← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Paleoleftist
Thread ID: 9141 | Posts: 126 | Started: 2003-08-19
2003-08-19 00:35 | User Profile
For Christians who consider changing their Faith itôs important to know how to conduct Blood Sacrifice correctly, without harming the environment, annoying the Gods or perplexing the neighbours. Here is what I found so far, for a start:
**Blood Sacrifice
Althea Whitebirch
We have all moved through periods of crisis in our lives; things ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous, from the death of someone close to us to final exams. Events which are extremely stressful-which threaten our lives, home, future or security-would seem t call for strong measures of assistance. There have been many times that I have felt that the course of events required swift and strong intervention of a deity. Blood sacrifice is, to my mind, one of the more powerful magics one could perform, and so seemed particularly suitable for this. But it's rather ethically sticky. **
[url=http://www.paganlibrary.com/editorials/blood_sacrifice.php]http://www.paganlibrary.com/editorials/blo...d_sacrifice.php[/url]
Mrs. Whitebirch goes on to suggest an ingenious solution to the Ethical difficulty, namely donating to the blood bank. This is not without problems, however: Will the Gods be satisfied if they donôt actually get your blood? If the goodwill counts, how to guarantee your spiritual/physical donation goes to the right God? You want to make sure that it is not the Goddess Kali who profits from your efforts, allowing some Indian Assassin Cult to get more active.
All of this can be avoided, of course, by sticking to the more old-fashioned methods:
**Sacrifice Today
The sacrifice in today's world is a complicated matter. Many localities have ordinances that forbid blood sacrifice, or even the keeping of animals necessary for the rites. Therefore, a devotee will have to make many concessions. Once an altar is consecrated, sacrifice should be simple, as long the altar is not defamed. If you are looking at a bad day at work, and you need some help, you would do something like this. In the morning, wash your hands. Approach the altar, ring a bell, say , " O Lares and Penates, come and accept this offering, and bless this day." Light a cone of incense one the altar, and continue on with day. If this does not help, then perhaps a more intense ritual will be required.
The altar should ideally be placed outside, where a charcoal brazier can be safely lit. The size, decoration, and construction are all variable. Ideally, the altar would be built in a walled garden where rites could be conducted in privacy. Neighbors would probably not appreciate the killing of animals, burning of entrails, nudity, drunkenness, and sexual activity under their kitchen window. Never condemn the unfaithful! **
[url=http://www.notelrac.com/whuups.dir/pagan.dir/secespita.html]http://www.notelrac.com/whuups.dir/pagan.d.../secespita.html[/url]
:th:
2003-08-19 00:43 | User Profile
The freak you quoted is no folkish heathen (any other kind is worthless or worse) but just another new age freak. She sounds better suited to Raina then anyone that I would associate with.
2003-08-19 00:48 | User Profile
Of course this post is semi-satirical (in the spirit of the PL-Wintermute debate); note, however, that the 2nd quote is from a book meant to be dead-serious, and based on some real research on the Roman Religion.
2003-08-19 00:52 | User Profile
Btw, the author of the book quoted second is quite likely a folkish Heathen of sorts.
2003-08-19 00:58 | User Profile
Well based upon the urls you cite she does not sound like anyone that I ever met that goes by such a label. I never really thought about animal sacrifice as no one that I read or was inspired by mentioned it. Certainly orgies, durkenness and the like which she mentions seems better suited to wiccan crackpots.
2003-08-19 01:09 | User Profile
Well based upon the urls you cite she does not sound like anyone that I ever met that goes by such a label. I never really thought about animal sacrifice as no one that I read or was inspired by mentioned it. Certainly orgies, durkenness and the like which she mentions seems better suited to wiccan crackpots.
Trisk, the quotes are from two different people.
The 2nd author is a he. His ideas are based on research of Roman tradition. The 1st authoress does not advocate animal sacrifice, and is pretty sober. These are two alternative examples, and you mixed them up! :)
2003-08-19 01:33 | User Profile
Hello PL,
Right you are. Trying to do too many things at once leads to mistakes. I am not up on Roman Traditions other then the Mithra which has some positive attributes but doesn't suit me at all by the by. In any case, based upon what you provided to read neither seem folkish but then perhaps it's acedemic rather then geared towards modern beleif systems. I guess I am confused as to what you are actually trying to get across with this thread so a little bit of clearifiacation would help.
2003-08-19 18:14 | User Profile
I guess I am confused as to what you are actually trying to get across with this thread so a little bit of clearifiacation would help.
I just figured it was given in the general OD/WN spirit vis a vis differing religions of eucumenical tolerance, understanding, and mutual affirmation, as always ;)
Of course, a few of our pagan contingent my be filing this away for future use :D
2003-08-19 18:40 | User Profile
I just figured it was given in the general OD/WN spirit vis a vis differing religions of eucumenical tolerance, understanding, and mutual affirmation, as always* ;)
We have a winner!
(There is also the argument that the Bible should not be the only Holy Writ to be examined with close scrutiny, if we are to make an informed decision about the best future European religion.) :hyp:
2003-08-19 19:55 | User Profile
Well neither source seems to have any bearing to anything conected with any sort of Heathenry that holds any interest to me or anyone that I have associated with. Niether author referances any text I care about or have seemed to be mentioned positively here by anyone so it seems that the matter has little relavence. As for examining Holy writ I am oppossed to attacking Christian beleifs of those that are not openly hostile Eurocentrism and have stated many times so in the past. Basically, I don't see anything worth addressing in the linked cited at the start of the thread and I can't imagine how they would have any bearing on anyone interested in Eurocentric Heathenry which is the only sort that has any merit for those interested in the Occident as far as I am concerned.
2003-08-19 20:01 | User Profile
This thread is mostly an offspring of the Does Science Point to God thread. [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=9933&st=200]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...pic=9933&st=200[/url]
You will note that Wintermute does not share your opposition to attacking Christian believes. :D
Thatôs why I feel a Paganism debate in the same vein is needed to even the balance. :P
2003-08-19 20:25 | User Profile
Hello PL,
I never looked at the thread you mentioned and if WN chooses to attack Christianity then I will point out again that object to such conduct.
**Thatôs why I feel a Paganism debate in the same vein is needed to even the balance. **
The sort of paganism you referance doesn't seem to have any more bearing on those that post here then the modernist anti-Occidental strain of modernistic christianityhas for Christians here. Basically, your simply constructing a straw man designed to be easily knocked down and then falsely project that "victory" on to pre-Christian European belief systems in general. As I have no interest in converting or projecting my spirituality on to others I will attempt to decline such a dishonestly constructed debate meant as a counter attack to what was said else where about Christianity.
2003-08-19 22:14 | User Profile
Basically, your simply constructing a straw man designed to be easily knocked down and then falsely project that "victory" on to pre-Christian European belief systems in general. As I have no interest in converting or projecting my spirituality on to others I will attempt to decline such a dishonestly constructed debate meant as a counter attack to what was said else where about Christianity.
You are mistaking my post.
I am totally disinterested in pre-Christian belief systems, one way or other.
What I attack is exclusively current attempts to revive dead religions.
I object to the term "dishonesty". If current Paganism were doctrinally defined, like Catholicism is, I would certainly limit myself to opposing that doctrine.
However, there is no such agreed-upon doctrine, so it is up to defenders of Paganism to state why they do not consider my examples to be representative. (I honestly think they are, but I admit I may be mistaken. But this is very different from setting up a strawman -if there is somebody like a pagan Pope who is the proper authority to decide disagreements among pagans about doctrine, I am sincerely not aware of that.)
2003-08-20 00:25 | User Profile
When the Jewish lies are swept away, your beliefs and practices will be shown to nothing other than what was present in the Mystery Religions, the Platonists, and the Stoics, the Orphics, and the Pythagoreans.
Now thatôs what I call a claim! B)
You are aware that you will have to demonstrate three things:
1) That "the Mystery Religions, the Platonists, and the Stoics, the Orphics, and the Pythagoreans" agreed with each other on everything of importance.
2) That everything in their believes is present in Christianity.
3) That everything in Christianity that was not present in those believes is an aberration.
Donôt forget to tell me when the Gospel according to Wintermute is available on amazon! :)
2003-08-20 02:21 | User Profile
Remember, my claim is that this process is constantly occuring - hence the repeated claims of Christian mystics in violation of dogma. All that really needs to happen, has happened - the Church can no longer persucute or murder these individuals. Hence their accurate reports on the nature of the soul and god are free to transform the world.
The Orthodox church, which has always kept the contact to Hellenism open, is well advanced in this process. I don't need to prove anything here, as what I claim is already happening. All I'm doing is helping it along, which is no more than you are doing.
Reminds me a bit of Marxism: Everything everybody does is going to help along the Revolution. It will all work out in the end. SIZE=1[/SIZE]
**If you pop over to the 'Intelligent Design' Thread, you'll find some interesting new materials for your inspection. I won't even bother asking that you keep your reply to one letter field.
Wintermute**
I did so, even without you asking me. :)
2003-08-20 02:39 | User Profile
Reminds me a bit of Marxism: Everything everybody does is going to help along the Revolution. It will all work out in the end. SIZE=1[/SIZE]
Marx, as it turned out, was right - and Christian Morons, inter alia, have done their part to make it so, by trivially and stupidly objecting to Marxism as atheism and materialism rather than as the liberationism and anarchism which, in essence, it is and in which form it covertly survives. Christianity cannot honestly denounce its own kissing cousin.
2003-08-20 02:59 | User Profile
Reminds me a bit of Marxism: Everything everybody does is going to help along the Revolution. It will all work out in the end. SIZE=1[/SIZE]
Marx, as it turned out, was right - and Christian Morons, inter alia, have done their part to make it so, by trivially and stupidly objecting to Marxism as atheism and materialism rather than as the liberationism and anarchism which, in essence, it is and in which form it covertly survives. Christianity cannot honestly denounce its own kissing cousin.
If Marx was right with his determinism, he didnôt need anybody to make it so. In essence, he said: "We win, no matter what." This was incorrect.
However, Marx was certainly not an anarchist. Not even a Neo-Marxist. Even in the Soviet Union, Adorno would have been in trouble.
Christians were right, though, to focus on the important -Immoralism as such. In that respect, Marx and Nietzsche were kissing cousins.
2003-08-20 04:01 | User Profile
** What I attack is exclusively current attempts to revive dead religions.**
A belief system that has living adherents is not dead. Reviving a belief system is fine provided that you have a reasonable basis in literature and archaeology for doing so like Sveinbjorn Beinteinsson. Some forms of paganism don't just as some sects that use the Christian label have a less then solid claim to that title. Some pagans like Alain De Benoist have a belief system that is not an attempt to revise a bygone belief system. I find much to commend with his comments on spiritualism.
** I object to the term "dishonesty". If current Paganism were doctrinally defined, like Catholicism is, I would certainly limit myself to opposing that doctrine.**
What currently goes by the term pagan is far to diverse to make any meaningful comment about. Certainly I reject any sort of new age rubbish or any form of universalism. As to doctrine, it should be noted that the absolutist pronouncements of Dogma are not present in a great many of the world's religions so that is hardly a basis for qualifying the worthiness of a belief system. Considering that the demise European paganism as a popular belief system was a result of a very long term and brutal campaign by absolutist theocracies their current fall from fashionablity is not somehow a reflection of some inherent short coming. As I object to religious oppression and believe that spiritual matters are supra-rational and thus highly personalized I respect and honour traditionalist Christians and I will refrain from actively opposing their doctrines. Naturally I expect the same consideration from Christians.
In any case, the variants of Heathen religions I find meritorious have their own doctrinal basis for ordering belief structures. They don't have an equivalent of a pope but then again neither do numerous variants of Christianity or a great many of the world's various religions. As to sacred books they certainly exist and I have mentioned some of them in the past but they are understood in a manner very different then within the Christian tradition.
As to the phrase dishonest I suppose that may have been a poor choice. However, you have already stated your desire to oppose any form of paganism and you did so by making what in methodological terms is referred to as a macroscopic fallacy by portraying two authors as somehow relevant to a generic paganism which I maintain is not a meaningful conception to start with. Doing so seems dishonest.
** However, there is no such agreed-upon doctrine... **
That's why you have to specify what specific belief system you are attempting to attack. I could of course make a similar comment about Christianity yet I don't as I'm not spoiling for a theological slugfest.
** defenders of Paganism to state why they do not consider my examples to be representative...**
Wrong. If you wish to attack some else's belief system you have to identify what exactly you object to. As to your examples, they are not representative of anything I or any form of Heathenty I am interested in believe so if you wish to find someone to defend the authors you posted you will have to look else where.
**ÃÂ I honestly think they are, but I admit I may be mistaken. **
You are mistaken.
** But this is very different from setting up a strawman...**
That is exactly what you did although I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you did not intend to do so.
**... if there is somebody like a pagan Pope who is the proper authority to decide disagreements among pagans about doctrine, I am sincerely not aware of that **
That's like saying that all Christians that don't have a pope like figure have no doctrine and their for any assertion you wish to challenge made any such self identified Christian is reasonable and that they their for have the burden of defending themselves from such a misrepresentation. Such a notion is nonsense and we both know as much. Once you decide what exactly you wish to attack based upon some knowledge of the faith, or at least an attempt to honestly portray some aspect of the belief system, then a discussion worth having can take place. Of course, doing so means that you'll have to realize that a radically different notion of spirituality from yours is not simply going to accept your boundaries for debate so you can pretty well forget ideas like a pope like figure being a final arbiter of doctrine/dogma or the notion that a single text represents the whole of what is seen as truthful. In short, if you wished to enquire about some sort of Heathenry for the purpose of starting a debate you'd have done far better to simple ask.
2003-08-20 04:52 | User Profile
What currently goes by the term pagan is far to diverse to make any meaningful comment about.
Then the term should be dropped.
A term lacking a definition -or encompassing so diverse things that it cannot possibly be defined- is useless. :jest:
I donôt think the question "Who decides who is Pagan?" is unreasonable.
You take my "Pope" metaphor too literally. I am aware that Lutherans and Calvinists donôt have a Pope. Still, we know who is Lutheran, and who isnôt.
As NeoNietzsche and Wintermute ceaselessly attack Christianity, I do not feel obligated not to attack Paganism, and escaping scrutiny by the "there-is-no-definition-of-Paganism" ploy seems unfair to me. :)
I mean just imagine me saying "there is no definition of Catholicism", as a ploy against Wintermute and NeoNietzsche. :lol: They would simply say "There is.", and shower me with quotes proving their point.
Furthermore, if there is no definition of Paganism, Wintermute doesnôt know that. He defines Paganism as that "what was present in the Mystery Religions, the Platonists, and the Stoics, the Orphics, and the Pythagoreans", whatever that may be. Not that his definition clears the matter up a lot, but, hey, itôs a definition. :)
Going by the numbers, if you type "Pagan" into Google, you will find lots of sites definitely not superior in quality to those I quoted. In fact, my second quote is far above average, in so far as the author appears to me to have done his homework. On the face of it, his reconstruction of the Roman Faith doesnôt look unplausible.
2003-08-20 05:13 | User Profile
What I said is that it is absurd to assume that paganism can be defended as an agregate in a meaningful way. Your entire arguement is ill defined for the purpose of attacking a very diverse set of beliefs that you don't understand any portion of. I never said that the term paganism is meaningless but I did say that if you wish to attack it then you should state what excatly your attacking. If you wish to critique Nordic Folkish paganism then learn something about it and attempt to make a case. Generic paganism means nothing beyond a belief system in which many enties are are recognized as spiritually meaningful. That's to wide a range of religions to defend as it would mean associating countless beleif systems with no meaningful commonality as equivalents.
If you wish to attempt to raise something valid to some specific sub-set of pagans do so. If you are angry with WN and NN then fued with them but don't misrepresent mine or others spirituality.
2003-08-20 11:44 | User Profile
Reminds me a bit of Marxism: Everything everybody does is going to help along the Revolution. It will all work out in the end. SIZE=1[/SIZE]
Marx, as it turned out, was right - and Christian Morons, inter alia, have done their part to make it so, by trivially and stupidly objecting to Marxism as atheism and materialism rather than as the liberationism and anarchism which, in essence, it is and in which form it covertly survives. Christianity cannot honestly denounce its own kissing cousin.
If Marx was right with his determinism, he didnôt need anybody to make it so. In essence, he said: "We win, no matter what." This was incorrect.
However, Marx was certainly not an anarchist. Not even a Neo-Marxist. Even in the Soviet Union, Adorno would have been in trouble.
Christians were right, though, to focus on the important -Immoralism as such. In that respect, Marx and Nietzsche were kissing cousins.
If Marx was right with his determinism, he didnôt need anybody to make it so. In essence, he said: "We win, no matter what." This was incorrect.
But the Marxists have won, no matter what. Your ignorance of the origins, the means toward, and the present circumstance of "Marxism" blinds you to this reality. Class war is unavoidable, and will present itself somewhere, somehow - these particulars emerging as mere matters of detail.
However, Marx was certainly not an anarchist. Not even a Neo-Marxist. Even in the Soviet Union, Adorno would have been in trouble.
Marx was certainly an anarchist, and participated in the early international meetings and activities therof, as he came to realize that anarchism had to be sugar-coated with socialist utopianism and so appear to the world of Weenies and Jews in the guise of "Communism" - the true origins and nature thereof forever to be savagely disowned in the interest of the power-seeking imposture.
Christians were right, though, to focus on the important -Immoralism as such. In that respect, Marx and Nietzsche were kissing cousins.
It is the case that the Weenies and Jews have been the active element in the progress of "Communism" - while the Moronic contribution has been one of ignorant passivity and misinformed opposition.
2003-08-20 13:47 | User Profile
I dońt think the question "Who decides who is Pagan?" is unreasonable.
There are a couple of threads on OD discussing just this about Christians. Hell, there have been wars and genocides about ââ¬ËWho decides who is Christian?ââ¬Â ââ¬â so as a question for discussion, it IS either just as unreasonable, or no more unreasonable, than for Christianity.
You take my "Pope" metaphor too literally. I am aware that Lutherans and Calvinists dońt have a Pope. Still, we know who is Lutheran, and who isńt.
Ah, but youââ¬â¢ve changed the field of definition here: ââ¬ÅPaganââ¬Â is equivalent to ââ¬ÅChristianââ¬Â in that Pagan comprises a variety of religions and belief structures, just as Christian comprises a variety of religions and belief structures. It is useless to try to compare Pagan and Lutheran, but it is NOT useless to compare Pagan and Christian. (However, as in your incorrect suggestion that there must be a ââ¬Ëpopeââ¬â¢ for you to discuss Paganism, the implication is therefore you must ALSO discuss the Pope as the arbiter/highest authority for all (subsets of) CHRISTIANITY, not just Catholicism...
And we KNOW who is ââ¬Ëpaganââ¬â¢ and who is not, but thatââ¬â¢s NOT the same as knowing about their specific version of ââ¬Ëpaganityââ¬â¢ (?). We know who is Lutheran, but that doesnââ¬â¢t mean THEY are the epitome or exemplar of ALL Christianity, and that therefore discussing them suffices for discussing Christianity.
As NeoNietzsche and Wintermute ceaselessly attack Christianity, I do not feel obligated not to attack Paganism, and escaping scrutiny by the "there-is-no-definition-of-Paganism" ploy seems unfair to me.
But should you not be attacking paganism with the seriousness with which WM and NN ââ¬Ëattackââ¬â¢ Christianity? They do not pull out the odd little sects (well, except for CI, and even you and Tex are baffled by that!) and address them as exemplars of Christianity. They DO have it a little easier, because ââ¬ÅChristianityââ¬Â has been ââ¬Åsolidifiedââ¬Â into followers of a couple of versions of essentially the same book ââ¬â Christians differ on application, definition, and importance of various passages, but they all agree on the same book.
Your ââ¬Ëtargetââ¬â¢ is much broader, and less cohesive (in fact, not cohesive at all!)
**I mean just imagine me saying "there is no definition of Catholicism", as a ploy against Wintermute and NeoNietzsche. They would simply say "There is.", and shower me with quotes proving their point. **
Ah, but here again, youââ¬â¢re mixing up your field of definition ââ¬â youââ¬â¢re trying to make equal a subset (Catholic) of the object (Christianity) with the overall set/object (Paganism) comprising various subsets. Were you to contrast, say, wicca or Hellenism, (or was it Henoism? Wintermute? Never heard of it, looking forward to your educatinââ¬â¢ me!) to Catholicism, thereââ¬â¢d be no (or maybe less) objection to the creation of a strawman. (As Trisk says, probably not intentional, merely a mistake in definition of terms...)
