PDA

View Full Version : What is Your Religion/Faith?



Pages : [1] 2 3

Von Braun
Wednesday, February 12th, 2003, 04:14 AM
I think a thread debating the merits and compatibility of one's faith (or lack therof) with white nationalism would be an excellent, intellectually stimulating thing.

I am an agnostic who leans toward atheism. However, it is hard, if not impossible to prove an exhaustive claim that there is no god, but IMHO the case against god is much stronger than the case for god's existence. In fact, I strongly doubt the existence of anything supernatural. I could be described as a reductionist and a naturalist. I believe that ultimately, everything can be explained by a few laws and a few basic building blocks (reductionist), and I also think the universe is a closed system (naturalist).

Von Braun
Wednesday, February 12th, 2003, 04:45 AM
Yes, christianity may have been "aryanized" to some extent by our ancestors, but that does not change the fact that it is some of the most destructive, silly, innane horse shit ever to be believed by man on such a large scale. To this day, our whole race is bending over and taking it because of this vile plague (read: mainstream christians loving kikes so damn much).

:hang

Azdaja
Wednesday, February 12th, 2003, 12:43 PM
I picked "other", even though I do not really follow a "religion". Here is an essay I wrote about my spiritual beleifs:

http://hometown.aol.com/xikalosxi/

Ederico
Wednesday, February 12th, 2003, 06:45 PM
I am still trying to define my Spiritual views. One thing that is definite is that I reject Christianity.

cosmocreator
Wednesday, February 12th, 2003, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by Kalos
I picked "other", even though I do not really follow a "religion". Here is an essay I wrote about my spiritual beleifs:

http://hometown.aol.com/xikalosxi/


I picked other as well. Curious as to why it only shows one vote.

Moody
Saturday, February 15th, 2003, 04:58 PM
I notice that 'other' outstrips the rest at present [I voted 'other' as well].

Seeing as I am a Nationalist, I can only conclude that Nationalism is my religion.

Ominous Lord Spoonblade
Tuesday, February 18th, 2003, 03:35 AM
I do not follow any spiritual belief system. I describe myself as agnostic rather than atheist for the simple reason that I believe that there may be a "higher power" or supernatural forces that exist but may manifest themselves in Science rather than a God or Gods.

I believe science is "god" (I do not really want to call it "god", that's just for lack of words) because our pagan ancestors had Gods to explain how the world worked; why the seasons changed, why the sun set, etc....and now we have science to explain to us why things work the way they do. They are not that different if you look at it that way. Our belief systems evolved as we evolved.

Look at how today's Christians try hard to prove that science and the bible can work together, or that science cannot prove the bible wrong. They can't do it, so they label forms of science as blasphemous or as immoral. We have evolved past Judeo-chrisitianity. I personally don't care if anyone is Christian, and I believe the Bible has many lessons and is well worth reading. But as an agnostic I have far more respect (and a great deal of respect at that) for the old pagan beliefs of our peoples. Whether or not I necessarily believe in anything spiritual I can appreciate a belief system which allows us to get in touch with our ancestors and feel a spiritual connection to them in our hearts......I believe spirituality is not limited to belief systems but that's another subject.. :ultrawink

Moody
Tuesday, February 18th, 2003, 07:10 AM
I personally believe that Nationalism replaced religion amongst Europeans.

The sort of 'group membership' important in religion became a private thing once Church and State were separated.
Nationalism returns this spiritualised bonding to the public sphere.

This is why liberal anti-nationalist propaganda is destroying the SOUL of the White Race.

Azdaja
Tuesday, February 18th, 2003, 02:24 PM
<< The sort of 'group membership' important in religion became a private thing once Church and State were separated.
Nationalism returns this spiritualised bonding to the public sphere. >>

You hit the nail right on the head! True Nationalism gives citizens a sense of Fraternity. A "spiritualised bonding" as you say, which is a perfect way of putting it.

Moody
Tuesday, February 18th, 2003, 05:16 PM
And that's why I had to vote 'Other' ...

The spiritual aspect of Nationalism as a religion is not included in the poll choices.
The nearest would be pre-Christian European Nature religion, but that's not near enough, because paganism is as much pre-National as it is pre-Christian.

The movement of European Nationalism, coming out of the 19th century, and being refined in the 20th, is the spiritual binding [re-ligio] of the White Race.

Ederico
Tuesday, February 25th, 2003, 05:14 PM
The idea that Nationalism revitalises the Soul of the White European peoples is highly interesting. Religion serves to bind the Masses under one cohesive banner in the name of an ideal or set of ideals which result in a complete answering of the questions posed by life. Alternatively a better term instead of Religion is Spiritualism, yet Religion is Organised Spiritualism with as in the past an Authoritarian Structure supported by Dogma to be followed by blind faith.

Nationalism must supercede this Authoritarian Religion and instate a new creed, the new creed in my opinion should be Pan-Aryan/European Racialism, the deification of our Race, as in Our Race Is Our Religion, which is a statement which I found positive and worthy of support. It is time that Racialism departs slightly from the Racial and enters the Philosophical, Political, and Spiritual realm, to offer a complete World-View. The closest we have arrived to this was National Socialism, yet it is time to enter a new dimension and build upon, not glorify our ideological past, let us think of the present to set the foundation for the future.

Jack
Saturday, April 19th, 2003, 07:21 AM
I'm still figuring mine out, but as it stands I'm anti-Christian, pro-Nietzsche, pro-European White Nationalist. Just figuring out the metaphysics of it, but for the moment I stand as a sort of existentialist.

Katinkatze
Sunday, May 4th, 2003, 01:50 PM
I classify myself as an Atheist, tho most times I'd rather see myself as a Naturalist... I just find that there is always a reasonable explanation for all that happens around us... be it what it is... I actually think that religion was all invented by ignorance in the past and it just happend to be such a high ignorance that it got passed on generation to generation... what i mean by ignorance is that before if a natural thing was unexplicable the the human mind it must have been definitely a sign by a god of some sort... like example if there was a huge storm or an earth quake or a volcanoe erruption the gods must be angry for something us humans did and are seeking revenges... something within those lines anyway. But what perplexes me is how till today there are people who still insist on believing on such a thing as god? When there are so many theories and proofs on how earth was created by the big bang people still insist god created it...when there are so many proofs that every living organism has developed from another living organism over years there are still people who insist that every living thing was brought into this world for gods pleasure... I fail to see how this whole god thing makes sense to some people out there...

Einherjar
Tuesday, May 13th, 2003, 02:09 PM
I chose other, becase "I practice one of the nature-based religions of pre-christian Europe" - sounds fruity and gahy.

:viking :viking

ROMA
Tuesday, May 13th, 2003, 07:29 PM
Vedic,Aryan

non barbarian

Jack
Tuesday, July 8th, 2003, 12:42 PM
Ah, interesting question. I know we have a "what is your religion" thread here, but this isn't quite the same. Personally I thought the other thread was a bit narrow. The difference between Faith and Religion in my opinion is that Faith is personal and independent of social structures while Religion is not.

So I'm going to explain the options I'll put here, because I hope this covers more area than the other one did.

Roman Catholic: Pre-Vatican Council Catholicism.

Protestant: Covers Lutheran and Anglican Protestantism.

Orthodox: Russian, Greek, and Eastern Christian Orthodox religions.

Christian Identity: That's not really Christianity IMO, but that's why I'm seperating it from the other branches. Mormons go under this too.

Luciferians/Satanists: Note I typed a most describing the basics of Luciferianism in the Philosophy forum - there's similarities between Satanism and Luciferianism, but Luciferianism is more hero-orientated and as you can tell from my post, it can be racialist.

Nietzscheanism: For those in favour of Nietzsche's Übermensch, this is your choice.

Hinduism: Yes, I realise this does not exist (as Rahul contests), but for the definition of this poll it covers the ideals behind the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita.

Buddhism: People have expressed interest in this philosophy (I decline to call it a religion), so here's the option.

Islam: Yes, the Muslims. Judaism isn't an option because they shouldn't even be here, but there could be an Muslim here (Iranians are an Indo-European people).

Creators: There could be a few here...

Atheists/Agnostics: For those who hate the idea of God and also for those who simply don't care...

Neo-Pagan: Covers Asatru/Odinists and modern attempts to revive pre-Christian European religions. Covers the NS cultists too.

Secular Humanists: For the leftist fools who claim what is good for "humanity" is the ultimate good.

Milesian
Tuesday, July 8th, 2003, 01:05 PM
Pre-Vatican II RC :)

Tryggvi
Tuesday, July 8th, 2003, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by Anarch
Roman Catholic: Pre-Vatican Council Catholicism. What about post-Vatican II Catholics (what covers almost all Catholics)?


Secular Humanists: For the leftist fools who claim what is good for "humanity" is the ultimate good. Do you claim otherwise?

I wish that would be a multiple-choice poll. I suffer from a split personality when it comes to faith.

Ederico
Tuesday, July 8th, 2003, 01:38 PM
The choices are restrictive for myself. I lean towards Pantheism and Deism, with an interest in Nietzscheanism and Luciferianism and also a mostly cultural interest in Paganism. I believe in God/s, therefore I am not an Atheist.

Jack
Tuesday, July 8th, 2003, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by Tryggvi
What about post-Vatican II Catholics (what covers almost all Catholics)?

Do you claim otherwise?

I wish that would be a multiple-choice poll. I suffer from a split personality when it comes to faith.post-Vatican II catholics... ugh. Same option then. I put pre-Vatican II Catholics because of an interesting article I read a few days ago - this one (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.or iginaldissent.com%2Findex.php%3Fshowtopi c%3D9134%26view%3Dgetnewpost).

I should've made it a multiple choice poll, but unfortunately i can't edit it now :(

Allenson
Tuesday, July 8th, 2003, 02:08 PM
I am a denizen of Heathendom....

Rahul
Tuesday, July 8th, 2003, 03:20 PM
Alright Anarch.

I have listed Hindu as my religion. If Hindu is used by one to describe someone who has Upanishads and Vedas as the existential philosophies and conceptions.

I am not going to contest on this anymore.

Milesian
Tuesday, July 8th, 2003, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by Tryggvi
What about post-Vatican II Catholics (what covers almost all Catholics)? - Thorburn I'd be suprised if any of the Concilliar Catholics felt at home here.

Azdaja
Tuesday, July 8th, 2003, 09:42 PM
If there was an 'other' option, that would be my pick.

Ederico
Tuesday, July 8th, 2003, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by Azdaja
If there was an 'other' option, that would be my pick.

You have it now. :prost

Conquistador
Wednesday, July 9th, 2003, 12:06 AM
Somewhere between Catholicism and Nietzscheanism. As a result, I was forced to pick 'Other'. I am at conflict right now concerning my religious beliefs.

Jack
Wednesday, July 9th, 2003, 03:24 AM
Rahul, sorry about limiting the options like that, but "Hinduism" is all we of the West know the collection of philosophies and religions in India/Bharat as (excluding Buddhism and Islam

Conquistador, perhaps if you could explain your cross of Nietzscheanism and Catholicism I might be able to help with the right option...

Personally, while not knowing a great deal about Catholicism, I would suggest that your mix might end you up with Luciferianism.

Just for the purposes of keeping this thread alive, anyone want to go through the religious/spiritual phases they've gone through? I'll go first.

Anglican Christian
Agnostic
Atheist
Sunni Muslim
(NS)
Atheist
(WN)
Agnostic Buddhist
(NB)
Nietzschean
Hindu (Upanishads only)
Nietzschean
Modified Satanist
Luciferian

Conquistador
Wednesday, July 9th, 2003, 07:17 PM
My spiritual phases

Catholicism
Roman God Worship (Mars)
Catholicism
Agnostic
Catholicism
Atheism (This didn't last long.)
Roman God Worship (Mars)
Catholicism (Somewhat now)
Nietzscheanism (Now)

Roman God Worship (Mars)??? Probably again...

Currently, I am dissatisfied and disillusioned with Catholicism and Christianity, in general. Mainly because I had one Anti-Catholic parent who had a profound influence on my views of the religion and plus I am disgusted with the actions of certain priests and clergymen within the church.

Nietzscheanism, right now, is what I have the most interest in.

Milesian
Wednesday, July 9th, 2003, 08:25 PM
My phases:

Atheism
Roman Catholicism (Mainstream Post-Vatican II Concilliar)
Roman Catholicism (Traditional Pre-Vatican II)

I was brought up a Catholic but my athiest father instilled a love for reason and science and to ridicule religion and those who adhered to religions as simple minded fools.
Once I became old enough to think for myself, I became interested in my heritage (of which Catholicism was a large part).
Once my research of my faith brought me to the truth about Catholicism (ie that since the 1960's Catholicism has been infiltrated, warped and usurped by Jews, Freemasons, Homosexuals and other perverts in attempts to discredit the Church and ultimately cause it's collapse, I've became very dedicated to rooting out this cancer and restoring the true faith and the doctrines which have been tossed aside by wicked men.

I'm on a mission :)

Conquistador
Wednesday, July 9th, 2003, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by Milesian
I'm on a mission :)

May success follow thou. :pope

Milesian
Wednesday, July 9th, 2003, 09:33 PM
God bless you my child :D

Conquistador
Wednesday, July 9th, 2003, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by Milesian
God bless you my child :D

SILENCE HUMAN! I am no one's child...maybe except Lucifier's, :evil but that's a different story I will not delve into. :o

Milesian
Wednesday, July 9th, 2003, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by Conquistador
SILENCE HUMAN! I am no one's child...maybe except Lucifier's, :evil but that's a different story I will not delve into. :o

"You belong to your father, the Devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell you the truth, you do not believe me!"

Come on Conquistador, give yourself over to the light side of the Force :smilies

Loki
Wednesday, July 9th, 2003, 10:12 PM
I picked Atheist/Agnostic.

Until about 2 years ago, I was a very committed Evangelical Christian. Then intellectualism, reason, evolution, race, logic, etc etc got the better of me. ;) I think I have finally broken with my religious past - I will never view religion in the same traditional fatalistic sense again. I do retain some *cultural* interest in religion.... I mean it is part of Europe's history and evolution. And I am fascinated with the pre-Christian religions of Europe, especially Norse/Germanic paganism. Thus, I like to read up on Asatru, Hindrvitni, etc.

Conquistador
Wednesday, July 9th, 2003, 10:23 PM
Originally posted by Milesian
"You belong to your father, the Devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell you the truth, you do not believe me!"

Come on Conquistador, give yourself over to the light side of the Force :smilies

It IS too late. I have given myself to the Philosophy of Nietzsche and to the Roman God, Mars.

You will cease and halt this fanatical crusade of yours to "save my eternal soul", otherwise, I will be forced to crucify you as a sacrifice to the Roman God of War. MUHAHAHAHA...really.

:crucified

Thorburn
Wednesday, July 9th, 2003, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by Milesian
Once my research of my faith brought me to the truth about Catholicism (ie that since the 1960's Catholicism has been infiltrated, warped and usurped by Jews, Freemasons, Homosexuals and other perverts in attempts to discredit the Church and ultimately cause it's collapse, I've became very dedicated to rooting out this cancer and restoring the true faith and the doctrines which have been tossed aside by wicked men.

I'm on a mission :) Which "doctrines" were in your view changed and what deviations from the "true faith" were in your view introduced by Vaticanum II?

Stríbog
Wednesday, July 9th, 2003, 11:05 PM
I'm guessing the usual ones brought up by Catholics who oppose Vatican II: Masses should still be rendered in Latin; non-Catholics are hell-bound, etc.

This is an anti- Vatican II traditional Catholic site:
http://www.truecatholic.org/

Milesian
Wednesday, July 9th, 2003, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by Thorburn
Which "doctrines" were in your view changed and what deviations from the "true faith" were in your view introduced by Vaticanum II?

