Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: The Theology of National-Socialism

  1. #1
    Senior Member rhadley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Wednesday, March 30th, 2005 @ 05:46 AM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Gender
    Age
    42
    Politics
    National Socialism
    Posts
    174
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post The Theology of National-Socialism

    The Theology of National-Socialism:
    An Examination of National-Socialism, Christianity and Islam

    by David Myatt





    Introduction:

    It is my view, which I have expounded in various writings, that National-Socialism is a complete and unique Way of Life - or Weltanschauung - with its own ethics, based upon the ideal of personal honour, and with its own Theology, based upon what I have called "The Cosmic Being". This Being is not the same as the God of Christianity, nor the Allah of Islam.

    In the past few years, there has been some interest among some Western academics and some Muslims - generated by events in America and the Muslim world - as to whether National-Socialists and Muslims can find some common ground and thus form an alliance against what has been called "The New World Order". This present work will attempt, briefly, to outline the theology of National-Socialism, and show how it differs from Christianity and Islam.

    I have tried to avoid using the term "religion" in discussing both National-Socialism and Islam, since I believe it to be not only inappropriate, but inaccurate, since they are both complete Ways of Life, and there has been a tendency in the West - an erroneous one in my view - to separate "religion" from such things as "the State". For both National-Socialism and Islam, the State (or more correctly, society) is but a means of manifesting, or making real in the world, the truths contained in their respective Ways. That is, there is no division between "religion" and "the State" with its "politics" and "economics". I have also used the term Allah to describe the supreme Being of Islam, and the term God the describe the supreme Being of Christianity, for in my view - despite many attempts to equate them - they are theologically distinct.

    In many ways, my National-Socialist writings have evolved National-Socialism itself, presenting it as a complete Weltanschauung, and freeing it from the misinterpretations and anti-evolutionary concepts of the past. It should also be noted that I write "National-Socialism" instead of the more conventional "National Socialism" to distinguish this new evolutionary Way of Life from the "National Socialism" described by, and often upheld by, others.


    The Origin and Meaning of Life:


    The essential starting point for a Way of Life is to pose, and answer, the questions about the origin and meaning of life - or, more specifically, about our lives, as human beings on this planet we call Earth.

    According to National-Socialism, life evolved naturally on this planet, from finite beginnings we as yet do not precisely understand. The essence of the National-Socialist perspective about our origins is reason - or rather, what used to be called Natural Philosophy: through observation, experiment and the use of reason, or logic we can understand our world, the Cosmos, and ourselves. Thus, National-Socialism is a rationalist Way of Life which accepts: (i) that the Cosmos (or Reality) exists independently of us and our consciousness, and thus independent of our senses; (ii) our limited understanding of this 'external world' depends for the most part upon our senses - that is, on what we can see, hear or touch; that is, on what we can observe or come to know via our senses; (iii) logical argument - reason - and experiment are the best means to knowledge and understanding of and about this 'external world'; (iv) the Cosmos is, of itself, a reasoned order subject to rational laws.

    According to both Islam and Christianity, we, our world, and the Cosmos, were created, by a Supreme Being.

    For National-Socialism, the meaning, the purpose, of our lives is to further evolution: both our own, and that of our folk. This is so because according to National-Socialism we are not isolated individuals, but rather a nexion - a connexion between the past and the future. We can, by our life and deeds, make a difference: aiding evolution, or not aiding evolution. That is, the perspective of National-Socialism is the perspective of Nature, and the Cosmos beyond, for we are regarded as part of our folk, our folk is part of Nature, and Nature part of the Cosmos. There is thus in National-Socialism a Cosmic perspective as distinct from the individualistic perspective of both Islam and Christianity. For both Islam and Christianity see our lives as a means for us, as individuals, to attain Jannah (Paradise) or Heaven. The main motivation of Muslims and Christians is to do what their Ways of Life inform they should be because then they, as individuals, will be rewarded with Paradise, and Heaven.

    In contrast, National-Socialism is ultimately supra-personal and thus, in my view, is an evolutionary Way of Life: enabling us as individuals and as a species to evolve. The ultimate goal of National-Socialism - our Destiny as human beings - is for us to explore and settle the Cosmos itself. That is, to move toward maturity - through upholding the civilized ethics of National-Socialism, through pursuing reason and fairness, and to leave our home which is this planet.


    The Cosmic Being:

    One crucial difference between Islam and Christianity is the concept of incarnation - of the supreme deity being, or possibly being, incarnate in the world, and in human beings. According to Islam, Allah is not and never can be incarnate in His creation: He is totally separate from, and totally untouched by, all Creation. Whatever happens, in the world, in the Cosmos, has no affect whosoever upon Allah. According to Christianity, God became incarnate in Jesus, who is thus described as His Son. Furthermore, according to some Christian theologians, and some mystics (such as Francis of Assisi), God is incarnate in Nature just as some maintain that Jesus exists within us.

    The Quran - which Muslims accept as the literal word of Allah - has this to say about incarnation:


    "Say - He is Allah, The Unity;
    Allah - Eternal, Infinite;
    He has no children, and neither was He born.
    And there is no-being, no-thing, comparable to Him."
    (Surah 112)



    Both Allah, and God, are regarded as being infallible, and perfect: completely evolved, and not subject to change.

    In contrast, the Cosmic Being of National-Socialism is regarded as the Cosmos in evolution, with Nature representing one manifestation, one incarnation, of the Cosmic Being on our planet, Earth. Thus, the Cosmos Being is not complete, not perfect - but an evolving, changing, being - just as we ourselves are the Cosmic Being in evolution, and just as Nature is this being in evolution. That is, there is a symbiotic relationship between us, as individuals, as members of our folk,, between us and Nature, between us and the Cosmic Being, and between Nature and the Cosmic Being. Nature is also a being: that is, some-thing which is alive, which changes. Nature is thus that innate creative force in the natural world of our planet which causes, or is the genesis of, and controls, living organisms in certain ways. All life - on this Earth and elsewhere in the Cosmos - is regarded as connected. That is, the Cosmos is a Unity, a matrix of connexions, which affect each other. This Unity can be understood by the concept of Acausal (see below).

    In one sense, our consciousness - our awareness, our rational apprehension - may be likened to the awareness of the Cosmic Being, just as honour is regarded as a manifestation, a presencing, in us and our world, of evolution: of those forces which enable us to live in a noble, civilized, way. That is, honour is one way in which the Cosmic Being is incarnate - or can be incarnate - in us, as human beings. In a very simplistic way, the Cosmic Being is an increase in order from random chaos - or, more correctly, an increase of the acausal, a manifestation or manifestations of the acausal in the causal (Note 1).

    As to the origin of the Cosmic Being, and the Cosmos itself, we simply do not know, at present - despite the many surreal (and in my view, irrational) theories advanced in the present century in an attempt to explain such things as the origins of the Cosmos (Note 2). All we do rationally know is that we exist in one star-system in one Galaxy among many millions of Galaxies, and that Galaxies change over causal time. Until we begin to explore our Galaxy, and possibly other Galaxies, and thus can make first-hand, direct experimental observations, we simply will not know, for sure - and possibly not even then.

    Crucially, there is no concept of "sin" in National-Socialism, just as there is no need for, and no concept of, "praying" to the Cosmic Being for guidance, for intercession, for forgiveness. For National-Socialism, there are only honourable or dishonourable deeds (see The Ethics of Honour, below) with honourable deeds being regarded as evolutionary, civilized - and thus manifesting our true human nature, and being conducive to order and thus increasing consciousness itself. There can be no such thing as prayer, in National-Socialism, because of the matrix, The Unity, the acausal: because the Cosmic Being is us, and Nature, in evolution, and not separate from us when we are honourable, fair, rational. We only have to follow the ethics of honour - to be reasonable, just, fair, honourable - to access the Cosmic Being, to presence this Being in our lives. This presencing is thus natural, and does not depend on prayer, or rituals, of any kind. In this sense, National-Socialism is, in my view, far in advance of - far more evolved than - other Ways of Life.




