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 5 of 136 FirstFirst 123456789101555105 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 1355

Thread: Is Christianity Alien to Germanics?

  1. #41
    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?

    I think this thread is starting to sway too far off-topic. Let me remind everyone of the original topic:
    Quote Originally Posted by Brutus
    As I can see when I look around this forum and when reading polls, many of you germanic people at this forum define your selfs as christian. By tradition I too define myself as christian.

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

    What is your view on this issue?

    Is it a problem or not?

    Eihter way - why or why not?
    Nowhere in here does this discuss, for example, whether Heathenism is better than Cosmotheism and vice versa.

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

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

  2. #42
    Senior Member Cythraul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Last Online
    Friday, April 23rd, 2010 @ 09:44 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    England & Nederlands
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    England England
    Location
    Buckinghamshire
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Family
    Engaged
    Occupation
    Graphic Design
    Politics
    Cynical
    Religion
    Old
    Posts
    848
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Re: Christianity not for Germanics?

    Religion and culture go hand in hand. If you stand exclusively by Germanic culture, you should therefore stand by the religion that shaped the Germanic people's way of life - Paganism.

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

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

  3. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, August 20th, 2009 @ 01:11 AM
    Ethnicity
    Slavic
    Subrace
    Uralic/Alpine/Pontid mixed
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    USA
    Gender
    Posts
    3,309
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Christianity not for Germanics?

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

    Anyways....my two cents for now:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    There's the Rhineland mystics of the Middle Ages. Most famous of them was Meister Eckhart. But there was also Hildegard of Bingen(the album "The Origin of Fire" is a wonderful recording of various hymns and prayers written by her).

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


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

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

    And so on. Sorry Im short on words.

    Quote Originally Posted by Valkyrie View Post
    Many people died only because they didn´t want to believe in Christ (our forefathers...especially the Saxons were slaughtered for beeing "heathen" - by christian Germanics!).
    No.....not really. The Saxons rebelled against Frankish rule, and that prompted the brutal response. The Franks and Saxons had a long standing rivalry with each other, long before Christianity even became an issue. This was the latest is a whole series of brutal affairs between the two tribes.

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

    So many people, predominantly women, were burned because the church sayed they were "witches" - which contacts to satan.
    I can say in regards to Catholicism and the Inquisition, that was extremely rare. Most historians now admit that most accounts of witch-burnings(or burnings in general) were greatly exaggerated. For example, some studies showed that between 1560-1700, only 2% of all people processed by the Inquisition were ever executed.

    No, the gods (there are more than one) can make mistakes,
    A god who can make mistakes is not really worth devotion IMHO.

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

    Family, Pride, Justice, Harmony, Nature, Heritage.
    Those are all Christian virtues as well....except pride(in the arrogant sense).


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

    There's plenty of written sources from the time(I believe St. Boniface wrote about how pagans and Christians blessed each other and took part in each other ceremonies) and also archeological evidence as well.
    Last edited by Moody; Thursday, March 22nd, 2007 at 07:18 PM. Reason: merged consecutive posts

  4. #44
    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?

    My Response to Leofric's "Apology"
    for "Judeo-Christianity".

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post

    Needle:

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

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

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


    Needle writes:

    Ok.

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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






    Needle writes:

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

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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










    Needle writes:

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

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

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






    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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


    Needle writes:

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

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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




    Needle writes:

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

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

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

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





    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

    What real evidence suggests that? Show it.

    Needle writes:

    How much real evidence do you need?

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

    Why nonsense?

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

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


    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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





    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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



    Needle writes:

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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








    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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


    Needle writes:

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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










    Needle writes:

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

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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



    Needle writes:

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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



    Needle writes:

    Indeed.

    Thanks for the links.

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


    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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






    Needle writes:

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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






    Needle writes:

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

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




    Needle writes:

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


    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

    Okay, I see two problems here.

    Needle writes:

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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


    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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



    Needle writes:

    Not quite.

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

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




    Needle writes:

    Translated into English the above quote of:

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

    is:

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

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

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

    Needle writes:

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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



    Needle writes:

    That’s understandable.

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

    Not really.

    Presenting ignorant opinions is not evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

    Now this is circular reasoning.

    Needle writes:

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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







    Needle writes:

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

    Be specific and quote me or just drop it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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


    Needle writes:

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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













    Needle writes:

    LOL!

    Not quite.

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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





    Needle writes:

    Indeed. Likewise.

