PDA

View Full Version : I Dare Us All To Be As Gods



SuuT
Wednesday, January 3rd, 2007, 01:04 AM
I tell you that there are gods that not only want you to think for yourself; but demand it as prerequisite to manhood.


I dare us ALL to think for ourselves.

I dare us all to be as gods.

"You shall remain as little children'' - is the edict of a Semitic god.

"You shall enter the hall of heroes for an honourable and valourous life of manhood" - is the reward, and wish, of the AllFather.

You tell me: why is the former decaying? - what is the appeal of the latter?


The former does not want you to be skeptical.
The latter demands it as the god of Wisdom.

I tell you that there are gods that not only want you to think for yourself; but demand it as prerequisite to manhood.

Airmanareiks
Wednesday, January 3rd, 2007, 01:12 AM
The latter demands that you prove your worth. Lets say that you start off as a blank slate. A Zero. You have to proof your worth, intelligence, stregth, virtu, etc...

As Heraclitus said:

Some men are born Gods, some Gods become men, and some men become Gods.

And it is through strife with others that you establish your rank metaphysically. This is Nietzche's Order of Rank. Man does not establish the order of rank, but the Gods. Which is why Aryan Gods (Odin) loved war and took the best with him in battle, because he needed the best warriors forhimself to combat the anti Gods, or anti - life forces. With total peace there is death, with death there is no worth, no being, no value. Only in BECOMING excellent, (mode of competition) do you actually become excellent.

SuuT
Wednesday, January 3rd, 2007, 01:35 AM
The latter demands that you prove your worth. Lets say that you start off as a blank slate. A Zero. You have to proof your worth, intelligence, stregth, virtu, etc...

As Heraclitus said:

Some men are born Gods, some Gods become men, and some men become Gods.

And it is through strife with others that you establish your rank metaphysically. This is Nietzche's Order of Rank. Man does not establish the order of rank, but the Gods. Which is why Aryan Gods (Odin) loved war and took the best with him in battle, because he needed the best warriors forhimself to combat the anti Gods, or anti - life forces. With total peace there is death, with death there is no worth, no being, no value. Only in BECOMING excellent, (mode of competition) do you actually become excellent.

Superb.

Also an excellent display of how reason and spirituality are in no way at odds with one another in a balanced conception.

More wars (first and foremost within the individual) - not less - for the sake of spirituality and the rebirth of noble conceptions, and balance, is how the knower sees the future, so long as he is rooted by blood and ambition to his past.

God is dead. Long live the gods. Let loose the day after tomorrow.

AlbionMP
Wednesday, January 3rd, 2007, 03:17 PM
God is dead. Long live the gods.


:prost

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, January 3rd, 2007, 04:43 PM
The former does not want you to be skeptical.

What on earth you talking about? From the very first pages of Genesis we constantly see Biblical figures questioning and openly confronting God. You hardly see much of this in other mythologies in the Near East.


The latter demands that you prove your worth. Lets say that you start off as a blank slate. A Zero. You have to proof your worth, intelligence, stregth, virtu, etc...

Other than the blank slate, I fail to see how on earth that contradicts Christian teachings.



As Heraclitus said:
Some men are born Gods, some Gods become men, and some men become Gods.

Hmmmnn.....sounds alot like Soloviev's concept of Godmanhood.

SuuT
Wednesday, January 3rd, 2007, 08:01 PM
What on earth you talking about? From the very first pages of Genesis we constantly see Biblical figures questioning and openly confronting God. You hardly see much of this in other mythologies in the Near East.


And what became of that!

When's the last time you tested the "Lord thy God" Taras?

The creation myths of all the Abrahamic Traditions are virtually identical: that of Islam is actually more descript. - God is challenged; Humans are punished.

No one is asking you to not be a Christian: just give the whole story when you make a statement about Christianity.

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, January 3rd, 2007, 08:52 PM
The creation myths of all the Abrahamic Traditions are virtually identical: that of Islam is actually more descript. - God is challenged; Humans are punished.
Humans are also punished for challenging the Gods in pagan mythology. So what's your point?

Airmanareiks
Wednesday, January 3rd, 2007, 09:45 PM
Superb.
Also an excellent display of how reason and spirituality are in no way at odds with one another in a balanced conception.
More wars (first and foremost within the individual) - not less - for the sake of spirituality and the rebirth of noble conceptions, and balance, is how the knower sees the future, so long as he is rooted by blood and ambition to his past.
God is dead. Long live the gods. Let loose the day after tomorrow.


Reson is Logos which is logic or a sucession of right thoughts. To be sucessful in war, aka Napolean, you have to be mental and logical (ceasar]. Live within the Divine Logos and be sucessful, but live outside the Logos/Orlog and have hubris (egoism] defying natural law/order, then death is certain. Thus, the most sucessful warrior is the dispassioned one (einherjar] without fear, transcendent premonitions, if choosen by fate (wyrd]. You must conquer yourself before you can conquer others. Others seek to conquer others (especially sexually] because of their inner need/inferiority, but the master of himself, soon masters nature- the exterior - and the master of nature is the master of others, for all live within nature. Whoever controls nature is thus the master of the world. The great mind/soul expands and if truly superior to all others, encompases nature and gains spiritual power like a tornado gathering souls as Odin and his women (valkyries] did when warriors died on the field of battle.


Religion is part of human nature, and it has been with us since the good times we spent in Africa.. I think it will stick around with us for another good 200 000 yrs..;)
http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/images/homoerectus.JPG


Religion was thought up in order to gain more power. Thus, being sucessful in getting food and a hot women. Science does this role as well. Jesusism views natural law and science as wrong/evil and advocates to give your life/soul to "Jesus" who is all you need. But Jesusism is not all religion. As people always seek more sucess, power, hotter mates, any means to that ends will be looked for. People will go to the one that offers the greatest use which is why Jesusism gain popularity because it promised the most. That does not mean in reality that Jesusism actually is ontologically true. The masses of people are utilitarian and as long as a religion offers them perceived benefits, it will exist [in varied form]


Other than the blank slate, I fail to see how on earth that contradicts Christian teachings. .


How do you prove your worth for Jesus?
Churchs differ, WWJD?

Follow Jesus. Give your life to Jesus. Be a follower. The Base.

Nobody can be Jesus they say. Thus, limitation.
Do as Jesus.
What did Jesus do? What Kant would say a Universal Imperative.

Have no money.
Live off others.
Be pacifist. Stike not others.
Heal the sick.
Love all.

How does this contridict Aryanism?
If everyone since the begining of time was a Jesuit, then live would never have existed. For there would be no killing. Humans would not have existed. Herbavores would for they did not kill. Jesus did not procreate. End of story.

Whereas in Aryanism, proving worth indicates you have value as an individual not because you believe in something. Jesus thought the poor, humble were ontologically better then the rich (aryan means noble ] Live is about virding (old norse] proving your worth as a being, in thought, deed and war. Thus, Odin is the father of war, and in war is life where the worthless, live unworthy of life, die because they are inferior. Thus the superior live on, have kids, and we upward materially and spiritually evolve. Jesus would say, we are equal in the eyes of God, whereas in Aryanism, it is opposite, nothing is equals, there is an order of rank, caste, where the pure and wise rule, Platos philosopher kings, Norse Godi, Aryan Brahmins, et..al. In aryanism there is an original man (Ymir/Purusha] in whom God divided up, the mind being the Aryan/Godi/Brahmin/white, the Limbs the warriors (Red] and the Feet the Slaves (black]. I venture to say, that Jesus favored the slaves.non aryans.

SuuT
Wednesday, January 3rd, 2007, 11:43 PM
Humans are also punished for challenging the Gods in pagan mythology. So what's your point?

Point: There could not be two more different psychological dynamisms between two world views.

The Christian conception of punishment is engorged by the notion of sin.

The Pagan (Norse, shall we?) concepetion of punishment has no equivalent meme. None.


Here is the story of Fenrir (provided by Micha F. Lindemans) for a general feel of Norse 'religiosity'!

"Fenrir (or Fenris) is a gigantic and terrible monster in the shape of a wolf. He is the eldest child of Loki and the giantess Angrboda. The gods learned of a prophecy which stated that the wolf and his family would one day be responsible for the destruction of the world. They caught the wolf and locked him in a cage. Only the god of war, Tyr, dared to feed and take care of the wolf.
When he was still a pup they had nothing to fear, but when the gods saw one day how he had grown, they decided to render him harmless. However, none of the gods had enough courage to face the gigantic wolf. Instead, they tried to trick him. They said the wolf was weak and could never break free when he was chained. Fenrir accepted the challenge and let the gods chain him. Unfortunately, he was so immensely strong that he managed to break the strongest fetters as if they were cobwebs.
After that, the gods saw only one alternative left: a magic chain. They ordered the dwarves to make something so strong that it could hold the wolf. The result was a soft, thin ribbon: Gleipnir. It was incredibly strong, despite what its size and appearance might suggest. The ribbon was fashioned of six strange elements: the footstep of a cat; the roots of a mountain; a woman's beard; the breath of fishes; the sinews of a bear; and a bird's spittle.
The gods tried to trick the wolf again, only this time Fenrir was less eager to show his strength. He saw how thin the chain was, and said that was no pride in breaking such a weak chain. Eventually, though, he agreed, thinking that otherwise his strength and courage would be doubted. Suspecting treachery however, he in turn asked the gods for a token of good will: one of them had to put a hand between his jaws. The gods were not overly eager to do this, knowing what they could expect. Finally, only Tyr agreed, and the gods chained the wolf with Gleipnir. No matter how hard Fenrir struggled, he could not break free from this thin ribbon. In revenge, he bit off Tyr's hand. Being very pleased with themselves, the gods carried Fenrir off and chained him to a rock (called Gioll) a mile down into the earth. They put a sword between his jaws to prevent him from biting. On the day of Rangnorok, Fenrir will break his chains and join the giants in their battle against the gods. He will seek out Odin and devour him. Vidar, Odin's son, will avenge his father by killing the wolf."

What is the point of that?

Even my gods can be 'punished'.

Your god is unreasable; and, unaccountable.

Taras Bulba
Thursday, January 4th, 2007, 02:55 PM
What is the point of that?
Even my gods can be 'punished'.

Which makes it rather pointless to worship them at all.

SuuT
Thursday, January 4th, 2007, 04:11 PM
Which makes it rather pointless to worship them at all.

Therin you demonstrate the dichotemy, and - more importantly - your complete lack of understanding of 'Paganism' you so frequently charge others with with respect to Christianity.

The reduction can be seen as follows:

1.) "I, a Christian, am only inclined to follow a spiritual path of divity that requires myself, qua Christian, to suffer the inclination of an unacountable god." "Why? - because God says so; and yet, I am responsible for impossible achievements set before me by said God - my free will is my noose."

*Zero equivalent psychology to/in Pagainism*

2.) (Let's stick to Norse): "I, a Pagan, am inclined by the exemplars of glory indigenous to my Folk: such exemplars are deified by their this-worldly achievement to which I, qua Pagan, aspire to achieve - because this is the sacrifice for Wisdom: that I should pursue the serpent (the oldest and wisest friend of knowledge) - and conquer even he. In this manner, my destiny, determined or no - I take into mine own hands. My fate - is my freedom."

Here is the basic question all Christians ask:

"How do I become more like Jesus?"

Here is the basic question all Pagans ask:

"How do I, myself, become a god...?

Taras Bulba
Thursday, January 4th, 2007, 04:36 PM
Therin you demonstrate the dichotemy, and - more importantly - your complete lack of understanding of 'Paganism' you so frequently charge others with with respect to Christianity.

I do indeed have a significant understanding of paganism. Not least of which because of much of the readings I did in my early years into numerous pagan traditions. At age 12, for example, I even wrote a book report on Dorothy G. Hosford's Thunder of the Gods. My love for pre-Christian mythology has not really died either btw.