2003-08-20 19:02 | User Profile
But the Marxists have won, no matter what.
I donôt understand what you mean, honestly.
Making an educated guess: If you think Marx didnôt believe in his own system, but used it merely as a cover for something else, you are probably wrong.
Marx was certainly an anarchist...
Nope. He believed that he knew better than everybody else, and should therefore make all decisions single-handedly. He was an ultra-authoritarian, like Hitler, who understood him well. Bakunin was indeed an anarchist, therefore he was opposed to Marx.
Christians, if they were aware, knew that they had more than one enemy, and therefore had to fight a complicated multi-front-war. What you mistakenly perceive as their stupidity is the difficulty of their position.
2003-08-20 19:15 | User Profile
Hell, there have been wars and genocides about ?Who decides who is Christian?? ? so as a question for discussion, it IS either just as unreasonable, or no more unreasonable, than for Christianity.
Fair enough. But all I want is a level playing field. Anybody who attacks my believes should clearly state his own before, if he can.
Trisk got into the cross-fire, so to speak. He doesnôt attack Christianity, but others, who call themselves "Pagans", do, and if they donôt define their own views, then I have to substitute such Pagan views as are readily available on the Internet as examples of why I hesitate to let myself be converted... :)
Btw, I certainly wouldnôt object in principle if someone used a random collection of Christian views to show what may be problems with Christianity as such. If time permits, I would simply explain why those views are irrelevant, if they are.
In fact, WM does just that with his OT quotes no matter how often I tell him that the Catholic Church, or Catholics in general, do not attach a lot of weight to the OT. :)
2003-08-20 20:12 | User Profile
Well PL,
I don't see much left to say. If WM and NN are attacking Christianity by misrepresenting it (I can't say if they are as I don't follow theological debates here as they never go anywhere) then I would condemn them as making a strawman case just as you have done.
I have made a few quick statements on my spirituality else where here and if anyone asks about it i'll offer up some information. Obviously I have reasons why I am not a Christian but I don't go into the matter publicly as I can't see what good can come from such statements. I would however say that I will openly object to anti-Occidental/univeralist strains of Christianity in the same manner as I would towards anti-Occidental/univeralist strains of pagandom as both are essentially flip sides of the same counterfit coin.
Given the magnaatude of the crisis facing the Occident it seems absurd to fight about theology when the societal conditions that allow for valid forms of theology no longer exist. If the current course of destruction is not reversed theological finery of any sort simply won't matter because the tide of cultural Bolshevism will have drown out any possiblity of such things effecting anyone outside of the local cell meeting of the Top Secret Legion of Occidentals Facing Nonexistance.
2003-08-20 20:34 | User Profile
Trisk,
WM is attacking the picture of Christianity which he has in his mind. This picture has a (limited) basis in reality, as he relies (mostly) on OT quotes. Misrepresentation is too strong a word, perhaps, because it hints at wilfulness. Misinterpretation is what comes to my mind: WM "demands" that Christians attribute as much importance to the OT as he does, or his arguments donôt make sense.
NeoNietzsche has a totally different approach: He is not interested in Christian doctrine one way or other, I think, just in what he perceives as the political consequences. I agree with him nearly nowhere, because I do not share his analysis in some respects, and do not share his value system in the other respects.
I agree 100% with your point that, if immigration isnôt stopped, then there will be no soil left, so to speak, for Christianity as we understand it to grow upon. That doesnôt mean, however, that Christians can afford to ignore those who would turn upon them at the earliest possible opportunity, and even now observe only a very uneasy truce with us, such as Nietzscheans and Hitlerians.
Let me use the picture of WWII China for a moment: If the "Japanese" are the Zionists, and the Nietzscheans/Nazis are the "Maoists", then Christians, being the "Kuomintang", have to weigh their options very carefully, or we could "win the War", but "lose the Revolution". This is what I think. :)
2003-08-20 20:52 | User Profile
In general, it's safe to stick to pagan for the Meditteranean stuff, while Northerners do seem to prefer heathen.
Ok, this should satisfy Trisk, because this thread is not referring to Heathens. B)
My second source is, however, a fairly mainstream source for "Mediterranean" stuff. B) Or does he misrepresent the Roman Religion significantly?
As for myself, I'm a happy devotee of Hellenismos (Julian's term), though our fancy, dress up, name is alethes logos.
Julian was an honourable man, but his religion was mindless. He realized that the old Roman superstitions had become ridiculous, and the Pagans were losing the War for the Hearts and Minds, but what was he doing about it? Trying to imitate Christian Charity, which didnôt work, because his Pagans werenôt that charitable, and frantically trying to intellectually prop up the old superstitions, which didnôt work, either. Yes, that reminds me of your attempt. :)
**Just yesterday you made a fairly large set of questions/ demands. **
Iôd prefer the term refutation, but whatever floats your boat. ;) By all means answer them, but donôt demand for me to agree with your answer(s). :)
2003-08-20 23:00 | User Profile
If Christianity was "winning the battle for hearts and minds", why did it rely on State Terror?
What you have in mind has been vastly blown out of proportion.
Here, from a source very friendly to Paganism:
**While pagan resistance may have been a political factor in the eastern half of the empire (and thus the occasion for the anti-pagan crusade of Maternus Cynegius in the 380s), no such concern is ever demonstrated by the throne in the west.[[46]] A few Christian prelates showed some concern for putting the pagans in their place -- most notably Ambrose, as we shall see -- but very little survives to show serious imperial concern with the issue. What is remarkable about the imperial legislation against paganism is its matter-of-fact quality: the order was given, assumed to be executed, and promptly forgotten.[[47]] Almost a generation after the banning of sacrifice by Theodosius in 391, additional steps were taken to oust pagans from the imperial service;[[48]] but one may doubt whether such laws represented more than a passing fancy. **
[url=http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/texts/demise.html]http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/texts/demise.html[/url]
2003-08-20 23:13 | User Profile
O.K. it seems that the boundaries for this particular theological punch up is Roman Catholicism (widely defined traditional current) Vs. Hellenismos (and maybe a wider Mediterranean current). On the outskirts we have NN pushing the Nietzschean perspective which I don't think should be called anything else. From time to time I pop in hoping to keep things civil & honest and encourage respect for everyone in the ring while injecting a small bit of my own form of Heathenry (Folkish Exoteric Odalism). I think we can all agree we donââ¬â¢t like Wiccan/new age/Luciferian/Satanic silliness/nihilism or Modernistic neutered faux Christianity.
I donââ¬â¢t knowing anything about Mediterranean or Nietzschean schools so Iââ¬â¢ll simply avoid saying anything about those currents unless NN or WM says something clearly internally inconsistent or factually wrong. I think it's a safe bet the exchange will be civil so I won't be interjecting on that matter much.
As to PL's analogy I guess I think it fails as almost all politically active racialists that are not inclined towards Christianity but other wise religious are not stridently anti-Christian or wish to suppress them. Certainly the psychotic ââ¬ÅNSBMââ¬Â crowd feels that way but they donââ¬â¢t seem to exist out side of a few bands and websites so Iââ¬â¢ll ignore them as everyone should. Unfortunately, I see more of the totalitarian impulses on the Christian side but thankfully they are mostly limited to the C.I. fringe and the occasional frustrated would be Torquemada so I donââ¬â¢t think they deserve any attention inspite of their frequent outbursts.
Beyond that I would say that I would feel a bit better about PLââ¬â¢s positioning here if he admitted that Christendom has a massive legacy of barbarism against those that chose not to accept that faith (or some variant within it). Doing so and saying that such notions should be condemned within traditionalist circles within Christianity would go a long way towards discouraging mistrust of Christians. Of course, I certainly condemn the virulent hatred of Christians seen within the wacky fringes of Heathenry.
2003-08-20 23:36 | User Profile
Paleoleftist makes it seem as if pagans should have an orthodoxy - that is, an obsession with what everyone believes. This is a firmly Jewish ideal. The European pre-Christian religions were an orthopraxy - they emphasised practice. That is, the practice of religion and ethical practices.
It should be clear to anyone who is somewhat knowledgeable of Indo-European religions that any universalist, pacifist tripe cannot stand within Paganism. Modern "Paganism" became simply empty Christianity - if one no longer wishes to deal with Christianity and its beliefs and practices, one transfers to Neo-Paganism, keeps the Jewish tripe and be liberal in one's beliefs and practices.
Lastly, as Wintermute correctly says, there is no revival of dead religions. If Indo-European religions had died, Europe would have died with them. As I said, the Indo-European emphasis was on practice - with the risk of being oversimplistic, it can be said that the European simply adopted Jewish Christianity within their own practices, and thus was built the authority and hierarchy of the Church - thus was built Catholicism, a hybrid of Pagan practices (and beliefs) and Jewish beliefs. Again, as Wintermute correctly says, once Jewish beliefs are successfully knocked out, we'll be left with Paganism. Then you'll have your Pagan Pope - he's still called Pontifex Maximus, isn't he? The one difference would be that he wouldn't be spouting universalist, anti-ethnic tripe from Roma!
2003-08-21 01:02 | User Profile
Beyond that I would say that I would feel a bit better about PL?s positioning here if he admitted that Christendom has a massive legacy of barbarism against those that chose not to accept that faith (or some variant within it).
Personally, I have never engaged in barbaric acts against non-Christians, and I know no one who has done so. :) If someone does, he should be locked up in accordance with the penal law.
However, I am very much for Christianity affirmed as the state religion. In fact, when I went to school, Catholicism still was the Austrian state religion. I am not sure if that is still the case, in theory at least, or has been quietly dropped. Non-Christian religions should be tolerated, but should not be on an equal footing.
I do not support perfect religious equality, rather, I believe that a nation has a strong interest in religious homogeneity, every bit as much as ethnic homogeneity. After all, morality depends on religion, as much as the common good depends on morality. I would have to lie to say I see any good in religious "diversity". Tolerance, yes, but certainly no state support for non-Christians, and definitely state support for Christianity.
In short: Religious freedom, yes, religious equality, no.
2003-08-21 01:05 | User Profile
Paleoleftist makes it seem as if pagans should have an orthodoxy - that is, an obsession with what everyone believes. This is a firmly Jewish ideal.
The very opposite. Judaism and Islam emphasize Godôs Law, Christianity alone emphasizes Faith, first and foremost.
2003-08-21 01:11 | User Profile
It should be clear to anyone who is somewhat knowledgeable of Indo-European religions that any universalist, pacifist tripe cannot stand within Paganism. Modern "Paganism" became simply empty Christianity - if one no longer wishes to deal with Christianity and its beliefs and practices, one transfers to Neo-Paganism, keeps the Jewish tripe and be liberal in one's beliefs and practices.
Christians are not pacifists! Maybe Judeo-f*cks are but true traditional christians are not. Maybe you should read about the "just war" theories of many Christian theologians. Here an article about them [url=http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/16.3docs/16-3pg45.html]http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/1...s/16-3pg45.html[/url]
As Jesus himself saids
** "Do not suppose that my mission on earth is to spread peace. My mission is not to bring peace, but the sword." Mathew 10:34 **
2003-08-21 01:35 | User Profile
But the Marxists have won, no matter what.
I donôt understand what you mean, honestly.
Making an educated guess: If you think Marx didnôt believe in his own system, but used it merely as a cover for something else, you are probably wrong.
Marx was certainly an anarchist...
Nope. He believed that he knew better than everybody else, and should therefore make all decisions single-handedly. He was an ultra-authoritarian, like Hitler, who understood him well. Bakunin was indeed an anarchist, therefore he was opposed to Marx.
Christians, if they were aware, knew that they had more than one enemy, and therefore had to fight a complicated multi-front-war. What you mistakenly perceive as their stupidity is the difficulty of their position.**
**I donôt understand what you mean, honestly.
Making an educated guess: If you think Marx didnôt believe in his own system, but used it merely as a cover for something else, you are probably wrong.**
Such innocence! The rule in this modern day of ideological commitment, in which there is no Classical clarity of vision, is that one fanatically believes in one's "cover," one's rationalization of one's agenda. There has been and there is no agency extant in a position to counter this phenomenon by imposing intellectual discipline - by credibly endorsing truth and condemning bullshit. Ubiquitous intellectual anarchy is thus facilitating the progress of political anarchism and crypto-Communism and the inevitability of ultimate, global, Marxist/anarchist/class-warrior victory. Marx was, technically speaking, a crypto-anarchist - deceiving himself and many another with his elaborately rationalized "Communism".
Nope [Marx was not an anarchist]. He believed that he knew better than everybody else, and should therefore make all decisions single-handedly. He was an ultra-authoritarian, like Hitler, who understood him well. Bakunin was indeed an anarchist, therefore he was opposed to Marx.
There is no inconsistency between anarchism and "authoritarianism" as you are employing the latter term. Personal judgmental autonomy and autocracy as the form of State are not the same thing. Marx was, indeed, an authoritarian in demeanor - yet an anarchist in ideological orientation. Marx, the crypto-anarchist is remembered, as Bakunin is not, though, because Marx was smart enough to realize that one does not go directly to anarchy on the way thereto. Anarchists hate crypto-anarchists the way racists hate crypto-racists, contemptuous and suspicious of the latter's dishonesty.
Christians, if they were aware, knew that they had more than one enemy, and therefore had to fight a complicated multi-front-war. What you mistakenly perceive as their stupidity is the difficulty of their position.
Their stupidity is precisely in having but one authentic enemy - one whom they are yet unable to accurately identify as such.
2003-08-21 01:48 | User Profile
There has been and there is no agency extant in a position to counter this phenomenon by imposing intellectual discipline - by credibly endorsing truth and condemning bullshit.
There never has been such an agency, of this world. How should there be?
2003-08-21 01:55 | User Profile
Are you sure you want this? Christianity is much stronger in the United States, where it did not receive state sanction, than it is in Europe, where it did.
Post hoc propter hoc fallacy.
(I see what you are driving at, but not only do I doubt the connection, I even doubt that Christianity in the USA is really that healthy. Most of the American Christian Churches have apostasized, they are what I would call Pagan :lol: . Their only Articles of Faith are Big Business and Israel. Hardly Christian, if you ask me.)
2003-08-21 01:58 | User Profile
There has been and there is no agency extant in a position to counter this phenomenon by imposing intellectual discipline - by credibly endorsing truth and condemning bullshit.
There never has been such an agency, of this world. How should there be?
Until the Christians came along there didn't need to be. :(
2003-08-21 02:07 | User Profile
There has been and there is no agency extant in a position to counter this phenomenon by imposing intellectual discipline - by credibly endorsing truth and condemning bullshit.
There never has been such an agency, of this world. How should there be?
Until the Christians came along there didn't need to be. :(
Admittedly funny. But wrong. Not even PaleoN stated that Christians invented BS. :rolleyes:
2003-08-21 04:32 | User Profile
There has been and there is no agency extant in a position to counter this phenomenon by imposing intellectual discipline - by credibly endorsing truth and condemning bullshit.
There never has been such an agency, of this world. How should there be?
Until the Christians came along there didn't need to be. :(
Admittedly funny. But wrong. Not even PaleoN stated that Christians invented BS. :rolleyes:
15.
Under Christianity neither morality nor religion has any point of contact with actuality. It offers purely imaginary causes ("God" "soul," "ego," "spirit," "free will"--or even "unfree"), and purely imaginary effects ("sin" "salvation" "grace," "punishment," "forgiveness of sins"). Intercourse between imaginary beings ("God," "spirits," "souls"); an imaginary natural history (anthropocentric; a total denial of the concept of natural causes); an imaginary psychology (misunderstandings of self, misinterpretations of agreeable or disagreeable general feelings--for example, of the states of the nervus sympathicus with the help of the sign-language of religio-ethical balderdash--, "repentance," "pangs of conscience," "temptation by the devil," "the presence of God"); an imaginary teleology (the "kingdom of God," "the last judgment," "eternal life").--This purely fictitious world, greatly to its disadvantage, is to be differentiated from the world of dreams; the later at least reflects reality, whereas the former falsifies it, cheapens it and denies it. Once the concept of "nature" had been opposed to the concept of "God," the word "natural" necessarily took on the meaning of "abominable"--the whole of that fictitious world has its sources in hatred of the natural (--the real!--), and is no more than evidence of a profound uneasiness in the presence of reality. . . . This explains everything. Who alone has any reason for living his way out of reality? The man who suffers under it. But to suffer from reality one must be a botched reality. . . . The preponderance of pains over pleasures is the cause of this fictitious morality and religion: but such a preponderance also supplies the formula for decadence...
2003-08-21 04:42 | User Profile
The whole of Judaism appears in Christianity as the art of concocting holy lies, and there, after many centuries of earnest Jewish training and hard practice of Jewish technic, the business comes to the stage of mastery. The Christian, that ultima ratio of lying, is the Jew all over again--he is threefold the Jew. . . The underlying will to make use only of such concepts, symbols and attitudes as fit into priestly practice, the instinctive repudiation of every other mode of thought, and every other method of estimating values and utilities--this is not only tradition, it is inheritance: only as an inheritance is it able to operate with the force of nature. The whole of mankind, even the best minds of the best ages (with one exception, perhaps hardly human--), have permitted themselves to be deceived. The gospels have been read as a book of innocence. . . surely no small indication of the high skill with which the trick has been done.--Of course, if we could actually see these astounding bigots and bogus saints, even if only for an instant, the farce would come to an end,--and it is precisely because I cannot read a word of theirs without seeing their attitudinizing that I have made am end of them. . . . I simply cannot endure the way they have of rolling up their eyes.--For the majority, happily enough, books are mere literature.--Let us not be led astray: they say "judge not," and yet they condemn to hell whoever stands in their way. In letting God sit in judgment they judge themselves; in glorifying God they glorify themselves; in demanding that every one show the virtues which they themselves happen to be capable of--still more, which they must have in order to remain on top--they assume the grand air of men struggling for virtue, of men engaging in a war that virtue may prevail. "We live, we die, we sacrifice ourselves for the good" (--"the truth," "the light," "the kingdom of God"): in point of fact, they simply do what they cannot help doing. Forced, like hypocrites, to be sneaky, to hide in corners, to slink along in the shadows, they convert their necessity into aduty: it is on grounds of duty that they account for their lives of humility, and that humility becomes merely one more proof of their piety. . . Ah, that humble, chaste, charitable brand of fraud! "Virtue itself shall bear witness for us.". . . . One may read the gospels as books of moral seduction: these petty folks fasten themselves to morality--they know the uses of morality! Morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the nose!--The fact is that the conscious conceit of the chosen here disguises itself as modesty: it is in this way that they, the "community," the "good and just," range themselves, once and for always, on one side, the side of "the truth"--and the rest of mankind, "the world," on the other. . . In that we observe the most fatal sort of megalomania that the earth has ever seen: little abortions of bigots and liars began to claim exclusive rights in the concepts of "God," "the truth," "the light," "the spirit," "love," "wisdom" and "life," as if these things were synonyms of themselves and thereby they sought to fence themselves off from the "world"; little super-Jews, ripe for some sort of madhouse, turned values upside down in order to meet their notions, just as if the Christian were the meaning, the salt, the standard and even thelast judgment of all the rest. . . . The whole disaster was only made possible by the fact that there already existed in the world a similar megalomania, allied to this one in race, to wit, the Jewish: once a chasm began to yawn between Jews and Judaeo-Christians, the latter had no choice but to employ the self-preservative measures that the Jewish instinct had devised, even against the Jews themselves, whereas the Jews had employed them only against non-Jews. The Christian is simply a Jew of the "reformed" confession.--
2003-08-21 04:46 | User Profile
47.