- Thorburn Hi Thorburn,

Well there are many subtle and not so subtle changes.
The greatest threat is the heresy of Modernism, (which the clergy are no longer asked to take an oath against)
The changes in the Mass (changed from the "Tridentine" Latin Mass to the "Novus Ordo Missae" or "New Order of the Mass") means basicaly that the Mass today is a Protestantised Mass. In fact it resembles Luther's "Evangelical Mass" more than a proper Catholic Mass. Even down to priest facing the people, falsifying the Words of Consecration, removing part of the missal and replacing it with Lutheran prayers etc.
It was created by Annibale Buignini, who was on numerous occasions practically "exiled" from the Vatican before being allowed back by his cronies so he could construct the New Mass. He was later discovered to have been a high ranking Freemason and exiled in disgrace. He described the New Mass as "B]A major conquest of the Catholic Church[/b] ".
The False Ecumenicism whereby JPII declares all religions to be good, Jews are our brothers,etc which are in direct contradiction to the teaching of the Church through the ages.
The denial of such fundamental doctrines as "Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus ".
Orders to "tolerate" rather than convert.
The Church is no longer the "Church Militant" but rather a humanistic, feel-good, human religion.
JPII is loved by the world, everyone think's he's a great man, a man of peace. He basicaly has a Cult of Personality about him.
I think he would have been better being a rock star.
He only wants to look good. To make the Church attractive to people. He apologises for things he has no right to (the Crusades,etc) and scandalises the Church.
He still speaks against abortions, women priests,etc.
But he does so only so that he can appear to be conservative. He is as liberal as the last couple of Popes.

In essence, everything is going to plan according to the goals of the Italian Masonic sect, the "Alta Vendita" who spoke of how the centuries long fight to destroy the Church and turn the people against it had changed to subverting the Church, raising up a Pope who was imbued with their ideals, and make the Church serve their interests.
"Let the clergy march under our banners, all the while thinking that they march under the Apostolic keys".

Vatican II was the fulfilment of that goal.
One Vatican offical described Vatican II as "The French Revolution of the Catholic Church"

There are some good Traditionalists out there who still hold the correct Pre-Vatican II faith though we are few in number, but we are spread throughtout Europe, North America and Australia.

I guess I've already went on too much and I've not even scratched the surface yet, but hope it's gave you some idea.

Milesian
Wednesday, July 9th, 2003, 11:13 PM
Striborg, the site you posted is actually run by a nutcase and isn't a good example. He is a Sedevacantist and a crazy one at that. He's shunned by other Tradionalists.
Here's a better one : http://www.romancatholicism.org/

http://www.catholicism.org/

CelticLover
Thursday, July 10th, 2003, 02:42 AM
Originally posted by Milesian
Once I became old enough to think for myself, I became interested in my heritage (of which Catholicism was a large part).
Once my research of my faith brought me to the truth about Catholicism (ie that since the 1960's Catholicism has been infiltrated, warped and usurped by Jews, Freemasons, Homosexuals and other perverts in attempts to discredit the Church and ultimately cause it's collapse, I've became very dedicated to rooting out this cancer and restoring the true faith and the doctrines which have been tossed aside by wicked men.

I'm on a mission :)

:thumbup :thumbup :bravo Your post really made me smile. I agree 100% with your assessment of what's been happening to the Catholic Church since the 60's.

Jack
Thursday, July 10th, 2003, 05:12 AM
Originally posted by Milesian
"You belong to your father, the Devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell you the truth, you do not believe me!"

Come on Conquistador, give yourself over to the light side of the Force :smilies

Peace is War
Tolerance is Hate
Ignorance is Power

Lucifer gave us the fruit of knowledge. Then Cain killed Abel because Abel was a fool and handed over what mattered most to him. God exiled both. Lucifer did more favours for us than God ever did. Read the Apocalypse and you might begin to think God is the Devil... Lucifer, the eternal guerilla. :smilies

Stríbog
Thursday, July 10th, 2003, 05:15 AM
Hail Lucifer, bringer of Light and Wisdom!! :prost

Conquistador
Thursday, July 10th, 2003, 05:18 AM
Originally posted by Anarch
Peace is War
Tolerance is Hate
Ignorance is Power

Lucifer gave us the fruit of knowledge. Then Cain killed Abel because Abel was a fool and handed over what mattered most to him. God exiled both. Lucifer did more favours for us than God ever did. Read the Apocalypse and you might begin to think God is the Devil... Lucifer, the eternal guerilla. :smilies

I will NOT acknowledge Lucifer as I do not acknowledge Christianity. In other words, acknowledge one, you automatically acknowledge the other. I prefer the Gods of my Romanized ancestors.

Milesian
Thursday, July 10th, 2003, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by CelticLover
:thumbup :thumbup :bravo Your post really made me smile. I agree 100% with your assessment of what's been happening to the Catholic Church since the 60's.

Yay! another Trad!
We'll have to enlighten these poor beknighted creatures here, I see. They've succumbed to Jewish deception and manipulation and reverted to a state of primitive paganism. Soon they'll be dancing naked in forests and offering human sacrifices LOL! ;)

Milesian
Thursday, July 10th, 2003, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by Conquistador
I will NOT acknowledge Lucifer as I do not acknowledge Christianity. In other words, acknowledge one, you automatically acknowledge the other. I prefer the Gods of my Romanized ancestors.

You mean your Romanised ancestors before they became civilised and seen the light?
:D

Jack
Thursday, July 10th, 2003, 01:25 PM
I will NOT acknowledge Lucifer as I do not acknowledge Christianity.

God becomes a symbol of illegitimate authority :D

Stribog understands :thumbup

Azdaja
Thursday, July 10th, 2003, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by Milesian
You mean your Romanised ancestors before they became civilised and seen the light?
:D

Actually, didn't the Roman Empire fall relatively shortly after Constantine accepted Christianity? ;)

Azdaja
Thursday, July 10th, 2003, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by Anarch
Lucifer gave us the fruit of knowledge. Then Cain killed Abel because Abel was a fool and handed over what mattered most to him. God exiled both. Lucifer did more favours for us than God ever did. Read the Apocalypse and you might begin to think God is the Devil... Lucifer, the eternal guerilla. :smilies

My interpretation of some of this.

The "Giver of Knowledge":

This is the serpent. The Hebrew word used in Genesis is "Nechash", spelt Nun (N) Cheth (Ch) Shin (Sh).
1) Hebrew letters have number values. N = 50, Ch = 8, Sh = 300. 300 + 50 + 8 = 358.
Another word that has the value of 358 is MShICh; Messiah.
Because these 2 words have the same numerical value, they are said to have a relationship with one another.
2) In later times people began associating the Tarot trumps with the Hebrew letters and elements, planets, zodiacal signs.
Nun = Death/Scorpio
Cheth = Chariot/Cancer
Shin = Final Judgement/Fire and Spirit
Reading this as a phrase, we find:
"Death (or the Serpent, for Scorpio is scorpion, snake, and eagle) is the Chariot of the Spirit (Messiah)
This backs up the interpretations of the first Qabalists:
The serpent (ie: principal of death) exists so that rebirth/redemption (ie: Messiah) can exist.

In this world of Illusions, Knowledge is a false crown.

Abel and Cain are Ego and Alter Ego. Both are equally necessary.

Milesian
Thursday, July 10th, 2003, 07:04 PM
Originally posted by Azdaja
Actually, didn't the Roman Empire fall relatively shortly after Constantine accepted Christianity? ;)

Pfft...a minor set back ;)
Anyway, didn't Spain enjoy it's imperial golden age during the height of the Catholic Church's power. Viva Ferdinand y Isabella!
Viva la Inquisition! :D

Conquistador
Friday, July 11th, 2003, 02:53 AM
Originally posted by Milesian
You mean your Romanised ancestors before they became civilised and seen the light?
:D

Actually, it's my Basque, Iberianized, Celticized, Romanized ancestors before they "saw the light".

Conquistador
Friday, July 11th, 2003, 03:13 AM
Originally posted by Milesian
Pfft...a minor set back ;)
Anyway, didn't Spain enjoy it's imperial golden age during the height of the Catholic Church's power. Viva Ferdinand y Isabella!
Viva la Inquisition! :D

Spain enjoyed its "golden" age when Isabella REFORMED the Spanish/Castilian Church little by little by replacing the corrupt priests with more pious ones. If you may know, which I somewhat doubt you remember, Isabella was an extremely PIOUS and RELIGIOUS Catholic, she wanted purity in Spain, in the Church (even in the clergy), and in the people; EVERYWHERE and in EVERY PLACE that she controlled before her death in November of 1504. This was decades before the Protestant Reformation ever took hold in Europe; and also with the advice of Ferdinand the Second, her husband, ('Fernando' in Castilian), she had taken away the powers of the Castilian nobles who did nothing but took turns stealing from the national treasury ever so freaking often. Also, by clever design she had introduced Humanism into Castille and Aragón which allowed Castilian, Aragonese, Galician, and Catalan literature to flourish en masse. The Spanish Imperium was maintained on GOLD and SILVER and everything else of commerical worth the Conquistadors had taken from the Americas in order to fund religious wars against the Protestants and chiefly against the Muslims threatening to invade Europe.

And Milesian, one other thing, don't try to take pride in things the Spanish have done in the centuries that have passed, that's only reserved for me and ME alone. :D

*VIVA YSABEL! Mi reyna de coraçónes.

CelticLover
Friday, July 11th, 2003, 05:15 AM
Originally posted by Milesian
Yay! another Trad!
We'll have to enlighten these poor beknighted creatures here, I see. They've succumbed to Jewish deception and manipulation and reverted to a state of primitive paganism. Soon they'll be dancing naked in forests and offering human sacrifices LOL! ;)

LOL - I'll leave you to enlighten these poor paganistic people :D You seem to be doing a good job at it :) Seriously, though...I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic school my whole life, etc. Unfortunately, I guess you could say I've "fallen away" from it, but I do still hold very traditional and conservative beliefs - so the whole topic does interest me very much. It's a shame what has happened to the Church these last 30 years - and especially what has been happening these last couple of years! (I think it all stems from allowing gays in the priesthood, but anyhow...). Carry on with your conversations, I'm really enjoying them :peace :prost

Tore
Friday, July 11th, 2003, 06:48 AM
I voted other.

If this question had been presented to me two years ago, I would have voted Protestant, no question about it, yet I no longer affiliate myself with the church I once attended and the philosophy that is stands for.

I find myself becoming less and less of a christian each and every day, and I am slowly and gradually becoming more individualistic spiritually.

It just takes time after being raised in a religious (christian) environment.

In the past year or so, I haven't given much thought to my religious beliefs, and having largely dissociated myself from christianity, it may take time for me to redefine them.

Loki
Friday, July 11th, 2003, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by Trřnder
I voted other.

If this question had been presented to me two years ago, I would have voted Protestant, no question about it, yet I no longer affiliate myself with the church I once attended and the philosophy that is stands for.

I find myself becoming less and less of a christian each and every day, and I am slowly and gradually becoming more individualistic spiritually.

It just takes time after being raised in a religious (christian) environment.

In the past year or so, I haven't given much thought to my religious beliefs, and having largely dissociated myself from christianity, it may take time for me to redefine them.

It seems you are going through exactly what I went through about a year or two ago.... I can identify with everything you said. Yes, it is very difficult to break with a religion, with which you had close ties. Extremely difficult.

Milesian
Friday, July 11th, 2003, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by Conquistador
Spain enjoyed its "golden" age when Isabella REFORMED the Spanish/Castilian Church little by little by replacing the corrupt priests with more pious ones. If you may know, which I somewhat doubt you remember, Isabella was an extremely PIOUS and RELIGIOUS Catholic, she wanted purity in Spain, in the Church (even in the clergy), and in the people; EVERYWHERE and in EVERY PLACE that she controlled before her death in November of 1504.

She didn't so much "reform" then as "restore" the Church to purity. Replacing corrupt priests with Pious ones is what Traditional Catholicism is all about. Isabella sounds an extraordinary woman. It's a shame I can't meet her...well not in this life anyway ;)

Also, by clever design she had introduced Humanism into Castille and Aragón

Ah well, nobody is perfect :D

And Milesian, one other thing, don't try to take pride in things the Spanish have done in the centuries that have passed, that's only reserved for me and ME alone.

I know, taking pride in white achievements was rather silly of me. I promise it won't happen again
:roll

Conquistador
Friday, July 11th, 2003, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by Milesian
...I know, taking pride in white achievements was rather silly of me. I promise it won't happen again
:roll

It gets really annoying after a while. It's like a White American saying: *VIVA MÉXICO! or LONG LIVE THE CHINESE!!! :rollani You get the idea...

Grimr
Friday, July 11th, 2003, 10:22 PM
I think there should be a Eugenics religion... Rather you should be able to count Eugenics as a religion.

Conquistador
Friday, July 11th, 2003, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by Prospero
I think there should be a Eugenics religion... Rather you should be able to count Eugenics as a religion.

I agree also. Maybe the moderators should add it as an option on the poll?

On another note, your signature SCARES me, Prospero. :sick

Tore
Friday, July 11th, 2003, 10:51 PM
It seems you are going through exactly what I went through about a year or two ago.... I can identify with everything you said. Yes, it is very difficult to break with a religion, with which you had close ties. Extremely difficult.

The fact that my church began accepting homosexuals has made it that much easier. :shoot

Milesian
Saturday, July 12th, 2003, 02:27 AM
Originally posted by Conquistador
It gets really annoying after a while. It's like a White American saying: *VIVA MÉXICO! or LONG LIVE THE CHINESE!!! :rollani You get the idea...

But we're both white aren't we? Mexicans or Chinese are different races from white Americans.
Well perhaps my ancestors (Sons of Mil Espane) where in Iberia before yours, but I guess if you don't want me associating with Spain then so be it. ;)

Conquistador
Saturday, July 12th, 2003, 04:35 AM
Originally posted by Milesian
But we're both white aren't we? Mexicans or Chinese are different races from white Americans.
Well perhaps my ancestors (Sons of Mil Espane) where in Iberia before yours, but I guess if you don't want me associating with Spain then so be it. ;)

Almost half of my ancestry is Basque. WHICH means I have a more stronger claim to "Spain" than you do. ;)

But you are right to a certain extent; the Irish (from the first Celtic wave of invasion into IBERIA) did come from IBERIA, before the second wave of Hallstatt Brythonic-speaking Celts invaded "Spain".

PS: I hate to refer Ancient Iberia as "Spain", especially since the concept of "Spain" as a nation-state wasn't created until the Late 15th century A.D,. :rollani

BullyBoy88
Saturday, July 12th, 2003, 10:16 AM
Luciferian.


Phases:
Nothing untill 8 years old then picked up a Satanic Bible my brother had when I was 9.
Satanist untill 13
Luciferian since 13.

Strange I know. *Shrug*

Evolved
Wednesday, July 16th, 2003, 08:02 AM
Satanists & "goths" are usually geeky and defective narcissists seeking attention. :P

I'm in a spiritual transition, I want to go to heaven. :halo

Götterschicksal
Thursday, July 17th, 2003, 08:02 AM
:viking

I believe in the values of my ancestors. I am not a pagan. I am a atheist. I accept the stories of the gods as lessons and stories for our people. My ancestors knew, everything dies, even gods. Baldur was slain by Hödur, Baldur - a god - died. So will we all. I believe there is no wake from our sleep. No life after the death.
Therefore we must make the best our life.

:pope <-- Christianity enslaved our people too long.

Milesian
Thursday, July 17th, 2003, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by Götterschicksal


:pope <-- Christianity enslaved our people too long.

In what way?

Götterschicksal
Thursday, July 17th, 2003, 09:25 AM
Spiritually

Fenris
Thursday, July 17th, 2003, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by Milesian
In what way?

Christians destroyed our holy sites, using the stones thereof to build their temples atop the ruins of sites that long predated a faith that arose in the cradle of jewdom, they force-baptised our people, tried diluting our indigenous faiths, most of christianity's "Saints" and "festivals" predate the religion by thousands of years. If you see churches in England and other white nations that are built on hillocks, generally they sit atop what was once an indigenous holy site. The larger rubble-shaped stones incorporated into the architecture are usually the remains of the previous site.



In response to the poll, I selected other, as my beliefs and philosophy are a personally-forged amalgam of ideals taken from Satanism (not the plastic-cape-and-horns sacrificing chickens in graveyards devil worship shite), Asatru, Odalism, Nietzscheanism, and the general belief that it is possible to elevate one's consciousness beyond its original bounds and achieve a state of Xeper, which is a principle put forward by Michael Aquino's Temple of Set whereby one overcome's one's boundaries. Xeper is a moment of divine clarity where one realises their true place as a separate entity in the cosmos, one that is in control of their own destiny.