    Prophets and Revelation:

    Both Islam and Christianity are revelatory religions, or Ways of Life. That is, they accept that Allah, and God, have sent Messengers and Prophets to guide us, and reveal truths, such as about how we should live, and what our laws should be. Thus, both Muslims and Christians accept that we must turn to a supreme being for guidance, for the final answers, for the truth.

    In addition, these revelations of a supreme being are believed to be contained in Holy Books - the Quran, and Sunnah (Note 3), for Muslims, and the Bible, for Christians. In the case of Muslims, the Quran is regarded as perfect, while in the case of Christians, it has come to be accepted that scriptural exegesis, and interpretation, may be and often are necessary to discover the meaning, the true message, of God.

    For National-Socialism, there is no revelation from a supreme being, and thus no belief in Prophets or Messengers, and no Holy Books. There is only a reasoned apprehension, an acceptance that our human nature depends upon being civilized, that is, upon us accepting the ethics of honour, and the idealism of loyalty and duty to our folk, Nature, and the Cosmos. National-Socialism accepts that we - as Aeschylus wrote - learn through the experience of suffering. That is, that we are slowly, painfully, learning, and slowly, painfully, creating a better way of life, and that while what we create may not be perfect, it will be - if we adhere to honour, reason, and fairness - civilized, and better than what existed before. As Sophocles wrote, some two thousand years ago (my translation)


    There exists much that is strange, yet nothing
    Is more strange than mankind:
    For this being crosses the gray sea of Winter
    Against the wind, through the howling sea swell,
    And the oldest of gods, ageless Earth -
    She the inexhaustible -
    He wearies, turning the soil year after year
    By the plough using the offspring of horses.

    He snares and captures the careless race of birds,
    The tribes of wild beasts, the natives of the sea,
    In the woven coils of his nets -
    This thinking warrior: he who by his skill rules over
    The wild beasts of the open land and the hills,
    And who places a yoke around the hairy neck
    Of the horse, taming it - and the vigorous mountain bull.

    His voice, his swift thought,
    The raising and ordering of towns:
    How to build against the ill-winds of the open air
    And escape the arrows of storm-rain -
    All these things he taught himself,
    He the all-resourceful
    From whom there is nothing he does not meet
    Without resources - except Hades
    From which even he cannot contrive an escape
    Although from unconquered disease
    He plans his refuge.

    Beyond his own hopes, his cunning
    In inventive arts - he who arrives
    Now with dishonour, then with chivalry:
    Yet, by fulfilling his duties to the soil,
    His oaths to the customs given by the gods,
    Noble is his clan although clan-less is he who dares
    To dwell where and with whom he please -
    Never shall any who do this
    Come to my hearth or I share their judgement.....


    Thus, for National-Socialism, there is that natural discovery which is a revealing of what is, as it is.

    The standard used by both Islam and Christianity to judge a person, their deeds, and other concepts and ideas, is based upon what is or is believed to a revelation from a supreme being, whereas for National-Socialism such judgement depends upon the ethics of honour, and honour alone.



    The Ethics of Honour:

    The foundation - the essence - of National-Socialist ethics is the ideal of personal honour, manifest in a Code of Honour.

    Honour is accepted, by National-Socialists, as the foundation for their ethics because honour is regarded as one of the those qualities which make us human, and which enable us to achieve both excellence (arête, for the Ancient Greeks) and further evolution, for ourselves and our folk.

    The ethics of Islam and Christianity derive from their Holy Books, which are studied for principles, with those people mentioned in such books considered as examples, for good, or bad. For National-Socialism, the example is the individual of honour, reason, and fairness.

    Honour is thus the basis for the laws of National-Socialism, and thus the basis for a National-Socialist society. There are nine fundamental principles of National-Socialist law (Note 4) and these laws are very different from the laws of both Islamic and Christian societies.

    An Islamic society is one ruled according to Shariah, which Muslims regard as the way to Allah. Furthermore, for Islam, only Allah's laws are right, and these have been given in the Quran and the Sunnah, with the perfect society - the ideal to follow - having been created by the Prophet Muhammad in Medina.

    The ethics of honour determine the behaviour of each and every National-Socialist, and thus determine how National-Socialists treat other people, and especially those of other races. In this, important, respect I quote what I wrote some time ago:



    "As I have endeavoured to explain several times, how we as National-Socialists and Aryans relate to people of other races and other religions is determined by our own National-Socialist, Aryan ethics. Our ethics are based upon personal honour, and honour demands of us that we only ever judge a person on the basis of personal knowledge of them: and moreover, with this personal knowledge of a person extending over a period of time. If we have no personal knowledge of a person, or have only met a person once or a few times briefly, then we cannot in all honour make any judgement about them. The race, the religion, and of course the political views of the person are totally irrelevant. Honour demands that we treat people, regardless of their race, their culture, their religion, their "political views" with fairness and respect. That is, honour demands that we have manners and are polite: that we strive to act with nobility of character; that we judge people by their deeds and in particular by how they act toward us... It really is about time that we who uphold the noble way of life which is National-Socialism lived according to our own ethics and began to explain, openly and in clear words, the noble reality of National-Socialism. No matter how dire our situation may be, or appears to be, and no matter how many non-Aryans may live in what were once our own nations, we must hold fast to our own ethics and not allow ourselves be tricked into accepting the Zionist version of "National Socialism" with its hate-filled, irrational, Hollywood "nazis". (Extract from a letter to an imprisoned Comrade, dated 111yf )




    The Concept of the Folk:

    The folk is considered, by National-Socialism, to be a manifestation, a presencing, of Nature, and thus represents Nature and the Cosmos in evolution. National-Socialism regards every individual as balanced between the past of their folk, and the future of their folk, and considers that their duty is to aid this folk, and thus Nature, in an honourable way.

    National-Socialism conceives of our folk as a type of being - that is, it is a type of life, with its own character, nature, ethos. The health and welfare of this living being depends on us: on what we do, or do not do. If we neglect our folk, if we neglect the culture of our folk, we harm this living being.

    In addition, to be healthy, to evolve further, each folk must have a homeland, a place on this planet where the people of a particular folk can dwell in harmony with Nature and their own people. Such a folkish homeland represents Nature in balance: Nature healthy and thriving, for such homelands respect Nature, and are a striving, by a National-Socialist community, to dwell on the land in such a way that Nature, and especially our life-giving soil, is respected and cared for. That is, folkish homelands are a means to maintain and increase the vitality, the evolution, of Nature.

    One of the primary aims of National-Socialism is the creation of free, independent, folkish homelands where the people of a particular folk and culture can live according to their own laws and customs. These diverse homelands can and should co-operate together on the basis of reason, honour and respect.
    This concept of the folk, the race, and its continued evolution, is irrelevant to Islam, which views the individual in relation to such things as Taqwa and Imaan (Taqwa: fear of Allah, resulting in devotion to Allah and His truth as revealed in Quran and Sunnah; Imaan: total trust and faith in Allah).

    As I wrote in Esoteric Hitlerism:

    What has hitherto not been very well understood in respect of National-Socialism, is that it is not race which defines our humanity - it is honour and reason. Race is our relation to Nature: how Nature is expressed, is manifest, in us. As such race is important and indeed vital; but so is honour. It is the combination of an acceptance of both race and honour which is National-Socialism. An affirmation of race without an affirmation honour is not National-Socialism, just as an affirmation of honour without an affirmation of race is not National-Socialism. It is this living, organic, dialectic of honour and race which defines National-Socialism itself, and a National-Socialist is an individual who strives to do their honourable duty to both their own race and Nature herself, of which other human races are a part. That is, a National-Socialist must always be honourable, whatever the consequences, or the perceived consequences.




    The Concept of the Acausal:


    National-Socialism gives us an awareness of several types of living being which other Ways of Life ignore or consider irrelevant. This ignorance is especially true of modern materialism. These beings include Nature, our folk, the homeland where our folk dwells, and the Cosmic Being.

