View Poll Results: Is Christianity alien to Germanics?

Voters
534. You may not vote on this poll
  • Christianity is as alien to Germanics as Judaism and Islam.

    199 37.27%
  • Christianity is alien in origin, but it is less alien than Judaism and Islam.

    146 27.34%
  • Christianity is not alien to Germanics at all.

    163 30.52%
  • Other (please explain).

    26 4.87%
Page 4 of 136 FirstFirst 1234567891454104 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 1355

Thread: Is Christianity Alien to Germanics?

  1. #31
    Senior Member Airmanareiks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Last Online
    Thursday, February 3rd, 2011 @ 08:09 PM
    Ethnicity
    Icelandic
    Gender
    Age
    51
    Posts
    176
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Christianity not for Germanics?

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

    Why was this?

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

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


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

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

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

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

  2. #32
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Oski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    Thursday, August 15th, 2019 @ 03:11 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    American
    Ancestry
    England & Norway
    Subrace
    Faelid + Nordid
    Y-DNA
    R-M405
    mtDNA
    U5a1a1
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    California California
    Gender
    Family
    Single parent
    Occupation
    Property management
    Politics
    Germanic Preservation
    Religion
    Heathen
    Posts
    1,679
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    6 Posts

    Re: Christianity not for Germanics?

    No christianity!

    No Judaism!

    No Islam!



    Stay germanic, choose a european faith.

  3. #33
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Leofric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    Monday, June 25th, 2018 @ 03:15 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    California California
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Gender
    Age
    41
    Zodiac Sign
    Aquarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Telecommunications
    Politics
    Libertarian/Neo-Imperialist
    Religion
    Heathen
    Posts
    1,200
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    10
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts

    Re: Christianity not for Germanics?

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

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

    What is your view on this issue?

    Is it a problem or not?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  4. #34
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Engelbrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Online
    Thursday, August 16th, 2012 @ 11:28 PM
    Ethnicity
    Swedish
    Subrace
    Bruenn + Borreby
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    State
    Nerike Nerike
    Gender
    Age
    49
    Family
    Married parent
    Religion
    Christian
    Posts
    109
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Sv: Christianity not for Germanics?

    Thank you all for your very different, but most valuable points in this issue.

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

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

  5. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Last Online
    Saturday, March 31st, 2007 @ 02:35 AM
    Location
    USA
    Gender
    Politics
    Cosmotheist
    Posts
    42
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Christianity not for Germanics?

    Leofric wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




    Needle writes:

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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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


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

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

    Best regards,
    Needle

    http://www.cosmotheism.net
    http://www.cosmotheism.net

  6. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, July 16th, 2012 @ 02:14 AM
    Ethnicity
    CeltoGermanic
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    State
    Alabama Alabama
    Gender
    Age
    38
    Family
    Married, happily
    Occupation
    Tree Wizard
    Religion
    Wotanist
    Posts
    431
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Re: Christianity not for Germanics?

    I've read a lot of folks here say that it has a Semitic core, but I haven't ever read any of them say what exactly that Semitic core is or what exactly makes that core Semitic.
    Umm..it is Semitic at it's core because it was developed out of slave's resentment of their own impotence..

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

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

    The Birth of Tragedy & The Genealogy of Morals, translated by Francis Golffing..pages 178-180
    The origin of the mythological motifs of any religion, while they can (in varied ways) be historically "traced", are still pretty much up in the "air"...

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

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

    C.G.Jung, Psychologische Typen..from..Primitive Mythology by Joseph Campbell..page 23..
    But it's not the "origin" that matters it's how those myths are interpreted.. (which might just be the real Origin after all)..Either it is "afterthought" or it is "impotence"..!! And..I think it is obvious which is the "will to live"..after all don't the Christians consider the flesh wretched and seek in the Judgement Day..the coming of their Kingdom..to deliver them from it..and it's lusts..(which are to live)..and to punish those that revel in it (life)..??

    -Lyfing

  7. #37
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Leofric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    Monday, June 25th, 2018 @ 03:15 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    California California
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Gender
    Age
    41
    Zodiac Sign
    Aquarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Telecommunications
    Politics
    Libertarian/Neo-Imperialist
    Religion
    Heathen
    Posts
    1,200
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    10
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts

    Re: Christianity not for Germanics?

