PDA

View Full Version : Is Christianity Alien to Germanics?



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6

Engelbrecht
Friday, February 23rd, 2007, 08:41 AM
As I can see when I look around this forum and when reading polls, many of you germanic people at this forum define your selfs as christian. By tradition I too define myself as christian.

But recently I have started to feel that it´s a problem for me as a christian that it is a semitic religion, created by and for semitic people, not germanic people.

What is your view on this issue?

Is it a problem or not?

Eihter way - why or why not?

Wiktor
Friday, February 23rd, 2007, 09:23 AM
I advice you to look at the book "The Doctrine of Awakening" by Julius Evola, which is about the early buddhistic texts.
Buddhism is considered to be the spiritual doctrine of the Indo-Europeans.
Maybe this material will get you more in contact with your spirit.

The traditionalists teach that all religions have the same esoteric core, so maybe "Sophia Perennis" also could be something for you.

Engelbrecht
Friday, February 23rd, 2007, 10:08 AM
Yes, I have ran into to the concept of "Sophia Perennis", via Evola I think. But I did´t get into more detail on that.

Do you have any suggestion on where to start reading about Sophia Perennis?

In short, why does Evola mean that buddhism is the spiritual doctrine of the Indo-Europeans?

Weiler
Friday, February 23rd, 2007, 10:32 AM
Christianity is as much Greek as it is Semitic. Any scholar of Christianity knows that Greek thought had great influence on the New Testament.

Yet even if Christianity were 100% Semitic, why would that matter? If Jews had invented the automobile, would you be reluctant to drive a car?


By tradition I too define myself as christian.
If you're defining your religion out of "tradition," that sounds like a poor reason. You should adhere to a religion because you actually believe it.

Engelbrecht
Friday, February 23rd, 2007, 10:52 AM
Yet even if Christianity were 100% Semitic, why would that matter? If Jews had invented the automobile, would you be reluctant to drive a car?

No, propobly not. But I don´t think that that is a relevant comparison.

First, there is a number of alternative religions to christianity, including our traditional germanic pre-christian religion.

Second, my thougt is that maybe a germanic religion is better suited for germanic people, and a semitic religion for semitic people.

And by the way, I actually prefer a swedish or german car, since it is built for swedish(winter) conditions.

I also have a problem with christianity´s dogma of the jewish people as the chosen people. But maybe I´m wrong here?

Wiktor
Friday, February 23rd, 2007, 01:14 PM
Yes, I have ran into to the concept of "Sophia Perennis", via Evola I think. But I did´t get into more detail on that.

Do you have any suggestion on where to start reading about Sophia Perennis?

In short, why does Evola mean that buddhism is the spiritual doctrine of the Indo-Europeans?

Revolt against the Modern World by Julius Evola is a good place to start, but also books by Frithjof Schuon, Réne Guénon and Martin Lings. They are perhaps the most known, but there are many others.
If you understand swedish there are Tage Lindbom and Kurt Almqvist.

Here are some links:

András László and the Metaphysical Traditionality (http://www.tradicio.org/english/andraslaszlo.htm)

Ljus i Mörkret-Tage Lindbom
(http://mac.abc.se/home/onesr/tl/lim_sv.html)


Scientific studies has indicated that the historical Buddah was a blond, Indo-European from noble Scytian stock. It is also said that he was the prince of the Sakya warrior caste and that Scytians are the ancient cousins of the germans, Celts etc. It is also considered by Evola that the spirit to purify one-self; to reach the primordial state, which is the "resurrection" of the divine nature of man, because this was lost after the fall, is considered to be Aryan.

Pro-Alpine
Friday, February 23rd, 2007, 11:45 PM
Christianity is for anyone who agrees with it.

kilroyturner
Saturday, February 24th, 2007, 12:08 AM
Christianity is something that I personally belive in. For me Christ is my Saviour. If you actually read the bible then you might understand that it is for everyone not just the jews. Christ said that the gentiles can be saved just as the jews can and if I remeber correctly then some of the jews did not like that fact. Another thing that I dont get is why so many people think that christianity is a tool to destroy the white people, cause most jews that I have talked to think that Christianity is wrong and racist. Remeber that a true Jew does not belive that Christ was the saviour.

just my 2 cents;)

Glynd Eastŵd
Saturday, February 24th, 2007, 12:09 AM
Being an agnostic myself, I have mixed reactions about Christianity. On the one hand, it's a shame that pagans were forced to convert to a foreign, Judaic religion. For sure we lost some of our Germanic heritage because of it. But at the same time, Christianity has helped to unify the continent and protect it against foreign oppressors throughout history (e.g Turkish or Moorish invaders). I fear that if Europe had remained pagan then we would still be a bunch of warring tribes. There's nothing to say that we wouldn't be conquered by a similar but less favourable religion, like Islam or Judaism, at some other point in time...

Miles
Saturday, February 24th, 2007, 12:32 AM
I would believe in Christ and his resurrection regardless of whether it was congruent with my ideology. In my opinion, Christianity is real and its veracity can be shown through historical evidence (and hey, if it's not, I'm not going to lose anything in eternity). Thus, I would not forsake my religion in exchange for a temporal ideology.

Christianity has done much to unify Europe and inspire learning, making Europe the most succesful continent on the earth, militarily, economically, and intellectualy.

Crownshelm
Saturday, February 24th, 2007, 02:25 AM
But recently I have started to feel that it´s a problem for me as a christian that it is a semitic religion, created by and for semitic people, not germanic people.

Christianity is not a Semitic-made belief-system, rather it is the revelation of God (who is not Jewish, German, Greek, or Indian, or anything of the sort) to a "chosen people", who just so happened to be an upstart tribe in the middle east. The people of Israel are the offspring of Abram (later renamed to Abraham) who was originally a native of Ur.

God told His people (the Jews) that He chose them so that they may bless all of His creation. This simply translates into: "I will bring my Son, Jesus Christ, into the world, specifically of your race and in your city." A close study of Christ will show that Christ is actually not fully Jewish, but that He is actually part Gentile, or non-Jew. This represents the fact that He was sent to us, so that he may save all from their slavery to sin, not just the Jews.

Are the Jews the most beautiful of people, are they the most powerful of people? I would say no. However, a constant theme in the Bible is that God chooses the people that you would least suspect to bring out His will. This is so that people will be able to see the work of God through whatever it is He is doing, basically to grab people's attention, and to rattle their cages, which He has certainly done.

As I have mentioned earlier, Christianity is simply the revelation of God to His creation. The means of doing this, is by picking out an unlikely group of people, and through them sending His Son to save His creation. Christianity is a doctrine of love, not of ethnicity and race. We are all to celebrate our differences and delight in the place and time God has placed us, all for the Glory of the Father.

This may sound jumbled and incoherent, but let me know what you think, Brutus. :)

karolvs
Saturday, February 24th, 2007, 03:53 AM
Christianity is not for Germanic people. It's not for any european people, or Asian people, it's actually not for anyone. The christianity we know today is a misunderstanding Jesus true message to begi with. Jesus himself never intended for this "religion" to become so out of control as it has. People have taken his teachings and twisted them completely. Look at it logically. If the bible is god's word, to be taken literally, then how does he condratict himself in the way the bible does. Point 1. Jesus was born in Bethleham because of a census called by Roman govenor Pilate. Well anyone who knows anything about Roman society knows the romans would not allow the middleeastern people to travel to their home place for this. They wanted to know where you were making money so they could come collect their taxes, not where you were born. Besides, the romans never, ever called a census on territories. Only on Rome itself. It's a fact. God knowing this would never tell someone to write is false word. Point 2, Jesus on the cross says "God. why have you foresaken me?" Why would God call out to himself ? If you say he was calling out to his father you are a polytheist. If you say he was calling out to his figurative father than you admit Jesus is not the same as God. Another thing in John 1:18 it says noone has seen God, in Gen 32:30 it says Jacob saw his face and in Ex 33:23 it says Moses saw his backside. In Ex 20:5 it says God will punish son for the father's crimes, but, in Ezek. 18:20 God won't punish son for father's crimes. Tese are just a few of many, many more contradictions, that I will be more than happy to email if you ask. The fact is the bible is a hebrew mythology, like Havamail is for germans and the raiders of cooley are for celts, nothing more. Even the Jews acknowledge this. So why then are so many Americans especially caught up in this belief ? Everyone want to know what happens when you die. Alot of Christians are condemng themselves when they die by believing so heavily in this myth and these lies an then breaking the rules behind closed doors. No, my friend, Germans should stick to germanic religions, and jews can have their false gods (three remember, the father, son, and holy spirit). These Germanic religions include, but are not limited to, Asatru, Celtic, Odinism, and many others that are grounded in germanic culture and heritage.


Christianity is something that I personally belive in. For me Christ is my Saviour. If you actually read the bible then you might understand that it is for everyone not just the jews. Christ said that the gentiles can be saved just as the jews can and if I remeber correctly then some of the jews did not like that fact. Another thing that I dont get is why so many people think that christianity is a tool to destroy the white people, cause most jews that I have talked to think that Christianity is wrong and racist. Remeber that a true Jew does not belive that Christ was the saviour.

just my 2 cents;)

You put to much stock in a man, yes, a MAN, he may have been the greatest most spiritual and Godly man ever, but he was a MAN, by his own words. Maybe some people should read the bible a little closer and truly understand what they are agreeing to, not meant for you specifically killroyturner. Just some people do not use their own God given mind and take the word of their parents or their preacher or that aunt who was always so nice.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Saturday, February 24th, 2007, 04:09 AM
Christianity is as much Greek as it is Semitic. Any scholar of Christianity knows that Greek thought had great influence on the New Testament.

Yet even if Christianity were 100% Semitic, why would that matter? If Jews had invented the automobile, would you be reluctant to drive a car?


If you're defining your religion out of "tradition," that sounds like a poor reason. You should adhere to a religion because you actually believe it.

It was not so much purely Greek thought as the total influence of the Hellenistic world which was almost multicultural with Greek ideas in the lead. This carried over to the early Roman world in which we find the cult of christ. The Romans always looked up to the Greeks for all things intellectual and patterned themselves after the Greeks in some ways even as do all Western Cultures.

There is much Hellenistic thought in Christianity but that does not entirely excuse it. Its core is Semitic as were its followers in the early days. Semitic thought is foreign to Western Culture, in total. Infection of Christianity means infection of Semitic, non-rational thought. We all see this clearly in the faith-based decisions and policy of the Bush Administration. I say "non-rational" because Western Culture evolved beyond religion as an explanation of the universe. Now, we have reason, logic and science to do this. To return to a pre-rational, alien world view only hurts us to the core.

This is not true for our own native religions. These might be looked upon as cultural anchors even if you as an individual do not believe in them on a religious basis. These religions are the result of thousands of years of religious evolution which is also cultural evolution. Just as Christianity is Semetic, and so represent non-European thoughts and values, so our ancient religions reinforce and validate our Western Culture.

Christianity overlayed the old religions of Europe and mixed with them. This is one aspect of the Hellenistic influence already mentioned. But Christianity also overlies the Germanic, Celtic, Slavic, Italic, and so on,--the old religions of Europe. Not all of the old was discarded, otherwise the new would have been too difficult to accept immediately. This is how new religions spread, not just in Europe, but everywhere.

So, is it OK to celebrate Christmas and Easter? Well, these are really not Christian holidays. They are what remains of much older ideas which perhaps go back to the Old Stone Age. Christians just userped them.

Knowing this, I think is is fine to go ahead and celebrate these holidays on the days Christians do. In our own minds, we know these days have nothing to do with the cult of christ but have everything to do with the solstice and the coming of Spring.

But paying lip service to Christian morals and beliefs without correcting those making false claims about them seems wrong to me. The underlying facts, beliefs and so on of our cultural grandfathers should be honored without regard to the sensivitivity of Christians. They feel free to proselytize to us so we should never shrink from the opportunity to respond in kind or set history straight in their presence.

Northerner
Saturday, February 24th, 2007, 05:11 AM
But recently I have started to feel that it´s a problem for me as a christian that it is a semitic religion, created by and for semitic people, not germanic people.


It is my understanding that, as was the case elsewhere, Christianity actually took on a number of different forms among Germanic peoples. It is interesting to note that many old Germanic tribes and kingdoms were originally of the Arian (or non-Nicene) branch of Christianity, such as the Vandals, Burgundians, Visigoths, Ostrogoth, and Lombards. The term "Arian" is a derivation from Arius, a Christian theologian who taught that Jesus was not God, but, rather, a subordinate creature. Anyway, most of these later, for one reason or another, accepted the Nicene form of Christianity.

The Franks, on the other hand were one of the few major Germanic groups to covert directly to Nicene Christianity. The Christianization of the Anglo-Saxons, on the other hand was to a large part (though not solely) due to Celtic Christian influence.

I guess that the point that I'm trying to make is that many ancient/medieval Germanic tribes did not feel that Christianity was necessarily incongruous with their culture or way of life. In fact, the Christian gospel was often interpreted from a Germanic viewpoint. For example, in the Anglo-Saxon poem The Dream of the Rood, Christ is portrayed as warrior who boldly faces his destiny on the cross without fear or reservation. A similar, warrior-like presentation of Christ occurs in the Saxon Heliand. In these earlier examples, Christianity was transformed into a distinctly Germanic viewpoint.

Lyfing
Saturday, February 24th, 2007, 05:28 AM
Christianity is disturbing. Besides the "adventure of the hero" and some attempt to "re-link" with the divine..which is just fine ( or so I rekon ) ..there is also "something" of the sickest kind.. best described by Nietzsche in The Genealogy of Morals ( ..how fitting.. )

Would anyone care to learn something about the way in which ideals are manufactured? Does anyone have the nerve?... Well then, go ahead! There's a chink through which you can peek into this murky shop. But wait just a moment, Mr. Foolhardy; your eyes must grow accustomed to the fickle light....Allright, tell me what's going on in there, audacious fellow; now I am the one who is listening.
"I can't see a thing, but I hear all the more. There's a low, cautious whispering in every nook and corner. I have a notion these people are lying. All the sounds are sugary and soft. No doubt you were right; they are transmuting weaknes into merit."
"Go on."
" Impotence, which cannot retaliate, into kindness; pusillanamity into humility; submission before those one hates into obedience to One of whom they say that he has commanded this submission-they call him God. The inoffensiveness of the weak, his cowardice, his ineluctable standing and waiting at doors, are being given honorific titles such as patience; to be unable to avenge oneself is called to be unwilling to avenge oneself-even forgiveness ("for they know not what they do-we alone know what they do.") Also there's some talk of loving one's enemy-accompained by much sweat."
"Go on"
"I'm sure they are quite miserable, all those whisperers and smalltime counterfeiters, even though they huddle close together for warmth. But they tell me that this very misery is the sign of thier election by God, that one beats the dogs one loves best, that this misery is perhaps also a preparation, a test, a kind of training, perhaps even more than that: something for which eventually they will be compensated with tremendous interest-in gold? No, in happiness. They call this bliss."
"Go on."
"Now they tell me that not only are they better than the mighty of this earth, whose spittle they must lick (not from fear-by no means-but because God commands us to honor our superiors), but they are even better off, or at least they will be better off someday. But I've had all I can stand. The smell is too much for me. This shop where they manufacture ideals seems to me to stink of lies."
"But just a moment. You haven't told me anything about the greatest feat of these black magicians, who precipitate the white milk of loving-kindness out of every kind of blackness. Haven't you noticed thier most consummate sleight of hand, thier boldest, finest, most brilliant trick? Just watch! These vermin, full of vindictive hatred, what are they brewing out of thier own poisons? Have you ever heard vengeance and hatred mentioned? Would you ever quess, if you only listened to thier words, that these are men bursting with hatred?"
"I see what you mean. I'll open my ears again-and stop my nose. Now I can make out what they seem to have been saying all along: 'We, the good ones, are also the just ones.' they call the thing they seek not retribution but the triumph of justice; the thing they hate is not thier enemy, by no means-they hate injustice, ungodliness, the thing they hope for and believe in is not vengeance, the sweet exultation of vengeance ('sweeter than honey' as Homer said) but 'the triumph of God', who is just, over the godless'; what remains to them to love on this earth is not thier brothers in hatred, but what they call thier 'brothers in love'-all who are good and just."
"And what do they call that which comforts them in all thier sufferings-their phantasmagoria of future bliss?"
"Do I hear correctly? They call it Judgment Day, the coming of thier kingdom, the 'Kingdom of God.' Meanwhile they live in 'faith', in 'love', in 'hope'."
"Stop! I've heard enough."

-The Birth of Tragedy & The Genealogy of Morals, translated by Francis Golffing..pages 180-182

-Lyfing

Veritas Æquitas
Saturday, February 24th, 2007, 07:07 AM
Without spirit, the Bible is nothing but mindless babble and confusion. I can't go into it any deeper than that. It's a great question, but I don't have the answer. I'm too busy working on my own salvation!

hodekin
Saturday, February 24th, 2007, 08:03 AM
Christianity is I think, Jewish in origin, Greek in thought and Roman in organisation. What one makes of it now is entirely up to the individual.

I rejected Christianity in favour of the Germanic faith purely because the Germanic faith resonated with me more meaningfully than the Christian one.

At the end of the day we must all go with what we feel to be right for us, but having said that, the division of the White race by religious dogma must be viewed with suspicion perhaps?

Patrioten
Saturday, February 24th, 2007, 01:06 PM
I can't see how i could take christianity seriously as it is Jewish in origin, a jewish herrenvolk ideology which claims that the jews are God's chosen people, while us goyim are merely cattle. Then some brilliant guy came up with the idea that this cannot be solemnly the religion of the jews, everyone must be able to hear and kneel down before the gospel of the bible and so christianity was born (much like today where we pretend as though racial foreigners can become Swedes or Germans or Italians or whatever).

Imagine if the Islamic (another spin off of the jewish ideology) hordes had defeated the Europeans back when Islam was spreading and it had reached our shores and made our people into believers (by way of force if necessary as was often the case with christianity) of that religion, would this make that religion legitimate? Not in my eyes at least.

Nelson
Saturday, February 24th, 2007, 01:13 PM
At the end of the day we must all go with what we feel to be right for us

This pagan tolerance of Semitic religions is the greatest reason for Aryan pagan weakness.

Religion is political, and politics is religious.
(It is false that they can ever be separated)


Here is an excerpt of what Savitri Devi wrote on Christianity:

full text: Souvenirs et réflexions d'une Aryenne
http://library.flawlesslogic.com/souvenirs.htm

"It was, for the emperor Constantine, a stroke of genius (also political), to have chosen to encourage a religion which would, by its rapid diffusion, give to the ethnic chaos that the Roman world then represented the only unity to which it could still aspire. And it was, for the German tribal chief Clodwig, known in French history as Clovis, again a stroke of genius (political, in his case also) to have felt that nothing would better ensure him permanent domination over his rivals, other German leaders, than his own adhesion (and that of his warriors) to Christianity, in a world then already three-quarters Christian, where bishops represented a power to be sought out as allies. Political genius, not religious -- and still less philosophical -- because in each case it aimed at power, personal or national, at material stability, at success, but not at truth in the full sense of the word, that is, accord with the Eternal. It involved mundane human ambitions, not a thirst for knowledge of the Laws of Being, nor a thirst for union with the Essence of all things -- the Soul, at once transcendent and immanent, of the Cosmos.

For if it had been different, there would have been no reason for the religion of the Nazarene to have triumphed for so many centuries: its rivals were its equals. Christianity had only one practical "advantage" over them: its fanaticism, its infantile intolerance inherited from the Jews -- a fanaticism, an intolerance, which, during the early days of the Church, cultivated Romans or Greeks could only find laughable, and which Germans, nurtured in their own beautiful religion, simultaneously cosmic and warlike, could rightly find absurd, but which would give to Christianity a militant character, which it alone possessed, since orthodox Judaism remained -- and would remain -- the faith of a single people.

Christianity could henceforth be combated only by another religion with equally universal pretensions, just as intolerant as it. And it is a fact that, until now, it has lost ground on a significant scale only when confronted by Islam and, in our era, by the false religion which is Communism. "




I would believe in Christ and his resurrection regardless of whether it was congruent with my ideology. In my opinion, Christianity is real and its veracity can be shown through historical evidence (and hey, if it's not, I'm not going to lose anything in eternity). Thus, I would not forsake my religion in exchange for a temporal ideology.

Christianity has done much to unify Europe and inspire learning, making Europe the most succesful continent on the earth, militarily, economically, and intellectualy.

This religious perspective has been arrived at without proper critical assessment (something Christianity relies on) :


1) There is ZERO contemporary historical evidence for Jesus even existing.
2) Historical christianity IS a temporal religion - and is not above Time.
3) Christianity has done NOTHING good for Europe:
It is an alien world-view that twisted natural aryan philosophies so that it could appeal to noble Aryan minds.
It was the greatest force behind the European Dark Age - destroying rationality and naturalism for a thousand years.

Here is a part of what Savitri Devi wrote on Christianity's real identity:

Full text can be found:
First published as Paul de Tarse, ou Christianisme et juiverie
http://library.flawlesslogic.com/tarsus.htm

"If there is a single fact which anyone who seriously studies the history of Christianity cannot help but be struck by, it is the almost complete absence of documents regarding the man whose name this great international religion bears -- Jesus Christ. We know of him only what is told to us in the New Testament gospels, that is, practically nothing; for these books, though prolix in their descriptions of miraculous facts relating to him, do not give any information about his person and, in particular, about his origins. Oh, we do have, in one of the four canonical gospels, a long genealogy tracing his ancestry from Joseph, the husband of Jesus' mother, all the way back to Adam! But I have always wondered what possible interest this could have for us, given that we are expressly told elsewhere that Joseph had nothing to do with the birth of the Child."

...

"But there is something much more disconcerting. The annals of an important monastery of the Essene sect, located only about twenty miles from Jerusalem, have recently been discovered. These annals deal with a period extending from the beginning of the first century before Jesus Christ to the second half of the first century after him, and they refer, seventy years before his birth, to a great Initiate or spiritual Master -- a "Teacher of Righteousness" -- whose eventual return is expected. Of the extraordinary career of Jesus, of his innumerable miraculous healings, of his teaching during three full years in the midst of the people of Palestine, of his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, so brilliantly described in the canonical gospels, of his trial and his crucifixion (accompanied, according to the canonical gospels, by such striking events as an earthquake, the darkening of the sky for three hours, and the rending of the veil of the Temple in two) -- of all this, not a single word is spoken in the scrolls of these ascetics, eminently religious men who would surely have taken an interest in such events. It would seem, according to these "Dead Sea Scrolls" -- I recommend, to anyone who is interested, John Allegro's study in English -- either that Jesus did not make any impression on the religious minds of his time, as avid for wisdom and as well informed as the ascetics of the monastery in question appear to have been, or else ... that he, quite simply, never existed! As troubling as this conclusion is, it must be placed before the general public and, in particular, before the Christian public, in light of the recent discoveries. "

Thusnelda
Saturday, February 24th, 2007, 02:31 PM
I was raised up in a christian-catholic enviroment, but I abandoned this religion years ago. I can´t accept the history of Christianity, I can´t accept (and believe) the doctrines, the ideas and the history of this religion. The story of Jesus and his followers. I was unsure even at school about if this is all correct and right...
Maybe not all is and was bad, and it´s true, Christians saved Europe from time to time from foreign dominance (Karl Martel at Poitiers, Reconquista in Spain, Sobieski in Vienna, the Crusaders...and so on! All reputation and glory to them, they deserve it), but generally, I think that Christianity did more harm to Germanic countries than good. Many people died only because they didn´t want to believe in Christ (our forefathers...especially the Saxons were slaughtered for beeing "heathen" - by christian Germanics!). So many people, predominantly women, were burned because the church sayed they were "witches" - which contacts to satan. :thumbdown

From the three big "desert" religions, I like no one. But out of these three, I tolerate and accept the Christian religion the most. Followed by Judaism. The last place goes to Islam, I despise this religion wholeheartly for several reasons.

In contrast, the faith and ideals of our forefathers...Asatru and Forn Sidr...is peacefully and according with nature. There is no "good overlord" who fails never and is always correct! No, the gods (there are more than one) can make mistakes, and our enviroment (nature, animals) has a high importance. Family, Pride, Justice, Harmony, Nature, Heritage.

Liberator Germaniae
Saturday, February 24th, 2007, 02:32 PM
Christianity is I think, Jewish in origin, Greek in thought and Roman in organisation.

First, there is a number of alternative religions to christianity, including our traditional Germanic pre-christian religion.


Yes. I would like to refer to the writings (http://www.hohewarte.de/) of German religious philosopher, conservative-folkish feminist and neurologist Dr Mathilde Ludendorff (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathilde_Ludendorff) (1877-1966). Dr Ludendorff believed that humanity's misery was the combined result of Judaism, Christianity and Freemasonry. Her initially good relations with Adolf Hitler cooled off as from 1925, as she suspected that Hitler had clandestine connections with secret supra-national powers. Together with her third husband, German General Erich Ludendorff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Ludendorff), she founded the "Bund für Deutsche Gotterkenntnis" (http://www.ludendorff.info/) ("Society for the German Knowledge of God") in 1931. In the denazification program after WW II she was one of the main accused, but an initial judgement was rescinded after two more court cases. Her Society was revived in 1951, but banned in 1961. The ban was lifted only in 1977, but the movements continues to be surveilled by the present regime governing Germany.


Being an agnostic myself, I have mixed reactions about Christianity. On the one hand, it's a shame that pagans were forced to convert to a foreign, Judaic religion. For sure we lost some of our Germanic heritage because of it. But at the same time, Christianity has helped to unify the continent and protect it against foreign oppressors throughout history (e.g Turkish or Moorish invaders).

Yes, notwithstanding the fact that forced conversion to Christianity was accompanied by genocide and loss of culture that was akin and original to Germanic people, we cannot deny the fact that there were many positive Christian contributions to surviving Germanic culture, in particular during the Middle Ages.

However, the status of Christian churches, in particular Protestant Churches, will have to be reviewed once the sovereignty of the Germanic nations are restored. I personally envisage a ban of the modern Lutheran Church in Germany, for instance, because of its animosity towards German people. The Roman Catholic Church and the Vatican itself will also have to assume responsibility about their silentism (silence = consent!) concerning the genocide of ethnic Germans in Germany's eastern territories under polish military administration and under the auspices of the polish Catholic Church (sorry to mention!).



So, is it OK to celebrate Christmas and Easter? Well, these are really not Christian holidays. They are what remains of much older ideas which perhaps go back to the Old Stone Age. Christians just usurped them.


Yes, Christmas and Easter are very Germanic festivals in origin. Both events remain the core of today's surviving German culture. I feel so proud to be German when experiencing the richness of German civilisation during these festivities.

hodekin
Saturday, February 24th, 2007, 05:29 PM
This pagan tolerance of Semitic religions is the greatest reason for Aryan pagan weakness.

Religion is political, and politics is religious.
(It is false that they can ever be separated)

I agree Nelson, but we must find our own ways instead of slavishly following in line!

I too believe that the Semitic religion is not the way for Germanics. But like it or not, the one thing that seperates us from the bowing and scraping middle Eastern faiths is our sense of independence and personal dignity. If this means a Germanic chooses to follow or tolerate an alien faith then frustrating as that may be, so be it!

Our sense of personal freedom of choice is our one prevailing strength and also our everlasting weakness.

Engelbrecht
Saturday, February 24th, 2007, 07:28 PM
Are the Jews the most beautiful of people, are they the most powerful of people? I would say no. However, a constant theme in the Bible is that God chooses the people that you would least suspect to bring out His will. This is so that people will be able to see the work of God through whatever it is He is doing, basically to grab people's attention, and to rattle their cages, which He has certainly done.

As I have mentioned earlier, Christianity is simply the revelation of God to His creation. The means of doing this, is by picking out an unlikely group of people, and through them sending His Son to save His creation. Christianity is a doctrine of love, not of ethnicity and race. We are all to celebrate our differences and delight in the place and time God has placed us, all for the Glory of the Father.

This may sound jumbled and incoherent, but let me know what you think, Brutus. :)

Thank you! This actually makes a lot of sense to me. Since I´m swedish you´ll have to oversee that I might not make correct translations. But in reference to the above statements, I come to think about the story about the lost son from the gospel of Luke.

Mazorquero
Saturday, February 24th, 2007, 10:07 PM
Christianity is semitic, not germanic, not even European, not even Caucasian. So it's based in the semitic way of life. As somebody said previously, christianity was adopted by Constantin "the Great" (such an irony) because it was a religion suitable for controlling through fear the population. Semitic religions are based in fear, you are "trained" to fear everything because God will punish you (the same God who is "pure love"), you must accept without questioning a lot of misteries, like the trinity or the virginity of Mary. Just recall the thousands of years we are delayed in our development thanks to archaic statements like "Men have less ribs than women, no matter what Vessalius says".
Modern christianity is a remake of selected on purpose books, ordered by one of the Ptolomean kings, and so we have the known New Testament and other evangelical texts oficially excluded from the christian Bible. The original christianity is still conserved in some regions of Ethiopy, and it's very different from what you'll find in the Vatican for example.
Paganism (that's practically all other religions ever created) on the contrary, aren't about controlling people but about understanding Nature. Pagan Gods are the Sun, the Rain, the Sea, etc. and you must only take care of them and they will do the same for you (that's ecological behaviour), and if they do't do the same for you, you'll have the right to ask for it (Greek mythology for example, tells us about many cases ofmrtals who defeated Gods). Pagans accepted other people's Gods whereas evangelization included the killing of all those who didn't accept that Yahve is the only one (here we find a contradiction, because Yahve ordered jews to destroy tribes who adored other gods, so Yahve recognizes the existance of other gods). It's documentated that evangelizers ordered barbarians to cut down entire woods because that would exorcise all the bad spirits who lived in the woods, and pagans loved woods because they were a symbol of life. Other things that perjudicated our civilization were: equality between humans (origin of multiculturalism) and denial of sex as a socio-biological need (origin of alot of taboos and sexual perverts). We could spend quite a few days counting the damages that chritianity made to us and to other cultures.
Some of them can be explained, since they are wrong interpretations of the ten commandments (if we try to understand the legend). Moses wrote those rules because they were necesary to keep calmed a large group while travelling through desert, but once they invaded Canaan (as jews are invading again Palestine) those rules became useless. However, Moses died before reaching Canaan and nobody realised of that.

æþeling
Saturday, February 24th, 2007, 10:08 PM
One of the strengths, or weaknesses depending on your point of view, about Christianity has been its adaptability. St Augustine would barely recognise Christianity in England today, largely because Christianity in northern Europe, which so quickly managed to assimilate much of the indigenous beliefs, was to gradually succumb to the world view of northern Europeans. It is no mistake that the Reformation was largely confined to northern Europe, individual freedom is something we prise, and it is something that the Church has had to live with since it first arrived in the northern lands.

Christianity in the Germanic lands was a very different breed of religion compared to Christianity in today’ England, or Scandinavia. Christ the warrior was far more in vogue amongst the warrior classes, pretty much a like for like replacement for Woden, indeed many Heathens, like King Raedwald, had no difficulty incorporating Christ into their religious outlook.

I personally have nothing against Christians, as long as they take my polite hint that I am not Christian and accept that, I have many Christian friends who have, but I have also had the misfortune to encounter the militant types as well. I have studied Christianity, the Bible, and rejected it for my own reasons; I am Heathen for my own reasons as well, and for different reasons to most other Heathens.

Tancred
Sunday, February 25th, 2007, 02:01 AM
As I can see when I look around this forum and when reading polls, many of you germanic people at this forum define your selfs as christian. By tradition I too define myself as christian.

But recently I have started to feel that it´s a problem for me as a christian that it is a semitic religion, created by and for semitic people, not germanic people.

What is your view on this issue?

Is it a problem or not?

Eihter way - why or why not?


A 'Semitic religion'? Nonsense.

Christianity was born in the territory that is now Israel, but that does not automatically make it a Jewish religion - far from it. The Jews hated Jesus and resented the fact that he was trying to change their whole way of thinking. Everything about Christianity is alien to the Jewish mentality; the Jews only care about their own interests, while Christianity is universal. I see no conflict between the Christian religion and Germanic traditions; infact Hitler, of all people, recognised this and chastised Himmler's attempts to bring back paganism.

Whether one likes it or not, Christianity is too ingrained in Western culture to be cast aside, and it also provides a useful moral benchmark for society as a whole. What we should focusing on is to develop the Christian religion to reflect our values, not attempt to replace it with ridiculous pagan nonsense.


Christianity is as much Greek as it is Semitic. Any scholar of Christianity knows that Greek thought had great influence on the New Testament.

Yet even if Christianity were 100% Semitic, why would that matter? If Jews had invented the automobile, would you be reluctant to drive a car?


If you're defining your religion out of "tradition," that sounds like a poor reason. You should adhere to a religion because you actually believe it.


A very valid point.

Evolved
Sunday, February 25th, 2007, 02:02 AM
On the Bible being Jewish: The Old Testament is a collection of myths and fables, the stories are amalgams of various actual events in ancient times, embellished greatly for effect. It is all allegorical, just as the mythology of various heathen paths are. If you approach the Bible that way, it does make more sense to look toward one's own mythology to find an idea of God & the spirit. But Christianity is defined by the New Testament, not the Old Testament. The Jewish fables of the Old Testament are important to Christians as a sort of bibliography which explains a certain verses & prophecies of the New Testament. You can understand the story of Christianity without reading the long-winded "prequel," but the O.T. comes in handy as a reference in some cases.

Most people in the world go along with whatever religion they were raised in or whatever the majority faith is in their homeland out of a sense of duty to family traditions or feelings of patriotism. These people are allowing earthly matters to govern their spirit! Since their religiosity is superficial, they don't ask many questions and tend to be far less knowledgeable (beyond parroting whatever they read or hear) about their own faith than genuine truth-seekers.

Wisdom is where you find it. If everyone in history took the attitude of "If something isn't from my people, it must be worthless to me," there would have been no exchange of ideas, technologies, or philosophies in our world. That said, if you get a good feeling about Germanic heathenism and it makes more sense to you as an individual than Christianity, if it fills a void that going to church wasn't filling- that is all the answer you need. :)

gryphon
Sunday, February 25th, 2007, 05:23 AM
What is this nonsense that we need salvation?? salvation from what? This doctrine that we are all born guilty of some terrible sin and need salvation from some figure called Jesus is bizarre. Christianity is very obviusly based on Judaism, if it were not so, the Old Testament ( which is wholly Jewish) would not form any part of Christianity, but of course it does. The only real difference between Judaism and Christianity is that the jews are still waiting for the ``messiah`` whereas the Christians think he already arrived and will be popping back again sometime. Is this religion for Gemranics? yeah if they are sheep.

Nelson
Sunday, February 25th, 2007, 10:34 AM
'Christianity' is semitic poison.



A 'Semitic religion'? Nonsense.

Christianity was born in the territory that is now Israel, but that does not automatically make it a Jewish religion - far from it.



Nonsense?

Even if Jesus was not 100% ethnically Jewish; there is no doubt -- according to the new testament -- that he was philo-semitic:
e.g. "Salvation is of the Jew"
All Jesus' disciples were Jews; and the most important formative character in Christianity, Paul (or Saul) of Tarsus was a highly educated cosmopolitan jew - familiar with Aryan philosophies.




The Jews hated Jesus and resented the fact that he was trying to change their whole way of thinking.
Everything about Christianity is alien to the Jewish mentality; the Jews only care about their own interests, while Christianity is universal.

This is the brief history according to the new testament:

1) Jesus preached almost exclusively to Jews.
2) There was a struggle within the Jewish world for spiritual control (i.e. between orthodox Jews and Christians)
3) The orthodox Jews won the struggle and had Jesus put to death...

What happens next is the most crucial phase of 'Christianity':
(known as historical Christianity)

After the death of Jesus, his 'followers' (who had already proved their disloyalty) -- ignored his request that they preach to the Jews first of all -- began travelling about the Roman Empire (and beyond), spreading their message to the non-Jewish world.

According to the biblical account, Jesus was trying to change the Jewish world primarily, yet the greater energies of his Jewish disciples were curiously reserved for non-Jews (in Rome and the Levant particularly)...

Why was this?

It was the process of preaching to foreigners (led by Paul of Tarsus) that the Jews designed a religion - 'Christianity' - for Aryan consumption:
Adding esoteric aspects of Aryan religions (the mystery cults), and taking Greek philosophy to augment the philosophically impoverished Jewish system.

This was a cynical process that introduced the "deliberate lie" into religion: creating a system appealing to an Aryan, that masked the lie of human equality within.


The deliberate lie is the greatest ferment for destruction of the noble race.
Hence our greatest spiritual enemy.



I see no conflict between the Christian religion and Germanic traditions; infact Hitler, of all people, recognised this and chastised Himmler's attempts to bring back paganism.


The true nature of Adolf's religious beliefs are not necessarily the same as his public displays would suggest. This is because Christianity was a dangerous potential opponent, and a direct conflict would have been disastrous.

To get an insight into Adolf's real world-view then one must look at the following:

National Socialism was based primarily on the higher good of the race (something Christianity denies the existence of - let alone importance)

One of Adolf's favourite philosophers was Julianus Apostata, Roman emperor from 361-363 C.E.
A note: known in English as Julian the Apostate, he was the philosopher king who renounced Christianity and attempted (unsuccessfully) to bring back paganism as the Empire's religion.

Adolf's private speeches reveal a very different attitude to Christianity than his public speeches. (this is well documented, and I won't post any material on this now)



Whether one likes it or not, Christianity is too ingrained in Western culture to be cast aside, and it also provides a useful moral benchmark for society as a whole. What we should focusing on is to develop the Christian religion to reflect our values, not attempt to replace it with ridiculous pagan nonsense.


This is absolutely false:
Christianity is both recent (in terms of Aryan history), and alien.

Christianity's 'moral benchmark' is a universalist morality that serves us only in that it cripples our natural survival instinct for the race.

The Christian religion is Semitic at the core.
Changing the facade is an exercise in delusion - the whole religion needs to be destroyed - and for all time.
(Though Christianity will naturally die on the weight of its own lies, without any need for external assistance - something that is happening with greater acceleration as scientific knowledge increases)

...

To all those that believe Northern European Christianity is not detrimental to our people because of the large Northern Aryan philosophical influence:

'Northern Christianity' has been cynically designed for Northern Aryan consumption: just the way Paul of Tarsus did for the Southern Aryans in the Levant and Southern Europe...

The design:
Mix enough traditional Aryan culture to the religion to make it palatable; yet keep the Semitic core intact within.

Aryans, you have been poisoned.

Wake up!

Wodening
Sunday, February 25th, 2007, 06:58 PM
This debate is made more difficult for a couple of reasons I have not seen mentioned. To save space I will outline them.

1) Judaism is not a pure Semitic religion. It borrowed heavily from Zoroastrianism which is an IE religion. It was also influenced by Greek philosophy.

2) Christianity was influenced by Mithraism, Greek philosophy, and Roman paganism.

Therefore, neither religion can be said to be Semitic or Indo-European. Indeed they are a bastardization of both. However, that alone would not keep one from saying a Germanic could not be Jewish or Christian. After all there would be elements of both that could appeal to a person of Germanic descent.

More to the point though is that both religions are at odds with native religious thought. Christianity is actually moreso than Judaism. Forgiveness for example is alien to Germanic thought. According to Germanic paganism one could not be forgiven for sins. They incurred a debt and had to repay that debt. Some crimes the debt could not be repayed and death was the only consequence. Wrong doers went to Niflhel or Nastrand. There was no divine intervention to save them as belief in the deities was not sufficent to save one from the depths of "Hell." At the same time, while misdeeds could keep one out of Valhalla or other realms of the Gods, good deeds could get them in. Chrisitianity runs contrary to this. Belief alone can get one to Heaven, and good deeds do not if one does not believe. Germanic culture is still, even today ripe with Germanic pagan thought so that it is difficult for a Germanic to accept many basic Christian principles.

Now that is not to say that Christiannity is unacceptable for all Germanics. Some may be able to accept Christian principles over that of the native Germanic. Or there may be forms of Chrisitianity that have been Germanicized. There is much in popular Germanic Christian culture that is pagan in origin. The idea that the dead become angels is not orthodox Christian thought, and some forms of Christianity do not take forgiveness as being the only way to get to Heaven. Still, I personally feel Germanic Heathenry is the best religion for the Germanic, and the only way to untangle the moral hodge podge that our cultures have become.

Airmanareiks
Sunday, February 25th, 2007, 09:59 PM
According to the biblical account, Jesus was trying to change the Jewish world primarily, yet the greater energies of his Jewish disciples were curiously reserved for non-Jews (in Rome and the Levant particularly)...

Why was this?

It was the process of preaching to foreigners (led by Paul of Tarsus) that the Jews designed a religion - 'Christianity' - for Aryan consumption:
Adding esoteric aspects of Aryan religions (the mystery cults), and taking Greek philosophy to augment the philosophically impoverished Jewish system.

This was a cynical process that introduced the "deliberate lie" into religion: creating a system appealing to an Aryan, that masked the lie of human equality within.




Paul was a rabid racist Jew who persecuted traitors. He realized that Jesusism (world communism) would destroy the Jewish race, so the Jews put him to death. Paul, then thought "I realize how genocidial this is for Jews. Hmmm. This would be great for the Romans!!!!! This is how we destroy the Roman empire and rule the world. Lets convert the world to Jesusism and make the entire world into our slaves (the covenant). This worked in destroying the roman empire, taking over europe. But Jesusism evaporated with protestantism, securlarism. So the Jews needed a new tool in a scientific age. Viola, Dialectical materialism. Communism.

Jesusism, Communism, Capitalism are tools to destroy goy races so Jews can rule the world. Destroy racism, basterize the world, have a stupid mongrel race to work for Jews.

Jesus fit in well with this Jewish genocidial strategy.
Think not of this world.
It is better to be a slave and poor then have money, and power.
Sex is of no matter. (Sexual selection is racial selection).
Foreign rule is as good as rule by your own race.
etc................

All of which is the opposite of truth and right (not natural godlaw).

Oski
Monday, February 26th, 2007, 10:13 PM
No christianity!

No Judaism!

No Islam!



Stay germanic, choose a european faith.

Leofric
Wednesday, February 28th, 2007, 04:33 AM
As I can see when I look around this forum and when reading polls, many of you germanic people at this forum define your selfs as christian. By tradition I too define myself as christian.

But recently I have started to feel that it´s a problem for me as a christian that it is a semitic religion, created by and for semitic people, not germanic people.

What is your view on this issue?

Is it a problem or not?

Eihter way - why or why not?
I don't think Christianity is a Semitic religion. I've read a lot of folks here say that it has a Semitic core, but I haven't ever read any of them say what exactly that Semitic core is or what exactly makes that core Semitic. They just throw out the words as though they're axiomatically obvious. To me it seems far more obvious that a universalist religion like Christianity would not be Semitic or Germanic or anything else like that at its core.

The closest thing I've seen to a reason for those accusations are that Christianity was initially developed by Semitic people. It kind of seems to me like saying that Christianity is Semitic in its core because it was initially developed by Semitic people is like saying that quantum physics in Semitic in its core because it was initially developed by Einstein. But if light (as well as all matter) is both a particle and a wave, then that's the way it is, whether a Jew said it first or a Germanic or a Masai. If Christianity is true, then it's true. A statement about reality (which is what Christianty usually purports to be) is kind of ethnic-neutral, it seems to me.

I don't have a problem with Christianity just like I don't have a problem with quantum physics. I see both as sets of accurate statements about reality (though each sometimes gets a little figurative in tone).

Evaluating Christianity, then, needs to be done by evaluating what it is rather than who initially developed it. But I think one of the problems with discussing Christianity and its worth is that most folks seem to treat Christianity as though it's all one thing. Nothing could be further from the truth. Very little seems to unite all Christians.

For example, I've seen some folks saying in this thread that Christianity is flawed because of Trinitarianism. I think legitimate Trinitarianism is pretty rare among Christians. Sure, most Christians say they believe in the Trinity, but most of the Christians I know picture God differently than strict Trinitarianism. When they talk about the Trinity, most seem to describe it in a way that, at some point in history, has been branded as one or another heresy (the sheer number of heresies that relate to slight variations from strict Trinitarianism is mind-boggling). But that doesn't make them not Christian in the eyes of any but the most fastidious theologians.

I guess my point here is that the Christianity in the pews is just incredibly diverse. And that's the Christianity that's real. The few priests and professors out there who debate the fine points of theology that define all the various Christian denominations are a miniscule minority of Christianity. And for all their noise, at the end of the day, they have very little effect on the people. Christianity is found in the hearts of the believers. And that Christianity is anything but monolithic — basically all that seems to be common to all of it is some kind of respect either for Jesus or for some of his teachings.

The arguments against Christianity in this thread are all pretty much geared toward specific points of Christian theology (and usually points that aren't even relatively common to Christian theologians — like sola fide salvation), so none of them really holds a lot of water for Christianity itself.

I don't see how Christianity can be inherently bad for our people. And if it's true, then it's true and (in my opinion) inherently valuable. As for whether it's true or not, I think that's something you need to discover on your own.

Engelbrecht
Wednesday, February 28th, 2007, 09:20 AM
Thank you all for your very different, but most valuable points in this issue.

I have come to look at this from angles I haven´t thought of before.

Keep posting your views, but please try not to get stuck in arguments about who´s religion is superior, because that was not my point.

Needle
Thursday, March 1st, 2007, 08:59 PM
Leofric wrote:

I don't think Christianity is a Semitic religion. I've read a lot of folks here say that it has a Semitic core, but I haven't ever read any of them say what exactly that Semitic core is or what exactly makes that core Semitic. They just throw out the words as though they're axiomatically obvious. To me it seems far more obvious that a universalist religion like Christianity would not be Semitic or Germanic or anything else like that at its core.

The closest thing I've seen to a reason for those accusations are that Christianity was initially developed by Semitic people. It kind of seems to me like saying that Christianity is Semitic in its core because it was initially developed by Semitic people is like saying that quantum physics in Semitic in its core because it was initially developed by Einstein. But if light (as well as all matter) is both a particle and a wave, then that's the way it is, whether a Jew said it first or a Germanic or a Masai. If Christianity is true, then it's true. A statement about reality (which is what Christianty usually purports to be) is kind of ethnic-neutral, it seems to me.

I don't have a problem with Christianity just like I don't have a problem with quantum physics. I see both as sets of accurate statements about reality (though each sometimes gets a little figurative in tone).

Evaluating Christianity, then, needs to be done by evaluating what it is rather than who initially developed it. But I think one of the problems with discussing Christianity and its worth is that most folks seem to treat Christianity as though it's all one thing. Nothing could be further from the truth. Very little seems to unite all Christians.

For example, I've seen some folks saying in this thread that Christianity is flawed because of Trinitarianism. I think legitimate Trinitarianism is pretty rare among Christians. Sure, most Christians say they believe in the Trinity, but most of the Christians I know picture God differently than strict Trinitarianism. When they talk about the Trinity, most seem to describe it in a way that, at some point in history, has been branded as one or another heresy (the sheer number of heresies that relate to slight variations from strict Trinitarianism is mind-boggling). But that doesn't make them not Christian in the eyes of any but the most fastidious theologians.

I guess my point here is that the Christianity in the pews is just incredibly diverse. And that's the Christianity that's real. The few priests and professors out there who debate the fine points of theology that define all the various Christian denominations are a miniscule minority of Christianity. And for all their noise, at the end of the day, they have very little effect on the people. Christianity is found in the hearts of the believers. And that Christianity is anything but monolithic — basically all that seems to be common to all of it is some kind of respect either for Jesus or for some of his teachings.

The arguments against Christianity in this thread are all pretty much geared toward specific points of Christian theology (and usually points that aren't even relatively common to Christian theologians — like sola fide salvation), so none of them really holds a lot of water for Christianity itself.

I don't see how Christianity can be inherently bad for our people. And if it's true, then it's true and (in my opinion) inherently valuable. As for whether it's true or not, I think that's something you need to discover on your own.




Needle writes:

Modern "Christianity" is a Semitic religion, as Jews are Semites,
and they had "created" or "invented" it to spiritually destroy their
Pagan or Roman enemies.

It has a Semitic or a Jewish core, and what exactly is that Semitic core,
and what exactly makes that core Semitic or Jewish, is that it absolutely
and dogmatically divides Man from Nature and the "Chosen People" from the
rest of Humanity and the idea of a Personal God from the Impersonal God of
Cosmos.

This is quite "axiomatically obvious" to all of those that have studied the
actual history of religion and race and Gibbon, Nietzche, Spengler, etc...


You are correct in that "Christianity" is a "universalist religion",
designed by Jews or Semites to destroy all of the goy Gentiles,
and that deliberately huge deception of theirs called "Christianity"
is Semitic or is Jewish or is "Malignantly Narcissistic" at its core.


"Christianity" was initially developed by Semitic Jews for Semitic Jews,
as a means of subverting and eventually destroying the Pagan Romans.

Quantum physics was NOT initially developed by Einstein and your
analogy was incorrect as the scientific method, itself, was initially
developed by Aryans, or Whites, or Germanics, or Ancient Greeks,
and NOT by Semites or Jews.

It is true that light (as well as all matter) is both a particle and a wave,
and that's the way it is, and whether a Jew said it first or a Germanic
or a Masai, but, the fact remains that this discovery or truth was made
by only Aryans or by Whites or by Germanics and by their own methods,
and NOT initially at all by Jews or by any Masai and by using "their own"
methods. The "scientific method" is only an Aryan or White or Germanic
invention or method.