    These types of being derive their life from the acausal - or rather, from acausal energy. That is, they are manifestations of the acausal in the causal world. In a sense, these beings are acausal life, as distinct from the causal life-forms we know, through experience and Science, and which dwell with us on this planet. To understand National-Socialism is to understand this concept of the acausal, and thus the matrix, The Unity, which the acausal is. It is the acausal which is numinous, which we apprehend through great Art, literature, music, and so on, and which can and does inspire us to quest for excellence and strive to aid our evolution. It is the acausal which is the essence of life, and it is a rational understanding, or intuitive awareness, of the acausal which enables us to place our own lives in the correct, Cosmic, context, and which provides us with the insight of how all life, causal and acausal, is connected, dependant, inter-related

    An awareness of the acausal gives us an understanding of what the Ancient Greeks called hubris - that it is unwise to go to great extremes, unwise to be too arrogant, unwise to be dishonourable, or tempt "Fate". For such things upset the natural balance, and this balance will, inevitably, be restored, in our own lifetime, or beyond. This return to balance can and does bring misfortune to those who commit hubris - or their descendant, or their community, or those around them, or to Nature, for such a restoration, such a balancing, is a natural act, implicit in life itself: implicit in the nature of acausal energy.

    This concept of the acausal is a rational apprehension, in contrast to the submission and faith required by both Muslims and Christians.


    Conclusion:

    It should be clear that there are fundamental, and irreconcilable, differences between National-Socialism, Islam, and Christianity. National-Socialism, as I have stated, is a complete Way of Life - independent from, and different from, other Ways (5). The Cosmic Being of National-Socialism is neither God, nor Allah, and no comparison between them is possible or required. The ethics of honour establish laws, and a society, which differ from those of Islam and Christianity. The National-Socialist concept of the folk - and especially of the folk and Nature as living, evolving, beings - are not important for Islam or Christianity. In contrast to Islam and Christianity, there is no concept of sin, nor any need for prayer or ritual, in National-Socialism.

    However, these differences do not preclude co-operation between National-Socialists and those such as Muslims. Indeed, such co-operation - on the basis of honour, and mutual respect - is essential for creating a new world by fighting those forces of oppression, injustice, dishonour and tyranny, which are taking us back toward barbarism and which threaten our freedom and our future evolution.



    David Myatt
    114yf
    -------------------

    Notes:
    (1) The acausal is outlined in Acausal Science: Life and the Nature of the Acausal.
    (2) See Surreal Science.
    (3) The Sunnah is the example - in words and deeds - of the Prophet Muhammad, recorded in books of Ahadith, such as those of Bukhari.
    (4) See my The Principles of National-Socialist Law. I have described the ethics of National-Socialism in essays such as National-Socialist Ethics and the Meaning of Life.
    (5) I have outlined the Way of National-Socialism in various articles of which the following may be of interest:


    (a) Esoteric Hitlerism: Idealism, the Third Reich and the Essence of National-Socialism
    (b) The National-Socialist Way of Life: Some Observations On Personal Conduct
    (c) Towards Destiny: Creating a New National-Socialist Reich
    (d) The Meaning of National-Socialism (Second Edition 114yf)

  2. #2
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Post

    Thanks to rhadley for posting 'The Theology of National-Socialism', by David Myatt.

    If I may pick out some points and make some comments on a work which is very deep [so please excuse my superficiality].

    DM; "Introduction:;National-Socialism's own Theology, based upon what I have called 'The Cosmic Being'. This Being is not the same as the God of Christianity, nor the Allah of Islam".

    Moody; This theology ['theology' is a 'discussion on the gods'] of the Cosmic being is appended to DM's Constitution.
    It reminds me of Cosmotheism, as well as of Colin Jordans' Folkism.
    It is actually, a beautifully lucid pantheism, which underlay all Folkish ideals.
    I think of 'Being' in the philosophical sense - a kind of existence, rather than as a human entity.
    'Being' is that which all existant things exhibit.

    DM; "There is no division between 'religion' and 'the State' with its 'politics' and 'economics' ".

    Moody; This is why I have argued elsewhere that things like economics should always be subordinate to the Folk idea.

    DM; "Life evolved naturally on this planet, from finite beginnings we as yet do not precisely understand".

    Moody; This is an essential modesty.
    What we CAN say;

    DM; "(i) that the Cosmos (or Reality) exists independently of us and our consciousness, and thus independent of our senses;
    (ii) our limited understanding of this 'external world' depends for the most part upon our senses - that is, on what we can see, hear or touch; that is, on what we can observe or come to know via our senses;
    (iii) logical argument - reason - and experiment are the best means to knowledge and understanding of and about this 'external world';
    (iv) the Cosmos is, of itself, a reasoned order subject to rational laws".

    Moody; Some philosophers would disagree with this, of course, especially (iv). But I think that the endeavour of science shows that by studying the Cosmos in the way we do, we are actually searching for that Order we feel is ultimately there.

    DM: "The meaning, the purpose, of our lives is to further evolution: both our own, and that of our folk".

    Moody; This purpose is the 'why' that the nihilists and anarchists cannot appreciate.

    DM; "The Cosmic Being:is regarded as the Cosmos in evolution, with Nature representing one manifestation, one incarnation, of the Cosmic Being on our planet, Earth".

    Moody; This is clearly a pantheistic outlook; this Cosmic Being is no 'God' in the Semitic sense [of course!]

    DM; "In one sense, our consciousness - our awareness, our rational apprehension - may be likened to the awareness of the Cosmic Being, just as honour is regarded as a manifestation, a presencing, in us and our world, of evolution: of those forces which enable us to live in a noble, civilized, way".

    Moody; The term 'presencing' reminds us of the ideas of Heidegger, himself a N-S.

    DM; "Crucially, there is no concept of "sin" there are only honourable or dishonourable deeds with honourable deeds being regarded as evolutionary, civilized - and thus manifesting our true human nature, and being conducive to order and thus increasing consciousness itself".

    Moody; Here DM links in with Nietzscheanism, with its radical revaluation of moral values. DM's idea of 'honour' is a brilliant feature of his theology.

    DM: "Prophets and Revelation:For National-Socialism, there is no revelation from a supreme being, and thus no belief in Prophets or Messengers, and no Holy Books".

    Moody; DM distances himself here from the excesses of Hitler worship [just as Hitler himself wished].

    DM; "The Ethics of Honour: Honour is the foundation for their ethics because it is regarded as one of the those qualities which make us human, and which enable us to achieve both excellence (arête, for the Ancient Greeks) and further evolution, for ourselves and our folk".

    Moody; The 'ar' of 'arete' reminds of 'Aryan', of course; probably from the same Indo-European root.

    DM; "The Concept of the Folk:The folk is considered, by National-Socialism, to be a manifestation, a presencing, of Nature, and thus represents Nature and the Cosmos in evolution.
    In addition, to be healthy, to evolve further, each folk must have a homeland, a place on this planet where the people of a particular folk can dwell in harmony with Nature and their own people".

    Moody; This is the Blood and Soil ethic taken to the next level.

    DM; "The Concept of the Acausal: - 'Nature, our folk, the homeland where our folk dwells, and the Cosmic Being' - all these types of being derive their life from the acausal - or rather, from acausal energy.
    That is, they are manifestations of the acausal in the causal world. In a sense, these beings are acausal life, as distinct from the causal life-forms we know, through experience and Science, and which dwell with us on this planet".

    Moody; I think I touched on this with my use of 'Necessity', which may convey a similar meaning [see my rather imperfect thread on this forum, 'A Philosophy of Necessity']

    DM: "It is the acausal which is numinous, which we apprehend through great Art, literature, music, and so on, and which can and does inspire us to quest for excellence and strive to aid our evolution. It is the acausal which is the essence of life, and it is a rational understanding, or intuitive awareness, of the acausal which enables us to place our own lives in the correct, Cosmic, context, and which provides us with the insight of how all life, causal and acausal, is connected, dependant, inter-related".

    Moody; Again, DM takes the acausal, or the necessitious, to another level, that of Higher forms.
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, August 20th, 2009 @ 12:11 AM
    Ethnicity
    Slavic
    Subrace
    Uralic/Alpine/Pontid mixed
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    USA
    Gender
    Posts
    3,309
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post

    Well written, but I do see flaws in his interpretations of Christianity and even Islam. As for there being no code of honour in Christianity, he fails to address the issue of how Christianity influence the development of the concept of Chivalry. In all writings about the code of chivalry: loyalty to God, Jesus, and the church were always near the top of the list. And the concept of the folk being non-important in Christianity, the creation of different nations(folks) plays an important role in God's plans for humanity. In fact even traditional Christianity upholds that God appoints Guardian angels to protects to each and every nation. So the concept of the folkish nation being non-important to Christianity is nonsense.