    Quote Originally Posted by Needle View Post
    Modern "Christianity" is a Semitic religion, as Jews are Semites, and they had "created" or "invented" it to spiritually destroy their Pagan or Roman enemies.
    The charge that Christianity was created to spiritually destroy is unproveable. Even if you could prove that Christianity necessarily has the effect of spiritual destruction (and I think you can't), you'd be hard pressed to prove that it was created for that purpose.

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



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

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

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

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

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



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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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



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



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

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

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



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

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

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

  8. #38
    Senior Member Mazorquero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Last Online
    Thursday, August 4th, 2016 @ 06:25 AM
    Ethnicity
    Son of Mars
    Ancestry
    South Tirol mainly, Italy, Northern Spain and France
    Subrace
    Subnordid + Atlantoid admix
    Country
    Other Other
    Location
    Córdoba
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    In a steady relationship
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Peronista ortodoxo
    Religion
    Agnóstico
    Posts
    549
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Re: Christianity not for Germanics?

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

  9. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Last Online
    Saturday, March 31st, 2007 @ 02:35 AM
    Location
    USA
    Gender
    Politics
    Cosmotheist
    Posts
    42
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Christianity not for Germanics?

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    The charge that Christianity was created to spiritually destroy is unproveable. Even if you could prove that Christianity necessarily has the effect of spiritual destruction (and I think you can't), you'd be hard pressed to prove that it was created for that purpose.


    Needle writes:

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

    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

    You write:

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

    Needle writes:

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

    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

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

    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

    Not true nor relevant.

    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

    It is not based upon any assumption but on fact.

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

    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

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

    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

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

    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

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

    You wrote:

    Christianity isn't based on blind faith.

    Needle writes:

    Yes, it is.

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

    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

    That is why "Christianity" is false and delusional.

    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

    Not exactly. LOL!

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

    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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


    You wrote:

    Many Christians accept Christianity primarily
    on blind faith.

    Needle writes:

    No, all Christians accept Christianity
    solely on Blind Faith.

    You wrote:

    Others accept it more on informed faith.

    Needle writes:

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

    You wrote:

    Others accept it primarily based on experiential knowledge.

    Needle writes:

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

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

    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

    You wrote:

    So is agriculture.

    Needle writes:

    Hardly. LOL!

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

    You wrote:

    But neither is anti-Aryan or anti-Germanic.

    Needle writes:

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

    You wrote:

    They're both just ethnically neutral.

    Needle writes:

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

    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

    I disagree completely.

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

    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

    Another irrelevant and false analogy.

    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

    Again, that is not relevant, whatsoever.

    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

    You wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Best regards,
    Needle

    http://www.cosmotheism.net
    http://www.cosmotheism.net

  10. #40
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Leofric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    Monday, June 25th, 2018 @ 03:15 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    California California
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Gender
    Age
    41
    Zodiac Sign
    Aquarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Telecommunications
    Politics
    Libertarian/Neo-Imperialist
    Religion
    Heathen
    Posts
    1,200
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    10
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts

    Re: Christianity not for Germanics?

    Needle:

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

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

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



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

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

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



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

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

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



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

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

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



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

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



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

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

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

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



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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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



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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

    The closest you came to actually having a discussion with me in your whole treatment of that explanation is here:
    Quote Originally Posted by Needle
    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric
    Others accept [Christianity] primarily based on experiential knowledge.
    Which "others" can base it on any "experimental knowledge"?

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

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

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

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

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

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



    Quote Originally Posted by Needle
    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric
    I would agree that Christianity is non-Aryan and non-Germanic.
    Indeed, it is, and as is any Blind Faith based idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric
    So is agriculture.
    Hardly. LOL!

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

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

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

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

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



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



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

    Indeed, many of them are Christians!



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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric
    Even if Christianity was developed by slaves as something of a placebo (and I don't think it was), that doesn't mean that it must be used as a placebo for slaves, even if it can be so used.
    Again, that is not relevant, whatsoever.
    There's that word again, irrelevant. I think that word does not mean what you think it means.



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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

Similar Threads

  1. Style of Ancient Germanics Comparing with Modern Germanics
    By Curious in forum Fashion & Beauty
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: Monday, January 30th, 2012, 01:35 AM
  2. Do Non-Germanics Have an Inferiority Complex in Relation to Germanics?
    By Bärin in forum Germanic & Indo-Germanic Origins
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: Thursday, December 22nd, 2011, 08:00 PM
  3. Replies: 8
    Last Post: Friday, April 22nd, 2011, 12:25 AM

Tags for this Thread

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
  •