If "Christianity" is false by that same Aryan "scientific method",
then it's false.

A statement about reality which is what Christianty usually
purports to be and that is based ONLY upon BLIND FAITH is
just a non-Aryan statement about reality and one that only
a delusional Semite or Jew or a "ethnic-neutral" universalist
or a Malignant Narcissist or "ignorant savage" could ever at
all embrace.

I do have a problem with "Christianity", and I don't have any
problem with quantum physics, only because the former is
based only on ignorant Blind Faith but the latter is based
upon a Rational Faith in Reality. I see any one set of any
such "inaccurate statements about reality" based upon any
such Blind Faith to be both ignorant and non-Aryan or non-
White or non-Germanic.
(Any figurative truths being the sole exceptions)



When evaluating "Christianity", then, or any other such Blind Faith
based belief one needs to evaluate both what it is AND who initially
developed it and for what reasons. "Christianity" is all "one thing"
as it all is based upon only Blind Faith and that one "delusion" alone
is what seems to unite all such "Christians" and all other such Blind
Faith based beliefs and including secular atheism and marxism and
scientism.

Christianity is flawed not just because of any "Trinitarianism".
It is flawed because it is based solely upon Blind Faith and
no more and no less.

Christianity is found in the hearts of the believers only because the mind
isn't working properly on any Blind Faith. And that "Christianity is anything
but monolithic — basically all that seems to be common to all of it is some
kind of respect either for Jesus or for some of his teachings", means little.

The arguments against "Christianity" in this thread that matter are those
that address the fact that it is non-Aryan, non-White, non-Germanic and
insult our intelligence and racial souls and spirits by denying our rationality
and intelligence and scientific knowledge with only Blind Faith based beliefs.

I see how "Christianity", or any such Blind Faith based beliefs,
can be "inherently bad" for our people only because it distorts
true REALITY and is DELUSIONAL and it prevents us from ever
discovering these Whole Truths of Reality about ourselves and
our Cosmos and our own true Purpose and Place all within it all.


"Christianity", or all Blind Faith based beliefs, are not true,
and are false and are (in my opinion) inherently destructive
to our Aryan or White or Germanic Race and to our Peoples.

As for whether ANYTHING is true or not,
I also do think that's a something that
anyone needs to discover on their own,
but, using ONLY Rational Faith and NOT
via BLIND FAITH, which is DELUSIONAL.

Best regards,
Needle

http://www.cosmotheism.net

Lyfing
Friday, March 2nd, 2007, 02:01 AM
I've read a lot of folks here say that it has a Semitic core, but I haven't ever read any of them say what exactly that Semitic core is or what exactly makes that core Semitic.

Umm..it is Semitic at it's core because it was developed out of slave's resentment of their own impotence..

..a Nietzche quote (..??..)..


But to return to business: our inquiry into the origins of that other notion of goodness, as conceived by the resentful, demands to be completed. There is nothing very odd about lambs disliking birds of prey, but this is no reason for holding it against large bird of prey that they carry off lambs. And when the lambs whisper among themselves, "These birds of prey are evil, and does not this give us a right to say that whatever is the opposite of a bird of prey must be good?" there is nothing intrinsically wrong with such an argument--though the birds of prey will look somewhat quizzacally and say, "We have nothing against these good lambs; in fact, we love them: nothing tastes better than a tender lamb."--To expect that strength will not manifest itself as strength, as the desire to overcome, to appropriate, to have enemies, obstacles, and triumphs, is every bit as absurd as to expect that weakness will manifest itself as strength. A quantum of strength is equivalent to a quantum of urge, will, activity, and it is only a snare of language (of the arch-fallacies of reason petrified in language), presenting all activity as conditioned by an agent--the "subject"--that blinds us to the fact. For, just as popular superstition divorces the lightning from its brilliance, viewing the latter as an activity whose subject is the lightning, so does popular morality divorce strength from its manifestations, as though there were behind the strong a neutral agent, free to manifest its strength or contain it.. But no such agent exists, there is no "being" behind the doing, acting, becoming, the "doer" has simply been added to the deed by the imagination--the doing is everything. The common man actually doubles the doing by making the lightning flash: he states the same event once as cause and then again as effect. The natural scientists are no better when they say that "energy moves," "energy causes." For all its detachment and freedom from emotion, our science is still the dupe of linguistic habits, it has never yet got rid of those changelings called "subjects." The atom is one such changeling, another is the Kantian "thing-in-itself." Small wonder, then, that the repressed and smoldering emotions of vengeance and hatred have taken advantage of this superstition and in fact espouse no belief more ardently than that it is within the discretion of the strong to be weak, of the bird of prey to be a lamb. Thus they assume the right of calling the bird of prey to account for being a bird of prey. We can hear the oppressed, downtrodden, violated whispering among themselves with the wily vengefulness of the impotent, "Let us be unlike those evil ones. Let us be good. and the good shall be he who does not do violence, does not attack or retaliate, who leaves vengeance to God, who, like us, lives hidden, who shuns all that is evil, and altogether asks very little of life--like us, the patient, the humble, the just ones." Read in cold blood, this means nothing more than "We weak ones are, in fact, weak. It is a good thing that we do nothing for which we are not strong enough." But this plain fact, this basic prudence, which even the insects have (who, in circumstances of great danger, sham death in order not to have to "do" too much) has tricked itself out in the garb of quiet, virtious resignation, thanks to the duplicity of impotence--as though the weakness of the weak, which is after all his essence, his natural way of being, his sole and inevitable reality, were a spontaneous act, a meritous deed. This sort of person requires the belief in a "free subject" able to choos indifferently, out of that instinct of self-preservation which notoriously justifies every kind of lie. It may well be that to this day the subject, or in popular language the soul, has been the most viable of all articles of faith simply because it makes it possible for the majority of mankind--i.e., the weak and oppressed of every sort--to practice the sublime sleight of hand which gives weakness the appearance of free choice and one's natural disposition the distinction of merit.

The Birth of Tragedy & The Genealogy of Morals, translated by Francis Golffing..pages 178-180


The origin of the mythological motifs of any religion, while they can (in varied ways) be historically "traced", are still pretty much up in the "air"...


The primary image (urteumliches Bild), which I have termed 'archetype' is always collective, i.e. common to at least whole peoples or periods of history. The chief mythological motifs of all times and races are very probably of this order, for example, in dreams and fantasies of neurotics of pure Negro stock I have been able to identify a series of motifs of Greek mythology.

"The primary image," he then suggests, "is a memory deposit, and engram, derived from a condesation of innumerable similair experiences...the psychic expression of an anatomically, physiologically determined natural tendency."

C.G.Jung, Psychologische Typen..from..Primitive Mythology by Joseph Campbell..page 23..


But it's not the "origin" that matters it's how those myths are interpreted.. (which might just be the real Origin after all)..Either it is "afterthought" or it is "impotence"..!! And..I think it is obvious which is the "will to live"..after all don't the Christians consider the flesh wretched and seek in the Judgement Day..the coming of their Kingdom..to deliver them from it..and it's lusts..(which are to live)..and to punish those that revel in it (life)..??

-Lyfing

Leofric
Friday, March 2nd, 2007, 07:14 PM
Modern "Christianity" is a Semitic religion, as Jews are Semites, and they had "created" or "invented" it to spiritually destroy their Pagan or Roman enemies.
The charge that Christianity was created to spiritually destroy is unproveable. Even if you could prove that Christianity necessarily has the effect of spiritual destruction (and I think you can't), you'd be hard pressed to prove that it was created for that purpose.

And the idea that truth is Semitic because it was first couched by a Semitic person seems ludicrous to me.




It has a Semitic or a Jewish core, and what exactly is that Semitic core, and what exactly makes that core Semitic or Jewish, is that it absolutely and dogmatically divides Man from Nature and the "Chosen People" from the rest of Humanity and the idea of a Personal God from the Impersonal God of Cosmos.
In what way is seeing a division between men and nature a Semitic trait? Such divisions are universally reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European language, poetics, and society. And in Germanic mythology, mankind is descended from a being of the same race as the gods and thus distinct from the rest of nature (ask:as::engelsk:angler). So there seems to be good evidence that our people saw man and nature as distinct before Christianity.

And Christianity is far from necessarily seeing man and nature as distinct. See Luke 12:6, "Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God?" Or Matthew 6:28-30, "And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: 29And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?" There's no reason to assume that Christianity means seeing man and nature as distinct.

The Chosen People phenomenon is far more common in Judaism than in Christianity. Christians are far more likely to believe that all people are equal in the eyes of the Lord.

And a personal god is hardly uniquely Semitic. Our heathen ancestors worshipped a whole group of very personal gods, as did their fellow pagan Europeans.

These traits you claim compose the Semitic core of Christianity are neither uniquely Semitic nor necessarily Christian.




Quantum physics was NOT initially developed by Einstein and your analogy was incorrect as the scientific method, itself, was initially developed by Aryans, or Whites, or Germanics, or Ancient Greeks, and NOT by Semites or Jews.

It is true that light (as well as all matter) is both a particle and a wave, and that's the way it is, and whether a Jew said it first or a Germanic or a Masai, but, the fact remains that this discovery or truth was made by only Aryans or by Whites or by Germanics and by their own methods, and NOT initially at all by Jews or by any Masai and by using "their own" methods. The "scientific method" is only an Aryan or White or Germanic invention or method.
The idea that light is both a particle and a wave was most definitely and unquestionably first put forward by Einstein, who was undoubtedly a Jew. It does no one any good to run away from that fact. But at the same time, that fact doesn't make the concept that light is both a wave and a particle a Semitic one. It's just truth. It doesn't matter who developed it.




A statement about reality which is what Christianty usually purports to be and that is based ONLY upon BLIND FAITH is just a non-Aryan statement about reality and one that only a delusional Semite or Jew or a "ethnic-neutral" universalist or a Malignant Narcissist or "ignorant savage" could ever at all embrace.

I do have a problem with "Christianity", and I don't have any problem with quantum physics, only because the former is based only on ignorant Blind Faith but the latter is based upon a Rational Faith in Reality. I see any one set of any such "inaccurate statements about reality" based upon any such Blind Faith to be both ignorant and non-Aryan or non-White or non-Germanic. (Any figurative truths being the sole exceptions)
Christianity isn't based on blind faith.

Of course, like any set of statements that purports to represent reality, it can be accepted on blind faith. But that doesn't mean it's based on blind faith.

One way that we commonly use the word science is in reference to a set of statements that purports to represent reality. That set of statements is accepted by many on the basis of blind faith. They figure that if a scientist (or professor of science) says something is so, then it's so. And they never question the statements of scientists about reality. Some people even go to the extreme of dealing with conflicting statements from different contemporary scientists as though it's "a mystery" that can't be understood by us lowly non-scientists and is only vaguely understood by the members of the priestly class. That's blind faith in science.

Others encounter the statements of scientists and examine the reasoning behind the statements. They accept the statements about the scientists' observations on blind faith and then accept the scientists' conclusions by seeing that they are logically derived from the attested data. They're accepting science on a basis of informed faith. Faith is still involved, but it's no longer blind.

Others reduplicate the experiments of other scientists and observe the data themselves and reach their own conclusions. When the original scientists was correct, the second scientist usually finds the same data and reaches the same conclusions. These people accept science on the basis of experiential knowledge.

Most folks, confronted with science (as a set of statements about reality), employ a combination of these approaches, accepting some statements on blind faith, others on informed faith, and others on experiential knowledge.

Any set of statements that purports to represent reality can be treated this same way. Many Christians accept Christianity primarily on blind faith. Others accept it more on informed faith. Others accept it primarily based on experiential knowledge. And almost all Christians accept some elements of Christianity on blind faith, other elements on informed faith, and others on experiential knowledge.

So although blind faith can be present in Christianity (just as it can in science), that does not mean that Christianity is based on blind faith. To see it (or science) as based solely on blind faith ignores huge sections of the reality that Christianity is.




The arguments against "Christianity" in this thread that matter are those that address the fact that it is non-Aryan, non-White, non-Germanic and insult our intelligence and racial souls and spirits by denying our rationality and intelligence and scientific knowledge with only Blind Faith based beliefs.
I would agree that Christianity is non-Aryan and non-Germanic. So is agriculture. But neither is anti-Aryan or anti-Germanic. They're both just ethnically neutral.

And Christianity does not deny rationality or intelligence or scientific knowledge. I have definitely encountered some Christian sects which do so, but very many others strongly encourage our God-given rationality and intelligence and scientific knowledge. For something to be an inherent part of Christianity, it's got to be part of all Christianity everywhere. And there is nothing inherent in Christianity that requires abandoning those portions of our souls.




As for whether ANYTHING is true or not, I also do think that's a something that anyone needs to discover on their own, but, using ONLY Rational Faith and NOT via BLIND FAITH, which is DELUSIONAL.
Here we are agreed. I too think that a person should discover and accept truth not on the basis of blind faith (which I think does little to foster our God-given rational ability, which ability I think we have a duty to develop), but on the basis of, at the least, informed or rational faith, or much better, experiential knowledge.




Umm..it is Semitic at it's core because it was developed out of slave's resentment of their own impotence..
Perhaps. The fact that it was intially developed among people who lived in lower classes of a client state to Rome (who could be termed slaves) does not necessarily mean that it was a development from their resentment of their own impotence.

But regardless of that, who developed it and even why they developed it does not determine what its nature is. The fact that Labrador retrievers were bred to fetch shot ducks doesn't change the fact that they're excellent seeing-eye dogs. They might have been developed for a specific purpose, and they are very useful for that purpose, but that doesn't mean that's the only use for them.

Even if Christianity was developed by slaves as something of a placebo (and I don't think it was), that doesn't mean that it must be used as a placebo for slaves, even if it can be so used. Christianity, like a dog breed, is not monolithic. It's not the same thing for everyone. It's an umbrella term to cover a very diverse set of sets of beliefs. Slave Christianity might be the Christianity of some folks, but it's most definitely not the Christianity of all folks. Something at the core of Christianity should be shared by every section of Christianity, just as the core of an apple is shared by every section when you cut it. A slave mentality is not part of Christianity's core.




don't the Christians consider the flesh wretched and seek in the Judgement Day..the coming of their Kingdom..to deliver them from it..and it's lusts..(which are to live)..and to punish those that revel in it (life)..??
No, actually, that's not at all inherent in Christianity. Many Christians teach that the flesh and its desires are holy and should be treated with reverence, and that Judgment Day will reward those who treat their bodies well with incorruptible bodies that will always be able to delight in the satisfaction of their desires.

Both views are based on the Bible, but each view emphasizes different verses and interprets the various verses different ways. That is why Christianity is so diverse. Even within a single denomination, there is a great deal of diversity because of this — and this is especially the case among the Apostolic churches and the more high-church Protestant churches, since they don't demand the same kind of uniformity in belief that the more low-church Protestants do.

That's why when people argue against Christianity's suitability for our people on the basis of a particular worldview or mindset, they almost always have to limit themselves to particular subsegments of Christianity. But the fact that a given subsegment found among Christianity is unsuitable for our people doesn't mean that all of Christianity is unsuitable for our people.

Mazorquero
Friday, March 2nd, 2007, 09:06 PM
Modern christianity lost many semitic characteristics, that's true, like Christmas, which is celebrated with ancient germanic influences (the tree and the date of celebration are good examples). But those are only apparent non-semitic issues, because they don't have to do with the base and the ideology it transmits. We can see a very semitic aspect when the priest shows you the little bag to deposit your "contribution" (money of course), and many times the bag is just a net with big holes so you cannot deposit coins, as they will fall through them (they want more "flexible" money, which always represents a bigger value). That kind of contributions are a constant among semitic religions. Needless to say that I've never seen a thin priest.
Some of you may say that the former example is not relevant. How about this: in my native city, the last year in a poor suburb some people called the police because they said that a "white dwarf soul" on a tree attacked them with bricks and stones (no kidding, that's what that people said). The police went there and checked the whole place, obviously without finding anything, so they told the people that it could have been a child and/or their imagination. The people remained with fear (and didn't believe the police), so they called the priest of the nearest church, who is supposed to be a person with some good education. Instead of telling the truth, he said that the dwarf was a demon, and sprinkled a bit of water on the place (as if it were an exorcism). Examples like this one can be found all around the world and along history.
You may say that that poor people was uneducated, which is true. But the most of that uneducated people who strongly believe in demons, devils, etc. (because not every uneducated people believe in that) are those who spent the most of the time near the church hearing all the lies the priest says (and when I say "lies", I don't mean the religious feeling).
And don't say that we must accept christianity because most of Europids are christian. Practically all my friends are christian and many of them are very clever, but that doesn't mean that christianity is the most convenient thing.

Needle
Saturday, March 3rd, 2007, 04:27 PM
The charge that Christianity was created to spiritually destroy is unproveable. Even if you could prove that Christianity necessarily has the effect of spiritual destruction (and I think you can't), you'd be hard pressed to prove that it was created for that purpose.


Needle writes:

On the contrary, the charge that "Christianity" was
purposefully created by Jews to spiritually destroy
the "Goyim" is provable and by all of the available
historical facts and by quite overwhelming evidence.
What are "unprovable" are all of the false claims
and the false assertions of "Judeo-Christianity".

You wrote:

And the idea that truth is Semitic because it was first couched by a Semitic person seems ludicrous
to me.

Needle writes:

The idea that "truth" is "Semitic or Jewish"
is what's "ludicrous", as "Semites" or Jews
are the actual "People of the Lie", and have
made a "religion" out of their own vile and
mental pathology of a "Malignant Narcissism".

You wrote:

In what way is seeing a division between men
and nature a Semitic trait?

Needle writes:

Not "a division" but an "absolute division":
between man and nature, and Jews and "Goyim",
and between their "Personal Tribal God" and
the impersonal God of Cosmos, all of these
ideas are "Semitic" or are "Jewish" traits.

You wrote:

Such divisions are universally reconstructed
for Proto-Indo-European language, poetics, and society.

Needle writes:

No, not any such "absolute divisions" for them,
and for any Whites or Non-Jews or Non-Semites.

You write:

And in Germanic mythology, mankind is descended
from a being of the same race as the gods and thus distinct from the rest of nature (ask:as::engelsk:angler).

Needle writes:

Indeed, "of the same race as the gods",
actually means "similar" and this is not
any "absolute division" between God and
Men of the Hebrew Jews or Semites at all.

You wrote:

So there seems to be good evidence that
our people saw man and nature as distinct
before Christianity.

Needle writes:

On the contrary, the real evidence suggests
that our people saw man and nature and the
gods as only parts of something that's even
greater than any of them: the "Cosmos" and
as a unified Whole.

It is clear that you do not really know what any "good" verses "bad" evidence is at all.

You wrote:

And Christianity is far from necessarily seeing man and nature as distinct. See Luke 12:6, "Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God?"

Needle writes:

Not true nor relevant.

You wrote:

Or Matthew 6:28-30, "And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: 29And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?"

Needle writes:

Not relevant, nor true, again,
and these are both just false
"analogies" that are nonsense.

You wrote:

There's no reason to assume that Christianity
means seeing man and nature as distinct.

Needle writes:

It is not based upon any assumption but on fact.

"Christianity" places "man above nature" and
it falsely "denies and it contradicts" all of
nature and its real and true lessons for man.

You wrote:

The Chosen People phenomenon is far more common
in Judaism than in Christianity. Christians are
far more likely to believe that all people are
equal in the eyes of the Lord.

Needle writes:

I completely disagree, as the "Chosen People" lie
is inherent to both, only, for different reasons.

"Christians" believe they are the "Chosen People",
if only they fully accept Jesus and his teachings
or of that of their own churchs dogmatisms and be-
come thus "equal before their own Personal "God"
thereby. Otherwise, not. Jews believe that only
they can be "God's Chosen People", not any "Goys".

You wrote:

And a personal god is hardly uniquely Semitic. Our heathen ancestors worshipped a whole group of very personal gods, as did their fellow pagan Europeans.

Needle writes:

Not a personal god, "The One and Only Personal God",
is uniquely Semitic or Jewish. Our Pagan or heathen
ancestors were Pantheists, and they worshipped not
personal gods but mere personal representations of
natural forces which were one with the Cosmos as a
unified Whole as are we.

You wrote:

These traits you claim compose the Semitic core of Christianity are neither uniquely Semitic nor necessarily Christian.

Needle writes:

You are mistaken, as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam,
are all "Semitic" or "Jewish" at and in their "core"
beliefs and in their uniquely "Mosaic Distinction"
or Malignant Narcissism.

You wrote:

The idea that light is both a particle and a wave was most definitely and unquestionably first put forward by Einstein, who was undoubtedly a Jew.

Needle writes:

No, not really, but, Einstein was undoubtedly a Jew.

You wrote:

It does no one any good to run away from that fact.

Needle writes:

The idea that "light is both a particle and a wave"
was not "most definitely and unquestionably first
put forward by Einstein". That assertion is only a
a false "opinion" of your own, and is not any fact.

It is you that seems to just run away from these
facts.

You wrote:

But at the same time, that fact doesn't make the concept that light is both a wave and a particle a Semitic one. It's just truth. It doesn't matter who developed it.

Needle writes:

It is not a fact, but, the concept that light is
both a particle and a wave is both the truth and
it is a Aryan or a White developed one using the
Aryan or White developed "scientific method" of
White or Aryan modern science. It really matters
who or whom develops ideas or ideals as truth is
relative to our own knowledge at any given time
and the purposes to which that knowledge is put.

It is true that "truth is truth" regardless of
who or whom "says it" as long as it is actually
Whole Truth, and not just unfactual "opinion"
or false assertions or lies or just half-truths.

You wrote:

Christianity isn't based on blind faith.

Needle writes:

Yes, it is.

Christianity certainly is based on Blind Faith
verses the Rational Faith of a modern science.

You wrote:

Of course, like any set of statements that purports to represent reality, it can be accepted on blind faith. But that doesn't mean it's based on blind faith.

Needle writes:

Indeed, but, the set of statements and purport to represent reality of Christianity are all only
based upon Blind Faith vs Rational Faith.

That is why "Christianity" is false and delusional.

You wrote:

One way that we commonly use the word science is in reference to a set of statements that purports to represent reality. That set of statements is accepted by many on the basis of blind faith.

Needle writes:

Yes, that is true for many that are ignorant or are
unknowledgable about science, but, the fact remains
that science itself is based solely on statements that
purport to represent reality all based upon Rational vs
Blind Faith. The same can not be factually true about
"Christianity".

You wrote:

They figure that if a scientist (or professor of science) says something is so, then it's so. And they never question the statements of scientists about reality. Some people even go to the extreme of dealing with conflicting statements from different contemporary scientists as though it's "a mystery" that can't be understood by us lowly non-scientists and is only vaguely understood by the members of the priestly class. That's blind faith in science.

Needle writes:

I do with you that having any such ignorant and
Blind faith in ANYTHING is both foolish and is
dangerous. That is why it is critical that we
become knowledgable about the scientific method
and its assumptions and presumptions to be able
to test them ourselves for accuracy and truth.
Blind Faith in Science is Scientism, which all
true White or Aryan or Germanic Cosmotheists do
oppose.

You wrote:

Others encounter the statements of scientists and examine the reasoning behind the statements.
They accept the statements about the scientists' observations on blind faith and then accept the scientists' conclusions by seeing that they are logically derived from the attested data. They're accepting science on a basis of informed faith.
Faith is still involved, but it's no longer blind.

Needle writes:

Not exactly. LOL! :D

When Aryan or White or Germanic Modern Science is
being done properly there is no Blind Faith at all,
only a Rational Faith in Reality. When there is any
Blind Faith in science it is due to Human failure to
reason correctly and this is where falsehoods arise
in science, and as in all other areas of inquiry.

You wrote:

Others reduplicate the experiments of other
scientists and observe the data themselves
and reach their own conclusions. When the
original scientists was correct, the second
scientist usually finds the same data and
reaches the same conclusions. These people
accept science on the basis of experiential
knowledge.

Needle writes:

Yes, one of the ways to validate the accuracy
of any theory of knowledge is to test it many
times to see if the same results are obtained.
The more times the same results are obtained,
the higher is the accuracy of the model or is
the theory validated, independently, by many
observers, and in each case. Any statement of
or about reality is only as "good" as it's own
ability to predict the future given changes in
other parameters.

You wrote:

Most folks, confronted with science (as a set of statements about reality), employ a combination of these approaches, accepting some statements on blind faith, others on informed faith, and others on experiential knowledge.

Needle writes:

Indeed, most folks could sorely use a "Baloney Detection Kit" which would help eliminate any
"employment of Blind Faith" in their beliefs.
Carl Sagan once came up with one, but, being
a Jew didn't always apply it to his own every
time.

You wrote:

Any set of statements that purports to represent reality can be treated this same way.

Needle writes:

Indeed, most folks could sorely use a "Baloney Detection Kit" which would help eliminate any
"employment of Blind Faith" in their beliefs.


You wrote:

Many Christians accept Christianity primarily
on blind faith.

Needle writes:

No, all Christians accept Christianity
solely on Blind Faith.

You wrote:

Others accept it more on informed faith.

Needle writes:

No, others accept it more on mis-informed
Blind Faith.

You wrote:

Others accept it primarily based on experiential knowledge.

Needle writes:

Which "others" can base it on any "experimental
knowledge"?

There is no such thing within "Christianity" that
is not tainted by Blind Faith before-the-facts.

You wrote:

And almost all Christians accept some elements of Christianity on blind faith, other elements on informed faith, and others on experiential
knowledge.

Needle writes:

Actually, all Christians accept "Christianity" on
Blind Faith, mis-informed faith, and upon no valid experimental knowledge, whatsoever. That's the truth.

You wrote:

So although blind faith can be present in Christianity
(just as it can in science), that does not mean that Christianity is based on blind faith.

Needle writes:

True enough, but, Christianity is ONLY based upon Blind Faith whereas in science, and when being done properly, it isn't based at all on Blind Faith but only on Rational Faith. That is the real difference.

You wrote:

To see it (or science) as based solely on blind faith ignores huge sections of the reality that Christianity is.

Needle writes:

The reality is that Christianity is entirely based
upon Blind Faith, and NOT any Rational Faith at all.
Modern science, when being done properly, does not
rely upon any Blind Faith at all and nor should it.
That is the huge difference between delusional Blind
Faith and reality and Rational Faith or between any
"Christianity" or Blind Faith based false beliefs
and any true science based upon Rational Faith and true reason and that resonates with Reality.

You wrote:

I would agree that Christianity is non-Aryan and
non-Germanic.

Needle writes:

Indeed, it is, and as is any Blind Faith based idea.

You wrote:

So is agriculture.

Needle writes:

Hardly. LOL! :D

You don't know our true history very well do you?

You wrote:

But neither is anti-Aryan or anti-Germanic.

Needle writes:

Agriculture isn't anti-Aryan or anti-Germanic,
but, Christianity and the Blind Faith required
of it, certainly is anti-Aryan and anti-Germanic.

You wrote:

They're both just ethnically neutral.

Needle writes:

The former is and the latter isn't
"ethnically neutral" at all. The
latter is "ethnically un-natural"
and anti-Aryan and anti-Germanic.

You wrote:

And Christianity does not deny rationality or intelligence or scientific knowledge.

Needle writes:

Yes, it certainly does deny rationality and
intelligence and scientific knowledge.

You wrote:

I have definitely encountered some Christian sects which do so, but very many others strongly encourage our God-given rationality and intelligence and scientific knowledge.

Needle writes:

Indeed, but, I know of no Christians that strongly
encourage rationality and intelligence and scientific knowledge, if it contradicts their dogmatisms at all.

You wrote:

For something to be an inherent part of Christianity, it's got to be part of all Christianity everywhere.

Needle writes:

Indeed, and an inherent part of Christianity that's
a part of all Christianity everywhere is the fact
that it's all based solely upon Blind Faith vs any
Rational Faith.

You wrote:

And there is nothing inherent in Christianity that requires abandoning those portions of our souls.

Needle writes:

I disagree completely.

Any Blind Faith requires such and to do
so is often fatal to our Race and Folk
and to our true Souls and true Spirits.

You wrote:

Here we are agreed. I too think that a person should discover and accept truth not on the basis of blind faith (which I think does little to foster our God-given rational ability, which ability I think we have a duty to develop), but on the basis of, at the least, informed or rational faith, or much better, experiential knowledge.

Needle writes:

If that were truly the case, you would be a Cosmotheist
and not a Christian. Cosmotheists do not rely on any Blind Faith, whatsoever.

You wrote:

Perhaps. The fact that it was intially developed among people who lived in lower classes of a client state to Rome (who could be termed slaves) does not necessarily mean that it was a development from their resentment of their own impotence.

Needle writes:

Not necessarily, but, most likely a development from their "resentment of their own impotence" against the
Pagan Romans, just like the Jews, due to their being conquered and their temple destroyed and then becoming scattered throughout the empire.

You wrote:

But regardless of that, who developed it and even why they developed it does not determine what its nature is.

Needle writes:

On the contrary, it really does and did matter,
as the history of our race and the world has so
recently shown: it is a race destroying poison,
as it was for the Pagan Romans, so too, for us.

You wrote:

The fact that Labrador retrievers were bred to fetch shot ducks doesn't change the fact that they're excellent seeing-eye dogs. They might have been developed for a specific purpose, and they are very useful for that purpose, but that doesn't mean that's the only use for them.

Needle writes:

Another irrelevant and false analogy.

You wrote:

Even if Christianity was developed by slaves as something of a placebo (and I don't think it was), that doesn't mean that it must be used as a placebo for slaves, even if it can be so used.

Needle writes:

Again, that is not relevant, whatsoever.

You wrote:

Christianity, like a dog breed, is not monolithic. It's not the same thing for everyone. It's an umbrella term to cover a very diverse set of sets of beliefs. Slave Christianity might be the Christianity of some folks, but it's most definitely not the Christianity of all folks. Something at the core of Christianity should be shared by every section of Christianity, just as the core of an apple is shared by every section when you cut it. A slave mentality is not part of Christianity's core.

Needle writes:

A slave mentality is a part of Christianity's core,
as Nietzche and many others have shown and proven.
It is a philosophy of resentment of the weak over
the strong. It smells or reeks of Semitism or of a
Jewish Supremacist hatred for All of the Goyim. It
is also communistic or marxist, which is not at all
surprising, as this Jew perverted Hegels teachings
as did Saul aka Paul of Tarsus perverted Jesus' own.

You wrote:

No, actually, that's not at all inherent in Christianity. Many Christians teach that the flesh and its desires are holy and should be treated with reverence, and that Judgment Day will reward those who treat their bodies well with incorruptible bodies that will always be able to delight in the satisfaction of their desires.

Needle writes:

Judgment Day will reward those who treat their bodies well with incorruptible bodies that will always be able to delight in the satisfaction of their desires,
sounds very Malignantly Narcissistic and un-natural
to me. This ideal also reeks of Semitism or of Jewish
egomania, that is completely anti-White, anti-Aryan, anti-Germanic. Death is necessary so that life can be
recycled ever upwards and towards Godhood.

You wrote:

Both views are based on the Bible, but each view emphasizes different verses and interprets the various verses different ways. That is why Christianity is so diverse. Even within a single denomination, there is a great deal of diversity because of this — and this is especially the case among the Apostolic churches and the more high-church Protestant churches, since they don't demand the same kind of uniformity in belief that the more low-church Protestants do.

Needle writes:

The diversity of belief of Christianity comes from its
"universal" nature as a creed for all of the Goyim to be fleeced by the wolf Jews. That it does this is all that matters to those that created it for their own use to enslave mentally and bind the Goyim to them.
By their fruits ye shall know them, and any student
of real history can see this fact for themselves.

You wrote:

That's why when people argue against Christianity's suitability for our people on the basis of a particular worldview or mindset, they almost always have to limit themselves to particular subsegments of Christianity. But the fact that a given subsegment found among Christianity is unsuitable for our people doesn't mean that all of Christianity is unsuitable for our people.

Needle writes:

True enough, but, I argue against
ALL of Christianity on the basis
that ALL of it is a Blind Faith
based belief and that alone is
why it is "unsuitable" for our
own White, Aryan, Germanic Folk.

I argue for a fully Rational Faith
for our Folk, Cosmotheism, and a
true science based solely upon it.

ANY BLIND FAITH based belief
and not just Christianity is
"unsuitable" for our Folk.

Any faith or belief that denies
the Whole Truths of Reality is
not "suitable" for our Folk.

Any that don't deny them or
that seek them are "suitable"
for our Folk and are "worthy"
and otherwise, not.

Best regards,
Needle

http://www.cosmotheism.net

Leofric
Sunday, March 4th, 2007, 01:29 AM
Needle:

First, I really wish you'd learn to use quote tags properly. Here's something that might help with that: http://forums.skadi.net/misc.php?do=bbcode

Second, I really wish you'd stop filling your posts with hard returns as though they were lines of poetry.

Both of these would make your statements much easier to read and communication with you could be altogether much smoother.




On the contrary, the charge that "Christianity" was purposefully created by Jews to spiritually destroy the "Goyim" is provable and by all of the available historical facts and by quite overwhelming evidence. What are "unprovable" are all of the false claims and the false assertions of "Judeo-Christianity".
All right, then. Prove it. Start up a new thread and prove, using the the same methods that any other historian would, that Christianity was originally created with the purpose of spiritually destroying the non-Jewish ethnicities of the world. And using legitimate historical methods means of course that you can't rely on essays by Nietzsche to prove it — he lived about eighteen centuries too late for his personal philospohical expounding to be worthwhile as a primary source about the development of Christianity.

Once you've got that thread in place, then you can either post a link to it here in this thread or send me such a link in a PM or something.

Until you show some evidence, I'm not going to be able to believe on your say-so alone that Christianity was developed with the express purpose of spiritually destroying anybody. Just viewing it objectively, such a proposition seems too far-fetched to seem reasonable. But if you can show some hard evidence that you're telling it like it is, then I'll believe you.




Not "a division" but an "absolute division": between man and nature, and Jews and "Goyim", and between their "Personal Tribal God" and the impersonal God of Cosmos, all of these ideas are "Semitic" or are "Jewish" traits.

No, not any such "absolute divisions" for them, and for any Whites or Non-Jews or Non-Semites.

Indeed, "of the same race as the gods", actually means "similar" and this is not any "absolute division" between God and Men of the Hebrew Jews or Semites at all.
Okay, so now you're coming up with this distinction between a "division" and an "absolute division." I have no idea what difference you're trying to point out here. I think you ought to make it explicit so that we can all evaluate what you're saying on its own terms. You seem to have conceded that seeing a "division" between man and nature is not uniquely Semitic, but you suggest that seeing an "absolute division" between the same is. What exactly makes the Semitic "absolute division" different from the more universal "division"?




On the contrary, the real evidence suggests that our people saw man and nature and the gods as only parts of something that's even greater than any of them: the "Cosmos" and as a unified Whole.

It is clear that you do not really know what any "good" verses "bad" evidence is at all.
What real evidence suggests that? Show it. I'll admit, I might not be the best judge in the world of what evidence is good and what evidence is bad, but at least I'm a good judge of what evidence is present and what evidence is absent!

You say there's evidence to suggest that our people believed in a Cosmos as a unified whole. Where is it? Bring it on out so we can see if what you're saying is good. You didn't like the evidence I presented for my statment, but at least I had some. Where's yours?





And Christianity is far from necessarily seeing man and nature as distinct. See Luke 12:6, "Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God?"
Not true nor relevant.


Or Matthew 6:28-30, "And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: 29And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?"
Not relevant, nor true, again, and these are both just false "analogies" that are nonsense.
Well that's pretty rude (not to mention malignantly narcissistic). If I found something you said irrelevant, at least I would have the decency of saying why I think it's irrelevant. You just seem to want to pronounce sweeping platitudes like, "That's not relevant," expecting them to be accepted on blind faith.




It is not based upon any assumption but on fact. "Christianity" places "man above nature" and it falsely "denies and it contradicts" all of nature and its real and true lessons for man.
Not all Christians place man above nature. I know of Christian groups that teach that all nature will be saved through Christ and man along with it like all the rest. They teach that man is just as sacred to God as all the rest of nature.

Here are some other sites to enjoy that I just whipped up in a quick Google search:
http://www.creationcare.org/resources/declaration.php
http://www.christian-ecology.org.uk/

Some of their statements are a bit anthropocentric, but some are very much not. These aren't as far removed from the anthropocentric pole of that particular spectrum as the groups I described earlier (for whom I know of no websites — I've talked with a whole lot of different Christians about Christianity over the years), who are diametrically opposed to anthropocentrism, but they give you some idea.

My point here is, yet agin, Christianity just isn't monolithic. There's too much variety among Christians to make claims like these against it.




I completely disagree, as the "Chosen People" lie is inherent to both, only, for different reasons. "Christians" believe they are the "Chosen People", if only they fully accept Jesus and his teachings or of that of their own churchs dogmatisms and become thus "equal before their own Personal "God" thereby. Otherwise, not. Jews believe that only they can be "God's Chosen People", not any "Goys".
Okay, first let me say that there is a material difference between including somebody in a chosen group on the basis of whether that person exercise individual will and including someone in a chosen group on the basis of birth. Anyone can choose to believe in Jesus. No one can choose whether he is born a Jew. That's a significant difference between those stances.

But beyond that, not all Christians believe that a person needs to believe in Jesus to be chosen or saved. Many Christians put so much more emphasis on Jesus as a teacher that they let the idea of Jesus as a saviour just sort of disappear altogether. They believe that God loves everyone equally, regardless of who they are or what they do, and that each will be rewarded in accordance with that love.

Again, Christianity is not monolithic. As I said before, the only thing that seems to be common among all Christians is some sort of respect for Jesus or his teachings. That's it. And that doesn't seem innately Semitic to me.




Not a personal god, "The One and Only Personal God", is uniquely Semitic or Jewish. Our Pagan or heathen ancestors were Pantheists, and they worshipped not personal gods but mere personal representations of natural forces which were one with the Cosmos as a unified Whole as are we.
Okay, I see two problems here.

The first is that you have yet again added a distinction I don't quite follow: you're not talking about a "personal god" (which is in fact what you initially said you were talking about), but the "one and only personal god." I took your first reference to a personal god as a reference to belief in an anthropomorphic deity that involved itself in human affairs (two potential meanings of personal). As near as I can tell, you're now adding monotheism to that. Well, not all Christians are monotheists. Indeed, if you define the word god objectively, then most Christians are full-blown polytheists by the time you figure in the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost, the Virgin, saints, angels, the devil, and even one's own ancestors.

The second problem is that you're just wrong about our ancestors. They did not worship supernal forces of nature, but actual personal gods. From Rudolf Simek's Religion und Mythologie der Germanen (2003):

"Diese Götter waren nicht Symbol-Gestalten, Sinn-Gespenster ohne Fleisch, Blut und Wirklichkeit. Sie lebten, kämpften, zechten, und sie konnten dereinst in der Götterdämmerung sogar sterben. Für die Neugermanen-Gläubigen ist eine solche unmittelbare Göttergläubigkeit nicht möglich. Für sie bleiben eigentlich nur zwei Wege: Eine Art aufgelockerter Eingott-Glaube ('Allvater'), bei dem die Götter nur Erscheinungswesen des einen Ur- und Zentral-Gottes sind, oder ein Glaube an eine 'göttliche Kraft', die in allem Leben vorhanden, am stärksten aber im Menschen selbst vorfindlich ist." (p. 16)

No I don't share this author's pessimism about the potential for recreating the pre-Christian religion of our ancestors, but I must say he's spot on when he says that our ancestors didn't see our gods through any kind of postmodern filter. They didn't think of the gods as just various manifestations of one true god on the on hand, or as symbolic representations of some big mystical Force, but as real living beings. That's the way our ancestors saw the gods. Reinterpreting the old myths as references to some kind of pantheism just does violence to their religion, and in a very characteristically postmodern fashion.

But again, if you wish to present legitimate historical evidence, either from primary sources or secondary sources from actual historians, go for it. But until you present such evidence, I won't be able to accept your claims, since I have seen (and presented) evidence to the contrary.




You are mistaken, as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, are all "Semitic" or "Jewish" at and in their "core" beliefs and in their uniquely "Mosaic Distinction" or Malignant Narcissism.
Now this is circular reasoning. You say that Christianity is Semitic in its core precisely because it is Semitic in its core.

Admittedly, you do present two new terms here that never came up in your initial post: "Mosaic Distinction" and "Malignant Narcissism." I don't know what you mean by these. If you will provide specific definitions for these terms and then specific evidence to show that these phenomena are common to all Christians, then we might have grounds for discussing whether Christianity is Semitic in its core. But until you do, I won't be able to continue to respond to your flurry of fluffy statements without the slightest shred of real evidence to support them that you want me to accept on blind faith. I just have too much to do in my life to continue a conversation with someone who wants me to accept uselessly vague propositions on blind faith.





The idea that light is both a particle and a wave was most definitely and unquestionably first put forward by Einstein, who was undoubtedly a Jew.
No, not really, but, Einstein was undoubtedly a Jew.

The idea that "light is both a particle and a wave" was not "most definitely and unquestionably first put forward by Einstein". That assertion is only a false "opinion" of your own, and is not any fact. It is you that seems to just run away from these facts.
Okay, then. Who first put forth the idea that light is both a particle and a wave? You seem very slow to present evidence for your claims. It seems to me like common sense that, with something as easily determinable as who first put forth a given idea, if you're going to contest the idea that Person A was the one, you'll immediately follow up with some Person B who actually deserves the credit.

Give me some evidence! Who, if not Einstein, first put forward the idea that light is a particle and not a wave?

You say there are facts that contradict my opinion. What are they?





Christianity isn't based on blind faith.
Yes, it is.
You do see that this sort of playground argumentation will go absolutely nowhere, don't you?

If you're going to say I'm flat wrong, you need to say why you think I'm flat wrong for any kind of meaningful discussion to ensue.

I followed up my statement that Christianity is not based on blind faith with a rather lengthy explanation of why I think it is not based on blind faith even though some Christians accept it on blind faith. My initial statment was admittedly little more than "nuh-uh." But because I followed it up with an explanation, it provided a springboard for some kind of discussion.

You, on the other hand, have responded to my whole explanation with nothing more than repeated "yeah-uh"s. A nuh-uh/yeah-uh approach to discussion will go nowhere. If you don't start providing evidence for and explanations of your statements, then I won't be able to continue discussing this with you. You see, I got tired of nuh-uh/yeah-uh argumentation somewhere between the teeter-totter and the swing set.

The closest you came to actually having a discussion with me in your whole treatment of that explanation is here:


Others accept [Christianity] primarily based on experiential knowledge.
Which "others" can base it on any "experimental knowledge"?

There is no such thing within "Christianity" that is not tainted by Blind Faith before-the-facts.

Actually, all Christians accept "Christianity" on Blind Faith, mis-informed faith, and upon no valid experimental knowledge, whatsoever. That's the truth.
It seems you are struggling with your definitions a bit. You seem to be defining Christianity not by examing the phenomenon itself and seeking to understand it but by starting with a priori assumption that it is necessarily based on blind faith. That, in itself, is an example of blind faith. You'd be far better off if you looked at Christianity objectively rather than through your personal filter that requires you to see it as necessarily based on blind faith.

You ask who can base their Christianity on experiential knowledge. The answer is relatively obvious — those who have actually experienced the reality of Jesus Christ or the value of his teachings can base a belief in him or a belief in the value of his teachings (either of which seems to be sufficient to make one a Christian) on experiential knowledge.

Anyone who wishes to experience this and thus acquire experiential knowledge of this type is free to do so by reduplicating the experiments presented in the Scriptures.

I have known many people who have experiential knowledge of Jesus Christ and many more who have experiential knowledge of the value of his teachings. These people are not basing their Christianity on blind faith. But my knowing such people does little to prove the reality that Christianity claims to represent — that reality is best proven as each person experiences it for himself.

If you have an open mind that's not clouded by your own blind faith and a priori asujmptions, then you too can try the experiment and see for yourself that Christianity need not be based on blind faith.





I would agree that Christianity is non-Aryan and non-Germanic.
Indeed, it is, and as is any Blind Faith based idea.


So is agriculture.
Hardly. LOL!

You don't know our true history very well do you?
Most folks in Indo-European studies agree (and with very good reason) that agriculture in the west was developed about three to four thousand years prior to the time of the Aryans (or, as they are more commonly called today, the Proto-Indo-Europeans) among the Semitic peoples of the Middle East. The Aryans themselves seem to have acquired it from them.

There is a school of thought that the Aryan people spread agriculture, after having received it from the Semitic peoples of the Middle East, through the Balkan and Italian Peninsulas of Europe and a fair portion of the central inland region of the continent. This school, however, occupies a minority position among experts in Indo-European studies.

The Germanic people were most definitely not agricultural until they acquired it from the Romans. That is historically attested. They relied primarily on animal husbandry (a practice that's very characteristic of the Aryan people, though still not Aryan in the sense of being unique to Aryans) and hunting/gathering for their food. It was their adoption of agriculture that spurred their spread throughout most of Europe and their eventual destruction of the Roman Empire.

I refer you to Tacitus, J.B. Bury's The Invasion of Europe by the Barbarians, and Mallory and Adams's The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World for more information on these matters. The last of those three is mostly helpful for its extensive bibliography.

But regardless of all that, the concept of agriculture is non-Aryan and non-Germanic in the sense that it is ethnically neutral, a point which you yourself have conceded. I have contended that Christianity is also ethnically neutral on the grounds that it's a universalist belief system that seems to center on respecting Jesus and/or his teachings — nothing in that seems to indicate an ethnic bias of any kind. You have so far been unable to contest that contention on any grounds beyond your own say-so and that of Nietzsche (who can hardly be considered an authority on Christianity, since he made no anthropological, sociological, or historical inquiries into it that stand up to methodical scrutiny — he just wrote some essays on the topic). When you provide some argumentation that goes beyond such unsupported platitudes, we can talk on equal terms.





I have definitely encountered some Christian sects which do so, but very many others strongly encourage our God-given rationality and intelligence and scientific knowledge.
Indeed, but, I know of no Christians that strongly encourage rationality and intelligence and scientific knowledge, if it contradicts their dogmatisms at all.
You do know that your ignorance of something does not constitute evidence of its non-existence, right?





Here we are agreed. I too think that a person should discover and accept truth not on the basis of blind faith (which I think does little to foster our God-given rational ability, which ability I think we have a duty to develop), but on the basis of, at the least, informed or rational faith, or much better, experiential knowledge.
If that were truly the case, you would be a Cosmotheist and not a Christian. Cosmotheists do not rely on any Blind Faith, whatsoever.
You're saying that because Cosmotheists don't rely on blind faith, anyone who doesn't rely on blind faith is a Cosmotheist. That's bad logic. There are many non-Cosmotheists who do not rely on blind faith.

Indeed, many of them are Christians! ;)





The fact that Labrador retrievers were bred to fetch shot ducks doesn't change the fact that they're excellent seeing-eye dogs. They might have been developed for a specific purpose, and they are very useful for that purpose, but that doesn't mean that's the only use for them.
Another irrelevant and false analogy.


Even if Christianity was developed by slaves as something of a placebo (and I don't think it was), that doesn't mean that it must be used as a placebo for slaves, even if it can be so used.
Again, that is not relevant, whatsoever.

There's that word again, irrelevant. I think that word does not mean what you think it means. :D




A slave mentality is a part of Christianity's core, as Nietzche and many others have shown and proven. It is a philosophy of resentment of the weak over the strong. It smells or reeks of Semitism or of a Jewish Supremacist hatred for All of the Goyim. It is also communistic or marxist, which is not at all surprising, as this Jew perverted Hegels teachings as did Saul aka Paul of Tarsus perverted Jesus' own.
Nietzsche: "The noble type of man experiences itself as determining values; it does not need approval; it judges, 'what is harmful to me is harmful in itself'."

Saint Paul: "But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another." (Galatians 6:4)

Saint Paul: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (I Thessalonians 5:21)

Saint Paul: "But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man." (I Corinthians 2:15)

Sounds to me like both Nietzsche and Saint Paul like the same kind of man — the master and not the slave. The man who quitre strongly acts for himself and not at the behest of another. The man who is a determiner of morality and not a follower of another's determination.

Nietzsche, like so many others, disagreed with certain subsegments of CHristianity and wrongly thought that all Christianity was as identical those subsegments. Personally, when I read Nietzsche, I tend to find his thoughts to be right in line with my own Christian beliefs.




sounds very Malignantly Narcissistic and un-natural
to me. This ideal also reeks of Semitism or of Jewish
egomania, that is completely anti-White, anti-Aryan, anti-Germanic.
Here's another from Nietzsche: "Egoism is the very essence of a noble soul."

I guess you're kind of starting to contradict yourself. Indeed, the only thing that seems to unite your argument is the thought that Christianity is bad because you don't like it.

You don't have to like Christianity. That's your call. I'm not trying to turn you into a Christian or anything like it.

My only point is that Christianity is not inherently Semitic, nor does it inherently have any of the problems that people have claimed to have with it. It is too diverse a set of beliefs to be so simplistically reduced and discarded.

If you want to discard it because you just plumb don't like it, that's your affair. But don't try to twist it into something it's not so that you can seem to justify your dislike of it to the rest of us. Be honest with yourself and just decide you don't like it and move on. Isn't the masterful Aryan man capable of determining morality for himself anyway?

Leofric
Sunday, March 4th, 2007, 05:33 PM
I think this thread is starting to sway too far off-topic. Let me remind everyone of the original topic:

As I can see when I look around this forum and when reading polls, many of you germanic people at this forum define your selfs as christian. By tradition I too define myself as christian.