--The thing that sets us apart is not that we are unable to find God, either in history, or in nature, or behind nature--but that we regard what has been honoured as God, not as "divine," but as pitiable, as absurd, as injurious; not as a mere error, but as a crime against life. . . We deny that God is God . . . If any one were to show us this Christian God, we'd be still less inclined to believe in him.--In a formula: deus, qualem Paulus creavit, dei negatio.--Such a religion as Christianity, which does not touch reality at a single point and which goes to pieces the moment reality asserts its rights at any point, must be inevitably the deadly enemy of the "wisdom of this world," which is to say, of science--and it will give the name of good to whatever means serve to poison, calumniate and cry down all intellectual discipline, all lucidity and strictness in matters of intellectual conscience, and all noble coolness and freedom of the mind. "Faith," as an imperative, vetoes science--in praxi, lying at any price. . . . Paul well knew that lying--that "faith"--was necessary; later on the church borrowed the fact from Paul.--The God that Paul invented for himself, a God who "reduced to absurdity" "the wisdom of this world" (especially the two great enemies of superstition, philology and medicine), is in truth only an indication of Paul's resolute determination to accomplish that very thing himself: to give one's own will the name of God, thora--that is essentially Jewish. Paul wants to dispose of the "wisdom of this world": his enemies are the good philologians and physicians of the Alexandrine school--on them he makes his war. As a matter of fact no man can be a philologian or a physician without being also Antichrist. That is to say, as a philologian a man sees behind the "holy books," and as a physician he sees behind the physiological degeneration of the typical Christian. The physician says "incurable"; the philologian says "fraud.". . .
2003-08-21 04:53 | User Profile
The Christian movement, as a European movement, was from the start no more than a general uprising of all sorts of outcast and refuse elements (--who now, under cover of Christianity, aspire to power)-- It does not represent the decay of a race; it represents, on the contrary, a conglomeration of decadence products from all directions, crowding together and seeking one another out. It was not, as has been thought, the corruption of antiquity, of noble antiquity, which made Christianity possible; one cannot too sharply challenge the learned imbecility which today maintains that theory. At the time when the sick and rotten Chandala classes in the whole imperium were Christianized, the contrary type, the nobility, reached its finest and ripest development. The majority became master; democracy, with its Christian instincts, triumphed . . . Christianity was not "national," it was not based on race--it appealed to all the varieties of men disinherited by life, it had its allies everywhere. Christianity has the rancour of the sick at its very core--the instinct against the healthy, against health. Everything that is well--constituted, proud, gallant and, above all, beautiful gives offence to its ears and eyes. Again I remind you of Paul's priceless saying: "And God hath chosen the weak things of the world, the foolish things of the world, the base things of the world, and things which are despised":23 this was the formula; in hoc signo the decadence triumphed.--God on the cross--is man always to miss the frightful inner significance of this symbol?--Everything that suffers, everything that hangs on the cross, is divine. . . . We all hang on the cross, consequently we are divine. . . . We alone are divine. . . . Christianity was thus a victory: a nobler attitude of mind was destroyed by it--Christianity remains to this day the greatest misfortune of humanity.--
2003-08-21 05:00 | User Profile
58.
In point of fact, the end for which one lies makes a great difference: whether one preserves thereby or destroys. There is a perfect likeness between Christian and anarchist: their object, their instinct, points only toward destruction. One need only turn to history for a proof of this: there it appears with appalling distinctness. We have just studied a code of religious legislation whose object it was to convert the conditions which cause life to flourish into an "eternal" social organization,--Christianity found its mission in putting an end to such an organization, because life flourished under it. There the benefits that reason had produced during long ages of experiment and insecurity were applied to the most remote uses, and an effort was made to bring in a harvest that should be as large, as rich and as complete as possible; here, on the contrary, the harvest is blighted overnight. . . .That which stood there aere perennis, the imperium Romanum, the most magnificent form of organization under difficult conditions that has ever been achieved, and compared to which everything before it and after it appears as patchwork, bungling, dilletantism--those holy anarchists made it a matter of "piety" to destroy "the world,"which is to say, the imperium Romanum, so that in the end not a stone stood upon another--and even Germans and other such louts were able to become its masters. . . . The Christian and the anarchist: both are decadents; both are incapable of any act that is not disintegrating, poisonous, degenerating, blood-sucking; both have an instinct of mortal hatred of everything that stands up, and is great, and has durability, and promises life a future. . . . Christianity was the vampire of the imperium Romanum,-- overnight it destroyed the vast achievement of the Romans: the conquest of the soil for a great culture that could await its time. Can it be that this fact is not yet understood? The imperium Romanum that we know, and that the history of the Roman provinces teaches us to know better and better,--this most admirable of all works of art in the grand manner was merely the beginning, and the structure to follow was not to prove its worth for thousands of years. To this day, nothing on a like scale sub specie aeterni has been brought into being, or even dreamed of!--This organization was strong enough to withstand bad emperors: the accident of personality has nothing to do with such things--the first principle of all genuinely great architecture. But it was not strong enough to stand up against the corruptest of all forms of corruption--against Christians. . . . These stealthy worms, which under the cover of night, mist and duplicity, crept upon every individual, sucking him dry of all earnest interest in real things, of all instinct for reality--this cowardly, effeminate and sugar-coated gang gradually alienated all "souls," step by step, from that colossal edifice, turning against it all the meritorious, manly and noble natures that had found in the cause of Rome their own cause, their own serious purpose, their own pride. The sneakishness of hypocrisy, the secrecy of the conventicle, concepts as black as hell, such as the sacrifice of the innocent, the unio mystica in the drinking of blood, above all, the slowly rekindled fire of revenge, of Chandala revenge--all that sort of thing became master of Rome: the same kind of religion which, in a pre-existent form, Epicurus had combatted. One has but to read Lucretius to know what Epicurus made war upon--not paganism, but "Christianity," which is to say, the corruption of souls by means of the concepts of guilt, punishment and immortality.--He combatted the subterranean cults, the whole of latent Christianity--to deny immortality was already a form of genuine salvation.--Epicurus had triumphed, and every respectable intellect in Rome was Epicurean--when Paul appeared. . . Paul, the Chandala hatred of Rome, of "the world," in the flesh and inspired by genius--the Jew, the eternal Jew par excellence. . . . What he saw was how, with the aid of the small sectarian Christian movement that stood apart from Judaism, a "world conflagration" might be kindled; how, with the symbol of "God on the cross," all secret seditions, all the fruits of anarchistic intrigues in the empire, might be amalgamated into one immense power. "Salvation is of the Jews."--Christianity is the formula for exceeding and summing up the subterranean cults of all varieties, that of Osiris, that of the Great Mother, that of Mithras, for instance: in his discernment of this fact the genius of Paul showed itself. His instinct was here so sure that, with reckless violence to the truth, he put the ideas which lent fascination to every sort of Chandala religion into the mouth of the "Saviour" as his own inventions, and not only into the mouth--he made out of him something that even a priest of Mithras could understand. . . This was his revelation at Damascus: he grasped the fact that he needed the belief in immortality in order to rob "the world" of its value, that the concept of "hell" would master Rome--that the notion of a "beyond" is the death of life. Nihilist and Christian: they rhyme in German, and they do more than rhyme.
2003-08-21 05:39 | User Profile
He combatted the subterranean cults, the whole of latent Christianity--to deny immortality was already a form of genuine salvation.--
I wonder if you are aware how closely this jibes with Satanist doctrine - "we fight with God, to deliver souls from heaven"
Wonder if you'd admit to any overt occultic/Satanic practices. Of course Satanists, if I'm not mistaken, are sworn to deny such. :ph34r:
Just appropriate that you'd put these sort of comments on this thread. Obviously its pushed you over the edge.
Matthew 16:23
2003-08-21 06:48 | User Profile
Hello PL,
I think you realize that when I spoke of long history of barbaric conduct against other faiths I was not speaking about you personally or anyone alive. I was talking about historical reality which I note you gloss over and ignore which reflects a bit of why those that don't share your faith feel more the a bit of foreboding when considering societal intentions of proponents of religious homogeneity. This feeling that your commitment to religious tolerance is highly abridged became heightened when I heard you say:
Non-Christian religions should be tolerated, but should not be on an equal footing.
which you then expand upon when you say:
I do not support perfect religious equality, rather, I believe that a nation has a strong interest in religious homogeneity, every bit as much as ethnic homogeneity. After all, morality depends on religion, as much as the common good depends on morality. I would have to lie to say I see any good in religious "diversity". Tolerance, yes, but certainly no state support for non-Christians, and definitely state support for Christianity.
Now it seems to me that one thing that the Americans did right was to not have state religions for the simple reason that a state funded religious faith means that non believers are forced to fund proselytizing and recruitment for value system they don't agree with which is then officially portrayed as a defining aspect of national identity irregardless of counter historical currents or popular adherence. I'd also say that the strong state based support for Christian churches was an aspect of the NSDAP regime that I was somewhat uncomfortable with. What you propose doesn't sound like freedom of association to me but it could become a slippery path to theocracy. If you feel that religious homogeneity is vital to national unity then why am not legitimately concerned that you would have no problem with religious indoctrination for all students and state employees thereby limiting religious freedom?
If some tax exemption from the church tax for those that don't adhere to your faith were offered then I would feel less threatened but somehow I doubt that you'd approve of such a scheme. In practical terms I see a real problems with state sanctioned Churches. If you view religion as important as race to national identity are you saying that any protestant is less an Austrian then a Catholic if both are of the same racial background? Certainly that would be the implication from binding Church and state. Given the decadence of what currently passes for Christianity and the fact that Christianity is primarily a force of cultural Bolshevism these days I doubt that many traditional Christians of any sort would likely be content with a state sanctioned Church as most religious traditionalists are very much out of step with state sanctioned churches. That of course raises the question of what very specific variety of Christianity is given state sanction and who determines the extent to which the state Church adheres to the standard. Plenty of my Catholic comrades reject modern Catholicism and would not view a state sanctioned Church as legitimate if it fails to explicitly reject Vatican II and the current leadership and doctrine of the Vatican. The same could be said of Lutheran comrades that reject mainline Lutheran denominations as excessively leftist while the non liturgical protestant Churches would reject Liturgy based churches resulting in state sanctioned religion becoming a point of societal conflict rather then unity.
When it comes to adhering to some doctrinal standard for a state sanctioned Church once one is chosen another serious flaw emerges. Namely, how is doctrinal adherence and continuity maintained? Certainly one would not want the state making such determinations as that would subjugate the church in question. If a single religious dogma is an inherent part of national identity then how does one deal with doctrinal change from the church at large? As a nationalist it would seem problematic when the official doctrine of the church in question changes in such a way that it undermines national identity (ex. the church in question embraces miscegenation, globalism, collectivism of some sort, open migration policies etc.) which is hardly an idle question given the drastic change in all mainstream Christian theologies over the course of the 100 years.
Do those changes make your lansmen of past generations more or less Austrian? Your notion that religion is as important as race would seem to require a yes in answer to the last question just as I would assert that a significant change in the racial make of a nation dilutes national identity. With race one can easily conceive of policies that minimize genetic transformations of a people being put into place but I have a hard time seeing a corollary public policy that deals with preventing changes to theology and the corresponding effect such a change would have upon your perception of national identity.
Certainly such issues were far clearer prior to the reformation (unless you were a heretic), somewhat less problematic before the rise secularism that accompanied the industrial revolution and tenable in some cases prior to Vatican II in Catholic nations. Given that doctrinal unity doesn't exist within any branch of Christianity, given that the cohesiveness that Catholic Traditionalism could bring is very much a marginalized in the modern era and that even Spain and Italy are highly secularized I find the notion of religious conformity that your pushing highly dubious at best.
I have clearly stated that I found much to admire with the clerical Austria National Socialist and Fascist movements of days gone by, Catholic Corporatism from La Tour Du Pin, Maurras and the like and I stand by statement that I would be content to live within a Carlist run Catholic theocracy. In fact, I find much to commend with the folkish aspects of the societal and economic doctrine of all of those schools and have said so many times over. Those sources, and many others inspired in part by them, contributed much to the doctrines of the variant of National Socialist that I subscribe to while the underlying reason for doing so differs dramatically obviously. Yet, the fact is that no nation in Europa has societal conditions remotely like the Catholic nations of Europa from the ââ¬Ë30s and as a result, no Victor Pradera or Codreanu will arise if such men still exist. As a result, such nostalgia makes no more sense then those that think mimicking Hitler is a viable option in the current era.
If you wish to increase homogeneity via religion state sanction won't help in the current social climate. One can easily see that state sanctioned churches in no way increase societal cohesion to anything associated with traditionalism anywhere with present day Europa . A worthy faith earns adherence by demonstration of it's virtue and the soundness of it's conception rather then by suppressing other faiths, public funding or using institutional clout to marginalize contrary view points that are similarly open honest competition and tolerance. What will help is finding a way to promote cohesion within your church around the noble elements of traditionalism and negating the anti Occidental establishment that dominates all major Christian sects. How that can be done is better addressed by traditionalists active within their churches.
2003-08-21 08:16 | User Profile
Matthew 16:23
And Ephesians 6:12...
2003-08-21 13:22 | User Profile
He combatted the subterranean cults, the whole of latent Christianity--to deny immortality was already a form of genuine salvation.--
I wonder if you are aware how closely this jibes with Satanist doctrine - "we fight with God, to deliver souls from heaven"
Wonder if you'd admit to any overt occultic/Satanic practices. Of course Satanists, if I'm not mistaken, are sworn to deny such. :ph34r:
Just appropriate that you'd put these sort of comments on this thread. Obviously its pushed you over the edge.
Matthew 16:23**
I wonder if you are aware how closely this jibes with Satanist doctrine - "we fight with God, to deliver souls from heaven"
I really don't care whether it does. If a "Satanist," or any reprobate of your choosing, says mothers' milk is good for little babies, I will not object. One way to avoid ignorance and the cultivation of stupidity is to consider all arguments on their merits, as well as being mindful of their derivation. You have not learned this elementary lesson.
May I have an "Amen" from the pagans and atheists.
Wonder if you'd admit to any overt occultic/Satanic practices. Of course Satanists, if I'm not mistaken, are sworn to deny such. :ph34r:
Knew I any such practices, I would proclaim them rather than merely admit to them. But I do not bother to forswear any such practices - be very silly and impute to me whatever strikes your fancy in this regard. I really don't care.
Just appropriate that you'd put these sort of comments on this thread. Obviously it[']s pushed you over the edge.
Say something clever or informative, please.
2003-08-21 13:35 | User Profile
What you [PL] propose doesn't sound like freedom of association to me but it could become a slippery path to theocracy.
All the Boys and Girls who are surprised please raise your hands.
All right, Okie, your remedial homework assignment is 500 words on: "Why State sanction of religion leads to Theocracy." Spelling, grammar, and punctuation count.
2003-08-21 15:47 | User Profile
**I wonder if you are aware how closely this jibes with Satanist doctrine - "we fight with God, to deliver souls from heaven"
I really don't care whether it does. If a "Satanist," or any reprobate of your choosing, says mothers' milk is good for little babies, I will not object.
May I have an "Amen" from the pagans and atheists. Or other babies blood?
Seriously, what moral standards does someone with such a passionate hatred of universal morality (at least the only one we in the western world have known) retain?
> Wonder if you'd admit to any overt occultic/Satanic practices. Of course Satanists, if I'm not mistaken, are sworn to deny such. :ph34r:**
Knew I any such practices, I would proclaim them rather than merely admit to them. But I do not bother to forswear any such practices - be very silly and impute to me whatever strikes your fancy in this regard. I really don't care. ** How about the black mass, re Thus Spake Zarathustra - The Awakening?
> Just appropriate that you'd put these sort of comments on this thread. Obviously it[']s pushed you over the edge.**
Say something clever or informative, please.**
Like your demented polemic? :rolleyes:
2003-08-21 17:35 | User Profile
That which stood there aere perennis, the imperium Romanum, the most magnificent form of organization under difficult conditions that has ever been achieved,...
Who created the difficulty of the conditions?
SIZE=1[/SIZE]
2003-08-21 17:55 | User Profile
Hello PL,
I think you realize that when I spoke of long history of barbaric conduct against other faiths I was not speaking about you personally or anyone alive. I was talking about historical reality which I note you gloss over and ignore
I overlooked this, because it reminded me eerily of the other things we are supposed to feel guilty for: Slavery, the Holocaust,... :blink:
**which reflects a bit of why those that don't share your faith feel more the a bit of foreboding when considering societal intentions of proponents of religious homogeneity. This feeling that your commitment to religious tolerance is highly abridged became heightened when I heard you say:
Non-Christian religions should be tolerated, but should not be on an equal footing.
which you then expand upon when you say:
I do not support perfect religious equality, rather, I believe that a nation has a strong interest in religious homogeneity, every bit as much as ethnic homogeneity. After all, morality depends on religion, as much as the common good depends on morality. I would have to lie to say I see any good in religious "diversity". Tolerance, yes, but certainly no state support for non-Christians, and definitely state support for Christianity.
Now it seems to me that one thing that the Americans did right was to not have state religions for the simple reason that a state funded religious faith means that non believers are forced to fund proselytizing and recruitment for value system they don't agree with which is then officially portrayed as a defining aspect of national identity irregardless of counter historical currents or popular adherence. **
"Historical current" and "popular adherence" should define the value system? But we have that already! "Equal rights for homosexuals" is the historical current, "the multi-cultural society" enjoys popular adherence. Start with relativism in the field of religion, where will it end?
I'd also say that the strong state based support for Christian churches was an aspect of the NSDAP regime that I was somewhat uncomfortable with.
The not so few priests and nuns killed by Nationalsocialism probably shared your discomfort with its support for Christianity.
2003-08-21 20:04 | User Profile
What you propose doesn't sound like freedom of association to me but it could become a slippery path to theocracy. If you feel that religious homogeneity is vital to national unity then why am not legitimately concerned that you would have no problem with religious indoctrination for all students and state employees thereby limiting religious freedom?
I am convinced that a Theocracy is not in the best interest of Christians.
Government officials are not competent to hold the mass; Priests and Bishops are not competent to rule the state. In so far, the case for separation of Church and State is solid. The Church should have considerable cultural influence, but it should not rule. Too much entanglement of the Clergy in worldly things would not only be bad for the State, but also for the Church itself. I would not want to directly imitate Iran (-though some aspects of their system are impressive. Iran is my model as to how to proceed in regard to the Jewish question. No William-Pierce-style atrocities necessary, if you have a strong, religious leadership.)
2003-08-21 20:22 | User Profile
Trisk,
as to your other points, they all (more or less) apply to all aspects of culture, not just religion. I take it you want some regulation of culture (or what is the point of cultural conservatism?), and if so, why is religion to be exempt?
From a purely logical viewpoint, religion is the starting point. When all is said and done, religion defines culture. Hillaire Belloc was right: "Europe is the Faith; the Faith is Europe."
2003-08-21 20:53 | User Profile
** overlooked this, because it reminded me eerily of the other things we are supposed to feel guilty for: Slavery, the Holocaust. **
I pointed out that acknowledging misdeeds is a good idea and I said so within the context of your support for using the state as a meaning of promoting religious homogeneity. That a statement by those wishing to do that excesses and abuses of the past is not some you wish to repeat and realize such things were a bad. I did not say that you, or anyone else, ir or should feel guilty but I was hoping that you would at least state something along the lines suggested in the last sentence.
** "Historical current" and "popular adherence" should define the value system? But we have that already! "Equal rights for homosexuals" is the historical current, "the multi-cultural society" enjoys popular adherence. Start with relativism in the field of religion, where will it end? **
I spoke at length about the problems of associating a religion with national identity as doing so disenfranchises those that hold other faiths and a great many other problems that you failed to touch on at all. I did not say that history and popularity should define a value system. I did say "Now it seems to me that one thing that the Americans did right was to not have state religions for the simple reason that a state funded religious faith means that non believers are forced to fund proselytizing and recruitment for value system they don't agree with which is then officially portrayed as a defining aspect of national identity irregardless of counter historical currents or popular adherence." If you have something to say about that quote beyond unwarranted interances I will get back to you. You then list examples of the things I object to which I indicated as potential problems stemming from a state sanctioned church changing it's theology and how such change would be problematic for your conception of national identity. I did so to try to get you consider some of the implications of have a state sanctioned Church. You addressed none of those points but instead chose to blatantly misrepresent my position as a defense of moral relativism. Given that you started this thread with a straw man I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
You then make an off handed comment about Hitler killing clergy while ignoring the support given to his regime by Christians and state support given to the churches. If you wish to learn something about the subject see: www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/NSChristianity.html and
www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/NSChristianity.html#speech
Also, some material about Catholic support for the Third Reich was posted else where by LG so you could look that up as well.