I remember when I was 8, trapped in a Methodist primary school, standing up in the middle of religious education class and declaring that I didn't want to learn about christianity because I was a heathen.


My only interests in the church are:

In Gregorian canto, because the use of the voice is an important tool in will-work, the proper projection and intonation of syllables in incantations brings with it a centering, focusing effect to the mind. that and canto has a deeply serene air to it and it's a good, relaxing listen when one wants to chill out.

In researching all the annexed, incorporated and stolen ideals/festivals/symbology/etc taken from our indigenous religions.

Milesian
Thursday, July 17th, 2003, 12:36 PM
I see, and do you actually believe in these primitive religions that our ancestors practiced thousands of years ago?
I'm just interested because I'm not sure what percentage simply practice them out of remembrance and a notion that they are somehow honouring the ancestors by regressing to these beliefs again, and what percentage actually do believe in the pagan gods and goddesses and their supposed powers.

It's just that Christianity has been part of White European civilisation for millenia now and Europe has thrived under it, only declining now that people seem to be giving up on Christianity and turning to any other novelty they can find.
I consider rejecting Christianity to be dishonouring thousands of years of European culture and the billions of our ancestors who lived, breathed and died for that faith.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic anymore than you were, it's just I'm curious about the ultimate motives behind people who are going back to paganism (or even things like Stanism, Temple of Set etc which I doubt were practised by our European ancestors.)
If you really do believe in our old Gods, which ones?
The Germanic pantheon? The Goidelic Celtic pantheon? The Brythonic Celtic pantheon? The Slavic pantheon?

Any info you could give me would be appreciated

Fenris
Thursday, July 17th, 2003, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by Milesian
I see, and do you actually believe in these primitive religions that our ancestors practiced thousands of years ago?
I'm just interested because I'm not sure what percentage simply practice them out of remembrance and a notion that they are somehow honouring the ancestors by regressing to these beliefs again, and what percentage actually do believe in the pagan gods and goddesses and their supposed powers.


Questioning someone's belief in their god(s)/goddess(es) while espousing belief in an entirely separate god is always something I've found hypocritical. Not that I'm insulting you Milesian, To use a metaphorical situation, my beliefs are "my garden", and your beliefs are "your garden", between our gardens is a fence, that fence is the simple respect for one another's beliefs. We both have gardens, and we're both entitled to our own garden. I like my garden, you like your garden, and we are both content with our gardens.

Of course, re-reading that entire garden metaphor probably makes me sound weird. (I am, heh)


Originally posted by Milesian

It's just that Christianity has been part of White European civilisation for millenia now and Europe has thrived under it, only declining now that people seem to be giving up on Christianity and turning to any other novelty they can find.
I consider rejecting Christianity to be dishonouring thousands of years of European culture and the billions of our ancestors who lived, breathed and died for that faith.



And the indigenous faiths were a part of our culture long before christianity (you'll forgive me if I don't capitalise the word, I don't hold it in sufficient esteem to do so) came along and incorporated sections of our faiths while denigrating and denouncing the rest as devil worship. Embracing christianity is, to me a sign of submission to an invader, for the faith of christianity invaded our ancestral lands and destroyed that which came before it without good cause. In doing so, it is dishonoring the billions of our ancestors who lived, breathed and died for their culture's faith.



Originally posted by Milesian

I'm not trying to be antagonistic anymore than you were, it's just I'm curious about the ultimate motives behind people who are going back to paganism (or even things like Stanism, Temple of Set etc which I doubt were practised by our European ancestors.)
If you really do believe in our old Gods, which ones?
The Germanic pantheon? The Goidelic Celtic pantheon? The Brythonic Celtic pantheon? The Slavic pantheon?


I'm not trying to be antagonistic either, moreso explaining my viewpoint, and possibly that of others. I suppose part of the reversion back to our ancestral faiths could have some roots in reverence for our ancestors, and the incorporation of other beliefs being simply personal preference, a case of religious or philosophical progressivism. At least that's how it is to me, I'm looking at that which to me makes sense, and structuring my beliefs based on what I feel, what I know, and what I desire.


Originally posted by Milesian

Any info you could give me would be appreciated

Hopefully a little of my meandering post made sense and helped out in your quest for knowledge M, if not, keep asking questions, because the only dumb question is the one not asked. :prost

Saoirse
Sunday, July 20th, 2003, 08:34 AM
You mean your Romanised ancestors before they became civilised and seen the light?
:D

Seen the light and never to rise again? Doesnt make since.

Saoirse
Sunday, July 20th, 2003, 08:44 AM
I consider rejecting Christianity to be dishonouring thousands of years of European culture and the billions of our ancestors who lived, breathed and died for that faith.


Really? Dishonoring something that sprung up from Judaism?

<l>In all our history books, and especially in religious circles, we are told that Christianity and the Jews were in opposition; that Christ denounced the Jews; that the Jews crucified Christ. Even today we are being told in Kosher Konservative circles that the main objective of the Jews is to destroy Christianity. This is, of course, one of the biggest hoaxes in the history of the world. The facts are plainly there for everyone to see. The Jews concocted Christianity as their special poison to unhinge the minds of the Romans so that they would no longer be able to maintain their civilization. This was the Jews' revenge for the destruction of Jerusalem<l> -- Ben Klassen

Vojvoda
Monday, July 21st, 2003, 06:41 PM
I don't know much about the other Christian faiths but in Orthodoxy paganism survived or was incorporated into it. During Family Saint's Day the man of the house would cut a home-made loaf of bread and pour wine over it. The loaf symbolizes life and the wine symbolizes blood, a sacrifice you could say. This practice is very old and was called "lares familiares " by the Romans. The slavic god Perun became St. Elijah etc.

I don't see anything wrong with Christianity and I do not follow any strict beliefs but many people were persecuted because of their Christian faith in the Balkans and probably would have been persecuted either way for being different from the Ottomans.

Milesian
Sunday, July 27th, 2003, 09:38 AM
Seen the light and never to rise again? Doesnt make since.

Irishben, you've been gone for a while (Just back from holiday myself)and this post, which was said in a tongue-in-cheek fashion, is several weeks old.

You say these people never rose again?
As Romanised Pagans they were merely a province of another people's empire. However, move forward some centuries later to a Christian Spain which was at it's apex THE no.1 superpower, with it's vast and wealthy empire. Christianity was the state religion during it's golden era. How can you say that they never rose again?

Milesian
Sunday, July 27th, 2003, 09:47 AM
Really? Dishonoring something that sprung up from Judaism?

<l>In all our history books, and especially in religious circles, we are told that Christianity and the Jews were in opposition; that Christ denounced the Jews; that the Jews crucified Christ. Even today we are being told in Kosher Konservative circles that the main objective of the Jews is to destroy Christianity. This is, of course, one of the biggest hoaxes in the history of the world. The facts are plainly there for everyone to see. The Jews concocted Christianity as their special poison to unhinge the minds of the Romans so that they would no longer be able to maintain their civilization. This was the Jews' revenge for the destruction of Jerusalem<l> -- Ben Klassen

Well, I'll take your word on what goes on in "Kosher Konservative" circles, Benjamin.
If it is all a great hoax then what about the social handicaps,pogroms, inquisitions, expulsions and other hardships put on Jews by various Christian rulers and states?
The Third REich was hardly the first state to persecute the Jews.
Christian nations had been doing so for centuries.
Pretty drastic measures, I'd say.
Also, if the goal of Christianity was really some kind of revenge to cause the collapse of Roman civilisation then it pretty much backfired.
Rome did collapse (although not due to a adoption of a new religion), but what of the countless Christian European nations which sprung up after Rome? Did the Jews wish for that also? Chrsitian states which treated them harshly? I don't really see the sense in that.

Additionally, there was one part of our past discussions that you didn't clarify.
The part where you said that there was absolutely no evidence to support the existence of Jesus and then you followed it up by a later post claiming that not only do you believe that Jesus DID exist but that he returned to earth in 1914 to rule the world through Britain!
It's an interesting idea if nothing else.
Could you explain your theory further?
Thanks

Scáthach
Sunday, July 27th, 2003, 09:52 PM
religion tends to lose me absolutely.
i was raised catholic and ive had all the rites of passage that i should have had et al but it never made any big impact.
i think being A ''good'' person is common sense and inherent to most, i think not killing your own parents etc is also inherent to most human beings, i fail to see why we need a code of ethics handed down from the catholic church to tell us not to do these things which we would not have done anyway, and then to praise them for apparently keeping us from doing these evils. :hehe

milesian, since your religion is the one i can identify with, could you tell me what you get out of it and what keeps you with it and believing in it?
:)

Saoirse
Sunday, July 27th, 2003, 10:15 PM
"followed it up by a later post claiming that not only do you believe that Jesus DID exist but that he returned to earth in 1914 to rule the world through Britain!"

Great Britain has Hebrew origins written all over it. Their flag shouldnt be called the Union Jack, but the Union of Jacob. And Jesus was a freaking Hebrew. 1914 was WWI.

And I'm pagan.

Milesian
Sunday, July 27th, 2003, 10:16 PM
religion tends to lose me absolutely.
i was raised catholic and ive had all the rites of passage that i should have had et al but it never made any big impact.
i think being A ''good'' person is common sense and inherent to most, i think not killing your own parents etc is also inherent to most human beings, i fail to see why we need a code of ethics handed down from the catholic church to tell us not to do these things which we would not have done anyway, and then to praise them for apparently keeping us from doing these evils. :hehe

milesian, since your religion is the one i can identify with, could you tell me what you get out of it and what keeps you with it and believing in it?
:)

Sure, no probs Scathach.
Like you I was raised Catholic and went through all the "rites of passage". It had little effect on me, in fact I was a confirmed athiest who spent my time telling others not to join in during prayers!
I suspect the reason was probably because what I experienced as "Catholicism" was actually the "Novus Ordo" religion with some of the outward vestiges of Catholicism but essentially at it's core is something modern and unconnected with that faith of 2000 years.

My faith gives me a code of morals to live by and as you said, many of them are common sense and lead to a lawful and stable society.
In saying that there is so much more to it, which I realised when I began to study it in it's pure, unadulterated, pre-Vatican II form.
I was really stunned at how incredibly intricate and complex it was and yet behind it I could glimpse that it all made sense. It's not something that can really be explained to a person without that person having some in depth knowledge as well.
In addition, I view it as something inextricably linked with my heritage.
I see my heritage as being Irish Catholic. I do not envisage one without the other, nor would I wish it so. This faith has been a part of Irish culture as long as any other and I feel that if I were to deny it, I would be ripping a huge chunk out of that heritage and history.
For me St Oliver Plunkett, who died a martyr's death for his faith against the English invaders who tried to force him to convert is as much a hero to me as Cuchallain or Michael Collins.

As for what do I get out of my faith, it's not something that can be put into words. Even if i did, I doubt it would make sense.
To quote the renowned scientist and Catholic convert, John Deering -
"Now that I am in the Catholic church I have a much clearer picture of it's true image. I see in all her vitals the Image of Christ. In the reception of her sacraments I feel His comforting hand; in her pronouncements I hear His authorative,cogent voice; in her manifold world-wide charities I see His love and compassion; in the way she is harassed and vilified I see His agony and humility on Calvary;in her worship I feel His Spirit girding my soul. This compels my obedience. All else is shifting sand"


I hope that makes some kind of sense

Milesian
Sunday, July 27th, 2003, 10:19 PM
"followed it up by a later post claiming that not only do you believe that Jesus DID exist but that he returned to earth in 1914 to rule the world through Britain!"

Great Britain has Hebrew origins written all over it. Their flag shouldnt be called the Union Jack, but the Union of Jacob. And Jesus was a freaking Hebrew. 1914 was WWI.

And I'm pagan.

Ok. Please state these Hebrew origins written all over Britain. I'm not neccesarily arguing with you but you have to back up such claims rather than merely stating that's the case.

Jesus was a "freaking Hebrew" , we both agree.

WWI was taking place in 1914, but I don't understand the implication.
How does that equate with Jesus coming back to earth as the ruler of Britain (which one?) and also the ruler of the world?

Saoirse
Sunday, July 27th, 2003, 10:27 PM
"Ok. Please state these Hebrew origins written all over Britain. I'm not neccesarily arguing with you but you have to back up such claims rather than merely stating that's the case."

http://www.patriotic-flags.com/world/britishisles/gb-ni.gif

Ulster flag with Star of David.

I'll have more later on.

Milesian
Sunday, July 27th, 2003, 10:36 PM
"Ok. Please state these Hebrew origins written all over Britain. I'm not neccesarily arguing with you but you have to back up such claims rather than merely stating that's the case."

http://www.patriotic-flags.com/world/britishisles/gb-ni.gif

Ulster flag with Star of David.

I'll have more later on.

Yes, I have seen that before. It is interesting why they changed the shape from an original shield shape to a six-pointed star.
However, I would feel that the connection between Unionists and Freemasonry probably explains that, although of course Freemasonry is linked to Judaism.

That in itself is not enough to say that Britain is of Hebrew origin.
It's populated primarily by Celts and Anglo-Saxons.
However, I'll wait for the rest of your posts.

Scáthach
Sunday, July 27th, 2003, 10:37 PM
thanks milesian, it does make sense :)
i also see ireland as a very religious country (or was) and that religion was of course catholicism, whether it was pre vatican or whatever..well, im lost when it comes to that sort of thing ;)
i dont equate it with us being a country heavily influenced by judaism, for we really arent.
the catholic church did many things for this country, ie education and so on and we cant forget that, it also, more importantly to a degree DID help to foster a set of ideals to our people and it also made the family the centre of society and so important. overall, it did help natural human ideals to re emerge and created fairly strong foundations which we have built on i think..
i have no great problem with religion, and certainly none with catholics on the grounds that theyre catholics, lol, rather i just cant believe in the god/ satan/ heaven/ hell / blind faith ideas.

Milesian
Sunday, July 27th, 2003, 10:50 PM
Exactly, today people only concetrate on the scandals and weaknesses and wrongs of members of the Church while forgetting the benefits it has bestowed.
I can understand what you are saying about believeing in the concepts of God/Satan,etc.
I guess it really does require a leap of faith.
Personally, after years of digging my heels in and saying "I won't believe!"
I decided to be open-minded, almost humouring it.
Once I saw how everything fitted into place with what was going on in the world, I had to face the possibility that unlikely as these concepts did seem to me, they seemed as reasonable as anything else.
In fact John Deering, whom I quoted above studied Metaphysics, which deals with the underlying causes of everything. He regarded it as the science of sciences and wanted to prove that he was right in his athiesm.

"Here was the supreme test of my personal philosophy. If God exists,I told myself,metaphysics would reveal Him. Either I would be justified in my quasi-athiesm, or I would be compelled in conscience to abandon it completely"

As it turned out, he decded he had been wrong and then decided to study Christian Theology which ultimately led to him doing an extensive study on comparative religion in which he finally ended up becoming a Catholic.
I guess my own story is something similar to his in a way.
Anyway, I guess it's all pretty much upto the individual.
I just ended up thinking that Christian concepts were no more hard to believe than anything else being offered up as an explanation.

Saoirse
Tuesday, July 29th, 2003, 12:39 PM
Even though England is mostly dominated by Saxon's and Celts, the word British is Hebrew, meaning Covenant people. And the Hebrew word for man is "Iysh," or "Ish."

Theres also slogan's I've seen with Brit Shalom (Convenant of Peace).

However, the Saxon's are of Germanic blood.

Milesian
Tuesday, July 29th, 2003, 12:47 PM
Even though England is mostly dominated by Saxon's and Celts, the word British is Hebrew, meaning Covenant people. And the Hebrew word for man is "Iysh," or "Ish."

Theres also slogan's I've seen with Brit Shalom (Convenant of Peace).

However, the Saxon's are of Germanic blood.

The origin of the word Britain is still unknown and disputed to this day.
What are the Hebrew root words you base this conclusion on?
One of the most likely explanations I have seen is that the ancient classical writers reffered to it as the "Pretannic Isles"
the "-tannic" element would obviously relate to the Latin for "Tin".
The British isles were in fact renowned even in pre-history for their tin deposits and done much trade in that sphere.