  4. #4
    Senior Member rhadley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Wednesday, March 30th, 2005 @ 05:46 AM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Gender
    Age
    42
    Politics
    National Socialism
    Posts
    174
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Pushkin
    Well written, but I do see flaws in his interpretations of Christianity and even Islam. As for there being no code of honour in Christianity, he fails to address the issue of how Christianity influence the development of the concept of Chivalry. In all writings about the code of chivalry: loyalty to God, Jesus, and the church were always near the top of the list. And the concept of the folk being non-important in Christianity, the creation of different nations(folks) plays an important role in God's plans for humanity. In fact even traditional Christianity upholds that God appoints Guardian angels to protects to each and every nation. So the concept of the folkish nation being non-important to Christianity is nonsense.

    He does not say there were no individuals of honor who were/are Christians, only that there is a difference of ethics - with the Xtian being based on the notion of individual reward and punishment: do what the Good Book says because you will go to Heaven. Same with Islam - the emphasis, the foundation, of the moral codes is the notion of individual reward and punishment. Same with Buddhism.

    Also, in relation to your point about Xtians and the folk - that is one interpretation of the scriptures. There are others. Apropos of Xtians and the folk - the KKK have one Xtian view; many other Xtians have another and say race-mixing is good. Same with the Koran - lots of interpretations. There is a Book or Books, or words, which are not clear or whihc can be intepretated in different ways. With the honor of NS there is no need for such semitic type of "interpretations" or clever word-games. That's the essential diffrence. Arayn honor verses a semtic type of bookish learning and "interpretation" of texts: refering to some book for guidance.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, August 20th, 2009 @ 12:11 AM
    Ethnicity
    Slavic
    Subrace
    Uralic/Alpine/Pontid mixed
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    USA
    Gender
    Posts
    3,309
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by rhadley
    He does not say there were no individuals of honor who were/are Christians, only that there is a difference of ethics - with the Xtian being based on the notion of individual reward and punishment: do what the Good Book says because you will go to Heaven. Same with Islam - the emphasis, the foundation, of the moral codes is the notion of individual reward and punishment. Same with Buddhism.
    Again, yours and Myatt's interpretation of Christianity is based on Protestantism. Yes there is a dimension of individual salvation to christianity, but thats not what the faith is entirely focused on.

    Also, in relation to your point about Xtians and the folk - that is one interpretation of the scriptures. There are others. Apropos of Xtians and the folk - the KKK have one Xtian view; many other Xtians have another and say race-mixing is good.
    Please name one Christian theologian before 1945 that said such a thing! Even today the Orthodox church warns against inter-racial marriages because such relationships are based more on a persons' primitive lust for members of another race than on true love and because of the clear cultural differences has the potential of creating much divisions between husband and wife; which is not in the marriage's best interest especially if the couple has children.

  6. #6
    Senior Member rhadley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Wednesday, March 30th, 2005 @ 05:46 AM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Gender
    Age
    42
    Politics
    National Socialism
    Posts
    174
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Pushkin
    Again, yours and Myatt's interpretation of Christianity is based on Protestantism. Yes there is a dimension of individual salvation to christianity, but thats not what the faith is entirely focused on.
    I disagree. You give no reasons for you view. What is the essential diffrence between Protestantism and Catholicism? Transubstantiation; confession via a Priest; the authority of the Pope, and so on.

    What does Xtianity say is the purpose, the meaning, of our lives? What is the role of Jesus?

    Jesus is saviour - from what? From sin. There is "redemption". There is a saving of us from "evil". Who defines what is good and evil? God - via Prophets, Jesus, and Holy Books. This surely is the essence which Myatt rightly criticizes.

    There is sin, revelation, redemption. The motivation is almost entirely indvidual; the individual is understood in relation to God, to Jesus, to the Saints.

    Please explain your view: if not ndividual salvation, then what? And please explain why you insist on saying the interpretation of Xtianity is Protestant.


    Quote Originally Posted by Pushkin
    Please name one Christian theologian before 1945 that said such a thing! Even today the Orthodox church warns against inter-racial marriages because such relationships are based more on a persons' primitive lust for members of another race than on true love and because of the clear cultural differences has the potential of creating much divisions between husband and wife; which is not in the marriage's best interest especially if the couple has children.

    Surely a main point is that there is, has been and can be various diverse interpretations of the scriptures - that there is reliance of some holy book; that there is the concept of sin, of prayer, of ritual; of submission to authority be that authority the Pope, some Church, some interpretation.

    Thus we get the in my view very primative situation when one person beleives God is on their side, and another person who is fighting the first person beleives the very same thing, with both "proving" their view from scripture or whatever. This happenes all the time. A good example is surely the First World War, which each side believing it was doing "God's will".


    The essence is the attitude that such a religion allows such diverse interpretation and dependence - it takes the responsibility away from the individual. They can try and justify their dishonurable deeds because they beleive they are acting in God's name or doing what they beleive is right.

    With honor, there is no such taking away of responsibility; no such belief. There are, as Myatt says, only honorable and dishonorable deeds.

    I say again, NS is a totally different way of thinking, of living, of being, from that of conventional religions.

    As for multi-racialism, it just makes my point - pro or con, it's just one interpretation possible. There is no clear, rational, guidance one way or another. Both sides can quote scripture to "prove" their point.

    But the real point is that it is such "scripture" - and the use of it - which is wrong; unhelpful. Anti-evolutionary.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, August 20th, 2009 @ 12:11 AM
    Ethnicity
    Slavic
    Subrace
    Uralic/Alpine/Pontid mixed
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    USA
    Gender
    Posts
    3,309
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by rhadley
    I disagree. You give no reasons for you view. What is the essential diffrence between Protestantism and Catholicism? Transubstantiation; confession via a Priest; the authority of the Pope, and so on.
    Oh there is much more difference between Protestantism and Catholicism/Orthodoxy than just what you mention. Here's a good Orthodox website that explains this further.


    http://www.orthodox.net/articles/ort...mind.html#n1_0

    II. Protestant Ethos.
    Now some might dispute the need for studying the Protestant way of thinking -- perhaps it might be OK for the purpose of winning converts, but why should those already Orthodox be bothered? The reason is simple: we live in a society that is thoroughly Protestant. Furthermore, the Protestant ethos is to be found even among many who have been Orthodox all their lives.

    There is a Chinese proverb which says:"Know the enemy and know yourself, and in a thousand battles you will not see defeat" [These words were written over 2,000 years ago by the great Chinese military strategist, Sun Zi in his book which is usually called in English "The Art of War."]

    The first duty of every Orthodox Christian is to "know yourself", in other words, to know the Orthodox Faith, as well as to be aware of our own strengths and weakness and to so walk in humility -- which is not a false humility, but is actually a very realistic appraisal of ourselves in comparison with the examples of the saints and in the light of God's standards of Holiness and Righteousness.

    In addition to knowing ourselves, we must know the enemy -- the scriptures teach us in many places that we are to be vigilant and fully aware of Satan's devices.

    To get a handle on the prevailing Protestant / Secular worldview, I would like to focus on four major characteristics that identify it and distinguish it from an Orthodox frame of reference.


    A. Humanism/ Individualism/ Secularism
    The first characteristic of the Protestant Worldview is that it is Humanistic.

    Now for conservative Protestants this statement will come as quite a shock, and no doubt they would hotly dispute it -- but the statement is an historic truth as well as an observable fact. Protestantism was birthed out of and became the religious expression of the humanism of the Renaissance, and as Frank Schaeffer has put it: it has been the engine of the Secularization of Western Culture. Humanism is characterized by its idealization of individual autonomy and it promulgation of secularization. Church authority was rejected in favor of the subjective judgment of the individual. The idea of a Christian nation was replaced with the concept of separation of Church and state -- and for those who would argue that this was a later development, while it is true that Luther and Calvin saw no need for the separation of Church and State (because they were in power) the earliest Anabaptists championed this from the beginning.