More to the point, I note that you have given zero attention to 90% of what I did say and misrepresented what little you chose to address. You're too a good a man to debate in such a manner so I hope you'll get around to considering what I said with a bit of honesty.
2003-08-21 21:05 | User Profile
I pointed out that acknowledging misdeeds is a good idea and I said so within the context of your support for using the state as a meaning of promoting religious homogeneity. That a statement by those wishing to do that excesses and abuses of the past is not some you wish to repeat and realize such things were a bad. I did not say that you, or anyone else, ir or should feel guilty but I was hoping that you would at least state something along the lines suggested in the last sentence.
Trisk, I did state that I donôt want a Theocracy. I also donôt want to re-introduce the Spanish Inquisition, in case that bothers you.
Itôs only that I am a bit reluctant to apologize for things that happened long before my time, and have also been blown up to over-large proportions in scope. Both Stalinism and Nationalsocialism killed more people in a few decades/years than the Catholic Church over the course of two Millennia.
But no, I do not plan for any witch trials. :) I am also not planning to imitate the intolerance of the Pagan Emperor Trajan, who forced Christians to sacrifice on the Emperorôs altar, so I do not advocate a law forcing anybody to be baptized.
2003-08-21 21:58 | User Profile
I spoke at length about the problems of associating a religion with national identity as doing so disenfranchises those that hold other faiths and a great many other problems that you failed to touch on at all. I did not say that history and popularity should define a value system. I did say "Now it seems to me that one thing that the Americans did right was to not have state religions for the simple reason that a state funded religious faith means that non believers are forced to fund proselytizing and recruitment for value system they don't agree with which is then officially portrayed as a defining aspect of national identity irregardless of counter historical currents or popular adherence." If you have something to say about that quote beyond unwarranted interances I will get back to you. You then list examples of the things I object to which I indicated as potential problems stemming from a state sanctioned church changing it's theology and how such change would be problematic for your conception of national identity. I did so to try to get you consider some of the implications of have a state sanctioned Church. You addressed none of those points but instead chose to blatantly misrepresent my position as a defense of moral relativism. Given that you started this thread with a straw man I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
You then make an off handed comment about Hitler killing clergy while ignoring the support given to his regime by Christians and state support given to the churches. If you wish to learn something about the subject see: [url]www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/NSChristianity.html[/url] and
[url]www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/NSChristianity.html#speech[/url]
Also, some material about Catholic support for the Third Reich was posted else where by LG so you could look that up as well.
More to the point, I note that you have given zero attention to 90% of what I did say and misrepresented what little you chose to address. You're too a good a man to debate in such a manner so I hope you'll get around to considering what I said with a bit of honesty.
Trisk, your posts sometimes are so long I donôt have the time to answer all of your points. In this case, however, there was also a misunderstanding: You think I didnôt adress parts of your argument that I did, in fact, adress, but only implicitly.
My point was that religion and culture cannot possibly be separated. Religion is 1) the foundation of a culture, 2) the most important part of it. Also you didnôt notice what was implied in the Belloc quote: I do not share your assumption that, with Christianity going out of the window, saving the Occident is still worthwhile. Christianity is the cornerstone of Western Civilization, Western Civilization is the raison dôetre of the White Race. If Christian Civilization goes, what stays?
The NS thing has already been discussed in another thread. You agreed to the authenticity of Hitlerôs Table Talks. There is abundant proof that, in the long run, Christianity and Nationalsocialism were incompatible. One or the other had to give way. I really see no need to go into this, again.
The practical difficulties you mention do not exist, if 90% of the population share the same religion. This is the ideal case I was talking about. Where, unfortunately, heterogeneity does already exist, compromise is necessary, I considered that as a given. However, in the long term, I make no bones about the goal of rechristianization being very worthwhile, though it may take generations, given exclusive reliance on peaceful persuasion.
However, you didnôt answer my question, where does religion differ from other cultural issues? This argument is perfectly valid. How do you want to uphold any values? By brute force? And if not, how do you think any community can exist without being largely homogeneous in their outlook, starting with religion?
2003-08-21 22:20 | User Profile
If you wish to increase homogeneity via religion state sanction won't help in the current social climate.
Trisk, once more:
I have to give to you that I overlooked this sentence, and the line of thought it adresses.
My answer is that I was not thinking about the short term at all. My reflection was mostly about where I want our Civilization to be 100 years from now, and if possible, I want it to be completely rechristianized. In the short term, whatever works. However, even in the short term, a religious approach may work better than anything else. I find it impressive how Khomeini overthrew the Shah. The mere bread-and-butter issues will never have the force of religious zeal!
Starting a Crusade (literally!) against the New World Order is perhaps exactly what we need.
2003-08-21 23:10 | User Profile
How will American devotees of "Big Business and Israel" ever start a crusade against the New World Order?
This is a valid concern. We must free them from the clutches of Apostasis.
You may protest, if you like, that Graham is a Protestant, but the leading Catholic journal in America, First Things, has even bigger plans. If you like, I can reprint them for you here.
No need, I believe you. Obviously, as indicated by my new Avatar, I have a Christianity of a somewhat fiercer sort in mind. We must start with the Rechristianization of Protestants and Catholics. B)
Without Christianity, the White Race is a body without a soul. Fighting for the survival of a Zombie may seem motivating to the NA, who would like to brainwash everybody into a Zombie anyway, but I cannot see how that should motivate us, and that includes you.
2003-08-21 23:41 | User Profile
Although, as a counter-offer, perhaps you would join my quixotic quest to encourage conversion to Orthodoxy?
For the time being, as I have no better blueprint at hand, yet, if you see perspectives in this undertaking, advance!
Such a being, you wrote, is never vainglorious and wouldn't stoop to making real estate deals with bedouins, especially not for foreskins.
There is truth in what you say. However, as your God is a formless principle, you underestimate His goodness. If this was the only way they could understand Him, He might talk to them in their terms, even if that includes business deals. There is also the distinct possibility, if not even probability, that God has a considerable sense of humour. B)
2003-08-21 23:47 | User Profile
Without Christianity, the White Race is a body without a soul.
This pretty much says it all and history is proving it right. Painfully right.
Well said, PL.
2003-08-21 23:50 | User Profile
Such a being, you wrote, is never vainglorious and wouldn't stoop to making real estate deals with bedouins, especially not for foreskins.
And you know this how?
2003-08-22 00:30 | User Profile
There is truth in what you say. However, as your God is a formless principle, you underestimate His goodness.
Well, I think that my god, as well as yours, is the Form of the Good, and therefore the template of any and every lesser good that there is. If that is underestimation, so be it.
I have one little problem with the God of Plato, and another little problem with Plato.
My little problem with the God of Plato is that I am not even sure there is a God of Plato.
My little problem with Plato, despite his undeniable brilliance, is that he was a bit too fond of lying. His proposals to his disciples what lies to tell to the citizens (in the Politeia) make me always question which parts of his work are lies told to the reader.
Btw, if you must paraphrase me, at least donôt present your interpretation as if you were quoting me. I never mentioned bedouins and foreskins. Such scurrilous remarks are your domain. :rolleyes:
2003-08-22 05:00 | User Profile
Hello PL,
** Trisk, I did state that I donôt want a Theocracy. I also donôt want to re-introduce the Spanish Inquisition, in case that bothers you. **
I am glad to hear it. However, when you talk of a state sanctioned Church that a whole lot of externalities that go along with it. Your position that non-Christians are somehow less Occidental certainly indicates a likelihood that your policies would become a slippery slope to theocracy and do seem to imply that you favour having proselytizing and indoctrination via schools and media controls.
** Itôs only that I am a bit reluctant to apologize for things that happened long before my time, and have also been blown up to over-large proportions in scope. Both Stalinism and National socialism killed more people in a few decades/years than the Catholic Church over the course of two Millennia. **
First of all, I have not ask for an apology but a mere recognition that the potential for religious oppression is high within the confines of a state sanctioned church and doubly so when you offer no safe guards and no recognition of the societal destruction wrought by theocracy. Secondly, given the lower technologies of the pre-industrial era it is no surprise that the absolute number of deaths were lower during numerous centuries of sectarian warfare, senseless crusades of conquest in alien lands and countless purges directed against heretics. Neither are such comparisons relevant. What is relevant is the horrid cost to Occidental humanity as a proportion of the populations at the time and the fact that such reality is swept under the rug by those pushing for state sanctioned religious homogeneity these days which gives those that hold views other then those being pushed by zealots like your self trepidation.
** But no, I do not plan for any witch trials. **
But surely you can see that your advocation of state sanctioned religious uniformity lends to such fears and reasonably so.
** I am also not planning to imitate the intolerance of the Pagan Emperor Trajan, who forced Christians to sacrifice on the Emperor's altar, so I do not advocate a law forcing anybody to be baptized. **
As I am not knowledgeable about the era and persons in question I will not comment. I will say that your advocation of state sanctioned religious uniformity makes such a prospect a distinct likelihood.
** My point was that religion and culture cannot possibly be separated. Religion is 1) the foundation of a culture, 2) the most important part of it. **
I now see why in past exchanges you proclaimed those non Christians that were for religious tolerance as anti-Christian. Simply put, you wish to provide an environment in which non Christians are marginalized at best or perhaps actively oppressed if not by design. Off hand, your idea that Occidental civilization is tied to Christianity is patently false. I could point to numerous civilizations throughout the Occidental world that were not Christian and worthy of great merit. I could conversely point to the fact that around the world numerous nations exist that are without a doubt non Occidental and devoid of anything that you or I would find redeeming yet have a variant of Christianity that's state sanctioned along with a Christian majority. Another reality check is that most European nations still today have an official church yet the societies, as well as the churches themselves, are mired in decadence and the facets of degeneracy and multi-racialism we both object to.
** Also you didn't notice what was implied in the Belloc quote: I do not share your assumption that, with Christianity going out of the window, saving the Occident is still worthwhile. Christianity is the cornerstone of Western Civilization, Western Civilization is the raison dtre of the White Race. If Christian Civilization goes, what stays? **
I'd rather live in a non Christian nation inhabited by Europeans then a Christian nation filled with Mestizos or Africans because the latter is a dung heap no matter what faith they profess. If you don't think so spend some time in El Salvador, Bolivia, or any one of a great many third world dens of misery that have majority Christians or even a state sanctioned church and get back to me on the idea that what separates us is religion.
** The NS thing has already been discussed in another thread. You agreed to the authenticity of Hitlerôs Table Talks. There is abundant proof that, in the long run, Christianity and National socialism were incompatible. One or the other had to give way. I really see no need to go into this, again. **
You raised the matter of NS in your last response to me while I had not raised it all in this thread prior. As you have chosen to make an issue out of the NSDAP variant of NS again without considering the links posted last time I am obligated to do like wise. Setting a side the fact that the NSDAP regime was supported by and supportive of Christianity in an official position while suppressing several Heathen sects faithful to the regime your argument is not tenable.
I could point out to you that Charles Maurras, the Marquis De La Tour Du Pin and a great many other ardent Catholics accurately labeled themselves as National -Socialists as did a great many other nationalist revolutionaries inspired by them from the 1890's onward and they have easily dismissed your notion as relates to a wider conception of National Socialism. I'd also point out that the International Third Position is ardently Christian and that they hold views very close to mine in almost everything. It should be stated that the Traditionalist Catholic martyr Massimo Morsello was someone that I admired and respected who stated his agreement with me on most things save religion and the same can be said of Roberto Fiore. In point of fact, I can't resist saying that the Carlist (as ardent a Catholic authoritarian doctrine as had ever existed) theorist Victor Pradera promoted a folkish, corporatist model for society that was in every practical way NS even if he chose not to use the term and his rational for arriving at his gestalt was very different then mine. I could point to an endless series of other examples to the contrary but I see no reason to belabor the point.
** The practical difficulties you mention do not exist, if 90% of the population share the same religion. This is the ideal case I was talking about. Where, unfortunately, heterogeneity does already exist, compromise is necessary, I considered that as a given. However, in the long term, I make no bones about the goal of rechristianization being very worthwhile, though it may take generations, given exclusive reliance on peaceful persuasion. **
Given that the Occident has about two generations of life left in it save a revolutionary change your talk of rechristianization and culture being a product of Christianity is a perfect way to doom anything happening in what time remains within our highly secularized nations. Clerical nationalist parties didn't succeed in totally homogeneous Catholic Southern Europa 70 years ago are simply not an option anywhere in the West (the East may be different but I doubt it) so lets work with what we have rather then what we wish we had.
If you wish to wed your politics to your theology it seems to me that some things need to happen prior to your effort at re-Christianisation. Christendom needs to be remade into something that seeks to save Europa rather then actively destroy it. Secondly, those that label themselves Christian of various sorts need to have some sort of willingness to work with non Christians on behalf of the Occident rather then take the indefensible that Christianity alone = Europa and make it known that the theological absolutists have no place within a society that respects freedom of conscious just as responsible non Christians have done.
** However, you didn't answer my question, where does religion differ from other cultural issues? **
Culture is a product of societal conditions which are largely, but obviously not exclusively, the product of race. Occidental reason and heroic sacrifice on behalf of one's people are both vital bases of the civilizations created by our race. It is one's physical environment and appearance that gives rise to aesthetics which form the basis of the arts. Technology is the product of intellect which is in large measure racial but also due to a societal arrangement that provides the a legal conditions and civil society in which innovation and it's products can be implemented and that requires a common sense of uniqueness and worth that comes from the inter-relatedness of genetics and history. In a practical sense, religion is meritorious to the extent that it fosters such a commonality to face a constant struggle in a hostile world. A religion is negative socially to the extent that it undermines such commonality.
** This argument is perfectly valid. How do you want to uphold any values? By brute force? **
Worthy values are upheld by removing that which undermines societal cohesion and the uniqueness of Occidental humanity. Doing so requires: 1) racial homogeneity 2) a stable family structure and the suppression of sexual degeneracy 3) an economic system that balances the needs for material wealth with societal commonality & ecological health as well as minimization of class based conflict and the recognition of private property. 4) a state that is subservient to society that has as a primary function preventing foreign interests from gaining genetic, cultural, governmental or economic influence over the nation.
Any worth while religion can win converts within the confines of the free exchange of ideas and without state sanction, tax monies or publicly sanctioned indoctrination.
** And if not, how do you think any community can exist without being largely homogeneous in their outlook, starting with religion? **
A people that sees them selves as unique and valuable as a result of an historic aspiration, legacy and genetic simelarity is one that can be largely homogeneous. Certainly, no one will argue that religion should not be a part of such homogeneity although it has not been such a force for some time and at many times in the past it has caused massive lose of Occidental life do to the impuse to be the sole definer of societal norms. To the extent that a religion promotes a folkish vision it is social valuable. To the extent that traditionalistic Christians can remold their churches away from the path of universalism and cultural Bolshevism they are useful in helping to preserve the Occident.
2003-08-22 14:27 | User Profile
**First of all, I have not ask for an apology but a mere recognition that the potential for religious oppression is high within the confines of a state sanctioned church and doubly so when you offer no safe guards and no recognition of the societal destruction wrought by theocracy. **
It depends on the philosophy that the state sanctioned church takes in terms of converting. Does it wish to convert by force or through peaceful means? Orthodoxy was the state-sanctioned church in Russia yet there was little violence when it came to non-Christians often. In fact there was little violence at when Russian missionaries tried to convert the natives of Alaska. Why? Because the Missionaries chose to convert the Indians through rational debate and understanding. The Missionaries learned the native languages and learned about the native habits and such. If any of the natives wish to learn more about Christianity they were free to join the missionaries. If not, they were free to continue to pratice their own religion.
This is one reason why Dostoevesky once said that Roman Catholicism was more Roman than it was Christian, for the Orthodox Church did not engage in looting and pillaging as did the Roman Catholics did around the world when converting. Although it should be noted that most who did the actual looting and pillaging was done by freebooters who only wanted loot and gave lip service to conversions.
** Secondly, given the lower technologies of the pre-industrial era it is no surprise that the absolute number of deaths were lower during numerous centuries of sectarian warfare, senseless crusades of conquest in alien lands and countless purges directed against heretics.ÃÂ Neither are such comparisons relevant.ÃÂ What is relevant is the horrid cost to Occidental humanity as a proportion of the populations at the time and the fact that such reality is swept under the rug by those pushing for state sanctioned religious homogeneity these days which gives those that hold views other then those being pushed by zealots like your self trepidation. **
Oh are we talking about the Inquisition again? :y The Inquisition had the lowest rate of executions than anyother judicial court in all of Europe. In the Spainish Empire for 300 years, less than 4000 people were ever executed. Most people did not serve in jails, and if they actually did it was for only a few months at most.
In fact the Inquisition was created in response to the uncontrollable fanaticism of local mobs of heresy hunters, the indifference of certain ecclesiastics, the violence of secular courts and the bloodshed of many crusades. It was created to exercise greater control over the determination and prosecution of heresy, to make it more orderly and legal.
So all the violence you so accuse the Church of commiting was actually committed by mislead fanatics and/or oppurtunistic rulers who used this as an excuse to build a greater power base.
** ** But no, I do not plan for any witch trials. **
But surely you can see that your advocation of state sanctioned religious uniformity lends to such fears and reasonably so. **
Again it depends on the attitude the state church has towards dealing with non-christians. The Orthodox Church does not seek to convert by force, it even has the policy of not sending missionaries to other christian nations. Although you shouldn't even fear a Roman Catholic state, for even St. Thomas Aquinas in his political writings talks about how it is possible for non-christians to live peacefully in a Christian state. He said that [url=http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/staamp7.htm#Infid]nonbelievers should not be forced to believe[/url] in Christ. Aquinas also said that the children of nonbelievers and Jews should not be forced to be baptised without the consent of their parents. Now he was primarily talking about Muslims, if that changes anything but I don't think so. So even Catholic politcal theorists(not just St. Thomas Aquinas) believe in a christian state that respects other religions.
** ** My point was that religion and culture cannot possibly be separated.ÃÂ Religion is 1) the foundation of a culture, 2) the most important part of it. **
I now see why in past exchanges you proclaimed those non Christians that were for religious tolerance as anti-Christian. Simply put, you wish to provide an environment in which non Christians are marginalized at best or perhaps actively oppressed if not by design.**
Machiavelli talked about how religion was key in bringing about social and political unity. So the more unified a society is religiously, the more unified it is socially and politically. Now Machiavelli was an admirer of Roman paganism and was critical of Christian teachings, but nevertheless he saw that since the majority of ones subjects would be Christian, a good Prince must support the christian church even if only for oppurtuntistic reasons. So Machiavelli seems to be on the side of PL, for he also saw how important religion was to a nation's culture.
So of course you think one always leads to the other Trisk. Well it does not. You can have a culturally prevelant religion and still be tolerant of others. The American world-view and values were based primarily on Anglo-Saxon protestant values, yet Catholic and other religions were free to practice their religions. But they had to accept the fact that this was pretty much a Protestant country and that protestant values would be prevelant in the culture.
** ÃÂ Off hand, your idea that Occidental civilization is tied to Christianity is patently false.ÃÂ I could point to numerous civilizations throughout the Occidental world that were not Christian and worthy of great merit.**
Yes and it should be mentioned that most of what we know about those civilizations was preserved by the Christian church while many Pagans were pillaging and burning Europe's libraries. Then of course it was many theologians like St. Thomas Aquinas who revived interest in pre-Christian pagan knowledge by applining their teachings to Christianity.
** ÃÂ I could conversely point to the fact that around the world numerous nations exist that are without a doubt non Occidental and devoid of anything that you or I would find redeeming yet have a variant of Christianity that's state sanctioned along with a Christian majority. **
I like it how you refuse to name names at all. Are we talking about Latin America here? If anything the Church is a major force in stabilizing many parts of the region, and often is the only institution providing for the welfare of entire communities in the face of corrupt regimes.
** Another reality check is that most European nations still today have an official church yet the societies, as well as the churches themselves, are mired in decadence and the facets of degeneracy and multi-racialism we both object to. **
That's probally because many of Europe's churches have been infiltrated by pro-Marxist liberals. Gramsci himself said that it was because of Europe's Christian heritage that Europe was immune to a communist revolution. Therefore the task for Marxists was to capture major cultural institutions and try to de-Christianize Western societies so as to make it more vulernable to a Red revolution. A key element was of this plan was to infiltrate the Churches itself and try to rot them from within. So far the plan is going fine. So even the Communists realized how important Christianity was in shaping Western Civilization.