I agree that the country of Great Briatin is 100% Jewish controlled as is done so through Freemasonry which is rife throughout the upper classes, the civil service, government, judiciary, police forces, army,etc.

However, what I really want to know is why you believe that Jesus retured in 1914 to rule the world through Britain.
Who did he come back as? Himself? As someone else? Is he still there today?

Saoirse
Tuesday, July 29th, 2003, 12:50 PM
The origin of the word Britain is still unknown and disputed to this day.
What are the Hebrew root words you base this conclusion on?
One of the most likely explanations I have seen is that the ancient classical writers reffered to it as the "Pretannic Isles"
the "-tannic" element would obviously relate to the Latin for "Tin".
The British isles were in fact renowned even in pre-history for their tin deposits and done much trade in that sphere.

I agree that the country of Great Briatin is 100% Jewish controlled as is done so through Freemasonry which is rife throughout the upper classes, the civil service, government, judiciary, police forces, army,etc.

However, what I really want to know is why you believe that Jesus retured in 1914 to rule the world through Britain.
Who did he come back as? Himself? As someone else? Is he still there today?

I got that Jesus thing from the site: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Milesian
Tuesday, July 29th, 2003, 12:56 PM
I got that Jesus thing from the site: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Could you point me to which part exactly, it looks an extensive sight.However, just scanning over it I'm a little concerned about this site.
One of the first things I seen was an article describing the Bible as "fiction" and a "Racy read". The problem is that it's by a JEWISH RABBI. It's obviously an Anti-Christian Website and I'd be suprised if there wasn't further Jewish influence there.
It's not a very objective place to get info on Christianity

Saoirse
Tuesday, July 29th, 2003, 12:59 PM
Heres some info on the Isles:

Early usages

Pretaniké; Pretanikai nesoi (Pretanic isles) 325 BC
Britannia 55 BC (Julius Caesar, Roman invasion of Britain)
Brittisc 855 (OED)
Grate Briteigne 1548 (OED)
British isles 1550 (in Latin; map of Sebastian Munster cited in British Isles article)

The English should question the roots of the UK.

And it's on Daniel 7:13.

Milesian
Tuesday, July 29th, 2003, 01:04 PM
Heres some info on the Isles:

Early usages

Pretaniké; Pretanikai nesoi (Pretanic isles) 325 BC
Britannia 55 BC (Julius Caesar, Roman invasion of Britain)
Brittisc 855 (OED)
Grate Briteigne 1548 (OED)
British isles 1550 (in Latin; map of Sebastian Munster cited in British Isles article)

The English should question the roots of the UK.

And it's on Daniel 7:13.

Daniel 7:13 says "I beheld, therefore, in the vision of the night, and lo, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and he came even to the ancient of days: and they presented him before him. "

I don't see any reference to Britain, 1914,etc

Rahul
Tuesday, July 29th, 2003, 05:46 PM
The origin of the word Britain is still unknown and disputed to this day.
What are the Hebrew root words you base this conclusion on?
One of the most likely explanations I have seen is that the ancient classical writers reffered to it as the "Pretannic Isles"
the "-tannic" element would obviously relate to the Latin for "Tin".
The British isles were in fact renowned even in pre-history for their tin deposits and done much trade in that sphere.

I agree that the country of Great Briatin is 100% Jewish controlled as is done so through Freemasonry which is rife throughout the upper classes, the civil service, government, judiciary, police forces, army,etc.

However, what I really want to know is why you believe that Jesus retured in 1914 to rule the world through Britain.
Who did he come back as? Himself? As someone else? Is he still there today?

The problem with modern Christianity is that it is seen or felt as a religionless religion. It is owing to its critical study as a jewish development(regression for any IE-origin life-feeling or weltanschaung).

The jew is delebrately trying to confound today, all 'religion' on this planet earth of ours, just look at the disgusting instance of liberal pagans in the west, especially the US.

And then compare it with what development we find in Europe, other than the UK and France and soem south, which always acquired the Magian soul in some measure because of its early adoption and co-habitation with jewish-middle-eastern thinking.

The Hyperborean is more unlike the jew, therefore its spiritual essence is not to be found in jewish christianity, but an expression through Nordic-Gothic Christianity may not be altogether un-Hyperborean.

My point is, it is not that religion or this, but how our composite attitude is towards life which determines what race one feels for. A debate 'against' European-Christianity can be divisive. Remember this.

But the "Devout-Christian" fears which reject and are disrespectful towards pre-christian and real european lores are equally unacceptable.

Masterman
Wednesday, August 13th, 2003, 11:39 PM
My choice is pre-Vatican II. The Second Vatican Council was a great mistake; it 'democratised' the church, making it more acceptable to the new liberal trends of the 1960s. In the end it failed to appease the liberals, who are irreligious anyway, and diluted the basic Catholic principles.

As for Christianity, I still believe it's the religion that makes the most sense for Europeans. All this Pagan stuff, tree worshipping, stone kissing, is all a load of ridiculous nonsense. I thought all this crap had gone out of fashion in the 70s, at the end of the hippy era, but no......
As for Christianity being influenced by Judaism, this maybe true, but it's also true that Jews *HATE* Christianity and its principles. The two religions might well share a common heritage, but they are very different in every other way.

Saoirse
Thursday, August 14th, 2003, 12:20 AM
National-Socialism is our only religion.

Masterman
Thursday, August 14th, 2003, 12:50 AM
National-Socialism is our only religion.

National-Socialism is a political philosophy, not a religion or even a cult. Even Hitler discouraged a religious interpretation of Nazi beliefs.

I take your reply to mean that you're an Atheist, which is fair enough.

Saoirse
Thursday, August 14th, 2003, 01:23 AM
National-Socialism is a way of life, it also can be a religion. It has been around long before Hitler. I'm not much of a Hitler fanatic.

Stríbog
Thursday, August 14th, 2003, 02:34 AM
National-Socialism is a way of life, it also can be a religion. It has been around long before Hitler. I'm not much of a Hitler fanatic.

It was around before Hitler, I don't know that you could say it was around LONG before Hitler unless you consider Guido von List, the Thule Society, etc. to be National Socialist, which is a stretch, I think.

Azdaja
Thursday, August 14th, 2003, 02:38 AM
Hmm.
Usually political ideologies are unfit vessels for spiritual impulses. People that project their spirituality onto secular things tend to end up fanatics.

Saoirse
Thursday, August 14th, 2003, 02:42 AM
The Sparta was an NS-State.

Stríbog
Thursday, August 14th, 2003, 02:44 AM
The Sparta was an NS-State.

ROFL that's a pretty inclusive definition of NS then. By that logic certain Native American tribes could be described as NS. Spartans also practiced slavery which is specifically not part of NS.

Saoirse
Thursday, August 14th, 2003, 02:48 AM
NS can be used for anyone. Look at the Japanese...

Masterman
Monday, August 18th, 2003, 01:10 AM
National-Socialism is a way of life, it also can be a religion. It has been around long before Hitler. I'm not much of a Hitler fanatic.

National-Socialism is NOT a religion. It maybe a cult, but never a religion. Hitler never intended it to be a religion.

Akimo
Thursday, September 25th, 2003, 09:14 PM
Lucifer is the enemy of the pure races!

He/she created inferior races in an effort to destroy the Allmighty's most pure and true creations.

The "knowledge" brought by this imposter wanna-be fallen angel is one of death, destruction and chaos! It preaches impurity of race, urging humans to intermix with others! It preaches the death of innocents and aims to destroy the Truth, the One and Only Truth!

No my friends, do not deluded into the worship of Lucifer because inferior races convinced your embattled and unsure minds and spirits that was the way...

Sadly, I have myself had some deep religious and spiritual struggles.
I prefer to describe myself as Protestant, but do not ascribe myself to the Anglicans (who have accepted homosexuals into their churches) or the Lutherians (because I know little of their doctrine). I could best be described as Calvanistic in my Protestant beliefs. The faith that bound the Boer people to the hand of the Allmighty Himself.

We are bound to Him by an oath made by our forefathers in 16 December 1836 at the Battle of Bloodriver. I bound myself and my children to this oath as well.

Praise the Allmighty, the Creator of all things Good and True and Pure, the Creator of Heaven and Earth for His hand will deliver His children, His followers and His chosen Race/s!

Milesian
Thursday, September 25th, 2003, 10:26 PM
Interesting post Akimo, I share you hatred of the serpent although I'm not the same faith as you. However, I don't agree with Lucifer creating the "inferior" peoples of thos world. Only God can create, Lucifer is like us in that he is a created being, albeit above us in the Celestial heirarchy.

But I agree with your feeling.

Loki
Friday, September 26th, 2003, 02:05 PM
Lucifer is the enemy of the pure races!

He/she created inferior races in an effort to destroy the Allmighty's most pure and true creations.

The "knowledge" brought by this imposter wanna-be fallen angel is one of death, destruction and chaos! It preaches impurity of race, urging humans to intermix with others! It preaches the death of innocents and aims to destroy the Truth, the One and Only Truth!

No my friends, do not deluded into the worship of Lucifer because inferior races convinced your embattled and unsure minds and spirits that was the way...

Sadly, I have myself had some deep religious and spiritual struggles.
I prefer to describe myself as Protestant, but do not ascribe myself to the Anglicans (who have accepted homosexuals into their churches) or the Lutherians (because I know little of their doctrine). I could best be described as Calvanistic in my Protestant beliefs. The faith that bound the Boer people to the hand of the Allmighty Himself.

We are bound to Him by an oath made by our forefathers in 16 December 1836 at the Battle of Bloodriver. I bound myself and my children to this oath as well.

Praise the Allmighty, the Creator of all things Good and True and Pure, the Creator of Heaven and Earth for His hand will deliver His children, His followers and His chosen Race/s!

Actually YHVH is the enemy of the "pure races", as you put it. If he exists. Otherwise he wouldn't have allowed this to happen. No, I don't think he exists...

I know your sentiments very well, and respect them -- I have once shared many of your views. But I fear the God of Blood River is an impotent one -- one who is unable to provide for his people.

I value racialism higher than religion, since race is not man-made (like religion), but is what we are in essence.

I hope my comments are not too shocking for you dear Boeremeisie. :) Feel free to vehemently disagree with me. ;)

Milesian
Friday, September 26th, 2003, 02:12 PM
<Bites lip>.... ;)

Milesian
Friday, September 26th, 2003, 02:16 PM
Out of curiosity, I see people here refer to God as YHVH, but why?
I understand that it was one of the names that the Jews gave to God (Yahweh was just an attempt to insert vowels into it or vice-versa, it was actually Yahweh but as they didn't want to pronounce the name of God, they removed the vowels).

But why not just use "God", unless your Jewish that is :P

Phlegethon
Friday, September 26th, 2003, 02:23 PM
It is Christian Identity terminology. Other than that only Jehova's Witnesses and the Ludendorffers use YHVH.

Loki
Friday, September 26th, 2003, 02:24 PM
Out of curiosity, I see people here refer to God as YHVH, but why?
I understand that it was one of the names that the Jews gave to God (Yahweh was just an attempt to insert vowels into it or vice-versa, it was actually Yahweh but as they didn't want to pronounce the name of God, they removed the vowels).

But why not just use "God", unless your Jewish that is :P

YHVH is the Hebrew tetragrammation used in the Pentateuch to describe the Deity of Israel. "YHVH" is an abbreviation - its proper pronounciation has been lost with time, as the ancient Israelites didn't want to speak out his name out of fear and awe.

YHVH is your God's correct name. ;)

Milesian
Friday, September 26th, 2003, 02:30 PM
Christian Identity? I have heard of it but don't knwo what it is Phleg.
Is it some kind of cult?

Loki, I understand what you are saying about , "How can a benevolent God allow these things to happen". It almost bring into question whether God is evil.
Here is a passage from the Summa Theologica by the most excellent Doctor of the Church, St Thomas Aquinas.

"Whether the supreme good, God, is the cause of evil?

Objection 1. It would seem that the supreme good, God, is the cause of evil. For it is said (Is. 45:5,7): "I am the Lord, and there is no other God, forming the light, and creating darkness, making peace, and creating evil." And Amos 3:6, "Shall there be evil in a city, which the Lord hath not done?"

Objection 2. Further, the effect of the secondary cause is reduced to the first cause. But good is the cause of evil, as was said above (1). Therefore, since God is the cause of every good, as was shown above (2, 3; 6, 1,4), it follows that also every evil is from God.

Objection 3. Further, as is said by the Philosopher (Phys. ii, text 30), the cause of both safety and danger of the ship is the same. But God is the cause of the safety of all things. Therefore He is the cause of all perdition and of all evil.

On the contrary, Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 21), that, "God is not the author of evil because He is not the cause of tending to not-being."

I answer that, As appears from what was said (1), the evil which consists in the defect of action is always caused by the defect of the agent. But in God there is no defect, but the highest perfection, as was shown above (4, 1). Hence, the evil which consists in defect of action, or which is caused by defect of the agent, is not reduced to God as to its cause.

But the evil which consists in the corruption of some things is reduced to God as the cause. And this appears as regards both natural things and voluntary things. For it was said (1) that some agent inasmuch as it produces by its power a form to which follows corruption and defect, causes by its power that corruption and defect. But it is manifest that the form which God chiefly intends in things created is the good of the order of the universe. Now, the order of the universe requires, as was said above (22, 2, ad 2; 48, 2), that there should be some things that can, and do sometimes, fail. And thus God, by causing in things the good of the order of the universe, consequently and as it were by accident, causes the corruptions of things, according to 1 Kgs. 2:6: "The Lord killeth and maketh alive." But when we read that "God hath not made death" (Wis. 1:13), the sense is that God does not will death for its own sake. Nevertheless the order of justice belongs to the order of the universe; and this requires that penalty should be dealt out to sinners. And so God is the author of the evil which is penalty, but not of the evil which is fault, by reason of what is said above.

Reply to Objection 1. These passages refer to the evil of penalty, and not to the evil of fault.

Reply to Objection 2. The effect of the deficient secondary cause is reduced to the first non-deficient cause as regards what it has of being and perfection, but not as regards what it has of defect; just as whatever there is of motion in the act of limping is caused by the motive power, whereas what there is of obliqueness in it does not come from the motive power, but from the curvature of the leg. And, likewise, whatever there is of being and action in a bad action, is reduced to God as the cause; whereas whatever defect is in it is not caused by God, but by the deficient secondary cause.

Reply to Objection 3. The sinking of a ship is attributed to the sailor as the cause, from the fact that he does not fulfil what the safety of the ship requires; but God does not fail in doing what is necessary for the safety of all. Hence there is no parity."

Loki
Friday, September 26th, 2003, 02:33 PM
It is Christian Identity terminology. Other than that only Jehova's Witnesses and the Ludendorffers use YHVH.

It is not. It is the most ancient name of your God. Older than the Vatican texts.

Milesian
Friday, September 26th, 2003, 02:33 PM
YHVH is the Hebrew tetragrammation used in the Pentateuch to describe the Deity of Israel. "YHVH" is an abbreviation - its proper pronounciation has been lost with time, as the ancient Israelites didn't want to speak out his name out of fear and awe.

YHVH is your God's correct name. ;)

If the proper pronunciation has been lost through time, then it stands to reason that this cannot be his true name ;)

There is nothing to suggest that this is the one name that God gives himself. Merely what the ancient Jews called him. There are others such as Jehovah, God, Lord, Spirit, etc. He has many names but I don't think he has a specific one. When your the omnipotent Lord Creator of the Universe, everyone pretty much knows who you are anyway without a unique name :)

Loki
Friday, September 26th, 2003, 02:37 PM
If the proper pronunciation has been lost through time, then it stands to reason that this cannot be his true name ;)

There is nothing to suggest that this is the one name that God gives himself. Merely what the ancient Jews called him. There are others such as Jehovah, God, Lord, Spirit, etc. He has many names but I don't think he has a specific one. When your the omnipotent Lord Creator of the Universe, everyone pretty much knows who you are anyway without a unique name :)

Where you read in your Old Testament "THE LORD" (usually in caps), it is usually translated from the Hebrew YHVH. YHVH is not incorrect or lost, only its pronunciation is...