At least twice in my life I flirted with Neo-paganism itself. Correction, the second time around I was still an atheist but had neo-pagan sympathies.

Then I can also add my numerous disscusions with neo-pagans over the past few years.



The reduction can be seen as follows:

I dont even know where to begin correcting your slanted view of Christian salvation.



Here is the basic question all Christians ask:
"How do I become more like Jesus?"

Here is the basic question all Pagans ask:
"How do I, myself, become a god...?

Since Jesus is God made man, becoming more like Jesus is becoming more like God. As St. Athanasius once stated: "God became man in order that man might become god".

So the question is further begged here, where is the significant difference?

SineNomine
Thursday, January 4th, 2007, 04:41 PM
Here is the basic question all Pagans ask:
"How do I, myself, become a god...?
Would this be an example of the purportedly germanic concept of individualism?

Siegfried
Sunday, January 7th, 2007, 12:50 PM
Since Jesus is God made man, becoming more like Jesus is becoming more like God. As St. Athanasius once stated: "God became man in order that man might become god".

Very interesting. Could you give a source? I'd like to read this in context. :)

SuuT
Sunday, January 7th, 2007, 02:46 PM
Very interesting. Could you give a source? I'd like to read this in context. :)

Unfortunately(?), the man and the conditions of the time must be understood in order to understand the statement; otherwise, the statement is convincing as it has been presented. In short, just reading the source of the quote doesn't really circumscribe not only what is being said - but why.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02035a.htm

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-04/TOC.htm

Airmanareiks
Sunday, January 7th, 2007, 10:36 PM
Since Jesus is God made man, becoming more like Jesus is becoming more like God. As St. Athanasius once stated: "God became man in order that man might become god".

So the question is further begged here, where is the significant difference?

Jesus is God?
What is God?


God in my lanaguage means Goden or Odin which means possessed [of being] which is the mind , hugr and munin, thought and memory.

Jesus was a universalist and saw no races.
Jesus did not believe in killing.

If God was a universalist pacifist, this world would not exist for it is by racism and war which causes evolution from ape to man, that and sexual selection in which Jesus had no desire to be part in.

Racism
Sexual Selection
War

Drive to Aryaman [the perfect Godman which was Kon Jarl the first offspring of God Rig in Rigsthula] Lord (frauja] and Lady (freya) is the Aryan goal.

The drive to being a perfect Godman/women. This is why aryans had statues of Gods, because they were racial proto types whereas the ugly races destroyed statues because they did not want to worship Aryans and they saw God as immaterial/dead because they were of Jotun stock.

Taras Bulba
Sunday, January 7th, 2007, 10:55 PM
Jesus is God?
Yes he is.



God in my lanaguage means Goden or Odin which means possessed [of being] which is the mind , hugr and munin, thought and memory.

And?




Jesus was a universalist and saw no races.

Jesus was a universalist but that is not to say he didnt acknowledge national/racial identities. The Gospel of Matthew pretty has the theme of Jesus identifying with his own cultural roots, which is fully expressed in Matthew 15:24. At the end of Matthew's Gospel, Christ commands the Apostles to go and "make disciples of all the nations" (Matthew 28:19).

Then the event of Pentecost in Acts 2 also further demonstrates that the division of mankind into different nations and races is ordained by God.



Jesus did not believe in killing.

Thats not really true. Jesus largely taught how people should conduct themselves in their daily lives. Within that context, yes Jesus does not want us killing each other, he wants people to live in a safe stable community. He certainly is not saying that killing in the context of self-defense is wrong, or that killing while serving your country in wartime is wrong.

Airmanareiks
Monday, January 8th, 2007, 12:18 AM
Yes he is. And?Jesus was a universalist but that is not to say he didnt acknowledge national/racial identities. The Gospel of Matthew pretty has the theme of Jesus identifying with his own cultural roots, which is fully expressed in Matthew 15:24. At the end of Matthew's Gospel, Christ commands the Apostles to go and "make disciples of all the nations" (Matthew 28:19).


You stated Jesus believed in killing. "If someone strikes you on your cheek, offer him the other." proofs he was a pacifist. How do you get food. Well God feeds you, look at the birds in the sky, they want not, but God feeds them. Jesus, not being God, because he was falliable, falsely believed God feeds you when in fact, YOU have to feed yourself. Meaning, you may have to kill to eat. In fact, Man became man from lower life by killing lower life.

In a multi racial society, Jesus would not advocate racial castes as Aryanism does. But follow your heart. Thus Jesus is a pacificistic anti - racist/caste. Remember, caste is varna/color and caste is from God (Law of Manu/Rigsthula) given as divine Rede from Goden, the Father of Aryaman.


This meant Odin is God for the name Odin is Goden which means God. What is God? You did not answer that because for Jesus Lovers, God is love. God is Being and Being is to think, and to think is to have a mind. No wonder why God, I mean Odin has Hugin (thought) and memory (Munin) and is the All Father, incompassing as that thinks, exists.

You stated Jesus is a Jew so God is a Jew, Yaweh. Jesus the universal pacificst, who seeks to convert all non Jews to communism, or Jesusim.

But you still did not prove WHY Jesus is God. You just stated it as IF it was a fact.

Once again:
Why is Jesus God?
What is God?

While you avoid my question, I have no problem in any ontological religious discussions.


I proved Odin is God.



Heil Wotan!



Konung ok All Vater af Germans!!!!

Nagelfar
Monday, January 8th, 2007, 01:57 AM
This meant Odin is God for the name Odin is Goden which means God.

Modern academics try to say otherwise, but I rather agree. Goð- Woð- can be connected via the glottal 'yogh' character found in Old English which can connect the 'g' &'w' sounds. To "invoke" (the IE root of what some modern academia called God) and to "inspire, possess" (the IE root of what some modern academia call Wod, Od) seem to be the same to me. To invoke (conjure within yourself, not to be confused with 'evoke', to conjure outside of yourself) is pretty much the same idea as being inspired or possessed. The -in, -an suffix is simply a meaning like 'object of', or 'articulator of', sometimes just considered 'lord of'; Odin then means "source of (spiritual) inspiration", and God simply means 'spiritual inspiration'. Cornelius Agrippa thought so (but he thought it simply meant "warrior") I was the one to mention such in wikipedia, but a later contributor at the wikipedia article at Wōdanaz separates the lombardic form of Godin from Wotan to further separate along traditional etymology, which is ridiculous in my opinion, but I think that speaks for itself and I never tried to edit it.

Klegutati
Monday, January 8th, 2007, 02:54 AM
You stated Jesus is a Jew so God is a Jew, Yaweh. Jesus the universal pacificst, who seeks to convert all non Jews to communism, or Jesusim.

But you still did not prove WHY Jesus is God. You just stated it as IF it was a fact.

Once again:
Why is Jesus God?
What is God?

While you avoid my question, I have no problem in any ontological religious discussions.


I proved Odin is God.



Look, Jesus may have had a human Jewish heritage, but he started a new religion. He wanted people to go to heaven, that's why his father (God) sent him down. Jesus is God as well because his father acts through him. He hardly prayed when doing miracles, he was his father in human flesh..:thumbup That's why he was and IS God! He was sent because God (his father) realized that humans weren't doing it right, and he wanted to set some rules.:)

Hail Yehweh!
Hail Jesus!
and Hail the Holy Spirit!

Btw, I am not against your decision to follow a different religion/path, I am just answering your questions..;)

Taras Bulba
Monday, January 8th, 2007, 04:30 PM
You stated Jesus believed in killing.

No, I said that Jesus was not against killing in toto. Certainly if one can avoid killing another, Jesus wants us to take that course.



"If someone strikes you on your cheek, offer him the other." proofs he was a pacifist.

Not really. Jesus wants us to live together in a decent and civilized manner; not in a situation were people are randomly killing each other for whatever purpose.



How do you get food. Well God feeds you, look at the birds in the sky, they want not, but God feeds them.

I believe Jesus was speaking metaphorically saying that God takes care of the spiritual needs of his people; as he takes care of the birds. Jesus often spoke metaphorically and in parables.



In a multi racial society, Jesus would not advocate racial castes as Aryanism does.

Probably not, and nor do I care.



But you still did not prove WHY Jesus is God. You just stated it as IF it was a fact.

Yeah I know, it has to do with my particular approach to such issues. More below.



Once again:
Why is Jesus God?
What is God?

And why do I need to convince you of such? I have little interest in actively trying to convert others. If one chooses to believe in Christ, it's because they came to that conclusion by themselves, not because I threw the Bible in their face.

Furthermore, I cant fully prove Jesus is God, therefore you must make a leap of faith. You either believe he exists or you don't.

If you do believe, then God bless you. If you dont, then go in peace, and may God have mercy on your wretched soul!



While you avoid my question, I have no problem in any ontological religious discussions.

Well good for you. I on the other hand find such discussions boring and a waste of time. And Ive upheld this notion both as a Christian and as an atheist.



I proved Odin is God.
Sure you did!



Heil Wotan!


Glory be to Christ!

Airmanareiks
Monday, January 8th, 2007, 09:24 PM
Bulba. Please use your person speculation aside and use quotes of JESUS. Then and only then may we understand Jesusism. For you have yet to counter my view of Jesusism with an quote from Jesus which invalidates my view of Jesusism and validates your view.

Your response in proving Jesus is God is by saying "Glory to Christ".


Look, Jesus may have had a human Jewish heritage, but he started a new religion. He wanted people to go to heaven, that's why his father (God) sent him down. Jesus is God as well because his father acts through him. He hardly prayed when doing miracles, he was his father in human flesh..:thumbup That's why he was and IS God! He was sent because God (his father) realized that humans weren't doing it right, and he wanted to set some rules.:)

Hail Yehweh!
Hail Jesus!
and Hail the Holy Spirit!

Btw, I am not against your decision to follow a different religion/path, I am just answering your questions..;)


First, you cannot prove this. Nobody can prove Jesus existed. This being the case how can you prove his so called deeds. What he said regarding the nature of existence is false, therefore, Jesus is false as a God. I believe in Hercules miracles over Jesus any day. And I am sure Hercules existed. Remember, The first "apostles" or the creators of the Christ myth, gained followers to their religion by promising Jesus would come in their lifetime. But, he never did. For Jesus never existed but Christianity was a created by a few Jews in which they took extant myths and made one of their own. Being not real, there is no power, but in the imagination of the believer. So Jesusism has no intrinsic power. It has the power to take your soul away from you because you give your soul to Jesus in hope, i.e. faith, that this imaginary man, will give you eternal life.


Look, Odin may have had a human Aryan heritage, but he started a new religion. He wanted people to go to heaven, that's why his father (God) sent him down. Ariomanus is God as well because his father acts through him. He hardly prayed when doing miracles, he was his father in human flesh..:thumbup That's why he was and IS God! He was sent because God (his father) realized that humans weren't doing it right, and he wanted to set some rules. Which is why Odin Rig gave us god knowledge in the Rig Edda and Law of Manus and breed the first Godman, ARIOMANUS!!!!!:)

Hail God!
Hail Goden!
and Hail the Holy Spirit, ODIN(Mind), VILLI(Will), VE(Holiness), the TIUNE OF GOD IN MATERIAL FORM (valknut), ARIOMANUS (Aryans). THE BEGETOR AND FOUNDER OF THE ARYAN RACE, Odin RIG. KONUNG OK ALLVATE AF GERMANEN! For Odin gave you life, you owe Wotan [Skuld/Debt to be repaid]. Or better, Wotan Owns you after you die and will be judged according according to your deeds/thoughts/intentions at the Well of Creation, Urd. The origin of URmins, Irmins, Germans, from Irminsul.