** I'd rather live in a non Christian nation inhabited by Europeans then a Christian nation filled with Mestizos or Africans because the latter is a dung heap no matter what faith they profess. **
Funny how once Europe became more and more de-Christianized the more and more the so-called :dung: started to arrive. So by advocating the destruction of Christianity, the more you brought about your own apocalypse.
** If you don't think so spend some time in El Salvador, Bolivia, or any one of a great many third world dens of misery that have majority Christians or even a state sanctioned church and get back to me on the idea that what separates us is religion.**
You forget that Europe during the Dark Ages was not exactly paradise itself. In fact the Church was the only stablizing influence and institution in Europe during this period. While you pagans ran around pillaging and burning everything, the Church was trying hard to preserve Europe's intellectual heritage and caring for the welfare of communities. In fact it was during this time that the notion of a pan-European identity was being formed and it was based on the Christian church. Christianity was the only force that brought anykind of unity to the people of Europe. So many of the very concepts you Pagan espouse about pan-European identity and unity has its roots in the Christian faith.
** Given that the Occident has about two generations of life left in it save a revolutionary change your talk of rechristianization and culture being a product of Christianity is a perfect way to doom anything happening in what time remains within our highly secularized nations. Clerical nationalist parties didn't succeed in totally homogeneous Catholic Southern Europa 70 years ago are simply not an option anywhere in the West (the East may be different but I doubt it) so lets work with what we have rather then what we wish we had. **
Yes and it should be noted that many of the major populist nationalist groups in Europe are Christian based and are in support of traditional christian teachings. I'm always giving the example of how the people of Ireland rallied around the banner of St. Patrick as their national icon as opposed to to Cuchulainn as professed by the elites like William Butler Yeats. Paganism is often the faith of the elites, while Christianity is often the faith of the working masses. Ever notice that the more wealthy the neighborhood, the less churches there are and often the more liberal they are. On the other hand, the less wealthy the neighborhood, the more churches you find and the more traditional they are. Interesting <_<
** Worthy values are upheld by removing that which undermines societal cohesion and the uniqueness of Occidental humanity.ÃÂ Doing so requires: 1) racial homogeneity 2)ÃÂ a stable family structure and the suppression of sexual degeneracy 3)ÃÂ an economic system that balances the needs for material wealth with societal commonality & ecological health as well as minimization of class based conflict and the recognition of private property. 4) a state that is subservient to society that has as a primary function preventing foreign interests from gaining genetic, cultural, governmental or economic influence over the nation.
**
Yes and you will notice many of these same elements in traditional Christian teachings. So your assestment of Christianity is primarily based on a perverted form of Christianity.
** To the extent that a religion promotes a folkish vision it is social valuable. To the extent that traditionalistic Christians can remold their churches away from the path of universalism and cultural Bolshevism they are useful in helping to preserve the Occident.**
Well first off Christianity is a universal faith, no ifs ands or buts. Just what does universal mean? To some it means uniform, that all christians around the world must be the same. To others it means diversity, that each national community within the universal church has its own unique expressions of Christian teachings. The latter has been the position of the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox churches. For centuries, Eastern Catholics were subjected to the policy of "latinization" were they were forced to give up elements of their eastern heritage and adopt more Latin rituals and pratices. Vatican II brought this to an end, and so that I'm happy. So being a universal faith is not by itself anti-nationalist, it depends on the definition of "universal". Many of Europe's greatest nationalists were members of this universal church.
As the Orthodox Christian Alexander Solzhenitsyn once said(and Hugh Lincoln has as his signature)
** The disappearance of nations would impoverish us no less than if all peoples were made alike, with one character, one face. Nations are the wealth of mankind, they are its generalized personalities: the smallest of them has its own particular colors, and embodies a particular facet of God's design.**
Or even as the more traditionalist [url=http://www.truecatholic.org/pope/]Pope Pius XIII [/url] declares here in his [url=http://www.truecatholic.org/pope/condemnationsbypius13.htm]comdemnation of the UN[/url]
**No matter how well such a universal state is composed it can never provide proper care for the citizens of the world as natural law requires.ÃÂ There must be independent and sovereign states.ÃÂ Those states must be composed by the rules of natural law.ÃÂ They have ideals and a purpose all their own.ÃÂ They have, so to say, a personality which makes the citizens different in each state.ÃÂ The esprit de corps of the Japanese differs from that of the Chinese.ÃÂ The esprit de corps of the Germans differ from that of the Italians.ÃÂ It is a common and necessary way people want to conduct themselves. **
and concludes
** Our Lord Jesus Christ was born at a time when there was a one world government under Caesar.ÃÂ His Church was birthed during the same era. By the directions and divine assistance of the Church that One World Government ended, and the Christian social order with sovereign states filled the earth.ÃÂ Once again, if the world generally becomes Catholic the slip into the slavery of the now encroaching New World Order of the One World Government can be stopped, and once again sovereign states can fill the world.ÃÂ In that form of civil order God ordained that men work out their eternal salvation, and that is their one and only reason for being on this earth.ÃÂ **
Here's even an article talking about white nationalism and Christianity are compatible [url=http://www.duke.org/library/race/christianity_nationalism.html]http://www.duke.org/library/race/christian...ationalism.html[/url] and that just because the Catholic Church(or other Christian churches) is opposed to racism doesn't mean it supports mulitculturalism. As it states
** Christian authors repeatedly stated that all who accept Jesus Christ as their savior are one in Christ. Yet, this is meant in a mystical/spirtual sense, not in a social, political or racial sense. That this is indeed the case is proven by the fact that the New Testament accepts the institution of slavery (Col 3: 22-25). The master and slave could both attain eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, but in the earthly realm there is still the distinction between them. (This writer believes that human slavery is an evil institution which should be abolished for all time.)
In a spiritual/mystical sense, New Testament Christianity is indeed "multiracial." It teaches that all men and women, regardless of their race or nationality, will be granted eternal life if they adhere to the teachings of the Bible. However, the New Testament in no way implies that whites--or any race for that matter--must forcibly integrate with other races and negate their collective racial/cultural identities. **
Thus is the traditional Christian view. The creation of nations was ordained by God to populate the world and a result of man trying to become god(the tower of Babel when man was one nation). Traditional christianity even tells how God appoints Guardian angels to each nation; to serve and protect the people of that nation. They are referred to as tutelary angels or ethnarchs.
So Christianity is not the problem.
2003-08-23 00:23 | User Profile
It is not NeoNietzche who 'imagines' a vainglorious YHVH. It is your Bad Book, which you are free to repudiate at any time.
I am not going to repudiate Christianity anytime soon; btw, your permanent calling the Bible the Bad Book is childish to the extreme. This from the follower of a cult of Mediterranean Demon Worshippers. :lol:
And I know NN has no religious imagination at all; as to the rest, Iôll come back to you. Trisk is first come, first served. Thatôs the problem with Tribal Polytheists: As they donôt agree among each other which False Gods to hold up as the true ones, debating them can become a chore. :)
2003-08-23 00:27 | User Profile
...seem to imply that you favour having proselytizing and indoctrination via schools and media controls.
Pat Buchanan said it best: "Someoneôs values have to prevail; why not ours?" :D
2003-08-23 00:33 | User Profile
...when you offer no safe guards...
I offer Citizen Rights according to Natural Law, as recognized by the Catholic Church and most other Christian confessions.
What are the safeguards offered to non-conformists by Nationalsocialism (either the 3rd Reich variant or yours)?
2003-08-23 00:43 | User Profile
You raised the matter of NS in your last response to me while I had not raised it all in this thread prior.
Oh no, you did, by saying: "I'd also say that the strong state based support for Christian churches was an aspect of the NSDAP regime that I was somewhat uncomfortable with."
Frankly, I found this statement ridiculous; first, because of its factual untruth, second, becuse there were so many things objectionable about the NSDAP regime that choosing what little forced (by political circumstances) support to Christianity it gave as an example, or as the example, for the objectionable is clownish at best.
2003-08-23 01:05 | User Profile
I'd also point out that the International Third Position is ardently Christian and that they hold views very close to mine in almost everything.
I do not know enough about them, but I grant that it is quite possible that Christians and Pagans with generally constructive views can agree about many things.
Still, while we are at it: You say that your definition of "Nationalsocialism" is different from the 3rd Reich definition. The problem I have with this is that, as you also grant, no other variant of Nationalsocialism has ever been politically successful, even in the short term. This has naturally led, in nearly everybodyôs terminology, including, I admit, my own, to equal "Third Reich" with "Nationalsocialism". Hitler himself said that "Nationalsocialism is not for export", implying he also agreed that 3rd Reich = Nationalsocialism. Now, given that 99.9% consensus on what "Nationalsocialism" in common speech means, couldnôt you use a different term without this historical 1000ton Albatros around its neck to denote your views, given that they do not equal those of the 3rd Reich? Frankly, I really cannot help but observing that saying "I am a Nationalsocialist, but not of the Third Reich variant" sounds either extremely quixotic or hypocritical.
2003-08-23 01:08 | User Profile
First of all, you're welcome, regarding the accurate reprint of your own words, which you requested.
I requested not so much an accurate reprint of my words, as your ceasing to reprint them inaccurately. :rolleyes:
2003-08-23 01:13 | User Profile
Therefore, as in our other thread, I am ready to make allowances.
Please take all the time you need.
Take all the time you need in our other thread, too. Though I hope you are not waiting on input from me there, given the half dozen things you havenôt yet answered? :unsure:
2003-08-23 01:27 | User Profile
Clerical nationalist parties didn't succeed in totally homogeneous Catholic Southern Europa 70 years ago are simply not an option anywhere in the West (the East may be different but I doubt it) so lets work with what we have rather then what we wish we had.
If you wish to wed your politics to your theology it seems to me that some things need to happen prior to your effort at re-Christianisation.
These things cannot be separated, no matter my wishes. It doesnôt make sense to exclude either religion or politics from a worldview.
That Christian-Patriotic parties, on the whole, were/are not quite what we would wish them to be, had/has more to do with these parties than with the foundations of the Christian worldview in general.
With NN attacking the foundations on the ground that he believes everything bad that ever happened came from them, WM attacking Christianity on the ground that the OT was given to the Jews, and you attacking it on the ground that Christian parties were not efficient enough, Iôd wish at least the Zionists gave us a break; Christians clearly have it difficult enough without them. :lol:
2003-08-23 01:46 | User Profile
** However, you didn't answer my question, where does religion differ from other cultural issues? **
Culture is a product of societal conditions which are largely, but obviously not exclusively, the product of race. Occidental reason and heroic sacrifice on behalf of one's people are both vital bases of the civilizations created by our race. It is one's physical environment and appearance that gives rise to aesthetics which form the basis of the arts. Technology is the product of intellect which is in large measure racial but also due to a societal arrangement that provides the a legal conditions and civil society in which innovation and it's products can be implemented and that requires a common sense of uniqueness and worth that comes from the inter-relatedness of genetics and history. In a practical sense, religion is meritorious to the extent that it fosters such a commonality to face a constant struggle in a hostile world. A religion is negative socially to the extent that it undermines such commonality.
I do not doubt that religion is useful. However, I very much deny that it can, or should, be judged on the ground of its usefulness alone. This would in itself mean putting the material over the spiritual -matter over mind- and would therefore already implicate a materialist worldview, with religion used as a cover at best.
And this is the heart of my critique of Paganism: I cannot bring myself to believe itôs a living faith. I cannot bring myself to believe that Wintermute believes in the Gods of Athens in the same way the ancient Athenians believed in them. I cannot bring myself to believe that you believe in the Norse Gods in the same way the Scandinavians of the year 500 believed in them. On this matter, I think I am quite simply an Unbeliever. :)
2003-08-23 02:18 | User Profile
Gramsci himself said that it was because of Europe's Christian heritage that Europe was immune to a communist revolution. Therefore the task for Marxists was to capture major cultural institutions and try to de-Christianize Western societies so as to make it more vulernable to a Red revolution. A key element was of this plan was to infiltrate the Churches itself and try to rot them from within. So far the plan is going fine. So even the Communists realized how important Christianity was in shaping Western Civilization.
The irony of it all is that, apart from a very few exceptions, only the enemies of Western Civilization seem to realize its dependence on Christianity. :lol:
Wonderful post. My sentiments exactly.
2003-08-23 02:26 | User Profile
I do not doubt that religion is useful. However, I very much deny that it can, or should, be judged on the ground of its usefulness alone. This would in itself mean putting the material over the spiritual -matter over mind- and would therefore already implicate a materialist worldview, with religion used as a cover at best.
And this is the heart of my critique of Paganism: I cannot bring myself to believe itôs a living faith. I cannot bring myself to believe that Wintermute believes in the Gods of Athens in the same way the ancient Athenians believed in them. I cannot bring myself to believe that you believe in the Norse Gods in the same way the Scandinavians of the year 500 believed in them. On this matter, I think I am quite simply an Unbeliever. :)
:lol: :lol: :lol:
** The idea of salvation was not foreign to the pagan world, it was promulgated by the nature religions, but therein it was altogether different than in the Christian consciousness. The natural pagan religions were unable to arrive at the consciousness of true life. They looked upon God and the gods as means for the attaining of earthly happiness, as an help for their own purposes. True religion however requires the free assimilation of likeness to God. ?The striving of man towards the justification of his existence upon the earth, amidst that hostile to the God-like life, gives rise to a juridical relationship to God and by this it directly and decisively negates the truth of religion, and the possibility of morality, since that in the grip of this relationship religion is transformed for man into a simple deal with God, and like an ordinary worldly deal, it necessarily becomes subordinated to the principle of the happiness of life?. Such is the idea of salvation in natural religion. And this juridical theory was carried over also into the Christian world. In Catholicism (indeed in Protestantism also) the juridical understanding predominates. The (radical) surmounting of it comprises the chief service of Nesmelov.
The pagan salvation is a seeking of help and the fulfilling of wishes, and the pagan relationship to the Divinity is a juridical contract with Him, a deal. Christian salvation is a transforming of man, the attaining of perfection, the realisation of God-likeness.
Nikolai Berdayev [url=http://www.berdyaev.com/berdiaev/berd_lib/1909_158_4.html]Philosophical justifications of Christianity[/url]**
2003-08-23 21:46 | User Profile
** It depends on the philosophy that the state sanctioned church takes in terms of converting. Does it wish to convert by force or through peaceful means? Orthodoxy was the state-sanctioned church in Russia yet there was little violence when it came to non-Christians often. In fact there was little violence at when Russian missionaries tried to convert the natives of Alaska. Why? Because the Missionaries chose to convert the Indians through rational debate and understanding. The Missionaries learned the native languages and learned about the native habits and such. If any of the natives wish to learn more about Christianity they were free to join the missionaries. If not, they were free to continue to practice their own religion. **
You side stepped the issue. I merely pointed out that when some promotes a single religion as a pre-condition of national identity, if not the primary one as so many Christian zealots do, when combined with a complete lack of safeguards religious oppression is a clear possibility and such actions have often resulted in civil strife. What you spoke of is a matter of conversion via debate which has nothing to do with the issue of a state sanctioned church being used to imply that those that don't belong to the faith in question are somehow less
** This is one reason why Dostoevesky once said that Roman Catholicism was more Roman than it was Christian, for the Orthodox Church did engage in looting and pillaging as did the Roman Catholics did around the world when converting. Although it should be noted that most who did the actual looting and pillaging was done by freebooters who only wanted loot and gave lip service to conversions. **
I have zero interest in the endless feuding between Orthodox and Roman Catholicism as I respect racial traditionalists within both and work with them. What you write does however allude to the problem of having nationality defined by religion and encouraging fratricidal wars within Europa.
** Oh are we talking about the Inquisition again? :y **
No. I was talking instead about how the theocracies of the past led to a great many purges, witch hunts and religious wars which I feel hurt Europa.
** The Inquisition had the lowest rate of executions than any other judicial court in all of Europe. In the Spainish Empire for 300 years, less than 4000 people were ever executed. Most people did not serve in jails, and if they actually did it was for only a few months at most. **
Executing 4000 people because they failed to submit absolutely to someone else's religious dogma seems pretty horrid to me as were the use of torture against "heretics" and "witches" which were a common element of theocratic rule in Europa. Once again I find myself uneasy with someone promoting a state sanctioned church that seems to imply the Inquisition was nothing to be outraged about and doesn't recognize or condemn the cost in Occidental lives that theocratic oppression inflicted upon our nations.
** In fact the Inquisition was created in response to the uncontrollable fanaticism of local mobs of heresy hunters, the indifference of certain ecclesiastics, the violence of secular courts and the bloodshed of many crusades. It was created to exercise greater control over the determination and prosecution of heresy, to make it more orderly and legal. **
It murdered 4000 people for religious dissent and used torture to gain confessions and conversions yet you defend that institution. You also overlook the reality that the mobs running about murdering suspected heretics had exactly one source for religious guidance by law and source was the same church that sanctioned the Inquisition.
** So all the violence you so accuse the Church of committing was actually committed by mislead fanatics and/or opportunistic rulers who used this as an excuse to build a greater power base. **
Considering that fratricidal wars, witch hunts, purges of heretics and horrid oppression of religious dissent real and imagined were a common feature of European life for several hundred years your pangloss treatment of the issue is appalling. Of course you also completely fail to mention why the Roman Catholic Church (and the various Protestant sects as well to a lesser degree) produced so many fanatics & opportunistic leaders.
** Again, in it depends on the attitude the state church has towards dealing with non-christians. The Orthodox Church does not seek to convert by force, it even has the policy of not sending missionaries to other christian nations. Although you shouldn't even fear a Roman Catholic state, for even St. Thomas Aquinas in his political writings talks about how it is possible for non-christians to live peacefully in a Christian state. Now he was primarily talking about Muslims, if that changes anything but I don't think so.
Again, I respect and admire those of the Orthodox faith that are traditionalistic in their outlook, embrace a positive racial nationalism and show respect and tolerance for those that don't agree with their theology. I feel the same way about Catholics and members of all other Christian sects that hold a similar disposition. Naturally, I realize that the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas have much to commend them but that hardly says anything about the problems with theocracies that I pointed out in the past.
[UOTE] Machiavelli talked about how religion was key in bringing about social and political unity. So the more unified a society is religiously, the more unified it is socially and politically. Now Machiavelli was an admirer of Roman paganism and was critical of Christian teachings, but nevertheless he saw that since the majority of ones subjects would be Christian, a good Prince must support the christian church even if only for oppurtuntistic reasons. So Machiavelli seems to be on the side of PL, for he also saw how important religion was to a nation's culture. **
Setting aside that I strongly believe that Islam has no place in Europa your argument here is pretty flawed. Any European religion can be a force of stability within society provided it's leadership is sound and the doctrines it promotes are conducive to a folkish society. Within the Western world all major churches are promoting multi-racialism which is destroying Europa while large segments of Christendom are promoting cultural Bolshevism and traditionalists a minor force within Christendom presently and are no position to change the anti-European nature of what passes for Christianity these day. Of course, in Machiavelli's time Christendom had far more to commend it and the pathologies that presently afflicted that have afflicted it for decades were unknown. Of course the reality is that the entire Occidental world is highly secularized and that is in part a result of the subversion of Christianity so in order for Machiavelli's so his thoughts on the matter are simply not relevant to the current situation and won't be until Christendom becomes a source of Eurocentric advocacy and the anti-Occidental strain that so heavily dominates the faith currently is totally marginalized.
** So of course you think one always leads to the other Trisk. Well it does not. You can have a culturally prevelant religion and still be tolerant of others. **
I agree fully. I am not sure if you do as you seem to view the Inquisition as benign and totally ignore the very substantial downsides that theocracy has had for Europa.
** The American world-view and values were based primarily on Anglo-Saxon protestant values, yet Catholic and other religions were free to practice their religions. But they had to accept the fact that this was pretty much a Protestant country and that protestant values would be prevelant in the culture. **
There is no American world view any longer. What we now have is a post-America whose values are the product of a propasphere run by and for jewish interests. Your observation is correct however in a historical sense.
