PDA

View Full Version : Is the Concept of a Monotheistic God Self-Contradictory?



Thorburn
Friday, March 9th, 2007, 10:38 PM
because I find the very concept of a monotheistic God to be self-contradictory In what respect? Can you elaborate, please?

Pervitinist
Saturday, March 10th, 2007, 12:09 AM
In what respect? Can you elaborate, please?

Now you got me! :)

No, I think to elucidate this point we would have to recreate endless scholastic debates about the reconcilability of the actual state of the world with the notion of an omnipotent, all-knowing, benevolent creator-God (the problem of theodicy). If there were such a God and if this God would care about us in the way described in the scriptures of monotheistic religions, the world would have to look very different from the way it actually does.

Of course there are numerous traditional arguments (mostly involving speculations about the extent of logical and metaphysical possibility) trying to reconcile both things. But I still haven't heard any such argument that convinced me. So, until that happens, I see a contradiction between the notion of a Judeo-Christian / Islamic God and the state of our world that is said to be "His" (Her?) creation.

Deism could be option, but if Deism is true, all the gospels, revelations, etc. are fake. And if they are, there's no reason to believe in a God that fits their descriptions (rather than those, say, of the Vedas, the Avesta or the Edda).

Thorburn
Saturday, March 10th, 2007, 01:33 AM
Now you got me! :) I know. Wasn't that mean? :D


No, I think to elucidate this point we would have to recreate endless scholastic debates about the reconcilability of the actual state of the world with the notion of an omnipotent, all-knowing, benevolent creator-God (the problem of theodicy). Quite on the contrary. I'm rudimentarily familiar with the basic arguments concerning the logical contradictions in having a god that is omniscient and immaterial (or omnipotent) at the same time -- as they are frequently put forward in the atheist critiques of the Judeo-Christian and Muslim god.

I merely wondered what's "self-contradictory" in "the very concept of a monotheistic god", as you expressed? The monotheism, I mean? A single, unique god with no other gods besides him could also be envisioned without the omni-what-have-you attributes the popular Middle Eastern desert religions ascribe to him. Would then, in your view, a contradiction in the very concept of monotheism still exist?

(I got you! I got you!) :AWW

Leofric
Saturday, March 10th, 2007, 01:50 AM
If there were such a God and if this God would care about us in the way described in the scriptures of monotheistic religions, the world would have to look very different from the way it actually does.
So if I understand you properly, it's not a monotheistic god per se that you object to, but rather the traditional postulations of such a god within the major monotheistic religions, right?

EDIT: But I think Thorburn put it better than I did.

Thorburn
Saturday, March 10th, 2007, 02:06 AM
So if I understand you properly, it's not a monotheistic god per se that you object to, but rather the traditional postulations of such a god within the major monotheistic religions, right?

EDIT: But I think Thorburn put it better than I did. And the next step would be to ask if it is reasonable to assume whether some shepherds referred to a logically all-inclusive and absolute "omnipotent" when they referred to the "Almighty" in their prayers and songs more than 2,000 years ago?

Do I catch the drift? One can be a Christian without believing in the most inflexible and rigid interpretations of certain divine attributes? :fwink:

Leofric
Saturday, March 10th, 2007, 02:37 AM
And the next step would be to ask if it is reasonable to assume whether some shepherds referred to a logically all-inclusive and absolute "omnipotent" when they referred to the "Almighty" in their prayers and songs more than 2,000 years ago?

Do I catch the drift? One can be a Christian without believing in the most inflexible and rigid interpretations of certain divine attributes? :fwink:
:D

Well, that certainly is my drift, but I wasn't going to come into the Agnosticism & Atheism forum with my preaching, since I think it doesn't quite belong here.

I was just going to leave the question on the table, see how it got answered, and then let whatever personal reflections happened inside the minds of Skadi readers do their work. ;)

Pervitinist
Sunday, March 11th, 2007, 09:03 PM
I merely wondered what's "self-contradictory" in "the very concept of a monotheistic god", as you expressed? The monotheism, I mean? A single, unique god with no other gods besides him could also be envisioned without the omni-what-have-you attributes the popular Middle Eastern desert religions ascribe to him. Would then, in your view, a contradiction in the very concept of monotheism still exist?

Well it depends on what you mean by monotheism and which attributes you consider as necessary for such a God. When you define the Monotheistic God simply as

"A single, unique god with no other gods besides him"

this would include a God who
is not the creator of the universe
doesn't know anything about the world
can't be contacted by human beings in visions, prayers, etc.
did not reveal his will to anyone (perhaps doesn't even have a will)
is not "a person" in any meaningful sense of the wordetc.

I think such a God is possible.

But is it a monotheistic God? And is it a God (theos) at all or just a Deistic abstraction or something like a demon from another dimension? And why should we care about discussing a concept like the "God of the Philosophers" which basically has no religious significance?

What I was referring to was not such an abstraction but the concrete concept of God as it is found in the holy scriptures and theologies of the three major Monotheistic faiths. The concept of this God necessarily includes the "omni-" attributes. So if a contradiction between some of them (e.g. omniscience and unlimited benevolence) can be proven to exist and traditional harmonization attempts are discarded, the concept of the Monotheistic God as envisioned by the actual Monotheistic religions is indeed self-contradictory. This point can, of course be argued further because most believers will simply deny that there is an actual contradiction between divine attributes, between revealed word and historical fact (like in the problem of the eschatological "Naherwartung" ...). The last resort for the believer is always a new interpretation of his/her holy text of choice. In the end, criteria of consistency are also a matter of "faith" (or stipulation or creation of a Sprachspiel ...). So the debate is by definition endless.