    What is amazing is how conservative Protestants have viewed humanism and secularization as a foreign invader that is completely at odds with their faith -- when in fact it is the fruit of their own intellectual wombs.

    For example, every Western Christmas, you can hear Protestants loudly bemoaning the fact that Christ has been taken out of Christmas and replaced with Santa Claus -- but where did that come from? It was the English Puritans who opposed the idea of a religious calendar, and who opposed Christmas and all other holidays as "pagan" and so sought to replace those holidays with secular observances. It was these Puritans who invented Father Frost, and replaced the idea of going to Church on Christmas to celebrate Christ's birth with the family fun, games, gifts, and food observance that characterizes the common Protestant observance of Christmas. So in their quest to get rid of the "pagan" Christian calendar of feasts, it was in fact the Protestants who developed the truly pagan secular calendar that our culture has come to know and love.

    The Protestant tendency toward individualism is also seen manifested in the Charismatic movement and in other pietistic circles in the form of emotionalism and an elevation of emotionalism. In contemporary denominational Protestantism, the worship services is not so much a service to God, but a service that meets the needs of the people. People look for the church that will best serve them, rather than a Church in which they can best serve God. If you take a look at the modern Protestant "Mega Churches" you'll find bowling alleys, swimming pools, Karate classes, singles groups that will help you find a date, youth groups that will entertain your kids -- what more could Madison Avenue have to offer?

    The focus on entertainment can be seen in the layout of most modern Evangelical Churches -- they are set up like theaters. You can take you pick of a Church that offers Country Western Worship, Pop, Rock and Roll, or classical if you like. It's as easy as choosing a radio station. How alien this is to the Biblical view of worship in terms of Sacrifice, and service to God. You'll not find any of the Psalms talking about how the writer was entertained at the temple, or a focus on how his needs were met.

    One need not look to hard in the Bible to see how foreign the concepts of Secularism, Humanism, and Individualism are to the minds of the Biblical writers.

    There was no separation of Church and state in the OT. In fact the kings of Israel and Judah were judged by their defense of the Faith against pagan and heretical religious expressions. Repeatedly we read in the Scriptures, "such and such king did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, he pulled down the high places which the Lord had forbidden..." etc.

    The worldview of the Bible is not man centered, but is clearly Theocentric. Individualism would have been a completely foreign concept -- a fact that even Protestant Biblical scholars do not hesitate to concede. In fact they point out that the Israelites had a concept of a corporate personality. Certainly they believed in individual responsibility, but it is clear that the Israelites viewed themselves as parts of their family unit, their clan, their tribe, and their nation -- and they recognized that God dealt with them not only as individuals but as groups.


    B. Modernism.
    The second chief characteristic of Protestantism is Modernism.

    From the very beginning Protestantism has been marked by a complete contempt for ancient Christianity and Tradition. It must be conceded that Protestantism was not without justification in protesting the form of tradition that it was confronting -- because far from being faithful to Ancient Christianity, Papism was itself an innovation. But rather than return to the authentic Christianity of Orthodoxy, Protestantism sought to remedy the situation by ostensibly returning to the ancient purity of the Scriptures, but in reality it was simply replacing the arbitrariness of a single pope with democratic papism -- in which each individual was his own infallible pope -- receiving direct revelation from the Holy Spirit.

    Protestants claimed that they held Scripture to be the only authority, and rejected the interpretations of the Fathers whenever they contradicted the Scriptures -- but in reality they were really placing their interpretations of the Scriptures above that of the Fathers, and in essence saying that when the Fathers contradict their individual interpretations -- their interpretations are to be taken as more authoritative.

    In its fight against Romanism, Protestantism sought to discredit all the ancient wisdom of the Church. The previous period was termed pejoratively as "the dark ages." "New" became synonymous with "good"; "Newer" with better; and "New and Improved" as better still. "Change" is used almost like a magic amulet, that justifies whatever it is associated with. The ancient Christian view was that novelty and innovation were absolute proofs of error, but in Protestantism this was turned on its head to the point that innovation is to them proof of truth. While Protestants attacked (often with justification) the Roman Tradition for its post apostolic additions -- they developed new Traditions at a rate that would make any Papist's head spin.

    At heart, Modernism is not really at war with the past nearly so much as it is at war with God.

    Modernism is simply the lever with which Humanists and Secularists have sought to unseat God from His throne and place man in His stead.

    The Secular Humanism that conservative Protestants view as their mortal enemy is simply a more highly developed form of Protestantism. The pietist Protestantism of the past has now outlived its usefulness for the Secularization process, and so has been discarded by the more advanced Protestant Secularists.

    The Reformers rejected Tradition, and said that they only needed the Bible and their own reason as their guide. Later Protestants turned their knives on the Bible itself, whittling away at it until they now have only their own reason and sentimentality as their guide. More Primitive religious Protestants, having been spurned by Modernity has ever since been trying to catch up with the spirit of the age by becoming "relevant". To become "relevant" they have sought to further accommodate their religion to appeal to the broader culture. Today, even among conservative Evangelicals, it is Madison Avenue that determines their worship -- not any Scriptural mandates. There has been a continuous parade of fads that have swept this country as Protestants have tried to keep things entertaining and "new".


    C. Arrogance/ Hubris/ Prelest
    Closely associated with both Anthropocentric individualism and secularism, as well as Modernism, comes arrogance, hubris, and spiritual delusion (or prelest). This is most clearly seen when one examines Protestant Biblical scholarship.

    When I was a student at Southern Nazarene University preparing to become a Protestant Minister, when I was taught how to study the Bible, we were not taught to consult sacred Tradition or the writings of the Fathers -- not even those fathers that knew the Apostles personally. We were told that the Church fathers were all allegorists, and that they really didn't have a clue as to what the Bible was really saying.

    In fact, it became apparent to me that not even the Apostles followed Protestant principles of exegesis when interpreting the OT -- and indeed my liberal professors did not hesitate to point out when the Apostles had misinterpreted the OT. When I asked one of my professors if he thought that he understood the Bible better than the Apostles -- he without hesitation answered "Yes!"

    More conservative Protestant scholars would explain this discrepancy between Apostolic exegesis and Protestant Exegesis by saying that the Apostles were inspired to find spiritual meaning in the OT that was beyond its actual meaning to the OT writers -- but that we must not interpret the OT like that because we are not so inspired.

    The bottom line however, is that Protestant exegesis is clearly unbiblical, and those who advocate it must acknowledge, like my more honest professor did, that they do indeed think that they know the Bible better than those who wrote it.

    More liberal Protestant scholars, such as Rudolph Bultmann claimed to know more about who Jesus was than Jesus himself knew. They claim to be able to distinguish what Jesus really said, from what he did not. In essence, 2,000 years after the fact -- they claim that only now has the Bible really been understood. The Early Church, the Fathers of the Ecumenical councils, etc. etc., they have all been fooled and deluded -- it took these clever modern Biblical scholars to unmask the Truth.



    D. Reductionism / Empiricism
    The fourth and final characteristic of Protestantism that I want to highlight is its reductionism, and its rationalistic and Empiricists assumptions.

    Protestantism is reductionist in a number of ways. It has always sought to get back to the "primitive" NT Church, to discard any aspect of the faith that cannot be proven to have been in place in the NT. Protestants use the truncated OT canon of the Jews -- in fact if Luther had his way, he would have truncated the NT as well discarding James especially, along with a few other books that he didn't like.

    Protestants have also sought to define the Christian Faith in terms of "essentials" -- i.e. what is the bare minimum that one must believe or do to be a Christian.

    In essence, Protestants have always been marked by rationalism, and western rationalists have always sought to boil reality down to that which could serve as the firmest foundation upon which to build a sound rationalistic structure.

    For example Descarte, using methodological doubt, found that he could doubt everything in the universe except his own existence --thus the famous line: I think, therefore I am. Upon this one sure basis -- his own existence -- he then proceeded to build his philosophical system.

