PDA

View Full Version : Gods Are IE And Not Semitic



Rahul
Sunday, August 4th, 2002, 05:24 PM
This has bothered me greatly. Why do people show disregard to the usage of gods and imply the middle eastern yhwh or el every time they use the word.

This will be the last straw if they are able to snatch it again. The root of the word is German and had an entirely different context.

This, thus, is the greatest jewish deception. As an Aryan,I protest against the use of god to refer to the middle eastern "phenomena".

Let us end this hijacking of another Aryan essence.

Hellstar
Sunday, August 4th, 2002, 07:04 PM
Heil to That.

Ederico
Sunday, August 4th, 2002, 08:38 PM
I think that when God is referred it is believed that it is a reference to the Christian God, because most Aryans have had a Christian upbringing. Since being raised a Catholic, that is what I understand when I see the word God. Obviously I agree with what you propose because I believe that the ancient Aryan Religions (or whatever they can be called) should be respected and the knowledge of these Religions should be encouraged as part of re-discovering our forefathers heritage and culture.

What is IE?
I think I understand what IE stands for, its Indo-European, or not?

OnionPeeler
Sunday, August 4th, 2002, 11:44 PM
(Not all the special characters show up here.)

GOD [Middle English, from Old English. See gheu()- in Indo-European Roots.]

To call, invoke. Oldest form *heu()-, becoming *gheu()- in centum languages. Suffixed zero-grade form *ghu-to-, “the invoked,” god. a. god, from Old English god, god; b. giddy, from Old English gydig, gidig, possessed, insane, from Germanic *gud-iga-, possessed by a god; c. götterdämmerung, from Old High German got, god. a–c all from Germanic *gudam, god. (Pokorny hau- 413.)

LORD [Middle English, from Old English hlford : hlf, bread + weard, guardian; see wer-3 in Indo-European Roots.]

ALMIGHTY [Middle English almighti, from Old English ealmihtig : eall, all; see all + mihtig, mighty (from miht, might. See might1).]

KING [Middle English, from Old English cyning. See gen- in Indo-European Roots.]

REX [Latin, King.]

II. Lengthened-grade form *rg-, Indo-European word for a tribal king. 1a. bishopric, eldritch, from Old English rce, realm; b. Riksmål, from Old Norse rki, realm; c. Reich; Reichsmark, from Old High German rchi, realm; d. rich, from Old English rce, strong, powerful, and Old French riche, wealthy. a–d all from Germanic *rkja-, from Celtic suffixed form *rg-yo-. 2. real2, regal, regulus, reign, rial1, riyal, royal; regicide, regius professor, vicereine, viceroy, from Latin rx, king (royal and priestly title). 3. Suffixed form *rg-en-. raj, rajah, rani, rye2; maharajah, maharani, from Sanskrit rj, rjan-, king, rajah (feminine rjñ, queen, rani), and rjati, he rules.

---
Indo-European roots here:
http://www.bartleby.com/61/IEroots.html
----

Nazzjonalista is right, of course. We Westerners are conditioned to think in terms of the Biblical gods, but this is changing. My kids have a completely different attitude. If some one were to mention "god" to them, they're likely to say "Which god?".

Could be my influence. ;)

So what are we to do, Rahul? Modern media is doing most of the work for us. Nietzsche announced "God is dead" a hundred years ahead of schedule. What lacks is a replacement. Nietzsche seems to have favored an abstract creative force with in a somewhat pantheistic universe to answer his own depressing nihilism. He saw in Zarathustra the necessary dualism but, of course, left Z.'s moralistic interpretation behind.

The problem with reverting to simple polytheism as in Asatru is that it is already played out. We can view broadly the evolution from Rig Veda's reverence to the cartoonish depictions in the Norse myth. What is Loki's Flyting if not an attack on the anthropocentric gods? The Indo-Aryans and Greeks both dismembered their gods to build higher modes. The Upanishads and Buddism match closely the failed probings of the Greeks. Heraclitus something of a pantheist. Orpheus, a reincarnationist.

This is not to say the polytheistic layer is useless. It is tradition, history and imagery woven into our Western culture. When we say "Trojan horse" or "Pandora's Box" we recognize the lasting connections. Some of these connections need to be restored, while other, new ones, are necessary - in my opinion.