I know my argument is not really the strongest imaginable. But do you still think you got me? ;)


So if I understand you properly, it's not a monotheistic god per se that you object to, but rather the traditional postulations of such a god within the major monotheistic religions, right?Yes, exactly. But if you take the "monotheistic god per se" in the above (Thorburnian) sense, there's not much left in it except the "per se". ;)


And the next step would be to ask if it is reasonable to assume whether some shepherds referred to a logically all-inclusive and absolute "omnipotent" when they referred to the "Almighty" in their prayers and songs more than 2,000 years ago?

Well, but they must have referred to something unless they were just babbling nonsense (which they probably did ;))

Siebenbürgerin
Monday, July 6th, 2009, 03:19 PM
If a god created the world, he has to be omnipotent, because he has the power to create everything. Everything is his creation. If he isn't omnipotent, then the creation isn't his. If we've only one god, then he has to be the creator. Otherwise, where did everything come from? A monotheistic god which isn't like the Christian God doesn't make sense indeed.

Sigurd
Monday, July 6th, 2009, 04:02 PM
If a god created the world, he has to be omnipotent, because he has the power to create everything.

Could he not be omnipotent but not be the creator of the world? Can we say that the man who invented the first story and would have been capable of inventing speech automatically invented speech?

Vice-versa, could he not have created the world but not be omnipotent? What if the man who invented speech was anything but a crafted storyteller, and it was his brother who came up with the idea to spin all these words together to make sense in a narrative?

Do you catch my drift? Perhaps the god which the occidental tradition knows is omnipotent and omniscient, and even the creator of the world, and all these things. But is there not the very potential that he may have only been able to put the things in place which his creations could not put into place, etc.

For example - just because the farmer can sow, grow and harvest the crop - does it mean that he can also cook them?


Everything is his creation. If he isn't omnipotent, then the creation isn't his.

How do we know that everything is his creation? Because he created us, and we created further things, people and concepts?

Could it not very well be that his potential ends right where our potential starts? Compare it with a man, who with his semen is able to create a child ... but he does not have the potential to carry one himself, something which his seed - if it is a daughter - may well be able to.

Perhaps it's not a good analogy ... but how do we know that his potential would transcend his immediate creation, rather than the potential being limited to creating worlds and living things, but not the items and concepts, which only they might be able to conceive?


Otherwise, where did everything come from? A monotheistic god which isn't like the Christian God doesn't make sense indeed.

But does the link of causation need to be complete? If we craft paper from a tree, then burn it in a fire, and the fire warms us - does it mean that the tree is capable of warming us, or is it necessary modification of the materials given?

Aeternitas
Monday, July 6th, 2009, 04:05 PM
Since Christianity, Judaism and Islam are among the most numerous and popular monotheistic religions, ppl will inevitably make a connection between monotheism and the omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent god. But that's not actually what monotheism is about. Monotheism is the belief that there is only one god. That's it. It doesn't say what kind of god. Also, not being omniscient doesn't mean that this god doesn't know anything at all about the world, not being omnipotent doesn't mean that this god doesn't have power over anything at all. To be omniscient is to have total knowledge. To be omnipotent is to have unlimited power. Theoretically, a god could create everything, but not also have the power over his creations, in other words be devoid of those omni- attributes.

Siebenbürgerin
Monday, July 6th, 2009, 04:14 PM
Could he not be omnipotent but not be the creator of the world? Can we say that the man who invented the first story and would have been capable of inventing speech automatically invented speech?

Vice-versa, could he not have created the world but not be omnipotent? What if the man who invented speech was anything but a crafted storyteller, and it was his brother who came up with the idea to spin all these words together to make sense in a narrative?

Do you catch my drift? Perhaps the god which the occidental tradition knows is omnipotent and omniscient, and even the creator of the world, and all these things. But is there not the very potential that he may have only been able to put the things in place which his creations could not put into place, etc.

For example - just because the farmer can sow, grow and harvest the crop - does it mean that he can also cook them?



How do we know that everything is his creation? Because he created us, and we created further things, people and concepts?

Could it not very well be that his potential ends right where our potential starts? Compare it with a man, who with his semen is able to create a child ... but he does not have the potential to carry one himself, something which his seed - if it is a daughter - may well be able to.

Perhaps it's not a good analogy ... but how do we know that his potential would transcend his immediate creation, rather than the potential being limited to creating worlds and living things, but not the items and concepts, which only they might be able to conceive?



But does the link of causation need to be complete? If we craft paper from a tree, then burn it in a fire, and the fire warms us - does it mean that the tree is capable of warming us, or is it necessary modification of the materials given?
I'm catching the drift, however, a parallel with humans isn't very appropriate in a context about a deity. God is a perfect and supernatural being, so he can do the things which humans aren't capable of. A being with flaws isn't a god. I'm thinking about the angels, what Lucifer was before turning into the Devil. He sinned, he wanted to be just as God, and he paid for this sin.


Since Christianity, Judaism and Islam are among the most numerous and popular monotheistic religions, ppl will inevitably make a connection between monotheism and the omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent god. But that's not actually what monotheism is about. Monotheism is the belief that there is only one god. That's it. It doesn't say what kind of god. Also, not being omniscient doesn't mean that this god doesn't know anything at all about the world, not being omnipotent doesn't mean that this god doesn't have power over anything at all. To be omniscient is to have total knowledge. To be omnipotent is to have unlimited power. Theoretically, a god could create everything, but not also have the power over his creations, in other words be devoid of those omni- attributes.
If he hasn't power over his creations, then he's not a god. Because as I said to Sigurd, a god is a supernatural being, he isn't limited as humans are. Then he's an angel, a devil, a saint or something else, but not a god.

Ossi
Monday, July 6th, 2009, 04:40 PM
If your god is all so powerful, how come there is EVIL and BAD in the world? Your god is omnipotent, so he should have control over it. Maybe your god isn't so perfect after all. :D

Siebenbürgerin
Monday, July 6th, 2009, 05:36 PM
If your god is all so powerful, how come there is EVIL and BAD in the world? Your god is omnipotent, so he should have control over it. Maybe your god isn't so perfect after all. :D
Because after God created the world, he let his creations independently. But that doesn't mean that God can't control them. He doesn't want to control everything, because he wants to see if his sons and daughters follow his word independently. When it doesn't happen, God has punishments for them. In the beginning, human kind was immortal. There wasn't any death. But God punished human kind for the ancestral sin, and we are now mortals. That's an example of God's power. God has a reason for the way he ordains the things in our lives.

Aeternitas
Monday, July 6th, 2009, 06:01 PM
If he hasn't power over his creations, then he's not a god. Because as I said to Sigurd, a god is a supernatural being, he isn't limited as humans are. Then he's an angel, a devil, a saint or something else, but not a god.
That is only if you judge it from one single angle, but there are several varieties of monotheism. There is deism, which assets that god doesn't interfere with his creation, there is pantheism, where god is the universe itself, and others. Also, there are several conceptions of god (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptions_of_God). Not all religions define god the same way.

Nachtengel
Monday, July 6th, 2009, 06:38 PM
Because after God created the world, he let his creations independently. But that doesn't mean that God can't control them. He doesn't want to control everything, because he wants to see if his sons and daughters follow his word independently. When it doesn't happen, God has punishments for them. In the beginning, human kind was immortal. There wasn't any death. But God punished human kind for the ancestral sin, and we are now mortals. That's an example of God's power. God has a reason for the way he ordains the things in our lives.
But what sense does that make? Oh, and isn't evil and bad a product of Satan? If God is powerful then he could easily win against Satan, and only good would exist in the world. But if God has trouble rivaling with Satan, then maybe God isn't omnipotent after all.

Siebenbürgerin
Monday, July 6th, 2009, 06:48 PM
But what sense does that make? Oh, and isn't evil and bad a product of Satan? If God is powerful then he could easily win against Satan, and only good would exist in the world. But if God has trouble rivaling with Satan, then maybe God isn't omnipotent after all.
Satan (Lucifer) is a product of God too. As I've said, Lucifer is the fallen angel, who God punished for wanting to be like God. Now I know what you'll ask me: why God created Lucifer?

Let me explain: God created humans, but he gave them free will. Free will is the product of God, as everything which exists. But humans can't differentiate from right and wrong if they don't see wrong. That was proven by Eve when she ate the forbidden fruit. Adam and Even didn't know right from wrong. They had to ask God about everything. That's when humans fell from Eden and into the mortal world. So God gave humans a choice: act righteous or act wrongly. God could destroy evil, but then he would deny humans the concept of free will.

Chlodovech
Monday, July 6th, 2009, 07:03 PM
If your god is all so powerful, how come there is EVIL and BAD in the world? Your god is omnipotent, so he should have control over it. Maybe your god isn't so perfect after all. :D

Christianity is based on dualism afterall, and, in one way, on applying your own free will. 'The evil in the world' that you apparently recognise, Ossi, is quite the Christian concept - and it would be the result of fallen angels using their own free will, to interact and even interbreed with mankind.

Moreover, without the possibility of inflicting or receiving pain there would be no moral choices, and hence, no personal growth, and no salvation. No crucifixion, and no resurrection.

Our level of existence has to be imperfect - because God is largely absent from it (according to the bible, even that was our own choice) - regardless of God being all knowing or all this or all that.

One can't expect God to interfere with day to day reality like some sort of government, that would be overestimating the position of mere mortals like ourselves (and our personal relevance in the larger picture) in respect to God, who has His own agenda for this world, and owes us nothing.

For me there's no inherent contradiction in monotheism (nor in atheism or pantheism, etc. ... on the contrary, these keyconcepts are clear and simple): there can only be one king - My perception of heaven is not that of a liberal democracy - with many gods, who all should have their say. :D


That is only if you judge it from one single angle, but there are several varieties of monotheism.

Yes, the Cathars (while not exactly monotheists or christians) for instance, believed that the old testament god, the creator of the universe, was evil, and another god altogether than the one who "makes his appearance" in the new testament. Because the Cathars saw this world as ugly, violent and imperfect. The creation, according to them, couldn't have been the work of a loving god. It's a demonic deception.

Ritual suicide was acceptable to a Cathar if you did so because out of longing for God.

Christians would agree with the idea of demonic deception, with this difference: Our planet got hijacked by malign beings, instead of created by these creatures.


But what sense does that make? Oh, and isn't evil and bad a product of Satan? If God is powerful then he could easily win against Satan, and only good would exist in the world. But if God has trouble rivaling with Satan, then maybe God isn't omnipotent after all.

Satan was defeated - some angels joined him, some were neutral, some picked God's side. Yet afterwards, Satan appeared before God, and asked for time, to put God's creation to the test. God granted the request. But this has no impact upon the final result, according to the bible, he's still gonna lose. Nonetheless, Satan is a very powerful entity, God's favorite, initialy - the most capable angel of all, and the most like God.

I do think it would be nearly impossible to differentiate between God and Satan, if they would manifest themselves. Nay, I am convinced of it, since the order of God is mistaken for the order of Satan on a daily basis in our universe.

The role of Satan is quite curious, and a source of endless fascination, to me. To the Jews he's not even an enemy of God as such, but rather, his supreme judge.

Siebenbürgerin
Monday, July 6th, 2009, 07:26 PM
Yes, the Cathars (while not exactly monotheists or christians) for instance, believed that the old testament god, the creator of the universe, was evil, and another god altogether than the one who "makes his appearance" in the new testament. Because the Cathars saw this world as ugly, violent and imperfect. The creation, according to them, couldn't have been the work of a loving god. It's a demonic deception.

Ritual suicide was acceptable to a Cathar if you did so because out of longing for God.

Christians would agree with the idea of demonic deception, with this difference: Our planet got hijacked by malign beings, instead of created by these creatures.
The Cathars were neither Christians nor monotheists, because they believed in two gods, one good and one evil, not in a dualistic nature of one sole god. We've the Holy Trinity in Christianity, which shows a multiple nature of God, but it's still monotheistic, because there aren't three gods, only one.
Furthermore, they were heretics. ;)

Sigurd
Monday, July 6th, 2009, 09:01 PM
A being with flaws isn't a god. I'm thinking about the angels, what Lucifer was before turning into the Devil. He sinned, he wanted to be just as God, and he paid for this sin.

A being with flaws can still be a God, it just is not a perfect God. I need to look no further than our own Germanic mythology: Odin misses an eye, Tyr misses a hand --- and all for entirely good reasons, and for gains obtained by these very sacrifices.

A perfect God by definition of course does not have flaws, that is correct. If we accept a higher being to exist, which is free of flaws, then it is perfect. If that is the Christian conception, then to the Christian his God is flawless.

But this is not the essence of either a God, or monotheism - neither can exist exclusively for these concepts: Imagine a God with flaws. Imagine a God with flaws who is however accepted by humanity as the only deity. Also imagine several Gods which are all flawless.

Perfectness, flawlessness is not a qualifier of Monotheism; nor is Monotheism a qualifier for Flawlessness. Of course you could argue that if there is only one god for all humans, and he is flawless that this is in the definition of a god, but this does not correspond with all historical conceptions of divinity.

And even assuming that the existence of a single, omnipotent and perfect God was true --- it would cease to be a belief in God, it would be a knowledge in God. Knowledge supposedly is unquestionable, except to be extended by other knowledge, different conceptions of God by several people contradict it being essentially a belief necessarily true.

Some facets of this God could still be unexplained and unexplainable indeed to humans, the ascribed omnipotence could be an error to the human non-omniscience. Essentially, the only creature capable of knowing God's true characteristics would be himself.

Wulfram
Monday, July 6th, 2009, 10:01 PM
'The evil in the world' that you apparently recognise, Ossi, is quite the Christian concept - and it would be the result of fallen angels using their own free will, to interact and even interbreed with mankind.

Ever meet a fallen angel yourself? How would you know how to recognize them outside of theological theorizing? Have you ever known of a human who has interbred with one?
By your own x-tianized definition of evil, if I happen to commit a sin it is as a result of someone in my family’s history having relations with a fallen angel?


Moreover, without the possibility of inflicting or receiving pain there would be no moral choices, and hence, no personal growth, and no salvation. No crucifixion, and no resurrection.

What is the justification for this? I know the old saying “No Pain, No Gain” may apply in certain instances, but not to the extent that almost all of humanity is subjected to suffering. And we know full well that most of people have definitely not learned of morals, experienced personal growth, or put much faith in salvation, if at all. Pain only makes them behave worse.

A true religion, if that is possible, should never require its followers to receive or inflict pain. Mankind at odds with nature does enough of this already without humans pouring salt into their own wounds.


Our level of existence has to be imperfect - because God is largely absent from it (according to the bible, even that was our own choice) - regardless of god being all knowing or all this or all that.

“Largely absent”? How can you tell if god is there at all? My dad always responded to this much asked question (by me) with “I just know. I can feel him working within me.” Well I just wish that a x-tian can provide for me an answer without saying that we mortal humans have no right to understand the immortal.


One can't expect God to interfere with day to day reality like some sort of government, that would be overestimating the position of mere mortals like ourselves

Jews think they are gods chosen people. They see the success of thier subjugation of the Gentile as proof. And just look at who really controls both the American as well as the German goverments!

Mere mortals? Do you not agree that we Germans are the worlds best? And should we, as the worlds best, take it upon ourselves to emulate “god” as best as possible? In essence, "becoming as gods". This is why the German race is doomed, because most Germans are convinced that they have no place playing god, while the jew, who is defeating us, has no problem whatever playing the role.
I feel that the Germanic race can assume the role of the immortal much more authentically than any other. We are not perfect, which is true. But, I feel that we as a people have come the closest to achieving it. Would it not be too much to assume that the jew prevents us from doing this?


...in respect to God, who has His own agenda for this world, and owes us nothing.

Has his own secret agenda… just like the neo-con and jewish power players have thier own agenda and owe us nothing? Yes, they too have their own plan that they never share until we Germans are left bloody and beaten as a result and always too late to act against their machinations.
And we all have pretty much figured out what this secret agenda is:

Absolute subjugation of Germans, total integration to insure that Germany is bled out into the veins of other races, using feminism to turn men into women and women into men, promoting gay sex to further undermine the traditional, impeccable morals of the true German.
Owes us nothing? I would say that apologies are in order.

I think it is about time that god got up off of its ass to particpate.


Satan was defeated - some angels joined him, some were neutral, some picked God's side. Yet afterwards, Satan appeared before God, and asked for time, to put God's creation to the test. God granted the request.

I am sure you have been asked this numerous times already, but…how do you know all of this took place? Were you there?
You are merely quoting passages out of a book that many x-tian scholars themselves feel is only a fourth of it’s original size due to countless edits throughout the centuries. All I ask is for a simple explanation that does not rely on "I just know”.


I do think it would be nearly impossible to differentiate between God and Satan, if they would manifest themselves.

But you stated ealier on that fallen angels are responsible.
If you cant differentiate then how do you know what good or evil is in the meantime? Is not the Germanic ideal of a good life a satisfactory enough definition?


The role of Satan is quite curious, and a source of endless fascination, to me. To the Jews he's not even an enemy of God as such, but rather, his supreme judge.

Which god are you speaking of here? Yours or the jew?
In Hebrew “satan” translates into “enemy”

Chlodovech, I am having a difficult time understanding why you follow a jewish religion, one that was designed specifically to destroy the Gentile!

Ann Coulter, (whom I do not admire, by the way), said that x-tians are “perfected jews”. Do you consider yourself one?

Siebenbürgerin
Monday, July 6th, 2009, 10:53 PM
To Sigurd, as I've said, I can't imagine a god with flaws, because then it's not a god, it's something else, inferior to a god. God is the supreme being by definition, there isn't anything else above him. The ones who come close to perfection, angels, saints, aren't gods.

Odin, Tyr and the others are conceived by many Heathens as symbolic, not real supreme beings.

Chlodovech
Wednesday, July 8th, 2009, 12:04 AM
Ever meet a fallen angel yourself?

I'm not quite sure, maybe I did, maybe I didn't. It's not crucial to my faith nor does my faith require me to meet a fallen angel in person. If one combines the stories of creation of virtually every culture on Earth, one does come across some creepy similarities - that give the individual stories, including the biblical one, some credibility. Perhaps the halfbreeds are among us. :)


How would you know how to recognize them outside of theological theorizing?

I'll answer to this question at the end of my post.


Have you ever known of a human who has interbred with one?

Yes. Millions of Americans and Europeans claim to have been abducted by 'aliens' - which is a misindentification to me - and a fair share of these abductees state that offspring resulted from their 'interaction' with these 'aliens', without them having much of a choice in the matter.

More than two millions of Americans can't be wrong, so I happen to believe these stories about abductions, there's something to it. Yet the mainstream media doesn't care. I can't help to admire Carl Gustav Jung who took the UFO-phenomenon very serious at a time when these things were almost happening off the radar screen of the society at large.

'Alien abduction' is nothing new, in fact, it's ancient. Even 'the men in black' go way back to earlier myths. What has changed is how we categorize/label/name the phenomenon.

I'd say the European royalty and banksters like the Rothschild family are halfbreds, or at least, they make these veiled claim themselves, by tracing their ancestry back to semi-mythical figures who made children with non-human entities, like Melusine, for instance.


By your own x-tianized definition of evil, if I happen to commit a sin it is as a result of someone in my family’s history having relations with a fallen angel?

Maybe we all carry the fallen angel DNA within us anyway, and maybe this creates within all of us a dualistic battlefield. But I do believe that there's more to it than that.


What is the justification for this? I know the old saying “No Pain, No Gain” may apply in certain instances, but not to the extent that almost all of humanity is subjected to suffering. And we know full well that most of people have definitely not learned of morals, experienced personal growth, or put much faith in salvation, if at all. Pain only makes them behave worse. Mankind at odds with nature does enough of this already without humans pouring salt into their own wounds.

I've never read in a Christian text that the majority of people would end up in heaven; getting there requires an act of mercy. When I read your post, Ronan, i saw that you're familiar with Nietzsche. I wondered why he spoke of 'the last battalion' that will bridge the gap between humans and superhumans. A Prussian battalion in Nietzsche's day consisted of 600 men. I think it's safe to assume that all other battalions were wiped out before they were to attain this goal of transcending their own humanity. If suffering is not intense, it's not suffering at all. It isn't a challenge, it's an annoyance.


A true religion, if that is possible, should never require its followers to receive or inflict pain.

Christianity doesn't preach pain though, it acknowledges that it exists out there, and, since we're imperfect, we will be confronted by discomfort. It's simply what comes by existing in this body.

What is the purpose behind the existence of pain? Washing away the dirt from the diamond, to obtain the diamond? I don't know. Some things appear as mysterious or incomprehensible just because of the size of our brain and the way we make use of it, yet I doubt we'll ever find the answer. Religion has not all the answers, in that regard it is just like science. Sometimes there are genuine mysteries.


“Largely absent”? How can you tell if god is there at all? My dad always responded to this much asked question (by me) with “I just know. I can feel him working within me.” Well I just wish that a x-tian can provide for me an answer without saying that we mortal humans have no right to understand the immortal.

No matter what I would tell you, it would still be, in the end, a matter of belief. And I don't have the ambition to convert anyone. However, sometimes there's more belief to be found in honest doubt than in all creeds of faith combined.


Jews think they are gods chosen people. They see the success of thier subjugation of the Gentile as proof. And just look at who really controls both the American as well as the German goverments!

Mere mortals? Do you not agree that we Germans are the worlds best?

Of course we are the best, mortal, but the best. Thank God we're mortal, otherwise we wouldn't know the catchy, beautiful phrase, 'dying like only Germans can die'.

We're destined to rule in some form, and within the larger scheme of things - Steiner wrote a nice book on this subject called 'People's of Europe: the mission for the souls of the peoples in relationship to the Germanic-Nordic mythology'.

It's a simple but telling fact; continental Germanics did rule the world, when our civilization was still religious - and Christian. To me it's no coincidence that our societies are undergoing a secularization process and are collapsing at the same time, these things go hand in hand. You see, there's nothing wrong with the Skadi atheist, a perfectly likeable chap or gal, but most atheists don't care to die for their beliefs nor, and to a lesser extent, for their country, for an abstract ideal. Without singling out Skadi's atheists, who I admire for their strength, their hardness - I'd say that atheism and pacifism make a better couple than religion and pacifism.


And should we, as the worlds best, take it upon ourselves to emulate “god” as best as possible? In essence, "becoming as gods". This is why the German race is doomed, because most Germans are convinced that they have no place playing god, while the jew, who is defeating us, has no problem whatever playing the role.
I feel that the Germanic race can assume the role of the immortal much more authentically than any other. We are not perfect, which is true. But, I feel that we as a people have come the closest to achieving it. Would it not be too much to assume that the jew prevents us from doing this?

I don't like the Nietzschean wording, 'becoming like gods' - we'll never be that awesome and that detached from our human selves (and one can wonder if it wouldn't lead to a dystopia instead of an utopia), but for all practical purposes, I agree. The betterment of our folk and the soul of our folk, in any conceivable way, is my concern too.


Has his own secret agenda… just like the neo-con and jewish power players have thier own agenda and owe us nothing?

It's not like anybody would understand God - we don't have the brain to understand - one might as well teach a one year old the basic principles of quantum superposition.

Any intelligent, creative entity, including humans, has an own agenda. If we fail to understand the intentions of people around us, surely, we can't start to comprehend God's will in the most meaningful and profound way.


I am sure you have been asked this numerous times already, but…how do you know all of this took place? Were you there?

No, this is the first time (no kidding). :) Have you ever seen a big bang? One creature evolve into another one? A black hole? Do you really know how a television set operates?

Me neither, but television works for me, and so does tradition.


You are merely quoting passages out of a book that many x-tian scholars themselves feel is only a fourth of it’s original size due to countless edits throughout the centuries. All I ask is for a simple explanation that does not rely on "I just know”.

Which book are you refering to?

These myths, these enduring stories and their heroes are more real than you and I, in a way. Parsifal, Jesus, Beowulf, Count Dracula ... are having a bigger impact on reality than any real living person, and if you peel off the layers of mystification you will always find a core of truth.


But you stated ealier on that fallen angels are responsible.

That's what the bible says. But let's never underestimate the power of human stupidity on a grand scale. I'm not quite sure that I'm following here, which paradox do you preceive?


If you cant differentiate then how do you know what good or evil is in the meantime?

Exactly. The problem with God is that you're never totally sure if it isn't a trick from the devil. That's where tradition and intuition kick in, in helping to establish the difference.


Is not the Germanic ideal of a good life a satisfactory enough definition?

Are you refering to the heathen view of the good life? Or to a particular school of thought that is way more recent?

I don't know why we're on Earth, but I'm quite sure it's not to amuse ourselves.


Which god are you speaking of here? Yours or the jew?

I'm talking of the master of the universe - regardless of what the jews think.


In Hebrew “satan” translates into “enemy”

In standard hebrew it means 'the accuser'.


Chlodovech, I am having a difficult time understanding why you follow a jewish religion, one that was designed specifically to destroy the Gentile!

Ann Coulter, (whom I do not admire, by the way), said that x-tians are “perfected jews”. Do you consider yourself one?