    The Reformers were at first content to view the Bible as the irreducible basis for their rationalism to be built upon, but later Protestants, like Descarte, using methodological doubt and the criterion of suspicion, began to examine the Bible to see what could be certainly known in it. Eventually, using their critical tools, there foundation of Sola Scriptura poured out of their hand like a handful of dust. Taken from its context within Holy Tradition, the Bible was a Castle built on thin air -- it didn't take long for it to come crashing down.

    Modernists, in their arrogance have presumed to critically analyze the assumptions of all previous writers and philosophers -- but they have failed to critically assess their own underlying assumptions.

    When I was a ministerial student, I was given the assignment of writing on the relationship between Empiricism and Biblical studies -- this turned out to be one of the most revelational studies I had ever conducted. The first amazing discovery I made was that there was almost nothing written on the subject. It became very clear that Empiricist and Positivist thought was a basic underlying assumption in Protestant Biblical studies, but I found nothing that directly examined the relationship between the two. Another discovery, which came as quite a shock to me at the time, was that the extreme rationalism and modernism that I personally rejected when I encountered it in the field of Biblical studies, was actually very much kin to the Humanistic assumptions that had always been present in Protestantism. What I came to realize was that the liberals were simply more consistently Protestant than I was as a conservative trying to hand on to some absolute truths.

    Empiricism is based upon the assumption that the ultimate basis of knowledge is experience, or sense perception. Empiricism, as the term is most commonly used, does not refer to a specific philosophy, but rather to the most fundamental assumptions of the Modern Western worldview. Empiricism seeks to know what can be known with "certainty" and can be "verified" "scientifically."

    The biggest assumption of the empirical worldview is that one can have a scientific method that operates without assumptions. That sounds ridiculous, but remember a worldview is a set of assumptions that we are usually unaware of. A further extension of the assumption that all knowledge is derived from experience is that reality is determined by what we can observe with our senses and can empirically test. The result of this belief [!] is that one must deny the possibility that one could know anything transcendent or supernatural--thus the reality of the transcendent and supernatural is denied. Empiricists do not produce evidence that falsifies transcendent reality, or miracles; rather their presuppositions, from the very outset, deny the possibility of such things.

    Most conservative Protestants would object that they do not think this way at all. They believe in the Bible, and believe in the miracles of the Bible. Of course, if you are a Christian, then you could never accept all the conclusions of empiricism, but most Western Christians have adopted many of its assumptions -- to varying degrees. For example, a Christian could not have a worldview which denied the transcendent, but many hold a radical dualism in which the transcendent and the empirical realms are radically separate, seldom come into contact, and when they do, only on very limited scale.

    A pure Empiricist sees only the empirical level as knowable or real.

    A Christian cannot deny the transcendent level, because to be a Christian one must believe in God; but a Christian who operates with empirical assumptions is blinded to the middle level. It is primarily on the level of the supernatural that the transcendent and the empirical come into contact; but a Christian empiricist cannot have the transcendent messing up the empirical realm, and so he sees God as having little to do with everyday life in the real world. This worldview is largely responsible for the compartmentalization of religion in the life of so many Western Christians.

    An Animist, on the other hand, is culturally blind to empirical reality.

    If someone is sick, then it is an evil spirit at work. Everything is connected with the supernatural. By the same token, a Christian empiricist immediately credits the sickness to natural causes, and so is blind to any supernatural factors at work. An Orthodox worldview, on the other hand, takes both factors into account -- all sickness is not spirit related, but neither is all sickness caused by natural factors alone.

    Despite the obvious problems of using Empirical assumptions in the presumably theological field of Biblical studies, Protestants have embraced methodologies grounded in Empiricist thinking without examining the inconsistency of doing so because they were in search of some air of scientific objectivity in what would be otherwise a subjective and individualistic endeavor -- which clearly lacked any claim to consistency.

    The great fallacy in the this so called "scientific" approach to the Scriptures lies in the fallacious application of empirical assumptions to the study of history, Scripture, and theology. Empirical methods work reasonably well when they are correctly applied to natural sciences, but when they are applied where they cannot possibly work, such as in history (which cannot be repeated or experimented upon) they cannot produce either consistent or accurate results.

    Scientist have yet to invent a telescope capable of peering into the spirit world, and yet many Protestant scholars assert that in the light of science the idea of the existence of demons or of the Devil has been disproved -- where is the scientific study that has proven this? Were the Devil to appear before an Empiricist with pitch fork in hand and clad in bright red underwear, it would be explained neatly in some manner that would easily comport to his worldview, for although such Empiricists pride themselves on their openness to the truth, they are blinded by their assumptions to such an extent that they cannot see anything that does not fit their version of reality.

    If the methods of empiricism were consistently applied it would discredit all knowledge (including itself), but empiricism is permitted to be inconsistent by those who hold to it because "its ruthless mutilation of human experience lends it such a high reputation for scientific severity, that its prestige overrides the defectiveness of its own foundations." [Rev. Robert T. Osborn, "Faith as Personal Knowledge," Scottish Journal of Theology 28 (February 1975): 101-126.]

    Conservative Protestants have happily been much less consistent in their rationalistic approach, and thus have preserved among themselves a reverence for the Scriptures and a belief in their inspiration -- never-the-less their approach (even among the most dogged Fundamentalists) is still essentially rooted in the same spirit of rationalism as the Liberals.

    A prime example of this is to be found among Dispensational Fundamentalists, who hold to an elaborate theory which posits that at various stages in history God has dealt with man according to different "dispensations," such as the "Adamic dispensation," the "Noaic dispensation," the "Mosaic dispensation," the "Davidic dispensation," and so on it goes. Thus far, one can see that there is a degree of truth in this theory, but beyond these Old Testament dispensations they teach that currently we are under a different dispensation than were the Christians of the first Century, and so though miracles continued through the New Testament period, they now longer occur today.

    Now this is very interesting, because (in addition to lacking any Scriptural basis) this theory allows Fundamentalists to affirm the miracles of the Bible, while at the same time allowing them to be Empiricists in their every day life. Thus, though the discussion of this approach may at first glance seem to be only of academic interest and far removed from the reality of dealing with the average Protestant, in fact even the average piously conservative Protestant laymen is not unaffected by this sort of rationalism.

    The connections between the extreme conclusions that modern liberal Protestant scholars have come to, and the more conservative or Fundamentalist Protestants will not seem clear to many -- least of all to conservative Fundamentalists! Though these conservatives see themselves as being in almost complete opposition to Protestant liberalism, they none the less use essentially the same kinds of methods in their study of the Scriptures as do the liberals, and along with these methodologies come their underlying philosophical assumptions which the conservatives have unwittingly bought into.

    Thus the difference between the liberals and the conservatives is not in reality a difference of basic assumptions, but rather a difference in how far they have taken them to their logical conclusions. Like the Gadarene swine, together they are rushing headlong toward the edge of a precipice -- though the liberals may have already gone over the edge, the conservatives are heading in the same direction, they just haven't gone as far. The Protestant denominations that today are ordaining homosexuals as ministers were just as conservative a hundred years ago, and the more conservative denominations are following the same path.

    If Protestant exegesis were truly scientific, as it presents itself, its results would show consistency. If its methods were merely unbiased "technologies" (as many view them) then it would not matter who used them, they would work the same for everyone; but what do we find when we examine current status of Protestant biblical studies? In the estimation of the "experts" themselves, Protestant biblical scholarship is in a crisis. In fact this crisis is perhaps best illustrated by the admission of a recognized Protestant Old Testament scholar, Gerhad Hasel [in his survey of the history and current status of the discipline of Old Testament theology, Old Testament Theology: Issues in the Current Debate], that during the 1970's five new Old Testament theologies had been produced "but not one agrees in approach and method with any of the others." In fact it is amazing, considering the self proclaimed high standard of scholarship in Protestant biblical studies, that you can take your pick of limitless conclusions on almost any issue and find good scholarship to back it up. In other words, you can just about come to any conclusion that suits you on a particular issue, and you can find a Ph.D. who will advocate it. This is certainly not science in the same sense as mathematics or chemistry! What we are dealing with is a field of learning that presents itself as objective science, but which in fact is a pseudo- science, concealing a variety of competing philosophical and theological perspectives. It is pseudo-science because until scientist develop instruments capable of examining and understanding God, objective scientific theology or biblical interpretation is an impossibility. This is not to say that there is nothing that is genuinely scholarly or useful within it; but this is to say that camouflaged with these legitimate aspects of historical and linguistic learning, and hidden by the fog machines and mirrors of pseudo-science, we discover in reality that Protestant methods of biblical interpretation are both the product and the servant of Protestant theological and philosophical assumptions -- and like hoses they simply spew forth whatever is pumped into them.