    Classical Psychological Projection.

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






    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

    You seem very slow to present evidence for your claims.

    Needle writes:

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





    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:


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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You write:

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


    Needle writes:

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


    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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




    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

    Repeated “yeah-uh’s”?

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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






    Needle writes:

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

    You first. LOL!

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


    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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




    Needle writes:

    Not really.

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

    It seems you are struggling with your definitions a bit.

    Needle writes:

    Actually, not really or at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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







    Needle writes:

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

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



    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

    You ask who can base their Christianity on experiential knowledge.

    Needle writes:

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



    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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




    Needle writes:

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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


    Needle writes:

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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



    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

    Thanks but no thanks! LOL!

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


    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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




    Needle writes:

    Indeed, for it is just simply not true.

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

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


    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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



    Needle writes:

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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



    Needle writes:

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

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

    Needle writes:

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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




    Needle writes:

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

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








    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

    Indeed, many of them are Christians!

    Needle writes:

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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






    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

    Needle writes:

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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


    Needle writes:

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






    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

    Here's another from Nietzsche:

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
















    Needle writes:

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

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

    Not at all.

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


    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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




    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

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







    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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


    Needle writes:

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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


    Needle writes:

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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





    Needle writes:

    Right.

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    You wrote:

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

    Needle writes:

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

    Best regards,
    Needle

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

  5. #45
    Senior Member Cythraul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Last Online
    Friday, April 23rd, 2010 @ 09:44 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    England & Nederlands
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    England England
    Location
    Buckinghamshire
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Family
    Engaged
    Occupation
    Graphic Design
    Politics
    Cynical
    Religion
    Old
    Posts
    848
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Re: AW: Christianity not for Germanics?

    Quote Originally Posted by Taras Bulba View Post
    BTW...for those claiming Christianity is not Germanic, how do you explain the fact that many of the Germanic peoples had little problems with adopting Christ as one of their gods?
    I can't! To me, Europeans accepting Christianity without any real struggle is one of the most shameful things to have ever happened. Of course, MOST fought against it, and even when their Kings were converting (for political reasons), most of the people remained heathen for a long time after.

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

  6. #46
    Bloodhound
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Jäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Atlantean
    Gender
    Posts
    4,379
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    19
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    66
    Thanked in
    37 Posts

    Re: AW: Christianity not for Germanics?

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

    But since Christianity is a slave religion, the leaders of that time must have found it very useful to make their subjects step in line, it is very good for conditioning of people, conditioning to slaves though.
    "Nothing is more disgusting than the majority: because it consists of a few powerful predecessors, of rogues who adapt themselves, of weak who assimilate themselves, and the masses who imitate without knowing at all what they want." (Johann Wolfgang Goethe)

  7. #47
    Senior Member Weiler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    Friday, July 13th, 2012 @ 03:04 AM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Subrace
    Borreby
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    Northwest USA
    Gender
    Occupation
    Cartographer
    Politics
    Nordish Seperatist, Moderate
    Religion
    Lutheran
    Posts
    132
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Christianity not for Germanics?

    Several people here seem to be claiming that adherence to a pagan religion would have created fewer problems for Germanics, and Europeans in general, than did Christianity. I disagree.

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

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

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

  8. #48
    Senior Member SiegUmJedenPreis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Last Online
    Friday, March 9th, 2007 @ 02:02 PM
    Subrace
    Nordid/Mediterranid
    Country
    South Africa South Africa
    Location
    Pretoria; South Africa
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Just a plain NAZI
    Posts
    172
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Christianity not for Germanics?

    Isn't this debate a false crisis?
    Death is nothing, but to live defeated and inglorious is to die daily.

    NAPOLEON BONAPARTE

  9. #49
    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
    I never said that all Christians place man above nature, but, only that most of their own “theology” does do so.

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

  10. #50
    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
    Christian theologians are a miniscule percentage of Christians. Most Christians know very little of how the theologians conceptualize the faith. Furthermore, the theologians do not own the religion. Their individual religious views do not dictate the views of all the Christians in the pews.

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

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




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

    With credentials like that, I think I'll simply have to defer to you on all these matters in the future, as I am incapable of carrying on discussion with one whose knowledge is as extensive as yours.
    It is clear that you don't understand what "Christianity" is
    when divorced from the "culture" of "Christianity" and only
    "popular belief".

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

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

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

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

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

    Best regards,
    Needle

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

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
  •