** Yes and it should be mentioned that most of what we know about those civilizations was preserved by the Christian church while many Pagans were pillaging and burning Europe's libraries. **
I am sorry to say that there is no other way to put it but that last statement is patently untrue bullshit. Until very recently, in historical terms, anyone attempting to study pre-Christian religious traditions other then Greek and Roman ones (provided they did not choose to publicly embrace the religions of those civilization) risked torture and death at the hands of the church should they be found out. I could refer you to Adam of Bremen's joyous account of razing the Odinist temple at Uppsala and the murder of everyone there, I could mention Charelemane's butchering Saxon nobles, the numerous attempts by the church to destroy runic stones/ Heathen temples/groves/votive wells/literature the so called "Saint" Olaf's campaign of extermination against Heathens and countless other instances of barbarity in the name of Christianisation but given you think the Inquisition was something other then negative I can't see the point. What we know about those faiths of old is from reading Roman chronologists, folk lore enthusiasts, mediaeval researchers like Snorri Sturluson, the efforts or archeologists, cultural/physical anthropologists and Heathen researchers like Sveinbjorn Beinteinsson.
** Then of course it was many theologians like St. Thomas Aquinas who revived interest in pre-Christian pagan knowledge by applining their teachings to Christianity. **
They revived and preserved pre-Christian traditions that were non religious in nature and I commend them for doing so. In point of fact the church suppressed any study of any form of indigenous European religious thought. I like it how you refuse to name names at all.
** Are we talking about Latin America here? If anything the Church is a major force in stabilizing many parts of the region, and often is the only institution providing for the welfare of entire communities in the face of corrupt regimes. **
The history of Latin America has little to do with stability and the oppression/squalor of those nations is hardly a recommendation for the value of having no religious freedom and a state sanctioned church. In any case, in large measure churches in those nations have been actively promoting Bolshevism.
** That's probably because many of Europe's churches have been infiltrated by pro-Marxist liberals. Gramsci himself said that it was because of Europe's Christian heritage that Europe was immune to a communist revolution. Therefore the task for Marxists was to capture major cultural institutions and try to de-Christianize Western societies so as to make it more vulernable to a Red revolution. A key element was of this plan was to infiltrate the Churches itself and try to rot them from within. So far the plan is going fine. So even the Communists realized how important Christianity was in shaping Western Civilization. **
My point exactly. Christendom is overwhelmingly anti European and has been so for longer then I have been alive. It has been largely remade into a tool of destruction which is why I said that simply giving a corrupted and destructive institution more power will not in any way help the plight facing our nations. If Christian traditionalists such as yourself are able to remake your churches into a force of Eurocentric renewal that doesn't wish to bring back the Inquisition you clearly refuse to condemn then certainly I would support it as an objective good inspite of my differences with it.
**Funny how once Europe became more and more de-Christianized the more and more the so-called :dung: started to arrive. **
Funny how when Christianity embraces multi-racialism and actively imports aliens that Europa became less European. Funny how when Christendom abandoned it's traditions it lost much of it's popular support.
** So by advocating the destruction of Christianity, the more you brought about your own apocalypse. **
If you wish to be taken seriously I suggest that you stop lying about what I have said and done. I have never, in any manner advocated the destruction of Christianity. In point of fact, I have donated a great deal of time and money defending Christians faced with legal oppression and supported their organizations and schools. In fact, I have done more for helping promote traditional Christianity then almost all Christians I have met. Your blatant lying about me in the last sentence has pretty much devastated my high regard for you and makes me question your motives.
** You forget that Europe during the Dark Ages was not exactly paradise itself. **
I never said it was so stop implying something to the contrary.
** In fact the Church was the only stablizing influence and institution in Europe during this period. **
Yes, I agree that it had that influence in some portions but the heathen North was just as stable.
** While you pagans ran around pillaging and burning everything...**
Wow, what a heap of crap. The feudal Christian kingdoms of the time were busy torturing and murdering "witches" and heretics of all descriptions real and imagined while wagging endless wars with each other.
** the Church was trying hard to preserve Europe's intellectual heritage and caring for the welfare of communities. **
They were trying to preserve Europa's intellectual heritage providing it was not promoting another religion (such material they set out to actively destroy) so I give them full credit for preserving a great deal of knowledge that other wise would have been lost. They did provide for public welfare and I think that's wonderful and they should be commended for doing so although the same can be said of Baltic, Slavic and Nordic Heathens of the time in their own communities.
** In fact it was during this time that the notion of a pan-European identity was being formed and it was based on the Christian church. Christianity was the only force that brought anykind of unity to the people of Europe. **
True enough. Although it also brought that unity by torturing and murdering anyone that failed to accept your faith.
** So many of the very concepts you Pagan espouse about pan-European identity and unity has its roots in the Christian faith. **
Wrong. I espouse the primacy of the biologic and freedom for the nations of Europa to assert their own identity with freedom of religion.
** Yes and it should be noted that many of the major populist nationalist groups in Europe are Christian based and are in support of traditional christian teachings. **
In point of fact, some do and some don't. Those that do are not clerical parties like the ones of the pre-war period and while they actively court Christian traditionalists they have done well at the polls because of their opposition to unlimited immigration, appeals to law and order, objections to EU encroachment on sovereignty and in some cases (ex the FN, VB, PFL) a social liberalism that traditionalists like myself and you would object to.
** I'm always giving the example of how the people of Ireland rallied around the banner of St. Patrick as their national icon as opposed to to Cuchulainn as professed by the elites like William Butler Yeats. Paganism is often the faith of the elites, while Christianity is often the faith of the working masses. **
That the faith that successfully exterminated it's opposition via violence and state oppression hundreds of years ago is more popular now is to be expected. In point of fact however, the real faith of the masses now is crass materialism and what ever happens to be pushed by the propasphere.
** Yes, and you will notice many of these same elements in traditional Christian teachings. So your assestment of Christianity is primarily based on a perverted form of Christianity. **
Once again your totally wrong. My assessment is that a return to traditionalistic Christianity would be a good thing provided it were not accompanied by the theocratic oppression that was so common in the past. As to the perverted faux Christianity that we both hate the truth is that it clearly dominates Christian institutions and opinions and is a detriment to the Occident as a result. If people like you can remake Christianity into a force for Eurocentric renewal I will be very much in favour of seeing that faith return to popularity.
** Well first off Christianity is a universal faith, no ifs ands or buts. Just what does universal mean? To some it means uniform, that all christians around the world must be the same. To others it means diversity, that each national community within the universal church has its own unique expressions of Christian teachings. **
What it means to the West for the last two generations is the notion that who lives in our nations doesn't matter as long they adhere to some particular Christian sect. What it means is that miscegenation is seen as being just fine and the third world invasion something to be celebrated while those that object are "evil racists". Obviously some traditionalists don't feel that way but I have yet to hear of a traditionalistic Catholic or Protestant organization come right out and say that miscegenation is a societal evil and that only racial Europeans should live in the Occident.
** The latter has been the position of the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox churches. For centuries, Eastern Catholics were subjected to the policy of "latinization" were they were forced to give up elements of their eastern heritage and adopt more Latin rituals and pratices. Vatican II brought this to an end, and so that I'm happy. **
Yes, I have stated often that I hold modern Orthodoxy in higher regard then modern Catholicism. Of course I have yet to hear of official doctrinal statements to the effect that miscegenation is a societal evil and that only racial Europeans should live in the Occident. While plenty of Eastern European and Baltic racialists are militant in their support of Orthodoxy, I know this as I actively support them in their efforts, I see damn little institutional support for them from their church and not an insignificant amount of opposition to "racism and anti-Semitism"
** So being a universal faith is not by itself anti-nationalist, it depends on the definition of "universal". Many of Europe's greatest nationalists were members of this universal church. **
True enough. Although Christendom is so radically different these days then it was before the war so nationalists need to act accordingly.
**Or even as the more traditionalist Pope Pius XIII declares here in his comdemnation of the UN **
I am glad that he condemns the UN. I wish that he or some organization the SPX would make an official doctrinal statements to the effect that miscegenation is a societal evil and that only racial Europeans should live in the Occident.
**Here's even an article talking about white nationalism and Christianity are compatible [url=http://www.duke.org/library/race/christian...ationalism.html]http://www.duke.org/library/race/christian...ationalism.html[/url] and that just because the Catholic Church(or other Christian churches) is opposed to racism doesn't mean it supports multiculturalism. As it states **
I never said that White Racialism and Christianity are not compatible and in fact I champion those that are both. However, the modern Catholic Church and all major Protestant denominations make no objection to multi-racialism or miscegenation but they do often condemn those that do. If you wish to contest that painfully obvious reality I will be happy to start complying statements by Christian leadership bodies and leaders that support my contention as well as pointing out how various Christian churches have actively imported racial aliens into our nations.
** Thus is the traditional Christian view. The creation of nations was ordained by God to populate the world and a result of man trying to become god(the tower of Babel when man was one nation). Traditional christianity even tells how God appoints Guardian angels to each nation; to serve and protect the people of that nation. They are referred to as tutelary angels or ethnarchs.**
Sounds great to me. Now, why not focus your efforts on changing Christendom at large to be favourable to Eurocentrism.
** So Christianity is not the problem. **
I never said it was.
**Pat Buchanan said it best: "Someoneôs values have to prevail; why not ours?" **
Who is this "ours" business referring to? Those that don't share BJB's religious views (ex. mainstream leftist Catholics in the states, Protestants of all sorts, Orthodox Christian, those that don't have religious views or non Christian ones) . Given that BJB has clearly stated his opposition to racialism/separatism believes that racial aliens are fine so long as they "assimilate" why should someone that cares about our nations look to him?
**...when you offer no safe guards... **
** I offer Citizen Rights according to Natural Law, as recognized by the Catholic Church and most other Christian confessions. **
Translation: I offer no safeguards because I will assume that the Catholic Church won't engage in the barbaric oppression of religious dissent it has in the past. Trust me, ignore history and it will all work out.
** What are the safeguards offered to non-conformists by National socialism (either the 3rd Reich variant or yours)? **
Simple, no state sanctioned religion and no state sanctioned oppression of religion just as one sees in the American model.
** Oh no, you did, by saying: "I'd also say that the strong state based support for Christian churches was an aspect of the NSDAP regime that I was somewhat uncomfortable with." **
I stand corrected.
** Frankly, I found this statement ridiculous; first, because of its factual untruth, second, because there were so many things objectionable about the NSDAP regime that choosing what little forced (by political circumstances) support to Christianity it gave as an example, or as the example, for the objectionable is clownish at best. **
Translation: I chose to ignore the evidence you posted that was contrary to my position while offering nothing to bolster mine because neither prospect is viable.
** Still, while we are at it: You say that your definition of "National socialism" is different from the 3rd Reich definition. The problem I have with this is that, as you also grant, no other variant of National socialism has ever been politically successful, even in the short term. **
If I propose a societal system that has a long standing tradition within European nationalist thought and correctly point out that such an ideology does not promote religious oppression but champions freedoms the fact that such a system has not existed does not change the nature of the ideology behind it.
**This has naturally led, in nearly everybodyôs terminology, including, I admit, my own, to equal "Third Reich" with "National socialism". **
The fact that your terminology is overly limited says nothing about the usefulness of an ideology no matter how common the mis-perception is. That you are not aware of other schools of thought on the matter has no impact upon those schools of thought one way or another.
** Hitler himself said that "National socialism is not for export", implying he also agreed that 3rd Reich = National socialism. **
He was obviously referring to the ideology of the NSDAP and in that matter I agree with him.
** Now, given that 99.9% consensus on what "National socialism" in common speech means... **
Given that no such consensus exists among those that know something about the ideological canon I refer to your conclusions drawn from ignorance are useless.
**...couldôt you use a different term without this historical 1000ton Albatros around its neck to denote your views, given that they do not equal those of the 3rd Reich?" **
The term is accurate as it refers to the combination a racially based nationalism combined with an expressly non capitalist economic system which is why I use it, which is the same reason why the theorists that inspire me have used from the 1890's onwards. Obviously, plenty of people with views identical to mine have chosen to call it something else and that is fine with me. I choose to call my outlook what it was called by those that inspired me. In practical terms I done rather well in electoral politics here and in the motherland because of the value of what I stand for and my living a life that exemplifies my values to those worth dealing with.
** Frankly, I really cannot help but observing that saying "I am a National socialist, but not of the Third Reich variant" sounds either extremely quixotic or hypocritical. **
Again, your off the cuff perception of something you know nothing of is no value.
**> ** Clerical nationalist parties didn't succeed in totally homogeneous Catholic Southern Europa 70 years ago are simply not an option anywhere in the West (the East may be different but I doubt it) so lets work with what we have rather then what we wish we had.
If you wish to wed your politics to your theology it seems to me that some things need to happen prior to your effort at re-Christianisation. **
These things cannot be separated, no matter my wishes. It doesn't make sense to exclude either religion or politics from a world view. **
I never said you should. I did say that given the current status of the West that your calls for state sanctioned religion and defining nationalism in terms of religion are a path to defeat. The fact that clerical parties failed then and are simply not relevant now is a matter that you have to address no matter how much it makes you uncomfortable.
** That Christian-Patriotic parties, on the whole, were/are not quite what we would wish them to be, had/has more to do with these parties than with the foundations of the Christian world view in general. **
I agree. That's why I maintain that transforming Christianity in general into a force for Eurocentric renewal is what you should be counting on.
** With NN attacking the foundations on the ground that he believes everything bad that ever happened came from them, WM attacking Christianity on the ground that the OT was given to the Jews, and you attacking it on the ground that Christian parties were not efficient enough, Iôd wish at least the Zionists gave us a break; Christians clearly have it difficult enough without them. :lol: **
I have not read NN's comments here but I am not in favour of attacking traditionalistic Christians that are tolerant of non Christians and committed to racialism.
** I do not doubt that religion is useful. However, I very much deny that it can, or should, be judged on the ground of its usefulness alone. In societal terms (rather then personal ones) utility is the only thing that matters. This would in itself mean putting the material over the spiritual -matter over mind- and would therefore already implicate a materialist world view, with religion used as a cover at best. **
No, it means that when an institution harms a society it should be reformed to be more in accordance with the preservation of Traditionalism (see me "neither left nor right" article if you want a definition) or be replaced by society (rather then the state if at possible) with something else that provides for non coercive based cohesiveness. Neither I nor anyone that I draw inspiration from have any interest in materialism and in fact believe that materialism is a force of societal destruction when it becomes a dominant force in society.
** And this is the heart of my critique of Paganism: I cannot bring myself to believe itôs a living faith. **
Given the matter is supra rational and that you seem to know almost nothing about the subject your beliefs on the matter are not pertinent. As the various Heathen sects have living devotees it is clearly a living faith no matter what you may wish.
** I cannot bring myself to believe that Wintermute believes in the Gods of Athens in the same way the ancient Athenians believed in them. **
I am not familiar with WM's belief system nor those of Ancient Greece so I will not comment upon them.
** I cannot bring myself to believe that you believe in the Norse Gods in the same way the Scandinavians of the year 500 believed in them. **
What you believe about something you are wholly unfamiliar with is irrelevant. Of course I could say the same about modern Christians not being the same as they were 2000 years ago but I don't because neither my views or yours are based upon simple adherance to a snap shop of practices a great many generations ago.
2003-08-24 02:36 | User Profile
You side stepped the issue. I merely pointed out that when some promotes a single religion as a pre-condition of national identity, if not the primary one as so many Christian zealots do, when combined with a complete lack of safeguards religious oppression is a clear possibility and such actions have often resulted in civil strife. What you spoke of is a matter of conversion via debate which has nothing to do with the issue of a state sanctioned church being used to imply that those that don't belong to the faith in question are somehow less
Actually in many ways I didn't. As you yourself admitted, a state church seeks to see itself as a condition for a national identity, now how that state church seeks to reach out to citizens not of that state church determines whether or not there will be strife between religious communities. Now that state church can seek to persecute non-members and use force to convert people, or it can seek more peaceful mean at reaching out to them. As St. Thomas Aquinas said, no non-believer should be forced to believe in Christ, for that violates the Christian notion of free choice. But the non-believers must realize that Christianity is the state-sacntioned religion. Just like early Christians had to realize paganism was the state sacntioned religion in Rome. Christians obeyed Roman laws but followed Christian religious teachings. "Render unto Caesar what it Caesar's, render unto God what is God's", non-believers would follow the same principle.
** I have zero interest in the endless feuding between Orthodox and Roman Catholicism as I respect racial traditionalists within both and work with them. What you write does however allude to the problem of having nationality defined by religion and encouraging fratricidal wars within Europa.**
I don't believe I've ever said that national identity must be based on religion, although religion is often a major component of establishing a national identity. You even admit later that you see national identity as primarily a matter of biological heritage. Well that often is a common way of determining a national identity, but not always. The Copts in Egypt consider themselves a nation apart, yet racially they're no different than most Muslim Egyptians. Their sense of identity is forged mostly around the Coptic sect of Christianity. Same can be said similarily in Ireland, where the Unionists base their identity both on somewhat of a English ethnicity but also on their Protestant religion(although many Unionists are Irish protestants). So the question of what constitutes a nation is often very complicated, sometimes its based mostly on ethnicity, sometimes on religion, sometimes on both, and sometimes are many other factors. So it can be a complicated matter.
Executing 4000 people because they failed to submit absolutely to someone else's religious dogma seems pretty horrid to me as were the use of torture against "heretics" and "witches" which were a common element of theocratic rule in Europa. Once again I find myself uneasy with someone promoting a state sanctioned church that seems to imply the Inquisition was nothing to be outraged about and doesn't recognize or condemn the cost in Occidental lives that theocratic oppression inflicted upon our nations.
I find it funny that you accuse me of twisting around what you said and yet you're often doing the same. Did I say the Inquisition was a good thing? No, I merely stated that much of what has been told about it is highly over-blowned, and this is proven with scholarly research into the Vatican archives.
** Of course you also completely fail to mention why the Roman Catholic Church (and the various Protestant sects as well to a lesser degree) produced so many fanatics & opportunistic leaders. **
Because of human nature. NB Forrest created the KKK, yet often criticised many of the acts that were committed by some of its members. Hitler wasn't in full support of everything that was did in his name. There's always going to be fanatics who will often take their leaders' teachings out of hand. The Church even then condmened many of the brutal acts committed by the mobs and thats why it set up the inquisition, to place the matter in the hands of people who would know what they were doing.
Setting aside that I strongly believe that Islam has no place in Europa your argument here is pretty flawed. Any European religion can be a force of stability within society provided it's leadership is sound and the doctrines it promotes are conducive to a folkish society. Within the Western world all major churches are promoting multi-racialism which is destroying Europa while large segments of Christendom are promoting cultural Bolshevism and traditionalists a minor force within Christendom presently and are no position to change the anti-European nature of what passes for Christianity these day.
You forgetting the Orthodox Church, which is extremely staunch on its positions. I agree that many of the churches are captive, but its not the first time this has happened and it took strong activism from the laity to reverse these kinds of trends. Your outlook on traditionalism is rather simplistic, cause many of the teachings of the Liberal theology is losing its steam. In fact its already being noticed about the growing trend towards more traditional attitudes in younger Christians. Many liberal theologians are becoming worried, cause they see that the real 70 old Christians and the 20 year olds are beginning to agree more and more with each other, leaving the more liberal Baby-boomers in isolation.
** Of course, in Machiavelli's time Christendom had far more to commend it and the pathologies that presently afflicted that have afflicted it for decades were unknown. Of course the reality is that the entire Occidental world is highly secularized and that is in part a result of the subversion of Christianity so in order for Machiavelli's so his thoughts on the matter are simply not relevant to the current situation and won't be until Christendom becomes a source of Eurocentric advocacy and the anti-Occidental strain that so heavily dominates the faith currently is totally marginalized.**
I find it funny that you write Machiavelli off as irrelevant, since many of his teachings still have relevance to our age. Machiavelli said that in order to have a virtous citzenry, you must have a unifying force like religion to promote it. Now remember, Machiavelli had Roman paganism in mind more than Christianity, but he knew that Christianity could be used for this purpose as well. He wasn't speaking from a theological point of view, he was speaking purely from a pragmatic point of view.