    With subjectivity that surpasses the most speculative Freudian psychoanalysts, Protestant scholars selectively choose the facts and evidence that suits their agenda and then proceed (with their conclusions essentially predetermined by their basic assumptions) to ply their methods to the Holy Scriptures; all the while thinking themselves dispassionate scientists. And since modern universities do not give out Ph.D.'s to those who merely pass on the unadulterated Truth, these scholars seek to out do each other by coming up with new outlandish theories. This is the very essence of heresy: novelty, arrogant personal opinion, and self deception.

    Rather than discrediting ancient Patristic Christianity or Tradition, Protestantism has become the most vivid vindication of Tradition that the Church could have hoped for. Protestantism itself now stands thoroughly discredited. Twenty Three Thousand denominations after the Reformation, Protestants are becoming aware of the spiritual bankruptcy that constitutes denominational Christianity. I think that this is one of the biggest reasons for the influx of Protestants into the Church.


    III. The Orthodox Mind
    Coming to the point where a Protestant realizes the spiritual bankruptcy of the Western Worldview may bring them to the doors of the Church, but simply rejecting Protestantism is not enough. For that matter, being convinced that Orthodoxy is the true Faith is good enough to have you made a Catechumen, but much more is needed. One must enter into the Spirit of Orthodoxy. Even when one reaches the point at which they are ready to receive Holy Baptism, this process must continue -- Baptism is the beginning of your life in the Church, it is a spiritual birth, but only a stillborn baby will not continue to grow spiritual. For a convert, must not only struggle against demons and against the flesh to accomplish this, but one must still contend with the modes of thought that he operated in prior to conversion.

    Before we deal with how one goes about acquiring an Orthodox mind, however, let me briefly describe what an Orthodox mind is, especially as distinct from the Protestant mindset we have been discussing.


    A. Corporate / Theocentric
    Rather than the Humanism and Individualism of Protestantism -- Orthodoxy is Theocentric, and corporate in its focus.

    The focus of Orthodox worship is not on the personality of the priest, nor is it focused on meeting the needs of individuals, or on contrived emotional experiences -- the focus is on God. Unlike Protestant churches, in which the church rises or falls on the personality of the minister -- one need not even like the priest personally, and he can still worship in that parish, because we are there to worship God, not to hear a good and stirring sermon. It certainly a nice touch to have a priest with a good personality and who can give a good sermon -- but that is icing on the cake, not the cake itself.

    The Church is not the sum total of individuals who are Christians, it is a community. Christ came to build His Church, not to establish a school of thought, or to save individuals apart from a community. This does not negate individual responsibility -- the Orthodox Church firmly believes that you can go to hell all by yourself, if you want to, without any help from anyone else -- but if you want to be saved, the Scripture is clear... you need the Church.

    An Orthodox Christian is also held accountable by the Church. Christ spoke of Church discipline, and said that if someone would not "hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a heathen and a publican" (Matt 18:17).

    Christ also gave the Apostle the power to forgive sins in John 20:23 when He said: Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven unto them, and whose sins you retain, they are retained. It is amazing how Protestants, who say that they take the Bible literally, blow this verse off -- and when pressed, will flatly deny the plain meaning of this verse.

    But far from being the horrible thing that Protestants think confession is -- it is both Biblical, and a great gift. Because we must humble ourselves, we gain victory over pride, and because we are held accountable we are given a powerful tool to help us advance in the Christian life.

    One of the biggest criticisms Protestant make of confession is they claim that we can go out and sin all we want, and then have it all forgiven at confession -- that therefore confession is a license to sin. Obviously no one who has ever gone to confession would think this -- because although we should be shamed just by the fact that God knows we have sinned, in fact in our flesh we are more shamed when other men know our sins. When you go to confession to the same priest week after week -- we have added to our fear of God (which is something that we must develop) a witness who will call us to task for it. When temptation comes, the fact that we know we will be shamed to confess this sin next weekend is adds further strength to our resistance.


    B. Antiquity / Unchanging
    Rather than the Modernists continual desire to be relevant, and their valuing of innovation. In the Orthodox Church, we view innovation as the mark of heresy. St. Jude says that the Faith was once delivered unto the saints -- we can expect no new revelation until the second coming.

    We are taught that it is our duty to live and pass on the Orthodox Faith in its purity -- just as we have received it without changing it either by adding to it, or taking from it. We Orthodox have no need to be relevant to the Modernist spirit -- because we have seen heresies come and go. Long after Modernism has been completely discredited and is a faint memory -- the Orthodox Faith will still be standing. Rather than trying to hitch our wagon to the latest fad (such as environmentalism) we hold fast to the Traditions we have received from the Apostles, just as we have received them.


    C. Humility, Repentance.
    Because Orthodoxy is not individualistic, rather than the arrogance that goes with that individualism, in Orthodoxy we are taught to humbly listen to the teachings of the Fathers of the Church. We are taught not to think ourselves more holy or clever than the Fathers of the Church who have clearly shown themselves to be doers of the Word, and men of holiness -- and so when we read the Bible, we read it in accordance with the testimony of the Church rather than in the vanity of our individualistic minds.

    As I said earlier, this is not a false humility, but is simply a realistic assessment of things. When there are 23,000 denominations that all claim to believe the Bible, but which cannot agree on what it is that the Bible says -- it is humility that is realistic, and arrogance that is fanciful. Obviously they cannot all be right, and so humility with regard to one's own interpretations of the Scriptures is the only reasonable approach to the subject.

    This is not to say that all Orthodox Christians are truly humble, or that all Protestants are arrogant themselves and lack humility. I have known many Protestants who were themselves very humble, and I know that I myself am often very prideful. But having operated in both ways of thought, I can say experientially that the Orthodox approach to theology and spirituality is the path of humility and repentance.


    D. Maximalism / Full Worldview.
    Rather than the minimalism of Protestantism, which asks questions like "What are the essentials? What is the minimum requirements to be a Christian?" The Orthodox ask what is the most I can do as a Christian?

    The Orthodox Faith is a lifestyle, rather than a weekend hobby. We affirm the Inspiration of the Scriptures as firmly as any Protestant, but we also affirm the Apostolic Tradition that St. Paul told us included both written Scripture and oral Tradition -- both of which we are to hold fast to. Christianity is not reduced to a book, we have received our worship, as well as our theology from the Apostles.

    Rather than the Empiricism of Western Rationalism, that makes Christ and the Apostles out to be primitive thinking men who were foolish enough to believe in such phenomena as Demonization and miracles, the Orthodox Church affirms Christ as maker of all things visible and invisible -- both of the empirical and of the supernatural. We pray for healing and call on physicians -- because God is not limited to either to natural or to supernatural means to accomplish his purposes. God can heal through the wisdom and skill of a doctor, and through the anointing of oil from St. John Maximovitch's tomb.

    In the Orthodox Church, we affirm that there are demons that influence people and that people are responsible for their own actions. Our worldview can allow that a man could be driven insane by demons, and that a man could be insane because of a physical disease. We see no contradiction between the Empirical and the Supernatural -- and so we are not blind to either reality. Miracles are in fact such an accepted fact of life in the Church, that we do not go ga ga just because a miracle takes place -- because we realize that it is not just God that works miracles, but demons as well. Our society in general has been so closed to the supernatural, that when they are confronted with an undeniable supernatural happening -- they automatically assume it to be divine, and so many have fallen into demonic deception in our times.


    So we have Orthodox and Catholic corporatism vs. Protestant individualism. It's all explained here. Yours and Myatt's interpretation of Christianity in general is based largely on Protestantism and not Catholicism and definetly not on Orthodoxy.