Milesian
Friday, September 26th, 2003, 03:13 PM
Where you read in your Old Testament "THE LORD" (usually in caps), it is usually translated from the Hebrew YHVH. YHVH is not incorrect or lost, only its pronunciation is...

Even so, it seems to be merely a name the ancient Jews gave to God.
Is there anything to suggest it is God's actual name for himself?
It isn't used in the New Testament so I would say it is really more relevant for Jews, unless that was the hidden meaning implied? ;)

Loki
Friday, September 26th, 2003, 03:38 PM
Is there anything to suggest it is God's actual name for himself?

Yes, plenty. It was actually God himself who said that that was his name... besides, "God" is not a name, and neither is "THE LORD". This god has a name too, and his name is YHVH.

Exodus 3

14 God said to Moses, "I am who I am . This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' "
15 God also said to Moses, "Say to the Israelites, 'The LORD , the God of your fathers-the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob-has sent me to you.' This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation.
16 "Go, assemble the elders of Israel and say to them, 'The LORD , the God of your fathers-the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob-appeared to me and said: I have watched over you and have seen what has been done to you in Egypt.

In this passage, "I AM" is translated from the Hebrew "YH", seemingly a shorter version or derivation of "YHVH", translated as "THE LORD". So this was God's name that he told Moses, and by which he desired to be called.


It isn't used in the New Testament so I would say it is really more relevant for Jews, unless that was the hidden meaning implied? ;)

The New Testament is really an adaptation of OT teachings. Even Jesus himself quoted from it. The Old Testament was Jesus' Bible, since there was no NT yet...

Milesian
Friday, September 26th, 2003, 04:20 PM
Yes God and Lord are simply terms, not names. Yet Jesus himself is content to use them. I am not a scholar on ancient Hebrew so I cannot argue to any great extent. Suffice it to say that it may simply be the way he wanted the Hebrews of tha time to address Him. That does not necessarily equate with being His actual name. Rather just how He wanted to be referred to at that time.
I just found it amusing that this Jewish or rather OT term was being used when "God" is a much more common and widely understood term. Certainly terms such as "Lord" was used by Himself in the form of Jesus to reffer to the aspect of Himself that is the Father. I jsut wondered if there was not some hidden implication in it's use.

Stríbog
Friday, September 26th, 2003, 04:40 PM
Several references to God are used used in the Old Testament: YHWH and Eloi. YHWH means "I am" and Eloi means Power/Might. Adonai means Lord. YHWH is the name God assigned to himself. The others are all just titles. The Jews supposedly would not say YHVH as they thought it sacrilege to speak the name of God. God's name is still YHVH in modern Christian doctrine; where do you think Jehovah comes from?

Milesian
Friday, September 26th, 2003, 05:48 PM
It is not used in Catholic doctrine. Neither is Jehovah for that matter.
The Father is merely called God, the Son - Lord, and the Holy Ghost - Spirit.
As mentioned Jesus (Himself God) refers to "God" or "Lord" or "Spirit", never as Jehovah or YHWH. Clearly God Himself feels that titles are sufficient.
Rather it would appear that he told Moses simply "I am". It is entirely possible that he merely wished the Hebrews to refer to Him as that. Never is it explicitly stated that is His true name. Also it is not impossible he meant that he really had no name, that simply - "I am"

If I asked someone their name and their reply was - "I am who I am", I would understand it to mean that they were dismissing the question as irrelevant. I would not believe their name was actually, "I am".

cosmocreator
Friday, September 26th, 2003, 06:14 PM
Lucifer is the enemy of the pure races!


I like Lucifer. I've been through this before. Lucifer means Lord of Light. So what's the opposite? Darkness.

Milesian
Friday, September 26th, 2003, 08:03 PM
But the light of Hellfire? ;)

Seriously though, we don't know for sure that Lucifer is the one and same as Satan. I think it was Milton that originally equated "Lucifer" with the the Devil in his angelic, pre-fallen time. Afterwards becoming known as Satan.
However, the Bible doesn't make it clear.
I believe the passage reads something like -
"Oh how art thou fallen, Lucifer, son of the morning"
It is believed possible that it actually refers to some human king, rather than the Devil.

Phlegethon
Friday, September 26th, 2003, 08:27 PM
I like Lucifer. I've been through this before. Lucifer means Lord of Light. So what's the opposite? Darkness.


If you knew Latin you'd know that Lucifer means "bearer of light" or, metaphorically "bringer of light". Lord of Light would be "dominus lucis".

Loki
Friday, September 26th, 2003, 08:28 PM
http://www.eliyah.com/IAUE.gif

http://www.eliyah.com/tetragrm.html

The Meaning of the Tetragrammaton

This is four Hebrew letters (Yod, He, Waw and He) called the "Tetragrammaton". The four characters are the four Hebrew letters that correspond to YHWH and are transliterated IAUE or Yahweh. Yahweh is the name of the Almighty Father in Heaven that people commonly call "The LORD" or "God". The reason we see "LORD" and "God" in our bibles is because of a Jewish tradition that the name Yahweh was not be spoken for fear that the name be blasphemed. However, the scriptures declare that His name should be exalted (e.g. Ps 68:4) and the third commandment forbids this practice. The Preface of some bibles will admit why they change His name. Nearly all will cite tradition and familiarity as the reason. This, I believe is wrong. Sometimes people pronounce the tetragrammaton as "Jehovah". But Jehovah could never be the right pronunciation. On this web site, the name of Yahweh is used in reference to the Heavenly Father because in the scriptures we are told to praise, exalt, bless, love, teach, preach, anoint, assemble, believe, give thanks, honor and call on His name.

Loki
Friday, September 26th, 2003, 08:36 PM
http://pages.cthome.net/hirsch/tetra.jpg

THE TETRAGRAMMATON


http://pages.cthome.net/hirsch/tetra.htm

"YHVH" is a name that is usually translated as "LORD." It is used approximately 7000 times in the Bible (Tanach), more than any other name for God. It is also referred to as the "Tetragrammaton" which means "The Four Letters" because it comes from four Hebrew letters: Yud, Hay, Vav, Hay. It is generally believed that these four letters represent the tenses of the Hebrew word for to be. That is, HVH (Hovah)=to be, HYH (Hayah)=was, and YHYH (Yi-yeh)=will be.
This is the special memorial-name that God revealed to Moses at the burning bush. "And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM; and He said, thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me to you... this is My eternal name, and this is how I am to be recalled for all generations" (Exodus 3:14-15). Actually, the phrase in Hebrew is "eh-yeh asher eh-yeh." The word "eh-yeh" being the first person future form of "hovah" (to be). A better English translation would really be, "I will be who (or what or that) I will be." Even though the name YHVH appears earlier in Genesis 2, God didn't reveal Himself as YHVH until Exodus 3 in conjunction with the creation of Israel.

Because this name comes from the Hebrew verb which means "to be." YHVH emphasizes God's absolute being. He is the source of all being, all reality, and all existence. He has being inherent in Himself. Everything else derives its being from Him. YHVH denotes God's complete transcendence in time. He is beyond His creation. He is without beginning and without end because He always is.

Although some pronounce YHVH as Jehovah, this is probably not correct since the vowel points that define the pronunciation (not added to the Bible until the early Middle Ages) are from the substitute word Adonai. Another, often used English transliteration is Yaweh, which seems to be more correct, but the consensus among rabbinic scholars is that we no longer know the proper pronunciation. The Jewish people stopped saying the Name by the third century C.E. out of fear of violating the commandment "You shall not take the name of YHVH your God in vain" (Exodus 20:7). According to the rabbis, the Tetragrammaton may not be pronounced under any circumstances. The word, Adonai, which simply means my Master or my Lord, is spoken in place of YHVH during prayer, otherwise, it is simple uttered as "HaShem," The Name.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was adapted in part from the Web page of CONGREGATION SHEMA YISRAEL (Messianic), http://www.shema.com/names.htm, and from the Encylopedia Judaica.

Milesian
Friday, September 26th, 2003, 08:48 PM
Interesting, thanks for posting that, Loki.
I am still unconvinced that it is an actual name. I stil think it is not meant to be his name literally. I think he is basically saying that he merely is, there is no need for a name. There is no other almighty creator. He does not have a name as such. He simply IS.

What is of overwhelming importance to me is that it does nit appear in the NT.
There is no suggestion that Christ uses the name for Himself. He is seemingly content to use the terms God or Lord. everyone knows to whom he refers anyway. For me to call Him YHVH is simply an archaic practice such as circumcision and avoidance of unclean foods. It is not relevant in our time. He gave the term YHVH to Moses to give to the Jews, not the Gentiles. The time of the Jews has passed, it is our time now. We need not use that which was given to others. I do not think it displeases God to be called God. Jesus instructs us to address Him as "Our Father" when asked how to pray. Perhaps that is a more fitting term then?

Regadless, I have no objection to anyone using YHVH if that is what they are comfortable with, it just makes more sense to me to address Him as simply God, which is more widely understood and more commonly used.

Loki
Friday, September 26th, 2003, 08:58 PM
Regadless, I have no objection to anyone using YHVH if that is what they are comfortable with, it just makes more sense to me to address Him as simply God, which is more widely understood and more commonly used.

It really is of little importance to me what you call your god ;)

What is of essence here is just accuracy, and the blatant substitution of this name is very evident to me. Your reasoning goes that because it does not appear in the New Testament, it cannot be important or relevant. Well that is only if you believe in the NT, needless to say. At the end of the day it amounts to faith, rather than knowledge. I have shared this piece of knowledge with you, but you have rejected it because your organised religion tells you otherwise. Now that is fine by me if you are happy with it. :)

Milesian
Friday, September 26th, 2003, 09:05 PM
It really is of little importance to me what you call your god ;)


Thank YHVH for that! ;)

Yes, I agree that my point of view is only relevant if you believe in the New Testament (in other words if you are a Christian). But then calling Him YHVH is only relevant if you believe in the Old Testament (surely not...;) )

At the end it is Faith which leads me to believe it IS knowledge, not one of the other. Personally, YHVH is cumbersome and archaic and irrelavant to me.
But yes, if you prefer it for whatever reason, then please continue.

cosmocreator
Friday, September 26th, 2003, 09:54 PM
Satan and Lucifer are not the same. Satan is a deceiver. Lucifer, bringer, bearer, or Lord, whatever, of Light.

Milesian
Friday, September 26th, 2003, 10:18 PM
Satan and Lucifer are not the same. Satan is a deceiver. Lucifer, bringer, bearer, or Lord, whatever, of Light.

Yes, precisely Cosmo. Satan does not bring any light but the light of the fires of Hell. So the name Lucifer is not applicable to him any longer (if it was his pre-fallen name), either that or it was never intended to describe him at all (if it was the name for someone else).

Phlegethon
Friday, September 26th, 2003, 10:23 PM
Your reasoning goes that because it does not appear in the New Testament, it cannot be important or relevant. Well that is only if you believe in the NT, needless to say. At the end of the day it amounts to faith, rather than knowledge. I have shared this piece of knowledge with you, but you have rejected it because your organised religion tells you otherwise. Now that is fine by me if you are happy with it. :)
Jews are not part of the New Covenant. Whatever preceded the New Covenant is irrelevant to the Catholic faith. It is also irrelevant which name other "Christian" denominations use for their God. The una sacra ecclesia does not and has never used that term - because it would contradict the essential message of the Church. To me it is exclusively used by religious deviants, zealots and other fringe groups.

Akimo
Saturday, September 27th, 2003, 04:03 PM
Hehehe

No Loki...
I can not be angry with you for you sentiment.
But I van be angry at my mis-spelling: The Battle of Bloodriver took place in the year of 1838, I mistyped in my haste *wipes yolk from her face*

But, I do not agree with you.
The God of the Boer people have provided very well for us. BUT, we threw it away. His greatest gift to us was our country and we threw it back at Him by allowing others to take it from us. How woudl you feel if a wonderous gift was uncerimoniously tossed back in your face?
He has always provided. We have not fully fulfilled our part of the bargain. *frowns*

I have stuggled in my faith once as well, and came to realise certain things will change. Our spiritual life (to keep it pure and our faith strong) will always be a battle and answers don't come overnight, but they come as we grow wiser in our borader understanding of the world. True, religion is a man-made creation, but faith is something as true and unique as race. And who created that race and faith? *smiles*

Hehe, I do not go to church anymore. But lately, I have reconsidered trying out a couple. I will not return to the NG Church, for they were the first fall. My reasons are the twofold:
1. I would like to get married before the Allmighty (wedding is scheduled for May 2004), even if it isn't a church, by one of His preachers.
2. The search for knowledge continues... :)

And yes, Milesian, we are united in distrust and hatred of the serpant. Whether it has the powers of creation I don't know for sure. But I believe that only the Allmighty can create. And He only creates good.
My statement of the creation of inferior races by Lucifer is very doublesided I see now. Let's assume creation in the sense of spiritual corruption? How's that? :)

Milesian
Sunday, September 28th, 2003, 10:48 AM
Yes, that sounds fine to me Akimo :)
It was interesting to hear your viewpoint and how it seems that your faith is an integral part of your ethnic identity as it is for me also.

Just out of curiosity, what is the NG church?

Loki
Sunday, September 28th, 2003, 11:40 AM
Just out of curiosity, what is the NG church?

Sorry for me chirping in, but let me just tell you what it is:

The Nederduits Gereformeerde Kerk, or in English called Dutch Reformed Church, or actually literally Low German Reformed Church, is the largest religious denomination amongst Boers by far. It is as institutional as the Lutheran is in Scandinavia. In the older days (a few decades ago) if one did not belong to this church, you were considered "weird", or even a heretic :)

There are two other "sister churches" to this one:

- Reformed Church [Hervormde Kerk] (actually the original one)
- Reformed Church [Gereformeerde Kerk] (a very similar one)

These three sister churches are Calvinist in character.

Milesian
Sunday, September 28th, 2003, 11:59 AM
Sorry for me chirping in, but let me just tell you what it is:

The Nederduits Gereformeerde Kerk, or in English called Dutch Reformed Church, or actually literally Low German Reformed Church, is the largest religious denomination amongst Boers by far. It is as institutional as the Lutheran is in Scandinavia. In the older days (a few decades ago) if one did not belong to this church, you were considered "weird", or even a heretic :)

There are two other "sister churches" to this one:

- Reformed Church [Hervormde Kerk] (actually the original one)
- Reformed Church [Gereformeerde Kerk] (a very similar one)

These three sister churches are Calvinist in character.

Ah, thanks for the info, Loki.
So it's not exclusive to South Africa then? Is it a big denomination in the Netherlands?

Loki
Sunday, September 28th, 2003, 12:14 PM
Ah, thanks for the info, Loki.
So it's not exclusive to South Africa then? Is it a big denomination in the Netherlands?

No, it is derived from, and virtually identical to the Reformed Church in the Netherlands. Ours is just a local version. It is a big denomination in the Netherlands, yes. Surprisingly, Roman Catholicism is also important in the Netherlands, but virtually nonexistent under South Africans of Dutch descent. That is maybe because mainly Protestant Dutch have immigrated to South Africa. Remember it was after the Thirty Years War, and these emigrants have attempted to set up an exclusively Protestant community in SA, so it seems. Added to their ranks were some French Huguenots, also fiercely Protestant, and fleeing religious persecution in France.

Phlegethon
Sunday, September 28th, 2003, 01:02 PM
Isn't there a Nieuwe Gereformeerde Kerk as well?

Loki
Sunday, September 28th, 2003, 01:19 PM
Isn't there a Nieuwe Gereformeerde Kerk as well?

In South Africa? No. But perhaps in the Netherlands, I don't know.

Phlegethon
Sunday, September 28th, 2003, 01:58 PM
In South Africa? No. But perhaps in the Netherlands, I don't know.
Yep, in the Netherlands. I thought you copied everything from there. ;)

Loki
Sunday, September 28th, 2003, 02:11 PM
Yep, in the Netherlands. I thought you copied everything from there. ;)

We have still not copied their promiscuity or multiculturalism.