It was Odin who first incarnated and begot the Aryan race thousands of years ago creating a demi god race, gutthiuda. If Odin did not exist, white people would not exist for he breed apes to man and without the first Aryan Godman, Ariomanus, you would not exist. This is the skuld.

Whereas Jesus never existed. Aryans do exist and their faith is known throughout in various forms. We know the Aryan Gods and we know their religion and religious laws most of which are inimical to Jesuit Universal Egalitarianism. It was Aryan religion which created the Aryan race breeding a noble race from Apes and when they forsoke their ancestral religion, they interbred with foreigners and became apes once again (India, America, etc...) and will disappear if Aryan Godlaw is not followed.

Drakkar
Tuesday, January 9th, 2007, 02:53 AM
Yes he is.



And?




Jesus was a universalist but that is not to say he didnt acknowledge national/racial identities. The Gospel of Matthew pretty has the theme of Jesus identifying with his own cultural roots, which is fully expressed in Matthew 15:24. At the end of Matthew's Gospel, Christ commands the Apostles to go and "make disciples of all the nations" (Matthew 28:19).

Then the event of Pentecost in Acts 2 also further demonstrates that the division of mankind into different nations and races is ordained by God.



Thats not really true. Jesus largely taught how people should conduct themselves in their daily lives. Within that context, yes Jesus does not want us killing each other, he wants people to live in a safe stable community. He certainly is not saying that killing in the context of self-defense is wrong, or that killing while serving your country in wartime is wrong.
"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" is what Jesus said when asked about this sort of thing. Serving your country is also considered blessed and there is also a prayer for it (somewhere in Hebrews I think, but I forget. maybe someone knows).


It was Aryan religion which created the Aryan race breeding a noble race from Apes and when they forsoke their ancestral religion, they interbred with foreigners and became apes once again (India, America, etc...) and will disappear if Aryan Godlaw is not followed. Just what is Aryan Godlaw? Do you think Odin and the other Asir and Vanir are that obsessed with race? It is true that the Edda depicts the deities as interbreeding and they are known as having "hair of gold" like Sif, but there is no evidence that I have found of this being a purposeful intention.

SuuT
Tuesday, January 9th, 2007, 04:20 PM
... Do you think Odin and the other Asir and Vanir are that obsessed with race? It is true that the Edda depicts the deities as interbreeding and they are known as having "hair of gold" like Sif, but there is no evidence that I have found of this being a purposeful intention.

Mythos is the result of circumstance, predisposition, temperament and training. A mythos of Race will arise in two ways: the first, when there conditions under which the mythos that arises are racially homogeneous; the second, when the realities and problems of racial intermingling - via proximity, miscegenation etc. - spring forth their inevitable problems.

In Norse mythology, we have the former: race - people of race - are reflected as such in the homogeneous conditions under which the mythos arose. In short, we see no issues directly related to race as an issue, a problem, as the problematics of an isolated peoples cannot reflect the problems that other mythologies reflect as a result of a multiracial infiltration prior to the inception and advent of the mythos that is adament about purity: e.g. the law of Manu.

We once prided ourselves on cultural isolation. Therefore, Race needed not be dwelt upon. Our mythos found itself essentially without immunity to the Near Eastern Semitic intoxication. We see this reflected in the abrupt manner in which Norse mythology came to such a halt: it was smothered before having a chance to evolve and incorporate the semitic wave into the existing oral tradition.

It had no immunity due to its strength in isolation: its strength, turned its greatest weakness - it was too specialised.

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, January 9th, 2007, 04:25 PM
"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" is what Jesus said when asked about this sort of thing. Serving your country is also considered blessed and there is also a prayer for it (somewhere in Hebrews I think, but I forget. maybe someone knows).

Yes exactly! John the Baptist even urged a few soldiers who came to him for advice to carry out their duties with honour. Then St. Paul urges Christians to be loyal and active citizens of Rome; and within the Classical mindset citizenship and military service were almost inseperable.

Then the first Roman convert to the faith was a centurion, and his profession was never an issue during his conversion; rather whether or not he had to submit to Jewish customs like circumsicion.


Bulba. Please use your person speculation aside and use quotes of JESUS. Then and only then may we understand Jesusism.

Im not a Protestant, so Im not bound by Sola Scriptura. Plus also one has to consider Jesus' message in total and in context, and not just a few verses here or there, which is often done to show that Jesus was a pacifist.



For you have yet to counter my view of Jesusism with an quote from Jesus which invalidates my view of Jesusism and validates your view.

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."
--Matthew 10:34

"And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one."
--Luke 22:36

"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them -- bring them here and kill them in front of me."
--Luke 19:27

Happy? :blueroll:


Nobody can prove Jesus existed.

Perhaps you'll find this interesting reading material.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html



I believe in Hercules miracles over Jesus any day. And I am sure Hercules existed.

The Greeks themselves didnt really believe he existed.

nätdeutsch
Tuesday, January 9th, 2007, 08:16 PM
Yes exactly! John the Baptist even urged a few soldiers who came to him for advice to carry out their duties with honour. Then St. Paul urges Christians to be loyal and active citizens of Rome; and within the Classical mindset citizenship and military service were almost inseperable.

Then the first Roman convert to the faith was a centurion, and his profession was never an issue during his conversion; rather whether or not he had to submit to Jewish customs like circumsicion.

yes, even furthermore, Jesus commended a Roman soldier for his service, he wasn't a pacifist, he was Truth.



"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."
--Matthew 10:34


That is somewhat of a misquote, because he was refering to breaking away from tradition and being part of something that would not be respected, but you do prove rather well that Jesus was not a hippy, passive, inclusivist as he is often portrayed to be.

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, January 9th, 2007, 11:57 PM
That is somewhat of a misquote, because he was refering to breaking away from tradition and being part of something that would not be respected, but you do prove rather well that Jesus was not a hippy, passive, inclusivist as he is often portrayed to be.

Yes, Im aware of the context of that verse. Same with Luke 19:27; Jesus saids that within the context of a parable.

Basically Im messeing around with Airmanareiks along with further proving my point. You can take out verses to show Jesus was a pacifist, but at the time you can take some out to show he was a violent person. Many have done that in order to show that Jesus was in fact connected with the Zealots, and that was the real reason why he was crucified.

Airmanareiks
Wednesday, January 10th, 2007, 12:56 AM
Then he was contridictory.

If someone strikes you on your cheek, offer the other.
I have come not for peace, but the sword.

The question is what would Jesus do with a sword?
It is not logically consisent.

There must be some underlying context in which he is pacifistic in one instance, and apparently warlike in the other.

This points that Jesus never existed and is a myth.
The Christ myth.
Some want to create a Jewish messiah world savior.
Some a spiritual incarnation of God.
Thus, you do not see a consisent man, but disperate myths catering to different prospective audiences in which they tried to convert.

Read the gospels temporary. From that written earliest to that written latest and you should see an evolution from a failed prophet who is pacifist whose last words "Father, why have you forsaken me' on the cross with no resurrection, to an ever more full conception of a Light Godman, which is Aryan like Zorastrianism.

During the suppsed lifetime of Jesus, no one mentions him. Later, people mention Jesus and Christians by Roman sources. This is what I mean. No one can prove that Jesus existed. The way to prove it would be to have real second hand accounts of Jesus by Romans, Jews, or anyone DURING his lifetime. The name of Jesus is first mentioned around 60CE.

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, January 10th, 2007, 01:01 AM
Then he was contridictory.

"Contradiction is not a sign of falsity, nor the lack of contradiction a sign of truth."
--Blaise Pascal



There must be some underlying context in which he is pacifistic in one instance, and apparently warlike in the other.
Yes, there are some situations were one must take a more pacifistic path; while in others one may have to take the opposite route.



This points that Jesus never existed and is a myth.

Nietzsche contradicts himself just as much, if not more, within his writings. Does that somehow prove that he didnt really exist, or that his philosophy is complete rubbish?

Airmanareiks
Wednesday, January 10th, 2007, 01:07 AM
"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" is what Jesus said when asked about this sort of thing. Serving your country is also considered blessed and there is also a prayer for it (somewhere in Hebrews I think, but I forget. maybe someone knows).

Just what is Aryan Godlaw? Do you think Odin and the other Asir and Vanir are that obsessed with race? It is true that the Edda depicts the deities as interbreeding and they are known as having "hair of gold" like Sif, but there is no evidence that I have found of this being a purposeful intention.


Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar means care not about this world. Care not about your nation, your kind, only your relation with God. Care not what race you are, care not about what race rules you. That matters not in the eyes of God. This means you are not political. So Christians should not want to be political and not care what race rules them. Render unto temporal power, what is material, your body and material Goods, but render your soul which is God's.

If you are Asatru you must know of Rigsthula, which I mentioned in the post where Rig Heimdall son of Odin incarnated had sex with blacks and created the race of thralls, whom he did not like, then had sex with Red race and created the race of Karls whom he thought better, but not good enough, and finally had sex with a Blond women and created the race of Jarls who he called his son Kon Jarl. Jarl meaning Noble and Kon King. Rig gave Jarl knowledge of the runes, not to the other races, knowledge of warfare, and Odal lands, ancestral, God property.

This being an aryan religion, you realize that Tuisto who created the first man, called Manus in Tacitus Germania is Ariomanus, in which the Godlaw is Law of Manus. You see remnants of this in Arya Dharma Law of Manu.

The Aesir raison de etate is self preservation against Jotuns, which are lower forms of being. More precicously, the are animal or material beings, not Noble Irminones, Godthod, Sons and Daughters of Wotan. Remember, even Jesusuit Kings traced their linage back to Wotan. (English and otherwise).


Yes exactly! John the Baptist even urged a few soldiers who came to him for advice to carry out their duties with honour. Then St. Paul urges Christians to be loyal and active citizens of Rome; and within the Classical mindset citizenship and military service were almost inseperable.

Then the first Roman convert to the faith was a centurion, and his profession was never an issue during his conversion; rather whether or not he had to submit to Jewish customs like circumsicion.


Problems. Paul and John are not Jesus who in your opinion was the same as the one God. So their opinions matter not to a Jesus lover and follower of Jesus. At any rate. You rely on faith eventhough you cannot prove Jesus is God or what God is. That is too bad. :(

SineNomine
Wednesday, January 10th, 2007, 01:29 AM
Contradictions are problematic, and must be resolved in the name of consistency. If they cannot, the ideas behind them are not worth keeping.

nätdeutsch
Wednesday, January 10th, 2007, 01:32 AM
Problems. Paul and John are not Jesus who in your opinion was the same as the one God. So their opinions matter not to a Jesus lover and follower of Jesus. At any rate. You rely on faith eventhough you cannot prove Jesus is God or what God is. That is too bad. :(

well, if you believe in the Incarnation of God, then it is entirely possible to believe that Jesus is God.

I doubt Taras is equating Paul and John with Jesus, but their opinions do help us through relating their experiences of Jesus' teachings, in the 1st century in which they were practiced.

They are also saints, so the Church thinks, knows that they have at least some validity...:P

what do you believe in? do you have any idols who have died? can you prove they ever existed? can you prove anything? are we even real? these sorts of arguments are circular and don't really help your argument; moreover it leads the opposition to believe you have nothing left of substance to offer and are therefore regressing to a "prove it" argument, infantile indeed.

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, January 10th, 2007, 01:36 AM
Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar means care not about this world. Care not about your nation, your kind, only your relation with God. Care not what race you are, care not about what race rules you. That matters not in the eyes of God. This means you are not political. So Christians should not want to be political and not care what race rules them. Render unto temporal power, what is material, your body and material Goods, but render your soul which is God's.

That is not at all what Jesus said. Sadly I'll have to deal with this at another time. Right now I have other business to attend to.

Veritas Æquitas
Wednesday, January 10th, 2007, 03:09 AM
Give to Caesar's what is rightfully his. That's exactly what that means, so how is there any possibility of misunderstanding there? He's not saying reject your race, your home, and all that anywhere in the Bible. Quite the contrary! Infact if you look into the OT, you'll find phrase after phrase of what and what NOT to do in situations which demand a course of action in the defense of your home and people.