    The rest of your post is also purely based on Protestant notions and definately on their "scriptures only" approach; which is rejected by Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Scriptures is important but so are the works of the Church fathers who further developed the theological basis for the faith.

  8. #8
    Senior Member rhadley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Wednesday, March 30th, 2005 @ 05:46 AM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Gender
    Age
    42
    Politics
    National Socialism
    Posts
    174
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Pushkin
    Oh there is much more difference between Protestantism and Catholicism/Orthodoxy than just what you mention. Here's a good Orthodox website that explains this further.

    Thanks for the quote which was interesting and informative.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pushkin
    So we have Orthodox and Catholic corporatism vs. Protestant individualism. It's all explained here. Yours and Myatt's interpretation of Christianity in general is based largely on Protestantism and not Catholicism and definetly not on Orthodoxy.

    The rest of your post is also purely based on Protestant notions and definately on their "scriptures only" approach; which is rejected by Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Scriptures is important but so are the works of the Church fathers who further developed the theological basis for the faith.
    Well... Here goes!

    The Protestant tradition is "sola scriptura", the Bible acts as the standard, while - as you say and I know and as your example shows - the Catholic and Orthodox traditions also rely on other authorities.

    BUT - the fact remains that the basis for all types of Xtianity is revelation, which includes the incarnation of Jesus, and that the final authority is the Bible. The "other authorities" - be they Councils, Popes, Bishops, theologians, or whatever, always return to that source of revelation.

    The corporate or communal approach of Catholicism and Orthodoxy does not alter this fact, not does it alter the truth that Christians of all types believe that God created human beings to live eternally and that this is described in the Bible in terms of the resurrection of individuals, a judgment of them by God, and eternal life in either Heaven or Hell according to that judgment. To attain this eternal life in Heaven we have to be "redeemed", and this "only occurs through Jesus".

    For the sake of simplicity, let's say that the "way to God" differs somehwat in the different Xtian sects, but the God, the revelation, the incarnation are still the same. That is, the approach is still one of individual redemption, of sin, of guidance, revelation from God, enshrined at the beginning in guiding Israel, and then through Jesus and his teachings, as recorded in the New Testament, and manifest in "the Church", i.e. the Xtian "community". [It has been disputed as to who or what this "Israel" was and is, and who or what this "community" was and is.] In addition, the God, the supreme Being, is the same - and most certainly not Myatt's Cosmic Being.

    All this - the guidance, the revelation, redemption and so on - is very open to "interpretation", with scripture, and the Fathers of the Church, or whomsoever, being quoted to "prove" one particular interpretation. And we still have the scenario of people of different lands believing that their Xtian God favors or can favor their land, their deeds, their invasions, or whatever.

    The approach - through all the Xtian "sects" - is the same; the way of life is the same. The mentality is the same. Ritual, sin, redemption; grace; guidance that ultimately goes back to the Bible, to revelation. There is still the problem of the multitude of interpretations that such an approach casues.

    So, in summation, I still believe Myatt's point is valid. Anyone else care to comment?

  9. #9
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Post

    I suggest a different tac.
    Myatt briefly describes his own theological outlook in the first appendix to his Constitution; let those who are Christian Racialists look at it to see if there is anything in it they object to.
    I will simplify it here, picking out some points from it.
    Remember that 'Being' stands for existence in the widest sense;

    It is based on fundamental tenets:

    I) That there exists a supra-human Being, which Being creates Order from Chaos.
    Order is more evolved, or a more excellent arrangement of things.

    2) Organic life is an expression of the Order of the life, of the Spirit of this Being.

    3) Change is a natural part of the evolution of organic life; birth-life-death-renewal.

    4) Death is not the final end, but the beginning of further change.

    5) Nature is the Cosmic Being.

    6) We, as individuals, are this Cosmic Being made MANIFEST.

    7) Our evolution is an increase in the Cosmic Order and expresses the purpose, the LIFE, or the Will of the Cosmic Being.
    The striving for Order (or excellence), for evolution toward Higher Forms, is thus natural and necessary.

    8) The Cosmic Being exists through HONOUR (or fairness), through CURIOSITY (or reason) and through STRIVING (or the triumph of individual Will).
    Thus, an honourable individual is someone who is doing the Will, or accomplishing the work, of this Cosmic Being.

    9) CULTURE, RACE and EXCELLENCE of INDIVIDUAL CHARARCTER express the Will of this divine Being, working through Nature to bring about more Order, more diversity and more difference through evolution.
    Culture thus expresses the essence of our humanity; to undermine or seek to destroy culture and cultural difference and diversity, is to act against the Will of the divine creator.
    A culture is;
    i) the unique customs, outlook and traditions and achievements of a particular community, with this community sharing a common racila heritage, and
    ii) having a certain civilised way of life; a cultured person is he who is civilised, and who possesses a sense of identity.

    10) The human species has been given a special mission by the Cosmic Being, and this is made manifest by the CIVILISATION which humans create.
    The unique and special Destiny of the human species is to bring the divine light of diverse civilisations into the world, and out into the cosmos itself - to explore and colonise the star systems of the cosmos.

    ---------

    Myatt presents this as a Way for spiritually-minded pantheist N-S to function alongside other N-S who may be Odinists, Christians, White Muslims etc.,

    On chivalry; I think that this was a residue of pagan ethics which found their way into Christianity. Indeed, Christianity itself caused a sublimation of those ethics. But look at the Greco-Roman discussions of various forms of love etc.,

    AMOR
    M**O
    O**M
    ROMA

    I agree in the main with what rhadley says.
    My own conception is that Christianity is largely based on the Aryan Sun Myths [cf., Mithras, Apollo etc.,].
    The Semitic aspect of Christianity to which we strongly reject is the moral aspect; that which speaks of sin, guilt etc., in the way it does.
    Myatt is right to replace this perspective with that of Honour.
    By doing so, he Aryanises morality for us.

    However, I can imagine a Christian like Pushkin living to that morality of Honour within a Christian confession.
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  10. #10
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Post

    I thought that the above post was lost when the site crashed as I tried to send it the other day. That's why it hasn't been corrected.
    Anyway, to go on;

    As HONOUR is so important to the moral aspect of Myatt's Theology, I just want to add these remarks from Myatt's appendix on;
    'The Code of Honour',
    which is also in his Constitution.

    "1) When a Man of Honour [MH] gives his word, once sworn, this oath can only be ended either,
    a) by the MH formally asking to be released from the oath, or
    b) by the death of the person to whom the oath was sworn.
    Anything else is dishonourable.

    2) A MH is prepared to do his honourable duty by challenging to a duel anyone who impugns his honour.
    Honour is only satisfied if the MH challenges his accuser to a duel and fights it.

    3) A MH is prepared to die - if necessary by his own hand - rather than suffer the indignity of having to do anything dishonourable.

    4) A MH treats others couteously, regardless of their culture, religion and race, and treats women gallantly, and is disdainful and contemptuous of those who treat him with disrespect or try to harm him.

    5) A MH, in public, is somewhat reserved and controlled and not given to displays of emotion, or to boasting; preferring, as he does, deeds to words.

    6) A MH does not lie, does not steal or cheat; but he may use guile or cunning to decieve his sworn enemies: only provided always that he does not personally benefit from such guile or cunning; and provided always that honour is satisfied.

    7) A MH strives to dress in a clean, discreet way in practical clothes devoid of ostentation and suitable to the task in hand.

    ------------

    These are just a few selected points; but they certainly indicate the correct bearing of an Aryan.
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. What is National Socialism
    By Schneider in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Wednesday, May 9th, 2012, 12:00 PM
  2. What Would You Choose? National Socialism or National Anarchism?
    By DieMenschMaschine in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: Tuesday, June 28th, 2011, 05:51 PM
  3. Chauvinism, National-Socialism or Racial-Socialism?
    By Lusitano in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Thursday, May 4th, 2006, 06:02 PM
  4. National Socialism - And Not Something Else!
    By Wissen ist Macht in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: Saturday, July 2nd, 2005, 09:58 PM
  5. National Socialism and National Anarchism
    By Aethrei in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: Saturday, January 31st, 2004, 05:05 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •