Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 40

Thread: Gods: the Permutations of Transcendency

  1. #1
    Keeps your Whites Whiter.
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    SuuT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    SkandoNordid/Nordicised Faelid
    Gender
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic MeritAristocracy
    Religion
    Heiðinn
    Posts
    1,467
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Gods: the Permutations of Transcendency

    ...It follows to say that a cosmology that is this-worldly i.e. rooted in verifiable/falsifiable scientific fact; culturally related as, derived from and commited to, the indemnification of race and the principles of race; blood and geographical entities and the fair claim to geographical, moral, and ethical homogeneic liberty as following from a biological imperative, or any faith system that is demonstratively self-consistent and self-integrated with these this-worldly concerns, is a solution superior to reliance on a God, or any god, that can be neither demonstrated to exist, nor demonstrated to not exist, let alone be of aid in the above scope, to preserve Germanic racial, spiritual, and cultural preservation...

    Additions?
    "...The moral man is a lower species than the immoral, a weaker species; indeed - he is a type in regard to morality, but not a type in himself; a copy...the measure of his value lies outside him. ... I assess the power of a will by how much resistance, pain, torture it endures and knows how to turn to its advantage; I do not account the evil and painful character of existence a reproach to it, but hope rather that it will one day be more evil and painful than hitherto..." (Nietzsche)

  2. #2
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 10:18 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

    Re: Prolegomena to the Declaration of Germanic Independence

    Quote Originally Posted by Suut View Post
    ...It follows to say that a cosmology that is this-worldly i.e. rooted in verifiable/falsifiable scientific fact ...
    ... following from a biological imperative, ....
    ... is a solution superior to reliance on a God, or any god, that can be neither demonstrated to exist, nor demonstrated to not exist, let alone be of aid in the above scope, to preserve Germanic racial, spiritual, and cultural preservation...
    I disagree; I think every tribe must have its god or gods if it is to survive.

    There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
    Than are dreamt of in your philosophy
    .
    [Hamlet]

    See also CG Jung's 'Wotan' essay of 1936 for the true god of the Germans.
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  3. #3
    Auf der Durchreise
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Online
    Saturday, September 27th, 2008 @ 10:26 PM
    Subrace
    Nordocromagnosomething
    Country
    Germany Germany
    Gender
    Politics
    NS
    Posts
    1,303
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    AW: Re: Prolegomena to the Declaration of Germanic Independence

    Quote Originally Posted by Moody View Post
    I disagree; I think every tribe must have its god or gods if it is to survive.

    There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
    Than are dreamt of in your philosophy
    .
    [Hamlet]

    See also CG Jung's 'Wotan' essay of 1936 for the true god of the Germans.
    But is the God Wotan as a Jungian archetype not all too this-worldly?

    I see a huge difference between the theologies (concepts of God) of Semitic and Indo-aryan religions. The Aryan Gods, if one accepts them as real and lives with them (I wouldn't even say: believes in them), are part of this world, not another.

    Besides, as racial archetypes, the Gods are part of or in a way linked with our biological identity. They can take on different forms. They don't have to manifest themselves in the form of "religion" - which itself remains a genuinely semitic concept unless we re-define it in a radical way that allows for, e.g. accepting "atheism" (or what Christians and Muslims call "atheism") as a form of religion. Perhaps one can see the Gods as the highest – still non-transcendent – manifestation of what Suut called the "biological imperative".

  4. #4
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 10:18 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

    Re: AW: Re: Prolegomena to the Declaration of Germanic Independence

    Quote Originally Posted by Pervitinist View Post
    But is the God Wotan as a Jungian archetype not all too this-worldly?
    He is - but he is also invisible.

    I see a huge difference between the theologies (concepts of God) of Semitic and Indo-aryan religions. The Aryan Gods, if one accepts them as real and lives with them (I wouldn't even say: believes in them), are part of this world, not another.
    I agree that there is a differing Semitic/Aryan conception, although I would see this difference as being more in terms of morality.

    Also, I would say that the Wotanish archetypes exist on another plane to mortals, too. That is not to say that they don't visit our own plane.
    But they are immortals [unlike us].
    If they weren't, then we couldn't refer to them as gods.

    Besides, as racial archetypes, the Gods are part of or in a way linked with our biological identity.
    Of course - but that goes for the God of the Jews too.
    That's why a tribe needs its gods, to represent its racial identity on a metaphysical plane.
    Wotan does this for the Teutonic peoples.

    They can take on different forms. They don't have to manifest themselves in the form of "religion" - which itself remains a genuinely semitic concept unless we re-define it in a radical way that allows for, e.g. accepting "atheism" (or what Christians and Muslims call "atheism") as a form of religion.
    That may be a paradox too far, as a rejection of the gods [whih is what a-theism means] would ean a rejection of the Aesir and the Vanir.
    You define them out of existence.

    Perhaps one can see the Gods as the highest – still non-transcendent – manifestation of what Suut called the "biological imperative".
    But is Wotan "non-transcendent"?
    If so, how?
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  5. #5
    Auf der Durchreise
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Online
    Saturday, September 27th, 2008 @ 10:26 PM
    Subrace
    Nordocromagnosomething
    Country
    Germany Germany
    Gender
    Politics
    NS
    Posts
    1,303
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    AW: Re: AW: Re: Prolegomena to the Declaration of Germanic Independenc

    Quote Originally Posted by Moody View Post
    He is - but he is also invisible.
    But many things are invisible and still part of this world like atoms, molecules, abstract concepts, ideas (even nations and peoples are invisible entities). They transcend the realm of the senses, but not necessarily the world as a whole.

    I agree that there is a differing Semitic/Aryan conception, although I would see this difference as being more in terms of morality.
    I think both differences are very real. Moreover, I think that the different moralities are rooted in more fundamental metaphysical/theological differences, i.e. different concepts of what God/the Divine consists in.

    Also, I would say that the Wotanish archetypes exist on another plane to mortals, too. That is not to say that they don't visit our own plane.
    The question is: another plane of what? Are such "planes" worlds apart or are they part of a greater whole? At least, it seems, they are both in being.

    But they are immortals [unlike us].
    If they weren't, then we couldn't refer to them as gods.
    At least they are immortal relative to us. But all Indo-Aryan religions include theogonies - i.e. mythological accounts of how the Gods came into being. So they are not 'pre-eternal'. Germanic mythology furthermore includes an account of how they will one day pass out of being again. So they are not even 'post-eternal'. Therefore their immortality is not absolute. They can be seen as 'higher beings' but not as above being itself.

    In Homer's Iliad, e.g. there are scenes where the Gods are wounded by human weapons, and there is even a description of their blood. This has to be seen symbolically of course, and their wounds instantly heal, but still it shows how the Gods - even as immortals - are part of this world of becoming and passing away and how they are affected by inner-wordly events.

    Of course - but that goes for the God of the Jews too.
    That's why a tribe needs its gods, to represent its racial identity on a metaphysical plane.
    Wotan does this for the Teutonic peoples.
    Here I agree with you. The original form of Jewish spirituality may have been very similar to that of Indo-Aryan religion (or, in fact, directly borrowed from it). But the Jews twisted it and turned it into an absolute Monotheism.

    That may be a paradox too far, as a rejection of the gods [whih is what a-theism means] would ean a rejection of the Aesir and the Vanir.
    You define them out of existence.
    Not exactly what I meant. I mean we should return to the old (Hellenic) meaning of "a-theism" as not accepting the Gods (in the plural) as real as entities that are part of this world. According to this concepts, all adherents of Semitic religions would have to be classified as Atheists - not by being "unbelievers" however, but by virtue of their twisted – transcendentalist – faith.

    But is Wotan "non-transcendent"?
    If so, how?
    I think so. I think he, like the other Gods, is not transcendent to being and to the world. He is immanent in a sense similar to the world-immanence of individual human minds as something that is to be described in an immaterial way as something "invisible", yet not removed from the world of visible things and in some ways affected by them.

  6. #6
    Naturbursche
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Boche's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Wednesday, December 24th, 2008 @ 11:35 AM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Country
    Germany Germany
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Posts
    1,574
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Re: Prolegomena to the Declaration of Germanic Independence

    This is wrong. Wotan and all the other "Asen" (speaking of paganism now) were humanoid. Not invisible. They were actually lifeforms, just with other abilities which were not usual for a human.
    Going after the old scriptures they were just some sort of "Übermensch" actually.
    The word "God" had another meaning. Not what we know nowadays under the word "God".
    A "God" wasn't invisible back then, just a superior humanoid (what that could have been, an anciet race or whatever i can't get further into).

    This Neo-Paganism and Neo-Heathenism are the people who christianize our ancient religion with saying that Thor and Odin are somewhere, invisible and never walked on earth.
    Also one reason why i distance myself from neo-heathenistic organisations.

    The "Gods" existed to teach us what is right and what is wrong, and how to advance ourselves and our spirits.