But recently I have started to feel that it´s a problem for me as a christian that it is a semitic religion, created by and for semitic people, not germanic people.

What is your view on this issue?

Is it a problem or not?

Eihter way - why or why not?

Nowhere in here does this discuss, for example, whether Heathenism is better than Cosmotheism and vice versa.

Nevertheless, since the various tangential discussions could be worthwhile, I'm going to move them all to a new thread all its own in the Religion forum. The new thread has little linking it together other than that it came from this thread. Here it is:
http://forums.skadi.net/split_assorted_thoughts_religion-t91047.html

I've tried to be pretty broad in leaving in this thread anything that relates to whether Christianity is suitable for Germanics, including discussion of whether it is Semitic and so forth.

Cythraul
Monday, March 5th, 2007, 10:01 PM
Religion and culture go hand in hand. If you stand exclusively by Germanic culture, you should therefore stand by the religion that shaped the Germanic people's way of life - Paganism.

Nature has always been an essential element in the influence of Germanic art, music, myth and lifestyle. Paganism is nature and is therefore the indigenous religion of Northern Europe. Christianity preaches anthropocentrism - the belief that human beings are the pinnacle and focus of existence, and therefore that animals and the natural world are dispensable, or exploitable. This is in stark conflict with the Germanic way of life.

I would suggest that the European race has fallen from grace, largely because of its forced conversion to Christianity.

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, March 6th, 2007, 01:15 AM
I'm not going comment too much on this issue for several reasons. Not least of which because I'm just not quite in the mood. Second, Im not Germanic, so I cant really comment on what the Germanics should or should not do. I certainly have engaged in this issue several times in regards to how Christianity relates to my ethnic background(Slavic) and so on.

Anyways....my two cents for now:


As I can see when I look around this forum and when reading polls, many of you germanic people at this forum define your selfs as christian. By tradition I too define myself as christian.

But recently I have started to feel that it´s a problem for me as a christian that it is a semitic religion, created by and for semitic people, not germanic people.

What is your view on this issue?

Is it a problem or not?

No it isnt a problem. Truth should be determined by the merits of its arguments, not its geographical origins, or the race of its proponent. The world is not flat just because a Jew said it's round.

Christianity is a universal faith, it's was never just for Semitic peoples. And very early on the Apostles decreed that the faith could and should be celebrated within the specific cultural context of those who practice it. It's what we call inculturation. Christianity does not deny the legitimate human longing to celebrate the divine within ones own native traditions.

This most certainly happened when Christianity was adopted by the Germanic peoples, although some like Russell greatly exaggerate the extent.

Interestingly, when the Germanics did convert, they actually identified themselves closely with the Israelites of the Old Testament - even claiming that many of their folk customs paralleled those of the Chosen people.

As a warrior people, Germanics had no trouble admiring the Biblical warrior-kings like Joshua, David, and Judah Maccabees. It was out of this context that the code of chivalry first emerged.

And so on and so on. There's plenty of history to this topic.

If you're very concerned about how Christianity matches up with the Germanic heritage, then my advice would simply be to go and explore the Germanic-Christian heritage. There's plenty to look for, the Germanics have contributed many remarkable Christian figures. If you want I'll be more than happy to help.

There's the Rhineland mystics of the Middle Ages. Most famous of them was Meister Eckhart. But there was also Hildegard of Bingen(the album "The Origin of Fire" (http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Fire-Visions-Hildegard-Bingen/dp/B0006OBW8E/ref=pd_sim_m_2/002-3870651-0216843) is a wonderful recording of various hymns and prayers written by her).

There's the mystical writings of Jacob Boehme, whom I myself have recently developed an interest in.


Oh another thing, I posted a thread concerning a wonderful recreation of a 17th Century German Christmas mass, which read about here:
http://forums.skadi.net/wonderful_traditional_german_christmas_m ass_cd-t86738.html

You can also listen to some sound samples. I highly recommend it!

And so on. Sorry Im short on words.


Many people died only because they didn´t want to believe in Christ (our forefathers...especially the Saxons were slaughtered for beeing "heathen" - by christian Germanics!).

No.....not really. The Saxons rebelled against Frankish rule, and that prompted the brutal response. The Franks and Saxons had a long standing rivalry with each other, long before Christianity even became an issue. This was the latest is a whole series of brutal affairs between the two tribes.

The fact the Saxons were pagans was a convenient excuse on the part of Charlemagne to justify his policies. Yet it should be noted that many of Europe's leading theologians never accepted this and condemned him severely for acting in such un-Christian ways. This did actually had the long-term effect of easing many of the harshest repressions against the Saxons.



So many people, predominantly women, were burned because the church sayed they were "witches" - which contacts to satan. :thumbdown

I can say in regards to Catholicism and the Inquisition, that was extremely rare. Most historians now admit that most accounts of witch-burnings(or burnings in general) were greatly exaggerated. For example, some studies showed that between 1560-1700, only 2% of all people processed by the Inquisition were ever executed.


No, the gods (there are more than one) can make mistakes,

A god who can make mistakes is not really worth devotion IMHO.



and our enviroment (nature, animals) has a high importance.

So it does in Christianity too. Nature was created by God, and entrusted to man's care. This is often misinterpreted as meaning man has complete dominion over nature, to do with it as he pleases. No, it means that man has the responsibility of taking care of nature, to be its steward. As what happened with Noah's ark for example.



Family, Pride, Justice, Harmony, Nature, Heritage.

Those are all Christian virtues as well....except pride(in the arrogant sense).


BTW...for those claiming Christianity is not Germanic, how do you explain the fact that many of the Germanic peoples had little problems with adopting Christ as one of their gods?

There's plenty of written sources from the time(I believe St. Boniface wrote about how pagans and Christians blessed each other and took part in each other ceremonies) and also archeological evidence as well.

Needle
Wednesday, March 7th, 2007, 07:36 PM
My Response to Leofric's "Apology"
for "Judeo-Christianity".




Needle:

First, I really wish you'd learn to use quote tags properly.
Here's something that might help with that: http://forums.skadi.net/misc.php?do=bbcode

Second, I really wish you'd stop filling your posts with hard returns
as though they were lines of poetry.

Both of these would make your statements much easier to read
and communication with you could be altogether much smoother.



Needle writes:

Ok.

First, I wish that you could focus more on “substance” rather
than upon “form”, and secondly, I really wish you’d learn to
spell and also leave my “hard returns” alone as they are only
my own creative style. If you are having “difficulty” reading
due to minor “style” or “form” issues, then I am certain that
“my” making my communications thereby smoother for you,
will not really help you or at all with this reading “difficulty”.



You wrote:

All right, then. Prove it. Start up a new thread and prove,
using the the same methods that any other historian would,
that Christianity was originally created with the purpose of
spiritually destroying the non-Jewish ethnicities of the world.







Needle writes:

I don’t need to, now or here, as others have already proven it.

Gibbons, an excellent historian, and in his own completed
series “The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire”, was quite
convincing in his arguments, as was Nick Carter in his own,
“The Late Great Book: The Bible”, and in Ben Klassen’s
own, “Nature’s Eternal Religion”, as well as, another by
Israel S. called, “Jewish History: The Weight of 5,000
Years” and also “The Critique of Culture” by MacDonald
and the overwhelming historical evidence provided by all
of these authors and by a late Professor of the Classics,
R.O., along with many others, is just “quite convincing”
enough for me.

My own knowledge and experience and personal religious
studies and for the last 30 years has also convinced me that
“Judeo-Christianity” was created or was invented by Jews
for that specific purpose to and to enslave the Goyim all
mentally, spiritually, and eventually, even physically.



You wrote:

And using legitimate historical methods means of course that
you can't rely on essays by Nietzsche to prove it — he lived
about eighteen centuries too late for his personal philosophical
expounding to be worthwhile as a primary source about the
development of Christianity.











Needle writes:

I don’t need to re-invent the wheel here as those others have already
paved the way and have used legitimate historical methods to do so.

Any essays by Nietzsche or by any others that do shed light on this
subject, and whether ancient or modern, and your “false restriction”
of my just only using “primary sources”, alone, just would not suffice.

All of the evidence that is available is what actually and alone
and legitimately “suffices”.



You wrote:

Once you've got that thread in place, then you can either post a link
to it here in this thread or send me such a link in a PM or something.


Needle writes:

If you are seriously interested in my providing you with all of
the “sources” for that world-view, you can PM me and ask me
for them, as I would be happy to do so and for anyone at Skadi.



You wrote:

Until you show some evidence, I'm not going to be able to believe on
your say-so alone that Christianity was developed with the express
purpose of spiritually destroying anybody.


Needle writes:

Indeed, and nor should you, and on just my say-so alone. :D

If you are seriously interested in my providing you with all of
the “sources” for that world-view, you can PM me and ask me
for them, as I would be happy to do so and for anyone at Skadi.








You wrote:

Just viewing it objectively, such a proposition seems too
far-fetched to seem reasonable. But if you can show some
hard evidence that you're telling it like it is, then I'll believe
you.

Needle writes:

No more “far-fetched” and in fact far less “far-fetched” than
many of the propositions and assertions found in Christianity. :D

If you are seriously interested in my providing you with all of
the “sources” and factual “hard evidence” for that world-view,
you can PM me and ask me for them, as I would be happy to
do so and also for anyone at Skadi that is interested in Whole
Truths.



You wrote:

Okay, so now you're coming up with this distinction between a "division"
and an "absolute division." I have no idea what difference you're trying to
point out here. I think you ought to make it explicit so that we can all
evaluate what you're saying on its own terms.



Needle writes:

Ok, it is clear that you don’t really understand the differences
between a “division” and a “absolute division” when it comes
to the “divisions” between “Mankind and God” or between
“Mankind and the Gods” or between “Mankind and the real
but impersonal Cosmotheist God of the Cosmos as a unified
Whole.

A regular “division” is just to distinguish between the two.
An “absolute division” is to place “an artificial wedge” all
between these two and which also does not really exist in
Reality.

“God”, the Cosmos, Nature and Mankind are really ALL
ONE and the same BEING that is the WHOLE COSMOS.



You wrote:

You seem to have conceded that seeing a "division"
between man and nature is not uniquely Semitic,…





Needle writes:

Only not when that “division” is just to distinguish
between these two. An “absolute division” is what
is uniquely “Semitic or Jewish” and has been called
“The Mosaic Distinction” and by the rather famous
Egyptologist, Jan Assman, and quite accurately. Do
a Google or Yahoo search on these terms for yourself.



You wrote:

…but you suggest that seeing an "absolute division" between the same is.
What exactly makes the Semitic "absolute division" different from the
more universal "division"?


Needle writes:

Exactly, this “absolute division” is uniquely “Jewish or Semitic”.

A regular “division” is just to distinguish between the
two.

An “absolute division” is to place an “artificial
wedge” all between these two and which does
not really exist in Reality or in the Cosmos as
a unified Whole.

“God”, the Cosmos, Nature and Mankind are really ALL
ONE and the same BEING that is the WHOLE COSMOS.







You wrote:

What real evidence suggests that? Show it.


Needle writes:

How much real evidence do you need?

The “Judeo-Christian” or “Mosaic Distinction”
Or this “Absolute Division” is just nonsense.

Why nonsense?

Because, there is no “One and ONLY Personal God
of all the Jews and Christians and Muslims” that’s
“distinct” or that is “apart” or that is “absolutely
divided” and is apart from the real but the only
impersonal Cosmos, and/or, the real “Creator”
or real God, which is itself.

“God”, the Cosmos, Nature and Mankind are really ALL
ONE and the same BEING that is the WHOLE COSMOS.




You wrote:

I'll admit, I might not be the best judge in the world of what
evidence is good and what evidence is bad, but at least I'm a
good judge of what evidence is present and what
evidence is absent!


Needle writes:

Indeed, and as we all shall soon see. :D
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. :D
However, rational faith vs blind faith always requires
evidence to be “credible” vs being mere speculation.







You wrote:

You say there's evidence to suggest that our people believed in a Cosmos
as a unified whole. Where is it? Bring it on out so we can see if what you're
saying is good.




Needle writes:

Indeed. There is plenty of evidence that they did do so and long
before their minds and souls and spirits were only perverted with
“Judeo-Christianity” and the “Mosaic Distinction” and their vile
“spiritual poisons” and false religions of “Malignant Narcissism.

It is found in the Vedas and Upanishads of the ancient Aryans.
It is also found in the Eddas and Sagas of our Viking ancestors.
It is found in the polytheistic religions of the both the Celts and
Goths and in the pantheist religions of the ancient Greeks and
Stoics and also the ancient and pre-Christian Romans. Gibbons,
and many other and objective religious historians and authors
both can and do confirm this fact.



You wrote:

You didn't like the evidence I presented for my statment,
but at least I had some. Where's yours?


Needle writes:

It wasn’t any “actual evidence” but it was only a false statement
based upon only an ignorant “opinion”. My own “evidence” is
quite overwhelming and it can be found in many of the ancient
sacred writings of our own Germanic Folk, Race, and Peoples.










You wrote:

Well that's pretty rude (not to mention malignantly narcissistic).

Needle wrote:

How are historical facts “pretty rude”?
(not to mention malignantly narcissistic?).



You wrote:

If I found something you said irrelevant, at least I would have
the decency of saying why I think it's irrelevant.



Needle writes:

It should be clear “why” it was irrelevant,
but, to be “decent” and “according to you”,
tell you exactly why it was thus irrelevant:
it was irrelevant because it was a false and
incorrect analogy or it was a false argument.

For you to consider that fact “pretty rude”
or “indecent” is “malignantly narcissistic”.



You wrote:

You just seem to want to pronounce sweeping platitudes like,
"That's not relevant," expecting them to be accepted on blind
faith.











Needle writes:

On the contrary, “That’s not relevant”, was a fact,
and was not any “sweeping platitude”, whatsoever.

Anyone can recognize that it was only “irrelevant”,
and only because it was a false and incorrect analogy
and/or that it was thus just a “false argument” on the
“face of it”, or by “Rational Faith not by Blind Faith.

For you to consider that fact “pretty rude”
or “indecent” is “malignantly narcissistic”.



You wrote:

Not all Christians place man above nature. I know of Christian groups
that teach that all nature will be saved through Christ and man along
with it like all the rest. They teach that man is just as sacred to God
as all the rest of nature.




Needle writes:

I never said that all Christians place man above nature,
but, only that most of their own “theology” does do so.

Because of the “universal nature” of Christianity and
also just how “watered-down” some of these groups
have become, that some few have embraced at least
some “eco-consciousness” is hardly at all surprising.



You wrote:

Here are some other sites to enjoy that I just whipped up in a quick
Google search:
http://www.creationcare.org/resources/declaration.php
http://www.christian-ecology.org.uk/





Needle writes:

Indeed. :D

Thanks for the links.

I never said that all Christians place man above nature,
but, only that most of their own “theology” does do so.




You wrote:

Some of their statements are a bit anthropocentric,
but some are very much not. These aren't as far
removed from the anthropocentric pole of that particular
spectrum as the groups I described earlier
(for whom I know of no websites
— I've talked with a whole lot of different Christians
— about Christianity over the years), who are
— diametrically opposed to anthropocentrism,
but they give you some idea.






Needle writes:

I never said that all Christians place man above nature,
but, only that most of their own “theology” does do so.



You wrote:

My point here is, yet agin, Christianity just isn't monolithic.
There's too much variety among Christians to make claims
like these against it.







Needle writes:

I never said that all Christians place man above nature,
but, only that most of their own “theology” does do so.

Christianity may not be “monolithic”,
as you say, but, those are valid claims
against “Christianity” and these are still
valid criticisms and are true for the vast
majority of all those calling themselves
“Christians”, even if not for all of them.



You wrote:

Okay, first let me say that there is a material difference between including
somebody in a chosen group on the basis of whether that person exercise
individual will and including someone in a chosen group on the basis of
birth. Anyone can choose to believe in Jesus. No one can choose whether
he is born a Jew. That's a significant difference between those stances.

Needle writes:

Indeed, it certainly is a significant difference,
and far more so than you do seem to know. :D

The “material difference” is that Jews identify themselves to be a Race,
a Religion, a Ethnicity, and a Nation and the deliberately “foolish” and
the deliberately “race-less” and the deliberately and “universalist” beliefs
of “Judeo-Christianity” don’t, and only to their own and Jewish-intended
detriment.

The same is true for Marxism and many other “universalist”
doctrines deliberately promoted by Jews for the same purpose:
to deliberately destroy first spiritually and mentally and then
eventually also physically via the use of racial miscegenation
or genocide and therefore to Globally-Enslave ALL of these
hated “Goyim”, thereby.

Whites or Aryans or Germanics have ALL been targeted first,
as they alone, could actually ever prevent this world-dominion,
if they ever got a clue as to what has really been all going on
for these last 2000 plus years.

All beliefs do have real consequences and living in delusions is
fatal to any Race or People or Folk especially over the long haul.



You wrote:

But beyond that, not all Christians believe that a person needs to believe
in Jesus to be chosen or saved. Many Christians put so much more emphasis
on Jesus as a teacher that they let the idea of Jesus as a saviour just sort of
disappear altogether. They believe that God loves everyone equally,
regardless of who they are or what they do, and that each will be rewarded
in accordance with that love.

Again, Christianity is not monolithic. As I said before, the only thing that
seems to be common among all Christians is some sort of respect for Jesus
or his teachings. That's it. And that doesn't seem innately Semitic to me.





Needle writes:

That form of “Christianity” is just a “watered-down” version of it and
it’s for “liberal public consumption” and it is still quite a “inherently”
Semitic or Jewish doctrine or philosophy of anti-White “Universalism”,
that’s “unsuitable” for any racially-aware Aryans, Whites, or Germanics.




You wrote:

Okay, I see two problems here.


Needle writes:

I see many more with “Judeo-Christianity”,
but, please do go on…..



You wrote:

The first is that you have yet again added a distinction I don't quite follow:
you're not talking about a "personal god" (which is in fact what you initially
said you were talking about), but the "one and only personal god."


Needle writes:

I do understand that you don’t quite follow the distinction,
but, any “personal god” is one that is considered to be a
“person” or is one can be many that have anthropomorphic
“personal characteristics”. The Jewish, Christian, or Islamic
“God” is “The ONE and is the ONLY Personal God of the
Whole Cosmos”. The latter idea is the “Mosaic Distinction”.
The former was quite common amongst all ancient peoples.



You wrote:

I took your first reference to a personal god as a reference to belief
in an anthropomorphic deity that involved itself in human affairs
(two potential meanings of personal).


Needle writes:

That is the “Mosaic Distinction” when along with the idea that
Only their “God” is “The ONE and is the ONLY Personal God
of the Whole Cosmos” and answers only to them in their prayers.



You wrote:

As near as I can tell, you're now adding monotheism to that.


Needle writes:

Of course, as “Judeo-Christianity” is a unique form of personal
monotheism.




You wrote:

Well, not all Christians are monotheists. Indeed, if you define the
word god objectively, then most Christians are full-blown
polytheists by the time you figure in the Father, the Son, the Holy
Ghost, the Virgin, saints, angels, the devil, and even one's own
ancestors.


Needle writes:

Not quite. All Traditionalist religions such as Judaism,
Christianity, and even Islam are personal monotheisms.

You just don’t really understand these terms of “polytheism”
and “personal monotheism”. For example, my Cosmotheism
is a impersonal monotheism. God is the Cosmos as a United
Whole.



You wrote:

The second problem is that you're just wrong about our ancestors.
They did not worship supernal forces of nature, but actual personal
gods.




Needle writes:

Not quite. :D

Our most ancient and primitive of ancestors might have had
actual personal gods, but, these soon became identified with
natural forces of Nature and not as being real personal gods.



You wrote:

From Rudolf Simek's Religion und Mythologie der Germanen (2003):

"Diese Götter waren nicht Symbol-Gestalten, Sinn-Gespenster ohne Fleisch,
Blut und Wirklichkeit. Sie lebten, kämpften, zechten, und sie konnten dereinst
in der Götterdämmerung sogar sterben. Für die Neugermanen-Gläubigen ist
eine solche unmittelbare Göttergläubigkeit nicht möglich. Für sie bleiben
eigentlich nur zwei Wege: Eine Art aufgelockerter Eingott-Glaube ('Allvater'),
bei dem die Götter nur Erscheinungswesen des einen Ur- und Zentral-Gottes
sind, oder ein Glaube an eine 'göttliche Kraft', die in allem Leben vorhanden,
am stärksten aber im Menschen selbst vorfindlich ist." (p. 16)





Needle writes:

Translated into English the above quote of:

Rudolf Simek's
I]Religion und Mythologie der Germanen[/I] (2003):

is:

“These gods were not symbolic figures, sensory ghosts without meat,
blood and reality. They lived, fought, caroused, and they could even
die one day in the god's dusk. For the New Teuton-believer such an
immediate god's devoutness is not possible. For them only two ways
remain, actually: A kind of broken up Eingott faith ('Allvater) with
which the gods are only appearance beings of one old God and central
God, or a faith in a ' divine strength ',”.

The main point is not really about our ancestors having any
Personal Gods.

The main point is that our ancestors Personal God's
were only ones that can die and are thus parts of Nature
and are not “absolutely divided” from the rest of Nature,
and thus from Man, and thus from the rest of the Cosmos,
and as a unified Whole.



You wrote:

No I don't share this author's pessimism about the potential for recreating the
pre-Christian religion of our ancestors, but I must say he's spot on when he
says that our ancestors didn't see our gods through any kind of postmodern
filter. They didn't think of the gods as just various manifestations of one true
god on the on hand, or as symbolic representations of some big mystical Force,
but as real living beings. That's the way our ancestors saw the gods.


Needle writes:

Indeed, but, that is not my intention. That is the way our more primitive
ancestors thought of their Gods but between that time and the Classical
Time of the Ancient Aryans, Greeks and Romans, the primitive Personal
Gods were re-thought of as being either various manifestations of a God,
like the ancient Aryans, or were just symbolic representations of many of
these Natural Forces within the Cosmos and/or as being just aspects of the
biggest mystical force there actually is which is the World or Cosmic Soul.


You wrote:

Reinterpreting the old myths as references to some kind of pantheism
just does violence to their religion, and in a very characteristically
postmodern fashion.


Needle writes:

On the contrary, these oldest of the pagan myths about Personal Gods,
were actually quite pantheistic pantheons and it does no real violence
to their religion to have them accurately described, thus, whatsoever.

They were all “naturalistic” religions and were all based upon their
own inherent awareness and own recognition of the “Divinity” that’s
all both within all of Nature and that is also all within their own selves.



You wrote:

But again, if you wish to present legitimate historical evidence,
either from primary sources or secondary sources from actual
historians, go for it.


Needle writes:

I don’t need to, now or here, as others have already proven it.

If you are seriously interested in historical evidence,
and from both primary and secondary sources from
actual historians, I can provide you with links and
a bibliography. I do suspect what you consider to
be “legitimate” historical evidence is only that of
which supports your own “Judeo-Christianity” &
doesn’t negate it. :D



You wrote:

But until you present such evidence,
I won't be able to accept your claims,…




Needle writes:

That’s understandable. :D

However, I don’t really expect that you would ever be able
or willing to ever do so under any circumstances and only
because your mind is already made up.



You wrote:

…since I have seen (and presented)
evidence to the contrary.


Needle writes:

Not really.

Presenting ignorant opinions is not evidence.



You wrote:

Now this is circular reasoning.


Needle writes:

That is what I would expect from a Judeo-Christian. :D



You wrote:

You say that Christianity is Semitic
in its core precisely because it is
Semitic in its core.








Needle writes:

Where “exactly” did I ever “say” that?

Be specific and quote me or just drop it. :D



You wrote:

Admittedly, you do present two new terms here that never came up
in your initial post: "Mosaic Distinction" and "Malignant Narcissism."
I don't know what you mean by these. If you will provide specific
definitions for these terms and then specific evidence to show that
these phenomena are common to all Christians, then we might have
grounds for discussing whether Christianity is Semitic in its core.



Needle writes:

Just because you do not understand these terms nor understand what
I mean by them doesn’t make them untrue nor not evidence for the
fact that “Judeo-Christianity” is Semitic or Jewish at its core. You
must do your own homework and research those terms on your own.
Once you do so, then, perhaps, you can have some grounds for trying
to deny these historical facts.



You wrote:

But until you do, I won't be able to continue to respond to your
flurry of fluffy statements without the slightest shred of real
evidence to support them that you want me to accept on blind
faith.














Needle writes:

LOL! :D

Not quite.

On the contrary, the only one to respond with a:
“flurry of fluffy statements without the slightest
shred of real evidence to support them that you
want me to accept on blind faith.”, is your own
self.

Until you have done your homework on those terms,
don’t bother me with your false arguments and false
reasoning and ignorant opinions not supported by:
any actual historical and objective facts and whole
truths of Reality.



You wrote:

I just have too much to do in my life to continue a
conversation with someone who wants me to accept
uselessly vague propositions on blind faith.






Needle writes:

Indeed. Likewise. :D

Classical Psychological Projection. :D

Hopefully, some here will learn from your
own display of that here.








You wrote:

Okay, then. Who first put forth the idea that light is both a
particle and a wave?

Needle writes:

Up until the beginning of the 19th century, light was considered
to be a stream of particles (corpuscles), and the chief architect
of that theory was Isaac Newton. In 1678, long before Einstein,
the Dutch physicist and astronomer, Christian Huygens, 1629-
1695, first proposed that light might also be some sort of wave
motion. However, the first clear demonstration of the dual wave
nature of light was first provided in 1801 and by an experiment
of Thomas Young, 1773-1859. The most important development
concerning the theory of light was the work of Maxwell, who in
1873, showed that light was a form of high-frequency electro-
magnetic waves with a velocity near the actual known speed of
light and Max Planck, 1858-1947, whose constant and concept
of quantization, or the idea that light comes in discrete bundles
of energy called photons; hence, the energy was said to be thus
quantized. It is most important to note that this theory retained
both the wave theory and the particle theory of light and thus,
the dual nature of light being both a particle and a wave and
depending on the system under observation and the circum-
stances under which it is observed.

Thus, Einstein was NOT the one that had first put
forward the idea that light was both a wave and a
particle or bundle of energy(corpuscles)!



You wrote:

You seem very slow to present evidence for your claims.


Needle writes:

Perhaps, but, I least I do provide real evidence for them. :D







You wrote:

It seems to me like common sense that, with something
as easily determinable as who first put forth a given idea,
if you're going to contest the idea that Person A was the one,
you'll immediately follow up with some Person B who actually
deserves the credit.


Needle writes:


Indeed, but, just so much nonsense has been written about
how great Einstein was without acknowledging the actual
scientists who actually deserve the credit takes some time
to research. You were the one making that false claim and
didn’t provide any actual evidence for that assertion at all.



You wrote:

Give me some evidence!
Who, if not Einstein, first put forward the
idea that light is a particle and not a wave?


Needle writes:

Indeed.
Newton first did so, and almost too well.
Next time do a little research.



You wrote:

You say there are facts that contradict my opinion. What are they?


Needle writes:

Indeed, there are many. :D
Do some research both on Newton
and on the real history of science.
Therein, you will find them.



You write:

You do see that this sort of playground argumentation
will go absolutely nowhere, don't you?



Needle writes:

With you, yes most likely, but,
others will see that you are the
one actually being the child. :D




You wrote:

If you're going to say I'm flat wrong, you need to say why you
think I'm flat wrong for any kind of meaningful discussion to ensue.


Needle writes:

No, I don’t really need to say “why” you are flat wrong at all.
That is really for you to discover on your own and with your
own research. Perhaps, you should know what you are saying
before you go and “say it”?



You wrote:

I followed up my statement that Christianity is not based on blind faith
with a rather lengthy explanation of why I think it is not based on blind
faith even though some Christians accept it on blind faith.


Needle writes:

Indeed, you did, but, just not very convincingly at all.
That is because you don’t really know what is meant
by blind faith in regard to Christianity or to any belief.






You wrote:

My initial statment was admittedly little more than "nuh-uh."


Needle writes:

Indeed, actually, it really was nothing more than that. :D



You wrote:

But because I followed it up with an explanation,
it provided a springboard for some kind of discussion.

Needle writes:

Not a very convincing one and “this kind of discussion”
only revealed your own lack of reasoning towards truth.



You wrote:

You, on the other hand, have responded to my whole explanation
with nothing more than repeated "yeah-uh"s.


Needle writes:

Repeated “yeah-uh’s”?

Quote actually even one of mine and only then
might you deserve some respect, otherwise not.



You wrote:

A nuh-uh/yeah-uh approach to discussion will go nowhere.







Needle writes:

Then just stop that approach,
yourself, if you do want it to
actually “go anywhere” or to
go towards the Whole Truths.



You wrote:

If you don't start providing evidence for and explanations
of your statements, then I won't be able to continue discussing
this with you.


Needle writes:

You first. LOL! :D

I do have all of the evidence and explanations anyone
reasonable could ever hope to desire or need or expect.




You wrote:

You see, I got tired of nuh-uh/yeah-uh argumentation
somewhere between the teeter-totter and the swing set.


Needle writes:

I see no evidence that you actually have tired of it
and/or have grown up in your ability to argue well
really at all.



You wrote:

The closest you came to actually having a discussion
with me in your whole treatment of that explanation
is here:





Needle writes:

Not really. :D



You wrote:

It seems you are struggling with your definitions a bit.


Needle writes:

Actually, not really or at all. :D



You wrote:

You seem to be defining Christianity not by examing
the phenomenon itself and seeking to understand it but
by starting with a priori assumption that it is necessarily
based on blind faith.








Needle writes:

On the contrary, I have examined the phenomenon itself
and I do understand it ALL to be based upon Blind Faith.

I had no “a priori” assumptions or no before-the-fact nor
any assumptions or presumptions that Christianity was
“necessarily based upon “blind faith” at all.





You wrote:

That, in itself, is an example of blind faith.


Needle writes:

Yes, indeed it is, but again, only on your own part. :D



You wrote:

You'd be far better off if you looked at Christianity objectively
rather than through your personal filter that requires you to see
it as necessarily based on blind faith.


Needle writes:

I have looked at it both “objectively” and “subjectively”
and have found or discovered that Christianity is indeed
all based only upon irrational and ignorant “Blind Faith”.



You wrote:

You ask who can base their Christianity on experiential knowledge.


Needle writes:

Exactly, both valid experiential knowledge,
and also, “scientifically valid” experimental
knowledge.





You wrote:

The answer is relatively obvious — those who have actually
experienced the reality of Jesus Christ or the value of his teachings
can base a belief in him or a belief in the value of his teachings
(either of which seems to be sufficient to make one a Christian)
on experiential knowledge.





Needle writes:

That’s not really “relatively obvious” at all. There is no “reality”
of Jesus Christ nor any belief in the value of his teachings that
is NOT all based upon a Blind Faith and invalid and delusional
“experiences” that are any more “valid” than are those induced
either by a placebo or than that caused by psycho-active drugs.



You wrote:

Anyone who wishes to experience this and thus acquire experiential
knowledge of this type is free to do so by reduplicating the experiments
presented in the Scriptures.



Needle writes:

Anyone that wishes to experience this kind of delusional and invalid
“experiential knowledge” is free to do so either by “reduplicating the
experiments presented in the Scriptures” or by just taking any psycho-
active drugs or by using a double-blind test using mere placebos and
thereby and to show the real and psychological power of “suggestion”.



You wrote:

I have known many people who have experiential knowledge of
Jesus Christ and many more who have experiential knowledge
of the value of his teachings. These people are not basing their
Christianity on blind faith.

Needle writes:

So have I, but, these people actually are basing their Christianity
on Blind Faith and do whether you can recognize this fact or not.



You wrote:

But my knowing such people does little to prove the reality
that Christianity claims to represent
— that reality is best proven as each person experiences it for
himself.


Needle writes:

Indeed, it does very little to prove the reality that Christianity
claims to represent. And that reality is not best proven at all,
as each person experiences it for himself, anymore than does
the delusional “high” of any drug addict actually “best prove”
any actual “reality”. Delusions are powerful but they are all
still “just delusions” and they are not “proof” of any “reality”,
whatsoever.





You wrote:

If you have an open mind that's not clouded by your own blind faith
and a priori asujmptions, then you too can try the experiment
and see for yourself that Christianity need not be based on blind faith.


Needle writes:

Spoken like a true “drug-pusher” for “delusion-inducing” crack or pot.

Thanks but no thanks! LOL! :D

Why don’t you jump off the Empire State Building in NYC and try the
“experiment yourself” to see if the “force of gravity” need not be based
on any “blind faith” at all? Can you see the real difference between any
“Blind Faith” in Christianity and a “Rational Faith” in the real force of
gravity? If not, then perhaps, you would make a better “splat”, than be
any true scientist.




You wrote:

Most folks in Indo-European studies agree (and with very good reason)
that agriculture in the west was developed about three to four thousand
years prior to the time of the Aryans (or, as they are more commonly
called today, the Proto-Indo-Europeans) among the Semitic peoples
of the Middle East. The Aryans themselves seem to have acquired it
from them.


Needle writes:

Not true. Our ancestors used “agriculture” from the prehistoric time of
the megalithic era, and Stonehenge, and long before Whites or Aryans
had had any contact with the Semitic peoples of the Middle East. You
just don’t know the real history of our Race, People, or Folk, do you?



You wrote:

There is a school of thought that the Aryan people spread agriculture,
after having received it from the Semitic peoples of the Middle East,
through the Balkan and Italian Peninsulas of Europe and a fair portion
of the central inland region of the continent. This school, however,
occupies a minority position among experts in Indo-European studies.





Needle writes:

Indeed, for it is just simply not true. :D

Our ancestors used “agriculture” even from the prehistoric times and of
the megalithic era, and Stonehenge, and long before us Whites or Aryans
had had “any contact” with the Semitic peoples of the Middle East at all.

You just don’t know the real history of our Race,
People, or Folk, now do you?




You wrote:

The Germanic people were most definitely not agricultural until they
acquired it from the Romans. That is historically attested. They relied
primarily on animal husbandry (a practice that's very characteristic of
the Aryan people, though still not Aryan in the sense of being unique
to Aryans) and hunting/gathering for their food. It was their adoption
of agriculture that spurred their spread throughout most of Europe
and their eventual destruction of the Roman Empire.




Needle writes:

The Romans were originally a Germanic people that had invaded
the southern Italian lands many centuries long beforehand and had
thus learned agriculture and then re-transmitted that knowledge back
up to the Northern “Germanics” much later on and during their own
expansion of their Empire to their borders. Thus, the Whites or the
Aryan Germanics had actually taught other Whites or other Aryans
or Germanics their own “agriculture”, and did NOT acquire it from
the Semites at all.



You wrote:

I refer you to Tacitus, J.B. Bury's The Invasion of Europe by the Barbarians,
and Mallory and Adams's The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European
and the Proto-Indo-European World for more information on these matters.
The last of those three is mostly helpful for its extensive bibliography.


Needle writes:

Yes, I am already aware of those references. You should look up the
“History of the White Race” on-line and you will discover much that
those other “official” sources perhaps deliberately “leave out” which
are the Whole Truths of our History.



You wrote:

But regardless of all that, the concept of agriculture is non-Aryan and
non-Germanic in the sense that it is ethnically neutral, a point which
you yourself have conceded.




Needle writes:

No, the concept of “agriculture” is not non-Aryan or non-Germanic,
as I have shown that the Romans were also “Germanic” originally,
and that our Race was using “agriculture” long before the Romans,
and didn’t learn it from any Semites. Using any kind of “agriculture”
may be so-called “ethnically neutral”, but, not ever any of the actual
inventors and developers of these advanced methods and techniques.
That is the actual point.


You wrote:

I have contended that Christianity is also ethnically neutral
on the grounds that it's a universalist belief system that seems
to center on respecting Jesus and/or his teachings —


Needle writes:

Indeed, it is certainly a “universalist” blind faith based belief,
made especially to enslave and to weaken all of the non-Jew
“Goyim”.



You wrote:

…nothing in that seems to indicate an ethnic bias of any kind.


Needle writes:

Of course not, as that “universalism” is only a very small
“part of the Whole story” but is most necessary to a group
that has the “most ethnic bias” and of any ethnic group or
race on the planet: the Jews who had invented Christianity.



You wrote:

You have so far been unable to contest that contention on any grounds
beyond your own say-so and that of Nietzsche (who can hardly be
considered an authority on Christianity, since he made no anthropological,
sociological, or historical inquiries into it that stand up to methodical scrutiny
he just wrote some essays on the topic).





Needle writes:

What “contention” do you think that I am “unable to contest”
and on any grounds beyond my own say-so and Nietzsche?
Be specific.



You wrote:

— When you provide some argumentation that goes beyond
such unsupported platitudes, we can talk on equal terms.


Needle writes:

You really should take your own advice,
as only your own arguments are actually
“unsupported platitudes” and not based
on any of the actual historical facts.



You wrote:

You do know that your ignorance of something does not constitute
evidence of its non-existence, right?


Needle writes:

Right. I do know, but, you obviously, do not.



You wrote:

You're saying that because Cosmotheists don't rely on blind faith,
anyone who doesn't rely on blind faith is a Cosmotheist.
That's bad logic.


Needle writes:

You are right, that is bad logic, but, only you had said it. :D

Cosmotheists do not rely on “blind faith” and anyone who
actually doesn’t rely on blind faith could be a Cosmotheist.










You wrote:

There are many non-Cosmotheists who do not
rely on blind faith.


Needle writes:

Indeed, as they are called true scientists, true religious mystics,
and are true philosophers and these all are true seekers and of
only the Whole Truths of Reality. They could be Cosmotheists.



You wrote:

Indeed, many of them are Christians! ;)


Needle writes:

Actually, not many, but, “some” few were “Christians”,
of the some of the Gnostic groups or of the Jesuit sects,
like Tielhard de Chardin, Simpson, and even others like
Fichte. At the heart of the Traditionalist Religions there
are the “Mystics” which do come closest to the real and
Whole Cosmotheist Truths of Reality.



You wrote:

There's that word again, irrelevant. I think that word does
not mean what you think it means. :D


Needle writes:

Look up the word in the dictionary,
what it means there is what I mean.








You wrote:

Nietzsche: "The noble type of man experiences itself
as determining values; it does not need approval; it judges,
'what is harmful to me is harmful in itself'."

Saint Paul: "But let every man prove his own work,
and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone,
and not in another." (Galatians 6:4)

Saint Paul: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
(I Thessalonians 5:21)

Saint Paul: "But he that is spiritual judgeth all things,
yet he himself is judged of no man." (I Corinthians 2:15)

Sounds to me like both Nietzsche and Saint Paul like the same kind of man.


Needle writes:

From my reading of Nietzsche, I don’t think he would like Saint Paul,
aka Jew Saul, and most especially from his own “Geneology of Morals”.



You wrote:

— the master and not the slave. The man who quitre strongly
— acts for himself
— and not at the behest of another. The man who is a determiner
— of morality
and not a follower of another's determination.


Needle writes:

It is clear that Nietzsche would not appreciate any Christian “follower
of another’s determination or morality or behest” of Jesus or St. Paul.
You don’t really understand what Nietzsche is talking about do you?








You wrote:

Nietzsche, like so many others, disagreed with certain subsegments
of CHristianity and wrongly thought that all Christianity was as identical
those subsegments. Personally, when I read Nietzsche, I tend to find his
thoughts to be right in line with my own Christian beliefs.


Needle writes:

You only believe what you want to believe,
regardless of the actual evidence. Nietzche
was correct about Christianity, as a Whole,
regardless of and also whether or not all of
these sub-segments were quite faulty or not.

From what I have read of your “Christianity”
it only seems to be a muddle of fuzzy ideals
without any substance nor meat and it seems
to be all air. Oh that is just one sub-segment,
but, that is not all of “Christianity”. So what?



You wrote:

Here's another from Nietzsche:

"Egoism is the very essence of a noble soul."

















Needle writes:

Indeed, “Egoism” is, quite distinct from “Egotism”.

“Egoism” is the recognition of the Self with
and of and from the World. Thou Art of That!
That is a noble or a Aryan or a White or is a
Germanic essence or soul or spirit.

“Egotism” is the false belief that Self is the World.
It is divided and apart from and not of and from the
World. That is the Jewish or is the Semitic or is the
Malignantly Narcissistic “Mosaic Distinction” that
I had mentioned before to you. It is the opposite of
A noble or a Aryan or a White or Germanic essence
or soul or spirit. It is a Jewish or Semitic soul or it
is a Jewish or Semitic spirit or essence, alien to us.



You wrote:

I guess you're kind of starting to contradict yourself.

Needle writes:

Not at all. :D

However, “contradiction” is typical of the Judeo-Christian
and of “Christianity”.




You wrote:

Indeed, the only thing that seems to unite your argument
is the thought that Christianity is bad because you don't
like it.


Needle writes:

On the contrary, not all of “Christianity” is bad,
and I actually do like some of it that was pagan-
ized or that had retained some of true “wisdom”
of the ancients. However, today, it has become
a “spiritual poison” that will destroy our Race.






You wrote:

You don't have to like Christianity. That's your call. I'm not trying to turn
you into a Christian or anything like it.


Needle writes:

Indeed. Yes it is. I was one once, but, no longer. :D

“Culturally”, I may still be, but, religiously, I am
a True White or Aryan or Germanic Cosmotheist.



You wrote:

My only point is that Christianity is not inherently Semitic,
nor does it inherently have any of the problems that people
have claimed to have with it. It is too diverse a set of beliefs
to be so simplistically reduced and discarded.


Needle writes:

I disagree, it is inherently Semitic or Jewish,
and inherently has many more problems with
it than are recognized and understood by most
people. It may be “diverse” and “universalistic”,
but, again, that is part of why it was and it is so
“spiritually poisonous” and racially destructive.

If it can not be changed towards Cosmotheism,
or towards another rational faith then it must be
discarded along with all of the other blind faith
based beliefs and delusions, if we are to survive.









You wrote:

If you want to discard it because you
just plumb don't like it,
that's your affair.



Needle writes:

Does anyone really “just plumb don’t like” poison,
and ever discards it for just that one reason, really,
or because it actually makes one or others “sick”?

It is clear that “Christianity” should be discarded
ONLY because it makes us Aryans or Whites or
Germanics “spiritually sick” with an alien Blind
Faith of, by, and only for the benefit of the Jews.



You wrote:

But don't try to twist it into something it's not
so that you can seem to justify your dislike of
it to the rest of us.



Needle writes:

On the contrary, it is, what it is,
and just because you dislike my
criticisms of “Christianity” or it,
doesn’t mean that they’re not true.



You wrote:

Be honest with yourself and just decide you don't
like it and move on.






Needle writes:

Right. :D

I am always honest with myself and I do
attempt to teach others to do the same &
whether they do happen to “like it” or not.



You wrote:

Isn't the masterful Aryan man capable
of determining morality for himself
anyway?


Needle writes:

Yes, he is “capable” of determining morality
and for himself, but, and only when he is not
being deluded by any such Blind Faith based
beliefs like “Christianity” and “Atheism” and
“Marxism” and “Racial Equality” etc. etc. or
ad nauseum.

Best regards,
Needle

http://www.cosmotheism.net
http://www.nationalvanguard.org

Cythraul
Wednesday, March 7th, 2007, 11:18 PM
BTW...for those claiming Christianity is not Germanic, how do you explain the fact that many of the Germanic peoples had little problems with adopting Christ as one of their gods?

I can't! To me, Europeans accepting Christianity without any real struggle is one of the most shameful things to have ever happened. Of course, MOST fought against it, and even when their Kings were converting (for political reasons), most of the people remained heathen for a long time after.

European conversion to Christianity highlighted one of the fundamental weaknesses of man, and proved (and still does) that the white race is far from perfect (hence why I do not believe in white superiority). It should never have happened. But it did because unlike Paganism, Christianity was hellbent on converting the world, much like Islam is in our modern times.

Jäger
Thursday, March 8th, 2007, 08:10 AM
BTW...for those claiming Christianity is not Germanic, how do you explain the fact that many of the Germanic peoples had little problems with adopting Christ as one of their gods?
Germanic or not, they were still just masses back then, the crowd accepts anything. [compare Le Bon - The Crowd]
Just look arround you, in Germany we have gay mayors, adultery is seen as sometihng "normal", etc. in general people accept a lot of crap that will be their downfall in the end.
That's why a truly successful political structure must be aristocratic.

But since Christianity is a slave religion, the leaders of that time must have found it very useful to make their subjects step in line, it is very good for conditioning of people, conditioning to slaves though.

Weiler
Thursday, March 8th, 2007, 08:57 AM
Several people here seem to be claiming that adherence to a pagan religion would have created fewer problems for Germanics, and Europeans in general, than did Christianity. I disagree.

There's nothing that says a pagan religion can't be adopted by non-whites, becoming a universalist religion. This is especially true of nature worship, since a tree or a stream can hardly symbolize a particular human race. At least an anthropomorphic religion like Christianity or even the ancient Greek and Roman religions are symbolized by human beings, who can be of a particular race or ethnicity. You can't do that with the wind or a river or some animal.

There's nothing that says a pagan religion wouldn't have eventually become a structured, hierachical organization, just like Christianity. If paganism had remained the dominant religion in Europe instead of being displaced by Christianity, you would see large temples dedicated to pagan gods instead of cathedrals built for Christ. This religion would also have a large bureacracy and would try to influence not just the people's morals but also the political structure. At the other end, you would also see this pagan religion being used by politicians and the masses for their own, non-religious, purposes.

Very few, if any, large-scale religions in the world have been immune from such things. Hinduism in India, Islam in the Middle East, and even Buddhism in East Asia have all done their fare share of corrupting the people and the politicians, as well as being corrupted by the people and the politicians. If some form of paganism had become the dominant religion of Europe, it would be no different.

SiegUmJedenPreis
Thursday, March 8th, 2007, 09:02 AM
Isn't this debate a false crisis?

Leofric
Thursday, March 8th, 2007, 06:47 PM
I never said that all Christians place man above nature, but, only that most of their own “theology” does do so.

Because of the “universal nature” of Christianity and also just how “watered-down” some of these groups have become, that some few have embraced at least some “eco-consciousness” is hardly at all surprising.

Christianity may not be “monolithic”, as you say, but, those are valid claims against “Christianity” and these are still valid criticisms and are true for the vast majority of all those calling themselves “Christians”, even if not for all of them.
Christian theologians are a miniscule percentage of Christians. Most Christians know very little of how the theologians conceptualize the faith. Furthermore, the theologians do not own the religion. Their individual religious views do not dictate the views of all the Christians in the pews.

The question I was responding to was whether Christianity is bad for Germanics, not whether most Christian theology is bad for Germanics. Personally, I think most Christian theology is bad for Christianity.

Crafting an argument against the views of Christian theologians may be quite easy, but it does nothing to address Christianity as a whole. That there are Christians making their own straw men doesn't make attacking those straw men in an effort to discredit the whole faith any less fallacious. At best, you can demonstrate that the scholastic argumentation of pompous, bloated fools is, well, pompous and bloated. But we all know that without your help.




The Romans were originally a Germanic people that had invaded the southern Italian lands many centuries long beforehand and had thus learned agriculture and then re-transmitted that knowledge back up to the Northern “Germanics” much later on and during their own expansion of their Empire to their borders. Thus, the Whites or the Aryan Germanics had actually taught other Whites or other Aryans or Germanics their own “agriculture”, and did NOT acquire it from the Semites at all.

No, the concept of “agriculture” is not non-Aryan or non-Germanic, as I have shown that the Romans were also “Germanic” originally, and that our Race was using “agriculture” long before the Romans, and didn’t learn it from any Semites. Using any kind of “agriculture” may be so-called “ethnically neutral”, but, not ever any of the actual inventors and developers of these advanced methods and techniques. That is the actual point.
I think that pretty much sums up your credentials on all matters Germanic (not to mention your ability to craft cogent arguments by showing clear evidence). I suspect you yourself are just as Germanic as the great Julius Caesar or the mighty Scipio Aemilianus.

With credentials like that, I think I'll simply have to defer to you on all these matters in the future, as I am incapable of carrying on discussion with one whose knowledge is as extensive as yours.

Needle
Thursday, March 8th, 2007, 07:30 PM
Christian theologians are a miniscule percentage of Christians. Most Christians know very little of how the theologians conceptualize the faith. Furthermore, the theologians do not own the religion. Their individual religious views do not dictate the views of all the Christians in the pews.

The question I was responding to was whether Christianity is bad for Germanics, not whether most Christian theology is bad for Germanics. Personally, I think most Christian theology is bad for Christianity.

Crafting an argument against the views of Christian theologians may be quite easy, but it does nothing to address Christianity as a whole. That there are Christians making their own straw men doesn't make attacking those straw men in an effort to discredit the whole faith any less fallacious. At best, you can demonstrate that the scholastic argumentation of pompous, bloated fools is, well, pompous and bloated. But we all know that without your help.




I think that pretty much sums up your credentials on all matters Germanic (not to mention your ability to craft cogent arguments by showing clear evidence). I suspect you yourself are just as Germanic as the great Julius Caesar or the mighty Scipio Aemilianus.

With credentials like that, I think I'll simply have to defer to you on all these matters in the future, as I am incapable of carrying on discussion with one whose knowledge is as extensive as yours.

It is clear that you don't understand what "Christianity" is
when divorced from the "culture" of "Christianity" and only
"popular belief".

Indeed, "Germanics" are but one branch of the "White Race",
and yes, Julius Caesar and Scipio Aemilianus, were as "White"
as I am.