What his teachings in that respect imply is do your best to be an upstanding, honest Citizen. Pay your taxes and all that stuff we do the same in these days as they were back then, but don't fall for the belief that Caesar is in any way as powerful or worthy of greater praise than God. Because the term "God" is not rightfully his.

I think turning the other cheek is a wonderful thing to live by. Infact, I do this pretty much everyday when I'm in contact with the products of this multi-cultural cesspool we call Canada. When someone calls me a cracker, or a honkey, I simply look away. And in doing so, I still retain my freedom by staying out of prison for agrivated battery charges or worse, manslaughter charges, and yet still retain Christian dignity.

Yet, I am well within my rights to defend myself, and my people from harm should that strike on my cheek not permit me to show him the other. And as a Christian I am obliged to send my enemies to whatever god they want should the need arise.



I also wish to know of his actual beliefs other than the race filtered interpretation of Norse MYTH that he has repeated unnecessarily.




That'd be interesting to know.

In reference to this:

Airmanareiks wrote:
Thus, you do not see a consisent man, but disperate myths catering to different prospective audiences in which they tried to convert.


It's interesting to point out the fact that there's more than one denomination of Odinism that seems to prefectly fit whatever agenda a particular follower wants. So let's just stop and reflect on that, shall we?

Oswiu
Wednesday, January 10th, 2007, 05:29 AM
If you are Asatru you must know of Rigsthula, which I mentioned in the post where Rig Heimdall son of Odin incarnated had sex with blacks and created the race of thralls, whom he did not like, then had sex with Red race and created the race of Karls whom he thought better, but not good enough, and finally had sex with a Blond women and created the race of Jarls who he called his son Kon Jarl.
:lol :rofl :roll :rotfl :bowlaugh :fhaha: :dork :2mo-ck :lmfao: :fool :lmao :rstrange

Veritas Æquitas
Wednesday, January 10th, 2007, 05:36 AM
I would sooner draw connections to the Mediterranean race, and Slavs as Thralls and Karls respectively than I would Africans and Native American Injuns. Certainly would sound more credible. But that's just me..

See what I mean by denominations?

Oswiu
Wednesday, January 10th, 2007, 05:42 AM
Thralls and churls were an internal part of Germanic society, and they form the vast majority of our Germanic ancestors [unless there are many members here with unbroken noble pedigrees back to 800 AD].

SuuT
Wednesday, January 10th, 2007, 03:23 PM
Airmanareiks (http://forums.skadi.net/member.php?u=19303)

I thanked you earlier in this thread for for something, and I now fear as if I'll choke on it:D (I need to have a steadier hand with new-commers and that damned "thanks" button...)

Your litteralism coupled with looking at these things through the lens of modernity, will drive you mad. All IE mythos must be understood on their own terms, understood within context, and then tempered by reason. Go overboard one way, and you have something like the perspective you present (very PENTECOSTAL-esque); go over board the other way, and all possibility for spiritual connection gets consumed by logic.

An isolated peoples with very little want of connection to the outside world become de facto godflesh.


... Rig Heimdall son of Odin incarnated had sex with blacks and created the race of thralls, whom he did not like, then had sex with Red race and created the race of Karls whom he thought better, but not good enough, and finally had sex with a Blond women and created the race of Jarls who he called his son Kon Jarl. Jarl meaning Noble and Kon King. Rig gave Jarl knowledge of the runes, not to the other races, knowledge of warfare, and Odal lands, ancestral, God property.

This is a parable bearing all of the earmarks of a culturally self-isolated peoples - not an 'event' in the existential sense.

Moreover, you'll surely notice that Heimdall tried the whole buffet before deciding on his own. Moral: keep to your own!



What is more: I can think of nothing more Aryan than 'contradiction'. Contradiction is a fiction - an arch fallacy pertrified in language because it is useful. The more one can incorporate, subsume, affirm, etc. is a sign of rank.

Airmanareiks
Thursday, January 11th, 2007, 09:15 PM
I would sooner draw connections to the Mediterranean race, and Slavs as Thralls and Karls respectively than I would Africans and Native American Injuns. Certainly would sound more credible. But that's just me..

See what I mean by denominations?


I validate my view by looking at the Aryan Rig Veda, Law of Manu, where the primordial Giant, Purusha, his feet are Sudras or non whites. Also, it makes more sense to view it as an evolution from Ape to man, which empirical evidence and science validates. The more I learned about my ancestors religion, the more confident I am in their intelligence. For example, Aryan cosomogony was the first Big Bang theory, predating that theory by 5,000 years or more.


Give to Caesar's what is rightfully his. That's exactly what that means, so how is there any possibility of misunderstanding there? He's not saying reject your race, your home, and all that anywhere in the Bible. Quite the contrary! Infact if you look into the OT, you'll find phrase after phrase of what and what NOT to do in situations which demand a course of action in the defense of your home and people.

What his teachings in that respect imply is do your best to be an upstanding, honest Citizen. Pay your taxes and all that stuff we do the same in these days as they were back then, but don't fall for the belief that Caesar is in any way as powerful or worthy of greater praise than God. Because the term "God" is not rightfully his.

I think turning the other cheek is a wonderful thing to live by. Infact, I do this pretty much everyday when I'm in contact with the products of this multi-cultural cesspool we call Canada. When someone calls me a cracker, or a honkey, I simply look away. And in doing so, I still retain my freedom by staying out of prison for agrivated battery charges or worse, manslaughter charges, and yet still retain Christian dignity.

Yet, I am well within my rights to defend myself, and my people from harm should that strike on my cheek not permit me to show him the other. And as a Christian I am obliged to send my enemies to whatever god they want should the need arise.

The OT is the OLD law which Jesus overturned and because he wanted to destroy the OT law, Jews killed him. Your point that being invalid.

To continue further on Jesus and if Jesus was God what would God be;.


Render unto Ceasare what is Ceasar's.
Pay Taxes.
Give your property to the enemy.
Make the enemy stonger, and you weaker.

Jesus views the mind body dualism of Descartes. Who cares who has your materials. Who cares who you work for. Who cares what race rules you. You being seperate from your body, it matters not. Thus, who cares what race you are.


I remember the great Athanareiks who would not set on Roman soil because it was unholy. A clear monism of material/mind. Thus, purity of environment.

On the contrarary, Aryan view monistic mind/body. Your property is an extension of you. Thus, if the political power is of alien race/religion, if you pay taxes to the enemy, you augment the enemies power. Thus, Jews hated the taxcollector and view all such Jewish collectors for Romans as the ultimate traitors. The more money/taxes/work you do for the enemy, the stronger you make the enemy. Thus, a tax revolt is a religous necessity if you are ruled by a alien religion or race, in order to dispose of the aliens and be ruled by your religion/race. Thus, Jesus advocates enslavement to aliens. Thus, If Jesus was God, he would advocate to be enslaved.

"A Camel will go through an eye of an needle before a rich man goes to heaven" Be poor. To have money is to have power. Thus, have as little power as possible. A good way to do this is to give your money to foreigners. As much as possible so you are not rich. Thus, your race and nation is destroyed.

God is thus pacifistic, universalistic, poor, slave (prefering the weak, sick and lowly, or the proletariat rather then the ARIO-stocry) who have little intelligence, and dead. (i.e. have no power/money being ruled by an exterior being).

Oswiu
Thursday, January 11th, 2007, 09:35 PM
I validate my view by looking at the Aryan Rig Veda, Law of Manu, where the primordial Giant, Purusha, his feet are Sudras or non whites. Also, it makes more sense to view it as an evolution from Ape to man, which empirical evidence and science validates. The more I learned about my ancestors religion, the more confident I am in their intelligence. For example, Aryan cosomogony was the first Big Bang theory, predating that theory by 5,000 years or more.
Are you Indian?
If not, then you're making a very strange error. We share a common ancestor with the Aryans of Central Asia, and we thus share a lot of common mythological themes. But this non-white Sudra thing is specific to what our distant cousins found when they crossed the Hindu Kush and took control of the Indus and Ganges basins. Those who stayed in the north and east never met these Dravidian hoards, so that mythological elaboration is not OURS. You can't interpret the Rigsthula in light of these stories.

Airmanareiks
Thursday, January 11th, 2007, 09:42 PM
Airmanareiks (http://forums.skadi.net/member.php?u=19303)

What is more: I can think of nothing more Aryan than 'contradiction'. Contradiction is a fiction - an arch fallacy pertrified in language because it is useful. The more one can incorporate, subsume, affirm, etc. is a sign of rank.


In science, contridiction is called an anomoly and a anomoly is an INvalidator of a scientific theory. Thus, all theorys are not facts but theories that have not been invalidated YET.

A contridiction is not aryan.
What is Aryan is Rede/Rita. Which is right. What is right is true.
What is Aryan is Logos/Logic. Look at Heraclitus. The Logos is divine fire which is the cosmos. The logos is energy which is life. For all that is alive has heat, i.e. is above 0 kelvin. Thus, all are within the Cosmic Divine Logos which is Rita/Rede which is Law or Orlog.

Platonic Dialectics is Thesis, Antithesis to Synthesis. But that Synthesis is not a medium of Thesis and Antithesis but A SURVIVOR of the war. Thus as Heraclitus would say, God is War, in War, some are made slaves others free. Some Gods become men, some men become Gods. All is becoming, but in this conflict of becoming, (Ideas) Truth results, thus a temporal evolution to perfection or truth. A Contridication is an invalidator of the thesis. A contridiction iillistrates a fiction/a falsehood/lie.


Are you Indian?
If not, then you're making a very strange error. We share a common ancestor with the Aryans of Central Asia, and we thus share a lot of common mythological themes. But this non-white Sudra thing is specific to what our distant cousins found when they crossed the Hindu Kush and took control of the Indus and Ganges basins. Those who stayed in the north and east never met these Dravidian hoards, so that mythological elaboration is not OURS. You can't interpret the Rigsthula in light of these stories.

Like the ancient Aryans in India, I live in a multi racial society. So, Purusha, in this instance is more valid then Ymir as a proto-type. But lets look at the underlying Ontology.

First I must state that all IE religion is OURS!!!!! Not those who have taken it over (i.e. Hindus, they made Hinduism into a non aryan religion).

My duty is to construction it as I view as valid and true. I can take from any Pure aryan religious concept (however interspersed it is with non Aryan influences and weed it out) inorder to create the Ur Aryan relgion which is true above all other religions. There are many facets of religion from all over the world in which I may take to create my Aryan religion. For me, the question is what is ontologically true?


What Indians are Aryan? The Aryans came from the North and migrated to the south and brought their religion (obviously) just as the Goths and other Aryan tribes did in the past. Scania is the mother of nations. When they went into India they saw dark races, thus you see a difference in Vedic Primordial man Purusha and Norse Primordial man Ymir. Purusha is killed by God to make the first man, the head the Priest/Brahmin, the Arms the Warrior, the Feet the Slave/Sudra/Non White. In the Veda, non aryans are called black, dark, snubbed nose. The concept is both the same.
But lets look at the underlying Ontology.


Material beings.
Instinctual
Not logical

Lower beasts with lesser brains.
Higher animals with greater brains.
Using more mind/knowledge.
Apes
Blacks
Reds
Whites
Aryans

To
The most mental, logical, philosophical beings. Who were the ancient Aryan priesthood. The Brahmins of Brahman. The Germanic Godar from God. They are the ancient aryan philsophers, Plato's philosopher kings not of the bronze race, or silver race, but the best, ario, Gold race. Only philosophers went to heaven, them being born of God's mind, as of God.