** I agree fully. I am not sure if you do as you seem to view the Inquisition as benign and totally ignore the very substantial downsides that theocracy has had for Europa.**
Where have I advocated for a theocracy? I do believe in a Christian influenced state in Europe's nations, but nowhere have I advocated for a theocracy.
** **ÃÂ Yes and it should be mentioned that most of what we know about those civilizations was preserved by the Christian church while many Pagans were pillaging and burning Europe's libraries.ÃÂ **
I am sorry to say that there is no other way to put it but that last statement is patently untrue bullshit. Until very recently, in historical terms, anyone attempting to study pre-Christian religious traditions other then Greek and Roman ones (provided they did not choose to publicly embrace the religions of those civilization) risked torture and death at the hands of the church should they be found out. I could refer you to Adam of Bremen's joyous account of razing the Odinist temple at Uppsala and the murder of everyone there, I could mention Charelemane's butchering Saxon nobles, the numerous attempts by the church to destroy runic stones/ Heathen temples/groves/votive wells/literature the so called "Saint" Olaf's campaign of extermination against Heathens and countless other instances of barbarity in the name of Christianisation but given you think the Inquisition was something other then negative I can't see the point. What we know about those faiths of old is from reading Roman chronologists, folk lore enthusiasts, mediaeval researchers like Snorri Sturluson, the efforts or archeologists, cultural/physical anthropologists and Heathen researchers like Sveinbjorn Beinteinsson. **
Ok are you openly deny that it was Germanic and Mongol(Huns) pagans that pillaged the Roman empire? Plus most of what you described seems to have been done by state authorities in the name of christ, not necessarily done by the Church itself. However, your mention of St. Olaf has been reconized and why I said "most". Since I don't know much about St. Olaf, I won't comment of this topic now.
**They revived and preserved pre-Christian traditions that were non religious in nature and I commend them for doing so. In point of fact the church suppressed any study of any form of indigenous European religious thought. I like it how you refuse to name names at all. **
I named St. Thomas Aquinas, so don't accuse me of something I didn't do!
The history of Latin America has little to do with stability and the oppression/squalor of those nations is hardly a recommendation for the value of having no religious freedom and a state sanctioned church. In any case, in large measure churches in those nations have been actively promoting Bolshevism.
I said the church is a major forces in stabilizing the region, I did not deny that the region is unstable and filled with civil war and such. You twisted my words around, yet you accuse me of doing that. And those "Liberation Theogy" fringe has been continually attacked as nothing more than Marxist infiltrators by the Pope and other higher ranking officials in the church.
** Funny how once Europe became more and more de-Christianized the more and more the so-calledÃÂ started to arrive.
Funny how when Christianity embraces multi-racialism and actively imports aliens that Europa became less European. Funny how when Christendom abandoned it's traditions it lost much of it's popular support. **
What I find interesting is that just you made this point you said that the Church's teaching have indeed been perverted by Marxist infiltrators. So once the Church's teachings become perverted and the society becomes more and more secularized thats when the aliens start arriving.
** **So by advocating the destruction of Christianity, the more you brought about your own apocalypse.ÃÂ **
If you wish to be taken seriously I suggest that you stop lying about what I have said and done. I have never, in any manner advocated the destruction of Christianity. In point of fact, I have donated a great deal of time and money defending Christians faced with legal oppression and supported their organizations and schools. In fact, I have done more for helping promote traditional Christianity then almost all Christians I have met. **
Well from what you said I got the impression that you favored the destruction of Christianity. Appearantly I was wrong and will apologize. However, you have been equally lying about what I've been saying as well, so in a sense we're both quilty of this crime.
** Your blatant lying about me in the last sentence has pretty much devastated my high regard for you and makes me question your motives.**
Well, your blatant lying about what you have been saying have equally devastated my high regard for you. However, if both you and I admit we misinterpreted much of what each said(unintentionally I'm sure) than I'd be willing to reach a reconciliation. Are you willing to accept this offer?
** ** So many of the very concepts you Pagan espouse about pan-European identity and unity has its roots in the Christian faith. **
Wrong. I espouse the primacy of the biologic and freedom for the nations of Europa to assert their own identity with freedom of religion. **
The notion of Europe being one identity first arosed out of its unity of the Christian faith. before that, there was no such concept. The only thing coming close was the unity of the Roman empire, yet its people became far more united once the Christian religion was adopted as the official religion. Basically there was the notion "yes we're Roman, but only because the Roman legions occupy our lands".
Basically Christians did many things wrong, we don't deny that. It would even be un-Christian to do so, for we must confess our sins and faults before almighty God. But the Pagans of Europe have persecuted, pillaged, and looted themselves. It only shows that the Christian concept of original sin is true and all humans are infected with sin. We Christians are as much a part of Europe's heritage as the pagans. In fact I've never denied that paganism was part of Europe's heritage, I just contend that Christianity is the true faith, as you believe paganism is.
2003-08-24 03:43 | User Profile
**
Yes and it should be mentioned that most of what we know about those civilizations was preserved by the Christian church while many Pagans were pillaging and burning Europe's libraries.* **
...... I could refer you to Adam of Bremen's joyous account of razing the Odinist temple at Uppsala and the murder of everyone there, I could mention Charelemane's butchering Saxon nobles, the numerous attempts by the church to destroy runic stones/ Heathen temples/groves/votive wells/literature the so called "Saint" Olaf's campaign of extermination against Heathens and countless other instances of barbarity in the name of Christianisation but given you think the Inquisition was something other then negative I can't see the point. **
Ok are you openly deny that it was Germanic and Mongol(Huns) pagans that pillaged the Roman empire?
**
Well I hesitate to get involved in this old contrived recitation of old heathen/ Christian wounds. Firstly though you pretty much misaimed when you talked about the pagan Hun and Germanic hordes pillaging the Roman empire. To begin with the Germanic tribes weren't heathen at all - they were Christian. The various wars and pillaging that did get on in the Roman empire were not by the pagans but a lot of what did occur of course was the work of that heritical Arian Christianity subscribing tribe of Vandals against the orthodox Christians of the empire. However in general the tales of "raping, pillaging, and looting" against the Germanic tribes was overdone. The Germanic tribes were just stepping into a power vacuum, and behaving probably no worse than no better than the native Roman emperors would have done.
As to the Huns of course, they ended up doing not that much pillaging, because they were defeated, with the aid of course of these self-same Germanic tribes, specifically the Franks.
Now Triskelion want to get into the various pagan/Christian feuds of the middle ages.
All I'd remind him and other pagan sulkers is that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Just from a human perspective I don't think a hundred burnings of the Uppsala Odinist temple or even persecution of the Saxons could ever begin to compare with the muderous rages, terror and havoc wrecked by Trisk's own heathen ancestors upon the innocent Christian peoples living in peace in Europe and the British Isles of my ancestors. If he gets me too worked up about reciting those old war wounds, I might bestir myself and fellow Christians into a new campaign, a la St. Olaf to re teach these neo-Vikings appreciation for Christian charity and civilization. ;)
I do have to wonder though about the degree of time we can spend on this brow -beating. Is spending all our time digging up and reciting old ancient dignities a thousand years ago the best we can do with our time, faced with the various real challenges we face? The pagan ancestors of the time had no problem forgetting these issues when they converted to Christianity, and took up their role as peaceful bearers of hristian civilization. Their putative spiritual succcesors could learn a thing or two from them.
2003-08-24 06:50 | User Profile
** Actually in many ways I didn't. As you yourself admitted, a state church seeks to see itself as a condition for a national identity, now how that state church seeks to reach out to citizens not of that state church determines whether or not there will be strife between religious communities. Now that state church can seek to persecute non-members and use force to convert people, or it can seek more peaceful mean at reaching out to them. As St. Thomas Aquinas said, no non-believer should be forced to believe in Christ, for that violates the Christian notion of free choice. But the non-believers must realize that Christianity is the state-sanctioned religion. Just like early Christians had to realize paganism was the state sanctioned religion in Rome. Christians obeyed Roman laws but followed Christian religious teachings. "Render unto Caesar what it Caesar's, render unto God what is God's", non-believers would follow the same principle. **
That last statement seems much clearer to me. Of course, I object to state sanctioned religion, be it Christian or other wise as did my ancestors, on the basis that it puts those that don't adhere to the state religion as on less equal footing as community members. If for instance, a Russian chooses to be a Baptist (or any other form of Christian or Slavic pagan for that matter) I see him as no less a Russian as to me nationality is first and foremost a matter of genetics and an understanding of the obligations of birth to serve your fellow lansmen. In this sense I feel we have something to learn from our American brethren. In practical terms it seems to me that those that don't identity with a state church should not be forced to pay a church tax which is the case here.
** I don't believe I've ever said that national identity must be based on religion, although religion is often a major component of establishing a national identity. You even admit later that you see national identity as primarily a matter of biological heritage. Well that often is a common way of determining a national identity, but not always. The Copts in Egypt consider themselves a nation apart, yet racially they're no different than most Muslim Egyptians. Their sense of identity is forged mostly around the Coptic sect of Christianity. Same can be said similarity in Ireland, where the Unionists base their identity both on somewhat of a English ethnicity but also on their Protestant religion(although many Unionists are Irish Protestants). So the question of what constitutes a nation is often very complicated, sometimes its based mostly on ethnicity, sometimes on religion, sometimes on both, and sometimes are many other factors. So it can be a complicated matter. **
I known nothing about modern Egypt so I won't comment on it. My concern is entirely with the Occident and I define Occidentals in biologic terms as I do the constituent nations that comprise it. As to the Unionists they are ethnically descendants of Scotts rather then English for the most part. Yes, the matter can sometimes be complicated and in the case of Ireland & Ulster it can serve as a force of national decay making me believe that again the American model is better then one of state sanctioned religion.
** find it funny that you accuse me of twisting around what you said and yet you're often doing the same. Did I say the Inquisition was a good thing? No, I merely stated that much of what has been told about it is highly over-blowned, and this is proven with scholarly research into the Vatican archives. **
The balise only 4000 comment struck me as a basically benign take on the matter which was never qualified with a "certainly the Inquisition committed numerous heinous acts and I condemn such things which I promote religious toleration." style comment.
** Because of human nature. NB Forrest created the KKK, yet often criticized many of the acts that were committed by some of its members. Hitler wasn't in full support of everything that was did in his name. There's always going to be fanatics who will often take their leaders' teachings out of hand. The Church even then condemned many of the brutal acts committed by the mobs and thats why it set up the inquisition, to place the matter in the hands of people who would know what they were doing. **
Human nature accounts for the acts of individuals acting without authority. When looking to several centuries of persistent purges, holy wars, crusades and witch trials that often, obviously not always, had the full backing of the Church as an institution it seems that often the blame should lay with the institution which has in recent times been admitted by the Vatican.
** You forgetting the Orthodox Church, which is extremely staunch on its positions. I agree that many of the churches are captive, but its not the first time this has happened and it took strong activism from the laity to reverse these kinds of trends. Your outlook on traditionalism is rather simplistic, cause many of the teachings of the Liberal theology is losing its steam. In fact its already being noticed about the growing trend towards more traditional attitudes in younger Christians. Many liberal theologians are becoming worried, cause they see that the real 70 old Christians and the 20 year olds are beginning to agree more and more with each other, leaving the more liberal Baby-boomers in isolation. **
Within Orthodox Churches that may be the case, me experience indicates so, else wise I have seen little indication of a return to traditionalism and if such a trend is starting it has not manifested itself in institutional terms. Of course seeing no indication of a rejection of multi-racialism within the institutions of Christian traditionalist currents I am unconvinced that any optimism is justified although I would prefer to believe you are correct. As for my own notions of Traditionalism I will say that they are pragmatic and sensible which is often simple in conception if not execution.
** I find it funny that you write Machiavelli off as irrelevant, since many of his teachings still have relevance to our age. Machiavelli said that in order to have a virtuous citizenry, you must have a unifying force like religion to promote it. Now remember, Machiavelli had Roman paganism in mind more than Christianity, but he knew that Christianity could be used for this purpose as well. He wasn't speaking from a theological point of view, he was speaking purely from a pragmatic point of view. **
My point was that all Western societies are highly secularized, and that the overwhelming tendency within modern Christianity is very socially destructive. As a result, I have concluded that Christendom needs to marginalize/convert the anti-Occidental majority prior to expecting non Christian nationalists to be enthused about the prospects of increased church power over the state.
** Where have I advocated for a theocracy? I do believe in a Christian influenced state in Europe's nations, but nowhere have I advocated for a theocracy. **
I did not say that you support a theocracy but I did say that question was left unanswered as a result of your benign assessment of the Inquisition and what struck me as glossing over a rather substantial history of theocratic oppression in Europa without referencing any means of safe guarding against a return of such oppression.
** Ok are you openly deny that it was Germanic and Mongol(Huns) pagans that pillaged the Roman empire? Plus most of what you described seems to have been done by state authorities in the name of Christ, not necessarily done by the Church itself. However, your mention of St. Olaf has been recognized and why I said "most". Since I don't know much about St. Olaf, I won't comment of this topic now. **
I would say that Okkie's statements are pretty accurate in this matter. As to the matter of states committing the barbarities in question I would point out that they were in fact official Christian states whose actions were often, obviously not always, sanctioned by the Church. If I get some free time I could dig up recent admissions on this point but I am sure you're aware of numerous such instances so I won't bore you with dredging them up. I am not to excited about talking about St./oath breaker Olaf as the accounts are vile in the extreme and too much for the genteel folks here.
** I named St. Thomas Aquinas, so don't accuse me of something I didn't do! **
My fault. I misplaced the quotation about naming names which was a comment of yours with respect to Latin America. However, if you can name a church figure that promoted the study and preservation of non Christian religious theology prior to the 1700s I would be interested in hearing of him
** I said the church is a major forces in stabilizing the region, I did not deny that the region is unstable and filled with civil war and such. You twisted my words around, yet you accuse me of doing that. **
I stand corrected and retract my comment.
** And those "Liberation Theology" fringe has been continually attacked as nothing more than Marxist infiltrators by the Pope and other higher ranking officials in the church. **
I wish it were just liberation theology types pushing Bolshevism as Christianity. I read lots of Christian literature or listen to tapes and frequently attend worship services just to find out what's being said and quite frankly what I hear in state sanctioned Churches is pretty sickening leftist tripe promoting globalism and multi-racialism. In America I lost track of how many mainline churches I went into where I heard promotion of every social pathology I could think of and how Christianity is quite often nothing more then jew supremacy packaged differently. Pretty much every indication I have seen indicates that traditional Christians of every sort, same Orthodox, are pretty rare and marginalized within Christendom in general and that even the institutions of Christian traditionalism don't reject multi-racialism in principle and call for separatism which is exactly what is needed for the Occident to survive.
What I find interesting is that just you made this point you said that the Church's teaching have indeed been perverted by Marxist infiltrators. So once the Church's teachings become perverted and the society becomes more and more secularized thats when the aliens start arriving.
** Yes, in order for Christendom to become a positive force it does need to remake it self. **
** Well, your blatant lying about what you have been saying have equally devastated my high regard for you. However, if both you and I admit we misinterpreted much of what each said(unintentionally I'm sure) than I'd be willing to reach a reconciliation. Are you willing to accept this offer? **
I accept.
** Basically Christians did many things wrong, we don't deny that. It would even be un-Christian to do so, for we must confess our sins and faults before almighty God. But the Pagans of Europe have persecuted, pillaged, and looted themselves. It only shows that the Christian concept of original sin is true and all humans are infected with sin. We Christians are as much a part of Europe's heritage as the pagans. In fact I've never denied that paganism was part of Europe's heritage, I just contend that Christianity is the true faith, as you believe paganism is. **
Certainly I gave up on the notion of original sin when I abandoned Seminary. Certainly, Pagans and Heathens have committed a great of evil although I feel the balance of harms (at least in the North) is heavier on the side of Christendom. I would not say that Europa has a true faith as I place supreme importance upon the biologic. With respect to faiths I accept that the matter is supra-rational and measured in societal terms by strictly utilitarian concerns. As such, I hold any form of folkish and Eurocentric form of Christian, Heathen or Pagan faith as fully acceptable provided it is not accompanied by repression of dissent or the means for such to be reasonably expected to occur. Naturally, I oppose those that promote an anti-Occidental agenda although I feel it best not to attack them on the basis of faith, if any, most of the time for tactical reasons.
Okkie said:
** Now Triskelion want to get into the various pagan/Christian feuds of the middle ages.**
No. I didn't intend for such to happen. That was just the course things took when I took PL's comments at face value towards the start of the thread.
Okkie said:
** All I'd remind him and other pagan sulkers is that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Just from a human perspective I don't think a hundred burnings of the Uppsala Odinist temple or even persecution of the Saxons could ever begin to compare with the murderous rages, terror and havoc wrecked by Trisk's own heathen ancestors upon the innocent Christian peoples living in peace in Europe and the British Isles of my ancestors. If he gets me too worked up about reciting those old war wounds, I might bestir myself and fellow Christians into a new campaign, a la St. Olaf to re teach these neo-Vikings appreciation for Christian charity and civilization. **
I am not interested in reciting the catalog of horrors done in the name of Christianity and certainly I do condemn imperialism when committed by ancestors or anyone else. Now, I of course do not believe that Okkie would wish to encourage the sort of atrocities that Olaf the Oath Breaker engaged in as I know he is a civilized Occidental not given to blood lust dreams of mayhem.
** The pagan ancestors of the time had no problem forgetting these issues when they converted to Christianity, and took up their role as peaceful bearers of christian civilization. Their putative spiritual successors could learn a thing or two from them. **
Overlooking that the conversions were primarily via the sword, the rack, the pear and branding irons I will be the first to state that some spend far to much time these matters. I could point out that Okkie and the Christians should learn something about what their ancestors did in terms of civilization prior to Christianity and point to what the Kymry, Molmutine and other civilizations of the British Isles had to offer just as I point the Le Tene and Halberstadt civilizations as meritorious. These elements of Europa's heritage can't be ignored, demonized or trivialized and I feel it worth commending those Heathens or Christians that campion both elements of our inheritance and understand the need to work for folkish renewal no matter what the theology that motivates them. In the end, I am not at all interested in reviving this stuff about horrors of the past as it's totally counter productive and contrary to my real life efforts which are what matters.
2003-08-24 07:51 | User Profile
Okkie said:
** Now Triskelion want to get into the various pagan/Christian feuds of the middle ages.**
No. I didn't intend for such to happen. That was just the course things took when I took PL's comments at face value towards the start of the thread.
Okkie said:
** All I'd remind him and other pagan sulkers is that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Just from a human perspective I don't think a hundred burnings of the Uppsala Odinist temple or even persecution of the Saxons could ever begin to compare with the murderous rages, terror and havoc wrecked by Trisk's own heathen ancestors upon the innocent Christian peoples living in peace in Europe and the British Isles of my ancestors. If he gets me too worked up about reciting those old war wounds, I might bestir myself and fellow Christians into a new campaign, a la St. Olaf to re teach these neo-Vikings appreciation for Christian charity and civilization. **
I am not interested in reciting the catalog of horrors done in the name of Christianity and certainly I do condemn imperialism when committed by ancestors or anyone else. Now, I of course do not believe that Okkie would wish to encourage the sort of atrocities that Olaf the Oath Breaker engaged in as I know he is a civilized Occidental not given to blood lust dreams of mayhem. ** I actually am not familiar with Saint Olaf, as it is a Scandanavian thing. Wasn't he a Scandanavian hero? I know there's a Saint Olaf college in Minnesota. In general I'd always thought that the Norwegian conversion to Christianity was peaceful under Leif Erikson.
In any event I can understand to some degree early Catholocism's interest lack of scruples in converting the Norsemen and bringing them under the control of the Church, as the heathen Norsemen were reaking havoc all over Northern Europe. I presume you meant to condemn, although it really wasn't imperialism per se, just that good ole Viking blood lust for plunder and rapine ;). Seriously we may romanticize the Viking, but to the inhabitants and civilization of the time it was no laughing matter.
The tactics used against the pagans of Uppsala I'm sure were just the standard military tactics of the time, perfectly familiar if not routine to the Vikings themselves when they were raiding. And military it was, since of course conversion of foreign peoples was an integral part of diplomacy and making them diplomatic allies, (and of course Clausowitz said war is diplomacy by other means).