Berserker
Sunday, August 4th, 2002, 11:47 PM
Hell even Christ is a Germanic name heh :viking

Frank
Monday, August 5th, 2002, 01:09 PM
If the soul were the size of an atom of sun light, how big would THAT which is known as God be? My point is that, as was previously stated, we, here in the West, are conditioned to see God as a male being with a Western Paternal Attitude toward Humanity. There are some that see God as neither this nor that, but, rather, THAT from which this and that arises like droplets of water from waves in the ocean.

Rahul
Monday, August 5th, 2002, 03:51 PM
IE = Indo-European.

I use IE to refer to-Aryan or Indo-European.

Will Continue....

Rahul
Monday, August 5th, 2002, 04:06 PM
If the soul were the size of an atom of sun light, how big would THAT which is known as God be? My point is that, as was previously stated, we, here in the West, are conditioned to see God as a male being with a Western Paternal Attitude toward Humanity. There are some that see God as neither this nor that, but, rather, THAT from which this and that arises like droplets of water from waves in the ocean.

Frank is not only talking in the spirit of the Upanishads and the early Greek philosophy, which Triad has mentioned, but his own spiritual quest. I understand that this question is of a great relevance, for the elevated and thoughtful minds who are at ease with their idea of existence.

By the way, I mean Aryan whenever I use Indo-European. That is more real as I feel it.

Ederico
Monday, August 5th, 2002, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by Rahul
IE = Indo-European.

I use IE to refer to-Aryan or Indo-European.

Will Continue....

Thanks for your explanation, I understood what IE stands for before I saw your explanatory post, but it is good to have a confirmation, thanks.

Rahul
Tuesday, August 6th, 2002, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by Triad
(Not all the special characters show up here.)

GOD [Middle English, from Old English. See gheu()- in Indo-European Roots.]

To call, invoke. Oldest form *heu()-, becoming *gheu()- in centum languages. Suffixed zero-grade form *ghu-to-, “the invoked,” god. a. god, from Old English god, god; b. giddy, from Old English gydig, gidig, possessed, insane, from Germanic *gud-iga-, possessed by a god; c. götterdämmerung, from Old High German got, god. a–c all from Germanic *gudam, god. (Pokorny hau- 413.)

LORD [Middle English, from Old English hlford : hlf, bread + weard, guardian; see wer-3 in Indo-European Roots.]

ALMIGHTY [Middle English almighti, from Old English ealmihtig : eall, all; see all + mihtig, mighty (from miht, might. See might1).]

KING [Middle English, from Old English cyning. See gen- in Indo-European Roots.]

REX [Latin, King.]

II. Lengthened-grade form *rg-, Indo-European word for a tribal king. 1a. bishopric, eldritch, from Old English rce, realm; b. Riksmål, from Old Norse rki, realm; c. Reich; Reichsmark, from Old High German rchi, realm; d. rich, from Old English rce, strong, powerful, and Old French riche, wealthy. a–d all from Germanic *rkja-, from Celtic suffixed form *rg-yo-. 2. real2, regal, regulus, reign, rial1, riyal, royal; regicide, regius professor, vicereine, viceroy, from Latin rx, king (royal and priestly title). 3. Suffixed form *rg-en-. raj, rajah, rani, rye2; maharajah, maharani, from Sanskrit rj, rjan-, king, rajah (feminine rjñ, queen, rani), and rjati, he rules.

---
Indo-European roots here:
http://www.bartleby.com/61/IEroots.html
----

Nazzjonalista is right, of course. We Westerners are conditioned to think in terms of the Biblical gods, but this is changing. My kids have a completely different attitude. If some one were to mention "god" to them, they're likely to say "Which god?".

Could be my influence. ;)

So what are we to do, Rahul? Modern media is doing most of the work for us. Nietzsche announced "God is dead" a hundred years ahead of schedule. What lacks is a replacement. Nietzsche seems to have favored an abstract creative force with in a somewhat pantheistic universe to answer his own depressing nihilism. He saw in Zarathustra the necessary dualism but, of course, left Z.'s moralistic interpretation behind.

The problem with reverting to simple polytheism as in Asatru is that it is already played out. We can view broadly the evolution from Rig Veda's reverence to the cartoonish depictions in the Norse myth. What is Loki's Flyting if not an attack on the anthropocentric gods? The Indo-Aryans and Greeks both dismembered their gods to build higher modes. The Upanishads and Buddism match closely the failed probings of the Greeks. Heraclitus something of a pantheist. Orpheus, a reincarnationist.

This is not to say the polytheistic layer is useless. It is tradition, history and imagery woven into our Western culture. When we say "Trojan horse" or "Pandora's Box" we recognize the lasting connections. Some of these connections need to be restored, while other, new ones, are necessary - in my opinion.