Phlegethon
Sunday, September 28th, 2003, 02:21 PM
We have still not copied their promiscuity or multiculturalism.
Don't worry, you'll catch up soon. ;)

brianh
Saturday, November 8th, 2003, 07:11 AM
Heil all,

A combination of Irminism (http://www.irminenschaft.net) and Armanism(http://www.armanen.com)

Alaf Sal Fena

Brian

Haldís
Wednesday, November 12th, 2003, 04:05 AM
Victory!!! 18.60% for Neo-Pagan!! Really cool... how can I see who voted for it? :))

Evolved
Wednesday, November 12th, 2003, 06:40 AM
Who here worships Friedrich Nietzsche? If you need to be an infidel idolator, wiser and more mentally sound men have lived, you know. :lol

Lostchild1962
Wednesday, November 12th, 2003, 08:44 AM
I chose Creativity (White Power)..
Sis Kay

Moody
Thursday, November 13th, 2003, 07:55 PM
Who here worships Friedrich Nietzsche? If you need to be an infidel idolator, wiser and more mentally sound men have lived, you know. :lol

I've just voted Nietzscheanism to keep that that other 'infidel idolator' company.
Of course, Nietzscheanism could NEVER be a 'faith', so it is something of an ironic choice!
Have there ever been any 'wiser' than Nietzsche? - I doubt it!

Tautalos
Monday, November 17th, 2003, 08:42 PM
«Neo-pagan». Honour the Deities of Rome and Lusitania (part of Indo-European Iberia).

Taras Bulba
Monday, November 17th, 2003, 08:47 PM
I voted Eastern Orthodox, even though technically I'm a Byzantine Catholic. Byzantine Catholics are members of the Eastern Catholic Church. We're almost exactly like the Eastern Orthodox church except we accept the authority of the Pope. We're commonly refered to as "Orthodox in communion with Rome".

This is a good source for basic info on Byzantine or even Eastern Catholics in general
http://home.nyc.rr.com/mysticalrose/eastern.html

This gives more detailed information on us
http://www.byzcath.org/Faith-and-Worship/Who-Are-Byzantine-Catholics.htm

Chinaman
Friday, November 28th, 2003, 03:15 AM
Been watching this board for a while with some curiosity. I myself am a Chinaman (as if the name didn't give it away :D) and I am a traditional Roman Catholic, Sede Vacantist.

Evolved
Friday, November 28th, 2003, 04:51 AM
I could never call myself a Christian even when I was one, because the very name puts a man before God. My relationship with God is a sacred, spiritual thing not to be shared with others, unless they believe in the same things I do. ;)

NormanBlood
Monday, December 8th, 2003, 08:41 PM
Odalist

Scoob
Saturday, December 27th, 2003, 04:27 AM
Hmm.
Usually political ideologies are unfit vessels for spiritual impulses. People that project their spirituality onto secular things tend to end up fanatics.

One of the great charges against religion by 19th century thinkers (Marx and I believe Nietzsche come to mind) is that it takes spiritual impulses that should be directed outward into the world, and channels them inwardly onto mental phantoms. They characterized this type of religion as slavish and complacent, when they could be out working to make the world here and now a better place. I can see how religion often does this to a certain extent.

But I often notice that achievement-oriented people tend not to be too thoughtful. They don't have time for that.

More introverted people - including Nietzche (!) - have a greater tendency to meditate on existential questions of religion and philosophy. Many people like this care less for material achievement, whether they attain it or not.

But spirituality isn't the same thing as thoughtfulness (although often they are closely linked). Fanatics get things done in the world - most of history is written about fanatics - including religious history. I think it's very fair to consider people like Moses, Paul, Martin Luther, et al fanatics. So were Lenin, Hitler, and many others.

Would the world be a better place without people like that? Maybe, I'm not sure.

Scoob
Saturday, December 27th, 2003, 04:31 AM
Been watching this board for a while with some curiosity. I myself am a Chinaman (as if the name didn't give it away :D) and I am a traditional Roman Catholic, Sede Vacantist.

Hi, I'd be interested in hearing your views on some of the other subjects discussed throughout the forum. It is nice to hear a fresh perspective sometimes!

Kleinwildjaeger
Monday, January 5th, 2004, 01:38 AM
I'm a Lutheran of the old school. Lutheranism has served Germany and the Nordic countries well.

Abby Normal
Tuesday, February 3rd, 2004, 01:44 PM
Pre- Second Vatican Council Roman Catholicism (though I'm not really active in my faith, that's what I grew up with and I don't have any other religion.) Apparently it's a popular choice!

Timo
Wednesday, February 18th, 2004, 11:16 PM
"Neo-Pagan" - I hate that term. :stabbed
I would consider myself a heathen or someone who practices our old ways (vor forni siđur). Ásatrú works aswell. Only a revival of our native customs and religion will do for me.:P

sciath
Thursday, February 19th, 2004, 12:06 AM
Pre- Second Vatican Council Roman Catholicism : the religion my ancestors fought for and died for
in an iconoclastic and often provocative way (residuum of a wild :D youthness !)
ultradogmatic but non sectarian !

Milesian
Thursday, February 19th, 2004, 09:41 AM
"Neo-Pagan" - I hate that term. :stabbed
I would consider myself a heathen or someone who practices our old ways (vor forni siđur). Ásatrú works aswell. Only a revival of our native customs and religion will do for me.:P


Which particular pagan faith do you practise, Timo?
Do you believe in a Germanic pantheon?, Slavic? Celtic?
And do you actually believe all theses gods and goddesses really exist and have their associated powers?

Timo
Thursday, February 19th, 2004, 10:07 AM
Which particular pagan faith do you practise, Timo?
Do you believe in a Germanic pantheon?, Slavic? Celtic?
And do you actually believe all theses gods and goddesses really exist and have their associated powers?
The germanic gods and goddesses, which I do believe in, yes. I thought I would obviously be worshiping germanic gods since I stated "vor forni siđur" and "Ásatrú" which is icelandic and usually associated with Germanic Heathenism. :)

Sigrun Christianson
Thursday, February 19th, 2004, 10:12 AM
Amish.

blut-ehre
Thursday, February 19th, 2004, 12:30 PM
urgh, i put athiesm... accidently scanned over nietzscheanism :-O so yeah ... nietzscheanism für mich ;)

gorgeousgal2k2
Thursday, February 19th, 2004, 01:56 PM
I noticed that a large amount of people put "other." (in fact the largest amount of people)...

What other religions are there? :eek :D

Sigrun Christianson
Thursday, February 19th, 2004, 01:56 PM
I noticed that a large amount of people put "other."

What other religions are there?

;) :D
AMISH!

gorgeousgal2k2
Thursday, February 19th, 2004, 01:59 PM
hee hee

:D

Sigrun Christianson
Thursday, February 19th, 2004, 02:04 PM
hee hee

:DStrict Christianity and complete conformity. I love it. One set of my grandparents really is Pennsylvania Dutch so I could be!!

gorgeousgal2k2
Thursday, February 19th, 2004, 02:12 PM
cool do they acutally beleive in it or what? :)

Sigrun Christianson
Thursday, February 19th, 2004, 02:33 PM
cool do they acutally beleive in it or what? :)Hell no. My Dad's family is Catholic going whaaay back and my Mom's family is split between Catholics and Lutherans. I'm just your ordinary Agnostic/Buddhist/New Age Heathen/Odinist/Humanist.

P.S. - And I do have several Jews in the family... by marriage :D

gorgeousgal2k2
Thursday, February 19th, 2004, 02:37 PM
Hell no. My Dad's family is Catholic going whaaay back and my Mom's family is split between Catholics and Lutherans. I'm just your ordinary Agnostic/Buddhist/New Age Heathen/Odinist/Humanist.

Cool. Lol it must be a bit confusing for you being all of those religions ;)


P.S. - And I do have several Jews in the family... by marriage :D

:D yeah, yeah...by marriage indeed...;) tell us another :P

:)

gorgeousgal2k2
Thursday, February 19th, 2004, 02:39 PM
i have several Christian Protestents in my family - not by marriage...my mum was brought up a christian until she stopped believing it by the age of 12 :D

old aryan
Thursday, March 4th, 2004, 09:15 PM
Strict Christianity and complete conformity. I love it. One set of my grandparents really is Pennsylvania Dutch so I could be!!
I have Pennsylvania Dutch, too. Don't cross them!

Taras Bulba
Friday, March 5th, 2004, 01:31 AM
I'm just your ordinary Agnostic/Buddhist/New Age Heathen/Odinist/Humanist.

In other words, your faith is just a bunch of contradictions. BTW, I I fail to see the connections between the New Age movement and Heathenism. Since New Ageism declares humanity future in globalism; heathenism in folkish nationalism. Same thing with Humanism, the Humanist manifesto talks about how dedication to humanity as a whole should take precedent over any national loyalties.

Hmmmn......did you really think this out long enough? :D ;)

PlanDreaM
Tuesday, April 6th, 2004, 10:35 AM
I would say an atheist,although i am fond of Nietzche's Superhuman.but this is not a religion.there is no god to kill.

Siegfried
Tuesday, April 6th, 2004, 10:47 AM
A combination of Cosmotheism, Creativity, Nietzscheanism, neo-paganism and Julius Evola's Traditionalism. Anyone know a name for that? ;)
I voted 'other'.

Vestmannr
Friday, April 16th, 2004, 02:36 AM
I converted to the Greek Orthodox faith in 2000, but I follow the Western rite (like 1928 BCP, Sarum rite, Tridentine rite). There are maybe 25,000 of us worldwide under ROCOR, Moscow, Antioch, Romania, Poland, and the French L'ECOF.

symmakhos
Friday, April 16th, 2004, 03:18 AM
I converted to the Greek Orthodox faith in 2000, but I follow the Western rite (like 1928 BCP, Sarum rite, Tridentine rite). There are maybe 25,000 of us worldwide under ROCOR, Moscow, Antioch, Romania, Poland, and the French L'ECOF.
But why on earth won't you accept the Eastern rite? Please expand on this, I am very curious. I know there are many Roman catholics who worship according to eastern rite, but I've never heard of Orthodox Christians adhering to the Roman ceremoniel.

nicholas
Friday, April 16th, 2004, 03:22 AM
right now I'm studying Thelema and Goetic sorcery.

please don't burn me at the stake.

Nicholas

Vestmannr
Friday, April 16th, 2004, 03:52 AM
My brother symmakhos,

"But why on earth won't you accept the Eastern rite? Please expand on this, I am very curious. I know there are many Roman catholics who worship according to eastern rite, but I've never heard of Orthodox Christians adhering to the Roman ceremoniel."

It isnt a question of 'accepting the Eastern rite'. I do worship in Byzantine rite where there is no Western parish (whether Antiochian, Russian/ROCOR, Serbian, or Greek). However, I am not a Greek, nor Lebanese, nor a Slav or East Latin. The Eastern Orthodox have always accepted that there are many proper rites for worship, the Western rite was simply one that was slowly lost to most of Eastern Orthodoxy over time. It existed for a time in Constantinople, Crimea, and Nicea for the English Varangians who alone were allowed to freely intermarry with Byzantine (Romaioi) Orthodox. On Mt. Athos, the Western rite monastery of Amalfion continued in communion with Constantinople well into the 1200s. A more Byzantinized form of the Western Rite was used by some of the Old Believer Cossacks, who removed to Turkey, and later to Greece and Russia in 1965 when Turkey siezed their books. The same liturgies have been found in books in Hilander monastery on Mt. Athos. In the 1870s Moscow approved the Western Rite for converts in the West, and then at various times all the patriarchates have either approved of it, or have had groups practicing Western rite.. except for Georgia. Today there are 10,000 under Antioch who worship in English or Roman rite, 10,000 in France (impaired communion at the moment) who worship in the Gallican rite, and another 5,000 worshipping in Roman or Sarum/English rite under ROCOR, Moscow, Romania, and Poland. The hierarchs have said that us Western men are not required to become Easterners to be Orthodox Catholics. In their wisdom, they understand there is a reason God had us born as Westerners: Anglos, Celts, Gauls, Latins, Germans, Scandinavians, Iberians, etc. It is also, for many of us, the only way we see the Great Schism to be healed, as many of us lay the blame for it squarely on the inflation of Papal power and the unilateral addition of the filioque. So far, this only exists in Australia, the USA, Canada, France, Poland, and Argentina. Previously this has also existed in Serbia, Croatia, Italy, Czech, Poland, Romania, and the UK ... and may again.

As much as there are local saints important to you as a Greek, and your language, and customs surrounding the rite... not to mention the rite itself: there is also an importance to myself as a Westerner... to the Saints who have kept me (St. Mungo, St. Ninian, St. Patrick, St. Kevin, etc.), to the forms of prayer and rites they prayed and still pray, to the customs of my people that have been preserved in deed or writing for near 2000 years, and to my languages: English, Latin, Old Irish, French, etc. If for many of us, had the same Faith, ecclesiology, and much else... and there was no other impediment to communion, it was the best way for us to end schism. Just so you know who our protectors are, they are St. Tikhon, and St. John the Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco. I am an Anglo-Celt, and as a leopard cant change his spots: I cant be made Russian, Greek, or Syrian... I can be made Orthodox, however.

Helter Skelter
Friday, April 16th, 2004, 05:54 AM
Well I am amazed of the diversity of people's beliefs in this forum, I assumed most of the people here were Christian, Atheists, or Pagan. But I am always shocked of how many people of different ethnicities and different creeds there are in this world. I am just a Catholic with a spine myself.:ftomato:

Helter Skelter
Friday, April 16th, 2004, 06:05 AM
Satanists & "goths" are usually geeky and defective narcissists seeking attention. :P

I'm in a spiritual transition, I want to go to heaven. :haloYou have said what I have been thinking ever since Marilyn Manson showed up.

symmakhos
Saturday, April 17th, 2004, 02:02 AM
Just so you know who our protectors are, they are St. Tikhon, and St. John the Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco.
I will remember that. Thank you Frontiersman, keep up the good fight. :knight

-I-Mčrke-I-
Monday, April 19th, 2004, 05:32 PM
We look at so many intelligent people posting and expressing their opinions and one question came in my mind... Do these people believe in God? I don't.
I think that a world with so many differences... so many issues... so many ...
kinds of people don't have a higher power controlling... but, I'd like to see your opinion.

Siegfried
Monday, April 19th, 2004, 05:38 PM
I'm a 'holistic evolutionist', taking bits and pieces from Cosmotheism, Creativity, Nietzscheanism, neo-paganism and Julius Evola's Traditionalism.
My views might be considered pantheistic by some, but I generally try to avoid that label; it is too easily confused with monism.

Oskorei
Monday, April 19th, 2004, 05:41 PM
[QUOTE=Siegfried Augustus]I'm a 'holistic evolutionist', taking bits and pieces from Cosmotheism, Creativity, Nietzscheanism, neo-paganism and Julius Evola's Traditionalism.QUOTE]

You took the words out of my mouth ;)

Siegfried
Monday, April 19th, 2004, 05:43 PM
You took the words out of my mouth ;)

Great, a brother in spirit :) Any reading suggestions? ;)

Angelcynn Beorn
Monday, April 19th, 2004, 05:43 PM
Did i miss something? Since when have Protestants not been Christian?

NormanBlood
Saturday, April 24th, 2004, 08:37 PM
Maybe she meant Catholicism....if not then I am lost lol :P

oh and I am "other" ;)

nicholas
Saturday, April 24th, 2004, 08:45 PM
I'm more concerned with this life than I used to be. I have found that submission adn herd mentality is to set oneself up as a slave for any who are strong enough to compel one into a specific action by force.

I am becoming ze Ubermensch.
All hail ze new vorld order!
All hail Nicholas ze Ubermensch!

Nicholas

Timo
Sunday, April 25th, 2004, 12:37 AM
I am an atheist leaning towards Ásatrú and politically, Odalism. I think advancement in science and understanding the universe is above superstisions, but we still need to hang onto the stories and myths of our ancestors as apart of our people and past.
Christianity is definately a Jewish religion from the deserts of the Middle East.
*Prepares for Peruns onslaught*

:D

Jack
Tuesday, April 27th, 2004, 11:17 AM
Roman Catholic, finally.

Milesian
Tuesday, April 27th, 2004, 11:31 AM
Roman Catholic, finally.

