista and this explusion lasted until the 19th century, again a period of about 400 years. France expelled the Jews under Charles VI and they did not return for nearly 200 years and even when they came back Christians were forbidden to shelter or speak with them under penalty of death. Far better than our modern secular society that idolizes Jews. See this--


Jewish emancipation was the external and internal process of freeing the Jewish people of Europe, including recognition of their rights as equal citizens, and the formal granting of citizenship as individuals; it occurred gradually between the late 18th century and the early 20th century. Jewish emancipation followed the Age of Enlightenment and the concurrent Jewish enlightenment and grew by the abolition of discriminatory laws applied specifically against Jews in their various countries. Before the emancipation, most Jews were isolated in residential areas from the rest of the society; thus, emancipation was a major goal of European Jews of that time and internally stressed integration and broader education. This led to their active participation within wider European civil society and recognition of Jews as citizens

Some good that Enlightenment you praise so highly has done us in this regard. Seeing as though you blame the Jews for many of our modern problems, which is not without foundation, it would seem that the Enlightenment and the decline of Christianity is the direct cause of their current status and our current woes.


Now, tell me, when in 380CE Christianity became state's religion in the Roman empire, how many people who lived outside the power centers, KNEW about this? And again, by that time the Roman empire's power center had moved from European Rome to non-European Byzantine, Constantinople, today's Istanbul, and this area was back then as well as today inhabited by Shemites (as the entirety of Middle-Eastern people including Jews and Arabs and some that vanished meanwhile, extinct through the mills of multiracial empires; multiracialsm is a trade mark of empires, a result by necessity).

But it is also fairly unimportant for Germanics; apart from the poor Bavarians and other South Western people, Germania was not yet part of the Roman empire, it did not affect us. It did not make us Christian. This only started centuries later.

Uh lets see the Goths, who were arguably the most important Germanic tribe in early Germanic history, were Christian as early as the first half of the 3rd century, nearly 150 years prior to the decleration of Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire. The Vandals were predominantely Christian just prior to Christianity becoming the official religion of Rome. Within about a century of this the Franks, who laid the foundations of the West as well as the precussor to the kingdoms of France and Germany were Christian and most of the Lombards and Alamanni as well. Not too long after the Anglo-Saxons were Christian.

Jäger
Tuesday, March 29th, 2011, 07:47 PM
And why not rebuild Christianity along with it?
Because it is wrong. Yahweh was never with us.

Ward
Wednesday, March 30th, 2011, 08:05 AM
I think Christianity is a spiritual lie, it couldn't be further from the truth, and as long as most people are forcefully blinded (baptism) there is little hope for some kind of inner cure.
Since almost all Christians support infant baptism, it has to be outlawed by a state who seeks real spiritual truth, which then certainly can't be a Christian one.

This argument holds no water. Baptismal rates have plummeted with the decline of Christianity, and not only are there no signs of any kind of Germanic spiritual renewal, but things have become drastically worse. No doubt most punk rockers and faggots would also like to see an end to baptism.

You're also overlooking the fact that traditional Christianity reinforced a number social values that are critical for maintaining healthy communities, and without which we're left with a bunch of faggots, punk rockers, and other assorted pieces of trash. Some of these types might even adopt racial views, but they do us no good because in every other aspect of their lives they are completely degenerate. They simply use "anti-Christianity" as a means to justify their sordid lifestyles.

Jäger
Wednesday, March 30th, 2011, 08:45 AM
This argument holds no water. Baptismal rates have plummeted with the decline of Christianity, and not only are there no signs of any kind of Germanic spiritual renewal, but things have become drastically worse.
It's a necessary prerequisite, not a sufficient one.


You're also overlooking the fact that traditional Christianity reinforced a number social values that are critical for maintaining healthy communities, and without which we're left with a bunch of faggots, punk rockers, and other assorted pieces of trash.
I prefer virtue over moral, in any case, I already acknowledged the political merit of Christianity, yet, it is evidently not the only way, and certainly not the best one.

Reubenels
Thursday, July 14th, 2011, 05:58 PM
Because it is wrong. Yahweh was never with us.
You are so Right for only he that seeks God in his life whould allow him to enter and have a feast with him.

For God our Father say's that I Give you your will {I"ll be damed} a merciful God !!! and i leave my will unto you
so yes you are right he has not yet come for you!! as your will stands in the way as from the beginning with Man and his kind.!!!
seek and you shall find.

Primus
Thursday, July 14th, 2011, 06:41 PM
Christianity bound our people more together than heathenism did.

Was papal authority really a good source of unity?

Nachtengel
Thursday, December 15th, 2011, 01:51 PM
BBC News

A study using census data from nine countries shows that religion there is set for extinction, say researchers. The study found a steady rise in those claiming no religious affiliation. ... The team took census data stretching back as far as a century from countries in which the census queried religious affiliation: Australia, Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Switzerland ... In all the countries, the indications were that religion was headed toward extinction.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12811197

The Aesthete
Thursday, December 15th, 2011, 02:01 PM
Not Islam

Hersir
Thursday, December 15th, 2011, 03:37 PM
Religion declining, liberalism rising.

Karpaten Befreier
Saturday, December 17th, 2011, 06:01 PM
Religion declining in Ireland? Even there? Religion, in whatever form, creates an "other-ness" about those who don't follow it. Without it, the views of people are more liberal (usually) and everyone is supposedly the same. I wonder if our ancestors ever saw this as a possibility.