Yes, it is true that you are "incapable of carrying on any truthful
discussions" being as ignorant of one's own real history and one's
own Race, as you seem to be. Here is a link that might help you
and to educate you as to our true and real history:

http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/hwr12.htm

You might try and brush up on the true history of science
that can also be found therein.

Good luck to you in your own quest for the Whole Truths
of Reality.

Best regards,
Needle

http://www.cosmotheism.net
http://www.nationalvanguard.org

Cythraul
Thursday, March 8th, 2007, 08:33 PM
There's nothing that says a pagan religion wouldn't have eventually become a structured, hierachical organization, just like Christianity.

Actually, there is! Paganism, by it's very nature could never have become a political, oppressive tool. Two particular points prove this:

1) Paganism existed for thousands, perhaps even 10's of thousands of years before it was all but wiped out by Christianity. In all that time, it remained essentially the same organic, non-rigid belief system and was never (with few exceptions) used as a way to govern the way people lived their lives by a central force (other than the pre-established laws of nature). In stark contrast, Christianity was a tool of oppression, imperialism, war and fear from the very beginning.

2) Corrupt leaders can not make up the ways and laws of nature like he can the ways and laws of a god, therefore leaders can not sculpt paganism into a religious system that creates heirarchy and order. And before you respond with claims that paganism incorporated the concept of "gods" aswell, I will say this; Pagan gods were ALWAYS seen as fallable. Indeed there are tales of Thor/Thunor/Dunor making a fool of himself and learning from his mistakes. Pagans were not expected to submit themselves to their gods, and in fact, their gods were seen more as role-models or admirable figures than higher beings that man must ever answer to.
In short, Paganism, by its very nature could never have been a tool of oppression or order! If it were to become so, it would cease to maintain its core values.

Leofric
Thursday, March 8th, 2007, 08:46 PM
Paganism, by it's very nature could never have become a political, oppressive tool.
Don't be too quick to accept a romanticized, Rousseauian view of our pre-Christian ancestors.

We see in India an Indo-European pagan religion (the only one, I think) that has been allowed to flourish uninterrupted into modern times. One need only think of the caste of untouchables (http://www.untouchables.org/) there to see how paganism can become a political, oppresive tool.

I'm not trying to say that paganism is inherently evil. I don't think it is. But it can be abused, just as much as any ideology can, to hurt and enslave men.

Kith of woden
Thursday, March 8th, 2007, 08:59 PM
As I can see when I look around this forum and when reading polls, many of you germanic people at this forum define your selfs as christian. By tradition I too define myself as christian.

But recently I have started to feel that it´s a problem for me as a christian that it is a semitic religion, created by and for semitic people, not germanic people.

What is your view on this issue?

Is it a problem or not?

Eihter way - why or why not?

I believe that a folks natural religion defines that folk more than anything else. The organic religion as practised by Germanic peoples before the coming of christianity is recognised today as odinism, or asatru/heathenism. Christianity is an alien creed,a middle eastern desert creed in my opinion.Odinism is the shared wisdom and experience of the Northern European peoples, and part of it remains in your "folk soul".Odinism is our heritage and our destiny. I think, and im no expert, that this is why you may be feeling like you do. Odinism pre-dates all the major religions in the world including christianity, buddism, islam, and judaism. There is more info at the Odinic rites link.Sorry if i offend any other faiths with my views, and im not preaching, these are my beliefs and i can back them up.Please feel free to pm me if youd like to debate them.

Taras Bulba
Thursday, March 8th, 2007, 09:28 PM
Don't be too quick to accept a romanticized, Rousseauian view of our pre-Christian ancestors.

Ironically Rousseau condemned Christianity for seperating politics and religion("Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s"); and praised paganism for its unity of the two. He did however, have praise for the state-sanctioned churches of England and Russia.

Seperation of church and state is largely a Christian concept.




I believe that a folks natural religion defines that folk more than anything else.

There is something called "Folk Christianity". In fact I posted an entire thread about it here:
http://forums.skadi.net/english_folk_christianity-t57425.html

Interestingly enough, the site I linked to is dedicated to demonstrating the commonality between Germanic folk religion and Christian faith. You're free to read their literature concerning the topic here:
http://aelfwer.tripod.com/Lorehoard/lorehoard.htm

The article "The Cross And The World Tree" (http://aelfwer.tripod.com/Lorehoard/articles/crossand.htm) is perhaps the most interesting of them all.


Actually, there is! Paganism, by it's very nature could never have become a political, oppressive tool.

Religion and state were never more united than under paganism. Devotion to the state was elevated to a religious virtue. Obeying the Emperor also meant you had to worship him as a God.

By contrast, in Christianity, the ruler is not a God but at best God's representative. The ruler is answerable to a higher power, therefore his earthly power is significantly limited. It was from this that the modern concept of "rule by law" emerged.

John P. McCarthy goes into details about this in his study "Decentralism and Statism in the Experience of Christendom" (http://web.archive.org/web/20040611205152/http://www.townhall.com/phillysoc/mcarthy.htm):


"The very theological premises of Christianity militate against statism and favor decentralization. This is despite and, indeed, because Christianity is a universalist religion. Most pre-Christian religions were religions of a specific people or state. The Christian mandate was to convert the world. That could be seen, and no doubt was by some, as a directive for conquest and global uniformity. But, as the Founder succinctly put it, His Kingdom was not of this world. The Christians were not to construct a terrestrial utopia, but to preach a message with relevance to the next world. In addition, Christ said to “Leave to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, but to God the things that are God’s.” That meant there were limits to Caesar’s authority. Caesar, that is, the State, was neither the source of authority nor the determiner of right and wrong. Those two themes, that Christianity did not provide a specific political agenda as to how societies should be organized, and that the State was not the repository of values, would be enduring characteristics of Christendom, despite occasional lapses into that peculiar form of centralized statism-- theocracy."He also goes on to explain that: "The influence of Christianity guaranteed that the servile system of feudalism, with its element of contract, even if permanent and inheritable, would work toward ultimate liberty rather than regress into slavery. The ability to excommunicate kings and emperors was an important restraint on absolute political power."

By seperating Church and State, that meant within the Medieval context at least that each was a restraint on the other. This was seen in the classic duels between the Holy Roman Emperors and the Popes.

Cythraul
Thursday, March 8th, 2007, 09:29 PM
Don't be too quick to accept a romanticized, Rousseauian view of our pre-Christian ancestors.

I'm not. Mankind is inherently flawed and by no means were we perfect before Christ. But I do believe -(belief being the operative word, because I have read relatively little about pre-Christian Europe)- that a one-ness with nature, such as is practiced in Paganism, brings out the best in mankind. Odinism, and European Paganism as a whole, valued honour and respect above all else (this much is fact) and in context of our modern world, these are the vital things missing, and to me, the cause of our collapse.

Kith of woden
Thursday, March 8th, 2007, 09:29 PM
Ironically Rousseau condemned Christianity for seperating politics and religion("Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s"); and praised paganism for its unity of the two. He did however, have praise for the state-sanctioned churches of England and Russia.

Seperation of church and state is largely a Christian concept.

Ive read your most interesting article relating to "folk christianity", and i respect your beliefs and opinion, however i believe christianity is at its core universal, and cant be folkish, it was built on this universal principal. The folk unit is a manifestation in the world of the God forces of thier religion and in turn that particular religion continues the link biologically and spiritually with thier ancestor who came before them, thier deitys and the earth. The natural and original faith of our folk was and is odinism. This is why as long as our race exists no amount of alien intervention can break that link the folk soul has with our ancestors. That said i reiterate that your beliefs are your own and i do respect them, but well have to beg to differ .Waes Hael!

Cythraul
Thursday, March 8th, 2007, 09:32 PM
I must say, and no offence is intended, I find it interested how many of those in this thread supporting Christianity as a part of Germanic culture are American. I have no real suggestions as to why this might be.

Leofric
Thursday, March 8th, 2007, 09:37 PM
I must say, and no offence is intended, I find it interested how many of those in this thread supporting Christianity as a part of Germanic culture are American. I have no real suggestions as to why this might be.
Becasue the thread's in English and most native English speakers are American? ;)

Just a thought. . . .

Kith of woden
Thursday, March 8th, 2007, 09:42 PM
Ironically Rousseau condemned Christianity for seperating politics and religion("Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s"); and praised paganism for its unity of the two. He did however, have praise for the state-sanctioned churches of England and Russia.

Seperation of church and state is largely a Christian concept.





There is something called "Folk Christianity". In fact I posted an entire thread about it here:
http://forums.skadi.net/english_folk_christianity-t57425.html

Interestingly enough, the site I linked to is dedicated to demonstrating the commonality between Germanic folk religion and Christian faith. You're free to read their literature concerning the topic here:
http://aelfwer.tripod.com/Lorehoard/lorehoard.htm

The article "The Cross And The World Tree" (http://aelfwer.tripod.com/Lorehoard/articles/crossand.htm) is perhaps the most interesting of them all.

There are numerous comparisons between Odinism and christianity, to numerous to mention all. It took the christian church approx 800 years to convert europe to thier faith. Various methods were deployed ,including by force, but in order to convert a populace the christian authorities also played a hearts and mind game in which The alien doctrine they were promoting was "modified" to become more accesible to the natives. For example the heathen ritual of the start of spring which celebrated the Goddess Ostars or Eostre where symbols of fertility like the rabbit and fertility gifts of decorated eggs were given as gifts, was changed to easter and the christian slant put on it.Hence the people were continued to be allowed to celebrate a popular festival. the same goes with the 12 nights of yule(christmas). And many more.

Taras Bulba
Thursday, March 8th, 2007, 10:02 PM
I must say, and no offence is intended, I find it interested how many of those in this thread supporting Christianity as a part of Germanic culture are American. I have no real suggestions as to why this might be.

I addressed this issue on my blog some time ago. Namely two reasons:

1) Religious devotion played an important role in ethnic solidarity within the American context; far more than it ever could in much of Europe, due to different circumstances. In many communities the Church was the one link they had with their ethnic traditions in the old country.

2) In contrast to Europe's state-churches, American never had one. So the link between community and religious devotion was allowed to prosper on a more spontaneous level.

In fact it's because of the state-churches is why religious devotion is supposedly lower in Europe than America. Europe's churches have a such a complacent monopoly, they have little reason to attract followers. By contrast to America(and the Third world), a church needs active members in order to survive.

However that is not to say Europe is completely immune to what Ive explained above. Whenever the link between political authorities and the religious institutions was broken, there was a spontaneous upsurge in religious devotion among the people.

This happened during the French Revolution in regards to the Catholic Church. The French Church suffered greatly because of its close association with the corrupt monarchy, but when the revolutionaries started assaulting the Church, there were considerable reaction among the the people. Most dramatic was the Vendee uprising, which was heavily Catholic in inspiration. Napoleon even had to later recognize the Catholic faith in his Concordat with the Pope, which was a highly popular move among the French. Afterwards untill well into the 19th century there was a considerable Catholic revival in France.

Same thing happened during the years of Soviet repressions against the churches. It actually lead to an upsurge of both sympathy and devotion to them, especially among nationalist dissidents.

The Ukrainian dissident Valentyn Moroz probably explained it best when he condemned Soviet anti-religious policies:

"The Church has rooted itself in the cultural life so deeply that it is impossible to touch it without damaging the spiritual structure of a nation. It is impossible to imagine traditional cultural values without the Church. It is ultimately necessary to understand that an attack against the Church is an attack against culture...In this and similar cases we can equate the Church and spirituality, in general...The classical swindle is to declare the spiritual riches of a nation, 'useless superstitions', 'opium of the people'..." This helps explains why Eastern Europe tends to maintain higher levels of religiousity than many parts of Western Europe.

Of course we also have to take into account the general culture of the people we're talking about. Slavic cultures have always been more staunchly Christian well into the modern era than many Western ones. This was a common polemic among say the Slavophiles: the Slavs remained true to Christ while the West descended into secularism.

So forgive me, I suffer from both being American and Slavic. ;)


Ive read your most interesting article relating to "folk christianity", and i respect your beliefs and opinion, however i believe christianity is at its core universal, and cant be folkish, it was built on this universal principal.

Your understanding of Christianity's universalism is misguided, and sadly it's because you are a pagan. Paganism has always operated on a binary-style of thinking: either extreme particularism or extreme universalism. The former was definately seen within non-Classical pagan cultures: where petty-tribalism was the order of the day.

By contrast, Classical pagan culture went through both stages. In the beginning there was the former, in regards to the various Greek city-states warring with each other. But then with the rise of Alexander the Great came the notion of a universal cosmopolis, which was a mainstay of Hellenistic thought and was at the heart of the Roman Empire's identity. This sentiment was best expressed by Diogenes the Cynic in the 4th Century BC; when he declared himself a "citizen of the world".

Christianity doesn't support either assertion. It is universal, but at the same time respectful towards various parochial identities. We're united by our common doctrine, but our particular customs in celebrating that faith vary from culture to culture.

Some have even pointed to the Trinity in regards to this: God is one but is still divided into three elements. Universalism and particularism are not mutually exclusive, but rather complement each other within Christian thinking.

So in the end, the common assertions made about the relationship between Christianity and folkish customs is nothing more than a strawman. It certainly does apply to Islam, where folkish identities are irrelevant - but not to Christianity.

Concerning the relationship between early Christianity and ethnic identities, Denise K. Buell's newly released academic study Why This New Race? Ethnic Reasoning in Early Christianity (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/catalog/data/023113/0231133340.HTM) is an excellent source:


"Why This New Race offers a radical new way of thinking about the origins of Christian identity. Conventional histories have understood Christianity as a religion that from its beginnings sought to transcend ethnic and racial distinctions. Denise Kimber Buell challenges this view by revealing the centrality of ethnicity and race in early definitions of Christianity. Buell's readings of various texts consider the use of “ethnic reasoning” to depict Christianness as more than a set of shared religious practices and beliefs. By asking themselves, “Why this new race?” Christians positioned themselves as members of an ethnos or genos distinct from Jews, Romans, and Greeks.
Furthermore, throughout its history Christianity played an immeasurable role in defining European concepts of nationhood and nationalism. It's even commonly believed that it was because of Christianity that nationalist ideologies first emerged in Europe as opposed to elsewhere. Herder was himself as a priest and his theories of nationality were heavily influenced by 18th century Christian Pietism.

And as European missionaries spread the faith to far corners of the world; ironically the arrival of Christianity helped sponsor the rise of nationalism in other parts of the world. Ghandi once remarked that India had no concpet of itself as a nation before the arrival of Christianity. In China, the first stirrings of modern nationalism came with the Taiping Rebellion, which was inspired by a man claiming to be the younger brother of Christ. Arab nationalism has by and large been a Christian-lead movement.

So the notion that Christianity is anti-folkish has no real basis to it. One only has to read John Paul II's last book Memory and Identity to get this impression. As he states on pages 69-70: "Catholic social doctrine holds that families and the nation are both natural societies, not the product of mere convention. Therefore, in human history they cannot be replaced by anything else."

BTW, Le Pen had nothing but praise for this book, because of its staunch defense of the intregity of nationhood.

In Feburary 2000 he also officially declared to the Vatican Academy of Social Sciences that: "smaller social units -- whether nations themselves, communities, ethnic or religious groups, families or individuals -- must not be namelessly absorbed into a greater conglomeration, thus losing their identity and having their prerogatives usurped."

Of course he was not the first Pontiff to declare such. Pope Pius X declared that if Catholicism were the enemy of the nation it would cease to be a divine religion.

I'll also finish off with this statement made by the 1910 World Missionary Conference in Edinburgh:
"Christ never by teaching or example resisted or withstood the spirit of true nationalism."

Kith of woden
Friday, March 9th, 2007, 08:40 AM
Taras Bulba i think your intrpretation of my post is misguided, and sadly thats because your a christian. I didnt say that christians didnt respect different Folk, the church will respect any folk that they convert. The fact of the matter is Christianity is a universal religion and I practice a religion that is folkish, in that it is the organic religion of the Germanic peoples and no other people. Christianity is an alien creed, and i will always see it that way. It is a middle eastern judean religion. Odinism is the religion that i believe is part of the soul of every Germanic person. You practice a religion that accepts all,and of course your free to do so because it is universal , more tolerant than Islam(of course) but nevertheless universal. I am a Heathen. The word pagan is to broard a term to use. That said thanks for your post, very informative and interesting again

Airmanareiks
Saturday, March 17th, 2007, 09:37 PM
1) Paganism existed for thousands, perhaps even 10's of thousands of years before it was all but wiped out by Christianity. .\


How old is the first "man" (i.e. non Apeman)?
Odinism is 400,000 years because Odin created the first man.



There's nothing that says a pagan religion wouldn't have eventually become a structured, hierachical organization, just like Christianity. If paganism had remained the nt religion in Europe instead of being displaced by Christianity, you would see large temples dedicated to pagan gods instead of cathedrals built for Christ. .


Jesusism took pagan Roman administration to conquer Europe. There so call civilization tools were all pagan. Their philosophy, metaphysics, art, administration came first from pagan Greece, then Rome. When Jesites say that Jesusism created Europe they are wrong. They stoled all this from Aryanism and called it their own. Just like all things derived from Jews and Jesites.

CharlesDexterWard
Saturday, March 17th, 2007, 11:11 PM
Christianity is as much Greek as it is Semitic. Any scholar of Christianity knows that Greek thought had great influence on the New Testament.

I heard the rest of your argumentation, but I still think that facts need to be considered.

For what it's worth I have read most of the Bible and taken many University courses on it's contents and origin.

As far as I know, most of the Greek elements were introduced into the tradition after The New Testament was written. And it seems very probable that all the authors of the biblical - Old and New Testament - texts were jewish. Both contents and contextual data indicate that.

One of the generally supposed Greek "contributions" to Christian tradition is the doctrine of the Trinity, which is however based on the Bible. Even though some classical Greek concepts were used in formulating the comprehensive doctrine, I still think that it would be a great misunderstanding to think of the Christian Trinity as something that originally appeared in a Greek context.

Well why is The New Testament written in Greek? Simple answer: Already by then the hebrew language was largely forgotten and known only by a few scholars of scripture. The spoken language in Israel/Palestine/you-name-it was Greek. If The New Testament had been written in hebrew, almost noone would have been able to read or hear it.


As I can see when I look around this forum and when reading polls, many of you germanic people at this forum define your selfs as christian. By tradition I too define myself as christian.

But recently I have started to feel that it´s a problem for me as a christian that it is a semitic religion, created by and for semitic people, not germanic people.

What is your view on this issue?

Is it a problem or not?

Eihter way - why or why not?

I am also Swedish, but I do not consider myself to be Christian at all; not by tradition and not by faith.

Surely a few christianic concepts and symbols were a part of my upbringing, however taken out of their contextual meaning. From studying theology, Christian tradition and history of ideas, I have concluded that the Swedish and germanic stance toward Christianity has been highly ambiguous throughout history.

Even if we concentrate on writers who obviously were using Christian concepts in writing, even in the extreme case theologers such as Meister Eckehart and Martin Luther, we will find that the spirit and sense morale is rarely fully congruous with that of the Bible.

And if we look at the way people generally celebrate holidays in Sweden, those who celebrate as heathens and in heathen ways easily outnumber those who prefer the Christian way.

Since Christianity was introduced by force, I consider the Christian part of my upbringing as an act of violence upon my being. As a grown up I have also realized how traumatic and contradictory the christianic influence is in my parents.

I really can say it no better than this: Having renounced Christianity all in all is a great relief to me.

Drakkar
Tuesday, March 20th, 2007, 04:38 AM
I am having the same problem as you. The ideas and beliefs of others on this forum have really questioned my current affiliation with Catholicism that I was baptized under at birth. Many conflicts have arisen when I think on Christianity and its compatibility with my ancestry and background. I feel like I want to believe in something and find a way to live my life, but currently I am at the stage of most Catholics nowadays, which is ambivalence. Be what it may, my intellectual immaturity or simply fear of not being excepted in public and in the workplace/community (which I see myself in the future), but I just don't know what to choose and wholeheartedly follow my whole life. At the present I consider myself still a Catholic (by birth I say when asked), but also believe that nature and family is indeed also important. It would appear that my beliefs are compatible with a Pagan religion, but I feel I can still not denounce my religion, not when I went to school for so many years learning from the Bible and making friends within my town parish. I feel I will be cast out as one of the "weird Gothic Pagan New Age people" if I choose that direction.

My problem is more of this, not if its really compatible with Germanics. Your family and their traditions are very important I believe, and if that is so, I should stay Catholic because both sides of my family have been. One side had even converted from Methodism because he believed it was the real way. Who knows, maybe religious seeking is in my genes. It has happened other times in my families' past. So, I am just searching for an answer. If there is a God or multiple Gods, I hope it or they will help me find my way to better defining my life and existence in this world.

Engelbrecht
Tuesday, March 20th, 2007, 09:26 AM
I am having the same problem as you. The ideas and beliefs of others on this forum have really questioned my current affiliation with Catholicism that I was baptized under at birth. Many conflicts have arisen when I think on Christianity and its compatibility with my ancestry and background. I feel like I want to believe in something and find a way to live my life, but currently I am at the stage of most Catholics nowadays, which is ambivalence. Be what it may, my intellectual immaturity or simply fear of not being excepted in public and in the workplace/community (which I see myself in the future), but I just don't know what to choose and wholeheartedly follow my whole life. At the present I consider myself still a Catholic (by birth I say when asked), but also believe that nature and family is indeed also important. It would appear that my beliefs are compatible with a Pagan religion, but I feel I can still not denounce my religion, not when I went to school for so many years learning from the Bible and making friends within my town parish. I feel I will be cast out as one of the "weird Gothic Pagan New Age people" if I choose that direction.

My problem is more of this, not if its really compatible with Germanics. Your family and their traditions are very important I believe, and if that is so, I should stay Catholic because both sides of my family have been. One side had even converted from Methodism because he believed it was the real way. Who knows, maybe religious seeking is in my genes. It has happened other times in my families' past. So, I am just searching for an answer. If there is a God or multiple Gods, I hope it or they will help me find my way to better defining my life and existence in this world.

This is pretty much how I feel too. Maybe I´m just trying to justify Christianity, because it´s the easy way out. After all, in a shorter term, holding on to your traditions is holding on to Christianity(in my case protestantism).

Publicly define myself as pagan would without a doubt be asking for trouble, even if I somewhere deep inside would feel that it was right.

Anothter problem would be to find genuine pagan religion, and if so, how to find a serious alternative to the christian rituals and sacraments.

Jäger
Tuesday, March 20th, 2007, 09:43 AM
Another problem would be to find genuine pagan religion, and if so, how to find a serious alternative to the Christian rituals and sacraments.
Why would you need to find a pagan religion in the first place? Are you so much dependent on guidance?

I suggest NS as a religion, but I am no missionary, so being agnostic was good enough for me all the time, although I am a baptized Catholic, and I even used to be an alter boy :D

Bloodforparadise
Tuesday, March 20th, 2007, 10:27 AM
Why would you need to find a pagan religion in the first place? Are you so much dependent on guidance?

I suggest NS as a religion, but I am no missionary, so being agnostic was good enough for me all the time, although I am a baptized Catholic, and I even used to be an alter boy :D

I must add, that a NS religion, if there have ever truly been such a one, must have drewn heavily upon christian traditions. I base this upon the many similarities between the NS cult and christian chivalry. But as you describe yourself as being agnostic, I dont think that you were seriously recommending a NS religion.

Remember the inscription on the belt buckles of german soldiers in WW1 and WW2: "Gott mit uns!"

Engelbrecht
Tuesday, March 20th, 2007, 02:57 PM
Why would you need to find a pagan religion in the first place? Are you so much dependent on guidance?

I suggest NS as a religion, but I am no missionary, so being agnostic was good enough for me all the time, although I am a baptized Catholic, and I even used to be an alter boy :D

I´m not sure that I´m in need of any guidance, but I certainly do have a religious need. Otherwise I had never started this thread. I have a need to carry out rituals and sacraments in a group of likes.

I guess that you by NS mean National Socialism. I see NS as a political movement. I can even consider it to be a philosophy or way of life. But a religion?

Jäger
Tuesday, March 20th, 2007, 03:06 PM
I guess that you by NS mean National Socialism. I see NS as a political movement. I can even consider it to be a philosophy or way of life. But a religion?
It has sacraments, and rituals in a group of likes ;)
It has values, and catechisms, but in contrast to the Abrahamian religions it has no dogmas (since NS subjects itself to science and science is dynamic), and doesn't trap you in a slave life, since you can through will and capability take the lead :)
Of course one could be picky about the term "religion" but I think it fits perfectly to National Socialism.

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, March 20th, 2007, 04:39 PM
When Jesites say that Jesusism created Europe they are wrong. They stoled all this from Aryanism and called it their own.

To the pagans "Europe" was nothing more than a vague geographical entity with constantly shifting borders. The concept of "Europe" actually consisting of a distinct civilization is indeed a Christian concept, which emerged out of the early Medieval period.

Moody
Tuesday, March 20th, 2007, 05:02 PM
Christianity not for Germanics?


You can't get much more Germanic than Martin Luther [1483-1546] - both a central figure in Western Christianity and in German culture.

http://www.don-juan.net/francais/espagne/images/luther.jpg
Martin Luther

His translation of the Bible into German was pivotal for German literature [and German thought, as language guides thought].

But of course, he was a reformer - which suggests that Christianity didn't completely sit well with someone so Germanic.

So, in Germanic eyes, Christianity always needs reforming - the Reformation itself was a broadly 'Germanic' event, was it not?

So perhaps we can say in response to the question: yes, as long as Germanics can keep reforming it!

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, March 20th, 2007, 05:16 PM
I sincerely doubt Luther should serve as an example of a fine Christian.

Leofric
Tuesday, March 20th, 2007, 06:00 PM
You can't get much more Germanic than Martin Luther [1483-1546] - both a central figure in Western Christianity and in German culture.

His translation of the Bible into German was pivotal for German literature [and German thought, as language guides thought].

But of course, he was a reformer - which suggests that Christianity didn't completely sit well with someone so Germanic.

So, in Germanic eyes, Christianity always needs reforming - the Reformation itself was a broadly 'Germanic' event, was it not?

So perhaps we can say in response to the question: yes, as long as Germanics can keep reforming it!
I think Luther's main contention was that Christianity had become too bound to the sociopolitical contingencies of medieval Roman culture. I think his main desire was to deculturate the religion. He wasn't trying to change Christianity; he was trying to de-Romify it.

I think Christianity is, at its core, ethnically and culturally neutral. I think Luther and the other reformers felt they were trying to scrape away the cultural barnacles that had attached to the core and return to the ethnically neutral core itself.

I think they failed. But I think that was their intent. In addition, I don't believe that a schism was necessary for people to return to the ethnically neutral core. I think an individual can find that ethnically neutral core and live it without breaking away from the church and without adulterating his own ethnic culture in the least — in fact, I think that living that ethnically neutral core of Christianity will help people foster and encourage their ethnic culture, whatever that ethnic culture might be.

And that is what I think gets to the point of this thread. Though there are barnacles on Christianity that are more cultural in nature and that may perhaps fight against our Germanic spirit, any individual Christian can, without leaving his church, choose to ignore the barnacles in favor of the ethnically neutral core that will not only not fight against his own ethnic soul but will in fact promote it.

Jäger
Tuesday, March 20th, 2007, 06:01 PM
I sincerely doubt Luther should serve as an example of a fine Christian.
That's why he used him as an example of a Germanic, not a Christian. That alone plus your comment should answer the question of the thread ;)

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, March 20th, 2007, 06:36 PM
That's why he used him as an example of a Germanic, not a Christian. That alone plus your comment should answer the question of the thread ;)

In my first post in this thread I gave a few examples of fine Germanic Christians.



Even if we concentrate on writers who obviously were using Christian concepts in writing, even in the extreme case theologers such as Meister Eckehart and Martin Luther, we will find that the spirit and sense morale is rarely fully congruous with that of the Bible.

No offense but I'm getting real sick and tired of this game.

Sure they were "Christian" but they weren't really "Christian"!!! Most absurd example of this is when Spengler spends considerable time and energy explaining how St. Ignatius of Loyola was everything but a devout Catholic.

Of course what exactly counts as "Christian" in such arguments is nothing more than a strawman that has little if any bearing on the actual nature of the Christian faith.

Is it really that hard to admit that maybe MAYBE Christianity actually brought something positive to the picture? Apparently it is, otherwise this constant barrage of No-true scotsmen would be unnecessary. Which is just downright dishonest.

It's not like Christians deny the rich heritage of paganism. As Gk Chesterton correctly noted, the chief boast of the Catholic Church is that it is built on the heritage of pagan Rome.

Jäger
Tuesday, March 20th, 2007, 07:01 PM
In my first post in this thread I gave a few examples of fine Germanic Christians.
Well, Eckhart was as much Germanic, as Luther was Christian.


Is it really that hard to admit that maybe MAYBE Christianity actually brought something positive to the picture?
It is actually quite easy, but is it that hard to admit that it also brought negative things to the picture?
It is just that I think the negative part outweighs the positive part so much, I can't see why we would support it, rather than get rid of it.

There is no objective reason to support Christianity, just Faith, while it is easy to show the negative points, objectively.
I wouldn't deny anyone to believe in it, but I would make it harder for them, so they have to consciously choose, maybe with some stones in their way, and we will see Christians vanish.

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, March 20th, 2007, 07:37 PM
Well, Eckhart was as much Germanic, as Luther was Christian.

Yes Im more than aware of the attempts made by neo-pagan types to claim him as their own. Just like how they to try to claim the Virgin Mary and our saints as their own. My only response is, stop stealing our heritage!



It is actually quite easy,

Alright prove it. Name me five positive contributions Christianity made in your opinion.



but is it that hard to admit that it also brought negative things to the picture?

No actually it's not. I once characterised the Wars of Religion as a distinctly Christian mistake. Also the rift between the Catholic and Orthodox caused unncessary headaches, especially to somebody like me as an Eastern Catholic. And much more.

In fact that's a basic premise of the Christian faith: that all men are flawed, and one should deal with their flaws in full honesty. That's why we have the sacraments of confession and reconciliation.



It is just that I think the negative part outweighs the positive part so much, I can't see why we would support it, rather than get rid of it.

I come to the opposite conclusion. Despite it's misgivings, overall we're better of with Christianity than without it. Need we forget, the best of the pagan heritage was preserved and incorporated into the Christian heritage. The pre-Christian heritage was commonly seen in the same light as the Old Testament; both preparing the way for the arrival of Christ(Christianity).

Pope Gregory the Great decreed that any indigenious custom that didnt directly contradict Christian doctrine was perfectly fine; which was a continuation of the policy devised by the Apostles. And this is heavily stressed nowadays with the concept of inculturation:


Inculturation is a term used in Christian missiology referring to the adaptation of the way the Gospel is presented for the specific cultures being evangelized...The term was popularized by the encyclical Redemptoris Missio of Pope John Paul II (1990), but predates that encyclical...Early practitioners of inculturation in the history of missions include St. Patrick in Ireland, Sts. Cyril and Methodius for the Slavic peoples of Eastern Europe. From after the council of Trent (1545-1563) the movement became more systematic: José de Anchieta for the indigenous people of Brazil, Roberto de Nobili in South-India. Matteo Ricci in China, Alexandre de Rhodes in Vietnam, and countless others. And the movement goes on...

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

So the irony for many neo-pagans is that the actual heritage of the pagans is probably more authentically preserved in the Christian heritage(well Catholic at least) than in their attempts at reconstructionism.

And with inculturation, the issue of Christianity vs. native traditions is rather moot. To borrow a nice Chinese metaphor: Christianity is a brand of shoes that comes in various sizes to fit all kinds of feet. And the Germanic feet receive a pair that's been specially made for them.

And by virtue of such, accepting the Christian heritage does not mean being selective in what you consider "Germanic". Neo-Paganism doesnt seem to give you that option, which is actually ironic.



There is no objective reason to support Christianity, just Faith, while it is easy to show some negative points.

So throw the baby out with the bathwater?

Jäger
Tuesday, March 20th, 2007, 08:36 PM
Alright prove it. Name me five positive contributions Christianity made in your opinion.
I can't name five, one will have to do :)
Namely a few set of morals, and a tool for power.


In fact that's a basic premise of the Christian faith: that all men are flawed, and one should deal with their flaws in full honesty. That's why we have the sacraments of confession and reconciliation.
My argument however is that not men are flawed, but Christianity is, compare with my signature ;)
E.g. that Christianity is conceptual a slave faith.


I come to the opposite conclusion. Despite it's misgivings, overall we're better of with Christianity than without it.
As far as the past is concerned, I do believe otherwise, but it has little meaning to argue about it, as far as the presence is concerned, it is obvious that this isn't true, for the future, I think it is a must to get rid of Christianity.
The only argument for Christianity is faith, I already said this, or can you enlighten me with some solid examples that prove otherwise?
Faith is in opposite to the knowledge, but it is knowledge we should strive for, and not make ourselves to slaves.

I am no Pagan, and I don't argue that with Heathens everything would have been better, simply because I am no fortune teller, but I think it is obvious that Christianity doesn't serve as a tool anymore it once used to do, simply because of its nature (my signature ;)), it just backfired too hard.


And by virtue of such, accepting the Christian heritage does not mean being selective in what you consider "Germanic". Neo-Paganism doesnt seem to give you that option, which is actually ironic.
I do accept Christian heritage, it is, as a matter of fact, obvious that we have inherited much of Christianity in today's culture, I just want to make sure it doesn't go on, I consider this thread as a discussion of the future rather than about the past.
What do you think Christianity provides which is without it impossible to provide? What is left is just faith.


So throw the baby out with the bathwater?
The crippled baby, yes, time to get a healthy one.

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, March 20th, 2007, 09:05 PM
I cant address everything at the moment:


I can't name five, one will have to do :)

Really, only one? That's really cutting short the accomplishments of your ancestors.



Namely a few set of morals, and a tool for power.

That's rather vague really. I was expecting at least the aesthetic accomplishments achieved under Christianity.

Lately Ive been listening to my own recordings of 17th century German hymns composed by Michael Praetorius. Very impressive I must say.



My argument however is that not men are flawed, but Christianity is
Well you can think that all you want.



As far as the past is concerned, I do believe otherwise, but it has little meaning to argue about it, as far as the presence is concerned, it is obvious that this isn't true, for the future, I think it is a must to get rid of Christianity.

I sincerely disagree. Europe has abandoned its Christian roots and as a result has fallen to the pits. I dont think that's something to glorify. A return to its spiritual roots is the key to restoring Europe to its greatness.



The only argument for Christianity is faith, I already said this, or can you enlighten me with some solid examples that prove otherwise?

Yes as a matter of fact I can, but sadly I cant go into too much detail at the moment.

What you're referring to is what is commonly called Fideism. Most famous proponents of such are Tertullian, St. Augustine, Luther, Pascal, and Kierkegaard.

However there is also "Natural Theology" which seeks to prove faith through reason. Most famous proponent of such is St. Thomas Aquinas, and also in modern times by Jacques Maritain.

Thats about it for now.

Mazorquero
Tuesday, March 20th, 2007, 09:06 PM
We shouldn't confuse Luther with the further evolution of Protestantism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, etc.. Luther considered himself very Christian and that's why he started his movement in order to finish the corruption among the Church. He even made more "acceptable" Christianity because he stated certain things like a conscious and responsible self-apologise (that's if you really regret from your sins, God will forgive you because He's omnipresent and thus can see your sadness, you don't need to go to church) and an important concept like one's own interpretation of the Bible. We should remember that by Luther's time priests used to give you a pontificial document in which you were forgiven from all your sins, but you had to pay, and in general those who were able to pay weren't exactly ashamed of their sins, it was just a formality. Luther was demonized because his Reform would have meant a privilege disminution against the Vatican.
We should remember also that Christianity is one of the few religions which have "ruling priests", because they ordered you how to think and how to interpret your religion, whereas other religions were more flexible in that aspect, priests were "cult administrators" more than anything.

About Jesuits, there are many anti-christian things among them, and because of the Vatican tried to eliminate them; and at the same time, those anti-christian factors were the things that made of them respected people. In American colonial times, many Jesuits worked side by side with conquistadors and built entire cities, campaments and even organized the local army (Loyola was a militar, and transmited that instruction to his pupils). They were considered violent, but it's remarcable that they were the only ones who treated amerindians with respect, at the point that they trained entire Guarany tribes as excellent soldiers (Andresito was a Guarany chief who was trained by Jesuits and defeated many Bandeirante's attacks, who were Brazilian slavers). They were also the only faction in the Church who accepted and even studied science without any prejudice. That's how they aquired the fame of being very clever. Needless to say with that CV the Pope was scared about them.

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, March 20th, 2007, 09:09 PM
There were movements for change and reform within the Church itself. Almost every generation has them. Nothing new. There was no need for the schism that followed in Luther's wake.

Jäger
Tuesday, March 20th, 2007, 09:28 PM
I cant address everything at the moment:
Time is precious, isn't it? :)


Really, only one? That's really cutting short the accomplishments of your ancestors.
That's already implying that these accomplishments were founded on Christianity, this is of course not forensically provable, but at least I would like to hear your reasoning on this.


That's rather vague really. I was expecting at least the aesthetic accomplishments achieved under Christianity.
What do you mean with "under Christianity"? Great men always can deal with the restrictions put up on them, and then despite these restrictions create, not because of them. It is more likely that they disguised their work as "Christianity" to please the ruling class, masses, "Zeitgeist", etc.


Well you can think that all you want.
Really? Thanks for that information. This is of course based on a fundamental concept which contradicts Christianity, namely that being flawed is not something one has to apologize for before God (slave mentality) rather than accepting the nature of men, and only being able to change that through breeding, simply put natural selection, and thus brings us back to faith and science etc.
Thinking of individual men as something which is shapeable, in every way, rather than being predestined through your very being (e.g. genetics) is semitic thought. (compare to Indian religions and their way of thinking about being reborn (change of personality only with change of the body ;)))


I sincerely disagree. Europe has abandoned its Christian roots and as a result has fallen to the pits. I dont think that's something to glorify. A return to its spiritual roots is the key to restoring Europe to its greatness.
On average certainly, but there are people who have not abandoned the faith, they are not better, in many cases worse, than many liberals I know.
But again, I like to know your reasoning behind this.


Yes as a matter of fact I can, but sadly I cant go into too much detail at the moment.
Well, I will try to dig into Jacques Maritain then.

Gundahar
Tuesday, March 20th, 2007, 10:55 PM
Christianity is not for Germanics, who want to stay germanic and who hold up germanic values. The latter is the most important and the point, where it can be shown best, how Christianity differs from germanic values.

Who gets the highest price in Christianity, who gets the best place in the afterlife, who goes to heaven? To say it quickly: The weak, the slaves, those who dont retaliate. Jesus' sermon on the mount states this very clearly.

Who gets the best place in Germanic Heathenry? The strong, the heros, those who kill their enemies without mercy. And the best killer, who slaughters the most, gets the best seat in Woden's hall.

In Christianity weakness and pacifism are encouraged. In Germanic Heathenry strenght, wisdom and warfare are encouraged. But this is not something special for germanic culture, but for every culture in antiquity (except the monotheistic jewish).

The fight Christianity versus Heathenry is a fight of values. The values, laws and attitudes which created the Roman Empire, which gave Megas Alexandros the will and strenght to conquer half of the known world, which formed the Hoplites of Spartha or the germanic warriors, against the values, laws and attitues, which undermined and destroyed the Roman Empire, which led Europe from its golden age, antiquity, into the dark age of the early middle ages and which are leading us downwards even today. Values, which made the insights of hellenic and roman philosophy in vane, one can even say, which made all archievements of every great people of antiquity in vane. We have to ask ourselves, where would humanity be today, if Christianity had not won?

If you cry about multiculturalism, anti-racism, political correctness, marxism, socialism or capitalism and still call yourself christian, you are either a hypocrite or plain dumb. These ideologies are just the spawns of Christianity, which itself is a spawn out of Judaism. Christianity is the epitome of degeneration, physical, spiritual, mental, social and racial.

SuuT
Wednesday, March 21st, 2007, 12:41 AM
Publicly define myself as pagan would without a doubt be asking for trouble, even if I somewhere deep inside would feel that it was right.

If a Jew could muster the courage to face being stoned by his own people for saying that he and the Father were one - that he was the son of God, I think that those of us who whould have the courage of our convictions, even if they are young and growing, would have the courage to tell those who ask us about being a Pagan.

A clue to knowing a Pagan: he doesn't talk about it; his Paganism speaks through him: he rarely vulgarises it by speaking of it.


Anothter problem would be to find genuine pagan religion, and if so, how to find a serious alternative to the christian rituals and sacraments.

Now is a great time for Paganism: its greatest works are really being done by self professed Christians who are laying the ground work for the next mythos if only for being 'lukewarm'.

As Christianity continues to decompose (its 'organicity' lies in its decomposition), that which will replace it will, very much, resemble that which is decomposing. Paganism has to be flexible as it rediscovers itself; it will spring from Christian manure, if you will; it will rise from this manure and become ever more absolute as it evolves from the relativism inherent to all things either dying, or being born. Paganism will rise from the fertile ground, taller and taller - the filth will fall away: before us will stand a Paganism stronger than ever, for having survived Christianity.

If I and mine have our way, Christianity will be memorialised for having been a worthy enemy: it is in this way, that we are able to honour the Jewish Christ.


To the pagans "Europe" was nothing more than a vague geographical entity with constantly shifting borders. The concept of "Europe" actually consisting of a distinct civilization is indeed a Christian concept, which emerged out of the early Medieval period.

You have done this elsewhere, and should stop it. Europa stood for mainland Greece, and by 500 BC its meaning had been extended to lands to the east/north/northwest. The emergence of the holy Roman Empire had an ever so momentary high point around 800 AD of Christian power and influence until its continued fragmentation, begining with the onslaught of Feudalism around 1000 AD (in itself, shaping Europe more than Christianity - perhaps only a close second to the Barbarian invasions). In the late middle ages, the Holy Roman Empire further fragmentated into a myriad of feudal principalities; The conversion of the Pagan kings of Evropa did not occur until the High Middle Ages; rivalry between the monarchy, the aristocratic feudal lords and the church were a constant; and Europe cannot even be argued to be a collection of Christian nation states until the 15th century.


Europe has abandoned its Christian roots and as a result has fallen to the pits. I dont think that's something to glorify. A return to its spiritual roots is the key to restoring Europe to its greatness.

Europe's greatness lies in its flux. It's spiritual roots are Pagan; the elements of Christianity that are at all soul-striking to Germanics are almost always thematically Pagan/Hellenisations; and, Christianity had little spiritual impact on the continent until the Paganisiation of Jesus made the Jewish Christ palatable.

Period.

Here: pictures speak a thousand words. So much for mindless blood drinking Pagans flinging poo to establish those "constantly shifting borders."

Hilarious.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/Europe_map_220BC.PNG/180px-Europe_map_220BC.PNG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Europe_map_220BC.PNG) EUROPE 220 BC

http://www.euratlas.com/0001clik.jpg EUROPE AD 1 Northwest (http://www.euratlas.com/time/nw0001.htm) Northeast (http://www.euratlas.com/time/nea0001.htm) Southwest (http://www.euratlas.com/time/sw0001.htm) Southeast (http://www.euratlas.com/time/sea0001.htm) http://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gif

http://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gif
Full map of Europe (http://www.euratlas.com/big/big0001.htm)

(http://www.euratlas.com/big/big0001.htm)
http://www.euratlas.com/0100clik.jpg EUROPE AD 100 Northwest (http://www.euratlas.com/time/nw0100.htm) Northeast (http://www.euratlas.com/time/nea0100.htm) Southwest (http://www.euratlas.com/time/sw0100.htm) Southeast (http://www.euratlas.com/time/sea0100.htm)http://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gif

http://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gif
Full map of Europe (http://www.euratlas.com/big/big0100.htm)
(http://www.euratlas.com/big/big0100.htm)

http://www.euratlas.com/0200clik.jpg EUROPE AD 200
Northwest (http://www.euratlas.com/time/nw0200.htm) Northeast (http://www.euratlas.com/time/nea0200.htm) Southwest (http://www.euratlas.com/time/sw0200.htm) Southeast (http://www.euratlas.com/time/sea0200.htm)http://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gif

http://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gif
Full map of Europe (http://www.euratlas.com/big/big0200.htm)

(http://www.euratlas.com/big/big0200.htm)
http://www.euratlas.com/0300clik.jpg EUROPE AD 300 Northwest (http://www.euratlas.com/time/nw0300.htm) Northeast (http://www.euratlas.com/time/nea0300.htm) Southwest (http://www.euratlas.com/time/sw0300.htm) Southeast (http://www.euratlas.com/time/sea0300.htm) http://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gif

http://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gif
Full map of Europe (http://www.euratlas.com/big/big0300.htm)

http://www.euratlas.com/0400clik.jpg EUROPE AD 400 Northwest (http://www.euratlas.com/time/nw0400.htm) Northeast (http://www.euratlas.com/time/nea0400.htm) Southwest (http://www.euratlas.com/time/sw0400.htm) Southeast (http://www.euratlas.com/time/sea0400.htm)http://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gif

http://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gif
Full map of Europe (http://www.euratlas.com/big/big0400.htm)

http://www.euratlas.com/0500clik.jpg EUROPE AD 500 Northwest (http://www.euratlas.com/time/nw0500.htm) Northeast (http://www.euratlas.com/time/nea0500.htm) Southwest (http://www.euratlas.com/time/sw0500.htm) Southeast (http://www.euratlas.com/time/sea0500.htm)http://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gif

http://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gif
Full map of Europe (http://www.euratlas.com/big/big0500.htm)

http://www.euratlas.com/0600clik.jpg EUROPE AD 600 Northwest (http://www.euratlas.com/time/nw0600.htm) Northeast (http://www.euratlas.com/time/nea0600.htm) Southwest (http://www.euratlas.com/time/sw0600.htm) Southeast (http://www.euratlas.com/time/sea0600.htm)http://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gif

http://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gif
Full map of Europe (http://www.euratlas.com/big/big0600.htm)

http://www.euratlas.com/0700clik.jpg EUROPE AD 700
Northwest (http://www.euratlas.com/time/nw0700.htm) Northeast (http://www.euratlas.com/time/nea0700.htm) Southwest (http://www.euratlas.com/time/sw0700.htm) Southeast (http://www.euratlas.com/time/sea0700.htm)http://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gif

http://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gif
Full map of Europe (http://www.euratlas.com/big/big0700.htm)

http://www.euratlas.com/0800clik.jpg EUROPE AD 800 Northwest (http://www.euratlas.com/time/nw0800.htm) Northeast (http://www.euratlas.com/time/nea0800.htm) Southwest (http://www.euratlas.com/time/sw0800.htm) Southeast (http://www.euratlas.com/time/sea0800.htm) http://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gif

http://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gif
Full map of Europe (http://www.euratlas.com/big/big0800.htm)

http://www.euratlas.com/0900clik.jpg EUROPE AD 900
Northwest (http://www.euratlas.com/time/nw0900.htm) Northeast (http://www.euratlas.com/time/nea0900.htm) Southwest (http://www.euratlas.com/time/sw0900.htm) Southeast (http://www.euratlas.com/time/sea0900.htm) http://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gif

http://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gif
Full map of Europe (http://www.euratlas.com/big/big0900.htm)

http://www.euratlas.com/1000clik.jpg EUROPE AD 1000
Northwest (http://www.euratlas.com/time/nw1000.htm) Northeast (http://www.euratlas.com/time/nea1000.htm) Southwest (http://www.euratlas.com/time/sw1000.htm) Southeast (http://www.euratlas.com/time/sea1000.htm) http://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gif

http://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gif
Full map of Europe (http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1000.htm)

http://www.euratlas.com/1100clik.jpg EUROPE AD 1100 Northwest (http://www.euratlas.com/time/nw1100.htm) Northeast (http://www.euratlas.com/time/nea1100.htm) Southwest (http://www.euratlas.com/time/sw1100.htm) Southeast (http://www.euratlas.com/time/sea1100.htm)http://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gif

http://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gifFull map of Europe (http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1100.htm)

http://www.euratlas.com/1200clik.jpg EUROPE AD 1200 Northwest (http://www.euratlas.com/time/nw1200.htm) Northeast (http://www.euratlas.com/time/nea1200.htm) Southwest (http://www.euratlas.com/time/sw1200.htm) Southeast (http://www.euratlas.com/time/sea1200.htm)http://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gif http://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gifhttp://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gif

Full map of Europe (http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1200.htm)

http://www.euratlas.com/1300clik.jpg EUROPE AD 1300
Northwest (http://www.euratlas.com/time/nw1300.htm) Northeast (http://www.euratlas.com/time/nea1300.htm) Southwest (http://www.euratlas.com/time/sw1300.htm) Southeast (http://www.euratlas.com/time/sea1300.htm) http://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gif http://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gifhttp://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gif

Full map of Europe (http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1300.htm)

http://www.euratlas.com/1400clik.jpg EUROPE AD 1400 Northwest (http://www.euratlas.com/time/nw1400.htm) Northeast (http://www.euratlas.com/time/nea1400.htm) Southwest (http://www.euratlas.com/time/sw1400.htm) Southeast (http://www.euratlas.com/time/sea1400.htm) http://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gif

http://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gifhttp://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gif
Full map of Europe (http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1400.htm)

http://www.euratlas.com/1500clik.jpg EUROPE AD 1500 Northwest (http://www.euratlas.com/time/nw1500.htm) Northeast (http://www.euratlas.com/time/nea1500.htm) Southwest (http://www.euratlas.com/time/sw1500.htm) Southeast (http://www.euratlas.com/time/sea1500.htm)http://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gif http://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gif

http://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gif
Full map of Europe (http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1500.htm)

http://www.euratlas.com/1600clik.jpg EUROPE AD 1600 Northwest (http://www.euratlas.com/time/nw1600.htm) Northeast (http://www.euratlas.com/time/nea1600.htm) Southwest (http://www.euratlas.com/time/sw1600.htm) Southeast (http://www.euratlas.com/time/sea1600.htm)http://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gif http://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gifhttp://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gif

Full map of Europe (http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1600.htm)

http://www.euratlas.com/1700clik.jpg EUROPE AD 1700 Northwest (http://www.euratlas.com/time/nw1700.htm) Northeast (http://www.euratlas.com/time/nea1700.htm) Southwest (http://www.euratlas.com/time/sw1700.htm) Southeast (http://www.euratlas.com/time/sea1700.htm)http://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gif

http://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gif

http://www.euratlas.com/1800clik.jpg EUROPE AD 1800 Northwest (http://www.euratlas.com/time/nw1800.htm) Northeast (http://www.euratlas.com/time/nea1800.htm) Southwest (http://www.euratlas.com/time/sw1800.htm) Southeast (http://www.euratlas.com/time/sea1800.htm)http://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gif

http://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gif

http://www.euratlas.com/1900clik.jpg EUROPE AD 1900 Northwest (http://www.euratlas.com/time/nw1900.htm) Northeast (http://www.euratlas.com/time/nea1900.htm) Southwest (http://www.euratlas.com/time/sw1900.htm) Southeast (http://www.euratlas.com/time/sea1900.htm)http://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gif

http://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gif
http://www.euratlas.com/2000clik.jpg EUROPE AD 2000 Northwest (http://www.euratlas.com/time/nw2000.htm) Northeast (http://www.euratlas.com/time/nea2000.htm) Southwest (http://www.euratlas.com/time/sw2000.htm) Southeast (http://www.euratlas.com/time/sea2000.htm)http://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gif http://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gifhttp://www.euratlas.com/transpa.gif

Full map of Europe (http://www.euratlas.com/big/big2000.htm)

Drakkar
Wednesday, March 21st, 2007, 03:30 AM
This is pretty much how I feel too. Maybe I´m just trying to justify Christianity, because it´s the easy way out. After all, in a shorter term, holding on to your traditions is holding on to Christianity(in my case protestantism).