Better late than never ;)
BTW, your location on your profile is a bit disturbing.....isn't that illegal at her age :D

Saoirse
Tuesday, April 27th, 2004, 11:44 AM
BTW, your location on your profile is a bit disturbing.....isn't that illegal at her age :D

Shes also a Jew....

Newgrange
Tuesday, April 27th, 2004, 01:46 PM
Roman Catholic

Tommy Vercetti
Tuesday, April 27th, 2004, 02:13 PM
My parents are lutheran but they didn't babtise me and my sis, so I'm without religion :(

I've been mocked all my childhood because of that + I've been doomed to eternal damnation.

Damn you mom and dad :'(

Slavictorious
Sunday, August 22nd, 2004, 06:01 AM
I consider religion a personal thing, but I am closest to Orthodoxy and Slavic Paganism..

Base religion, I am Orthodox Christian, I attend church and all that, I pray multiple times a day, but I also value some of the Pagan ideas, such as Dualism, and their vast mythology. I try to incorporate both into my own personal religion.

Unfortunatley, alot of Slavic Pagans nowadays, are either brainless Nazis or druggees. I am serious, I attended a Pagan meeting once, all druggees, and ONE neo-Nazi who was Russian. And you all know my opinion about Slavic Nazis, (not that high ;) )

So I still go to Church because there are reasonable people there, and I know and have met alot of freinds there. Even though I stopped going for the past month. This is because I don't need a group to lead me to spiritual awakening, or lead me to enlightenment, I think we all need to find that for ourselves...groups are good for discussions, but not necesary for personal spirituality...

Well see, I chose other, and had to explain myself in a whole essay. lol

Northern Paladin
Friday, September 10th, 2004, 09:41 PM
What Are Your Religious Affiliations?
I am a Catholic Christian.

Nightmare_Gbg
Friday, September 10th, 2004, 09:46 PM
I'm an atheist myself.

Northern Paladin
Friday, September 10th, 2004, 09:57 PM
I'm an atheist myself.

As is most of Sweden I assume.

Wasn't there a time when Sweden was 99% Lutheran? Those were the good ole days. Atheism,Multiculturalism, Femenism and Socialism are rather rather recent developments aren't they?

Some blame Christianity for Multiculturalism. Sweden a majoritiy Atheist Nation and one that promotes Multiculturalism is a good example that isn't the case.

Loki
Friday, September 10th, 2004, 09:58 PM
I'm an atheist myself.
Same here. I used to be a Christian for many years, but eventually grew out of it.

Loki
Friday, September 10th, 2004, 10:10 PM
Some blame Christianity for Multiculturalism. Sweden a majoritiy Atheist Nation and one that promotes Multiculturalism is a good example that isn't the case.
There is little doubt about the fact that Christianity has added great impetus to the multicultural disease sweeping white nations. Even in Sweden, where most people are only nominally Christian, the Christian clergy (who still have much say in the country) are usually the most anti-racist of all, and are normally on the frontlines calling for more immigration, and intermixture of races.

Northern Paladin
Friday, September 10th, 2004, 10:12 PM
Same here. I used to be a Christian for many years, but eventually grew out of it.

What do you mean by grew out of?

Loki
Friday, September 10th, 2004, 10:13 PM
What do you mean by grew out of?
I lost faith in the Biblical god.

Northern Paladin
Friday, September 10th, 2004, 10:21 PM
There is little doubt about the fact that Christianity has added great impetus to the multicultural disease sweeping white nations. Even in Sweden, where most people are only nominally Christian, the Christian clergy (who still have much say in the country) are usually the most anti-racist of all, and are normally on the frontlines calling for more immigration, and intermixture of races.

Yes I've heard. Though the people who are actually making the pro-immigration policies in Sweden are Atheists. I think it has more to do with Global Economics. The free flow of people and goods than it does with Religion. Immigration is being justified for it's supposed Economic benefit.

Nightmare_Gbg
Friday, September 10th, 2004, 10:29 PM
Well our primeminister is religeous and he is fanaticly anti rasist and pro jew.

GreenHeart
Friday, September 10th, 2004, 10:34 PM
Heathen. HAIL the to the Nordic Gods! Hail Odin! http://www.forums.skadi.net/images/smilies/general/costumed-smiley-083.gif

Loki
Friday, September 10th, 2004, 10:36 PM
Immigration is being justified for it's supposed Economic benefit.
True, and this is laughable. There is no economic benefit whatsoever from importing Third World poverty. I am at a loss for words why people don't understand that. :icon1:

Northern Paladin
Friday, September 10th, 2004, 10:48 PM
I lost faith in the Biblical god.

Why is that?

Loki
Friday, September 10th, 2004, 10:49 PM
Why is that?
Do you really want to know? ;)

Northern Paladin
Friday, September 10th, 2004, 10:58 PM
True, and this is laughable. There is no economic benefit whatsoever from importing Third World poverty. I am at a loss for words why people don't understand that. :icon1:

Only some of the Immigrants are refugees. Others actually have "skills". While Immigration can be of Economic benefit. It also causes more problems than it helps solve.

There is no reason why Nordish Countries can't be Economically self-sufficent.

Northern Paladin
Friday, September 10th, 2004, 11:00 PM
Do you really want to know? ;)

Yes. Pray tell.

Carl Rylander
Saturday, September 11th, 2004, 01:48 AM
Christian. I am a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Northern Paladin
Saturday, September 11th, 2004, 01:54 AM
Christian. I am a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Your Swedish aren't you?

Carl Rylander
Saturday, September 11th, 2004, 02:04 AM
Swedish descent. I live in the US.

Nyman
Saturday, September 11th, 2004, 04:17 AM
Lutheran.

Borreby
Saturday, September 11th, 2004, 07:48 AM
I vary between church-burning atheist and wandering heathen.

- - -

Just a point about the discussion on Christians/non-Christians in government promoting multi-culturalism.

I think it not so much a case of if they are practicing Christians or not, but rather on how the Christian ethos, or moral code, has permeated the West, to the point where even non-Christians uphold the basic tenets of that religion (turn the other cheek; help the weak, etc. etc.) And that is the real poison.

Väring
Saturday, September 11th, 2004, 09:35 AM
Former Protestant.

Loki
Saturday, September 11th, 2004, 10:36 AM
Yes. Pray tell.I'll keep it short, since I don't want to wander off this thread's topic, which is merely to determine members' religious affiliations, not criticise them. But if you insist:

1) I realised that the Bible has many flaws and errors, and so it cannot be the Word of God.
2) I realised that there is no evidence for the existence of the Biblical god.
3) I have come to realise that the Christian lifestyle and moral code is detrimental to the survival of our race and subrace.

Even so, I as administrator will not treat Christians differently on TNP. I respect everyone's wish to have their own faith/religion.

Oskorei
Saturday, September 11th, 2004, 12:38 PM
Personal mix of Asatro, Hinduism and Satanism. I try to find the essence of Aryan religions, at the same time finding the essence of myself.

GreenHeart
Saturday, September 11th, 2004, 02:04 PM
I went to a christian school- there I realized what a hypocritical religion it is.

Christianity is also anti-me. I refuse to be subserviant to any god, refuse to belive that my natural instincts are "evil"....

A year after I stopped going to the christian school I was a christian hating atheist dressed in black, doing everything I could to shock christians. :icon_evil After a few years I slowly found my way to the religion of our ancestors.

FadeTheButcher
Saturday, September 11th, 2004, 02:23 PM
Active Nihilism

Loki
Saturday, September 11th, 2004, 02:59 PM
Active Nihilism
Does it include the concept of Homo aestheticus? ;)

Loki
Saturday, September 11th, 2004, 03:02 PM
I'll keep it short, since I don't want to wander off this thread's topic, which is merely to determine members' religious affiliations, not criticise them. But if you insist:

1) I realised that the Bible has many flaws and errors, and so it cannot be the Word of God.
2) I realised that there is no evidence for the existence of the Biblical god.
3) I have come to realise that the Christian lifestyle and moral code is detrimental to the survival of our race and subrace.

Even so, I as administrator will not treat Christians differently on TNP. I respect everyone's wish to have their own faith/religion.
LOL! This was my post no. 666. Oskorei informed me. :icon_evil

Louky
Saturday, September 11th, 2004, 03:35 PM
I'm looking favorably on Cosmotheism, promulgated by the late Dr. William Pierce (whose birthday it is). The Creator's Purpose -- guess what that is.

I'm a cradle Catholic who for a time was secure in the Traditional Catholicism movement, but now I believe that any form of Christianity is detrimental to the "Creator's Purpose."

:hveđrungur:
Saturday, September 11th, 2004, 03:46 PM
Odinist, strongly anti-christian for christianity goes against nature and goes against our blood and dna as european peoples, its a religion for the weak, I shall never turn the other cheek unless I am punching someone else's

Oskorei
Saturday, September 11th, 2004, 04:23 PM
Active Nihilism

Of the Vaneigemist version?

NormanBlood
Sunday, September 12th, 2004, 12:36 AM
Heathen. In my family I have Jehovah's Witnesses and Roman Catholics and I find their beliefs completely incompatible with my world view. The religion of my Teutonic ancestors makes much more sense to me and seems much more logical.

cosmocreator
Sunday, September 12th, 2004, 07:25 AM
Active Nihilism


And yet, you've found a purpose in posting this statement and furthermore, have not ended your life because to go on living would be senseless and useless. :|

cosmocreator
Sunday, September 12th, 2004, 07:29 AM
I was raised a Catholic. I was forced to go to church every week (and on religious holidays) until I was 16. I hated. By my mid 20's I became an atheist. When I discovered Cosmotheism (sometime is my early 30's), it made total sense to me. Thus, I am a Cosmotheist.

Freja
Sunday, September 12th, 2004, 07:52 AM
None. Neither my mother nor my father were religious, so they never baptized their children. At home, we were presented with a very down-to-earth view of religousness. We were explained that some people choose to believe in one or more gods, but that they personally did not believe in any deity.
They had no problem with my deep and early interest for different religions, I was the teachers pet when we had religion at school because I was so incredibly well informed about both Ĺsatru and Christianity.
I have a feeling that there must exist some greater power, but I don´t think it´s a conscious power, nor that there´s only one.

Cosmotheism sounds interesting, could you tell me a little more, Cosmo?

Loki
Sunday, September 12th, 2004, 08:10 AM
I was the teachers pet when we had religion at school because I was so incredibly well informed about both Ĺsatru and Christianity.

Is Asatru discussed at Norwegian public schools, or even taught? :icon_ques

cosmocreator
Sunday, September 12th, 2004, 08:18 AM
Cosmotheism sounds interesting, could you tell me a little more, Cosmo?

Here is all you need to know.

http://cosmotheism.net/

If you have an specific questions, I'll do my best to answer them.

Freja
Sunday, September 12th, 2004, 08:20 AM
Well, naturally it´s discussed, along with most of the worlds major religions. Ĺsatru is an all too important part of our heritage to ignore, and the majority of native norwegians have knowlegde about this old, but not forgotten, religion.
However, christianity is the dominant religion, being supported financially by the government. *grrrrrr*
The minister of education also tends to matters concerning the church, hence the title "Kirke og undervisningsminister" - Minister of church and education.

Milesian
Sunday, September 12th, 2004, 10:47 AM
Same here. I used to be a Christian for many years, but eventually grew out of it.

My past is the polar opposite. I was athiest for many years before I grew out of it. Studying the core of Catholicism presented me with a dillema - ultimately I chose to reject liberalism and athiesim in order to remain faithful to my religion. Thus it was embracing my faith that led me from being an anti to what I am now :)

Northern Paladin
Monday, September 13th, 2004, 03:22 AM
However, christianity is the dominant religion, being supported financially by the government. *grrrrrr*
The minister of education also tends to matters concerning the church, hence the title "Kirke og undervisningsminister" - Minister of church and education.


So there is no seperation between Church and State in Norway?
Is school prayer allowed?

Freja
Monday, September 13th, 2004, 07:12 AM
Correct. We had to say the Lords Prayer (Fader Vĺr) each morning before class, and there were always mandatory trips to services at the nearest church come christmas and easter.
(My parents let me off the hook if I wanted to...)

cosmocreator
Monday, September 13th, 2004, 07:22 AM
Correct. We had to say the Lords Prayer (Fader Vĺr) each morning before class, and there were always mandatory trips to services at the nearest church come christmas and easter.
(My parents let me off the hook if I wanted to...)


That creates an interesting dilemma for persons of other religions, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. How are they treated?

Freja
Monday, September 13th, 2004, 07:39 AM
They are excused, I guess. When I was younger, there was nobody of "other" religions in the neighbourhood. Not one single "coloured person" except for four adopted children, two koreans and two colombians.

I think the system is less strict nowadays.

cosmocreator
Monday, September 13th, 2004, 07:43 AM
They are excused, I guess. When I was younger, there was nobody of "other" religions in the neighbourhood. Not one single "coloured person" except for four adopted children, two koreans and two colombians.

I think the system is less strict nowadays.


So the system much change to accommodate the foreigners. :mad:

Freja
Monday, September 13th, 2004, 07:51 AM
Why, of course. Those poor people must be excused from any obligations, coming from countries of war and destructions... Let´s just give them free apartments and financial support so that they are able to go and buy BMW´s and Mercedeses with a pricetag no average Norwegian family can afford.
What, they raped my niece? Well, it´s probably because of all the traumatizing experiences from their past. They need help, not eviction!

*Does this piss me off? Does it show that much??*

Glenlivet
Monday, September 13th, 2004, 08:50 AM
Do you agree that Sřrlandet is somewhat of a bible belt?



Correct. We had to say the Lords Prayer (Fader Vĺr) each morning before class, and there were always mandatory trips to services at the nearest church come christmas and easter.
(My parents let me off the hook if I wanted to...)

NordHecate
Monday, September 13th, 2004, 11:48 AM
Heathen.

I was not raised in a religious home. My mother and father are, and have always been, atheist. The late 60's did it to em. :icon12:

Northern Paladin
Monday, September 13th, 2004, 04:19 PM
Heathen.

I was not raised in a religious home. My mother and father are, and have always been, atheist. The late 60's did it to em. :icon12:

Just curious what does inn viđförla mean? And what language is it in?

I'm guessing Icelandic :icon1:

Freja
Monday, September 13th, 2004, 05:29 PM
Do you agree that Sřrlandet is somewhat of a bible belt?

Absolutely. Er du norsk?

Northern Paladin
Tuesday, September 21st, 2004, 04:42 AM
What Is Your Religious Orientation?

Feel free to share why you believe what you believe. Perhaps would could even have a good ole debate about it.


Personally I am a Catholic. I was born Catholic. But when I was old enough I made the choice to stay Catholic because I feel Catholic doctrine best reflects the Gospel of Christ which I have faith in as being the Truth of God.

Should have added Njörd is my God as a possible option. Though I was missing something. ;( I am sure it would get at least 1 vote from a certain Balkanoid. :P

JoeDas
Tuesday, September 21st, 2004, 04:58 AM
As for me, I am Lutheran (so obviously I voted Protestant)


Northern_Paladin, if I may ask: If you are Swedish, how is it you are Catholic? Northern European people are not Catholic. In fact Germanics in general are not Catholic with the exception of Bavarians and Austrians. I'm confused.


My personal opinion is that Catholicism is one of the most corrupt and misleading religions around. It seems that more than half of their practices are not supported by the bible in any way, and some of their practices are even directly against the bible! (I can elaborate on this if anyone wants). Also, Catholicism is the religion of the Hispanics. If America becomes a Catholic nation (God forbid), that inevitably will mean that America will be a Hispanic nation. I have a lot of other gripes with Catholicism and Catholics, but I won't waste everyone's time with them here

Vojvoda
Tuesday, September 21st, 2004, 05:00 AM
I won't vote because I'm Christian Orthodox :P

Phill
Tuesday, September 21st, 2004, 05:01 AM
I was born Methodist.

Now... I think the word closest to it is Agnostic. I believe in a higher power or powers, and I don't really think anyone can prove/disprove it (at least, as of yet.) Either way, I think most 'mainstream' ways of going about religion kind of got something going wrong about them - people try to interpret things to better fit their personal views usually, it's either that or they take it way too far.

With that said I think I've met only one people so far who's really restored my faith (errr....) in, well, religion (mainly christianity) as a whole I suppose.