    Gruß,
    Boche
    Last edited by Boche; Sunday, January 21st, 2007 at 05:37 PM.
    "We Germans fear God, but nothing else in the world; and already that godliness is it, which let us love and foster peace."
    - Otto von Bismarck, 1888

  7. #7
    Keeps your Whites Whiter.
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    SuuT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    SkandoNordid/Nordicised Faelid
    Gender
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic MeritAristocracy
    Religion
    Heiðinn
    Posts
    1,467
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Re: Prolegomena to the Declaration of Germanic Independence

    Quote Originally Posted by Suut View Post
    ...It follows to say that a cosmology that is this-worldly i.e. rooted in verifiable/falsifiable scientific fact; culturally related as, derived from and commited to, the indemnification of race and the principles of race; blood and geographical entities and the fair claim to geographical, moral, and ethical homogeneic liberty as following from a biological imperative, or any faith system that is demonstratively self-consistent and self-integrated with these this-worldly concerns, is a solution superior to reliance on a God, or any god, that can be neither demonstrated to exist, nor demonstrated to not exist, let alone be of aid in the above scope, to preserve Germanic racial, spiritual, and cultural preservation...

    Additions?
    I.) The milieu of any desire to radically change the socio-cultural milieu in which it finds itself, must - as history has shown - utilise said socio-cultural milieu, and the dynamics thereof, to energise the milieu of the desire for radical change.

    To simplify: practical and pragmatic concerns are the politics of the day: the Aristotelian "Science of the Good" is mumified - at least right now. What denotes a "practical and pragmatic concern" resides in any manner of every-dayness. That our (e.g. Racialists/Racists) every-dayness differs from that of the every-dayness of the majority presents itself (is true prima facie). With such a quantity of individuals arrayed against a deviant world view such as Racialism/Racism, some political means are necessary to bring to the attention of members within the non-deviant group's attention, our desires - and, why we desire them.

    To this end, we swallow the bitter pill of Modern politics, and take from the majority a recognisable socio-cultural scaffold - something to which our words and ideas can adhere, our standard, and superimpose our generalised credo upon the familiarity of anything that has had the advantage of being both recent, as well as aged sufficiently to have imprinted itslef upon a mass (e.g. the 'Decalaration of Independence').

    The document that I chose for experimental purposes to these ends stands to reason as the most effective, and affective, generailsation of a peoples credo that is both recent, and sufficiently aged, to introduce to a wider audience principles to which they may very well find themselves simply waiting for (leadership), or put to - and in - a voice that strikes a chord of familiarity in their being.


    II.) 'God' (or, and rather, the god 'concept') while must needs addressed, must also take into consideration the højde, styrke, rang, pinta, taso, stig, staða, nivå, høyde, stilling, das Niveau of the concept, itself, which - in the now - differs across Germania.

    We address, as is appropriate, this issue in terms of faith, therefore.

    Our rubric must be general. It must be accessible as a means of change.

    It must address the realities of - if things stay their course - foreseeable extinction. I.e. Biological imperative (whether we inherit the whole of what we are in this way, or no).


    It must be down to this Earth - in a necessarily banal way.
    Last edited by Moody; Sunday, January 28th, 2007 at 04:15 PM. Reason: name of thread changed [removed refs to old name]
    "...The moral man is a lower species than the immoral, a weaker species; indeed - he is a type in regard to morality, but not a type in himself; a copy...the measure of his value lies outside him. ... I assess the power of a will by how much resistance, pain, torture it endures and knows how to turn to its advantage; I do not account the evil and painful character of existence a reproach to it, but hope rather that it will one day be more evil and painful than hitherto..." (Nietzsche)

  8. #8
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 10:18 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

    Re: Prolegomena to the Declaration of Germanic Independence

    Quote Originally Posted by Pervitinist View Post
    But many things are invisible and still part of this world like atoms, molecules, abstract concepts, ideas (even nations and peoples are invisible entities). They transcend the realm of the senses, but not necessarily the world as a whole.
    I wouldn't lump all those things together:

    'Nations' and 'peoples' are collective terms referring to multiple physical entities, which are grouped in a certain way.

    A nominalist will say that the universal term 'nation' does not exist in and of itself, but rather denotes an entity in a short-hand way.
    It is easier to say the 'British nation', rather than say 'the six million people living in Britain who have British citizenship'.

    To Aristotle, such universals cannot exist apart from the entities which instantiate them.

    However, Plato did believe that such universals were separate, existent and invisible.