Publicly define myself as pagan would without a doubt be asking for trouble, even if I somewhere deep inside would feel that it was right.

Anothter problem would be to find genuine pagan religion, and if so, how to find a serious alternative to the christian rituals and sacraments.
But do you seriously follow the Christian rituals and sacraments whole-heartedly believing in them? I tried to my whole life, but couldn't handle it anymore. The only reason I went to Church in the past was to stare around me in awe at the beauty of the architecture, the Crucifix, the Stations of the Cross, and to listen to the readings and Gospels because they were interesting and you could learn something. I just couldn't bring myself to profess my faith and believe.

Also, the problem (I think) with Catholic churches in diverse countries is that there are going to be people from different countries who are way more obsessed with the religion than Catholic Germanics like myself, like the Irish and Italian families. They also try to direct the whole parish their own way too. It's a mess, and I don't want to waste my time with something that is not my own way. My family doesn't really force me to go to church or anything, but I just still feel like I need some sort of spirituality.
I will most likely keep my Agnostic path like every other friend I have, Catholic or not, but hold on to what has been passed down to the next further generation, most likely including the old stories of the Gods, because what is included in the Eddas are just as informative as the Bible.


Paganism will rise from the fertile ground, taller and taller - the filth will fall away: before us will stand a Paganism stronger than ever, for having survived Christianity.This seems a bit unrealistic, unless the Vatican and all its European areas of influence are destroyed; either by the people of Europe arising from this new Pagan awakening you speak of, or from the inside-out. Of course, there is also the chance of it moving to somewhere where it can obtain more followers/make more money, like Southeast Asia. If there is a new wave of Paganism that will eventually arise, it will have to compete with the emergence of common scientific reasoning and the whole existing Christian establishment, and those are two worthy foes.


The conversion of the Pagan kings of Evropa did not occur until the High Middle AgesDo you mean the mass conversion of the Pagan kings or any? What about Clovis I? Otto I?

SuuT
Wednesday, March 21st, 2007, 01:11 PM
This seems a bit unrealistic, unless the Vatican and all its European areas of influence are destroyed; either by the people of Europe arising from this new Pagan awakening you speak of, or from the inside-out.

But its already happening, and has been for some time: indeed, there has always been a counter-current. Med. regions will certainly take longer in so far as proximity and cultural indoctrination to and with respect to the centre of Universalism breeds affinity.

Let me add here that Europe has lived through Nihilism: the only way to go is us up from there.

What seems unrealistic to me is that Christianity will go on indefinately because of the existence of the Vatican, and because Christianity has had a great deal of influence with respect to the Europe that stands before us today.............


Of course, there is also the chance of it moving to somewhere where it can obtain more followers/make more money, like Southeast Asia.

Southeast Asia could use some Jesus.


If there is a new wave of Paganism that will eventually arise, it will have to compete with the emergence of common scientific reasoning ..., ....

Absolutely! - and it already is. And what a glorious agon it will be! Just wait until they fuse!

The birth pangs of the 'new' gods can be seen in such neo-movements as Cosmotheism, Scientology, etc.


Do you mean the mass conversion of the Pagan kings or any? What about Clovis I? Otto I?

Right you are: I should be more specific. I specifically had in mind the conversion of the kings of Hungary, Lithuania, Poland and the Scandinavian regions which allowed the Roman Catholic church to grow geometrically.

Dagna
Wednesday, October 17th, 2007, 02:15 PM
I believe many people reject Semitic religions like Judaism and Islam, but they do not reject a third Semitic religion, Christianity. Is this justified? Should Germanics practice this religion? I believe so. Christianity has a history in Germania (Germanic Christianity (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=2005)) while Judaism and Islam do not. Christianity has been adapted to the needs and customs of Germanics. Therefore, Christianity is not as alien to Germanics as Judaism and Islam.

CharlesDexterWard
Wednesday, October 17th, 2007, 03:30 PM
A very complicated question, it is. I will just sketch some outlines to explain what I mean.

1. A naive point of view could be that Christianity has 'nothing' to do with jews, Judaism, jewry etc. Just read the New Testament to see that this is naive, and take time to read the Old Testament as well for deeper insights into the connections between the two. Christianity is built upon jewish tradition. It was originally a small sect that did not accept the authority of farisei and high priests.

2. Exactly how jewish Christianity is - it is hard to answer. Jesus was from Galilea, not from Juda. 'Israel' has in scripture several connotations, making the issue even more hazy. Even the meaning of 'jew' is at times hard to fix, since it can mean ethnic jew, inhabitant of Judea, righteous jew in the religious sense and so on. Some books have a more pro-jewish tendency. For example, it is to be noted that those who enter the city of God in the closing of the Revelation of John are both jews and christians. The very division between jews and christians is elaborated on a jewish setting to begin with. The gospel of John, however, does not have anything much pro-jewish to it, rather the contrary as far as I can see. In fact, it is a much debated question whether we are dealing with the same author John, or a wholly different person. Also, we have to take into consideration the context in which scripture came about. The middle east was at that time inhabited by different groups. Semites, Greek, Romans and various other elements including traders of the silk trail to India.

3. The first option of the poll - 'as alien as Judaism and Islam' - while it should definitely be on the poll, it is hardly to be taken seriously. Politically, it is difficult to find any point of reference that means to us as much as Christianity does, especially in a situation where both jewry and Islam is tampering with all aspects of our societies. Alternatives would be racialism, which however is lacking from a culturally ethnic perspective, and 'history' in a broader sense, but then we also see that Christianity is an important part of that history. Trying to purge ourselves of everything that is connected to Christianity is not a politically or spiritually viable alternative.

4. However, it seems pretty clear that there is at present a strong movement within Christianity that tries to make it a lot more jewish than it is. I think it started in Calvinism and spread to Lutheranism, grew stronger with freemasonry and so on. We hear very often the term 'Judeo-Christian tradition'. It is however quite a new construct, that gained a lot more popularity as late as after world war two. If you go back and check what history has to say about it, you will find that Judaism and Christianity were never at one.

ÆinvargR
Wednesday, October 17th, 2007, 04:29 PM
Should Germanics practice this religion? I believe so. ... Christianity is not as alien to Germanics as Judaism and Islam.
Yeah it's less alien because pieces of our pre-Christian cultures formed it slightly. But why settle then with that, instead of what's fully native, the whole of that which germanicized Christianity a little bit?

As a general side-note, to focus on what's Jewish is Christian. The point is it's not native.

Theudanaz
Wednesday, October 17th, 2007, 04:50 PM
Christianity, that is, Judaism in its true form, is alien to all peoples.

This has been so since the time of the first Jewish diaspora (the Babylonian conquest) when the political state of Israel, created and ordained by God, ceased to be. It has not existed since. Christianity is alien because it is the now the rightful possession of none, and so, equally of all. While before the Babylonian conquest and destruction of Israel it was the rightful commission and inheritance of the Jews, their infidelity to Yahweh paved the way for "all the nations" to be blessed by the "seed of Abraham". This was a promise made long before. One may even go back to Genesis 3 and the promise within the curse to the serpent that, while it would "bruise His heel", He would "crush his head".

That "seed of Abraham" is the promised anointed one of God, Jesus Christ, about whom many songs are recorded by God's prophets in the Old Testament. He is the "True Israel", that is, the only one ever to believe and live perfectly, the summation of what it means to be Israel. Neither Jews nor any man has been able to keep the Law perfectly: only the God-man.

One may also argue that, for the pre-Germanic substratum that forms the basis of German genetic identity (and perhaps part of its vocabular identity), Germanicism itself, and the Germanic pantheon, derived from Indo-European mythology, was completely alien. Certainly pre-Germanic religions affected this new religious system as, later, the Germanic mythos (and other false religions) affected the syncretistic Roman church.

While these have been purged in protestantism, and in Vatican II for the most part, the Germanic character-- stubbornness, graveness, boldness, ingenuity, fearlessness-- has contributed greatly to the spread of the Good News that Man, though spiritually dead, fallen and alienated from God, is brought back to Him and can stand before God's throne on the last day, by belief in and acceptance of the atoning sacrifice, once for all, of the Christ, and so have eternal life. Most early Germanics at once saw this as superior to their mythos which hardly promised eternal life or granted personal communion with their creator God.

Should Germanics then despise the one true God simply because their nation was not chosen to be commissioned with the Gospel, and because the Christ was not born in the edge of the world where there was hardly any lasting record of history or words, in Northern europe, but rather was born and lived within the "known" world, Roman provinces, where the record of his birth, life, death and resurrection could be made and dispersed centrally to bless all peoples?

I wonder how it would have gone if God had chosen the Germanic people to deliver the message and bear the Savior. They are also a stiff-necked people, but unfortunately, also give us no record of their early history. Would God's intervention have also granted them that ability? Hard to tell...

---

What is Germanic? Is it not only what I have mentioned above, but also the ability to recognize greatness when we see it, and adapt it or make it our own? Thanks to Germanic interaction with the Roman empire (east and west) there are many quintessentially "Germanic" things originating at least in part from Imperium Romanum, like the Futhark, cheese (hard cheese), cloakpins (penannular brooches) to name a few.

CharlesDexterWard
Wednesday, October 17th, 2007, 07:38 PM
I'd like to clarify my point of view once more.

While Christianity is partly elaborated upon jewish tradition, I think that it is not quite fitting to call Christianity a semitic religion. That idea stems from the recent movement within Christianity that speaks of a Judeo-Christian tradition. There is no such thing as a Judeo-Christian tradition, except for what is in the making in that recent movement (see point #4 in my previous post).

Part of the judaeic tradition has been adopted by Christianity. The Christian tradition that followed is not in any reasonable sense judaeic.

I had a hard time chosing between 'alien in origin' and 'not alien'. It can be seen as alien, because my ancestors way back where not part of forming Christianity. They were most probably up to other things that we really don't know much about.

I think there's something wrong with the question. It makes more sense to say that for the most part and if understood in broad strokes, Germanic culture is Christian. The question should be reversed: Is the Germanic ethnic alien to Christianity?

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, October 17th, 2007, 11:23 PM
Is Christianity alien to Germanics?

I think the more appropriate question should be is Christianity the true religion? If it is, then by all means Germanics should adhere to it; unless of course adherence to falsehood is a supposed Germanic virtue; which of course would beg a host of questions concerning the Germanic heritage.

Claiming Christianity is alien to Germanics is rather an odd argument on several levels. First off, Christianity is a universal faith, so essentially there's nothing truely "alien" in it to any people really.

St. Thomas Aquinas once remarked that Christianity doesn't negate nature but rather transforms it. This is pretty much the same in regards to Christianity's relationship with native cultures. This is referred to as "inculturation", where Christ becomes part of the native culture. This is the direct result of what the Apostles themselves decided in regards to whether Christians should submit to Hebrew customs. They decided no, one can be a Christian within their own traditions.

Then also the event of Pentecost, which also confirms the fact that Christianity can and should be practiced within ones own traditions(in this case, linguistical traditions).

The clerical writer Regino of Prum also made this point in the year 900AD:

"Just as different peoples(diversae nations populorum) differ between themselves in descent, manners, language and laws(genere, moribus, lingua, legibus) so the holy and universal church throughout the world, although joined in the unity of the faith nevertheless varies its ecclesiastical customs among them."

For those concerned about Christianity's relationship to Judaism, and how that affects Germanics, please read below:

"What is remarkable about the Christian kingdoms which emerged along the periphery of the former Roman empire is that, despite extensive borrowings from local Roman pratice and occasional diplomatic relations with the court of Constantinople, they did not wish to see themselves exclusively as minature Romes. Because they were Christian, they could also claim to belong to a history without Rome. They could look past the Roman Empire to the Old Testament....We know of the rise of Clovis principally from the account of Gregory, the Catholic bishop of Tours...For Gregory, the Catholic bishop, the career of Clovis was a career worthy of an Old Testament hero. For Clovis resembled, not a Roman emperor, but, rather, the morally flawed but energetic and warlike king David. It was better to be remembered as resembling a king of the long-past ancient Israel than as having once been courted as an ally by the existing East Roman empire...Rome and its history were no longer central to the imagination of the inhabitants of the former periphery of the empire. A sense of the Roman past was replaced by a different past - the past of the Old Testament. This past was brought close through the Holy Scriptures. It described, vividly and appositely, the turbulent warrior kingdom of ancient Israel. It was a past better suited to the stormy present than were memories of imperial Rome."
--Peter Brown The Rise of Western Christendom: Triumph and Diversity 200-1000 AD pp. 139-140

So the early Germanic Christians deliberately chose the Old Testament as a model for its sense of piety, in large part because their tribal warrior society resembled the Israelites on many levels. In fact many Germanic chieftains tried to argue in favor of maintaining the practice of polygamy on the grounds that the Old Testament Patriarchs practiced it.

Oski
Wednesday, October 17th, 2007, 11:44 PM
Fact: Jesus was a jew, thats non-germanic for most who don't already know. He taught in jewish temples. Does that sound germanic to you?

Though being germanic doesnt exactly mean you have to be a nazi I always enjoy this:
http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n311/vaggieskabs661/hitler1kt5.jpg

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p190/faustus37/jesusliberal.jpg
Come on people this is common knowledge!!!!

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, October 17th, 2007, 11:58 PM
http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n311/vaggieskabs661/hitler1kt5.jpg

Of course the question becomes, how on earth does one come to that conclusion?

Either way, this is a perfect reminder of Vladimir Soloviev's profound insights into how nationalism degenerates in three stages:

First, the worship of one's nation as the chosen vessel of universal truth; second, the worship of one's nation irrespective of universal truth; and finally the worship of one's nation on the basis of a direct denial of universal truth.

Some are just all too eager to prove him right one way or another, especially concerning the final stage.

CharlesDexterWard
Thursday, October 18th, 2007, 12:21 AM
I think the more appropriate question should be is Christianity the true religion?

That may sound good, but it makes no sense. Have you tried Islam? What if you did, and you found that it was not only true, but in fact true to a greater extent than Christianity? Would you convert? You may say that Christianity is entirely true, but what if you find another religion that is entirely true? If you found that you feel Christianity is 'truer' than any other religion, I'd say that's because you were brought up in a Christian context of some kind. In fact, if you think that we should go with what's true, you shouldn't ask yourself if Christianity is the true religion. You should examine all religions, and moreover, you should just go with anything that is true. In my opinion, you are overlooking the ethnic component of beliefs, but you take it for granted in positing a question that is already biased in Christianity's favour. You might as well have asked yourself if Voodoo is the true religion, but I take it you didn't.

Flash Voyager
Thursday, October 18th, 2007, 12:42 AM
Simply put; Yes.

Fist of all none of the biblical stories take place in Germanic lands, let alone Europe. Most(if not all) of it is about stories derived from Semitic cultures of the near east.
But of course, the wisdom is the very essence of Christianity, not it's origins, I don't care who practices it. Most people here in Iceland are Lutheran Christians, it never bothered me.

OneEnglishNorman
Thursday, October 18th, 2007, 01:27 AM
I can't get past the fact, that Jesus looked like Yasser Arafat.

http://www-nlpir.nist.gov/projects/tv2003/active/topics/example.images/arafat.jpg

Christianity is modified for European and latterly Germanic tastes. But it's still something which has been imposed from outside.

Also, this religion, based in the lands of Arabs and Africans, has drawn Europeans into this foreign sphere and caused problems for us. From the Crusades to the founding of Israel.

Anyway, I've done the whole Christianity thing. I'm not going to bitch at anyone who still believes in it or attends church. It's not for me.

SwordOfTheVistula
Thursday, October 18th, 2007, 03:02 AM
It did us good for a time, but now I think it's time to progress further, away from superstition and mysticism entirely.

Chakravartin
Thursday, October 18th, 2007, 10:44 AM
Even though they have kept or borrowed some important concepts, useful teachings, and stories... All of the Abrahamic religions are alien and unsuitable.


It did us good for a time, but now I think it's time to progress further, away from superstition and mysticism entirely.

No, that would just be regressing. Especially away from anything to do with preservation and tradition.

Dagna
Thursday, October 18th, 2007, 03:50 PM
Fact: Jesus was a jew, thats non-germanic for most who don't already know. He taught in jewish temples. Does that sound germanic to you?

Though being germanic doesnt exactly mean you have to be a nazi I always enjoy this:
http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n311/vaggieskabs661/hitler1kt5.jpg
Come on people this is common knowledge!!!!
Oh please, do you realize how ridiculous that is?

About 67 percent of the German population, more than 55 million people, belong to a Christian Church. Nearly half of them are Protestants, nearly half of them Roman Catholics, and a minority belongs to other Christian denominations.


http://www.germany.info/relaunch/culture/life/religion.html

So the millions of Catholic and protestant Germans aren't really German? :rolleyes: Martin Luther wasn't German? Hitler was a catholic by the way, that's common knowledge, so I guess he wasn't German either?

http://skeptically.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/hitler-infront-church.jpg

http://skeptically.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/hitler-in-church.jpg.w300h433.jpg

Hitler the Catholic (http://skeptically.org/againstreligion/id13.html)

Christianity is Semitic in origin, but don't confuse things.

Taras Bulba
Thursday, October 18th, 2007, 10:33 PM
That may sound good, but it makes no sense.

Really, explain?



Have you tried Islam?

No, not per se. But for several years I was very much fascinated with it, even to the extent I actually considered converting.



What if you did, and you found that it was not only true, but in fact true to a greater extent than Christianity? Would you convert?

Yes I would.



You may say that Christianity is entirely true, but what if you find another religion that is entirely true?

Then I would convert to it.



If you found that you feel Christianity is 'truer' than any other religion, I'd say that's because you were brought up in a Christian context of some kind.

I was brought up in a Christian context. Nevertheless, that doesn't negate the fact that I've spent several years exploring various different spiritual paths. I also spent several years of my life as an atheist.

And in case you don't know, being a Christian does not mean denying the spiritual value of other faiths. As Thomas Merton famously stated:

"If I affirm myself as a Catholic merely by denying all that is Muslim, Jewish, Protestant, Hindu, Buddhist, etc., in the end I will find that there is not much left for me to affirm as a Catholic: and certainly no breath of the Spirit with which to affirm it.”

And I firmly agree with this. I have no problems whatsoever getting along with peoples of other faiths, so long as they respect mine.



In fact, if you think that we should go with what's true, you shouldn't ask yourself if Christianity is the true religion.

Since we're discussing Christianity here, that's exactly what you're supposed to be asking yourself.



You should examine all religions, and moreover, you should just go with anything that is true.

See my comments above.



In my opinion, you are overlooking the ethnic component of beliefs

No actually I am not. In fact one major argument I'm making here is that Christianity openly acknowledges and celebrates the fact that each ethnicity and culture has its own unique way of following the faith. Christian Universalism is not abstract you know, it's always been based upon a concrete basis.


You might as well have asked yourself if Voodoo is the true religion, but I take it you didn't.

Just a reminder, this discussion is specifically about Christianity, not Voodoo.

And besides, in case you didnt know, but Voodoo is actually a mixture of native African mysticism with Catholicism(ie Christianity); which gets back to my main argument about "inculturation".

If you wish, here's an interesting article from Crisis Magazine about Voodoo:
http://www.crisismagazine.com/may2004/wray.htm

So in many ways, you just rendered a rather odd and moot question.

SwordOfTheVistula
Thursday, October 18th, 2007, 11:52 PM
No, that would just be regressing. Especially away from anything to do with preservation and tradition.

Which things that are currently explained by science today do you think would be better explained by mythology?

CharlesDexterWard
Friday, October 19th, 2007, 12:57 AM
As Thomas Merton famously stated:

"If I affirm myself as a Catholic merely by denying all that is Muslim, Jewish, Protestant, Hindu, Buddhist, etc., in the end I will find that there is not much left for me to affirm as a Catholic: and certainly no breath of the Spirit with which to affirm it.”I know very well that quite some (but definitely not all Christians, thank God) somehow think that Muslims are better than those of their own ethnic brothers who are atheists. Adjusting your own beliefs after those of others, be it in rejecting them or conforming to them, is not honest. That I can agree on.

I have only one question: What is it, in your opinion, that makes Christianity the true religion, or the best one of true religions, or whatever is the basis of your choice? Since you are so sure of it, and think that it is relevant in a debate, you must have a very clear notion of it. So, just say it.

I do not take a book or another item, and point to it and say: 'Look here it is, the ultimate truth.' Religions can seem to be true, because they can seem to aid you in understanding and help you be at one with truth and spirit, but religions themselves are demiurgic constructions. To say of a religion that it is true, is to focus on an empty vessel instead of on God the essence which can seem to dwell in the vessel. Then you worship religion instead of God. To be religious in that sense is to me the opposite of being spiritual and faithful.

Jäger
Friday, October 19th, 2007, 09:22 AM
Of course the question becomes, how on earth does one come to that conclusion?


So the millions of Catholic and protestant Germans aren't really German? :rolleyes: Martin Luther wasn't German? Hitler was a catholic by the way, that's common knowledge, so I guess he wasn't German either?

It is a question of loyalty, Hitler wrote in his testament, that to every German man the most important thing in this world must be the honor of the German nation.
He demanded that Germans should primarily believe in their Volk and their race, so if you place your Christian faith above these things, then you are not German, if you subject your faith to these things, then you are not really a Christian.
Obviously, most of the time there might be no contradiction, but if the time comes where you have to decide, there shouldn't be a moment of doubt which side you would take.

Soldier of Wodann
Saturday, October 20th, 2007, 08:57 AM
Oh please, do you realize how ridiculous that is?

About 67 percent of the German population, more than 55 million people, belong to a Christian Church. Nearly half of them are Protestants, nearly half of them Roman Catholics, and a minority belongs to other Christian denominations.


http://www.germany.info/relaunch/culture/life/religion.html

So the millions of Catholic and protestant Germans aren't really German? :rolleyes: Martin Luther wasn't German? Hitler was a catholic by the way, that's common knowledge, so I guess he wasn't German either?

http://skeptically.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/hitler-infront-church.jpg

http://skeptically.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/hitler-in-church.jpg.w300h433.jpg

Hitler the Catholic (http://skeptically.org/againstreligion/id13.html)

Christianity is Semitic in origin, but don't confuse things.

I like what Evola says about this:
Ethical and religious Christianity today is nothing more than a name and a habit, absolutely external to conscience; but nobody, or nearly nobody, has bothered to abolish the name itself and to put its content on trial again, so as to start right back at the beginning, rejecting the "fact" of Christianity, its "tradition" and all the rest.

Theudanaz
Saturday, October 20th, 2007, 07:29 PM
Briefly: You ask pragmatic questions, but Christianity is believed because it is historically true, *not* primarily because it is pragmatic, useful, syllogistically complete or totally beneficial to society, etc. In fact it has often been the opposite of such things, as imperial Rome duly noted. I don't believe religion can be practical or pragmatic, at least primarily.

Christianity, unlike Islam or Asatru, etc., is belief in a just, merciful and personal God, vastly superior to the impersonal and erratic false god Allah or the Germanic pantheon, which are merely elevated humans; one is too transcendent, the other too immanent. His transcendence is from eternity, his immanence proceeds from his self-personality (his trinitarian complexity is the origin, so to speak, of personal relation). Christians have assurance of God's love by the historical facts, witnessed and recorded by the apostles in the inerrant original autographs of the Bible, that God himself became man to die as the perfect sacrifice, and rise again: the complete resolution to all error, ignorance and imperfection which Man through Adam fell into. Thus we have newness of life and enjoy Heaven eternally. If the Christ's bones are found, i.e. if find out that Christ was not raised from the dead, Christians, as Paul says, are to be pitied most among all men. But thanks be to God, it's true, and... it's pretty good, to boot!



I know very well that quite some (but definitely not all Christians, thank God) somehow think that Muslims are better than those of their own ethnic brothers who are atheists. Adjusting your own beliefs after those of others, be it in rejecting them or conforming to them, is not honest. That I can agree on.

I have only one question: What is it, in your opinion, that makes Christianity the true religion, or the best one of true religions, or whatever is the basis of your choice? Since you are so sure of it, and think that it is relevant in a debate, you must have a very clear notion of it. So, just say it.

I do not take a book or another item, and point to it and say: 'Look here it is, the ultimate truth.' Religions can seem to be true, because they can seem to aid you in understanding and help you be at one with truth and spirit, but religions themselves are demiurgic constructions. To say of a religion that it is true, is to focus on an empty vessel instead of on God the essence which can seem to dwell in the vessel. Then you worship religion instead of God. To be religious in that sense is to me the opposite of being spiritual and faithful.

CharlesDexterWard
Saturday, October 20th, 2007, 10:35 PM
I think you, Theudanaz, have misunderstood me gravely. Therefore this post is a lengthy one.

I didn't think that this thread had to be about our personal leanings, about the objective truth or falsety of Christianity or any of those more speculative questions. But I guess the topic can become more interesting this way, and I accept the invitation. I actually started on it in that last paragraph that you quoted me with (in case you didn't notice you can read it).


Briefly: You ask pragmatic questions, but Christianity is believed because it is historically true, *not* primarily because it is pragmatic, useful, syllogistically complete or totally beneficial to society, etc. In fact it has often been the opposite of such things, as imperial Rome duly noted. I don't believe religion can be practical or pragmatic, at least primarily.
I advocate that Christianity is a suitable religion for Germanics, but I don't do that on social pragmatic grounds only. If Christianity was all rubbish, but somehow nevertheless had become tradition, I would not advocate it.

Anyway, I have come to realize something: How permeated the Germanic cultures are by Christianity. That is not enough proof that Christianity is a good vehicle, and it seems to be outside of what you, Theudanaz as well as Taras, consider to be important.

Anyway, it may sound like a banal truism. I mean that Christianity is culturally manifest all over the place, from the individual and his thoughts all the way through (popular) culture to politics. This is one way that we can (falsely) arrive at the conclusion that Christianity is true, by mere cultural correspondences. But then, in my opinion we have arrived at a delusion, caused by the power of mass culture, not by the power of God. And I think that these things should be debated alongside any discussion of whether a religion is true or not.

Partly, my advocacy of Christianity is pragmatic, and it is partly pragmatic because most people aren't capable of further insights as to what is cultural and what is spiritual. It's 'all the same' in a naive fashion to most people. I am not pragmatic in the sense that I would deny God. And most of those who are capable of those further insights do not choose to eradicate the influences from a Christian tradition that they have been taught from a young age. They are wise. They continue on their path in oscillation with tradition, because tradition means more and is a better vehicle than what you can pick and choose from someone else's car park, given - of course - that the traditional vehicle is indeed a good one.

I have met many bad teachers, but that is not what I'm talking about.

My answer to the divide between realism and relativism is that there can be some vehicles that are equally good. ;) Not all. And don't ask me which ones are equally good, because it is not fair. I'm not a juggler of religions, I don't collect them as trophies and I do not show off.


Christianity, unlike Islam or Asatru, etc., is belief in a just, merciful and personal God, vastly superior to the impersonal and erratic false god Allah

I will not comment in detail on Islam, for if I would, ugly things would come out of my mouth. Islam does not speak to me. I have tried to lend my two eyes to see for myself, but I am certain: It is not for me, nor for other Germanics.


or the Germanic pantheon, which are merely elevated humans; one is too transcendent, the other too immanent. His transcendence is from eternity, his immanence proceeds from his self-personality (his trinitarian complexity is the origin, so to speak, of personal relation).

Oh, I see. Interesting that you make such a connection, but nevertheless you have to deny the one for the appraisal of the other. Also I can say to anyone who wants to know how I feel about the Germanic pantheon: I'm for it. But I'm not for any strife between Christianity and Heathenry. I think it's a waste of time and energy.


Christians have assurance of God's love by the historical facts, witnessed and recorded by the apostles in the inerrant original autographs of the Bible, that God himself became man to die as the perfect sacrifice, and rise again: the complete resolution to all error, ignorance and imperfection which Man through Adam fell into. Thus we have newness of life and enjoy Heaven eternally. If the Christ's bones are found, i.e. if find out that Christ was not raised from the dead, Christians, as Paul says, are to be pitied most among all men. But thanks be to God, it's true, and... it's pretty good, to boot!

OK, so now here's someone who will tell me what would make Christianity the true religion, it's a matter of the Christ's bones. I thank you for your honesty, although I find it rather peculiar. Tell me, how exactly would we be able to tell whether any given bones are those of Jesus? :rolleyes:

Midvinterblot
Sunday, October 21st, 2007, 02:00 AM
It may be less alien than other religions but it is still alien none the less. The origins came from Semites, regardless of Germanic influence afterwards. Heathenism has pure Germanic values and is the only real path to restoring traditional culture.

United Faith
Sunday, October 21st, 2007, 02:30 AM
I think it is but less so than Judaism and Islam.

Talan
Sunday, October 21st, 2007, 02:51 AM
A very complicated question, it is. I will just sketch some outlines to explain what I mean.

Not really. The structuralism involved in Christian mythology and ritual is universal in tone. Perhaps more so than any other cultural system.

Brynhild
Sunday, October 21st, 2007, 05:12 AM
Without wanting to get into the rights and wrongs of any religious faith, my religion of choice is Celtic/Norse Heathenry. I like Heathenry because of the strong connections to kin and ancestry, the myths and legends surrounding the Celts and Norse, and that I'm a Polytheist who doesn't believe in one supreme Deity.

I chose this path after the dissatisfaction that arose from the dogmatic practise of Catholicism that I was baptised under. I had to undergo hours of Catechisms and confessions - for both Holy Communion and Confirmation. I followed this religion blindly, not really knowing what it entailed. I found the older I got, I knew it wasn't the right practise for me.

I'm interested in Genealogy, and have researched the family tree on my mother's side as best as I could - I have managed to go back as far as 200 years in Ireland. Beyond that, records are scarce, if not destroyed altogether. A relative was researching my father's side, and all I know about that is he was Maltese. To find the right researcher in those areas cost a lot of money. What I do know is that my family line were both Catholic and Protestants, and I suspect (Only suspect mind you, as it's based on my hunch) that Heathenry was practised on the side.

Whatever a person's beliefs on Deities are, I've always been comfortable with Polytheism, myths and legends. My choice is to mix with those of like mind, reconstruct ancient rituals as best as I'm able (Being an Australian of Celtic/Germanic lineage has its challenges :D ) and live in a particular way that is in keeping with my ancestry. What I do has a ripple effect through my ancestry, and my descendants. I'm accountable for what I say and do.

The one view I do uphold on religion is "Each to their own". Too many times have people tried to shove a particular belief of their choice down my throat, much to the cost of friendships and severed familial ties.

I'm essentially alone as far as my immediate family (Mum and siblings) goes, but I'm comfortable with who I am and my religion. I'm grateful to the religious scholars for keeping what knowledge they have been able to obtain, but I'm also saddened by what has been destroyed. The Library of Alexandria in Egypt comes to mind.

CharlesDexterWard
Sunday, October 21st, 2007, 12:03 PM
Not really. The structuralism involved in Christian mythology and ritual is universal in tone. Perhaps more so than any other cultural system.

I agree with a modification. In my opinion, Christianity has a tendency towards individual spirituality that is far stronger than its universalism, although the two things go hand in hand to some extent.

My humble opinion is that there has been and still is too much stress on universalism in Christianity. I know that it is based on Matt 28:19-20, but I don't think that the ways in which it is done is in line with its intention. Crusades, conquests and other violent means, as well as modern interventionism, are products of that too far gone universal tendency. These things are more in line with Islam in my opinion, since it ordains that swords shall be used to spread Islam. I see no reason whatsoever to assume that Jesus was for any such cultural imperialism. Even peaceful Christian missionaries - those I've met - have too much of the here's-what-I-can-do-for-you attitude to those they try to convert. They like to deny their own problems, while they try to amend what they think is wrong with a stranger. That attitude has gotten us into lots of trouble, and I say let's not make it any worse.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Monday, October 22nd, 2007, 06:54 AM
Christianity, Judaism and Islam are monotheistic. These religions are totally alien to not only Germanics but all Europeans. Hinduism is closer to us than the cult of Christ.

Vingolf
Monday, October 22nd, 2007, 10:44 AM
Christianity, Judaism and Islam are monotheistic. These religions are totally alien to not only Germanics but all Europeans.
I basically agree, but we should also keep in mind that the Christian religion was transformed and "Germanized" to some extent down through the centuries. What happened, however, was that Europeans gradually became brainwashed with a Jewish ideology, a Jewish cosmology, a Jewish mindset. The Jews entered the focal point, the centre of the stage; the Europeans became soaked up in a Judaeocentric gravitational field.

Old Winter
Wednesday, October 24th, 2007, 01:42 AM
Strip away the none-christian influences in christianity and you will have a alien religion.

Skarpherdin
Monday, October 29th, 2007, 04:26 AM
the Christian faith the Germanic people spread was a one that was heavily influenced by the Barbarians themselves it had a lot of old "heathen" elements to it.

all the Christians did was alter the names and meanings of a few hoildays

Ausswolf
Monday, October 29th, 2007, 11:45 AM
I believe many people reject Semitic religions like Judaism and Islam, but they do not reject a third Semitic religion, Christianity. Is this justified? SHould Germanics practice this religion? I believe so. Christianity has a history in Germania (Germanic Christianity (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=2005)) while Judaism and Islam do not. Christianity has been adapted to the needs and customs of Germanics. Therefore, Christianity is not as alien to Germanics as Judaism and Islam.

Of course it is an alien religion. Multiculturalism now has a history in Germanic countries too, it doesn't mean that it's a positive or Germanic thing. I cannot fathom why a so called Germanic preservationist would follow this strange desert religion and worship a dead jew except through force of habit, pressure from family, massive fear of death (needing afterlife), or not being strong enough to practice Germanic heathenism/atheism/agnosticism.

Skarpherdin
Tuesday, October 30th, 2007, 06:43 AM
i agree with the Post ontop of mine why should we Honor or except a desert faith that has no meaning to us

why should i care about a random carpentor that caused trouble and was Executed for the disruption

i say good on the Romans

it has no right to be brought to Europe

SwordOfTheVistula
Wednesday, October 31st, 2007, 05:46 AM
It's not really a 'strange desert religion' when you consider the sources it has gone through. Initially it started with Egypt and other ancient civilizations (which are thought by many to have been ruled by a nordic elite), then adopted by the Romans, and then Germanicized in the dark ages, and protestant Christianity furthered Germanic influences. Most ancient Germanic traditions such as Christmas trees were embedded into the Christian religion, it is only in recent years that it has gotten away from this.

Interesting book 'The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity'

http://books.google.com/books?id=RmWyf2pvGR0C&dq=jim+russell+early+christianity&pg=PP1&ots=jxgu6aB2bM&sig=FVDgaVvH3CESRNyrtqg4XuzyeJ4&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Djim%2Brussell%2Be arly%2Bchristianity%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSe arch&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail

Gefjon
Wednesday, October 31st, 2007, 01:47 PM
Fact: Jesus was a jew, thats non-germanic for most who don't already know. He taught in jewish temples. Does that sound germanic to you?

Though being germanic doesnt exactly mean you have to be a nazi I always enjoy this:
http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n311/vaggieskabs661/hitler1kt5.jpg

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p190/faustus37/jesusliberal.jpg
Come on people this is common knowledge!!!!
Actually, not really.

24. We demand freedom for all religious denominations in the State, provided they do not threaten its existence not offend the moral feelings of the German race.

The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not commit itself to any particular denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health only from within on the basis of the principle: The common interest before self-interest.

--NSDAP Program.

No, Christianity is not alien to Germanics even if it's not Germanic in origin. No religion is alien to us as long as we adapt it to our needs and it doesn't threaten our existence as a group. Think about it, we use a lot of stuff we adopted from foreigners. Don't tell me that cornbread you ate the other day or the beer you drank is "Germanic" in origin. ;)

Skarpherdin
Thursday, November 1st, 2007, 04:16 AM
it is Alien

the land Vaettir are called Demons
Chirstianity is a desert faith that was changed but it still is not Germanic

CharlesDexterWard
Thursday, November 1st, 2007, 11:35 AM
it is Alien

the land Vaettir are called Demons
Chirstianity is a desert faith that was changed but it still is not Germanic
You say:
'Christianity is not Germanic.'

(Part of) Christianity is indeed Germanic. The rationale behind 'part of' is that Christianity, as a cultural entity, is quantitatively - geographically and demographically - greater than the Germanic meta-ethnic.

And so it makes even more sense to turn the tables:
The Germanic nations are Christian.

Taras Bulba
Sunday, November 4th, 2007, 08:12 PM
It may be less alien than other religions but it is still alien none the less. The origins came from Semites, regardless of Germanic influence afterwards. Heathenism has pure Germanic values and is the only real path to restoring traditional culture.

Well thank god I'm Slavic, where such a conflict between "pure Slavic values" and the one true faith simply does not exist.



Christianity, Judaism and Islam are monotheistic. These religions are totally alien to not only Germanics but all Europeans. Hinduism is closer to us than the cult of Christ.

I'd like to know how one comes to that conclusion. Certainly there's much in Hinduism that is of value, but to say it's closer to Europeanism than Christianity is rather bogus.

Oh well, time for me to be a smart-arse :D:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/02/wcow02.xml

A gift from the gods: bottled cow's urine
By Julian West in New Delhi
Last Updated: 10:03pm BST 01/09/2001

HINDU nationalists in India have launched a marketing exercise to promote cow's urine as a health cure for ailments ranging from liver disease to obesity and even cancer.

The urine, which is being sold under the label "Gift of the Cow", is being enthusiastically promoted by the government of Gujarat, one of three states in India dominated by Hindu nationalists....

...Like all devout Hindus, RSS members believe that all cow products are sacred. Ghee, or clarified butter, is used in Indian cooking and to light lamps during temple ceremonies, and milk is commonly poured over sacred idols as an offering.

The healing properties of cow dung and cow's urine are also mentioned in ancient Hindu texts. The research conducted by doctors at the cow-protection commission indicates that the urine can cure anything from skin diseases, kidney and liver ailments to obesity and heart ailments.....

And.......


http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSEIC47086020070905

Airline sacrifices goats to appease sky god
Wed Sep 5, 2007 2:22am EDT

KATHMANDU (Reuters) - Officials at Nepal's state-run airline have sacrificed two goats to appease Akash Bhairab, the Hindu sky god, following technical problems with one of its Boeing 757 aircraft, the carrier said Tuesday.

Nepal Airlines, which has two Boeing aircraft, has had to suspend some services in recent weeks due the problem.

The goats were sacrificed in front of the troublesome aircraft Sunday at Nepal's only international airport in Kathmandu in accordance with Hindu traditions, an official said.

"The snag in the plane has now been fixed and the aircraft has resumed its flights," said Raju K.C., a senior airline official, without explaining what the problem had been.

Local media last week blamed the company's woes on an electrical fault. The carrier runs international flights to five cities in Asia.

It is common in Nepal to sacrifice animals like goats and buffaloes to appease different Hindu deities.

Chakravartin
Sunday, November 4th, 2007, 09:52 PM
Well thank god I'm Slavic, where such a conflict between "pure Slavic values" and the one true faith simply does not exist.

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


Certainly there's much in Hinduism that is of value, but to say it's closer to Europeanism than Christianity is rather bogus.

I think that there is certainly much of value in Christianity likewise, just not as many things of value as in other religions I am afraid, other religions which are more true to the source and not as degenerated and disinformed.

Jesus did have siddhis after all... ;) I wonder where he picked them up?

KxhcWUSoE4Y


Oh well, time for me to be a smart-arse :D:

What does cow urine have to do with Brahma and other religious concepts?

Two can play at your game.

http://www.lies.com/wp/images/mary.jpg


http://www.nbc5.com/news/8275936/detail.html
More than 200 people gathered Saturday evening under the Interstate 74 bridge over the Rock River in Moline, where some local residents have reported seeing an apparition of the Virgin Mary.

Authorities said the crowd Saturday evening was the largest since the reports of sightings began.

Some of the curious last night brought lawn chairs, binoculars and cameras. Others flipped out their camera phones to take a shot of what they saw.

Many wouldn't go on the record as to whether they saw an image or not.

Last year, thousands of people flocked to the Fullerton Avenue underpass on the Kennedy Expressway to see an image that officials believed was a salt stain, but some believed was the image of the Virgin Mary.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/10_03/popefireDM1510_468x365.jpg


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=487764&in_page_id=1811
This fiery figure is being hailed as Pope John Paul II making an appearance beyond the grave.

The image, said by believers to show the Holy Father with his right hand raised in blessing, was spotted during a ceremony in Poland to mark the second anniversary of his death.

Details appeared on the Vatican News Service, a TV station in Rome which specialises in religious news broadcasts.

-2040471524409841246
6UMP3AK5jwo
EZ9To30Hz7A

How many valuable Mayan codices were lost because of your Conquistador buddies again?

Ausswolf
Sunday, November 4th, 2007, 11:21 PM
rofl at the blind faith exhibited by christians in the face of reason in this thread. Obviously christianity made by semitic people from the middle-east is LESS Germanic than the original Germanic beliefs of our heathen, dare I say Aryan forefathers.

Here you go Taras...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_religion

Taras Bulba
Monday, November 5th, 2007, 12:05 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_mythology

I'm well aware of Slavic paganism. Nevertheless, Christianity has played such an important role in our development as a people that it's pratically our heritage and the faith are largely inseperable.

I loved this from your own source:


For the last few decades, Slavic paganism has gained certain popularity in the Russian public, with many web sites and organizations dedicated to the study of Slavic mythology .[1][2] and who openly call for "returning to the roots".[3].

Most of which are largely small and basically irrelevant. Most people making the call for "returning to the roots" in terms of heritage are largely Christian based. I know this particularly true in regards to my Ukrainian heritage.

One of the first expressions of such was in Mykola Kostomarov's Book of Genesis of the Ukrainian People in the mid-19th century.

It declared that it was through destiny the Ukrainians had adopted the Christian faith, and because of her true devotion to Christ it suffered the fate of subjugation and oppression. But through her suffering, Ukraine would then redeem not only itself but all oppressed peoples everywhere.

Themes such as these are constant throughout Ukrainian culture. They predominate within the poems of Taras Shevchenko(Ukraine's greatest poet).

Under the Bolshevsiks,repressions against the Church coincided with respressions against Ukrainian culture in general. The nationalist dissident Valentyn Moroz even had this to say in regards to that:


"(The) Uniate movement has grown into the living body of the Ukrainian spirituality and became national in character...The Church has rooted itself in the cultural life so deeply that it is impossible to touch it without damaging the spiritual structure of a nation. It is impossible to imagine traditional cultural values without the Church. It is ultimately necessary to understand that an attack against the Church is an attack against culture...Galicia did not turn Polish because of the Ukrainian Church. In this and similar cases we can equate the Church and spirituality, in general...The classical swindle is to declare the spiritual riches of a nation, 'useless superstitions', 'opium of the people'..." The Church was always the forefront advocating for the rights of the nation.

The Church also played an important role in strengthening the communal ties of the Ukrainian communities abroad.

And so on and so on. I'm well aware of the spiritual heritage of my people.



Many Slavic pagans[citation needed] believe that the Slavic peoples should unite to become one nation based on the original religion of the Slavs, much like Kievan Rus[citation needed].

Yeah except the pagan Slavs were disunited into various different tribes. This was even true under Kievan Rus. In fact one reason why Prince Vladimir converted was to provide a religion that could better unite the warring factions.

Also, please note the irony that the idea of a united Slavic "nation" was largely forged under the notion of a united spiritual heritage that began with the legacy of Ss. Cyril and Methodius, Apostles to the Slavs.

http://www.stjohn-catholic.org/images/Saints/Saints%20Cyril%20and%20Methodius%20-%20web.jpg

You honestly cannot even begin to talk about Slavic culture without references to these guys. Thanks to them, many of the Slavic languages developed into literary languages which paved the way to writers like Dostovesky, Mickiewicz, Tolstoy, Shevchenko, Solzhenitsyn, and plenty others.



Two can play at your game.

You're obviously taking this more seriously than I am. Learn to have a sense of humour.


How many valuable Mayan codices were lost because of your Conquistador buddies again?

I really don't know off hand. But if you want to know the real long-term consequences of that, read this:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods23.html



"Reports of Spanish mistreatment of the natives of the New World prompted a severe crisis of conscience among significant sectors of the Spanish population in the sixteenth century, not least among her philosophers and theologians. The issue provoked substantial discussion and debate within the Spanish intellectual community. This fact alone indicates that we are witnessing something historically unusual: nothing in the historical record suggests that Attila the Hun had any moral qualms about his conquests, and the large-scale human sacrifice that was so fundamental to Aztec civilization appears to have elicited no outpouring of self-criticism and philosophical reflection among that native people comparable to what European misbehavior provoked among Catholic theologians in sixteenth-century Spain.

It was in the course of that philosophical reflection that Spanish theologians achieved something rather substantial: the beginnings of modern international law. Thus the controversy surrounding the natives of America provided the occasion for the elucidation of general principles that states were morally bound to observe in their interactions with each other."

Taras Bulba
Monday, November 5th, 2007, 12:15 AM
Here you go Taras...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_religion

Thanks, Im well aware of all that. Nevertheless it still doesn't contradict the obvious fact that Christianity has had a far deeper impact upon European culture than Hinduism or Buddhism.

Allow me to cite the spiritual journey of one German, E.F. Schumacher, who spent many years being a devotee of Buddhism. Then one day his Buddhist colleagues mentioned to him that although it was nice he found interest in Buddhism, he should truely devote his time studying the spriritual path of his own native heritage. Upon that advice he eventually converted to Catholicism.

Ausswolf
Monday, November 5th, 2007, 01:58 AM
Does anyone have a link to the russian site with the brilliant photos of their pagan ceremonies, they were awesome from memory, but can't find the link.

Einheri
Tuesday, November 6th, 2007, 08:21 PM
In my opinion, if you're a Christian, you're betraying your Germanic roots.

Gefjon
Tuesday, November 6th, 2007, 08:27 PM
In my opinion, if you're a Christian, you're betraying your Germanic roots.
May I ask why? Am I also betraying my Germanic roots everytime I eat German potato salad? Cause potatoes sure ain't Germanic. ;) Or when I drink beer, which was invented by Egyptians? :confused:

Ausswolf
Wednesday, November 7th, 2007, 12:54 AM
May I ask why? Am I also betraying my Germanic roots everytime I eat German potato salad? Cause potatoes sure ain't Germanic. ;) Or when I drink beer, which was invented by Egyptians? :confused:

No, but I'd say you've betrayed your roots by marrying a Serbian but that's another topic haha.
I thought this site was also about germanic spiritual preservation and yet some of you follow christianity which is firstly jewish, secondly greek, thirdly roman and a distant fourth Germanic. How anyone can compare this to the native heathen spirituality of germanics that evolved with them since the dawn of time is just beyond me.

Gefjon
Wednesday, November 7th, 2007, 04:14 AM
No, but I'd say you've betrayed your roots by marrying a Serbian but that's another topic haha.
I thought this site was also about germanic spiritual preservation and yet some of you follow christianity which is firstly jewish, secondly greek, thirdly roman and a distant fourth Germanic. How anyone can compare this to the native heathen spirituality of germanics that evolved with them since the dawn of time is just beyond me.
I take it you're a pure 100 % Germanic preservationist aren't you. Then please practice what you preach and go back to Scandinavia cause that's where Germanics originated, stop eating foods that didn't come from the land of your people and stop using products that weren't developed by Germanics. Wearing any jeans by chance? Using ICQ? Throw them away, they're Jewish. Don't watch TV or read the paper cause a lot of it is controlled by the Jews. Don't use money which is a dirty Jewish tool.
I expect the next post you make to be made in runes. Your heathen ancestors would turn in their graves if they knew you were using the Latin alphabet. :D

Ausswolf
Wednesday, November 7th, 2007, 05:36 AM
I take it you're a pure 100 % Germanic preservationist aren't you. Then please practice what you preach and go back to Scandinavia cause that's where Germanics originated, stop eating foods that didn't come from the land of your people and stop using products that weren't developed by Germanics. Wearing any jeans by chance? Using ICQ? Throw them away, they're Jewish. Don't watch TV or read the paper cause a lot of it is controlled by the Jews. Don't use money which is a dirty Jewish tool.
I expect the next post you make to be made in runes. Your heathen ancestors would turn in their graves if they knew you were using the Latin alphabet. :D

I think your kinda missing the point....as adults we all have choices, I try to stay true to my roots, including some of the things you sarcastically mentioned. Some things in life are more important than others however you seem to think that me eating a bananna is as important as my children. I find this very strange. You are following a very popular modern trend of attempting to diminish personal responsibility for your choices. Your particular method is saying you can't be completely germanic so who cares! Well... I do care. I thought caring about these things is what seperated us from the masses?

SwordOfTheVistula
Wednesday, November 7th, 2007, 08:25 AM
I thought this site was also about germanic spiritual preservation and yet some of you follow christianity which is firstly jewish, secondly greek, thirdly roman and a distant fourth Germanic. How anyone can compare this to the native heathen spirituality of germanics that evolved with them since the dawn of time is just beyond me.

The Christian cycle did not begin with the Hebrews, they appropriated from the Egyptians, whose religion was formed by an ancient nordic ruling class.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=egyptian+origins+christianity&btnG=Google+Search

http://www.white-history.com/hwr8.htm

Also, the heathen spirituality stopped evolving around 1000 AD when Christianity was adopted, further evolutions of Germanic religion were into the Catholic Church and later Protestant, and finally over the past few centuries trending towards secularism/atheism/rationalism.

Skarpherdin
Wednesday, November 7th, 2007, 08:45 AM
No the Temple of Upsala
continued up until 1100ad so Germanic Heathenary continued, and people still worshiped in private

Jäger
Wednesday, November 7th, 2007, 10:13 AM
Then please practice what you preach and go back to Scandinavia cause that's where Germanics originated, ...
You forgot northern Germany, and we should focus on original climate, not original earth place. So indeed if Europe would become a desert, we should move on to a more fitting climate.


...stop eating foods that didn't come from the land of your people and stop using products that weren't developed by Germanics.
While this is not always possible or advantegous, it surely is generally the better choice, don't you think?

Skarpherdin
Thursday, November 8th, 2007, 03:38 AM
the Germanic people were doing fine without Christianity

Ausswolf
Thursday, November 8th, 2007, 03:45 AM
Although the poll is interesting I now realise this discussion is pretty pointless, christians will believe what they want to believe even in the face of all evidence and reason. This is what they call faith, taken from the dictionary "belief that is not based on proof".

Taras Bulba
Friday, November 9th, 2007, 12:01 AM
Although the poll is interesting I now realise this discussion is pretty pointless, christians will believe what they want to believe even in the face of all evidence and reason. This is what they call faith, taken from the dictionary "belief that is not based on proof".

One problem with your analysis is that we're not technically talking about "faith" per se but rather about the interactions between a particular religion(in this case Christianity) and a particular ethno-cultural tradition.

As for evidence and reason, I sincerely doubt much of that has been seen on the pagan side of the arguments; which basically amounts to nothing more than an extreme form of nativism where a tradition that has been part of the Germanic heritage for well over a 1000 years is somehow completely discounted. From this perspective, Germanic culture and history pretty much just died upon conversion to Christianity. Which in effect means it's very very very very selective as to what it considers truely "Germanic".

And I have yet to read anything near an appropriate response to the argument I made concerning inculturation; where Christianity is adapted to the local culture and customs of a people. So the Germanics always practiced their own distinctly "Germanic" form of Christianity.This in effect renders most arguments made about it being "alien" relatively moot.

Ausswolf
Friday, November 9th, 2007, 03:14 AM
One problem with your analysis is that we're not technically talking about "faith" per se but rather about the interactions between a particular religion(in this case Christianity) and a particular ethno-cultural tradition.

As for evidence and reason, I sincerely doubt much of that has been seen on the pagan side of the arguments; which basically amounts to nothing more than an extreme form of nativism where a tradition that has been part of the Germanic heritage for well over a 1000 years is somehow completely discounted. From this perspective, Germanic culture and history pretty much just died upon conversion to Christianity. Which in effect means it's very very very very selective as to what it considers truely "Germanic".

And I have yet to read anything near an appropriate response to the argument I made concerning inculturation; where Christianity is adapted to the local culture and customs of a people. So the Germanics always practiced their own distinctly "Germanic" form of Christianity.This in effect renders most arguments made about it being "alien" relatively moot.

:rolleyes: Thankyou... you just proved my point perfectly. LOL

Gefjon
Friday, November 9th, 2007, 05:17 AM
I think your kinda missing the point....as adults we all have choices, I try to stay true to my roots, including some of the things you sarcastically mentioned. Some things in life are more important than others however you seem to think that me eating a bananna is as important as my children. I find this very strange. You are following a very popular modern trend of attempting to diminish personal responsibility for your choices. Your particular method is saying you can't be completely germanic so who cares! Well... I do care. I thought caring about these things is what seperated us from the masses?
I don't find this strange at all. If you're judgmental and lecture others about Germanic preservation and purity, you should practice what you preach. No one forces that banana down your throat.

And I sure don't diminish responsibility for my choices. I know full well what I'm doing. Like I said before, my husband is germanicized and a white man. There is no difference between the language we speak and our cultures. Germanic is more than putting up warrior avatars and being an Odinist cause it's cool. If you can't grasp that Christianity is a part of our history just like the Varus battle, then it's your problem, not mine. Protestantism in particular is very Germanic. Come here and tell all the WASPs that they ain't Germanic, that they must start burning churches and wear Varg Vikernes T-shirts. :D

It seems like you're just another one of them folks who don't understand what culture is, it's made up of foreign elements too but that doesn't have to be bad, Christianity adopted many practices from paganism too, so what? If you don't like foreign elements at all than you should get off your seat and turn off that computer, "mate."

Although the poll is interesting I now realise this discussion is pretty pointless, christians will believe what they want to believe even in the face of all evidence and reason. This is what they call faith, taken from the dictionary "belief that is not based on proof".
But it's not pointless when some Odinists use it as an excuse to have a go and insult Christians and use lowbrow and petty lil anti-Christian one-liners. Yep, very reasonable and rational that is. :rolleyes:

Ausswolf
Friday, November 9th, 2007, 09:14 AM
I don't find this strange at all. If you're judgmental and lecture others about Germanic preservation and purity, you should practice what you preach. No one forces that banana down your throat.

And I sure don't diminish responsibility for my choices. I know full well what I'm doing. Like I said before, my husband is germanicized and a white man. There is no difference between the language we speak and our cultures. Germanic is more than putting up warrior avatars and being an Odinist cause it's cool. If you can't grasp that Christianity is a part of our history just like the Varus battle, then it's your problem, not mine. Protestantism in particular is very Germanic. Come here and tell all the WASPs that they ain't Germanic, that they must start burning churches and wear Varg Vikernes T-shirts. :D

It seems like you're just another one of them folks who don't understand what culture is, it's made up of foreign elements too but that doesn't have to be bad, Christianity adopted many practices from paganism too, so what? If you don't like foreign elements at all than you should get off your seat and turn off that computer, "mate."

Let me try again.

It is absurdly strange to think eating a banana is as important as the mother of my child.
I admit I can be idealistic when it comes to these things, I do try to "practice what I preach" but this doesn't mean I should turn off my pc and kill myself if I fail to live up to the heroic ideal.

In my mind just because a Serbian learns English and adopts German culture doesn't make him Germanic. Isn't blood important to? He's still obviously white, I'm thinking then you are a white nationalist rather than a nordicist/germanicist type?

You have a problem with my avatar, righto. And you think I'm Odinist because it’s cool? (please let me know where it's considered cool, I'd like to visit).

I never said christians weren't Germanic people. I also understand christianities place European history, fighting off the Ottoman Turks etc.
This doesn't change that I and about 80% of poll responders here view the religion as an ALIEN one. The vast majority of christianity is from a foreign culture. I honestly don't understand how you can argue this unless you use the 'christian identity' Jewish Jesus was actually white or the 'nordic egyptians' argument. Whether you call someone a priest or minister is trivial I think. Christianity is about the bible everything else is just frills and packaging.

I have just thought of an analogy. A virus living in a host body for years is still a virus. A highly lethal virus evolves over time to become less lethal, but this is only so it has a better chance of being passed onto new hosts. (e.g Calicivirus in rabbits and now HIV in humans).

I don't force my beliefs down anyone throat, I have friends and family that are christian and I don't evangelize, if they are curious about something they will ask me.
Culture is "made up of foreign elements too but that doesn't have to be bad"

I agree. Nice touch with the sarcastic "mate" though, Just unnecessary and unbecoming.




But it's not pointless when some Odinists use it as an excuse to have a go and insult Christians and use lowbrow and petty lil anti-Christian one-liners. Yep, very reasonable and rational that is. :rolleyes:

I havn't witnessed any attacks on christians.

Leof
Friday, November 9th, 2007, 10:10 AM
Long story about me...

I was a strange kid growing up and when I was only two years old I had a distinct desire to be pagan. I didn't want to go to hell however and my family were big on guilt tripping and browbeating as methods of parenting so eventually I gave up on that dream. None the less I disliked Jesus and saw him more as a necessery evil. His name literally made me cringe the way it slithers off your tongue.

I prayed often but dared not mention him by name and instead chose to go straight to the source which was his father. The Old testament god I liked more although he seemed wrathful and indifferent to mankinds suffering. At the very least he favored heroes and aggression which, as a young child I yearned for. You are required to give up on your personal identity and embrace an alien and foreign collective in exchange for the promise of happiness in death.

Throughout my childhood I went back and forth between religious devotion and indifference. Mostly do my frustration of how the Christian god seemed to have little concern with my own personal well being and instead busied himself with getting in to my business of what sins I have committed.

The whole sin thing gave me an inferiority complex in my teen years. At that point in my life I tried to read the new testament. I found Jesus to be even more speratic and bi-polar in behaviors and temperement than his father and eventually gave up on it. At this point I realized that what I was searching for couldn't be found in the brand of Christianity I was raised in and I began to look elsewhere.

I started out with an interest in Angels and that eventually evolved into occultism. Soon I was Christian only by name. I would say I was the vein of the Victorian occultist who simply tacked Jesus on to their manifesto but was more concerned with elements, magic and the spirit world. I would say it took about four years for me to really make sense of any of it and by then I had just reached adulthood.

The weird thing was at this time, I could see a larger scope of the big picture behind what I was really looking for and what Christianity didn't bestow upon me but it was so entangled with all the occultism that it was not clear.

For me, the ascension was the most important aspect of life and all things were secondary to it. I felt Christianity failed me do to it's fanciful notions and because of it's sin docterine, it inhibited mankind from being happy with it'self and thus inhibited it from ascension. It never occured to me I had simply recreated the crux of Christianity under a new name. This is what the Shambala monks call spiritual materialism.

Under it all I felt I really wasn't happy but I was so busy trying to accomplish what I felt "I had to do" that I never paid attention to it. About this time I went through a really difficult period and without a cut and dry faith to rely on I fell into a nervous breakdown. This went on for about half a year and at this point I sort of rediscovered my childhood dream of being pagan. It took me about a week to finally convince myself I wasn't damning myself to hell but even during that period the change in me was night and day.

So, in conclusion...

No one wanted to be Christian more than I did and in the end it was unobtainable and indifferent and was nothing more than an empty and weak faith. I am sure many here have similar stories. I remember the actor who played Luther in the movie by the same named said "I feel Luthar was too Christian to stay Christian" and I feel that is a great way to describe it.

Christianity is alien and foreign to Europe. The folk aspects of Christianity are directed strictly at the Israelites while all that is left is authoritarianism and a consumerist cult that brain washes people into tolerating living in the run-down overpopulated urban sprawl of the Roman Empire. Anyone who is happy and healthy would otherwise go mad trying to live in unnatural circumstances of modern civilization.

Jäger
Friday, November 9th, 2007, 10:13 AM
Like I said before, my husband is germanicized and a white man. There is no difference between the language we speak and our cultures.
Then you shouldn't call him Serbian.


If you can't grasp that Christianity is a part of our history just like the Varus battle, then it's your problem, not mine.
The killing of the Armin is also part of our history, a quite decisive one at that, that doesn't make it good though.


Protestantism in particular is very Germanic.
Yes, the biggest drawback is their Paulus-admiration, which always has given them a destructive affinity to Jews, the whole rise to power thing in America was (and still is) just possible because of their Protestant supporters.


Come here and tell all the WASPs that they ain't Germanic, that they must start burning churches and wear Varg Vikernes T-shirts. :D
Do you think a WASP would care about Germanicness?


It seems like you're just another one of them folks who don't understand what culture is, it's made up of foreign elements too but that doesn't have to be bad, Christianity adopted many practices from paganism too, so what?
Culture is a tool, a tool for survival, the survival of our blood, as long as it serves this purpose it can even come from Mars, thus intermixture of blood can never be on the same level as intermixture of culture. (where I don't want to comment on your husband, because I don't know him)
Additionally, what you are talking about is not completely culture, but just custom and traditions, real culture is created only by a few, the rest adopts to it.
If a Germanic creates culture, it is Germanic culture, no matter if he used a banana for it. :D


If you don't like foreign elements at all than you should get off your seat and turn off that computer, "mate."
What do you mean, what is foreign? The PC is pretty much Germanic. Although the current model is likely to be sold by Jews ;) :p


Isn't blood important to? He's still obviously white, I'm thinking then you are a white nationalist rather than a nordicist/germanicist type?
It is, white is not enough, at least not for me (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=1246 ) :) But we don't know him.

Gefjon
Friday, November 9th, 2007, 10:14 AM
Let me try again.

It is absurdly strange to think eating a banana is as important as the mother of my child.
I admit I can be idealistic when it comes to these things, I do try to "practice what I preach" but this doesn't mean I should turn off my pc and kill myself if I fail to live up to the heroic ideal.
Nope it just means you shouldn't lecture others. ;)

In my mind just because a Serbian learns English and adopts German culture doesn't make him Germanic. Isn't blood important to? He's still obviously white,
I said germanicized, not Germanic. Sure blood's important but there's no such thing as German blood in the literal sense. We have millions of ancestors. Ethnicity is a social construct, the English and Southern Grmans are more likely to have Celtic ancestors than the Swedes. Someone said something in another thread that I'm quite agree with, you're not born with culture, you learn it from your parents. I'm a Germanic American. I wasn't born an American, I became one. If I have children, I will teach them the same customs and values I'd have taught them if I had a husband who was of German descent.

I'm thinking then you are a white nationalist rather than a nordicist/germanicist type?
I'm a NS like it says in my profile.

You have a problem with my avatar, righto. And you think I'm Odinist because it’s cool? (please let me know where it's considered cool, I'd like to visit).
You'd have to begin your quest and find out for yourself. :D

I never said christians weren't Germanic people. I also understand christianities place European history, fighting off the Ottoman Turks etc.
This doesn't change that I and about 80% of poll responders here view the religion as an ALIEN one. The vast majority of christianity is from a foreign culture. I honestly don't understand how you can argue this unless you use the 'christian identity' Jewish Jesus was actually white or the 'nordic egyptians' argument. Whether you call someone a priest or minister is trivial I think. Christianity is about the bible everything else is just frills and packaging.
I said it was foreign in origin but not alien to us. Islam is alien to us, Buddhism is alien to us, cause it hasn't a history in our lands.

I have just thought of an analogy. A virus living in a host body for years is still a virus. A highly lethal virus evolves over time to become less lethal, but this is only so it has a better chance of being passed onto new hosts. (e.g Calicivirus in rabbits and now HIV in humans).
Well your analogy isn't helpful because history and culture are not like a body. Our culture is made up of blending of elements and if these are called viruses then we sure are a sick people.

I don't force my beliefs down anyone throat, I have friends and family that are christian and I don't evangelize, if they are curious about something they will ask me.
I don't either.

Culture is "made up of foreign elements too but that doesn't have to be bad"

I agree.
So then what's the problem with Christianity? Why's it more acceptable for us to use foreign elements to make our folk costumes and prepare our food than to pray to a non-Germanic God?

Nice touch with the sarcastic "mate" though, Just unnecessary and unbecoming.
Just wanted to give you some of your own medicine. Your personal attack on my marriage was unnecessary too. ;)

I havn't witnessed any attacks on christians.
I have. All these one-liners on how Germanics were better without Christianity and how Christianity is inappropriate for us, without an explanation. I take it they ain't here to discuss and debate but to have a go at Christianity. Don't get me wrong I'm fine with heathens just not with mindless, unexplained attacks on my religion.

Then you shouldn't call him Serbian.
I wasn't the one who called him Serbian, I said he's of Serbian descent.

The killing of the Armin is also part of our history, a quite decisive one at that, that doesn't make it good though.
So, good or bad is another story, this thread ain't about whether Christianity is good or bad for Germanics, but whether it's alien or not. I answered that question. ;)

Yes, the biggest drawback is their Paulus-admiration, which always has given them a destructive affinity to Jews, the whole rise to power thing in America was (and still is) just possible because of their Protestant supporters.
Well supporting Jews is bad but what can I say? America isn't the only country that bows down to Jews.

Do you think a WASP would care about Germanicness?
I don't think, I know they care. :D

Culture is a tool, a tool for survival, the survival of our blood, as long as it serves this purpose it can even come from Mars, thus intermixture of blood can never be on the same level as intermixture of culture. (where I don't want to comment on your husband, because I don't know him)
Additionally, what you are talking about is not completely culture, but just custom and traditions, real culture is created only by a few, the rest adopts to it.
And like I said, there's no such thing as German blood in the literal sense.

If a Germanic creates culture, it is Germanic culture, no matter if he used a banana for it. :D
Luther was a creator. :D

What do you mean, what is foreign? The PC is pretty much Germanic. Although the current model is likely to be sold by Jews ;) :p
You ain't using the original PC invented by Germanics. You're using a model sold by multiculti companies.

It is, white is not enough, at least not for me (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=1246 ) :) But we don't know him.
Nope, it's not for me either. I wouldn't marry a Serb out of Serbia. There's a difference. People should make a difference between the USA which is a country and Europe which is a continent with many countries.

Jäger
Friday, November 9th, 2007, 10:52 AM
I wasn't the one who called him Serbian, I said he's of Serbian descent.
Indeed, my fault.


So, good or bad is another story, this thread ain't about whether Christianity is good or bad for Germanics, but whether it's alien or not. I answered that question. ;)
The answer to this question is very simple, since its origins are known. I find it hard to believe that we argue about the obvious 6 pages long.


Well supporting Jews is bad but what can I say? America isn't the only country that bows down to Jews.
Before that it were mainly the English :p All other countries do so because of the US.


I don't think, I know they care. :D
Hm, most WASPs I have met thought Germanic means the same as German.


And like I said, there's no such thing as German blood in the literal sense.
I never said there was, either.


Luther was a creator. :D
Very true, I already admitted that Protestantism is Germanic.


You ain't using the original PC invented by Germanics. You're using a model sold by multiculti companies.
I already said it is about the creation, not who adopts, I can put a Nigger in Lederhosen and give him Bratwurst and Beer, that still doesn't make these things Negro-"culture".


People should make a difference between the USA which is a country and Europe which is a continent with many countries.
Country is a little ambiguous, do you mean nation? Is the US a nation?

Gefjon
Friday, November 9th, 2007, 11:12 AM
The answer to this question is very simple, since its origins are known. I find it hard to believe that we argue about the obvious 6 pages long.
I don't think it's that simple at all.
"Alien" can have different interpretations.

a·li·en (ā'lē-ən, āl'yən)
adj.

Owing political allegiance to another country or government; foreign: alien residents.
Belonging to, characteristic of, or constituting another and very different place, society, or person; strange. See synonyms at foreign.
Dissimilar, inconsistent, or opposed, as in nature: emotions alien to her temperament.


After all these centuries that it has been present in our countries, after our folks modeled and adapted Christianity to our times and needs, like Luther and others did, we could say Christianity or at least some sects of Christianity belong(s) in Germanic countries. Some beliefs and customs trace their origins in Christianity. Christianity is not inconsistent with being Germanic, therefore, eventhough foreign in origin, still not alien.

Before that it were mainly the English :p All other countries do so because of the US.
Because of the US, but not only. You guys in Germany ain't having the US putting guns to your heads and telling you to worship Jews, or else. ;) You have German politicians and German leaders and the sheeple worship the Jews because your leaders are self-hating German traitors.

Hm, most WASPs I have met thought Germanic means the same as German.
Well they may not care about the name "Germanic" but they care about their Anglo-Saxon roots, which are Germanic roots. :D

Country is a little ambiguous, do you mean nation? Is the US a nation?
Depends how you define a nation.

SwordOfTheVistula
Friday, November 9th, 2007, 12:09 PM
Hm, most WASPs I have met thought Germanic means the same as German.

For this reason, I've generally favored the term 'Teutonic' over the term 'Germanic'.

Oswiu
Friday, November 9th, 2007, 05:20 PM
I have just thought of an analogy. A virus living in a host body for years is still a virus. A highly lethal virus evolves over time to become less lethal, but this is only so it has a better chance of being passed onto new hosts. (e.g Calicivirus in rabbits and now HIV in humans).

Ever heard of that theory which supposes our mitochondria evolved from a symbiotic foreign parasite in our ancient ancestors' cells? ;) We can't kick them out as we can't even live without them. This is what your ever-less-lethal virus has a chance of becoming. :D

Actually, however, Christianity didn't need to be ejected as 'alien' by my family, as it died its own death. More comparable to the appendix in the body than a virus. It shrivelled up and was forgotten about. It remains only in expletives. I was going to say holidays too, but on reflection the only things we do on these holidays are things we've been doing for millenia, like messing around with eggs and evergreen logs/trees.

From a political point of view, I wish there was more consensus in our nations on the religious front, but I don't see going back to Christianity as the way to achieve this. If we went back from first principles, we'd just go to the New Testament and reinvent Protestantism, and thus knock even more tradition and custom out of our way of life than we did in the first Conversion and Reformation.

Southern Europeans I notice invest a lot of their nationalism into their Catholicism, which is fine for them as that brand of Christianity is so encrusted with non-Judaic Mediterranean accretions that you could squint your eyes sometimes and imagine you were back in 5th Century BC Etruria when you're at their services or celebrations.

We however in the cool north can't go back to something like that, after having left it for so long. Not on a societal scale, anyway. Time for something new, but I wish we could all move forward on this together. That's going to be impossible, and so those of us who have shrugged this religion off need to be patient with others and shouldn't be insulting the elderly or burning architectural masterpieces like that Vikernes idiot.

Jäger
Friday, November 9th, 2007, 05:22 PM
Owing political allegiance to another country or government; foreign: alien residents.

For Catholics this is the Vatican, or just kingdom come (?) and God who have their loyalty.


Belonging to, characteristic of, or constituting another and very different place, society, or person; strange. See synonyms at foreign.
This is true for Christianity in general, since it belongs to, has characteristics of semitic tribes.


Dissimilar, inconsistent, or opposed, as in nature: emotions alien to her temperament.

It is dissimilar, inconsistent and opposed to old Germanic values (e.g. monotheism vs. polytheism)

Protestantism was an attempt to germanize Christianity, however, while the idea (Luther) was good it eventually was destroyed by Paulus-lovers and power abusers.


After all these centuries that it has been present in our countries, after our folks modeled and adapted Christianity to our times and needs, like Luther and others did, we could say Christianity or at least some sects of Christianity belong(s) in Germanic countries.
Actually, I dare to say that Christianity used to be pretty Germanic in former times, namely when most people couldn't read the Bible :D
Germanic aristocracy told them what was Christian and what was not, this worked if not abused (which it was), as soon as the "true" form of Christianity resurged it became more and more alien with its (newly found) semitic values.
The more we cling to an alien book the more alien it becomes. Logical, isn't it?



Some beliefs and customs trace their origins in Christianity.
Out of real interest, which beliefs and customs?


Christianity is not inconsistent with being Germanic ...
It is, e.g. egalitarian vs aristocratic values (all people are created equal vs. Jarl, Karl, Thrall)


Because of the US, but not only. You guys in Germany ain't having the US putting guns to your heads and telling you to worship Jews, or else. ;)
That was the exact situation after WW2, then media was in the hands of the occupiers, and indeed they used German traitors to run these media companies, to propagate Jewish values, in essence it is because of the US.


Well they may not care about the name "Germanic" but they care about their Anglo-Saxon roots, which are Germanic roots. :D
Yes, so if I told them they are not Germanic they mostly wouldn't care, as long as they remain AS :D :p


Depends how you define a nation.
Well, if their is an American ethnicity, if a Serb can become American but still staying a Serb America is a union, if becomes just American he then is ethnically American, and no Serb anymore. I hope I got it right :)

Gefjon
Friday, November 9th, 2007, 05:43 PM
For Catholics this is the Vatican, or just kingdom come (?) and God who have their loyalty.
And heathens don't have their loyalty to Odin and such?

This is true for Christianity in general, since it belongs to, has characteristics of semitic tribes.
Yes. However, I was talking about the third definition according to which, Christianity is not alien to Germanics.

It is dissimilar, inconsistent and opposed to old Germanic values (e.g. monotheism vs. polytheism)

Protestantism was an attempt to germanize Christianity, however, while the idea (Luther) was good it eventually was destroyed by Paulus-lovers and power abusers.
Old Germanic values are not the only true Germanic values. Germanics have evolved since.

Actually, I dare to say that Christianity used to be pretty Germanic in former times, namely when most people couldn't read the Bible :D
Germanic aristocracy told them what was Christian and what was not, this worked if not abused (which it was), as soon as the "true" form of Christianity resurged it became more and more alien with its (newly found) semitic values.
The more we cling to an alien book the more alien it becomes. Logical, isn't it?
Nope. :p The problem is not the Bible, but people who misinterpret.

Out of real interest, which beliefs and customs?
Many morals, for example. The 3 German K's (http://www.germanculture.com.ua/library/weekly/aa080601a.htm) for example.

It is, e.g. egalitarian vs aristocratic values (all people are created equal vs. Jarl, Karl, Thrall)
Who's to say only aristocratic values are consistent with the Germanic spirit and Christianity isn't about egalitarianism or the Pope wouldn't be infallible for example. ;)

That was the exact situation after WW2, then media was in the hands of the occupiers, and indeed they used German traitors to run these media companies, to propagate Jewish values, in essence it is because of the US.
And now who is stopping you Germans to get rid of your traitors?

Yes, so if I told them they are not Germanic they mostly wouldn't care, as long as they remain AS :D :p
Yep, but if you told them what Germanic meant and then told them that they ain't Germanic, they would care. :D

Well, if their is an American ethnicity, if a Serb can become American but still staying a Serb America is a union, if becomes just American he then is ethnically American, and no Serb anymore. I hope I got it right :)
American ethnicity isn't the same as your European ethnicities. Americans are Serb, German, etc. by ancestry, but American by ethnicity.

Jäger
Friday, November 9th, 2007, 07:31 PM
And heathens don't have their loyalty to Odin and such?
No, because these Gods never demanded absolute loyalty, nor are they omnipotent and live outside of our world. They are part of our live, while Christians consider this world just a transient state, and the destination is the "nether world" [I don't like the English translations, in German it is "Jenseits", and "Diesseits"].


Old Germanic values are not the only true Germanic values. Germanics have evolved since.
They have devolved, because of alien influence. :)


Nope. :p The problem is not the Bible, but people who misinterpret.
:clap0000: I guess every Christian has to say that at some point, no wonder there are so many Christian sect :p
But this flabbiness of expression, that leads to so many misinterpretations is also un-Germanic ;)


Many morals, for example. The 3 German K's (http://www.germanculture.com.ua/library/weekly/aa080601a.htm) for example.
I am not so sure, anyway, I don't challenge that Christianity had a big impact on us, just that it is bad and in this case it is bad, because it is not meant for us (alien).


Who's to say only aristocratic values are consistent with the Germanic spirit and Christianity isn't about egalitarianism or the Pope wouldn't be infallible for example. ;)
The Pope is a relict of Un-Christian times, that's why Luther wanted to get rid of him. :)
Furthermore egalitarianism does not mean there are no elites, it is a mere tool to stay elite. Egalitarianism is unreal, even in our times, at the height of it, we have elites.
With this crap they give you the carrot on the fishing rod, strife for something you can't reach, and they can stay in power.


And now who is stopping you Germans to get rid of your traitors?
E.g. American troops, and after 60 years of indoctrination, they are not really needed anymore, because the cage of de-information is enough.


Yep, but if you told them what Germanic meant and then told them that they ain't Germanic, they would care. :D
This is Off-Topic, but do they feel related to German Saxons?


American ethnicity isn't the same as your European ethnicities. Americans are Serb, German, etc. by ancestry, but American by ethnicity.
What's the difference to European ethnicities? The mere fact that most European nations is racially pretty diverse is witness to people with different ancestries but common ethnicities.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Saturday, November 10th, 2007, 06:37 AM
All religions which have spread incorporate aspects of the old religions/local culture to "sell" the new religion. Christmas, for example, is a holiday supposed to be in honor of Christ. Yet it is positioned at the time of the old winter solstace in order for its celebration to be accepted by the original population. The same is true of Easter and the Spring equinox. Even the name "Easter" is a pagan one. This sort of repositioning happens world-wide when one religion attempts to replace an older one.

It seems to me that the basic issue with Christianity is twofold. First, it is non-European in that it is monotheistic. Second, it is non-European in that it is non-European. It is Near Eastern. This intrusiveness weakens our cultural unity.

On a personal note, Christianity is used by Jews as a method of control. The Iraq war is a great example of this. Now, Fundamentalist Christians are admitting that this "War on Terrorism" is a crusade against Islam. Who is worse, Fundamental Islam or Fundamental Christianity? I really don't want to live in any country populated by either.

Cythraul
Tuesday, November 13th, 2007, 01:24 PM
Ok... I've been tempted to bite at this thread for a while now, having been heavily involved in the same discussion on Skadi. Forgive me for not having read the whole thread yet, I'm short on time, and to be honest, I know exactly what points will have been put forward already (having had this discussion countless times throughout my life).

Also, if what I'm about to say offends anyone, I offer an apology in advance. What I say, I say with the utmost respect.

I see European Nationalists as people who haven't woken up yet. Some (and many on this forum, I'm sure) refer to Europeans who haven't realised the importance of their cultural heritage as "yet to wake up". I say the same can absolutely be said for Europeans who practice Christianity. Not only is it alien to Europe, it became the native religion by the killing of Heathens and Pagans, by the systematic desecration of sacred structures and sites, by the commandeering of festivals and stealing of customs. It did not become Europe's religion by honourably selling itself as a superior belief system. If it had, I'd have less issue with it.

So... the Christians who use that age-old argument of "Christianity can't be held accountable for people who mis-use or mis-interpret the Bible" (my favourite excuse - it's so laughable): Well, if the Bible hadn't been mis-used to carry out the missionary wars across Europe, burning all traces of Heathenry/Paganism, then you certainly wouldn't be the Christian you are so proud to be. You would be a "dirty heathen" yourself. You see, Christianity only exists in Europe because of "mis-use and mis-interpretation of the Bible"!

I believe Europe is a shadow of it's former self precisely because Europe's natural ways were stolen from it.

Oswiu
Wednesday, November 14th, 2007, 02:25 PM
I believe Europe is a shadow of it's former self precisely because Europe's natural ways were stolen from it.
I greatly sympathise, but I view Christianity as one of those things we've been through, and are going through at the present moment in time, that may have done us good in the long run. Some things have to be experienced in order to better understand why they should be avoided. And having had it, we'll be stronger in future, like with the typical childhood diseases.

What did Nietzsche say? Something about having had to struggle against Christianity has strengthened us, "And with a bow this taut, we can aim for the stars." Sounds good to me. I don't think a superethnos with our ambitions and development could have escaped such a phase. Better that it was Christianity, that had some leeway in it for different interpretations an preserving some of our past, than Islam, anyroad! No Mediaeval Mohammedan would have bothered writing what Bede, Snorri and Saxo et al wrote. They probably wouldn't even have bother copying down the tatty old Tacitus manuscripts that were still knocking around in the old Imperial libraries... Be grateful we got it as mild as we did!

Rassenpapst
Wednesday, November 14th, 2007, 03:00 PM
Christianity, Judaism and Islam are monotheistic. These religions are totally alien to not only Germanics but all Europeans. Hinduism is closer to us than the cult of Christ.
The original, oldest Aryan religion was Zoroastrianism which is monotheistic. Zoroastrianism is/was also a racialist religion. According to the Zoroastrian creation myth Negroes are demons. Both Nietzsche and Evola embraced Zoroaster.

The roots of Judaism - and Christianity - are in Zoroastrianism.
http://www.pyracantha.com/zjc3.html

Ausswolf
Thursday, November 15th, 2007, 03:15 AM
Interesting. Can't seem to find any record of Zoroastrianism before about 600BC? How old is it. There are certainly pagan sites in europe from thousands of years earlier than this although i'm not sure how 'aryan' they are.
I thought the proto-indo-europeans were polythesitic anyway with at least a sky father and earth mother. So how much of zoroastrian is earlier Iranian and how much is from the later aryan invaders?

Oswiu
Thursday, November 15th, 2007, 11:19 AM
The original, oldest Aryan religion was Zoroastrianism which is monotheistic.
The oldest organised thought out and consistent religion, yes. Original, no way. Zarathustra turned a lot of old concepts on their heads, making some 'good' things 'bad' in his new system.
His religion rightly can be pointed to as a sign of Aryan innovation and intellectual prowess, but not described as its original native form, and much less the native religion of the IE speakers who stayed in Europe.

Konrad
Tuesday, November 27th, 2007, 11:37 AM
When we want to understand wether Christianity is alien to germanic or not we have to go back to the origin of it. We may not let us fool by the falsified official history.

It is often said here that Christianity is a semitic religion. And by mistake semitic is seen as a racial manifestation. Semitic is a groop of languages, like Hebrew and Arabian. Arabian is tough a language which was influenced by hebrew.
Hebrew itself is a aryan language.
It is a mistake to believe hebrew is jewisch because jews speak hebrew. Jews have taken over everything from other nations.
They took over the hebrew language, the menora, the Qabbalah and so on.
I don't want to go to deep in this matter now.

The historical Jesus was born in Judea, but his parents came from Galilea, a land of celtic settlers. Even the Talmud (this is in effect 100% jewish) calls Jesus a son of a whore (typical jewisch expresson for a non-jewisch woman).

When we look a the teachings of the true Christianity, it is fully in harmony to the atlantian spirituality.

We have to make a difference between true Christianity and paulianic Christianity. Soon after the Crusefixion of Christ, the jew Saul (Saulus) made changes to the teachings of the Christ, and turned everything the way around. Saul (Saulus) became Paul (Paulus) and Christianity was infected by his jewisch ideas.

All greater Chirstian Churches are founded on the paulianic Christianity, which preaches a jewisch view of the world.

True Christianity though is Atlantian (from Atlantis) spirituality, and the Aryans (Germanic) are the descendants of the Atlantians.

Rassenpapst
Tuesday, November 27th, 2007, 11:57 AM
Hebrew itself is a aryan language.
Hebrew is not an Aryan (= Indo-European) language. It belongs to the Semitic linguistic family.

Huzar
Tuesday, November 27th, 2007, 12:57 PM
Christianity is alien to entire Europe (especially Germanics).


Judaic-Christian civilisation was born in the near eastern area (Islam was born in the same place. Near eastern zone is the cradle of monotheisms) and it's substantially a cultural product of near-eastern/mediterranean sphere ....more a country is far from THAT zone, more should be considered alien to Judaic-Christian civilisation.

European Areas like Scandinavia or British isles, or deep Russia, are geographically very alien to this kind of culture.

Substantial Germanic/Slavic/Celtic civilisation block was shaped much before the Christian colonisation happened in the last centuries of Roman empire.

Konrad
Tuesday, November 27th, 2007, 01:14 PM
it would be more corectly to say that officialy hebrew is not seen as an indo-european (aryan) language within the "linguistic science".

CharlesDexterWard
Tuesday, November 27th, 2007, 02:06 PM
My opinion, formed from close and in depth study of the sayings of Jesus, is that he was a mystic. Those who wrote the New Testament added literal, traditional and quasi-contextual meanings to words of wisdom, which in my opinion was a grave mistake on their part. That's the problem I have with Christianity.

But mysticism and idealism are forms of spirituality and thinking that are Germanic. We have Jan van Ruusbroek and Meister Eckehart among others. Eckehart's sermons are to me examples of very Germanic spirituality; true, uncompromising, controversial and enlightening.

Konrad
Tuesday, November 27th, 2007, 02:48 PM
Judaic-Christian civilisation was born in the near eastern area

What is Judaic-Christian civilisation to you?

Oswiu
Tuesday, November 27th, 2007, 07:23 PM
Hebrew itself is a aryan language.
:rolleyes:
No it's not. OBVIOUSLY not. Have you ever HEARD it???

They took over the hebrew language, the menora, the Qabbalah and so on.
I don't want to go to deep in this matter now.
Thank the Gods. As it's nonsense. What did they speak before Hebrew? Who did they take the language from? Where's the Menorah from? The Kabbala? Maybe a lot of it was better developed by the Babylonians and so on before the Hebrews settled down enough to make use of it, but this is s

The historical Jesus was born in Judea, but his parents came from Galilea, a land of celtic settlers.
You confuse it with Galatia, in Asia Minor, a full 600 and a bit miles away. That's more than a 1000 kilometres. And it's through mountains, wastelands, different cultural and natural regions, the high Taurus mountains, and the blighted regions of inner Anatolia.

a son of a whore (typical jewisch expresson for a non-jewisch woman).
Typical expression for embittered losers, too. Especially for splitters, in the same broad movement...

All greater Chirstian Churches are founded on the paulianic Christianity, which preaches a jewisch view of the world.
First part true, though I'd qualify the latter, and say a more 'Hellenistic' view, in which the Greek element has been greatly distorted by Afro-Asiatic influence.

True Christianity though is Atlantian (from Atlantis) spirituality, and the Aryans (Germanic) are the descendants of the Atlantians.
Uh oh...

it would be more corectly to say that officialy hebrew is not seen as an indo-european (aryan) language within the "linguistic science".
Okay, let's just forget what evil zionist scientists all say, and just use our eyeballs:

Arabic:
wa:hid ithna:n thala:thah 'arba`ah xamsah sittah sab`ah thama:niyyah tis`ah `asharah
Hebrew:
'axat shtayim shalosh 'arba xamesh shesh sheva` shmone tesha `eser
Egyptian:
si'newway 'hamtaw yaf'daw 'di:yaw sar'saw 'safxaw ha'ma:naw pi'si:dyaw mu:dyaw
ProtoIndoEuropean (or would you prefer Atlantean?):
*oynos/*sem *duwo: *treyes *kwetwores *penkwe *sweks *septm *okto: *newn *dekm
Germanic:
*ainaz *twai *thrijiz *fithwor *fimfi *seks *sibum *ahto: *niwun *tehun

No similarity whatsoever, except in the well known six and seven, which have been borrowed one way or the other...

Etruscan has it too:
Etruscan+ thu(n) zal ci huth mach sa semph cezp enva? zar

Probably some religious significance and a cultural phenomenon that took in most of the eastern Mediterranean and Black Sea basins, many millenia ago.

Ægir
Friday, November 30th, 2007, 07:36 AM
Was Jesus Germanic…No he was not as he was a Jew. Form this one basic observation alone it can be deduced that Christianity is alien for Germanic People. Now Jews for Jesus that is another story all together.

Eikinskjaldi
Sunday, December 2nd, 2007, 04:18 AM
“Christian theology is the grandmother of Bolshevism,” Oswald Spengler wrote many years ago. What he meant was that Christianity’s endorsement of such ideas as universalism, egalitarianism, peace, world brotherhood, and universal altruism helped establish and legitimize the ethics and politics invoked by socialists and communists. Socialists and communists don’t always agree, however, which is why another German scholar, Karl Marx, pronounced that religion is in fact a conservatizing force, the opiate of the masses, the drug that prevents the workers of the world from rebelling against their class enemies.

Both of these Teutonic heavyweights might have profited from reading James C. Russell’s The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity, since it speaks, at least indirectly, to the tension between their different views of Christianity, differences that continue to be reflected in political and ideological disputes on the European and American right today. The main question in the controversy is this: Is Christianity a force that supports or opposes the efforts of the right to defend the European-American way of life? Christians on the right argue that their religious commitments are central to Western civilization, while pagans and secularists on the right (especially in Europe) argue, with Spengler, that Christianity undermines the West by pushing a universalism that rejects race, class, family, and even nation.

Mr. Russell, who holds a doctorate in historical theology from Fordham University and teaches at Saint Peter’s College, does not quite answer the question, but his immensely learned and closely reasoned book does suggest an answer. His thesis is that early Christianity flourished in the decadent, deracinated, and alienated world of late antiquity precisely because it was able to appeal to various oppressed or dissatisfied sectors of the population -- slaves, urbanized proletarians, women, intellectuals, frustrated aristocrats, and the odd idealist repelled by the pathological materialism, brutality, and banality of the age.

But when Christian missionaries tried to appeal to the Germanic invaders by invoking the universalism, pacifism, and egalitarianism that had attracted the alienated inhabitants of the empire, they failed. That was because the Germans practiced a folk religion that reflected ethnic homogeneity, social hierarchy, military glory and heroism, and “standards of ethical conduct ... derived from a sociobiological drive for group survival through ingroup altruism.” Germanic religion and society were “world-accepting,” while Hellenic Christianity was “world-rejecting,” reflecting the influence of Oriental religions and ethics. By “Germans,” it should be noted, Mr. Russell does not mean modern residents of Germany but rather “the Gothic, Frankish, Saxon, Burgundian, Alamannic, Suevic, and Vandal peoples, but also ... the Viking peoples of Scandinavia and the Anglo-Saxon peoples of Britain.” With the exception of the Celts and the Slavs, “Germans” thus means almost the same thing as “European” itself.

Given the contradictions between the Christian ethics and world-view and those of the Indo-European culture of the Germanic peoples, the only tactic Christians could use was one of appearing to adopt Germanic values and claiming that Christian values were really compatible with them. The bulk of Mr. Russell’s scholarship shows how this process of accommodation took place in the course of about four centuries. The saints and Christ Himself were depicted as Germanic warrior heroes; both festivals and locations sacred in ancient Germanic cults were quietly taken over by the Christians as their own; and words and concepts with religious meanings and connotations were subtly redefined in terms of the new religion. Yet the final result was not that the Germans were converted to the Christianity they had originally encountered, but rather that that form of Christianity was “Germanized,” coming to adopt many of the same Indo-European folk values that the old pagan religion had celebrated.

Mr. Russell thus suggests, as noted above, a resolution of the debate over Christian universalism. The early Christianity that the Germans encountered contained a good many universalist tendencies, adapted and reinforced by the disintegrating social fabric and deracinated peoples of the late empire. But thanks to Germanization, those elements were soon suppressed or muted and what we know as the historical Christianity of the medieval era offered a religion, ethic, and world-view that supported what we today know as “conservative values” -- social hierarchy, loyalty to tribe and place (blood and soil), world-acceptance rather than world-rejection, and an ethic that values heroism and military sacrifice. In being “Germanized,” Christianity was essentially reinvented as the dynamic faith that animated European civilization for a thousand years and more.

Mr. Russell’s answer to the question about Christianity is that Christianity is both the grandmother of Bolshevism (in its early universalist, non-Western form) and a pillar of social stabilization and order (through the values and world-view imported into it through contact with the ancient barbarians). Throughout most of its history, the latter has prevailed, but today, as Mr. Russell argues in the last pages of his work, the enemies of the European (Germanic) heritage -- what he calls “the Euro-Christian religiocultural fusion” -- have begun to triumph within Christian ranks. “Opposition to this fusion, especially as it might interfere with notions of universalism and ecumenism, was expressed in several of the documents of the Second Vatican Council,” and he sees the same kind of opposition to the early medieval Germanic influence in the various reform movements in church history, including the Protestant Reformation, which always demand a return to the “primitive church” -- i.e., pre-Germanic Christianity. It is precisely this rejection of the European heritage that may have driven many Christians of European background out of Christianity altogether and into alternative forms of paganism that positively affirm their racial and cultural roots.

Whatever primitive Christianity or true Christianity or historical Christianity may or may not have believed and taught, what is indisputably happening today is the deliberate extirpation from Christianity of the European heritage by its enemies within the churches. The institutional Christianity that flourishes today is no longer the same religion as that practiced by Charlemagne and his successors, and it can no longer support the civilization they formed. Indeed, organized Christianity today is the enemy of the West and the race that created it.

Mr. Russell has produced a deeply learned book that assimilates history and theology, sociology and comparative religion, and even sociobiology and genetics within its pages. Moreover, it is an important book that addresses a highly controversial and philosophically and culturally significant issue that few others will address at all.


-----------------------------------------------------------------

Samuel Francis is an award winning columnist and associate and book review editor of The Occidental Quarterly

http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/archives/vol1no1/sf-russell.html (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftheoccid entalquarterly.com%2Farchives%2Fvol1no1% 2Fsf-russell.html)

Book Description

While historians of Christianity have generally acknowledged some degree of Germanic influence in the development of early medieval Christianity, Russell goes further, arguing for a fundamental Germanic reinterpretation of Christianity. This first full-scale treatment of the subject follows a truly interdisciplinary approach, applying to the early medieval period a sociohistorical method similar to that which has already proven fruitful in explicating the history of Early Christianity and Late Antiquity. The encounter of the Germanic peoples with Christianity is studied from within the larger context of the encounter of a predominantly "world-accepting" Indo-European folk-religiosity with predominantly "world-rejecting" religious movements. While the first part of the book develops a general model of religious transformation for such encounters, the second part applies this model to the Germano-Christian scenario. Russell shows how a Christian missionary policy of temporary accommodation inadvertently contributed to a reciprocal Germanization of Christianity.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195104668/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I5M9TGUHZC13B&colid=22P39X2MPD2S

Ægir
Sunday, December 2nd, 2007, 06:08 AM
...another German scholar, Karl Marx, pronounced that religion is in fact a conservatizing force, the opiate of the masses, the drug that prevents the workers of the world from rebelling against their class enemies.

Both of these Teutonic heavyweights...

Did you just call Marx a Teutonic heavy weight? So do you consider all Jews living in Germany to be Teutonic? I hope you were joking.:confused:

SwordOfTheVistula
Sunday, December 2nd, 2007, 07:26 AM
Did you just call Marx a Teutonic heavy weight? So do you consider all Jews living in Germany to be Teutonic? I hope you were joking.:confused:

Sam Francis wrote that, and back in 1994 when he may have been still working at the Washington Times, which is a mainstream conservative publication. Over the last decade or so of his life he moved more towards (or became more open about) racialist beliefs.

Ægir
Monday, December 3rd, 2007, 04:15 AM
I apologize; I read the entire post…that is until the bottom where it says it is a quote form a longer work. I understand now.

GroeneWolf
Tuesday, December 4th, 2007, 12:40 PM
http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/archives/vol1no1/sf-russell.html (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftheoccid entalquarterly.com%2Farchives%2Fvol1no1% 2Fsf-russell.html)

I'm have the book in question myself and gona write my own revieuw of it one of these days. However, for someone who is devoutly Christian wouldn't striving to preserve this germanised christianity lead ultimantly to a sichofrenic aditude towards religion, espaily if he knows what is stated it that book.

IlluSionSxxx
Tuesday, December 4th, 2007, 12:46 PM
Socialists and communists don’t always agree, however, which is why another German scholar, Karl Marx, pronounced that religion is in fact a conservatizing force, the opiate of the masses, the drug that prevents the workers of the world from rebelling against their class enemies.

Of course I object to calling Karl Marx a German scholar, however that's of little relevant. What I do want to stress here, is how religion has been replaced by capitalist "democracy" as the new opium for the masses. To better keep the masses weak, divided and unwilling to rebel, the tyranny of religion has been replaced the illusion of freedom and choice and the untamed hedonistic materialism of capitalist "democracy".

Ironically, to some degree, religions (including Christianity) can actually form a counterweight against the new Opium for the masses. While religion used to keep people in chains in the West, now it actually liberates them.

Eikinskjaldi
Wednesday, December 5th, 2007, 11:17 PM
I'm have the book in question myself and gona write my own revieuw of it one of these days. However, for someone who is devoutly Christian wouldn't striving to preserve this germanised christianity lead ultimantly to a sichofrenic aditude towards religion, espaily if he knows what is stated it that book.


I do not own this book, nor have I read it. It's on my list of books I want to aquire and read. Christianity had its origins outside of Germanic lands, indeed outside of Europe all together, but over the last 1500 years it has been transforned into something no longer 'alien' to Germanics. I wonder if Christianity could be considered ultimately not alien to any nation, race or culture. Some may say Christianity is not alien to Semites, being a monotheistic religion and all, but Semites by and large ended up rejecting it. Europe became Christiandom, and still to this day, There are more Christians there than any other continent. (Latin America will surpass them very soon.)