Thus you see in Germanic Primordial man Manus, The Head or Mind is the King Jarl/Noble, who is blond, et al... Who Rig gives Runes etc...........The lesser are Red and the worker black.

In Veda, the Mind/head is the Aryan priests, Brahmins from Brahma Dyaus Pitar, or Zios Pitar, or Tiuz Fader. Or God. In both cases the Godmen are Aryans, thus the Aryan aristocracy is a demi god. Ceasars, English Kings, et al.....father is a God Because they, the ancient aryan priest ancestors are born from the mind of God. What is true?


Moral[/B]: keep to your own!
.


Rig or Reiks or Ruler did not like the Black Thrall, else he would have not moved on and had sexual intercourse with Red women, with which he was satisfied so he went to the fair blond. He procreated with black women, because he had to in order to have children. But God being noble, pure, wanting a pure women, kind, or offspring, had to keep baning away.

God made man in the image of God. This is Rigsthula. God prefered to mate with women breeding a race whom was like Rig himself. Only when his children were in his image, Aryan, did Rig quit and give God knowledge, religion, ancestoral property, Sig in War, to his actual Kind. Read the Law of Manus or Law of Manu and you will see that miscegenation is forbiden. Mixing of castes and races was only done to breed upward to the pure Aryaman. Miscegenation is not part of God Rede.

Oswiu
Thursday, January 11th, 2007, 10:37 PM
OURS? All IE religion is OURS!!!!!
Ganesh? :-O

Airmanareiks
Friday, January 12th, 2007, 12:42 AM
Ganesh? :-O

No. Come on.

Comparative "Mythology" has it down. Dumezil and his group before, Grimm, et al...........PIE.


Extant in India you have post PIE or I would say post Greek and German, Celtic religion.

Dyaus pitar is barely in the Rig Veda. Dyaus Pitar is Zeus, or God, Gaut, Tiuz, Goden, in Germanic, Ju - pitar. So in the Vedas, you really are not worshiping the High Aryan god. The closest is the upanishads of Brahma, Brahmins.

Agni is diving fire or Hericlitian/Stoic Logos or Divine fire. Agni is the world pillar, Irminsul or Yggdrasil. The world column is divine fire/logos which is wyrd or Orlog. Agni is most prominant with Indra which is Thunor/Thor. These two are the primary Gods of the earliest time in India. Thus, it indicates a later aryan time. Not the proto. But you can get valuable information due to it not being destroyed by Jesuits who destroyed much of European religion in the quest of extermination.

Aryaman
Mitra/Varuna dual aspects of Aryan sovereignty which is Germanic Tuisto, the twin.

You have Surya which is Sol, the Sun. The waters, winds, Vayu all are pan theistic natural forces.

Remember what Roman historians said, they have the same Gods as ours but in different names. Greek, Roman, German all had the same religion but the Gods had different names. This is the view of ancient aryan historians.

Only these are Aryan Gods. Others are Dravidian. I like the Mahabarata, the paradigm of race of demi gods incarnating is aryan, but how much is aryan?

Siva and Krishna which is Hinduism todary, are non aryan being they are not in the earliest Vedic hymns and they were not formulated by Aryans (Nordics) so Hinduism is not Aryanism.

Oswiu
Friday, January 12th, 2007, 01:54 AM
Are we then to throw away all our own peoples' innovations in this sphere - for example if a Celtic divinity is seen to have taken on all sorts of new functions and aspects that his PIE predecessor did not? Should the modern descendants of the developers of this mythos discard it [even though a lot more may be known about its actual cult practice than can be said for more traditional Gods in the same pantheon]? There's a lot of PreIE aboriginal "Atlantic" stuff in Celtic religion, and there may be more Sami influence in Northern Germanic lore than may first be apparent. Is this dross to be discarded, in favour of a purer, but necessarily more conjectural core? QUite a risk to take.

fonze
Friday, January 12th, 2007, 06:16 AM
Point: There could not be two more different psychological dynamisms between two world views.

The Christian conception of punishment is engorged by the notion of sin.

The Pagan (Norse, shall we?) concepetion of punishment has no equivalent meme. None.


Here is the story of Fenrir (provided by Micha F. Lindemans) for a general feel of Norse 'religiosity'!

"Fenrir (or Fenris) is a gigantic and terrible monster in the shape of a wolf. He is the eldest child of Loki and the giantess Angrboda. The gods learned of a prophecy which stated that the wolf and his family would one day be responsible for the destruction of the world. They caught the wolf and locked him in a cage. Only the god of war, Tyr, dared to feed and take care of the wolf.
When he was still a pup they had nothing to fear, but when the gods saw one day how he had grown, they decided to render him harmless. However, none of the gods had enough courage to face the gigantic wolf. Instead, they tried to trick him. They said the wolf was weak and could never break free when he was chained. Fenrir accepted the challenge and let the gods chain him. Unfortunately, he was so immensely strong that he managed to break the strongest fetters as if they were cobwebs.
After that, the gods saw only one alternative left: a magic chain. They ordered the dwarves to make something so strong that it could hold the wolf. The result was a soft, thin ribbon: Gleipnir. It was incredibly strong, despite what its size and appearance might suggest. The ribbon was fashioned of six strange elements: the footstep of a cat; the roots of a mountain; a woman's beard; the breath of fishes; the sinews of a bear; and a bird's spittle.
The gods tried to trick the wolf again, only this time Fenrir was less eager to show his strength. He saw how thin the chain was, and said that was no pride in breaking such a weak chain. Eventually, though, he agreed, thinking that otherwise his strength and courage would be doubted. Suspecting treachery however, he in turn asked the gods for a token of good will: one of them had to put a hand between his jaws. The gods were not overly eager to do this, knowing what they could expect. Finally, only Tyr agreed, and the gods chained the wolf with Gleipnir. No matter how hard Fenrir struggled, he could not break free from this thin ribbon. In revenge, he bit off Tyr's hand. Being very pleased with themselves, the gods carried Fenrir off and chained him to a rock (called Gioll) a mile down into the earth. They put a sword between his jaws to prevent him from biting. On the day of Rangnorok, Fenrir will break his chains and join the giants in their battle against the gods. He will seek out Odin and devour him. Vidar, Odin's son, will avenge his father by killing the wolf."

What is the point of that?

Even my gods can be 'punished'.

Your god is unreasable; and, unaccountable.
Great post Suut. The same theme can be found in other IE religions as well.


Others are Dravidian.
Interesting. What is your reasoning for this?


I like the Mahabarata
Krishna is featured in the Mahabharata. Does it make it non-Aryan?


Siva and Krishna which is Hinduism todary, are non aryan being they are not in the earliest Vedic hymns and they were not formulated by Aryans (Nordics) so Hinduism is not Aryanism.
Are only the Vedas the work of Aryans? The Puranas, Gita etc is all non-Aryan?

BTW, I didn't know the Aryan tribes were Nordic...

Airmanareiks
Saturday, January 13th, 2007, 11:08 PM
Are we then to throw away all our own peoples' innovations in this sphere - for example if a Celtic divinity is seen to have taken on all sorts of new functions and aspects that his PIE predecessor did not? Should the modern descendants of the developers of this mythos discard it [even though a lot more may be known about its actual cult practice than can be said for more traditional Gods in the same pantheon]? There's a lot of PreIE aboriginal "Atlantic" stuff in Celtic religion, and there may be more Sami influence in Northern Germanic lore than may first be apparent. Is this dross to be discarded, in favour of a purer, but necessarily more conjectural core? QUite a risk to take.


First, it must be constructed accurately in each Culture.
There has to be a foundation of every religion.

From there it grows, like the world tree, Irminsul itselfs. The Aryans branched out over the globe and create new nations and cultures. The same goes with indigenous racial religions. But Aryanism is a racial religion with a religious view which is embedded in the racial construct. Different races have different cultures and thoughts. Thus, when you integrate foreign ideas, you turn the religion into a foreign one which is what happened in India where non Aryans turned Arya Dharma in Santana Dharma and made Hinduism into Buddhism for all practical purposes.

Personally, I am at the stage of investigating Celtic religion.

You know that Celts occupied much of Europe prior to Germans. You see similarities in endings of personal names of Celts and early Germans (goths)

Vicogenorix

Athanareiks

rix and reiks are the endings of personal early Germanic and Celtic names during this time which indicates unity of tribe. Thus, I see Druids as one point being the same as Germanic priests. Snorri calls the earlier Viking priests, Diar or Drottnar which is Celtic. This would seem to come from Druid. Also, Viking anthropogenesis is Rigsthula, the viking god progenitor is called Rig which is Celtic for king. Snorri did not call Rig Rik which is what he should have done. Thus, I am looking to integrate some Druid aspects into my Ur Germanic religion which I believe I feel warranted in doing (based on the above argument).


Great post Suut. The same theme can be found in other IE religions as well.


Interesting. What is your reasoning for this?


Krishna is featured in the Mahabharata. Does it make it non-Aryan?


Are only the Vedas the work of Aryans? The Puranas, Gita etc is all non-Aryan?

BTW, I didn't know the Aryan tribes were Nordic...

Yes. Puranas, Mahabarata (Gita) are non Aryan, well past Veda times. The only Aryan God in the Mahabarata is Indra and:

Overthrown. Non aryans overthrew aryan Gods thousands of years ago. When Indra was overthrown, that was the demise of Arya Dharma in India and I imagine, that this signified the demise of Nordic power in India. Gee. Why did'nt the Hindus like British rule if they liked Aryans soo much?

Now you do:)

There are plenty of books on this. Or search Aryan and blond, nordic on this site.

Oswiu
Sunday, January 14th, 2007, 03:50 AM
Personally, I am at the stage of investigating Celtic religion.
And their religion is full of themes [e.g. prominence of the Other/Underworld] taken from the Megalithic peoples of the Atlantic facade.

Aupmanyav
Sunday, March 11th, 2007, 05:50 PM
I dare us all to be as gods.In some philosophies of Hinduism you are, only that you do not recognize your divinity. That is why Swami Shivananda's organization is known as the 'Divine Life Society'.

They consider 'Brahman' as God. And 'Brahman' constitutes everything. So every one is a God. When a person recognizes his/her divinity, then the person would act also in a divine manner.




Those who stayed in the north and east never met these Dravidian hoards, ..Those who stayed in the north and east may not have met Dravidian hordes, they met other hordes.

Leofric
Monday, March 12th, 2007, 09:37 AM
I tell you that there are gods that not only want you to think for yourself; but demand it as prerequisite to manhood.


I dare us ALL to think for ourselves.

I dare us all to be as gods.

"You shall remain as little children'' - is the edict of a Semitic god.

"You shall enter the hall of heroes for an honourable and valourous life of manhood" - is the reward, and wish, of the AllFather.

You tell me: why is the former decaying? - what is the appeal of the latter?


The former does not want you to be skeptical.
The latter demands it as the god of Wisdom.

I tell you that there are gods that not only want you to think for yourself; but demand it as prerequisite to manhood.
Wonderful post! That sounds like an excellent formulation of true Christianity to me. :thumbup




No one is asking you to not be a Christian: just give the whole story when you make a statement about Christianity.
You go from that to this?

Taras Bulba is giving a much fuller representation of Christianity than those who are attacking it in this thread! Those attacking it are reducing it to a few key (for them) quotes, and usually distorted quotes at that — "remain as little children," "A Camel will go through an eye of an needle before a rich man goes to heaven," and so forth. It's easy to find one scripture you don't like, misquote it, then attack it. It's even relatively easy to attack Christianity as it commonly gets preached by the populist denominations and clerics of the 19th and 20th centuries. It's a lot harder to comprehend the whole gospel of Christ and the entirety of the Christian tradition in one cheap witticism.

Taras Bulba is just asking people to give the whole whole story when they make statements about Christianity.




Even my gods can be 'punished'.

Your god is unreasable; and, unaccountable.
"But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed" (Isaiah 53:5).

Here's a god who creates a whole race of children and then receives punishment for the evils of his creation. He doesn't say, "Sorry, your bad!" He claims full responsibility for the evils perpetrated by his creatures and chooses to take a mortal body and be beaten and killed for it. And you call him unaccountable? How arrogant!




Here is the basic question all Christians ask:

"How do I become more like Jesus?"

Here is the basic question all Pagans ask:

"How do I, myself, become a god...?
What exactly is the difference here?

Especially given the fact that you have not dared us to become gods but to become as gods? And the fact that Jesus says of those who receive the Word of God (en archê ên ho logos. . . .), "Ye are gods" (John 10:34-35)?

Taras Bulba already asked this of course, but the closest he got to a response was some handwaving (http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=733759&postcount=15) about how all the Church Fathers were rotten.




Since Jesus is God made man, becoming more like Jesus is becoming more like God. As St. Athanasius once stated: "God became man in order that man might become god".


Very interesting. Could you give a source? I'd like to read this in context. :)
It was actually first said by St. Irenaeus, who lived about 170 years earlier than Athanasius. It was in the preface to the fifth book of his Against Heresies.

The preface in question (from which you should also be able to get the context of the whole five-book work): http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103500.htm
(the quote's at the end)

More information about St. Irenaeus:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08130b.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus

The quote as Taras Bulba had it is apparently originally from Vladimir Lossky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lossky). It's morally the same as Irenaeus's first formulation of it, it seems to me.




Jesus was a universalist but that is not to say he didnt acknowledge national/racial identities.
Georgia (http://forums.skadi.net/member.php?u=9512) provided a great thread on that topic here:
http://forums.skadi.net/interracial_marriage_biblical-t49848.html

Aupmanyav
Monday, March 12th, 2007, 04:12 PM
The Language of the Vedas kept on changing all the time (they cover a period of at least 8000 years). In each age commentators tried to get the meaning of what the Vedas meant. Three kinds of commentators are known in history. 'Nairuktikas' who believed that whatever happened was due to natural causes (Yaska, 7th century BC, the famous commentator was a 'nairuktika'), those who believed that Gods were men but became Gods due to their actions, and those who believed that Gods were born as Gods.

Spjabork
Monday, March 12th, 2007, 05:45 PM
The Language of the Vedas kept on changing all the time (they cover a period of at least 8000 years). In each age commentators tried to get the meaning of what the Vedas meant.
You believe Aryans being (at least) 8000 years old? And what was before that time?

SuuT
Monday, March 12th, 2007, 06:45 PM
Wonderful post! That sounds like an excellent formulation of true Christianity to me.

Operative terms: "to me".

B. Russell - amongst others - razed this subjective aspect of Christianity and the inherently (and inescapable) hypocritical connective 'lens' of subjective understanding of the variations of all things thematically Christian to the ground long ago, so I'll not re-invent the wheel.

But then again, it is easy (all too easy) to charge Russell with 'not getting it' - to say that some people 'just don't get it'. But from what perspective?

That is what is of import, and, ultimately, why Christians and non-Christians invariably (if they are 'devout') trend toward talking at cross-purposes.


Taras Bulba is giving a much fuller representation of Christianity than those who are attacking it in this thread!

Yes, Taras knows his Christianity.


Those attacking it are reducing it to a few key (for them) quotes, and usually distorted quotes at that — "remain as little children," "A Camel will go through an eye of an needle before a rich man goes to heaven," and so forth.

And, if an attack is to be leveled, it should be at the Bible first. You appear to know your Christianity, too: you know, therefore, that the amount of things widely held to be Christian (especially in Catholicism) were added to the Christian milieu over the centuries as politics dictated their necessity. I actually respect that - as hard as it may be for you to 'get' it (if it, indeed, is difficult for you) - more than I do an essentially forged, proleptic, incomplete, philologically absurd, and non-Germanic text of incoherent ad monstum.


It's easy to find one scripture you don't like, misquote it, then attack it.

It is easier to engage in genetic fallacies because one does not like how another has 'contextualised' a biblical passage. Equally, it is easy for one to find multiple scriptures one does like, misquote them, then promote them...

What I mean is this: every denomination, in one way or another, holds to the following absurdity:


... It's a lot harder to comprehend the whole gospel of Christ and the entirety of the Christian tradition in one cheap witticism.

"Comprehend the whole gospel of Christ and the entirety of the Christian tradition" - and so forth. They all (all denominations) say this; and yet - and very often - hold antithetical notions to one another as to what constitutes 'comprehension' of the "whole godspel".

I would like to invite you down the street from where I live, Leofric, to explain to the Baptists and the Pentecostals across the street from one another (who hate each other) about NeoImperialism, and Racialism, and Race Preservation and such. I'm quite certain you would receive an...enigmatic welcome.

This is key: Pagans know, and celebrate, that there are as many different types of Paganism as there are people who practice it (this will be somewhat cryptic to non-Pagans, if not a cause of a certain amount of intellectual constipation). Christians know, and celebrate, that there is an 'Alpha and an Omega'; "there is no other way to the father but through me" (Am I misquoting?) - and so on, but continue to fragment on the idea of multiple - and equally valid - types of Christianity. - And rightfully so.

Where once (I give credit where it is due) Christianity was a grand source of Barbarian unification, the church, as Nietzsche noted, now actually retards this process. I'm not necessarily here, at Skadi, to 'prove' something to anyone; however, that Christianity is cancelling itself out - and can do no other - does not require the 'eyes' of a god, but the mere 'nose' of a man to be able to smell a rotting corpse, regardless of the salve that today's church offers to swipe under the nose of devotees to ward off the stench.

Perhaps I just don't 'get it'...


"But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed" (Isaiah 53:5).

Ironic. Give the context behind the allegory, if you would.


What exactly is the difference here?

Especially given the fact that you have not dared us to become gods but to become as gods? And the fact that Jesus says of those who receive the Word of God (en archê ên ho logos. . . .), "Ye are gods" (John 10:34-35)?

Very much, as I have said, looking forward to the "Leofric edition" of that bible.

Leofric
Monday, March 12th, 2007, 07:33 PM
What I mean is this: every denomination, in one way or another, holds to the following absurdity:



"Comprehend the whole gospel of Christ and the entirety of the Christian tradition" - and so forth. They all (all denominations) say this; and yet - and very often - hold antithetical notions to one another as to what constitutes 'comprehension' of the "whole godspel".

I would like to invite you down the street from where I live, Leofric, to explain to the Baptists and the Pentecostals across the street from one another (who hate each other) about NeoImperialism, and Racialism, and Race Preservation and such. I'm quite certain you would receive an...enigmatic welcome.

This is key: Pagans know, and celebrate, that there are as many different types of Paganism as there are people who practice it (this will be somewhat cryptic to non-Pagans, if not a cause of a certain amount of intellectual constipation). Christians know, and celebrate, that there is an 'Alpha and an Omega'; "there is no other way to the father but through me" (Am I misquoting?) - and so on, but continue to fragment on the idea of multiple - and equally valid - types of Christianity. - And rightfully so.
I wonder how many Christians you talk to about the state of Christianity given the proliferation of various denominations. Maybe things are different in your region of the United States than in the West. I've lived my whole life out here, so it could be that we have different experiences.

Out here, though, I have talked to a whole lot of Christians about the fragmentation in Christianity. And most of them seem to think that it's superficial and meaningless. The people just don't care that there are a whole bunch of different denominations. Sure, there are some denominations who identify themselves as Christians who don't get included in the fold by the mass of Christianity, but they're out on the fringe anyway. Members of the denominations that everyone considers Christian don't really see any significant difference between themselves and members of other such denominations. And more and more, non-denominationalism is become standard practice in Christian worship.

The ones who foster the denominational fragmentation are the one who gain power and prestige from doing so. They may not be able to get the love and respect of all Christendom, so they carve out a tiny section of it, try to emphasize the differences, and then gain the prestige of a small group to satisfy themselves. The people here all that man's talk about the differences — but for the most part, they don't care. They go to his church because it's close or because they like his style of preaching, not because they think it's the one true branch of Christianity.

The denominational differences are entirely in the realm of academics and theologians. Very often, the actual differences in doctrine are so minute that only an academic can understand them. The people — the actual body of Christ that is his church — are almost entirely ecumenical about the whole thing.

Of course, it's not like every Christian in the pew views Christianity identically to every other. Far from it. The variety among the Christians of the pews regarding the conceptualization of Christianity is phenomenal. You hear some incredible ideas from these people. But despite all there doctrinal variations, they don't seem to think any of that matters. They are perfectly content to let their fellow Christians believe and worship as they see fit, so long as they all come back to Christ at the end of the day. They don't brand each other heretics the way the denominational leaders do — they're perfectly happy to let one another believe such a wide variety of doctrines and still consider themselves in full mutual communion. It's not just pagans who avoid schisms over doctrinal differences (and indeed, not all pagans are so understanding, anyway).

That's why you can't understand Christianity by looking to the people who lead the various denominations. Most religions are like that, though. A book-understanding of the religion is only good for talking to other scholastic types. A real understanding of the religion requires getting into the mass of humanity and understanding their religious behavior the way they understand it. Talking about the leaders and their theologies will leave a person talking about an artifical religion that exists only in schools, for the most part.

People (like B. Russell) attack Christianity as though it were some cut-and-dried thing instead of an organic religion. Attacking the theologians' positions will only make sense to people who live in an ivory tower and never realize that there's a whole world going on outside. People who actually know Christians and are familiar with real, living Christianity know that most Christians don't care about the theologians' positions that ended up getting attacked in the first place. They know that a person can be a full-fledged Christian without ever having imagined, let alone believed, the theological positions that get attacked by folks like B. Russell or F. Nietzsche.




And, if an attack is to be leveled, it should be at the Bible first.
I disagree. The Bible is not where Christianity comes from. It comes from Christ. Sure, lots of Christians are really into the Bible. But most Christians have never read it and have very little desire to ever read it. And many Christians think that it should not be read — some limit that to only certain portions (like the Old Testament), but others think the whole book doesn't belong to real believers but rather to the academic theologians.

You could probably find hundreds of verses in the Bible that most Christians would disagree with. Does that make them less Christian? No. It makes the Bible less acceptable as the standard of Christianity.

It is not the case that attacks on Christianity ought first to be levelled against the Bible. However, it is the case that attacks on Christianity are usually first levelled against the Bible. The reason attacks are normally levelled first at the Bible is because it's prominent and visible and a lot easier to understand and attack than something so enormous and dynamic as the whole of Christianity. Academic types want to fight against Christianity, so they go read a book and think they understand the religion. Par for the course with academicians. It's the same thing most theologians who want to support Christianity end up doing as well, which is why they can't relate to the Christians in the pews.

If an attack is levelled against Christianity, it should be levelled against Christianity — not a book that is commonly (though incorrectly) considered to be the defining standard of Christianity. And to level a proper attack against Christianity itself, a person has to come to understand Christianity itself. And that takes a lot more work than just sitting around reading.




Ironic. Give the context behind the allegory, if you would.
I did. Isaiah 53:5.




Very much, as I have said, looking forward to the "Leofric edition" of that bible.
I'm not certain whether you're speaking in earnest here or just trying to send me up a bit.

What exactly do you think a Leofric edition would be like? Every time I think of making an edition (or rather, a translation), the only thing I can think to do with it is to translate each verse about a dozen times to show all the possible variety of meaning in the original. After all, who am I to establish my own reading of God's word as the definitive one?

The only single-interpretation version that I could do is one that captures all the most bizarre, divergent, and contradictory readings of the original in order to show people that the Bible is a lot richer than any one translation by men (no matter how inspired) can capture.

But if you read the Bible with the same Spirit who inspired it in the first place, then all the possibilities (and realities) become clear no matter what edition or translation you're using.

Veritas Æquitas
Tuesday, March 13th, 2007, 04:43 AM
Superb.

God is dead.

I've been through alot in my life, and had I not I might've believed you. God's mercy is what kept me alive, and hopefully continues to provide the necessities of my existance. Only when my people (European folk in the wider sense) lower themselves to re-adopt idolotry and new age dirt worship will I ever believe it. I thought that we as a people grew out of this sort of thing. But I guess we have in some areas; instead of painting our faces, bathing in the blood of slain animals, sanctioned pedophilia, we've replaced it with metaphysical psycho-babble and pagan-metal. Worshipping yourself or nothing at all will only get you so far in life. God willing, people moving on this path will reconsider taking part in this kind of egotistical, primal behavior. Only under the unifying banner of Almighty God will our people be saved. God has proven his ability to repell attacks on those faithful to him. But to those with no belief he scatters to the wind. I dare us all to reconsider our current situation and restore our faith in the Lord before our people go the way of the dinosaur and radical aggressors destroy a weak and divided people.

Aupmanyav
Tuesday, March 13th, 2007, 06:01 AM
You believe Aryans being (at least) 8000 years old? And what was before that time?Why, Spjabork, what is so strange about it? Is not your line more than 50000 years old? Were there not humans who were displaced by the last ice-age, 18000 years ago? Were there not humans who travelled from Africa to Australia 60000 years ago? Were there not humans who crossed the Bering Strait 40000 years ago? Adam was not born in 4000 BC as the great book will have us believe.

The oldest story mentioned in the RigVeda is when the sun rose on the day of vernal equinox in the asterism of Castor and Pollux (Punarvasu, Aditi). That was 8000 years ago. There is a nice story about it. They said once the inspite of the sacrifices (Yajnas) being done, the Devas (Gods) did not recieve the offerings. Perhaps there was a mismatch of sacrifices and the seasons. It was Aditi who found the seasons or the year (Samvatsara). Perhaps it was during that time that Aryans could understand how to reconcile the earlier moon-year with the sun-year (thus stabilising the seasons, which the muslim calender has not been able to do till now). They said Aditi is the 'mouth of the year' and 'beginning and end of the sacrifice' (Ubhayataru - both ways).

RigVeda does not have a remembrance of the ice-ages, but the Zoroastrian Avesta mentions deluge by ice, I quote B.G.Tilak in his 'Arctic Home in the Vedas' - 'The second part of the Fargard opens with a meeting of the celestial gods called by Ahur Mazda, and the fair Yima (king of men for Iranian Aryans and the God of Death for Indian Aryans), the good shepherd of high renown in Airyana Vaejo, is said to have attended this meeting with all his excellent mortals. It was at this meeting that Yima was distinctly warned by Ahur Mazda that fatal winters were going to fall on the happy land (perhaps it was a meeting of the whole tribe to discuss advancing snow) and destroy everything therein. To provide against this calamity the Holy One advised Yima to make a 'Vara' (enclosure, even now called a 'bara' in Hindi and 'bera' in Punjabi) and remove there the seeds of every kind of animals and plants for preservation. Yima made the 'Vara' accordingly, and the Fargard informs us that in this 'Vara', 'the sun, the moon, and the stars rose but once a year', and that 'a year seemed only as a day' to the inhabitants thereof.'

IMHO, and in Tilak's opinion, Aryans faced and survived the last ice-age, and that also was the cause of their migration to other lands. What was before that is darkness of pre-history.

Weiler
Tuesday, March 13th, 2007, 06:13 AM
Since Jesus is God made man, becoming more like Jesus is becoming more like God. As St. Athanasius once stated: "God became man in order that man might become god".

Thank you Taras. This is the best quote in this entire thread.

SuuT
Wednesday, March 14th, 2007, 01:07 AM
I've been through alot in my life, and had I not I might've believed you. God's mercy is what kept me alive, and hopefully continues to provide the necessities of my existance.

We've all been through a lot; some more than others. What you must understand is that phrases such as "God's mercy..." and the (provision) of your continued existence via this 'mercy' is so utterly alien to some people's ears that vaingloriousness exudes from every pore of the metaphor (regardless of whether or not you understand this 'mercy' as metaphor). You have made your choice, though: release yourself unto this 'mercy'; continue to pray for its provision. In the end, it is all the easier to absolve oneself of the responsibilities of existence when one understands divinity as a crutch rather than a goal. You see, I am not worried about 'falling short of the glory of (my) god' - how could I be? There are men alive today, that will - in the day after tomorrow - be known as gods. What greater glory! Perhaps one day we will go to one knee, for Sùilean Dubh. Earn it.


Only when my people (European folk in the wider sense) lower themselves to re-adopt idolotry and new age dirt worship will I ever believe it. I thought that we as a people grew out of this sort of thing. But I guess we have in some areas; instead of painting our faces, bathing in the blood of slain animals, sanctioned pedophilia, we've replaced it with metaphysical psycho-babble and pagan-metal.

This is where I would tit-for-tat you by calling Jesus a dead Jew on a stick choking himself to death with the sands of the near eastern desert and slain cruciform across the cosmos, weeping excrement, vomiting bile - and recanting. But, I would not do that: you have demonstrated your level of understanding of Paganism. For all those with ears to hear, you've come in loud and clear.


Worshipping yourself or nothing at all will only get you so far in life. God willing, people moving on this path will reconsider taking part in this kind of egotistical, primal behavior.

I say: return to the primitive. Christian lemmings can do whatever they wish - there are those of us who know the fate of lemmings (of course, lemmings, too, undoubtedly feel themselves to be on the right 'path'). This – is the juxtaposition.


Only under the unifying banner of Almighty God will our people be saved. God has proven his ability to repell attacks on those faithful to him. But to those with no belief he scatters to the wind. I dare us all to reconsider our current situation and restore our faith in the Lord before our people go the way of the dinosaur and radical aggressors destroy a weak and divided people.

You are not a victim (unless you are, that is).

Neither "the father" "the son" nor "the holy spirit" is going to save you or any of us - it is up to us. The spirit of our forefathers will assist; and here’s the great big catch: they will assist even those who deny them; they will assist the “unfaithful” – this is a mere responsibility of godhood, and the demonstrative beneficence of mine godhead.

Now more than ever, we must "Remain true to the Earth" (N).


I disagree...Isaiah 53:5...etc.

Of course you do.

At any rate, the holy bible is held by Christians to be the written word of God. You have chosen to quote from what is considered to be a "major prophet" - Isaiah. I mentioned an irony to this. The irony is that I am daring us all to be, or be as, gods: let us see what Isaiah has to say about the matter (which I suppose is either of extreme or very little import – doesn’t matter, really?). I have an old Latin version of the bible, and will be translating from it. I think this is appropriate, don't you? - Given that translation in to a Germanic tongue from the Latinate was considered Heresy. Indeed! - Many suffered all manner of torture and ill-fated demise for attempting translations and transliterations until very late, no? Further, that the Latinate version has held the most sway over Germanic/European Christians only supports this ought. So: Isaiah (God, that is) speaks on the topic of godhood, and unbeknownst to this omnipotent God, lets slip his own misunderstanding of Paganism in the process...

41:4. (Quis haec operatus est et fecit vocans generationes ab exordio ego Dominus primus et novissimus ego sum)

Who has wrought and done these things (if not I), calling the generations from the beginning? I the Lord, I am the first, I am the last (or, the all).

41:29. (Ecce omnes iniusti et vana opera eorum ventus et inane simulacra eorum)

Behold they are all in the wrong, and their works are vain: their idols are (literally) wind, and thus vanity.

42:5. (Haec dicit Dominus Deus creans caelos et extendens eos firmans terram et quae germinant ex ea dans flatum populo qui est super eam et spiritum calcantibus eam)

Thus dictates the Lord God that created the heavens, and stretched them out: that established the earth, and the things that spring from it: that give breath to the people upon it, and spirit to them that tread thereupon.

42:8 (Ego Dominus hoc est nomen meum gloriam meam alteri non dabo et laudem meam sculptilibus)

I am the Lord, this is my name: I will not give my glory to another, nor my praise to sculpted things.

42:17. (Conversi sunt retrorsum confundantur confusione qui confidunt in sculptili qui dicunt conflatili vos dii nostri)

They are turned backward: allow them their confounded confusion, that trust in a sculpted thing, that say to sculpted things: You are our god.

43:10. (Vos testes mei dicit Dominus et servus meus quem elegi ut sciatis et credatis mihi et intellegatis quia ego ipse sum ante me non est formatus deus et post me non erit)

You are my witnesses, says the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that you may know, and credit me, and understand that I myself am. Before me there was no God formed, and after me there shall be none.

43:12. (Ego adnuntiavi et salvavi auditum feci et non fuit in vobis alienus vos testes mei dicit Dominus et ego Deus)

I have declared, and have saved. I have made it heard, and there was no strange one among you. You are my witnesses, says the Lord, and I am I - the one God.

44:6. (Haec dicit Dominus rex Israhel et redemptor eius Dominus exercituum ego primus et ego novissimus et absque me non est deus)

Thus dictates the Lord, the king of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last - there is no God besides me.

44:8. (Nolite timere neque conturbemini ex tunc audire te feci et adnuntiavi vos estis testes mei numquid est deus absque me et formator quem ego non noverim)

Be without fear, neither be troubled from the time I have made you to hear, and have declared: you are my witnesses. Is there a God besides me, a maker, whom I have not known?

44:17. (Reliquum autem eius deum fecit sculptile sibi curvatur ante illud et adorat illud et obsecrat dicens libera me quia deus meus es tu)

But the residue thereof he sculpted a god, and a graven thing for himself: he bowed down before it, and adored , and prayed to it, saying: Save me, for you are my God.

44:24. (Haec dicit Dominus redemptor tuus et formator tuus ex utero ego sum Dominus faciens omnia extendens caelos solus stabiliens terram et nullus mecum)

Thus dictates the Lord, the one redeemer, and the one maker, from the womb: I am the Lord, that make all things, that alone stretch out the heavens, that made the earth stable, and there is none but me.

45:5. (Ego Dominus et non est amplius extra me non est deus accinxi te et non cognovisti me)

I am the Lord, and there are no others: there is no God besides me: I girded you, and you have not known me.

45:6. (Ut sciant hii qui ab ortu solis et qui ab occidente quoniam absque me non est ego Dominus et non est alter)

That they may know who are from the rising of the sun, and they who are from the west, that there is none besides me. I am the Lord – there are no others.

45:20. (Congregamini et venite et accedite simul qui salvati estis ex gentibus nescierunt qui levant lignum sculpturae suae et rogant deum non salvantem)

Congregate, and come, and draw close together, those of you that are saved of the Gentiles: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven work, and pray to a god of no salvation.

45:22. (Convertimini ad me et salvi eritis omnes fines terrae quia ego Deus et non est alius)

Be converted to me, and you are to be saved, at all ends of the earth: for I am God - there is no other.

Leofric
Wednesday, March 14th, 2007, 02:55 AM
Of course you do.

At any rate, the holy bible is held by Christians to be the written word of God. You have chosen to quote from what is considered to be a "major prophet" - Isaiah. I mentioned an irony to this. The irony is that I am daring us all to be, or be as, gods: let us see what Isaiah has to say about the matter (which I suppose is either of extreme or very little import – doesn’t matter, really?). I have an old Latin version of the bible, and will be translating from it. I think this is appropriate, don't you? - Given that translation in to a Germanic tongue from the Latinate was considered Heresy. Indeed! - Many suffered all manner of torture and ill-fated demise for attempting translations and transliterations until very late, no? Further, that the Latinate version has held the most sway over Germanic/European Christians only supports this ought. So: Isaiah (God, that is) speaks on the topic of godhood, and unbeknownst to this omnipotent God, lets slip his own misunderstanding of Paganism in the process...

41:4. (Quis haec operatus est et fecit vocans generationes ab exordio ego Dominus primus et novissimus ego sum)

Who has wrought and done these things (if not I), calling the generations from the beginning? I the Lord, I am the first, I am the last (or, the all).

41:29. (Ecce omnes iniusti et vana opera eorum ventus et inane simulacra eorum)

Behold they are all in the wrong, and their works are vain: their idols are (literally) wind, and thus vanity.

42:5. (Haec dicit Dominus Deus creans caelos et extendens eos firmans terram et quae germinant ex ea dans flatum populo qui est super eam et spiritum calcantibus eam)

Thus dictates the Lord God that created the heavens, and stretched them out: that established the earth, and the things that spring from it: that give breath to the people upon it, and spirit to them that tread thereupon.

42:8 (Ego Dominus hoc est nomen meum gloriam meam alteri non dabo et laudem meam sculptilibus)

I am the Lord, this is my name: I will not give my glory to another, nor my praise to sculpted things.

42:17. (Conversi sunt retrorsum confundantur confusione qui confidunt in sculptili qui dicunt conflatili vos dii nostri)

They are turned backward: allow them their confounded confusion, that trust in a sculpted thing, that say to sculpted things: You are our god.

43:10. (Vos testes mei dicit Dominus et servus meus quem elegi ut sciatis et credatis mihi et intellegatis quia ego ipse sum ante me non est formatus deus et post me non erit)

You are my witnesses, says the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that you may know, and credit me, and understand that I myself am. Before me there was no God formed, and after me there shall be none.

43:12. (Ego adnuntiavi et salvavi auditum feci et non fuit in vobis alienus vos testes mei dicit Dominus et ego Deus)

I have declared, and have saved. I have made it heard, and there was no strange one among you. You are my witnesses, says the Lord, and I am I - the one God.

44:6. (Haec dicit Dominus rex Israhel et redemptor eius Dominus exercituum ego primus et ego novissimus et absque me non est deus)

Thus dictates the Lord, the king of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last - there is no God besides me.

44:8. (Nolite timere neque conturbemini ex tunc audire te feci et adnuntiavi vos estis testes mei numquid est deus absque me et formator quem ego non noverim)

Be without fear, neither be troubled from the time I have made you to hear, and have declared: you are my witnesses. Is there a God besides me, a maker, whom I have not known?

44:17. (Reliquum autem eius deum fecit sculptile sibi curvatur ante illud et adorat illud et obsecrat dicens libera me quia deus meus es tu)

But the residue thereof he sculpted a god, and a graven thing for himself: he bowed down before it, and adored , and prayed to it, saying: Save me, for you are my God.

44:24. (Haec dicit Dominus redemptor tuus et formator tuus ex utero ego sum Dominus faciens omnia extendens caelos solus stabiliens terram et nullus mecum)

Thus dictates the Lord, the one redeemer, and the one maker, from the womb: I am the Lord, that make all things, that alone stretch out the heavens, that made the earth stable, and there is none but me.

45:5. (Ego Dominus et non est amplius extra me non est deus accinxi te et non cognovisti me)

I am the Lord, and there are no others: there is no God besides me: I girded you, and you have not known me.

45:6. (Ut sciant hii qui ab ortu solis et qui ab occidente quoniam absque me non est ego Dominus et non est alter)

That they may know who are from the rising of the sun, and they who are from the west, that there is none besides me. I am the Lord – there are no others.

45:20. (Congregamini et venite et accedite simul qui salvati estis ex gentibus nescierunt qui levant lignum sculpturae suae et rogant deum non salvantem)

Congregate, and come, and draw close together, those of you that are saved of the Gentiles: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven work, and pray to a god of no salvation.

45:22. (Convertimini ad me et salvi eritis omnes fines terrae quia ego Deus et non est alius)

Be converted to me, and you are to be saved, at all ends of the earth: for I am God - there is no other.
The sad thing about this response of yours is that it's so typical of what I'm talking about when I say people find one particle they dislike in the wide sea of a religion like Christianity and go on and on about that one particle.

You have written on and on now about how bad Isaiah is. I mentioned Isaiah once in a side discussion — my quoting Isaiah had nothing to do with the point of my post. But you have completely ignored my point this whole time — treating it as just so many et ceteras — so you could show how pedantic a person can get about Isaiah. Seeing, you do not see; hearing, you do not hear.

The point is along the lines of what Saint Irenaeus said: "Jesus Christ became what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself," or as Taras Bulba quoted it, "God became man in order that man might become god." That's far more central to Christianity than a discussion of Isaiah.

The point is that Jesus Christ himself dares us all to be gods.

But because that point shows Christianity to have been saying all along what you find so delightful and fresh and bright in Nietzsche and his ilk, you have to sidestep that main point and wave your hands about Isaiah. For some reason, you feel a need to hate Christianity, and when you find that Christianity is actually everything you've ditched it in favor of (just with a fuller, richer tradition), you have to pick out tiny portions of Christianity to attack in order to distract attention from the main point.



Incidentally, it is not true that Christianity opposed translations of the Bible into Germanic languages until very recently. The Bible was translated into Gothic and into Anglo-Saxon many centuries ago, and by fully approved churchmen.

Also, the Latin translation you're using doesn't look like the best. I suggest you try the Septuagint if you refuse to just go straight to the Hebrew. You'd find some very interesting variations from what your Latin translation has, particularly in regards to Isaiah's words about pagan practices.

Pro-Alpine
Wednesday, March 14th, 2007, 03:21 AM
Freethought is the biggest step from the powerful left-wing.

Flashinpon
Wednesday, March 21st, 2007, 02:10 PM
"The point is that Jesus Christ himself dares us all to be gods."

Greetings. I'm afraid I've only got a small amount of German in me (mostly Italian, some german and cherokee on my mom's side), DavidK invited me here. While he's still filling me in on his many insights to different views on Mythology, Biblical theology happens to be my area of operation, if you will.
So, I'm going to step in with what I know rather than dive right in to the deeper parts of mythology...I'm going to step in with this Biblical quote.
What Jesus is referring to here is Psalm 82, where it is written "

1God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

2How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.

3Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.

4Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.

5They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

6I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

7But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

8Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

"

It is important to note, firstly, that the Hebrew (and thus, christian) system of beliefs is not that there are no gods, but that the other gods are false and not to be worshipped.
"God" when used in this context is to be defined as the "ultimate" Being. This differs greatly from the pagan and mythological use of the word, which is simply "powerful" being. The lack of capitalization in the word "god" indicating the lack of respect (respect given only to "God").
Because of this discrepancy of the definitions, we now compare apples and oranges. It should not be unthinkable to the follower of any mythology that there exists yet another "god" more powerful than the "gods" he is currently aware of. Neither should it be unthinkable to the monotheist that other powerful beings are given the title "god", or "God", yet not looked to as the epitome of anything. The gods in mythology have strengths and weaknesses, character virtures and character flaws, therefore not meeting the judeo-Christian definition of the word "God".
When the psalmist (not David, in this case) writes "gods", firstly, he is NOT referring to the world in general. There is some debate as to who he is referring to, but there are three common suggestions: 1) Angelic beings; 2) the Children of Israel at Sinai when they received the Law; 3) human judges or rulers who have judged unjustly.

This because of the word "elohim" being used in prior "addressing" text, which when emphasized can be a name for God denoting His role as Judge, when "uncapitalied" simply refers to a judge.
For instance,

Exodus 21
6Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

----
The word translated "judges" here is "elohim", the same word translated "gods" in psalms and Jesus' quotation of the psalm. I subscribe to the second theory...look at the passage:

"John 10:34 Jesus answered them, "Isn't it written in your law,'I said, you are gods?'

John 10:35 If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture can't be broken)...."

This then is the final "addressing" of the quote. Who are "gods"? Who are "elohim?" To whom the Word of God came. This seems to fall in line with the second theory. In any case, "gods" is not referring to supernatural power, nor is it promised to all of humanity.
I'm going to tie this in with Genesis and Satan's "ye shall be as gods" as soon as I can find a concordance which will confirm my suspicion that the word "elohim" is used there as well (if it is not there is an entirely different lesson to be learned!)

woo that was long...

SuuT
Wednesday, March 21st, 2007, 05:32 PM
...I'm going to step in with this Biblical quote.
What Jesus is referring to here is Psalm 82, where it is written "

1God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

2How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.

3Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.

4Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.

5They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

6I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

7But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

8Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

"

It is important to note, firstly, that the Hebrew (and thus, christian) system of beliefs is not that there are no gods, but that the other gods are false and not to be worshipped.
"God" when used in this context is to be defined as the "ultimate" Being. This differs greatly from the pagan and mythological use of the word, which is simply "powerful" being. The lack of capitalization in the word "god" indicating the lack of respect (respect given only to "God").
Because of this discrepancy of the definitions, we now compare apples and oranges. It should not be unthinkable to the follower of any mythology that there exists yet another "god" more powerful than the "gods" he is currently aware of. Neither should it be unthinkable to the monotheist that other powerful beings are given the title "god", or "God", yet not looked to as the epitome of anything. The gods in mythology have strengths and weaknesses, character virtures and character flaws, therefore not meeting the judeo-Christian definition of the word "God".
When the psalmist (not David, in this case) writes "gods", firstly, he is NOT referring to the world in general. There is some debate as to who he is referring to, but there are three common suggestions: 1) Angelic beings; 2) the Children of Israel at Sinai when they received the Law; 3) human judges or rulers who have judged unjustly.

This because of the word "elohim" being used in prior "addressing" text, which when emphasized can be a name for God denoting His role as Judge, when "uncapitalied" simply refers to a judge.
For instance,

Exodus 21
6Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

----
The word translated "judges" here is "elohim", the same word translated "gods" in psalms and Jesus' quotation of the psalm. I subscribe to the second theory...look at the passage:

"John 10:34 Jesus answered them, "Isn't it written in your law,'I said, you are gods?'

John 10:35 If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture can't be broken)...."

This then is the final "addressing" of the quote. Who are "gods"? Who are "elohim?" To whom the Word of God came. This seems to fall in line with the second theory. In any case, "gods" is not referring to supernatural power, nor is it promised to all of humanity.
I'm going to tie this in with Genesis and Satan's "ye shall be as gods" as soon as I can find a concordance which will confirm my suspicion that the word "elohim" is used there as well (if it is not there is an entirely different lesson to be learned!)

...

Hooray! I hoped someone would bring it up: More on this context...

`oti egw eipa qeoi este
hOTI EGÔ EIPA THEOI ESTE
I said gods you are.

I said (hoti ego eipa). Recitative hoti before a direct quotation like our quotation marks. Eipa is a late second aorist form of indicative with -a instead of -on.
Ye are gods (theoi este). Another direct quotation after eipa but without hoti. The judges of Israel abused their office and God is represented in Ps 82:6 as calling them “gods” (theoi, elohim) because they were God’s representatives. See the same use of elohim in Ex 21:6; Ex 22:9, Ex 22:28. Jesus meets the rabbis on their own ground in a thoroughly Jewish way. proV `ouV `o logoV tou qeou egeneto
PROS hOUS hO LOGOS TOU THEOU EGENETO
With whom the word of God was

To whom the word of God came (pros hous ho logos tou theou egeneto). The relative points to ekeinous, before. These judges had no other claim to the term theoi (elohim). kai ou dunatai luqhnai `h grafh
KAI OU DUNATAI LUTHÊNAI hÊ GRAPHÊ
And cannot be broken the scripture

And the scripture cannot be broken (kai ou dunatai luthēnai hē graphē). A parenthesis that drives home the pertinency of the appeal, one that the Pharisees had to accept. Luthēnai is first aorist passive infinitive of luō, to loosen, to break.


(RWP (http://www.forananswer.org/Bibliography.htm#RWP))