    He called them Forms [from eidos, and sometimes called Ideas] and believed that there was a realm of such Forms which were perfect and were only graspable via pure reasoning - the things of this earth only imperfectly 'partake' of the Forms.

    So, all the nations on earth would be mere imperfect copies of one Form of The Nation, which is perfect.

    So the Platonic position would be that the Gods existed in an invisible realm of perfect Forms. A realm which is out there despite us, and can only be contacted by a few special beings [such as philosophers].

    'Atoms' and 'molecules' do refer to things which can be seen by the eye, even if it may need the aid of a microscope, so they are not invisible per se.
    Invisibility is not down to the limitations of the human eye - invisibility is down to an absolute non-physicality.

    Therefore, the gods inhabit that Platonic realm of Forms, and they may 'visit' this earth via the invocations of gifted and courageous men.

    I think that the different moralities are rooted in more fundamental metaphysical/theological differences, i.e. different concepts of what God/the Divine consists in.
    Such as?

    The question is: another plane of what? Are such "planes" worlds apart or are they part of a greater whole? At least, it seems, they are both in being.
    'Plane' is something like a modern word for the 'Forms', I suspect.
    Mankind has long suspected that existence happens on may different planes, and the plane that we know [Suut's "this-wordly" plane] is just one of them.
    The other planes may be only invisible due to the limitations of human consciousness, or else they may be actually invisible and have no physical presence.

    Be-ing itself may partake of an infinite and asymmetrical multiplicity rather than a finite whole. There may be invisible planes which intersect with our earthly one and only be picked up on by 'sensitives' etc.,
    Or else there may have been a past and lost civilisation which was able to contact such invisible realms in the past, an ability now lost [Atlantis etc.,]

    At least they are immortal relative to us.
    Again, as with invisibility, this needn't be judged against human limitations.
    We call ourselves 'mortals' and 'human' because we know that Death awaits us all. It is the bare fact that confronts every man - as Montaigne said, 'to philosophise is to learn how to die'.

    And this is how we differ from the gods [and it is how the gods differ from the demi-gods].

    So I would say that immortality means just that: the gods do not face mortality [death] and neither do they face decay [dying is a part of death].

    The tales which describe the gods losing their immortality [such as the Golden Apples of Idunn etc.,] are catastrophic, and unusually depict them as aging, and becoming mortal.
    The death of the gods is nihilism in its purest form.
    Therefore the immortality of the gods must be absolute for it to be really divine.

    And how else could Wotan await his return, as Jung describes it, if He were not immortal?

    And then Nietzsche proclaimed that the Christian God had died - but he had rather died in the minds and hearts of men.

    The Form 'God' is immortal - and invisible.

    But all Indo-Aryan religions include theogonies - i.e. mythological accounts of how the Gods came into being. So they are not 'pre-eternal'. Germanic mythology furthermore includes an account of how they will one day pass out of being again. So they are not even 'post-eternal'. Therefore their immortality is not absolute. They can be seen as 'higher beings' but not as above being itself.
    I disagree; you are referring here to the endless cycles [cf., the Eternal Return]. Aryanism does not follow the linear, historicist view, but rather posits endless cycles on the tripartite model of [pre-birth], birth, life, death [after-death].
    The Ragnarok clearly describes how the twilight of the gods will be followed by a New Order [and so on ad infinitum].

    Also, there is never a complete 'nothingness' - there is always at least some 'mist' between cycles or recurrence [see Nietzsche's philosophical treatment of this in his 'Eternal recurrence of the Same'].

    As Nietzsche's Zarathustra says - 'I love you, Eternity'.

    I believe that Eternity is an important aspect of the Aryan religiosity, an aspect that atheism seems to reject.

    In Homer's Iliad, e.g. there are scenes where the Gods are wounded by human weapons, and there is even a description of their blood. This has to be seen symbolically of course, and their wounds instantly heal, but still it shows how the Gods - even as immortals - are part of this world of becoming and passing away and how they are affected by inner-wordly events.
    You say "becoming and passing away", but leave out the important rejoinder; "passing way to new becoming". This is the Heraclitean flux, and the tripartite mystical system of Guido von List.

    The original form of Jewish spirituality may have been very similar to that of Indo-Aryan religion (or, in fact, directly borrowed from it). But the Jews twisted it and turned it into an absolute Monotheism.
    Well I would say that every people worth its salt has its own gods.
    It is when a people worships alien gods that we may be looking at a problematic.
    But can we say that 'Monotheism' was necessaily a "twisting"? Perhaps 'monotheism' was a particularate Aryan aberation which was latched onto by the Jews, or else an extrapolation from a form of Henotheism?

    Absolute Monotheism is certainly antithetical to the Aryan way - but Henotheism isn't.
    See how Norsemen took one god in particular to heart, for example.
    Indeed, this tendency may have helped to usher in Christianity.

    I mean we should return to the old (Hellenic) meaning of "a-theism" as not accepting the Gods as real as entities that are part of this world. According to this concepts, all adherents of Semitic religions would have to be classified as Atheists - not by being "unbelievers" however, but by virtue of their twisted – transcendentalist – faith.
    But you need to explain what you mean by the seeming paradox of a non-transcendental god [and I would say that transcendentalism is more Aryan than Semitic].
    Do you mean a 'god' like Jesus who came among us as a man and was punished and executed like a man - bleeding and dying like a common criminal?

    I think Wotan, like the other Gods, is not transcendent to being and to the world. He is immanent in a sense similar to the world-immanence of individual human minds as something that is to be described in an immaterial way as something "invisible", yet not removed from the world of visible things and in some ways affected by them.
    Yes - He is immanent, but also transecendent; in order to be a god He must have transcendent qualities [ie., be outside of Time and Space].
    Do you deny that Wotan is able to transcend Time & Space?


    Quote Originally Posted by Boche View Post
    Wotan and all the other "Asen" (speaking of paganism now) were humanoid. Not invisible. They were actually lifeforms, just with other abilities which were not usual for a human.
    Going after the old scriptures they were just some sort of "Übermensch" actually.
    The word "God" had another meaning. Not what we know nowadays under the word "God".
    A "God" wasn't invisible back then, just a superior humanoid (what that could have been, an ancient race or whatever I can't get further into).
    I don't see why there should be such an either/or.
    Sure, the gods are depicted as taking on human form and of sometimes having human-all-too-human traits. But they also have, not only superhuman, but trans-human qualities: such as their immortality, their ability to shape-chage and to generally transcend Time and Space.

    That there was a belief in the After-Life is indicated by the strong mythos of the Valkyries and Valhalla. The transcendent aspect is illustrated by well-known concepts like the rainbow-bridge etc., i.e., there was a belief in other worlds - at least 9 of them! - which all existed on different planes.

    "This world", this middle-earth, was only one of them.

    And the Viking sutte funerals in which the soul of the dead man was thought to go up in the smoke to join the gods suggest that a world of invisible spirit was accepted - likewise the belief in a parallel faery world of sprites, elfs etc.,

    This Neo-Paganism and Neo-Heathenism are the people who christianize our ancient religion with saying that Thor and Odin are somewhere, invisible and never walked on earth.
    This is illogical - it is Christianity that says that God walked the earth as a man [ie., Jesus]; it is Christianity that takes an historical form and teaches a 'realist' relgion.
    Snorri's view [in the Elder Edda] that Odin was a real man [euhermerism] must be seen in the context of Snorri himself being a Christian.
    I am not denying that Odin, Thor, Balder etc., may have walked the earth - nor am I denying that they visited the earth as the myths tell us. However, I believe also that they are gods - able to exist on invisible planes, beyond Time and Space.
    This transcendental view is Aryan and far pre-dates Christianity - just as the Vedas pre-date Judaism.
    Last edited by Moody; Sunday, January 28th, 2007 at 04:16 PM. Reason: thread name changed [removed refs to old name]
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  9. #9
    Keeps your Whites Whiter.
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    SuuT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    SkandoNordid/Nordicised Faelid
    Gender
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic MeritAristocracy
    Religion
    Heiðinn
    Posts
    1,467
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Re: Prolegomena to the Declaration of Germanic Independence

    First off, I am no atheist (as is known); I am, however, an agnostic - as are all thinking peoples. One thing I am with no reservations whatsoever, is an Infidel.

    Agnosticism requires a single doubt, however minute, about the existence of an argument that proves the existence of (G)od, or any other god (who is not an agnostic...?). An agnostic insists that it is impossible to prove that there is no God and impossible to prove that there is one. He insists as such as it is a manifest truth. Not necessarily because he is an Atheist (from the Greek άθεος [without a god/godless] - not "rejection" of a/the god(s), as you have said in this thread), but because it is an issue of faith in the immaterial (if one is a divine immaterialist); or, an issue of faith in the material (in the cases in which divine transcendency/transmogrification is the result of superior human beings are made all the more so via legend, fame, and time).


    Are you not an agnostic, Moody?


    Originally Posted by Suut
    ...It follows to say that a cosmology that is this-worldly i.e. rooted in verifiable/falsifiable scientific fact ...
    ... following from a biological imperative, ....
    ... is a solution superior to reliance on a God, or any god, that can be neither demonstrated to exist, nor demonstrated to not exist, let alone be of aid in the above scope, to preserve Germanic racial, spiritual, and cultural preservation...

    Quote Originally Posted by Moody
    I disagree; I think every tribe must have its god or gods if it is to survive.
    As you have cherry-picked this, I disagree too! However, I can think of no way to legislate a peoples god or gods. Any such documents that will in the future address our standard must deal with these two most basic items, detailed already:

    I.) The milieu of any desire to radically change the socio-cultural milieu in which it finds itself, must - as history has shown - utilise said socio-cultural milieu, and the dynamics thereof, to energise the milieu of the desire for radical change.

    II.) 'God' (or, and rather, the god 'concept') while must needs addressed, must also take into consideration the højde, styrke, rang, pinta, taso, stig, staða, nivå, høyde, stilling, das Niveau of the concept, itself, which - in the now - differs across Germania.

    Based on your posts that resonably enter the orbit of this matter, one would be forced to assume that you would argue in favour of a Theocracy.

    If so - you're dead already: I wouldn't hold your breath in expectation of agreeable parties.


    There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
    [Hamlet]
    "To be or not to be, - that is the question -
    Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
    The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
    Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
    And by opposing end them?"
    Hamlet (III, i, 56-61)
    Last edited by Moody; Sunday, January 28th, 2007 at 04:18 PM. Reason: thread name changed [removed refs to old name]
    "...The moral man is a lower species than the immoral, a weaker species; indeed - he is a type in regard to morality, but not a type in himself; a copy...the measure of his value lies outside him. ... I assess the power of a will by how much resistance, pain, torture it endures and knows how to turn to its advantage; I do not account the evil and painful character of existence a reproach to it, but hope rather that it will one day be more evil and painful than hitherto..." (Nietzsche)

  10. #10
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 10:18 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

    Re: Prolegomena to the Declaration of Germanic Independence

    Quote Originally Posted by SuuT View Post
    Agnosticism requires a single doubt, however minute, about the existence of an argument that proves the existence of (G)od, or any other god (who is not an agnostic...?)
    .....Are you not an agnostic, Moody?
    One can be a believer and an agnostic - indeed, I think it is near impossible to be only one or the other.

    If we had total doubt [i.e., without belief] then, as Blake said, "if the sun and moon would doubt, they would quickly go out."

    We must have some belief, otherwise we would not be able to go on.
    After all, who is to say that the sun will come up tomorrow?

    Shouldn't you doubt that too?

    And who is to say that your next heart-beat will not be your last?

    Doubt that too!

    We believe in so many things that we really could doubt, but we don't - either because they are automatic and unthought, or are just habit.

    As Hume pointed out, we assume cause and effect in so many siutations where that assumption is not prooved.

    In other words, we believe in far more than we doubt.

    No man - not even Descartes - can follow the maxim de omnibus dubitandum, no matter how pious he is in his avowed scepticism.

    So let us not doubt the gods - lest they 'go out'.

    Based on your posts that resonably enter the orbit of this matter, one would be forced to assume that you would argue in favour of a Theocracy. If so - you're dead already: I wouldn't hold your breath in expectation of agreeable parties.
    But the gods do rule ... the cosmos.

    The mistake is in making the priests into rulers here on earth.

    No, the warriors should rule on earth - that is the way the gods prefer it.
    Last edited by Moody; Sunday, January 28th, 2007 at 04:19 PM. Reason: thread name changed [refs to old name removed]
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Asking the Gods
    By Dagna in forum Germanic Heathenry
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009, 07:45 PM
  2. A World With Many Gods
    By Ælfhere in forum Cosmology & Mythology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Sunday, May 28th, 2006, 07:47 AM
  3. State of the Gods
    By Blutwölfin in forum Germanic Heathenry
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: Sunday, March 12th, 2006, 02:03 AM
  4. Gods and Half-Gods Fathered by Odin, Listed in the Skáldskaparmál
    By Blutwölfin in forum Cosmology & Mythology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Sunday, February 12th, 2006, 04:07 PM
  5. Symbols of the Gods
    By Blutwölfin in forum Cosmology & Mythology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Thursday, November 24th, 2005, 08:25 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
  •