Taras Bulba
Sunday, December 16th, 2007, 02:08 AM
You know Eikinskjaldi, I've been engaged in several discussions concerning Russell's book and its thesis, and I can certainly say there's very little in which to back it up.

A much better source on this matter is Peter Brown's The Rise of Western Christendom : Triumph and Diversity 200-1000 AD (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0631221387/103-0980208-7433431?v=glance&n=283155) - which I cited earlier in this thread.

Just read Brown's description of early Medieval Christianity overall:

"Christianity was a remarkably universal religion, endowed with common codes which could spring up in many different enviroments. But, at this particular time, it was not necessarily a unitary, still less a uniform religion...What has to be explained in the history of the Greek, the Coptic, the Syrian, and the Armenian Churches of the East (to name only a few) is the remarkable manner in which their Christianity remained both universal and, at the same time, highly local....what strikes the historian about the competing regional Churches of the east was the robust confidence of each of them that they possessed a sufficiently full measure of universal truth to allow each of them to stand on its own.

The history of western Europe at this time was not marked by the rise of rival Churches, set against each other by differences of doctrine, as was the case of the Churches of the East. But the issue of how to reconcile a universal Christianity with the conditions of a highly regionalized world were similar."
--pg.14-15

So it's clear that Brown notes that the localization of Christianity occured in vastly different regions such as Ireland, Spain, Armenia, Egypt, etc. It wasn't just among the Germanics that this occured. He even uses the term "Mico-Christendom" to describe this phenomena. Within the universal Christendom, there were several "Micro-Christendoms" that corresponded to its own unique culture.

What Brown had to say about Armenia really got me laughing. According to Brown's account, the Armenians were a proud warrior people who also had a strong sense of tribal kinship. When Christianity arrived, the Armenians largely interpreted Christianity to fit this mold. For example the stories of the Bible were seen in a fashion similar to typical Persian heroic epics. When the Persians invaded, the Armenians rallied themselves to the cause of defending their Christian nation and protrayed themselves as like the Israelite Maccabees fighting off foreign invadors. Sound familiar? Well that's because Brown notes this is exactly the same as what happened in Western Europe.

So Russell's thesis that "Germanization" was somehow special and totally changed the nature of Christianity is complete nonsense; as Brown notes the same basic story HAPPENED EVERYWHERE CHRISTIANITY AROSED!

And the fact that Christianity adopts itself to local cultures and often serves to help build a greater sense of social and national loyalty and cohesion is not some unintended side-effect of the faith, but as Adrian Hastings explained it goes right to the heart of the nature of Christianity itself.

Along with Brown's book, I would also suggest The Barbarian Conversion: From Paganism to Christianity (http://www.amazon.com/Barbarian-Conversion-Paganism-Christianity/dp/0520218590) by the late Richard Fletcher

It should also be noted that many scholarly reviewers have not been kind to Russell's thesis.

According to this one reviewer, Russell is not writing history so much as putting forth a sociological theory about the differences between "universal"/"world-rejecting" faiths(Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc.) and "world-accepting"/"folk religiosities" and in order for the "universal" faiths to convert the "folk religions" they have to reinterpret their faith to fit that mold. And then Russell projects this thesis onto the past with the pacifist Christians vs. the martial Germanic pagans. Yet as the reviewer notes, plenty of historians disagree with many aspects of this viewpoint:

http://serials.infomotions.com/bmcr/bmcr-9406-stacey-germanization.txt



"Medieval historians are likely to have some reservations about the degree to which [Russell's] model captures the essence of the conversion years. Not all would agree, for example, with his picture of the Germans of the migration period as a homogeneous, stable and socially cohesive group. Kingship itself was undergoing considerable change in this period (*reges*, *duces*, and the like), and recent work has stressed the extent to which the social and political identities of these peoples as a whole were also "under construction". Indeed, one could use Russell's model to argue that social instability of this sort might actually predispose the Germanic peoples to conversion, rather than the other way around. In this case, the encounter between Roman Christianity and Germanic paganism might appear less a sociohistorically mandated clash of world-views in which certain elements triumphed over others than a long-term forging of a common religiocultural identity by two traditions equally in crisis."

And what is the overall conclusion this reviewer makes towards the book?


"This is not a work of history. Its intent is not to examine the actual development of Christianity in the early middle ages but rather to construct a model by which to understand how such development might have occurred. As such, the book does not draw to any significant extent on primary sources; it is instead a pastiche of secondary works drawn together into a sociohistorical model of religious change. And while the range and quality of the author's reading is impressive, it is not coincidental that many of the passages he cites are from older works that lend themselves better to such sociological generalizing. To say this is not to disparage the interest of Russell's model or the intelligence of his work. It is, however, to warn historians that they might find less in this book than its title would lead them to expect--and to alert those interested in the sociology of religion, or in contemporary religious change, that they might find a good deal more."

You can read more at the link I provided above.

Here's another critical review of Russell's book from the Journal of Social History:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2005/is_n2_v29/ai_17841815

Here's one excerpt that hits the nail on the head:


"Much less convincing is Russell's argument for the germanization of Christianity, at least for a reviewer who would expect such an argument to have some empirical demonstration instead of being a conclusion reached from a survey of secondary readings. Russell's construct of late Roman Christianity is something of a strawman given first that he provides a sociological definition for a phenomenon he wants to be understood in a cultural sense, second that he avoids discussion of Greek and Egyptian Christianity and the question of whether during the period under discussion Rome was an originator or a transmitter of Christian culture. Perhaps Rome was so accommodating to German sensibilities out of a need to create a constituency which recognized its authority versus that of Constantinople or Alexandria. Russell commits himself to validating the theories of Georges Dumezil on the nature of Indo-European consciousness. This commitment only confuses his case. Germanic tribal elites may have rejected cultural assimilation into a Latin world view, but he never demonstrates that there was something uniquely Indo-European about this rejection. Tribal elites in Asia, Africa and South America have found Christianity equally unsuited to their needs. Having insisted that there was something in Germans being Indo-Europeans which explains why they did not respond to the Christian message, Russell needed to indicate what this uniqueness was by reference to the reactions of other non-Indo-European warrior elites to Christianity."

I think it's safe to conclude that Russell's work is not something to take too seriously. There's simply too much other scholarship on the issue that refutes him.

Oswiu
Sunday, December 16th, 2007, 08:32 PM
Just read Brown's description of early Medieval Christianity overall:

"Christianity was a remarkably universal religion, endowed with common codes which could spring up in many different enviroments. But, at this particular time, it was not necessarily a unitary, still less a uniform religion...What has to be explained in the history of the Greek, the Coptic, the Syrian, and the Armenian Churches of the East (to name only a few) is the remarkable manner in which their Christianity remained both universal and, at the same time, highly local.
Christianity is flexible.
It has a big fat book allied with it, from which anyone can take anything they please, that might fully contradict any alternative excerpt. You can dilute it and adulterate it as much as you please, according to taste or circumstance. That's why it did so well as it did.
However, Muhammad saw that this was a weakness in so far as it led to fragmentation, and kept his own 'canon' short and concise. Fragmentation may well be seen as a virtue by ourselves, especially through the prism of a nationalistic desire to uphold local uniqueness, but not by a megalomaniac like him.

The history of western Europe at this time was not marked by the rise of rival Churches, set against each other by differences of doctrine, as was the case of the Churches of the East.
Interesting. But what about the Cathars, Albigenses, Pelagians, Arians, Celtic Christians and so on? A bit simplistic. We could even shove the Protestants, Hussites, Lollards, Lutherans and Calvinists in here even. We were Catholics for around half a millenium before we thought these things up, and that's not much longer than the Easterners had to come up with their versions, after all! THere's a false difference here. Armenians were exposed to Christianity in the third century, when the English didn't even live in England!

Perhaps Rome was so accommodating to German sensibilities out of a need to create a constituency which recognized its authority versus that of Constantinople or Alexandria. .
The Roman oligarchs probably were shitting their pants, yes, although this might also be taken to show that German and Roman had become two sides of the same ethnic system in this period.
In the west, we live at the end of the day on a Periphery of the Old World, the Oikumene, and didn't have Arabs, Parthians or Turks breathing down our necks, and the greater cohesion in simple matters like transport routes and lack of internal boundaries helped to produce one whole system with us.

Taras Bulba
Sunday, December 16th, 2007, 08:40 PM
Christianity is flexible.

Yeah so?



It has a big fat book allied with it, from which anyone can take anything they please, that might fully contradict any alternative excerpt.

If you choose to look at bits and pieces here and there without taking in the whole truth. As Chesterton put it, a heresy is not an untruth but an exaggerated truth blown out of proportion.



However, Muhammad saw that this was a weakness in so far as it led to fragmentation, and kept his own 'canon' short and concise.

The Koran is not short and concise by any standards.



Interesting. But what about the Cathars, Albigenses, Pelagians, Arians, Celtic Christians and so on? A bit simplistic. We could even shove the Protestants, Hussites, Lollards, Lutherans and Calvinists in here even.

Perhaps you need to improve your reading skills, since he clearly states "at this time", ie early Medieval period. :eyes

Thank you for once again engaging in the fine art of missing the point!

Eikinskjaldi
Tuesday, December 18th, 2007, 03:33 AM
So it's clear that Brown notes that the localization of Christianity occured in vastly different regions such as Ireland, Spain, Armenia, Egypt, etc. It wasn't just among the Germanics that this occured. He even uses the term "Mico-Christendom" to describe this phenomena. Within the universal Christendom, there were several "Micro-Christendoms" that corresponded to its own unique culture.

This is my understanding, more or less, of how different nations embraced Christianity. The fact that less division occurred in the West may be in part to a Germanic cultural view that became dominate in much of Europe following the fall of the Roman empire and beginning of the middle ages. However I would reject any assertion that "Germanization" totally changed the nature of Christianity. I am a Christian (conservative Lutheran, Wisconsin Synod USA), but I am quite ignorant of Church history. I've read that many of the practices in certain churches were rooted in the pre-Christian culture of that particular people- for example music, art, even liturgical methods. These things not affecting the foundational principals of the Faith as much as "flavoring" it so to speak. I've noted your book recommendations and thank you for them. Getting back to the original thread topic, I believe Christianity could be viewed as "alien" to all nations and races. At the same time I think Christianity can be embraced and followed by any ethnic group without actually compromising the fundamental basis of their culture. (unless you count sin as a tenant of any given culture):)

SwordOfTheVistula
Tuesday, December 18th, 2007, 07:31 AM
Yeah so?



If you choose to look at bits and pieces here and there without taking in the whole truth. As Chesterton put it, a heresy is not an untruth but an exaggerated truth blown out of proportion.



The Koran is not short and concise by any standards.



Perhaps you need to improve your reading skills, since he clearly states "at this time", ie early Medieval period. :eyes

Thank you for once again engaging in the fine art of missing the point!

It is however written by one person, as opposed to the bible being written by multiple people and having tons of contradictory statements in it, making the bible much more open to interpretation than the Koran

Oski
Tuesday, December 25th, 2007, 01:52 AM
I hope this opens your eyes to Jesus's racial and linguistic origins:

NON-GERMANIC

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071217-aramaic-video-ap.html (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.nat ionalgeographic.com%2Fnews%2F2007%2F12%2 F071217-aramaic-video-ap.html)

Would you think of these people as foreign to germany or any other germanic country?

Yet another issue concerning the non-germanic origins of christianity, the old testament and the bible:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22380819/?GT1=10645 (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.msnb c.msn.com%2Fid%2F22380819%2F%3FGT1%3D106 45)

"Scientists inscribe entire Bible on head of a pin
Israelis use particle beam to make what could be smallest Old Testament"

Now insects can read the bible and go to church :rolleyes:

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, December 25th, 2007, 02:09 AM
Yet another issue concerning the non-germanic origins of christianity, the old testament and the bible

Historically that never seem to have been a problem with Germanics, as I posted before in this thread:


"What is remarkable about the Christian kingdoms which emerged along the periphery of the former Roman empire is that, despite extensive borrowings from local Roman pratice and occasional diplomatic relations with the court of Constantinople, they did not wish to see themselves exclusively as minature Romes. Because they were Christian, they could also claim to belong to a history without Rome. They could look past the Roman Empire to the Old Testament....We know of the rise of Clovis principally from the account of Gregory, the Catholic bishop of Tours...For Gregory, the Catholic bishop, the career of Clovis was a career worthy of an Old Testament hero. For Clovis resembled, not a Roman emperor, but, rather, the morally flawed but energetic and warlike king David. It was better to be remembered as resembling a king of the long-past ancient Israel than as having once been courted as an ally by the existing East Roman empire...Rome and its history were no longer central to the imagination of the inhabitants of the former periphery of the empire. A sense of the Roman past was replaced by a different past - the past of the Old Testament. This past was brought close through the Holy Scriptures. It described, vividly and appositely, the turbulent warrior kingdom of ancient Israel. It was a past better suited to the stormy present than were memories of imperial Rome."
--Peter Brown The Rise of Western Christendom: Triumph and Diversity 200-1000 AD pp. 139-140

So the Germanics identified themselves closely to the Israelites of the Old Testament upon conversion, and this trend was further developed when the Protestant Reformation occured - and of course it's main premise is the primacy of Scriptures.

The strong identification with the Israelites is actually a common theme found within the histories of many Germanic peoples; and actually is a major source of Volkish thought.

This was especially true among the Boers:

"Just as the Penetateuch and the Book of Joshua had commanded the Israelites to drive out and extirpate the idolatrous peoples of Canaan..., so they should not be contaiminated with the beliefs and practices of false gods; so too the Afrikaner voortrekkers and their descendents believed they were destined to take the lands of the 'heathen' natives, and to expel or rule over them...This kind of Mosaic 'ethnic theology', so widespread in Europe since the sixteenth century, was later used to buttress the exclusive racial belief that coloureds and Black Africans who were not of the faith were necessarily inferior and destined to serve the white Christian elect."
--Anthony D. Smith Chosen Peoples: Sacred Sources of National Identity, pg.81-82

A similar belief was at the heart of racial thinking within America as well.

Evolved
Tuesday, December 25th, 2007, 02:31 PM
Christianity in Europe has shed all of its distinctly Middle Eastern aspects, so I voted it isn't alien, though Positive Christianity would be better than what currently exists.

However, that doesn't mean I prefer it. Apart from what the Church has done for art, academics, architecture and literacy it is completely worthless. All the best aspects of European Christianity are secular. Egalitarian values and selfless charity can't be defended in modern times with mass immigration and internationalism, these virtues are nothing short of a death sentence. Aren't vagabonds from Africa and the Middle East given food, clothing and shelter by the churches, enabling them? The same is true for illegal immigrants in the United States, the Catholic Church shelters its Mestizo faithful and helps them break the law. This worship of the pathetic meek kindness of slaves is the essentially Semitic aspect of Christianity which has yet to be expunged.

Not to mention that it is just irrational and stupid. In fact, Christian mythology doesn't even work as a B-movie plot: Jewish carpenter zombie saves humanity? I'm not standing in line to see that one.

Resurgam
Wednesday, January 23rd, 2008, 03:34 AM
In my opinion, it is wiser to subscribe to a Semitic religion than a pagan Hamitic one (ie. fertility cults). For those who worship Ham's God or Japheth's secularism:

Deuteronomy 28:27 (1599 Geneva)
"The Lord will smite thee with the botch of Egypt, and with the hemorrhoids, and with the scab, and with the itch, that thou canst not be healed."

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/Bubonic_plague_map_2.png



From Venerable Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation:

THE BRITONS, COMPELLED BY FAMINE, DROVE THE BARBARIANS OUT OF THEIR TERRITORIES; SOON AFTER THERE ENSUED PLENTY OF CORN, LUXURY, PLAGUE, AND THE SUBVERSION OF THE NATION. [A.D. 426­447.]


IN the meantime, the aforesaid famine distressing the Britons more and more, and leaving to posterity lasting memorials of its mischievous effects, obliged many of them to submit themselves to the depredators; though others still held out, confiding in the Divine assistance, when none was to be had from men. These continually made excursions from the mountains, caves, and woods, and, at length, began to inflict severe losses on their enemies, who had been for so many years plundering the country. The Irish robbers thereupon returned home, in order to come again soon after. The Picts, both then and afterwards, remained quiet in the farthest part of the island, save that sometimes they would do some mischief, and carry off booty from the Britons.


When however, the ravages of the enemy at length ceased, the island began to abound with such plenty of grain as had never been known in any age before; with plenty, luxury increased, and this was immediately attended with all sorts of crimes; in particular, cruelty, hatred of truth, and love of falsehood; insomuch, that if any one among them happened to be milder than the rest, and inclined to truth, all the rest abhorred and persecuted him, as if he had been the enemy of his country. Nor were the laity only guilty of these things, but even our Lord's own flock, and his pastors also, addicting themselves to drunkenness, animosity, litigiousness, contention, envy, and other such like crimes, and casting off the light yoke of Christ. In the meantime, on a sudden, a severe plague fell upon that corrupt generation, which soon destroyed such numbers of them, that the living were scarcely sufficient to bury the dead: yet, those that survived, could not be withdrawn from the spiritual death, which their sins had incurred, either by the death of their friends, or the fear of their own. Whereupon, not long after, a more severe vengeance, for their horrid wickedness, fell upon the sinful nation. They consulted what was to be done, and where they should seek assistance to prevent or repel the cruel and frequent incursions of the northern nations; and they all agreed with their King Vortigern to call over to their aid, from the parts beyond the sea, the Saxon nation; which, as the event still more evidently showed, appears to have been done by the appointment of our Lord Himself, that evil might fall upon them for their wicked deeds.

Genesis 9:27
"God persuaded Japheth, that he may dwell in the tents of Shem, and let Canaan be his sevant."

Soldier of Wodann
Wednesday, January 23rd, 2008, 03:55 AM
In my opinion, it is wiser to subscribe to a Semitic religion than a pagan Hamitic one (ie. fertility cults). For those who worship Ham's God or Japheth's secularism:

Deuteronomy 28:27 (1599 Geneva)
"The Lord will smite thee with the botch of Egypt, and with the hemorrhoids, and with the scab, and with the itch, that thou canst not be healed."

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/Bubonic_plague_map_2.png

Genesis 9:27
"God persuaded Japheth, that he may dwell in the tents of Shem, and let Canaan be his sevant."


European Pagan religions aren't "Hamitic" genius, and most (Germanic) Pagans didn't worship fertility cults. Perhaps you should ponder your own religion's influence from fertility cults instead of other peoples' (gaudete gaudete Christus est natus ex Maria virginae gaudete). ;)

Resurgam
Wednesday, January 23rd, 2008, 04:13 AM
Oh yeah?

Eostre and Ishtar

http://www.manygods.org.uk/articles/essays/eostre.jpg

http://www.andypryke.com/twiki/pub/Andypublic/BlogJanuary2007/ishtar2.jpg




Beltane, Horned God, Pan, and Baal.

http://www.fourmoonsstudio.com/images/Beltane%20Big.jpg

http://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/jon/athensmuseum/aphroditePanEros.jpg

http://www.teenwitch.com/DATE/YR/1999/08/BAAL.JPG

"Thamus, are you there? When you reach Palodes, take care to proclaim that the great god Pan is dead."

Soldier of Wodann
Wednesday, January 23rd, 2008, 04:19 AM
Oh yeah?

Eostre and Istar

There are two incredibly minor gods, who I'd never even heard of prior to googling them. Yeah, good job, and you've also yet to prove how they are Hamitic. The other 4 aren't even Germanic, and two of them aren't even Indo-European. Posting drawing of obscure Gods isn't proof of anything.

Resurgam
Wednesday, January 23rd, 2008, 04:25 AM
The other 4 aren't even Germanic, and two of them aren't even Indo-European. Posting drawing of obscure Gods isn't proof of anything.

I'm making comparisons. The Phoenicians were sailing all over the place as well...


You guys will love this:


Syrian Bedouins
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/00034065.jpg

Voortrekker Boere
http://www.south-africa-tours-and-travel.com/images/voortrekker-laager-historyofsouthafrica.jpg

German skinhead:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y1/swiftysoitiz/skinhead_gollum.jpg

Soldier of Wodann
Wednesday, January 23rd, 2008, 04:30 AM
You stumped me bro. Though I'd always suspected the Dutch of being Bedouins, I finally have the proof I needed.

Resurgam
Wednesday, January 23rd, 2008, 05:53 AM
White Dragon Symbol of England?
http://www.englishmovement.org.uk/id11.html

http://www.englishmovement.org.uk/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/whitedragon.jpg.w300h294.jpg

The White Dragon is the foremost symbol of the English and of the Folk-Nation of England. This symbol was revived within Odinism and taken over by Woden's Folk when this was created in 1998. Today the symbol is widespread and many English Nationalist groups are using it, in one variant or another. Primarily this is a Heathen Symbol since it dates well back into Heathen times and was abosrbed into the Christian era, until the English Cross replaced it...



The White Dragon replaces the English Cross as symbol of the English Revolution. This symbol awakens not only the Ancestral Spirits but also the National Spirit of England.

This white dragon appears to have originated with the Britons in the Prophecy of Merlin.

HAVE THEY NOT READ TOLKIEN?

http://www.fotw.net/images/f/fic0roha.gif

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/8/82/WestburyWhiteHorseRepainted.jpg


"Death he tasted there, yet God rose again
by his great might, a help unto men.
He then rose to heaven. Again sets out hither
into this Middle-Earth, seeking mankind
on Doomsday, the Lord himself,
Almighty God, and with him his angels,
when he will deem--he holds power of doom--
everyone here as he will have earned
for himself earlier in this brief life."

-from "The Dream of the Rood"
http://www.travelwithachallenge.com/Images/Travel_Article_Library/Greek_Islands/Icon%20Artist/St_George.jpg
http://www.vinesbranch.com/view/uploads/image24Christwhiteh.jpg

SwordOfTheVistula
Wednesday, January 23rd, 2008, 07:43 AM
Syrian Bedouins
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/00034065.jpg

Voortrekker Boere
http://www.south-africa-tours-and-travel.com/images/voortrekker-laager-historyofsouthafrica.jpg



Those Voortrekkers are missing the water bongs the Syrian Bedouins have, musta left them behind in Amsterdam

exit
Sunday, February 3rd, 2008, 06:39 PM
Christianity has been adapted to the needs and customs of Germanics. Therefore, Christianity is not as alien to Germanics as Judaism and Islam.

I disagree. Christianity has been adapted to modern attitudes that aren't essentially Germanic. The Christianity of the Middle Ages was its purest form only because of the initiatic guilds and chivalric orders which existed at the time. Note also that these esoteric lines were restored by the East, in particular, by Sufis. However, we must understand that this will never be again under Christianity; history never repeats itself in such a way.

What sealed the fate of Christianity was undoubtedly the Inquisition, which became progressively worse and which was born from the negative attitudes of Christian exclusivism. This led to the destruction of the Cathars, the Order of the Temple, and many other esoteric guardians, which in turn led to a complete modernization by many phases: the Renaissance, the Reformation, Rationalism, and the democratic and communist revolutions. All of this has caused irreparable damage--and not only to the church and the religion but to society itself. Modern civilization is not only alien to Germanics, it is also an anomaly in history.

Siebenbürgerin
Thursday, March 20th, 2008, 11:05 AM
I believe many people reject Semitic religions like Judaism and Islam, but they do not reject a third Semitic religion, Christianity. Is this justified? SHould Germanics practice this religion? I believe so. Christianity has a history in Germania (Germanic Christianity (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=2005)) while Judaism and Islam do not. Christianity has been adapted to the needs and customs of Germanics. Therefore, Christianity is not as alien to Germanics as Judaism and Islam.
Hi Dagna, I don't know what to say about all Christian Branches. But Lutheranism, which identifies with the Teachings of Martin Luther is not alien to Germanics at all. It was created by a German and we Saxons still practice Lutheranism. I am not very religious but if I have to teach my Children a Religion it will be Lutheranism. I am fascinated by Germanic Mythology but Lutheranism is a big part of the identity of us Transylvanian Saxons. For me, it isn't alien at all.

Spacelab
Thursday, March 20th, 2008, 12:31 PM
How is Lutheranism Germanic? I suppose the Zen books I can buy from my local book shop are from Germanic tradition because a white woman wrote them. :rolleyes:

Siebenbürgerin
Thursday, March 20th, 2008, 12:38 PM
Spacelab, English isn't my Mother Language but it's not that bad. :p I didn't say Luthernism is Germanic. But that Lutheranism is not alien to Germanics, especially not to my People, the Transylvanian Saxons. If Someone writes about Zen, of course Zen doesn't become Germanic Tradition. However, if Someone makes an Inovation reformed from Zen and it is practiced by many Germanics overtime, it will not be alien to them. Do you understand what I'm trying to mean? Luther didn't just write about Christianity, he was a Reformer. The Religion is named after him. By the way, white and Germanic aren't the same thing.

Aragorn
Thursday, March 20th, 2008, 11:48 PM
Those Voortrekkers are missing the water bongs the Syrian Bedouins have, musta left them behind in Amsterdam



With all due respect, but i find this way of compare the noble boers with syrian savages not only an insult but aswell inappropiate:mad:

Veritas Æquitas
Friday, March 21st, 2008, 12:34 AM
Spacelab, English isn't my Mother Language but it's not that bad. :p I didn't say Luthernism is Germanic. But that Lutheranism is not alien to Germanics, especially not to my People, the Transylvanian Saxons. If Someone writes about Zen, of course Zen doesn't become Germanic Tradition. However, if Someone makes an Inovation reformed from Zen and it is practiced by many Germanics overtime, it will not be alien to them. Do you understand what I'm trying to mean? Luther didn't just write about Christianity, he was a Reformer. The Religion is named after him. By the way, white and Germanic aren't the same thing.

Luther did away with the Pope and all that stuff in the Luther sphere, but the base semitic beliefs are still there. Doesn't matter which denomination you go to in Christendom, they all still worship the same hanged Christ..

CharlesDexterWard
Friday, March 21st, 2008, 01:17 AM
Luther did away with the Pope and all that stuff in the Luther sphere, but the base semitic beliefs are still there. Doesn't matter which denomination you go to in Christendom, they all still worship the same hanged Christ..

This you say about "semitic beliefs" is crap in my opinion, generally speaking. And Christ wasn't "hanged", but crucified, as far as I know.

Veritas Æquitas
Friday, March 21st, 2008, 01:30 AM
This you say about "semitic beliefs" is crap in my opinion, generally speaking. And Christ wasn't "hanged", but crucified, as far as I know.

If you deny the Bible was written by semitic people then you're a blind man. Not only was it written by them, it was intended for them, and even when it sought expansion through Christianity, it held those of the Hebrew blood higher than Gentiles who converted, so even then you see racism in early bloom while spreading the good news in Europe, and the early efforts of eliminating tribal identity, which is something folk here are trying to protect..

CharlesDexterWard
Friday, March 21st, 2008, 01:43 AM
If you deny the Bible was written by semitic people then you're a blind man. Not only was it written by them, it was intended for them, and even when it sought expansion through Christianity, it held those of the Hebrew blood higher than Gentiles who converted, so even then you see racism in early bloom while spreading the good news in Europe, and the early efforts of eliminating tribal identity, which is something folk here are trying to protect..

You are talking about Judaism, not Christianity, but you just put your inability to tell them apart on display, so I will rest my case for the time being. I'm tired of this debate after having written extensively about it in other threads recently. The cheap shots taken from an ignorant point of view in this thread, as elsewhere, are a plenty and quite lowly.

Soten
Friday, March 21st, 2008, 01:43 AM
Not only was it written by them, it was intended for them, and even when it sought expansion through Christianity, it held those of the Hebrew blood higher than Gentiles who converted, so even then you see racism in early bloom while spreading the good news in Europe, and the early efforts of eliminating tribal identity, which is something folk here are trying to protect..

Well, just from some of the Bible stories I may be inclined to say that Christ was only concerned with the "House of Israel" as he puts it. There is a story where a Canaanite woman begs for help from Jesus only for him to call her a dog and say that he won't throw scraps to her. He later says that since she had faith he will help her...and that's what most Christians take to mean that Jesus will accept all Gentiles who have faith. Never liked the passage myself.

However, it is wrong to say that early Christianity (post-Christ. :D) held Hebrew blood higher than that of the Gentiles. St. Paul's entire mission was to spread Christianity to Gentiles. The whole idea was that all could be saved so long as they have faith. I've never heard, and don't think there is, any reason to believe that converted Gentiles were in any way considered lower than the Jews.

Veritas Æquitas
Friday, March 21st, 2008, 02:06 AM
The LORD has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. - Deuteronomy 14:2

"The LORD did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any of the peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but because the LORD loved you and kept the oath which He swore to your forefathers" - Deuteronomy 7:7-8

Then turn to the NT..

From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake , but from the standpoint of God's choice, they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. - Romans 11:28-29

or..

You worship what you do not know; we [Jews] worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. - John 4:22

The gospel is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew
first and also to the Greek, - Romans 1:16

I'm sorry but Jew worship is not in the cards for me and will always be counter to my views.

Soten
Friday, March 21st, 2008, 02:11 AM
The LORD has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. - Deuteronomy 14:2

"The LORD did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any of the peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but because the LORD loved you and kept the oath which He swore to your forefathers" - Deuteronomy 7:7-8

Then turn to the NT..

From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake , but from the standpoint of God's choice, they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. - Romans 11:28-29

or..

You worship what you do not know; we [Jews] worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. - John 4:22

The gospel is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew
first and also to the Greek, - Romans 1:16

I'm sorry but Jew worship is not in the cards for me and will always be counter to my views.

Yes. The idea being that God's Covenant was first with the Jews and then extended to all nations. The Chosen People in most Christian denominations that I know of are the Christians themselves.

Siebenbürgerin
Friday, March 21st, 2008, 05:39 AM
Luther did away with the Pope and all that stuff in the Luther sphere, but the base semitic beliefs are still there. Doesn't matter which denomination you go to in Christendom, they all still worship the same hanged Christ..
Christ was not hanged and yes, He is worshiped, what is the Problem with that? The Ethnicity of Christ is irrelevant to us because we worship what he represents. Christianity is not for a single People. It is for everyone who wants to believe in its Teachings. Lutheranism was a Reformation by a German which my People have practiced for Centuries. So it is not alien to us. It didn't kill any tribal Identity because we Transylvanian Saxons exist as an Ethnicity for Centuries.

Spacelab
Friday, March 21st, 2008, 07:12 AM
Christ was not hanged and yes, He is worshiped, what is the Problem with that? The Ethnicity of Christ is irrelevant to us because we worship what he represents. Christianity is not for a single People. It is for everyone who wants to believe in its Teachings. Lutheranism was a Reformation by a German which my People have practiced for Centuries. So it is not alien to us. It didn't kill any tribal Identity because we Transylvanian Saxons exist as an Ethnicity for Centuries.
Referring to my earlier Zen Book example, we can repackage it as much as we like, it's still alien, the bible wasn't written in Old English or Old Norse, it was written in Hebrew. The only religion that isn't alien to Germanics is Germanic paganism.

Why we "need" a religion, let alone one as sick as Christianity, is beyond me anyway. :rolleyes: Christianity has no place in a healthy society and has been the blight of the Germanics for long enough.

Angharad
Friday, March 21st, 2008, 09:10 AM
Well, just from some of the Bible stories I may be inclined to say that Christ was only concerned with the "House of Israel" as he puts it. There is a story where a Canaanite woman begs for help from Jesus only for him to call her a dog and say that he won't throw scraps to her. He later says that since she had faith he will help her...and that's what most Christians take to mean that Jesus will accept all Gentiles who have faith. Never liked the passage myself.

However, it is wrong to say that early Christianity (post-Christ. :D) held Hebrew blood higher than that of the Gentiles. St. Paul's entire mission was to spread Christianity to Gentiles. The whole idea was that all could be saved so long as they have faith. I've never heard, and don't think there is, any reason to believe that converted Gentiles were in any way considered lower than the Jews.


Well, I've heard things that make me think that converts to Judaism are considered lower than "regular" Jews.

1. Members of their priesthood, the Cohanim, are not permitted to marry converts. I guess they aren't good enough for their priests, or they want to make sure that they have purity in their priestly lines.

2. Converts (and Gentile slave girls) are allowed to marry their Mamzerim (basically a bastard or child of incest, a state that is carried forward to their children forever), but regular Jews can't.

I am not an expert on Judaism. However the two facts above lead me to conclude that there is definitely a lower status for converts. I agree that this does not seem to be the case in early Christianity, it seems like a break in the tradition.

However, the Jewish religion does seem utterly alien to me, as does Islam, although I am interested in them in an anthropological sense.

As for whether Christianity is alien to Germanics, I am not so sure. Although the religion did originate in the Middle East, it "grew up" in Europe. Christianity did not spend much time developing in the Middle East or North Africa, it went to Rome fairly soon. Most Christian doctrine and practices were developed in Europe, and many Germanics (and even more Celts) were fairly early converts to the Faith. I'd like to point out that the Grail myths are Celtic, and not Middle Eastern at all, so there is an early tradition of indigenous Christian myth in Europe.

Also, I doubt that early Christianity as it was practiced in North Africa, or the Middle East is very similar to modern Christianity as practiced in Germanic countries. Protestantism is also less prevalent outside of Germanic communities, so I would consider it a uniquely Germanic faith.

Now, whether Christianity vs Heathenism is better for Germanics, that is a more difficult question.

Jäger
Friday, March 21st, 2008, 09:29 AM
And Christ wasn't "hanged", but crucified, as far as I know.
Indeed, in contemporary depictions he mostly has a little sign above his head: I.N.R.I. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inri)
Hmmm, nothing semitic about this I guess. :)

Spacelab
Friday, March 21st, 2008, 09:33 AM
Although the religion did originate in the Middle East, it "grew up" in Europe. Christianity did not spend much time developing in the Middle East or North Africa, it went to Rome fairly soon. Most Christian doctrine and practices were developed in Europe, and many Germanics (and even more Celts) were fairly early converts to the Faith. I'd like to point out that the Grail myths are Celtic, and not Middle Eastern at all, so there is an early tradition of indigenous Christian myth in Europe.
Romans are not Germanic.


Now, whether Christianity vs Heathenism is better for Germanics, that is a more difficult question.

The Ethnicity of Christ is irrelevant to us because we worship what he represents. Christianity is not for a single People. It is for everyone who wants to believe in its Teachings.
This is exactly why Christianity is destructive towards Germanic preservation. There are no boundaries, every race is the same under the eyes of God. This is no different from any other value conforming ideology. Multiculturalism, capitalism, globalisation, liberalism, etcetera.

There's nothing important about racial identity in any strain of Christianity and preserving it is pointless since we transcend everything material in the afterlife. Pass. Christian "Germanic Preservationists" are hypocrites at best. :rolleyes:

Siebenbürgerin
Friday, March 21st, 2008, 10:51 AM
Referring to my earlier Zen Book example, we can repackage it as much as we like, it's still alien, the bible wasn't written in Old English or Old Norse, it was written in Hebrew. The only religion that isn't alien to Germanics is Germanic paganism.

Why we "need" a religion, let alone one as sick as Christianity, is beyond me anyway. :rolleyes: Christianity has no place in a healthy society and has been the blight of the Germanics for long enough.
Christianity has actually saved the Germanics' and Europeans' Backs many times in History. If it hadn't been for Christianity, we could have been under Islam right now. Our ethnic Identities would have changed. Christianity is the Religion that first Shaped the Concept of Europe.


This is exactly why Christianity is destructive towards Germanic preservation. There are no boundaries, every race is the same under the eyes of God. This is no different from any other value conforming ideology. Multiculturalism, capitalism, globalisation, liberalism, etcetera.

There's nothing important about racial identity in any strain of Christianity and preserving it is pointless since we transcend everything material in the afterlife. Pass. Christian "Germanic Preservationists" are hypocrites at best. :rolleyes:
Well, Spacelab, our European and Germanic Ethnicities have always preserved themselves until the 20th Century when Multiculturalism became prevalent. Nowadays our Socieites aren't overtly Christian. We are becoming more and more secular. The Results are that we have less Morals and Values. We don't oppose the Islamic Threat anymore. We bow down to our Conquerors.
It's a Fallacy and uniformed Thing to say that there is nothing important about Identity in Christianity. You haven't understood. Christians don't care about the Ethnicity of Jesus because he isn't a simple Man in their Doctrines. Jesus Christ is both God and Man in one Person. But we, the People aren't Gods. Christianity, unlike Islam, doesn't teach against Nationalism. Please read these Fragments as they are some Examples of what I mean:

The themes of "nations" and "nationality" feature strongly in the Old Testament. The first occurrence of the concept of nations is in the table of nations in Genesis 10, which details the national groups into which all of known humanity was divided after the Flood. The existence of this table shows that "Humanity is reconstituted after the flood into a manifold world of nations not into a homogeneous multitude"2, despite common ancestry in Adam & Noah. The peoples began to separate into distinct groups, each with its own distinct land, language, culture and tribal (ethnic) identity (Genesis 10:5, 20,31 ).3 The embryo nations had been born.

The nations became further divided after the incident recorded in Genesis 11, the building of the Tower of Babel. To confound the people's plans, God confused their language so that they could no longer understand each other. Therefore we can see that linguistic diversity is ordained by God.4 People naturally gathered together with those who shared the same language, whom they could understand and commune with, and so the nations were further divided.

Why did God want to confound the people's language and break them up into separate groups? In Genesis 11:4b we can see that the purpose for the building of the Tower of Babel was so that humanity would "not be scattered over the face of the whole earth." This was in direct opposition to God's command to "be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth" (Genesis 1:28 & 9:1,7). God's response was to confuse their language and as a result (11:9) they were scattered over the face of the earth, which was God's original intention. "So what we see at Babel is God's judgement of an attempt to create a single, though rebellious, culture. Sinful humanity wanted to rule it's (sic) own life and destiny; it wanted to be in control, and did not want to be diverse and vulnerable. God, on the other hand, wanted diversity, and people's relationship with each other to be based on faith in him."5

We can see, therefore, that the emergence of separate nations was ordained by God as part of his plan for humanity to spread out and populate the world, rather than remaining all together in one small corner of it.

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/1026.htm (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fjmm.aaa. net.au%2Farticles%2F1026.htm)


Monsignor Glenn on race-mixing

The following quote against race-mixing is from Monsignor Glenn's book Sociology, which was given a nihil obstat by the Censor Departus of the Church and received an imprimatur from the Bishop of Columbus. Monsignor Glenn was Professor of Philosophy and later President of the College-Seminary of St. Charles Borromeo. The text would presumably have been used in seminaries for the instruction of priests-to-be.

"That there are lines between classes of people is a certainty that may as well be acknowledged at once, and the color-line is one of them. While it is entirely possible to ignore these lines, the social effect of such action is seldom happy. Just as a member of the true Church is earnestly dissuaded from marriage, by dispensation, with a non-member so should a member of one race be dissuaded from marriage with a person of another color. In marriages of either type there is a definite injustice done to children, there are almost inevitable misunderstandings between the parties themselves, and there is sure to be some friction between the families so gracelessly united."
(Sociology, p. 372)

Leof
Friday, March 21st, 2008, 11:13 AM
I believe it is debatable as to how much the centralizing force of the Roman Catholic Empire was more beneficial as a method of combating against the Islamic invaders. I haven't really made a conclusion on this yet but regardless that isn't the debate here.

Is Christianity alien to Germanics does not equate to if aspects of it did not prove beneficial in the past.

Considering it took 1000 years to turn Germania into Christiania and from that moment of unchallenged authority it began to fall into countless divisions and reformations only proves that it is indeed foreign. Now look at the current state of things. The spiritual integrity of western society is shallow and empty. This all happened on the church's clock.

I have seen some people go as far as to blame modernist perversion on paganism even after it has been vastly expunged for centuries.

Jäger
Friday, March 21st, 2008, 11:39 AM
Christianity has actually saved the Germanics' and Europeans' Backs many times in History. If it hadn't been for Christianity, we could have been under Islam right now.
So it was Christianity you think? Why has the Christian France allied themselves with the Islamic Ottoman Empire then?
Why is it, that the actual most devastating war in European (Germanic) history, was because of Christianity (Thirty Years' War)?

Without Christianity, you think that the heathen rulers of Europe would have subjected themselves to Islamic rule? They wouldn't be able to unite?
History speaks against you, people unite when it suits themselves, they unite when they see benefits, never ever did they unite just because of Christianity, that might have worked for the plebs, but not for those who had a say anyway.

What the Bible says is against Germanics, thus Christianity in the biblical sense is against Germanics, however among all those Christianities there might be some which would (and do) work quite well with Germanics.
But since they still refer to the anti-Germanic teachings from time to time, they are still dangerous to some point, and it would be better to replace them all together, but some forms are more tolerable than others.

Siebenbürgerin
Friday, March 21st, 2008, 11:50 AM
Jäger, those Christians which allied with Islam did so for political Reasons, not Religious. The Crusades were carried out for religious Reasons. Christianity and Islam don't get along. The Pope had spoken against Islam.
However, I am not against Heathenism. But the Threat of Islam is at Europe's Gates. I am not going to mock and oppose my Germanic Christian Brethren because they aren't Heathens. Who have more Chances to fight against Islam? The few scattered Heathen Populations, or the Millions of Christians? To fight against our Kind because of their Religion is stupid in my Opinion and the real Enemy can take Advantage of that. It's Divide et Impera.

Spacelab
Friday, March 21st, 2008, 12:02 PM
Christianity has actually saved the Germanics' and Europeans' Backs many times in History. If it hadn't been for Christianity, we could have been under Islam right now. Our ethnic Identities would have changed. Christianity is the Religion that first Shaped the Concept of Europe.In what cases? :confused: The black plague, the Crusades or the Inquisition? Also, to me it doesn't seem likely that Islam would of spread to Europe, especially considering the Qur'an forbids forced conversions...


Well, Spacelab, our European and Germanic Ethnicities have always preserved themselves until the 20th Century when Multiculturalism became prevalent. Nowadays our Socieites aren't overtly Christian. We are becoming more and more secular. The Results are that we have less Morals and Values. We don't oppose the Islamic Threat anymore. We bow down to our Conquerors.
You've misunderstood me, yes society is rather secular now days, but we've replaced Christianity with other universal, conforming ideologies, as I listed. There's still values and morals, just not Christian ones.


It's a Fallacy and uniformed Thing to say that there is nothing important about Identity in Christianity. You haven't understood. Christians don't care about the Ethnicity of Jesus because he isn't a simple Man in their Doctrines. Jesus Christ is both God and Man in one Person. But we, the People aren't Gods. Christianity, unlike Islam, doesn't teach against Nationalism. Please read these Fragments as they are some Examples of what I mean:

The themes of "nations" and "nationality" feature strongly in the Old Testament. The first occurrence of the concept of nations is in the table of nations in Genesis 10, which details the national groups into which all of known humanity was divided after the Flood. The existence of this table shows that "Humanity is reconstituted after the flood into a manifold world of nations not into a homogeneous multitude"2, despite common ancestry in Adam & Noah. The peoples began to separate into distinct groups, each with its own distinct land, language, culture and tribal (ethnic) identity (Genesis 10:5, 20,31 ).3 The embryo nations had been born.

The nations became further divided after the incident recorded in Genesis 11, the building of the Tower of Babel. To confound the people's plans, God confused their language so that they could no longer understand each other. Therefore we can see that linguistic diversity is ordained by God.4 People naturally gathered together with those who shared the same language, whom they could understand and commune with, and so the nations were further divided.

Why did God want to confound the people's language and break them up into separate groups? In Genesis 11:4b we can see that the purpose for the building of the Tower of Babel was so that humanity would "not be scattered over the face of the whole earth." This was in direct opposition to God's command to "be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth" (Genesis 1:28 & 9:1,7). God's response was to confuse their language and as a result (11:9) they were scattered over the face of the earth, which was God's original intention. "So what we see at Babel is God's judgement of an attempt to create a single, though rebellious, culture. Sinful humanity wanted to rule it's (sic) own life and destiny; it wanted to be in control, and did not want to be diverse and vulnerable. God, on the other hand, wanted diversity, and people's relationship with each other to be based on faith in him."5

We can see, therefore, that the emergence of separate nations was ordained by God as part of his plan for humanity to spread out and populate the world, rather than remaining all together in one small corner of it.

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/1026.htm (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fjmm.aaa. net.au%2Farticles%2F1026.htm)


Monsignor Glenn on race-mixing

The following quote against race-mixing is from Monsignor Glenn's book Sociology, which was given a nihil obstat by the Censor Departus of the Church and received an imprimatur from the Bishop of Columbus. Monsignor Glenn was Professor of Philosophy and later President of the College-Seminary of St. Charles Borromeo. The text would presumably have been used in seminaries for the instruction of priests-to-be.

"That there are lines between classes of people is a certainty that may as well be acknowledged at once, and the color-line is one of them. While it is entirely possible to ignore these lines, the social effect of such action is seldom happy. Just as a member of the true Church is earnestly dissuaded from marriage, by dispensation, with a non-member so should a member of one race be dissuaded from marriage with a person of another color. In marriages of either type there is a definite injustice done to children, there are almost inevitable misunderstandings between the parties themselves, and there is sure to be some friction between the families so gracelessly united."
(Sociology, p. 372)
This doesn't prove anything except that Christians don't really give a shit about race.


Jäger, those Christians which allied with Islam did so for political Reasons, not Religious. The Crusades were carried out for religious Reasons. Christianity and Islam don't get along. The Pope had spoken against Islam.
However, I am not against Heathenism. But the Threat of Islam is at Europe's Gates. I am not going to mock and oppose my Germanic Christian Brethren because they aren't Heathens. Who have more Chances to fight against Islam? The few scattered Heathen Populations, or the Millions of Christians? To fight against our Kind because of their Religion is stupid in my Opinion and the real Enemy can take Advantage of that. It's Divide et Impera.
Christianity will magically save the world from the "Islamic threat" deus ex machina? :rolleyes:

Siebenbürgerin
Friday, March 21st, 2008, 12:10 PM
In what cases? :confused: The black plague, the Crusades or the Inquisition? Also, to me it doesn't seem likely that Islam would of spread to Europe, especially considering the Qur'an forbids forced conversions...
Islam is already spreading to Europe, Spacelab. Excuse me, but don't you read news about this Continent in your Country? We have Mosques and Minarets, we allow Islamics to bring their Values in our Countries and in some Countries they ask for Sharia. Islamics believe in Jihad, the Holy War. Everyone who isn't Islamic is inferior to them. The Numbers of Muslims in Europe are growing, their Families are growing. Soon it will become a Muslim Continent by Religion and Demographics. The Europeans are too weak now to protest against the Injustice the Muslims are making here. We need a Revigoration.


You've misunderstood me, yes society is rather secular now days, but we've replaced Christianity with other universal, conforming ideologies, as I listed. There's still values and morals, just not Christian ones.
Well who is stopping all these Heathens to replace Christian Values with theirs? As far as I know, there is no significant Number of Heathens in Transylvania. So we Transylvanian Saxons stick to our Christian Values because we hate the Modernization and Decadence.


This doesn't prove anything except that Christians don't really give a shit about race.
Then you have obviously misread it.


Christianity will magically save the world from the "Islamic threat" deus ex machina? :rolleyes:
Not the World, maybe not. I don't care about the whole World. I only care about Europe. And I think in Europe a Christian Revival would be Detrimental to Islam, yes.

Jäger
Friday, March 21st, 2008, 01:07 PM
Jäger, those Christians which allied with Islam did so for political Reasons, not Religious.
I agree, I didn't say otherwise, what I said is that Christians that allied with Christians did so for political reasons, not religious ones. :)
Or else all the devastating wars of Christians against Christians couldn't have taken place.


The Crusades were carried out for religious Reasons.
They were not. At that time, almost everywhere on the world, money was gold and silver, money means power, so naturally the authorities claimed control of it, one control mechanism was to determine the ratio of gold to silver, in Europe it was usually something around 1:12.
And now I will tell you a secret, this secret explains the rise of the Jews (who were the main merchants of the East-West way), the rise of the Medici, Venice, and later Amsterdam, etc. It explains why Columbus set out to find a sea way to India, it explains why the Knights Templer became so powerful (through the Crusades), and why the Crusades were made to begin with, and why before the Crusades the Byzantine Empire was the richest in the world (the 4th Crusade was against Constantinople).
And it even might explain a lot more.
So hold your breath ... the ratio of gold and silver was around 1:6 in the east.
Those who controlled the trade with east, didn't just control trade, with every trade they got gains up to 500%, they just payed with silver, and later exchanged their gold into silver, etc.
So those who controlled the trade with the east, had the might!
This is somehow really unknown to most, even today, and I bet only few could take advantage of this knowledge at that time too, and those who had this knowledge did everything in their might to keep it a secret.
This also explains why a constant silver drain happened in Europe, while gold became more and more, which finally resulted in a gold standard contrary to the better bi-metal standard.


Christianity and Islam don't get along. The Pope had spoken against Islam.
Which Pope?
http://www.cibedo.de/
http://www.zeit.de/online/2006/48/Papst-Erdogan

And here a Lutheran Chruch
http://www.nordelbien.de/nachrichten/ser.bibliothek/ser.dokumente/one.news/index.html?entry=page.kirdok.11&

The Chief Protestants in Germany
http://www.ekd.de/islam/islam.html

I think it should be clear by now, that everything is political here, Christianity never has had a unifying effect of Christians nor did it reject Islam. It always has been just the contemporary mind set which did so, so logically, you living in Romania it might be politically better to reject Islam, so the Churches there might be "better" (for now), than in Germany, but Churches just join the Zeitgeist.


Who have more Chances to fight against Islam?
All those who are independent of the indoctrination of the Churches (that are just another political tool), no matter whether these are "free Christians of Germanic orientation" or simply heathens.

Gagnraad
Friday, March 21st, 2008, 02:19 PM
Christianity is the same as worshiping a Jewish guy from Israel. Christianity, is as far as I am concerned, a "sub-version" of Judaism, which would make it alien to Germanic's.

I mean, you can base religion on location, and if you do that, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and so forth are alien to Germanic's and most other European countries. Germanic's (Which would mean what, exactly?) have their own religions and beliefs, although most have forgotten them and treat them more or less as part of history.

Besides, if we think about how Christianity got as "popular" as it is today, I would not say that people embraced that religion.
When a religion is literally forced upon a country, "Join us or die", I find it weird that some hundred years later, people believe it is a part of your ancestry and history.

Oswiu
Tuesday, March 25th, 2008, 04:11 PM
Without Christianity, you think that the heathen rulers of Europe would have subjected themselves to Islamic rule? They wouldn't be able to unite?
History speaks against you, people unite when it suits themselves, they unite when they see benefits, never ever did they unite just because of Christianity, that might have worked for the plebs, but not for those who had a say anyway.
I find it highly unlikely that a common front could have been made of Heathen tribes. Christianity brought the modern state into being here in the north. Literature, taxes, central government, a civil service. We would have fallen one by one to the Moors and Turks without this great new idea.

I find a lot to agree with in the posts of those defending Christianity, but I personally feel that it's played its role now, and we have outgrown it in many ways. Surely the very fact that there are people like me and Jaeger in our continent is proof enough that Christianity is now insufficient for our needs in a changing world?


When a religion is literally forced upon a country, "Join us or die", I find it weird that some hundred years later, people believe it is a part of your ancestry and history.

We can't dismiss the last 1300 years either, though. A handful of generations were coerced, many more knew nothing else. Acknowledge it as part of us, something that made us who we are, while not allowing ourselves to be shackled to it.

I will say this: When Christianity was serving a great purpose in Europe, most believers didn't have a huge knowledge about its origins and theory. They made Christianity into something they needed, ignorant of its dnagerous universalist content. With the spread of education and religious reforms, however, it became harder to push this 'Folk-Christianity' in the face of the new appreciation of the actual content of Scripture. And that's how we arrived at the point where we are today. We can't return to those more innocent days, or we would have to create artificial and downright stupid new cult forms like that 'Christian Identity' nonsense I hear about among some ill-advised White Nationalists in the USA.

Time to move on, but not to be bitter, that's my opinion on it all!

Jäger
Tuesday, March 25th, 2008, 05:02 PM
I find it highly unlikely that a common front could have been made of Heathen tribes.
Arminius?


Christianity brought the modern state into being here in the north.
Hmm, I wouldn't necessarily disagree, but wasn't it more the Romans, after all they had the "modern state" even before Christianity.
It seems that after Christianity came, "our" development went downhill, rather than upwards.


Surely the very fact that there are people like me and Jaeger in our continent is proof enough that Christianity is now insufficient for our needs in a changing world?
Indeed :D
But the "usefulness" of Christianity is of course only one thing, and I somehow wonder why it is even brought up by Christians, whether it is useful or not, they believe it to be true, that alone should be their argument. Or are we just talking about a mass control tool here? Then I even could agree ;)
Do Christians only believe in Yahweh, because it is useful for our earthly well being? I thought this religion is mostly concerned with the after life anyway, they should look on the bright sight of it, in our sinful world what great chances are there for all those potential martyrs :D


When Christianity was serving a great purpose in Europe, most believers didn't have a huge knowledge about its origins and theory. They made Christianity into something they needed, ignorant of its dnagerous universalist content.
I absolutely agree :) !
There IS a difference between the teachings in the true sense, how we can find it in the Bible, and what different people made of it, but when we are speaking about Christianity vs. Germanics, then we should have those "true" teachings in mind, not a selection of the hundreds of manifestations and sects that exist, and that might be or might not be useful to us. If we would, a discussion can't be fruitful, because we can bend anything to our will here then.

CharlesDexterWard
Tuesday, March 25th, 2008, 06:12 PM
There IS a difference between the teachings in the true sense, how we can find it in the Bible, and what different people made of it, but when we are speaking about Christianity vs. Germanics, then we should have those "true" teachings in mind, not a selection of the hundreds of manifestations and sects that exist, and that might be or might not be useful to us.

When we are speaking... But we shouldn't speak about "Germanics versus Christianity". That does only create a chasm between Germanics and Germanics.

Jäger
Tuesday, March 25th, 2008, 06:58 PM
When we are speaking... But we shouldn't speak about "Germanics versus Christianity". That does only create a chasm between Germanics and Germanics.
There are also Germanic Muslims, still the evaluation whether Islam is good for Germanics should be made anyhow, the same with Christianity.

I somehow would say, that in connection to what I said before, this can't be discussed with Christians, because even if Christianity would be clearly against our purpose of living, then they still would be Christians, because technically the eternity of purgatory is surely more threatening than just falling victim to a Nigger street thug. Or loosing your cultural identity, or whatever.

Maybe it is time to discuss some Bible passages (this is of course not just directed to Charles):

"For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw, a man's enemies will be the members of his own household." Mathew 10,35-36

For the "capitalists" :D
"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Mathew 19,24

"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic." Luke 6,27-29

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." Romans 13,1

CharlesDexterWard
Tuesday, March 25th, 2008, 07:30 PM
I somehow would say, that in connection to what I said before, this can't be discussed with Christians, because even if Christianity would be clearly against our purpose of living, then they still would be Christians, because technically the eternity of purgatory is surely more threatening than just falling victim to a Nigger street thug. Or loosing your cultural identity, or whatever.

This can't be discussed with people who don't have the proper knowledge of Christianity. Purgatory is not eternal. To put it simply, anyone who makes it to purgatory will also make it to heaven.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Purgatory.asp

God supports our national identities. I saw a good post where someone proved that from the point of view of your favorite book, the Bible. :D So I don't have to go over it again.

Jäger
Tuesday, March 25th, 2008, 07:56 PM
Purgatory is not eternal. To put it simply, anyone who makes it to purgatory will also make it to heaven.
Honestly, I thought about this, but there seems to be a lack of good translation, or I just made a mistake, I should have said "Fires of Hell" or "Inferno".
So even if I named it wrongly, the point still stands, the infallible Pope is clear here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1572646.ece


God supports our national identities.
Why does he destroy families then? Why does he bless authority that tries to destroy those?
The Old Testament is very tribalistic, it was written by Jews for Jews, so no surprise here, the New Testament speaks the opposite though, and was written by Jews, Greeks, and whatever for Non-Jews.
An imp is he who thinks what they wanted to achieve is anything else than to deliver the word of God ;)


I saw a good post where someone proved that from the point of view of your favorite book, the Bible. :D So I don't have to go over it again.
Would be nice if you can give a reference though :)

CharlesDexterWard
Tuesday, March 25th, 2008, 09:45 PM
Honestly, I thought about this, but there seems to be a lack of good translation, or I just made a mistake, I should have said "Fires of Hell" or "Inferno".
So even if I named it wrongly, the point still stands, the infallible Pope is clear here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1572646.eceYou are wrong again, I think. As far as I know, the infallibility doctrine was only used by the Pope once in history. For infallibility to count, the Pope actually has to say that he is using his infallibility. But I must say that I find this infallibility doctrine to be strange. It's not like I think the church is all perfect, but God is.

As for the point that still stands: Yes, there is good and evil. I stand by that.


Why does he destroy families then? Why does he bless authority that tries to destroy those?I think you misunderstand everything for the sake of your own argument. If you weren't so prone to raid the paragraphs for "proof", I think it would be easier to see the big picture. But I will give you an answer to this question, because I believe it is important.

What it means is that God is greater than the human being. I don't think that God wants to shatter families at all, but if your folks do the wrong thing, then God is there to know it, and to guide the believer, who trusts in Him. Ultimately, that may shatter bonds between human beings. Good and evil are real and matter.


The Old Testament is very tribalistic, it was written by Jews for Jews, so no surprise here, the New Testament speaks the opposite though, and was written by Jews, Greeks, and whatever for Non-Jews.
An imp is he who thinks what they wanted to achieve is anything else than to deliver the word of God ;)What is your point?


Would be nice if you can give a reference though :)

About the city of God:


And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.

Revelation of John 21:24-26

Jäger
Tuesday, March 25th, 2008, 10:24 PM
As for the point that still stands: Yes, there is good and evil. I stand by that.
Ya, well, the point was that if someone believes this to be true, he certainly would try to avoid eternal burning. :)


I don't think that God wants to shatter families at all, but if your folks do the wrong thing, then God is there to know it, and to guide the believer, who trusts in Him. Ultimately, that may shatter bonds between human beings.
OK, so far we can say that if there is a contradiction between family and God, a Christian is supposed to go for God.


What is your point?
Old Testament might be for nation states (as a justification for Israel), the New Testament not so much.


Revelation of John 21:24-26
But only those who are saved from heathenism :)

What do you say to the Roman 13,1?

CharlesDexterWard
Tuesday, March 25th, 2008, 10:54 PM
Ya, well, the point was that if someone believes this to be true, he certainly would try to avoid eternal burning. :)So what?


OK, so far we can say that if there is a contradiction between family and God, a Christian is supposed to go for God.That could happen, Jesus said it will happen, and it has happened, I'd reckon. But it does not mean that God wants to shatter families.


Old Testament might be for nation states (as a justification for Israel), the New Testament not so much.The quote I supplied was from the New Testament.


But only those who are saved from heathenism :)Some Orthodox Christians pray for apokatastasis panthon, and some believe in it in the Christian west as well. For my opinion, as already stated, I don't look down on paganists.


What do you say to the Roman 13,1?It is Paul speaking. Sometimes I think he's going to far. This one locus could be a misinterpretation of what Jesus said, that one should give to Rome (= the state) what is rightfully hers. I don't think that all authorities are instated by God.

ChaosLord
Tuesday, March 25th, 2008, 11:07 PM
Even though Christianity has impacted Europe and is a part of its history I don't think it's for Germanics. It's a desert religion and belongs to the people of the Middle East regions.

Soldier of Wodann
Tuesday, March 25th, 2008, 11:21 PM
I find it highly unlikely that a common front could have been made of Heathen tribes. Christianity brought the modern state into being here in the north. Literature, taxes, central government, a civil service. We would have fallen one by one to the Moors and Turks without this great new idea.


We could unify multiple times to fight Romans, who we are cousins of, but not Turks and Moors, who weren't even close to us geographically? Seems sketchy to me.......... Who is to say they'd have even gotten that far into Europe? They weren't even stopped by 'united' Christians, they were stopped by one German tribe in the west and one German city in the east. Perhaps if everyone in the Balkans and Iberia was German they'd have never have lost to begin with? :p

Ideas of central government came to us from Rome, not from Christianity. We had dealings and experiences with the Italians several centuries before Jesus was even put on his little cross. The only good thing that can really be attributed to Christianity is the Holy Roman Empire. It would be interesting to see how German history would have evolved without it, though.

Jäger
Tuesday, March 25th, 2008, 11:34 PM
So what?
After life is more important than earthly life.


That could happen, Jesus said it will happen, and it has happened, I'd reckon. But it does not mean that God wants to shatter families.
Why did he say what he said then? Or from a different angle, do you believe that people who read the Bible shouldn't do so on their own, because they might interpret it that way?
That alone could be a danger of Christianity.


Some Orthodox Christians pray for apokatastasis panthon, and some believe in it in the Christian west as well. For my opinion, as already stated, I don't look down on paganists.
But your quote is clear on this.


It is Paul speaking. Sometimes I think he's going to far. This one locus could be a misinterpretation of what Jesus said, that one should give to Rome (= the state) what is rightfully hers. I don't think that all authorities are instated by God.
This is of course your interpretation, do you believe that other Christians could see this differently?
As I already said, what you make out of Christianity might be not anti-Germanic, the problem is the Bible, which all Christian sects refer to, and it just has great potential to harm Germanics.
In this regard, a certain interpretation is not the main point of our discussion, I as a non-Christian, of course have no means to argue against Christian interpretations, I argue about the potential harm it can inflict, and thus the incoherency with Germanic preservation.

CharlesDexterWard
Wednesday, March 26th, 2008, 12:02 AM
I find a lot to agree with in the posts of those defending Christianity, but I personally feel that it's played its role now, and we have outgrown it in many ways. Surely the very fact that there are people like me and Jaeger in our continent is proof enough that Christianity is now insufficient for our needs in a changing world?The world is changing, and Christianity has changed far too much, especially in the west, and most certainly in protestantism and its off-shoots. Spiritually, I don't know what you mean by it that we have grown out of Christianity, nor how it could be possible and desirable.


We can't dismiss the last 1300 years either, though. A handful of generations were coerced, many more knew nothing else. Acknowledge it as part of us, something that made us who we are, while not allowing ourselves to be shackled to it.

I will say this: When Christianity was serving a great purpose in Europe, most believers didn't have a huge knowledge about its origins and theory. They made Christianity into something they needed, ignorant of its dnagerous universalist content. With the spread of education and religious reforms, however, it became harder to push this 'Folk-Christianity' in the face of the new appreciation of the actual content of Scripture. And that's how we arrived at the point where we are today. We can't return to those more innocent days, or we would have to create artificial and downright stupid new cult forms like that 'Christian Identity' nonsense I hear about among some ill-advised White Nationalists in the USA.

Time to move on, but not to be bitter, that's my opinion on it all!Christianity is a religion, and I'm not saying that Christian identity is an honest stance on religion. But nevertheless, I don't think there is another alternative than Christianism with the same potential to unite us against both Jewry and Islam. Neojudaist "Judeo-Christian" lies do not change that. To accept the neojudaeic perversion of Christianity means giving up the fight over our heritage. If people accept that we have been under the influence of a Jewish religion for those 1300 years, then why the hell should they care when another Middle Eastern faith and its demographic conquest - Islam - is threatening? Neopaganism is simply too postmodern to do the trick. There's no way it can even amount to being useful. Most people will prefer to solve sudoku charts and reading manga. The whole mindframe of neospirituality means the opposite of usefulness culturally. It is antitraditionalism and leaving behind a lot of our best heritage.

Soldier of Wodann
Wednesday, March 26th, 2008, 12:52 AM
If people accept that we have been under the influence of a Jewish religion for those 1300 years, then why the hell should they care when another Middle Eastern faith and its demographic conquest - Islam - is threatening?

Funny thing is, most Christians don't. ;)

CharlesDexterWard
Wednesday, March 26th, 2008, 01:12 AM
Funny thing is, most Christians don't. ;)

You don't think my point is valid? Do you think it's better that we deny our heritage on false grounds, or that we blindly accept anything alien, because we haven't really been ourselves anyway? I don't think YOU prefer either, but I was talking about why Christianism is important to us in the current situation, culturally.

Beornulf
Wednesday, March 26th, 2008, 04:22 AM
Christianity was the inversion of all European values. They adapted to our customs and some holy days merely for convenience.

Christianity has a very real and direct hand in the subversion of European values and the principles of Tradition. It bought slave morality to Europe, destroyed regality and played a hand in the growth of Atheism itself when it became nothing more than a political cult with the Catholic Church.

It's principles and values are indeed alien to true European values, it's easily to see. Some people say the Pagans were "barbaric" yet Christianity was responsible for some of the most barbaric acts throughout history.

Some people say Christianity is to thank for the growth of Europe and European technology but I think this is a weak argument. The people who contributed these discoveries and advancements were merely Christian, where Christianity not to exist they would have probably still achieved these things, perhaps more considering the mentality Christianity inflicts on people.

Although Christianity has ingrained itself into European history for many years now I believe that we need to undo it, it does not offer us a legitimate spiritual power any more but rather a recreation and to some degrees still a political affiliation (as is still seen in UK/Ireland.

Soldier of Wodann
Wednesday, March 26th, 2008, 04:58 AM
You don't think my point is valid?


No. People obviously aren't bothered about semitic religions as they practice them, why would Islam bother them?


Do you think it's better that we deny our heritage on false grounds, or that we blindly accept anything alien, because we haven't really been ourselves anyway?


Looks like we already blindly accepted something alien. There is no point of preserving our heritage if it is based on foriegn things. It is no longer our heritage in that case. I refuse to preserve Christianity, and Islam is hardly less preferable than it.


I don't think YOU prefer either, but I was talking about why Christianism is important to us in the current situation, culturally.

Its not. Christianity is just another reason to accept multiculturalism, not one to deny it. Hey, we already accepted your religion, why not you too? There is no justification for anti-immigration when one practices the culture of those they wish to remove. I think its great if Christians are anti-immigration, and as long as they remove the people who should be removed, thats fine. But they are still hypocrites for it.

CharlesDexterWard
Wednesday, March 26th, 2008, 06:55 AM
Christianity was the inversion of all European values.All people of European descent would, if that were true, be in a pityful situation where no preservation would matter whatsoever. Christianity spread quickly in Europe, and if Europeans had their values inverted for almost 2000 years, then there's no tradition to preserve anymore. By the way, what tradition are you a part of?


No. People obviously aren't bothered about semitic religions as they practice them, why would Islam bother them?You should distinguish between linguistic semiticness and jewishness. That would take you somewhere.


Looks like we already blindly accepted something alien.No. It doesn't look that way in Europe at least.


There is no point of preserving our heritage if it is based on foriegn things. It is no longer our heritage in that case. It is no longer our heritage in that case.So tell me, what is our heritage?


I refuse to preserve Christianity,That's fine with me. But it doesn't make Christianity alien.


and Islam is hardly less preferable than it.I hope you don't mean what you say. Or maybe joining Islam would be a way to fight the Mexican immigrants? :confused:


Its not.It is in Europe.


Christianity is just another reason to accept multiculturalism,It is not. I already provided plenty of arguments against this idea.


Hey, we already accepted your religion, why not you too?The Muslims? The Jews? Well, you see, Christianity isn't their religion. I think it's even reasonable to say that both of them dislike Christianity. Many of them hate it.

Beornulf
Wednesday, March 26th, 2008, 07:06 AM
All people of European descent would, if that were true, be in a pityful situation where no preservation would matter whatsoever. Christianity spread quickly in Europe, and if Europeans had their values inverted for almost 2000 years, then there's no tradition to preserve anymore. By the way, what tradition are you a part of?

I disagree with this, seeing Christianity as something so vital for Europeans is a misguided view. Christianity spread quick in Europe, Multi-Culturalism is spread quick also which negates your point.

We've also been living in Democratic and Liberal countries since the French Revolution. There are a couple of odd exceptions of course.

I believe in the Primordial Traditions of the Indo-Europeans and the branches from this, not Semitic worship.

Soldier of Wodann
Wednesday, March 26th, 2008, 07:19 AM
You should distinguish between linguistic semiticness and jewishness. That would take you somewhere.

I wasn't referring to Jews, I was referring to Semites. Perhaps it is you who needs a refresher on terms.


No. It doesn't look that way in Europe at least.

Actually it does. The fact we are having this debate is proof your country adopted something very foreign.


So tell me, what is our heritage?

Our blood and our Indo-European traditions. Not semitic superstition.


That's fine with me. But it doesn't make Christianity alien.

Didn't say it did. Christianity is alien because it wasn't founded by Indo-Europeans.


I hope you don't mean what you say. Or maybe joining Islam would be a way to fight the Mexican immigrants? :confused:

What?


It is in Europe.

Its actually less important in Europe than here, but nice try. Most Europeans aren't the least bit religious.


It is not. I already provided plenty of arguments against this idea.

Well your arguments didn't prove anything. Multiculturalism began when Christianity was still very much in tact. Clearly it has little to do with it.


The Muslims? The Jews? Well, you see, Christianity isn't their religion. I think it's even reasonable to say that both of them dislike Christianity. Many of them hate it.

I'm sure they do, semitic religions tend to be awfully divisive. Just because Jews and Muslims hate each other doesn't mean they aren't both Semitic, that is strange logic. Just because few semites still practice Christianity doesn't mean it isn't a Semitic religion. Likewise, just because few Indo-Europeans practice Buddhism doesn't mean it isn't an Indo-European religion.

Jäger
Wednesday, March 26th, 2008, 08:48 AM
But nevertheless, I don't think there is another alternative than Christianism with the same potential to unite us against both Jewry and Islam.
From a European standpoint this might hold some truth, but what about the Christian Niggers (esp. in the US) and the Christian Semites (mostly Kurds)?
Will we have to unite with them, too?


If people accept that we have been under the influence of a Jewish religion for those 1300 years, then why the hell should they care when another Middle Eastern faith and its demographic conquest - Islam - is threatening?
You said for yourself, what you dislike about the Church of Sweden, and I provided examples on what the catholic church, the Pope, and many protestant churches of Germany have to say to Islam. ( http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=52625&postcount=128 )

One would wonder, are those churches all infiltrated by anti-Christians?
Are the millions of followers of these churches not Christians?
It seems few of those who call themselves Christian think like you do.


Neopaganism is simply too postmodern to do the trick.
This depends, the best way would be to appeal to the cult of ancestors, so we actually would have an ancestral belief. And this is eternal, not modern.
Whether one believes in the actual described deeds of Odin or of whoever is not important, because other than Christianity, there is no reward (or punishment) if you believe (or don't believe).
This carrot and stick principle is reserved for animals and slaves, no wonder Christianity had their initial success among the latter.

And another thing I wanted to add, you said you don't have anything against heathens, however your God has, then we come back to our finding, that God is above family, so instead of uniting Germanic heathens with Christians, you should turn against them, if God would say so, and here it would actually fit of what he said in Mathew 10, this was about nonbelievers (sinners) wasn't it?

"If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town." Mathew 10:13-14

So to those who don't listen to their words, then they don't get the peace, and what this means is in Mathew 10:35

Or is this just for the Jews?

A bit more precise:
"Every one therefore who shall confess me before men, him will I also confess before my Father who is in heaven.
But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father who is in heaven.
Think not that I came to send peace on the earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law:
and a man's foes shall be they of his own household." Mathew 10:32-36

Indeed, it doesn't have to mean it is his intention, but he accepts the disunity the belief in him can bring along, he is very fine with that.

Rhydderch
Wednesday, March 26th, 2008, 10:40 AM
What it means is that God is greater than the human being. I don't think that God wants to shatter families at all, but if your folks do the wrong thing, then God is there to know it, and to guide the believer, who trusts in Him. Ultimately, that may shatter bonds between human beings. Good and evil are real and matter.Well said, it's man's sin which breaks up families, not God. When a man is saved from sin and hell, often his family will turn against him because of it; the fault isn't in him, but in those who turn against him, because they hate their Holy Creator, and they hate what they see of God's holiness in the man.

God ordained families and nations, and in fact the destruction of a nation as an identifiable group was a curse threatened on the ungodly nations. But God promised to keep the Hebrews/Jews, and not destroy them.
Yet what do most people know of the Edomites, Ammonites, Amalekites etc.? In their heyday they were equal with the Hebrews, but none have survived intact. No doubt their descendants are still in parts of the Middle East, but they are distributed in various different nations, and are indistinguishable from the other members of these modern nations.


So I see the attempt by multiculturalists to destroy distinct nations as a judgement of God on the Western world for rejecting him; he is allowing it to happen. In the nineteenth century many Europeans thought their countries were invincible, and would last indefinitely; I guess they didn't dream the enemy would be coming from within, that their own countrymen would be working for the downfall of their nation.

Oswiu
Wednesday, March 26th, 2008, 12:24 PM
We could unify multiple times to fight Romans, who we are cousins of, but not Turks and Moors, who weren't even close to us geographically? Seems sketchy to me.......... Who is to say they'd have even gotten that far into Europe? They weren't even stopped by 'united' Christians, they were stopped by one German tribe in the west and one German city in the east. Perhaps if everyone in the Balkans and Iberia was German they'd have never have lost to begin with? :p
Monotheism is a powerful idea, especially at a certain level of development. If we hadn't got it in the Christian form, we'd've got it off the Moors, simple as that.
Sure there would have been initial resistance, but then one by one chieftains would have seen short term gain from joining the Ummayads or whoever, and this would have put pressure on their further away neighbours, till all Europe was taken.

Ideas of central government came to us from Rome, not from Christianity. We had dealings and experiences with the Italians several centuries before Jesus was even put on his little cross. The only good thing that can really be attributed to Christianity is the Holy Roman Empire. It would be interesting to see how German history would have evolved without it, though.
Rome became Christian precisely because its rulers say that such an Empire NEEDED an idea like Christianity to justify its existence. It got by on Roman and Italian national feeling but then reached crisis point. The history of the Empire from Diocletian's time onwards was one of searching for this idea. THen that great pragmatist, Constantinus, found it in Christianity.
Only afterwards did Germanic Kings see a model worth emulating, something 'complete' and internally consistent.

The world is changing, and Christianity has changed far too much, especially in the west, and most certainly in protestantism and its off-shoots.
It's fashionable, especially on certain forums ;) to blame all our woes on Protestantism, but I look at it as a necessary stage we had to go through.

Spiritually, I don't know what you mean by it that we have grown out of Christianity, nor how it could be possible and desirable.
But nevertheless I exist, and there are many more like me. I like the idea of moral authority that a church can have for a society, but just can't force myself to bend at the knee in front of some man who died thousands of years ago, thousands of miles away, who knew nothing of my people or lands, and about whom is theorised all manner of metaphysical nonsense that I would have to pay lip service to.

Christianity is a religion, and I'm not saying that Christian identity is an honest stance on religion. But nevertheless, I don't think there is another alternative than Christianism with the same potential to unite us against both Jewry and Islam. Neojudaist "Judeo-Christian" lies do not change that.
It divides us in real life more than it could unite us in the future. THere's all manner of ridiculous theological arguments to solve between the denominations for this to happen, and there simply isn't time.

The whole mindframe of neospirituality means the opposite of usefulness culturally. It is antitraditionalism and leaving behind a lot of our best heritage.
True. So we must work out something better.

This depends, the best way would be to appeal to the cult of ancestors, so we actually would have an ancestral belief. And this is eternal, not modern.
Exactly. And lets not pile up this pure beautiful notion with junk dogma and ritual and so on. Leave it as clear and obvious as can be.


"If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town." Mathew 10:13-14

So to those who don't listen to their words, then they don't get the peace, and what this means is in Mathew 10:35

Or is this just for the Jews?

A bit more precise:
"Every one therefore who shall confess me before men, him will I also confess before my Father who is in heaven.
But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father who is in heaven.
Think not that I came to send peace on the earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law:
and a man's foes shall be they of his own household." Mathew 10:32-36

Indeed, it doesn't have to mean it is his intention, but he accepts the disunity the belief in him can bring along, he is very fine with that.
I truly hate this aspect of Christianity, and even noticed it as a child. At school, from around the age of 6 we were made to sing "Follow me, follow me, leave your homes and families, leave your fishing nets and boats upon the shore. Leave the crops that you have grown, leave the fields that you have sown, leave the people you have known and follow me."
Disgusting.
And however Christians here may argue over interpretations, it remains an essential fact that the whole religion is TOO open to this way of thinking.

So I see the attempt by multiculturalists to destroy distinct nations as a judgement of God on the Western world for rejecting him; he is allowing it to happen. In the nineteenth century many Europeans thought their countries were invincible, and would last indefinitely; I guess they didn't dream the enemy would be coming from within, that their own countrymen would be working for the downfall of their nation.
What a horrible vindictive EVIL god this is. You can see what the early gnostics were on about when they said that the Old Testament Jehovah was a wicked demiurge pretending to be the supreme being.

CharlesDexterWard
Wednesday, March 26th, 2008, 02:02 PM
I wasn't referring to Jews, I was referring to Semites. Perhaps it is you who needs a refresher on terms.Christianity is still not their religion.


Actually it does. The fact we are having this debate is proof your country adopted something very foreign.Even if you see it that way, it is tradition and heritage. And a great faith on top of that.


Our blood and our Indo-European traditions. Not semitic superstition.What "Indo-European traditions"?


What?


Its actually less important in Europe than here, but nice try. Most Europeans aren't the least bit religious.The prevailing religion in the U.S. of America seems to be neo-Judaism. Your comments suggest it to me, like a lot of other things also do.


Well your arguments didn't prove anything. Multiculturalism began when Christianity was still very much in tact. Clearly it has little to do with it.I disagree. Christianity was politically corrupted long before there was any multiculturalism.


I'm sure they do, semitic religions tend to be awfully divisive. Just because Jews and Muslims hate each other doesn't mean they aren't both Semitic, that is strange logic. Just because few semites still practice Christianity doesn't mean it isn't a Semitic religion. Likewise, just because few Indo-Europeans practice Buddhism doesn't mean it isn't an Indo-European religion.I said that distinguishing between linguistic semiticness and jewishness would take you somewhere.


It's fashionable, especially on certain forums ;) to blame all our woes on Protestantism, but I look at it as a necessary stage we had to go through.I don't think it was necessary. Give me an argument for it? Protestantism is clearly a lot more hostile against paganism, pre-Christian roots and local tradition than Catholicism ever was. The protestant corruption of the church also anticipated what would happen later to society as a whole. I admit I've found more proof for this interpretation lately. But I was always sceptic against protestantism. I noted in the very first sessions of education on religion that I had, how everything spiritual all of a sudden was made irrelevant in history due to protestantism, because protestantism hi-jacked religion for political purposes. And these purposes failed miserably. There was a short period of some kind of "growth", fuelled by thuggery and totalitarianism and resulting in conflict between Germanics. Our cultural decay came on in succession.

Similar mistakes have been made elsewhere in the world and at other times, but in my part of the world, it do think it is largely the fault of protestantism.


But nevertheless I exist, and there are many more like me. I like the idea of moral authority that a church can have for a society, but just can't force myself to bend at the knee in front of some man who died thousands of years ago, thousands of miles away, who knew nothing of my people or lands, and about whom is theorised all manner of metaphysical nonsense that I would have to pay lip service to.There are many people who are disillusioned. I'm one of them. And I'm not saying that we should force people to believe in anything. I think you have understood from my criticism of protestantism that I don't favour a state church at all. I'm merely saying that defaming Christianity as "jewish" and "alien" is a false path and the very worst we can do.


It divides us in real life more than it could unite us in the future. THere's all manner of ridiculous theological arguments to solve between the denominations for this to happen, and there simply isn't time.An important divide is between people who are actually Christians and people who say that they are Christians, but who merely use the church for political purposes, or who are used for such purposes unknowingly. Many of those who turned against Christianity have only mistaken the liberal or the neocon perversion of Christianity for Christianity proper. And far too many of those who are active Christians belong to either the liberal or the neocon perversion, or to a mess of both. That religious life has been corrupted is a fact. I think we agree on that. But I think we need to sort out the mess, and not just leave it to the vultures, because Christianity is our heritage now, whether we like it or not. If our enemies succeed in making people believe that Friedrich von Schelling was a traitor who became a semite, or that he was a hero for so doing, we are all lost. We'd have nothing to hold on to.


True. So we must work out something better.Who are "we"?

I'm not arguing that a collective effort to believe in something is the ultimate solution. My main point, all through this discussion, is that defaming our Christian heritage for being "jewish" and "foreign" is the worst thing we can do.

Oswiu
Wednesday, March 26th, 2008, 02:22 PM
I don't think it was necessary. Give me an argument for it? Protestantism is clearly a lot more hostile against paganism, pre-Christian roots and local tradition than Catholicism ever was. The protestant corruption of the church also anticipated what would happen later to society as a whole. I admit I've found more proof for this interpretation lately. But I was always sceptic against protestantism. I noted in the very first sessions of education on religion that I had, how everything spiritual all of a sudden was made irrelevant in history due to protestantism, because protestantism hi-jacked religion for political purposes. And these purposes failed miserably. There was a short period of some kind of "growth", fuelled by thuggery and totalitarianism and resulting in conflict between Germanics. Our cultural decay came on in succession.
We can't defend Catholicism or uphold it as better choice than Protestantism because it absorbed Heathen aspects. That is a clear indicator of the woolly-headedness that made Catholicism intellectually indefensible once Protestants brought the cold light of day into theology. I am glad that Pagan survivals were sponsored by the Church of Rome, and sad that the Protestants smashed much of this, but if the latter hadn't come along we'd still be bumbling along in ignorance, genuflecting and reenacting Pagan rites without even knowing we were doing! I value our present secular freedom of thought, as this is the only thing that has allowed us to get any appreciation of our old ancestral ways.

I'm merely saying that defaming Christianity as "jewish" and "alien" is a false path and the very worst we can do.
But I fear it to be true. And if it were true, would I not be the foulest hypocrite for not voicing this?

An important divide is between people who are actually Christians and people who say that they are Christians, but who merely use the church for political purposes, or who are used for such purposes unknowingly.
You want a united Christian Europe. For this to come true, I would have to BECOME one of these villains. Would you accept that, as something for the 'greater good'? Or would it not be sinful and wrong?

But I think we need to sort out the mess, and not just leave it to the vultures, because Christianity is our heritage now, whether we like it or not.
It is our heritage, and I don't enjoy baiting it, but I think it's beyond saving.

My main point, all through this discussion, is that defaming our Christian heritage for being "jewish" and "foreign" is the worst thing we can do.
Defaming with malice and scorn yes, but dispassionately coming to these same conclusions is different.

Rhydderch
Wednesday, March 26th, 2008, 02:36 PM
What a horrible vindictive EVIL god this is. You can see what the early gnostics were on about when they said that the Old Testament Jehovah was a wicked demiurge pretending to be the supreme being.What's "wicked" about punishing wrong-doing? That's what justice is, by definition.

But of course man doesn't want to believe that he himself is evil, so he has to say that it's evil for God to punish what man deems to be 'normal'.

Oswiu
Wednesday, March 26th, 2008, 02:51 PM
What's "wicked" about punishing wrong-doing? That's what justice is, by definition.
The only 'wrong' in this case is something of a 'snubbing'. In answer to this, God is now going to wipe out entire nations, even though there are a few people such as yourself within these nations? Seems a bit of an overreaction to me. There are even innocent children involved! Ah, but didn't he punish some people to the "Nth Generation" in that Torah book?
I never got my head round where God takes his authority from. He made us, okay, but then he thinks he can dictate to us and smite us when the fancy takes him? Manipulative. I can't respect such a god.
If he existed then I might even defy him. Slavery or damnation, nice choices.

Talan
Wednesday, March 26th, 2008, 03:02 PM
Dear Oswiu,

How do you spell freedom? There have been several occasions when fire worship and human sacrifice, which were not explicitly Celtic traditions, should have come into discussion but didn't: secularism be damned. Those users of British heritage, such as myself, have more to gain from analysis of the pagan renaissance than Amerikanski do by attacking Christianity.

Oswiu
Wednesday, March 26th, 2008, 03:08 PM
Dear Oswiu,

How do you spell freedom? There have been several occasions when fire worship and human sacrifice, which were not explicitly Celtic traditions, should have come into discussion but didn't: secularism be damned. Those users of British heritage, such as myself, have more to gain from analysis of the pagan renaissance than Amerikanski do by attacking Christianity.

Talan, I never understand anything you post. :shrug Care to give it another try? Heaven knows, I'm not the greatest of intellectuals, but I'm hardly the stupidest person either, so your writing style needs some modification.

CharlesDexterWard
Wednesday, March 26th, 2008, 04:26 PM
We can't defend Catholicism or uphold it as better choice than Protestantism because it absorbed Heathen aspects. That is a clear indicator of the woolly-headedness that made Catholicism intellectually indefensible once Protestants brought the cold light of day into theology. I am glad that Pagan survivals were sponsored by the Church of Rome, and sad that the Protestants smashed much of this, but if the latter hadn't come along we'd still be bumbling along in ignorance, genuflecting and reenacting Pagan rites without even knowing we were doing!I get what you mean with "ignorance", but the majority is ignorant anyway, so this combination of sound cultural stability and local tradition would actually have been pretty grand?


I value our present secular freedom of thought, as this is the only thing that has allowed us to get any appreciation of our old ancestral ways.I'm also interested in our old ancestral ways, but I don't think that alone is going to help us much culturally, nor spiritually.

About "our present secular freedom of thought", do you really believe in that? To me, these are truly the dark ages.


But I fear it to be true. And if it were true, would I not be the foulest hypocrite for not voicing this?I made a voyage to the end of the line of the "jewish" interpretation of Christianity, and for as long as you concentrate on the Old Testament, it's a smash hit. When you look at the New Testament, new questions are raised, new perspectives are brought into play, and a lot of what was said in the Old Testament simply doesn't hold anymore.

When you take a look at history and the tradition of Christianity, the "jewish" interpretation falls apart completely. But when you follow the line all the way to present day Protestantism, you also see that in recent times, there were so called "restorationists" and other loonies who made the "jewish" interpretation of Christianity rather plausible. Plausible, not because of anything we can point to in tradition, but merely in that "restoration" of jewishness.


Restorationism:

The term "Restorationism" or "Restorationist Movement" refers to a group of largely unrelated Christian denominations who share one important belief in common -- that Christianity went terribly astray early in its history. It experienced the Great Apostasy during which Christians abandoned many of the original teachings of Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus Christ), Paul and other apostles.

At least when it was founded, each Restorationist denomination taught that their own faith group had recreated the original form of primitive Christianity (a.k.a. "Christian Primitivism" or "Early Christianity"), just as Yeshua and the others taught.http://www.religioustolerance.org/chrrest.htm

I have met these "restorationists" in person and had talks with them and reviewed their material. They are making Jesus (Yeshua) so much more jewish than he ever was. And, not least importantly, they are sponsoring zionist occupation of Palestinian land, they are against freedom of speech, and they sponsor and fuel the general post-world-wars guilt trip of Europe in general and of Germanics in particular. These guys are not only liars. They are truly our enemies!

Then there is "liberal theology", "confessionalism" and "evangelicalism":
Liberal theology: The intentional adaptation of Christianity to modernity using insights from the new social sciences to redefine religious authority.

Harry Emerson Fosdick (1878-1969) popularized liberal theology in his preaching at the Riverside Church in New York City.

Liberal theologians used insights and methods from the social sciences to shape Christian theology. Liberal theology has its roots in the Enlightenment, which emphasized free will, reason, and the ability of human beings to make progress in all things including religion; and also in romanticism which insisted on feeling and intuition as essential to human life. Friedrich Schleiermacher, the "father of liberal theology," identified religion as a feeling of absolute dependence. For him, theology described internal religious experience rather than defining external religious truth. D. F. Strauss wrote the Life of Jesus, which sought to separate the "historical" life of Jesus from the "myths" surrounding it. In the United States, William Ellery Channing was an exponent of liberalism, leading some Congregationalists into Unitarianism. Later in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, biblical criticism would play a large role in liberal theology. A contrasting movement was confessionalism, which responded to modernity by asserting the external authority of Scripture and confessions.http://demo.lutherproductions.com/historytutor/basic/modern/stories/liberal-theology.htm


Confessionalism: Movements in Europe and America which reasserted the authority of Protestant confessions to define the church.

C. F. W. Walther (1811-1887) was a champion of confessional Lutheranism in the United States, and founder of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

In 1817 King Frederick of Prussia called for Lutheran and Reformed Christians to celebrate the 300th anniversary of the Reformation by holding a common service of worship in Berlin. This was the beginning of a structural merger, known as the "Prussian Union" church. In Prussia and elsewhere civil rulers attempted to combine Lutheran and Reformed churches into unified national churches. Several forces seemed to auger such a move: the Enlightenment emphasized moral aspects of the faith and disparaged doctrine; Pietism stressed spiritual experience which crossed over confessional lines; nationalism vested authority in the state; liberalism questioned and redefined religious authority. But plans to unify Protestant churches met with stiff resistance. At issue: who decides what the church is--the civil rulers, or the Scriptures and confessions? Some confessionalists suffered persecution. Many immigrated to the U.S., where confessionalism arose in various forms among Lutherans, Presbyterians, and others who perceived evangelicalism and liberalism as detrimental to theological identity.http://demo.lutherproductions.com/historytutor/basic/modern/stories/confessionalism.htm


Evangelicalism: Broad family of Christian movements, emphasizing conversion to Christ, the authority of Scripture, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Billy Graham Crusade, Minneapolis, 1996 (picture caption).

Evangelicalism takes its name from a Greek word meaning "gospel" or "good news." Historically, the movement has been shaped by the Protestant Reformation, the Great Awakening, and resistance to liberal theology. Nineteenth-century evangelicalism combined revivalism and social reform, two impulses which later diverged into fundamentalism and the Social Gospel. For several decades in the twentieth century, fundamentalism defined evangelicalism. In the mid-century Billy Graham and many others led the way to a broader evangelicalism. It retained a high view of the authority of Scripture, conversion, and evangelism. But unlike fundamentalism, the new evangelicalism tried to engage with modernity, including popular culture, politics, and academia, rather than remaining separate. Evangelicals view the conversion experience as the entry point into the Christian life; revivals have been an important means to stimulate conversions. This has contributed to Christian growth around the world. In the U.S., the term "evangelicalism" is often contrasted with "mainline" churches, to describe Protestant reconfiguration. In the late twentieth century the fastest-growing type of evangelicalism was Pentecostalism.http://demo.lutherproductions.com/historytutor/basic/modern/genknow/evangelicalism.htm

What all these modern manifestations of Christianity do wrong, is that they reject tradition, or in the case of confessionalism, they downplay it, and pay little if any attention to history. Liberal theology and evangelicalism are blatantly ahistorical. These are some of the neo-Judaeic and heavily politicised currents I have mentioned earlier on in this thread.


You want a united Christian Europe. For this to come true, I would have to BECOME one of these villains. Would you accept that, as something for the 'greater good'? Or would it not be sinful and wrong?For a fact, there is a flight from the Church of Sweden to both the Catholic and Orthodox branches, that are true to tradition and origins, although in different ways, and compatible with nationalism. But naturally, it's not even an option if you don't think that Christianity holds true.

Generally, I don't think that Christianity is going to magically save us from our problems. I also do not want for anyone to be forced into a "united Christian Europe". What I want is for the truth to prevail, and for our heritage to prevail, and now I'm speaking of our Germanic heritage, which is not the same as European, but within the European sphere. I want for our heritage to prevail in Germanic enclaves in the colonies as well.

And generally speaking I do believe in greater good. I think the status quo of no direction and of impotent "freedom" is part of the problem. But I don't support a blanket totalitarian solution to the problem. Mostly, I'm arguing here because I think it's terribly bad that those ahistorical and perverted movements of Christianity have turned many people against their own heritage.


It is our heritage, and I don't enjoy baiting it, but I think it's beyond saving.When you say heritage, I don't think that you mean exactly the same as I do. I don't see Christianity as something that can be subtracted from other parts of our heritage while our heritage retains its meaning in the process.


Defaming with malice and scorn yes, but dispassionately coming to these same conclusions is different.In this case I think we are in disagreement over what the proper conclusions are.

Talan
Wednesday, March 26th, 2008, 06:02 PM
Dear Oswiu,

My leap of logic didn't make sense, and a clarification is in order. Considering that:

Christianity is not an alien faith by its origin.
Americans are not critical of paganism.
Occasions of conflict, violation and deviance must be used to define ethnospecific beliefs.
There's no discussion of 7th/8th century literature.
The pagan renaissance was based upon 7th/8th century literature.
Christianity was influenced by 7th/8th century literature.


We can assume the following:

Christianity is an alien faith because paganism is not an alien faith.
It is impossible to objectively define why paganism is not an alien faith.
Christianity was accepted on the same basis as paganism.
Christianity is not an alien faith.


Which demonstrates my original point that:

Secular freedoms rarely benefit the religious majority.

Rhydderch
Thursday, March 27th, 2008, 05:31 AM
The only 'wrong' in this case is something of a 'snubbing'.God is the essence of goodness, so snubbing Him is snubbing righteousness, which is by definition, an evil deed.


In answer to this, God is now going to wipe out entire nations, even though there are a few people such as yourself within these nations?Well, He's threatening to destroy the nations, but he's willing to have mercy on those who turn to him for it. And indeed he may not destroy the nations, for the sake of the godly.
Still, since God's mercies are undeserved (even his people have sin remaining in them), it would not be unjust.


Seems a bit of an overreaction to me.God's punishment of sin often is seen by sinful man as an overreaction, because he doesn't want to believe he's sinful.


There are even innocent children involved!The idea of children being innocent is again a falsehood cooked up by sinful man.


Ah, but didn't he punish some people to the "Nth Generation" in that Torah book?Yes, but that's because they continue in the sin of their forefathers. God does not punish innocent people.


I never got my head round where God takes his authority from.Why should he take his authority from somewhere else?


He made us, okay, but then he thinks he can dictate to usWhy shouldn't He?


and smite us when the fancy takes him?Well no, He smites people when there is good reason.


If he existed then I might even defy him.He does, and you are.


Slavery or damnation, nice choices.It's sinfulness that is slavery. Opposing the Creator is painful, to be evil is burdensome on the conscience; it's the source of all unhappiness. God said to the apostle Paul (before he became a man of God, and was a fanatical opponent of God and his people) "It is hard for you to kick against the pricks", the analogy being of an animal pulling a cart with pricks, so that turning out of the way is painful.

But to be a slave of freedom isn't such a bad thing, is it? ;)

Soldier of Wodann
Thursday, March 27th, 2008, 05:53 AM
Monotheism is a powerful idea, especially at a certain level of development. If we hadn't got it in the Christian form, we'd've got it off the Moors, simple as that.


Many advanced cultures never practiced Monotheism.


Sure there would have been initial resistance, but then one by one chieftains would have seen short term gain from joining the Ummayads or whoever, and this would have put pressure on their further away neighbours, till all Europe was taken.


The Moors may have never even come close to Europe if Christianity hadn't made the Roman empire what it eventually was, trash. And there is no reason Moors would have been successful. Christianity was only spread through force, and since the Moors had no force in Europe there would have thus been no conversion.


Rome became Christian precisely because its rulers say that such an Empire NEEDED an idea like Christianity to justify its existence. It got by on Roman and Italian national feeling but then reached crisis point. The history of the Empire from Diocletian's time onwards was one of searching for this idea. THen that great pragmatist, Constantinus, found it in Christianity.
Only afterwards did Germanic Kings see a model worth emulating, something 'complete' and internally consistent.


They had plenty of justification for empire before Christianity, and I'd say even more so. They were God-sons, essentially. The only reason people began looking elsewhere for traditions was because their own had been poisoned by the multiculturalism they bathed in.


Christianity is still not their religion.

No, nor is it ours. It was the religion of a now long dead psychotic Jew.


Even if you see it that way, it is tradition and heritage. And a great faith on top of that.

It isn't our tradition or heritage, nor is it a great faith by any measure.


What "Indo-European traditions"?

Our entire cultures, everything besides Christianity really.


The prevailing religion in the U.S. of America seems to be neo-Judaism. Your comments suggest it to me, like a lot of other things also do.

All Christianity is neo-Judaism. A reworked form of a Semitic belief is all it is, arguably.


I disagree. Christianity was politically corrupted long before there was any multiculturalism.

Nice excuse.


I said that distinguishing between linguistic semiticness and jewishness would take you somewhere.

And that is still irrelevant, as I never said anything about Jews specifically.

Ossi
Saturday, April 5th, 2008, 09:34 PM
Christianity is as alien to Germanics as Judaism and Islam. Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all sides of the same coin. Semitic, desertic, unrealistic religions.

I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct for revenge for which no expedient is sufficiently poisonous, secret, subterranean, petty - I call it the one mortal blemish of mankind.

The Christian faith from the beginning, is sacrifice: the sacrifice of all freedom, all pride, all self-confidence of spirit; it is at the same time subjection, self-derision, and self-mutilation.

In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point.

- Friedrich Nietzsche

Bärin
Tuesday, April 22nd, 2008, 03:58 AM
Christianity is as alien to Germanics as Judaism and Islam.

However, that wouldn't be such a problem if Christianity was a pro-Germanic religion. We got ideolgoies and customs from others along the years. But Christianity is not good for us. It's a turn the other cheek, love and tolerate everyone philosophy. Luckily, East Germany has been gradually cured from this nonsense. :)

In eastern Germany both religious observance and affiliation are much lower than in the rest of the country after forty years of Communist rule. The government of the German Democratic Republic encouraged an atheist worldview through institutions such as Jugendweihen (youth consecrations), secular coming-of-age ceremonies akin to Christian confirmation which all young people were strongly encouraged to attend (and disadvantaged socially if they did not). The average church attendance is now one of the lowest in the world, with only 5% attending at least once per week, compared to 14% in the rest of the country according to a recent study. The number of christenings, religious weddings and funerals is also lower than in the West.

There is a non-religious majority in Hamburg, Berlin, Brandenburg, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, Thuringia and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. In the eastern state of Saxony-Anhalt only 19.7 percent belong to the two big denominations of the country. This is the state where Martin Luther was born.

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

Aptrgangr
Friday, April 25th, 2008, 09:13 PM
Christianity is not alien to Germanics, whether it is desireable or not is another debate, but something having had a strong influence on our society for 1500+ years can't be considered as alien anymore.




It's a turn the other cheek, love and tolerate everyone philosophy.
A master was allowed to hit is servant on the right cheek, if he hit his servant on the left cheek too, that one was allowed to fight back as a man.
Throughout history, Christianity did not show much love and tolerance towards unbelievers, apostates etc. did it?
You actually criticize liberalism that also has devastated original Christianity.