A perfected Jew? God forbid. :D Christianity is not an ordinary Abrahamic offshoot, Catholicism even less, and the bible is not the Talmud. My village priest is against multiculturalism, even preaches against it (and in the portal of the Church there are posters promoting the radical nationalist organisation Voorpost, which is pro-national socialist and pro-Dutch and pro-German), destroying the gentile is not part of Catholicism. I don't know any catholic myself who would want to be mistaken for a jew. Why God would send his son to be born in the midst of what I consider the most sinful people on Earth, is a mystery to me - yet I have my assumptions.

That the destruction of the Germanic peoples is on God's to do list would be some überzionist's take on things, not mine. I've nothing to do with zionism, in fact, the nazis and the Poles were quite right when they thought about giving the Jews a piece of land in Argentina or Madagascar.

I'm a monotheist first, and than a Catholic. And I'm a traditionalist: the legitimacy and credibility of what I believe/accept comes from the existence of the tradition itself - 1500 years of tradition, of knowledge passing down from generation to generation - of people expanding on earlier traditions, slowly but surely. Tradition is the result of collective knowledge, and it's good for you, because its components have been proven to work for our ancestors.

Wulfram
Wednesday, July 8th, 2009, 11:09 PM
I'm not quite sure, maybe I did, maybe I didn't. It's not crucial to my faith nor does my faith require me to meet a fallen angel in person. If one combines the stories of creation of virtually every culture on Earth, one does come across some creepy similarities - that give the individual stories, including the biblical one, some credibility. Perhaps the halfbreeds are among us. :)

Know thine enemy. To conquer those who rule you must become well acquainted, even to the point of assimilation. But that would be the jew blending in with gentiles, correct? Is this not how they have defeated us? We are their version of fallen angels.
Once again, jewish indoctrination “not requiring” x-tians to delve deep into the matter at hand. Just sit back and let jesus worry about that.
I would think that as a x-tian soidier that it would be the most important requirement to recognize then vanquish the demons.


Yes. Millions of Americans and Europeans claim to have been abducted by 'aliens' - which is a misindentification to me - and a fair share of these abductees state that offspring resulted from their 'interaction' with these 'aliens', without them having much of a choice in the matter.

More than two millions of Americans can't be wrong, so I happen to believe these stories about abductions, there's something to it.

The Vatican/inquisition burned Giordano Bruno at the stake for basically saying this very thing in 1600. The catholic church is still unable to acknowledge such metaphysical matters because it undermines the whole point of monotheistic belief. If UFO‘s exist, it stands to reason that the catholic god must not be the only one out there. This is the very foundation of catholicism. Yes I have heard of the occasional rogue priest that will admit to such things, but until the pope himself actually broadcasts this possibility to his millions I feel that the x-tian world at large will remain ignorant of it, and this ignorance is entirely in the church’s interest.

The following are quotes from an article in Florida Today,
dated August 17, 1997.



Religious leaders are alarmed about a growing train of thought that "wants us to reject traditional Judeo-Christian ideas about God" in favor of benign "Space Brothers" who will save humanity from itself…

…this new belief is a set-up for apocalyptic deceptions predicted in the Bible's Book of Revelation. Magazine articles, books and even evangelists are engaging in Bible-based speculations about the nature and intention of entities that allegedly kidnap, paralyze, physically abuse and sometimes sexually molest victims -- many of whom come to believe the experience was worthwhile…

…The similarity between the abduction experience and demonic possession is very, very close…

…this whole thing is spiritual warfare. And the method the enemy's using is deception. Strong deception…

…there are three verifiable cases in which apparent abduction experiences were halted by believers who called on the name of jesu…It makes you wonder: If these beings are extraterrestrial at all, why would they respond to that name?" Jordan asks. "We think we found the answer in the Bible, in Mark 16:17 where Jesus said, 'In my name, they shall cast out demons…

…Suddenly, the religious press is full of articles about UFOs…

…"Both the seemingly benign and the hostile entities will play an increasing role in preparing a segment of humanity for the reception of the Antichrist…

Do these statements resemble your own belief system?


I can't help to admire Carl Gustav Jung who took the UFO-phenomenon very serious at a time when these things were almost happening off the radar screen of the society at large.

Jung said:

“ It is more desirable for people to believe UFOs exist than to believe they don't exist.”

Could this same theory be applied to religion? Jung was fascinated by UFOs because he was desperate to find something, anything that might prove god exists.
Atheists are often closet-believers in UFO’s. From personal experience, I have known quite a few of them over the years who were never really comfortable with their disbelief.

Jung also said:

“…modern man projected his inner state into the heavens. In this sense, the UFOs became modern symbols for the ancient gods which came to man's assistance in time of need.”

Is this why you believe in the possibilty of UFOs yourself?

Most people who are fascinated by UFOs because it gives them some spark of hope that there is something out there after all.
I want very badly to believe in UFO’s, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster myself, and I always keep an open mind to the possibilty, never closing it, even when I am disillusioned.
But what keeps my interest is thier potential mystery, and X-tianity holds none of this potential for me.


'Alien abduction' is nothing new, in fact, it's ancient. Even 'the men in black' go way back to earlier myths. What has changed is how we categorize/label/name the phenomenon.

The nephilim, which is basically what the bible would call “aliens”, are hybrids that are the result of sexual relations between fallen angels and female humans.
The following is a quote from an author whose name I did not write down and therefore cannot source. My apologies:

“One of the evil objectives of the sexual union of fallen angels and women as we move toward the end-times, could be to create a non-human society on earth which would be impossible to be redeemed by Christ during the tribulation described in the book of Revelation.”