Northern Paladin
Tuesday, September 21st, 2004, 05:09 AM
As for me, I am Lutheran (so obviously I voted Protestant)


Northern_Paladin, if I may ask: If you are Swedish, how is it you are Catholic? Northern European people are not Catholic. In fact Germanics in general are not Catholic with the exception of Bavarians and Austrians. I'm confused.


My personal opinion is that Catholicism is one of the most corrupt and misleading religions around. It seems that more than half of their practices are not supported by the bible in any way, and some of their practices are even directly against the bible! (I can elaborate on this if anyone wants). Also, Catholicism is the religion of the Hispanics. If America becomes a Catholic nation (God forbid), that inevitably will mean that America will be a Hispanic nation. I have a lot of other gripes with Catholicism and Catholics, but I won't waste everyone's time with them here

My Mom is Swedish and only half that(She's half Swede half Dane). My Dad is German and Catholic. Besides Catholic Swedes exist. But they are a very small minority in Sweden. My mom was actually a Lutheran but she decided to convert to Catholicism.

Arguing Catholicism is for Hispanics is not a good argument, Hispanics aren't the only Catholics. Anyways that is beside the point. Based on your logic we could say that Christianity is a religion for Jews. But it is not. Anyone who is informed knows Christianity is a Missionary religion because Jesus himself commanded his Apostles to preach the Gospel "to the ends of the Earth".

Show me how Catholicism is "flawed" via scripture and I will prove thee to be wrong.

Jack
Tuesday, September 21st, 2004, 05:16 AM
If America becomes a Catholic nation (God forbid), that inevitably will mean that America will be a Hispanic nation.

Or an Irish nation.

I'm basically into a customised heathenism :D

Northern Paladin
Tuesday, September 21st, 2004, 05:24 AM
I was born Methodist.

Now... I think the word closest to it is Agnostic. I believe in a higher power or powers, and I don't really think anyone can prove/disprove it (at least, as of yet.) Either way, I think most 'mainstream' ways of going about religion kind of got something going wrong about them - people try to interpret things to better fit their personal views usually, it's either that or they take it way too far.

With that said I think I've met only one people so far who's really restored my faith (errr....) in, well, religion (mainly christianity) as a whole I suppose.

Phill the question of whether God exists is most important question of our lives. There never was and never will be a way to show somebody that God is really there. It takes a leap of faith. But faith doesn't have to go against reason. There are a lot of things reason can't explain.

You know some of ages past have said that the age of Science would bring an end to Christianity. Guess what they were dead wrong about that. Christianity is still alive and well because it answers the most important questions in life. Is there a God and If there is what does he want me to do with my life.

Alkman
Tuesday, September 21st, 2004, 05:26 AM
Dejudaization of Europe

Siegmund
Tuesday, September 21st, 2004, 05:26 AM
Not a religious faith or belief, more a philosophy of life comprised of a Left Hand Path/Hegelian mix.

In my case, LHP focuses on integrating all human actions, thoughts, feelings and instincts around a concept of transcendent personal nobility. It's basically a corrective to an overdeveloped sense of idealism and altruism. :-O

GWF Hegel had many interesting ideas about the movement of history and historical process. It's possible to make history, not just be swept up in it. I think that's what many people on this board wish to do regarding their racial identities. And why not....

JoeDas
Tuesday, September 21st, 2004, 08:13 AM
Arguing Catholicism is for Hispanics is not a good argument, Hispanics aren't the only Catholics.In the Western Hemisphere, the vast majority of Catholics are Hispanic. Based on quick estimations in my head, the Western hemisphere has 500 million Catholics or thereabouts. Not more than 40 or 50 million of those are White Non-Hispanic. So more than 90% of Western-Hemisphere Catholics are Hispanic. If Catholicism becomes the dominant religion in the USA, it is reasonable to assume that the USA will be a Hispanic nation.


Or an Irish nation.Where then will all these new Irish come from? The people who are principally driving population growth in the USA are the Hispanic immigrants, all or virtually of whom are Catholic. I assure you, if America becomes a Catholic nation, it will be a Hispanic nation. I know you're post was meant in a half-joking way, but we should not decieve ourselves: Catholicism and Hispanics go together like a horse and carriage. (same with Catholic priests and pedophilia, apparently)


Show me how Catholicism is "flawed" via scripture and I will prove thee to be wrong.Catholicism does not have two legs to stand on when it comes to scripture. Half of the things in Catholic dogma aren't supported by la biblia santa. Some Catholic practices are actually forbidden by the Bible.

Here are just a few of the ideological faults of Catholicism:

Mary Worship. The bible makes it clear that only God should be worshipped, and worshipping anyone else goes against God's and Jesus' word. Mary worship is a tradition of the corrupt Catholic church, and it is not of supported by the bible at all, but in fact forbidden by the bible.
Worship of Saints. Again, the bible makes it clear many times that only God should be worshipped.
Confessional to a priest. This is never mentioend in the Bible once. The Bible states that we should confess our sins to God, not to man. This is just another of the many ways that the Catholic church keeps its followers under the Catholic jackboot, by making them think that they "need" to confess sins to some pedohile priest or they "need" to give money to the Vatican, or they "need" to do this, "need" to do that in order to be saved. The bible is very clear : We cannot earn or "buy" salvation. It is a gift from God (I refer you to John 3:16). Anyone who says we need to "earn" salvation is speaking directly against the teachings of the Bible and against Jesus.
The position of the Pope. The bible never mentions that there should be a Pope. In fact the bible even says more than once that there should not be such a central figure who claims to be "God's representative on Earth". The position of the Pope is another invention of the corrupt Catholic church, and the very fact that sucha position exists goes against the teachings of the Bible. It is a political position. The Vatican has it's own money, secretary of state, ambassadors, etc. and it is a recognized country. What adds insult to injury is that the Pope is, after all, the CEO of the largest corporation on the planet. None of this is supported by the Bible. If Jesus were around today he would be repulsed by the Catholic church!
Angel and Saint worship. This is a practice that is expressely forbidden in both the old and new testaments. Worship of other beings besides God, worship of statues and images is forbidden. Yet another example of the practices of man coming before the practices of God in the Catholic church.
Celibacy among the priesthood. This is directly opposed by passages in the New Testament, "Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife..." 1st Timothy 3:2. Protestants allow their Pastors to be married because the bible teaches that it is fine for Pastors to marry. Celibacy is unnatural and leads priests to molest boys (!), which we've seen all too much in the past 2 or 3 years! Here's a blatently anti-Catholic passage from the Bible dealing with this: "Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by gving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and enjoin abstinence from foods which God created to be received with Thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth" 1st Timothy 4:1-3. I believe at one time the Catholic chruch forbade the consumption of meat on Fridays or some such ridiculous practice. It looks like the Bible is the Roman Catholic's worst enemy: Most of their practices seem to be directly refuted by the Bible! Do Roman Catholics even read the bible I wonder?
Purgatory. This is a Catholic fantasy. It does not exist. There is absolutely nothing in the bible to support this crazy claim. In fact there are passages that state otherwise.
One of of the Popes in the 19th century proclaimed that Mary had been immaculately conceived and that she was without sin. This just continues the ridiculous Catholic tradition of worship of anything/anyone but God! The Bible states that Mary was a regular human with regular relatives, she was born just as any other human is born, and she was a self-admitted sinner. This doctrine of the Catholic church is false and refuted by the Bible.
The Catholic church teaches that salvation comes through "the Catholic church alone" or some such nonsense. This is the easiest part of Catholic dogma to refute. The bible states that anyone who accepts Jesus will be saved by the Grace of God alone. Refer to Romans 10:13, Romans 10:9-10, John 1:12, John 3:36, John 5:24, John 6:47, Acts 10:43, Acts 16:31, 2nd Timothy 3:15, and of course the famous John 3:16, which states: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." Who do you want to believe: Jesus and the Bible; or the Vatican? As for me, it's an easy choice.
Salvation through good works. The Bible repeatedly states that Salvation cannot be bought or earned. I refer you to Ephisians 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God--not because of works, lest any man should boast." There are many of other verses in the bible that refute the doctrine that salvation comes through Works. It is clear to anyone who listnens to Jesus and reads to the bible that salvation occurs not because we earn it or even deserve it, but rather it is through God's grace alone that we are saved. I refer you further to Romans 3:28, Galatians 3:8, Galatians 3:26, Titus 3:5.
The Catholic church teaches that it can forgive sins. Not only is this not supported by the bible, but it is directly refuted by the bible. "Who can forgive sins but God only?" Mark 2:7.
Indulgences. I don't even have to explain this one. It was obviously one of the most corrupt practices in the Catholic church.
Catholic prayers. Catholics repeatedly pray the same ridiculous things over and over and over and over and over. This is directly in opposition to the words of Jesus: "In praying do not heap up empty phrases as the heathen do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words." Matthew 6:7
Catholics contend that Priests have the power to supernaturally change bread and wine into the literal blood and body of Jesus! But, if you approach the "good Catholic" on the street and ask him, "Are you a cannibal?", he will surely say No. The problem is, if he believes in the Catholic Church's teachings, he is a cannibal! This practice is also not really supported by the bible in any meaningful way. It is yet another example of the strange Catholic practice of putting the traditions of man, no matter how corrupt, before the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of the Bible. The one biblical passage that the Catholics use to support this flimsly Cannibalesque doctrine is John 6:53-54. But if you actually read this passage in context, it is meant figuratively speaking or spiritually speaking, not literally. The acceptance of Jesus is what is meant, not literal cannibalism! In fact, other bible passages explicitly forbid cannibalism, in both the old and new testaments. That is why some Protestant denominations profess Consubstantiation rather than Transubstantiation.

There is much more I could say, but it is late, and I need to go.

Sorry for the length of my reply, but you asked me for it!

Evolved
Tuesday, September 21st, 2004, 03:28 PM
Why isn't there an "I believe in some generic God" option? That is where I'm at now.

Vojvoda
Tuesday, September 21st, 2004, 03:39 PM
Here are just a few of the ideological faults of Catholicism:


Mary Worship. The bible makes it clear that only God should be worshipped, and worshipping anyone else goes against God's and Jesus' word. Mary worship is a tradition of the corrupt Catholic church, and it is not of supported by the bible at all, but in fact forbidden by the bible.
Worship of Saints. Again, the bible makes it clear many times that only God should be worshipped.
Confessional to a priest. This is never mentioend in the Bible once. The Bible states that we should confess our sins to God, not to man. This is just another of the many ways that the Catholic church keeps its followers under the Catholic jackboot, by making them think that they "need" to confess sins to some pedohile priest or they "need" to give money to the Vatican, or they "need" to do this, "need" to do that in order to be saved. The bible is very clear : We cannot earn or "buy" salvation. It is a gift from God (I refer you to John 3:16). Anyone who says we need to "earn" salvation is speaking directly against the teachings of the Bible and against Jesus.
The position of the Pope. The bible never mentions that there should be a Pope. In fact the bible even says more than once that there should not be such a central figure who claims to be "God's representative on Earth". The position of the Pope is another invention of the corrupt Catholic church, and the very fact that sucha position exists goes against the teachings of the Bible. It is a political position. The Vatican has it's own money, secretary of state, ambassadors, etc. and it is a recognized country. What adds insult to injury is that the Pope is, after all, the CEO of the largest corporation on the planet. None of this is supported by the Bible. If Jesus were around today he would be repulsed by the Catholic church!
Angel and Saint worship. This is a practice that is expressely forbidden in both the old and new testaments. Worship of other beings besides God, worship of statues and images is forbidden. Yet another example of the practices of man coming before the practices of God in the Catholic church.
Celibacy among the priesthood. This is directly opposed by passages in the New Testament, "Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife..." 1st Timothy 3:2. Protestants allow their Pastors to be married because the bible teaches that it is fine for Pastors to marry. Celibacy is unnatural and leads priests to molest boys (!), which we've seen all too much in the past 2 or 3 years! Here's a blatently anti-Catholic passage from the Bible dealing with this: "Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by gving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and enjoin abstinence from foods which God created to be received with Thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth" 1st Timothy 4:1-3. I believe at one time the Catholic chruch forbade the consumption of meat on Fridays or some such ridiculous practice. It looks like the Bible is the Roman Catholic's worst enemy: Most of their practices seem to be directly refuted by the Bible! Do Roman Catholics even read the bible I wonder?
Purgatory. This is a Catholic fantasy. It does not exist. There is absolutely nothing in the bible to support this crazy claim. In fact there are passages that state otherwise.
One of of the Popes in the 19th century proclaimed that Mary had been immaculately conceived and that she was without sin. This just continues the ridiculous Catholic tradition of worship of anything/anyone but God! The Bible states that Mary was a regular human with regular relatives, she was born just as any other human is born, and she was a self-admitted sinner. This doctrine of the Catholic church is false and refuted by the Bible.
The Catholic church teaches that salvation comes through "the Catholic church alone" or some such nonsense. This is the easiest part of Catholic dogma to refute. The bible states that anyone who accepts Jesus will be saved by the Grace of God alone. Refer to Romans 10:13, Romans 10:9-10, John 1:12, John 3:36, John 5:24, John 6:47, Acts 10:43, Acts 16:31, 2nd Timothy 3:15, and of course the famous John 3:16, which states: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." Who do you want to believe: Jesus and the Bible; or the Vatican? As for me, it's an easy choice.
Salvation through good works. The Bible repeatedly states that Salvation cannot be bought or earned. I refer you to Ephisians 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God--not because of works, lest any man should boast." There are many of other verses in the bible that refute the doctrine that salvation comes through Works. It is clear to anyone who listnens to Jesus and reads to the bible that salvation occurs not because we earn it or even deserve it, but rather it is through God's grace alone that we are saved. I refer you further to Romans 3:28, Galatians 3:8, Galatians 3:26, Titus 3:5.
The Catholic church teaches that it can forgive sins. Not only is this not supported by the bible, but it is directly refuted by the bible. "Who can forgive sins but God only?" Mark 2:7.
Indulgences. I don't even have to explain this one. It was obviously one of the most corrupt practices in the Catholic church.
Catholic prayers. Catholics repeatedly pray the same ridiculous things over and over and over and over and over. This is directly in opposition to the words of Jesus: "In praying do not heap up empty phrases as the heathen do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words." Matthew 6:7
Catholics contend that Priests have the power to supernaturally change bread and wine into the literal blood and body of Jesus! But, if you approach the "good Catholic" on the street and ask him, "Are you a cannibal?", he will surely say No. The problem is, if he believes in the Catholic Church's teachings, he is a cannibal! This practice is also not really supported by the bible in any meaningful way. It is yet another example of the strange Catholic practice of putting the traditions of man, no matter how corrupt, before the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of the Bible. The one biblical passage that the Catholics use to support this flimsly Cannibalesque doctrine is John 6:53-54. But if you actually read this passage in context, it is meant figuratively speaking or spiritually speaking, not literally. The acceptance of Jesus is what is meant, not literal cannibalism! In fact, other bible passages explicitly forbid cannibalism, in both the old and new testaments. That is why some Protestant denominations profess Consubstantiation rather than Transubstantiation.
Orthodoxy is basically the opposite of this,except for the worshipping of saints which has pagan roots, if anyone was wondering what the difference was.The Pope is not recognized,Mary was a regular human etc.

Milesian
Tuesday, September 21st, 2004, 03:42 PM
JoeDas, I look forward to debating with you when I have some time.

Your arguments are the comon textbook ones that some religious instruction will easily refute.
Needless to say your continual references to Scripture leads me to believe you subscribe to Sola Scriptura. This is the belief (which originated in the Reformation) that the Bible alone is the source of Christian authority and whatever is not in the Bible is not Christian. Therefore, could you please tell me where in the Bible the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is mentioned.
For according to Sola Scriptura, if Sola Scriptura cannot be found in the Bible then it is un-Biblical and thefore un-Christian ;)

In other words, I put to you this question - Does Sola Scriptura disprove Sola Scriptura? (or - Is Sola Scriptura unbiblical?)

In addition, a good place to find the answers to your points would be here, in Skadi's Catholic forum. These are questions asked by a former Protestant to a priest before his conversion. The are the usual points that Protestants raise, as you just did :-

Catholicism: The Basics (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=8415)