New connections are necessary of course. But when I see the Gods as our senses, isn't there a possiblity that the Skandinavian, Germanic, Celtic and Roman traditions etc were changed to suit the requirements of the Church and to present them in a way such that "Jesus' state" could be augmented at their cost, in the eyes of the adherents of the church. And much of the literary traditions which we have access to in the modern times might have become thoroughly modified?

Reverence in the Veda is to the reality of the "Self".

No doubt that the extrapolation of Brahman and the Atman, as in appears in the Upanishads is of a later date and a slightly different message it carries, but looking at the rest of the Aryan traditions, and that includes the Iranian/Pars, it seems that their natural progression was obstructed and I dare say convoluted, in those years.

This is not at all to suggest that the Veda lived through a flourishing era in the new age, it suffered multiculturalism most of all.

Berserker
Tuesday, August 6th, 2002, 10:32 PM
Yeah, I think that's why alot of people resent Christianity, because it corroded their indigenous religions, just my two cents.

OnionPeeler
Wednesday, August 7th, 2002, 12:49 AM
The problem with Aryan 'high modes' is not a lack of thoughtfulness, but a superabundance of it. It is likely that other monotheistic Gods such as Jesus and Yahweh owe their simplistic origin to the likes of Zarathustra and Indic influence.

If we step back and look at Aryan developements from afar, there appears three or four explosively 'creative' eras. There is Zarathustra acting, apparently, on his own. There is period of Upanishads in Bharat, the Greek philosophers and finally more recent Western philosophy.

What is interesting about these periods is that not one conclusion is made, but many. Zarathustra is an exception here because his only competition was the older cults. To be sure, A philosopher offers A solution, but in the cases of Upanishads/Buddism, the Greeks and the modern there is an intense competition of ideas.

There is indeed other common points among the three main examples. They all occur during a period of decay of older sources of stability. By the time of the Greek philosophers the Greeks themselves have become thoroughly detached from the martial vigor apparent in Illiad. By the time of Kant the upper classes in West have started to become weak. The last of the West's martial spirit will be spent on the battlefields of WWI and WWII leaving the decadent pacificism we see today.

It is almost as if these higher considerations accompany social chaos, if not collapse. Whether either is cause or effect, I don't know.

What seems certain is that the West is rapidly evolving culturally. This is a technically more accurate term for "collapse" since some historians balk at that harsh word. But collapse it is, nonetheless. Cultural detachment from our antecedents is already complete. The festering intellectual modes of the 18th through 20th Centuries combined with two World Wars and mass media have seen this transition occur within an unprecedented single generation.

The Greco-Roman civilization held together for a few hundred years under Roman arms much as the American dominance professes to buttress a civilization which exists only in memory. In India, the higher aspirations led to the Buddist heresy and the mergence of earlier speculation with the Book of Manu in an attempt to stem change.

Any hope for a political or cultural revival in the West is altoghter unlikely.




But when I see the Gods as our senses, isn't there a possiblity that the Skandinavian, Germanic, Celtic and Roman traditions etc were changed to suit the requirements of the Church and to present them in a way such that "Jesus' state" could be augmented at their cost, in the eyes of the adherents of the church. And much of the literary traditions which we have access to in the modern times might have become thoroughly modified?

Reverence in the Veda is to the reality of the "Self".

No doubt that the extrapolation of Brahman and the Atman, as in appears in the Upanishads is of a later date and a slightly different message it carries, but looking at the rest of the Aryan traditions, and that includes the Iranian/Pars, it seems that their natural progression was obstructed and I dare say convoluted, in those years.


Christianity attacked European paganism with fervor. Of that there is little doubt. But Xianity can't be the scapegoat for the Greeks' attack on their own traditions or the evolution of Brahman. In a sense, Zarathustra is more pure, at least insofar as we see with clarity one man's thoughts. Though Zoroastrianism would later evolve itself, early Z. presents a personified "force dualism" similar to Heraclitus (and may have inspired Heraclitus). Of course, what Z. lacks is peer criticism.

I would have to agree though. In each case, these speculations are interrupted by circumstance, but also (especially the Greek and modern) by internal decay.

We're headed for trouble, that's for sure. There may be few survivors in two hundred years who can call themselves Aryan by blood and thought.

So far, Rahul, you're the only one I've met with a serious mind to synthesizing a sensible whole from the mish-mash we've inherited.