Does this not sound like what the jew is intending to do with Germanics? To assimilate and destroy?
The only way the jew could ever fool us was to take on the persona of god. They achieved this. And now that they have achieved this there is no longer the need to maintain the x-tian charade. I would say that the jew is nowadays very open and boastful of their rule over us. This is the reason why x-tianity has fallen on hard times, because its inventors no longer need it to direct us down the path to destruction. We are there now as we speak.


I've never read in a Christian text that the majority of people would end up in heaven; getting there requires an act of mercy.

True mercy would be to either end this “test” from god we are all supposed to take and come down from the heavens and tell us if we have passed already. Either that or just put us all out of our misery. At the very least god could give the reigns of power back to those who should have never let go of it in the first place, the Gentile. more specifically, we Germans.


When I read your post, Ronan, i saw that you're familiar with Nietzsche. I wondered why he spoke of 'the last battalion' that will bridge the gap between humans and superhumans. A Prussian battalion in Nietzsche's day consisted of 600 men. I think it's safe to assume that all other battalions were wiped out before they were to attain this goal of transcending their own humanity.

I am probably way off mark here, but I have my own interpretation of the superhuman.
The human mind has been compared to that of a computer. What we expect of ourselves, as far as finding the answers to questions or simply the need to create, depends on the various data we enter. The more data we input the wider ranging our built-in search engines become, gathering influences quicker and with more adeptness, learning to sift through the excess, allowing us to concentrate with an ever clearer mind on the more refined things in life. This in turn allows us to contribute ideas of our own to help refine that search process even further for future generations to use and grow and contribute themselves, and so on and so on. Ultimately, would it not be possible that we humans will reach a stage when refinement is no longer needed? That to gain admittance to the heavens we must first become gods in order to assimilate? I think this is what he meant by superhuman. I could be wrong.


Christianity doesn't preach pain though...

It shames us with the crucifixion, and without his pain on the cross, x-tianity would have become just another wayside religion.


And I don't have the ambition to convert anyone.

Our x-tian ancestors certainly did. One could say that we now have the luxury to believe or disbelieve because of the blood-curdling ruthlessness in which they dealt with those who refused to convert/repent. Would these same ancestors have accepted your passive stance to not convert?


However, sometimes there's more belief to be found in honest doubt than in all creeds of faith combined.

Please explain


It's not like anybody would understand God - we don't have the brain to understand.

Similar to what I stated above, what if god created our brains in order to understand him? Doesn’t science say that we have only tapped into 3% of our brains power? What is the rest lying around for? Would it not be conceivable that this untapped potential is precisely to understand the more complex nature of god that transcends theology? Is it possible that this "forbidden knowledge" just might be the very information that helps us pass on to heaven?


If we fail to understand the intentions of people around us, surely, we can't start to comprehend God's will in the most meaningful and profound way.

You stated earlier on that your religion does not require you to meet a fallen angel. How do you expect to understand the plotting of our enemy?
Most gentiles havent a clue how their world is ruled, and if they had even a hint they would simply turn their eyes away from the horror show that awaits them in the future, which is to exterminate Germanics.


Have you ever seen a big bang? One creature evolve into another one? A black hole? Do you really know how a television set operates?

The ancient word 'TELE' is Ninth to fifteenth century in origin. This modern day pre-fix meant to our ancestors : evil speaking, calumny, blasphemy, to deceive, entrap...
I think I have a pretty good idea how a television operates.:D


Which book are you refering to?

I meant that the bible has been so over-translated and force-fed on so many levels it is near to impossible to tell how those early christians interpreted it. How do we know what form of it they passed along to succeeding generations? Each succesive generation, in turn, must have multiplied its interpretations to a point that all forms of its earliest manifestation have become nothing more than a watered down version of the original.

The following is a quote from a book by a writer named Jim Goad. I am no fan of this man, but the passage he wrote is a good example of how a story becomes confusing if overedited:


Let me get this straight---your religion preaches that two thousand years ago, a middle eastern virgin was impregnated by a ghost. And the spawn of this ethereal sperm grew up to walk on water an multiply bread loaves and heal the sick and raise the dead and cast our literal demons. And this Love Child wasn’t just any ordinary spud, it was god incarnate who willingly submitted to a bloody s&m crucifixion to pay for OUR sins, when it would have been much easier if he’d merely made us sin proof in the first place. And this miracle baby, son of a (cough) virgin, rose from the dead after three days and now gets very upset when heavy-metal musicians slander his name. and moses parted the red sea, noah had an ark, god rained frogs on Egypt, and Joshua made the sun stand still. And even though adam and eve only gave birth to t ___ boys (one of whom killed the other), the human race somehow fruitfully multiplied while avoiding the sin of incest. And remote polynesain islanders will boil in molten lava eternally if they don’t embrace the gospel, even if they’ve never had a chance to hear the gospel.

That is not The Greatest Story Ever Told, it’s the craziest.

Goad calls it crazy, but I will say that it is as the result of bad editing.


...and the bible is not the Talmud.

The following site will explain this a little better than myself what the bible may be.

http://www.666blacksun.com/Bible_Conspiracy.html