It is true I think that this practice, rather contemptuous of the peoples individual prerogatives or private feelings, certainly wasn't the ideal way to convert people from a religious point of view. It would have been better if the people's conversion had had more indiginous and voluntary organizations, and probably would have led to a more deeper establishment of Christianity in the cultures of the people. But hindsight is 20/20. It is very nice when peaceful preaching can convert the hearts to non-violence, but usually the sword begets the sword, and Christians aren't imune from that.
**> ** The pagan ancestors of the time had no problem forgetting these issues when they converted to Christianity, and took up their role as peaceful bearers of christian civilization. Their putative spiritual successors could learn a thing or two from them. **
Overlooking that the conversions were primarily via the sword, the rack, the pear and branding irons I will be the first to state that some spend far to much time these matters.**
I detect a whiff of sour grapes here. While there were cases of overt violence where tribes resisted as a polity, re: the Saxons and Prussians, the vast majority of europe was converted peacefully, by missionaries converting at least the tribal head, as I recall. For every St. Olaf there were many St. Augustine's, St. Patrick's, and others including many who peacefully undured martyrdom.
I know there were many subtlties in conversion that seem foreign to us today, and which can arouse indignation, but I'd think anyone with serious awareness of the past should know the potential follies by too much judging the past by the standards of the present.
I could point out that Okkie and the Christians should learn something about what their ancestors did in terms of civilization prior to Christianity and point to what the Kymry, Molmutine and other civilizations of the British Isles had to offer just as I point the Le Tene and Halberstadt civilizations as meritorious. These elements of Europa's heritage can't be ignored, demonized or trivialized and I feel it worth commending those Heathens or Christians that campion both elements of our inheritance and understand the need to work for folkish renewal no matter what the theology that motivates them. In the end, I am not at all interested in reviving this stuff about horrors of the past as it's totally counter productive and contrary to my real life efforts which are what matters.
I do think we could possibly and probably should learn much about the past, both early Christian and pre-Christian. It's not especially unexpected than when studying the past we should feel stirrings of their old conflicts. Just so we don't start taking up the sword and fighting each other ;)
2003-08-24 17:11 | User Profile
With regards to Olaf the Oath Breaker he is a hero to to the state church. I could take out some time to cover his gory deeds and the carnage that "conversion" brought from Austria to here but this thread has not been productive, has no bearing on anything I do wish to address here so i'll overlook the matter. Suffice to say that no, "conversion" was very slow and far from peaceful. Within my own country plenty of horrors exist from the "conversion" period and after that are rather grusome.
With respect to the Vikings they were in fact imperialists as they established kingdoms in the places they attacked with the notable being Knute's conquest of England. It should be pointed out that most Nordics of the period were merchants and farmers and that vikings were a rather small sub-set of my ancestors. The attacks I mentioned were not military and were not part of a larger war or politcal conflict.
In any case, this all far too remote and has too little bearing upon my value system to bother with any longer.
2003-08-24 18:51 | User Profile
Hello, Trisk!
First, I cannot answer all you say; but please donôt misinterpret this as me not taking your arguments seriously, or wanting to evade questions; there are simply positive limits on my time, and, naturally, I stick to the parts that I am interested in most.
Second, thanks to Frederick William for repairing the quote sections in Triskôs posts. Quoting can sometimes be tricky, and the post is now eminently more readable.
Third:
Setting aside that I strongly believe that Islam has no place in Europa...
Ahhh, now you advocate separate classes of religions, acceptable ones and unacceptable ones. Matter of fact, this is far more intolerant than what I had in mind. My solution is: One state religion which is definitely favoured by the community, but tolerance for all individual members of other faiths, in the same way even Jews -the state religionôs historical and present arch-enemies!- are tolerated in Iran. Toleration is not the same as encouragement. My position is: Tolerate everybody, encourage the adherents of the state religion. (Orthodox Church in Russia, Catholic Church in Austria, Protestants in the US, and so on.)
Now you are probably going to say that religions originating in Europe should be tolerated, but others shouldnôt. I will answer that I would view this as a threat, because Christianity didnôt originate in Europe. :ph34r:
Furthermore, Schopenhauer was a Buddhist, and did propagate Buddhism. Buddhism is farther from all European worldviews than Islam (which has a lot in common, after all, with Christianity). Now does this mean you would crack down on any follower of Schopenhauer? :ph34r:
And finally: There are communities of White Muslims of relatively long standing, e.g. in parts of the former Yugoslavia. What do you suggest to do with those who donôt want to convert to one of the religions you find acceptable? Expulsion? Holy War? Think it through, to all the practical conclusions; I did.
2003-08-24 19:02 | User Profile
** So by advocating the destruction of Christianity, the more you brought about your own apocalypse. **
If you wish to be taken seriously I suggest that you stop lying about what I have said and done. I have never, in any manner advocated the destruction of Christianity. **
I read Perunôs post as meaning you Pagans, referring to past (somewhat successful) opponents of Christianity, not you, Trisk. So I think this is a misunderstanding.
You certainly do not advocate destruction of Christianity as such. But you hold a position that I think is philosophically and practically untenable: Religious equality for all, except for those (such as Muslims), whom you very strongly disapprove of. :jest:
2003-08-24 19:20 | User Profile
As the various Heathen sects have living devotees it is clearly a living faith no matter what you may wish.
I have to admit the truth of this statement. But is it the same faith of old, or have you changed some Articles? Would you aid and abet the god Thor in killing the Midgard Serpent? I find this idea mildly uncomfortable, not only because the Midgard Serpent is the only member of its species and should rather be preserved, but also because its slaying leads to the End of the World, and is therefore likely better avoided. :(
[url=http://webhome.idirect.com/~donlong/monsters/Html/Midgarse.htm]http://webhome.idirect.com/~donlong/monste...ml/Midgarse.htm[/url]
2003-08-25 06:45 | User Profile
Now I'm off duty this weekend, so no lenghty posts today. However, this thread is developing in several interesting directions. I am happy beyond words to see Okie - Okie! - setting the historical record straight regarding religious beliefs of early Europeans. After all the pagan bashing of the Germans, which I was concerned that I would have to come in and correct, here comes Okie - Okie! - with the facts, that they were Arians (Aryan Arians, but still Arians, it must be said).
For the presentation of honest information regarding the dead, who are unable to defend themselves in strident online debate, I hereby name Okie the recipient of the coveted "Speaker for the Dead" award, which recognizes special distinction in the quashing of historical rumour.
Thank you for the kind honour WM :D . Just to set the record straight though - not all the Germanic tribes in the Roman empire were Arian Christians, just the Vandals. I think one of the early roman empires commisioned another orthodox Christian tribe (GOths or Ostrogoths I think) to suppress the Vandals.
And Trisk I'm sure knows much more about his I'm sure, but conversion was not universal among the Germans. The Angles, Saxons and Jutes (re: Englishmen) of course were still pagan when they conquered most of Britain.
2003-08-25 17:31 | User Profile
What I didn't get this award WM, oh darn! :(
2003-08-26 00:36 | User Profile
So we have established that there is a Covenant, and that your Church affirms the eternal validity of that Covenant. Do you understand now why I think your instincts, essentially pagan, are both good and true? **
Thanks for the flowers, though I donôt know about the 'essentially Pagan' part.
The Church as such hasnôt spoken on this, not that I know of. The American Bishops are in error. That they are not clearly told so by Rome shows a certain weakness by the Roman administration, to be sure, but not that they agree. They just let it pass for now.
2003-08-26 00:53 | User Profile
There are no questions about this. The Old Testament is a contract: foreskins for land. No amount of apologetics or appeals to translation or allegoricizing or trying to wish it away is going to change that. Not now, not ever. **
A 'Covenant' I would call an understanding, not a contract.
The difference is this: Abraham had no choice but to accept it. Saying no was not an option, nor could he try and get better conditions.
This is what I meant by saying all-mighty beings donôt make a contract with you. :jest: God ordered things, and made promises, but your term 'contract' is misleading. Though I suppose the term could be used in the very broad sense Rousseau used it when he called the state a 'social contract', which is not quite literally true, either, because the citizen cannot really opt out. In this sense, but only in this sense, the Covenant could be called a contract.
2003-08-26 01:23 | User Profile
** I offer Citizen Rights according to Natural Law, as recognized by the Catholic Church and most other Christian confessions. **
Translation: I offer no safeguards because I will assume that the Catholic Church won't engage in the barbaric oppression of religious dissent it has in the past. Trust me, ignore history and it will all work out. **
Excuse me? Why should Constitutional Rights not be a safeguard? :rolleyes:
2003-08-26 01:37 | User Profile
**This has naturally led, in nearly everybodyôs terminology, including, I admit, my own, to equal "Third Reich" with "National socialism". **
The fact that your terminology is overly limited says nothing about the usefulness of an ideology no matter how common the mis-perception is. **
That would be true, if I were concerned only about the mis-perception. I am, however, concerned about the ambiguity.
"Nationalsocialism", used for anything but the ideology of the 3R, reminds me of the Marxist term "Dictatorship of the Proletariat". The problem with that term was that it allowed Lenin to both pretend what he had in mind wasnôt really a dictatorship (because you could define "Proletariat" so broadly it included nearly everybody) and say that he was talking, of course, about a dictatorship. In short, the flexible definition of a term helped him promise very different things to different people.
In questions of language, common use matters.
2003-08-26 01:44 | User Profile
** I do not doubt that religion is useful. However, I very much deny that it can, or should, be judged on the ground of its usefulness alone. In societal terms (rather then personal ones) utility is the only thing that matters. This would in itself mean putting the material over the spiritual -matter over mind- and would therefore already implicate a materialist world view, with religion used as a cover at best. **
No, it means that when an institution harms a society it should be reformed to be more in accordance with the preservation of Traditionalism (see me "neither left nor right" article if you want a definition) or be replaced by society (rather then the state if at possible) with something else that provides for non coercive based cohesiveness. Neither I nor anyone that I draw inspiration from have any interest in materialism and in fact believe that materialism is a force of societal destruction when it becomes a dominant force in society. **
A religion is not an "institution", that should, or can, be opportunistically replaced by something else. A Church may be an "institution", if you want to call it that, but a religion isnôt. Subordinating it to practical considerations is Materialism, implicitly, whatever you may call it.
2003-08-26 01:59 | User Profile
Here I thought you were all set to help me slay Apep, the Serpent of Ignorance. **
I am very sceptical about slaying Pagan serpents, even ignorant ones.
Only in the Bible, which you do not recognize, is the serpent clearly used as a symbol of evil. In the Pagan creeds, it often stands for infinity, like the Ouroboros, therefore slaying Pagan serpents is generally impossible or inadvisable.
2003-08-26 02:19 | User Profile
Do these judgements square with the quotes that I have provided above? **
WM, you are incorrectible.
Your quotes are unrepresentative to the extreme.
Plotinus (204-270) may have been heavily influenced by Christian teaching. Plato himself was uncharacteristic for his society to the extreme. What everybody believed, as opposed to what half a dozen philosophers believed, was probably much closer to Berdjajevôs description than yours.
About the Roman religion in particular, Macchiavelli has written very well in the Discorsi. Hegelôs description of the Roman religion is less flattering than even Berdjajevôs.
And Plato has the following last words of Socrates (truly uplifting): [color=blue]Crito, I owe a c*ck to Asclepius; will you remember to pay the debt?[/color] [url=http://plato.evansville.edu/texts/jowett/phaedo15.htm]http://plato.evansville.edu/texts/jowett/phaedo15.htm[/url] :th:
2003-08-26 02:42 | User Profile
Wintermute, obviously you didn't see that I was being sarcastic in what I said about not recieving your award. To get all that worked up over a stupid sarcastic remark, man lighten up a bit. Personally I couldn't give a rat's ass what you decide to award me. In fact what you just wrote demonstrates you're really in no position to give anybody awards for anything(except maybe slandering the dead, which I'm about to prove that you did!)
And all those quotes that you provided does not entirely refute Berdyaev's claim. In fact in many ways you betrayed an ignorance of Berdyaev's philosophy, since you based your whole critique of Berdyaev's philosophy on one quote of his. Interesting enough, your whole defense is based on Hellenic paganism, despite the fact that Berdyaev was mostly attacking paganism in a pantheistic form! Hellenic religion wasn't patheistic now was it?
In fact Berdyaev does not make any attacks on hellenic religion as you try to claim. You would've found that out if you actually read the WHOLE DAMN THING! The essay was concerning the book "the Science of Man" by V. Nesmelov, in which Nesmelov tried to praise many elements of pantheistic paganism.
As Berdyaev wrote in the essay:
** "I speak about V. Nesmelov, author of the large work ââ¬ÅThe Science of Manââ¬Â, a modest and little known professor of the Kazan Spiritual Academyà[trans. note, i.e. higher level seminary].àNesmelov is very bold, very deep and original a thinker. He continues anew the matter of Eastern [mystical] theology, with which he unites a faith in the divineness of human nature, a faith foreign to Western theology." **
So by Berdyaev's own admission, he's commenting more on a paganism based on Eastern mysticism, not Hellenic paganism. So right here now, you're critique of Berdyaev falls right apart because your attacks on Berdyaev are based on Hellenic paganism, not Eastern mysticism. That's like answering a Hindu attack on monotheism along more Christian lines with a defense based on Ahkanaten's monotheistic religion. Next time, read the entire essay(and I did provide a link to it) not just the one sentence, cause its a real shame you spent all that time finding those quotes and making such arguments only to be proven that it was all over nothing, for he wasn't talking about Hellenic paganism. tsk tsk tsk
In fact as he wrote in the same damn essay
From the time of the infancy of mankind to our own time pagan idolatry and pagan superstition have been part of religious life. Paganism, ultimately, is not identical with idolatry and superstition, in paganism there was also a positive truth, a genuine sense of God**, but the residue of paganism in the Christian world customarily bears an idolatrous and superstitious character. **
Gees! But no, you rather just read one sentence and then decide flapp your mouth off! Never mind your defense of paganism is based on the WRONG PAGAN TRADITION!
Do you begin to see why Berdayev's ignorant calumny is so offensive? At one stroke, it denies the root of true Christian spirituality, which is Hellenic and present in all the mystics from Dionysus foward, while at the same time spreading slander about a Tradition which the Church ceaselessly peddles untruths regarding. For a historian, not to mention a religious person, it is one of the most ignoble lies imaginable.
Berdyaev didn't deny the influence of Hellenic philosophy on Christian theology, in fact as he writes in [url=http://www.krotov.org/engl/berdyaev/1937_424.html]Orthodoxy and Humaness[/url] from 1937:
** The teachers of the Church made use of the categories of thought from Greek philosophy, the only philosophy of their time, and without its assist they could not move on in their theologising, even in the working out of dogmatic formulae. The remarkable Hindu philosophy was at the time unknown, and they were cut off from it. There exists an analogy between the influence of Plato, Aristotle and Neo-Platonism on Patristic and Scholastic thought, and the influence of Kant, Hegel, Schelling on Russian religious thought. The teachers of the Church in their thinking were no less dependent upon philosophy, than were the Russian religious thinkers of the XIX and XX Centuries. The philosophy of the "pagans" Plato and Aristotle was not moreso Christian, than was the philosophy of Hegel and Schelling, -- pervaded as they were by Christian elements. Theology completely independent of philosophy never was and never will be. Theology is not religious revelation, theology is the reaction of human thought upon revelation, and this revelation is dependent upon the categories of philosophic thought **
So clearly Berdyaev did not deny the Greek influence on Christianity as you wrongly accuse him of doing. Yet you accuse him of not reading the sources that were available to him at the time, yet he proved he actually did! He wrote many times praise for Greek philosophers, and even said what shame that intellecuals don't try to rediscover the truth as taught by Plato. So obviously it was you, not Berdyaev, who failed to check up on the sources available.
So you're the one whose wrong here, not Berdyaev. Although maybe if you actually bothered to studied Berdyaev's philosophy you might've found that out, but no you'd rather base your whole case on one sentence in which he vaguely generalizes about pagan religions, not Hellenic paganism in particular. Even those who study mythologies around the world talk about how Hellenic paganism differs fundementally from most other pagan traditions.
In his [url=http://www.berdyaev.com/berdiaev/berd_lib/1930_353.html]East and West[/url] he critiques about how the modern West tries to set the Classical West(Greece and Rome) against the East(Russia and Asia), despite the fact that so much of what made Classical civilization great came from influences of the East. You yourself admitted this in the debate between me and Nagel. In fact it is in this work that Berdyaev talks about the influence of Greeco-Roman civilization on the world.
**Modern humanistic Europe loves the Greek rationalism and positivism, which are regarded as Western, but not the Greece of mystery and tragedy, of Herakleitos and Plato, in any case not Plato the myth-maker, not that profound aspect of Greece, which revealed itself to Bachofen and Nietzsche. At a certain moment Greece was transformed into the East, in regard to the Roman West. The Hellenistic era, pervaded by a spirit of universalism, destroyed the boundaries of the Graeco-Roman civilisation, in it East and West arrived at an unprecedentedly close contact and the east proved to be of an overwhelming spiritual influence in the West. With this also is the beginning of worldwide history, it was created by Christianity. Rome, the West in its supremacy, was spiritually conquered by the East, by the Eastern cultures and the Eastern world-view, since Rome itself was bereft of all signs of religious and philosophical genius. Franz Cumont, in his book, "Les mysteres de Mithra", says: "jamais, peut-etre, pas meme a l'epoque des invasions musulmanes, l'Europe ne fut plus pres de devenir asiatique qu'au III siecla de notre ere, et il y eut un moment ou le caesarisme parut sur le point de transfer en un khalifat" ["never, perhaps, not even at the time of the Mussulman invasions, was Europe closer to becoming Asiatic, than at the III Century of our era, and there was a moment when Caesarism seemed at the point of becoming transformed into a caliphate"]. The asiaticisation of the West was an everywhere common phenomenon at the beginning of our era, which also was rendered possible by the triumph of Christianity. Jerusalem proved victorious over Athens and Rome. Light arrived from the Eastern wilderness, and not from the classical civilisation. This is something indisputable for anyone not a child of Voltaire. For the whole Medieval period, the Eastern world and the Western world were neither isolated nor closed off from each other. The final isolation happened only after railway lines were built and ready means of communication established. There was a time when Byzantium, within which Greece had become the East, was the summit of refined culture, and the West drew from it for its cultural influences. Through the Arabs, the West discovered Aristotle, who became a Western philosopher predominantly. Although for the modern humanistic and rationalistic Europe, even the Medieval period has to seem like something Eastern. **
He also compares the stories of the Bible with those of Greek tragedy and mythology:
**And here it mustneeds be said, that the Bible is not at all a matter of Classicism, just as neither is it Romanticism, it is necessary to turn to the Bible, in order to comprehend the fate of the world apart from any matters of Classicism and Romanticism, of classical formations and the romantic inner reactions against these formations. There is no one that would assert, that the Prophets or the book of Job are either classical or romantic. A comparison of the book of Job with Greek tragedy, with the Oedipus of Sophokles makes clear the differences between the ancient Hebrew, the Biblical, and the type classical, the Greek. In the Oedipus what is striking is the submissive resignation to fate. The words and gestures of Oedipus are beautiful in their moderation and resignation, in them there is an aesthetic transformation of suffering. Oedipus in his blameless suffering has no one to appeal to, no one to fight against, Oedipus lives in an immanently enclosed world, and there is no power, upon which he can rely in his struggle against the world. The world is full of gods, but these gods are immanent to the world, over them likewise rules fate, which has sent Oedipus his tragic sufferings, blameless and inescapable. The way out is possible only aesthetically. Classical antiquity did not know of the struggle with God. Job experiences his tragedy altogether differently. In him there is no submission and resignation. Job cries out, and his outcry fills the history of the world, to the very present it sounds forth on our lips. In the outcry of Job we get a sense of the fate of man. For Job fate does not exist, as it did for Oedipus. He knows of a power, standing higher than the world, higher than fate, to appeal to in the sufferings of the world, he turns his outcry to God and this outcry passes over into a struggle with God. Only in the Bible is known the manifestation of God-struggle, the struggle with God face to face, the struggle of Jacob, the struggle of Job, the struggle of all Israel. The resignation to the tragic in a beauty of submissiveness to blameless and inescapable suffering, the amor fati is the grandest attainment of the tragic spirit of Greece. Higher than this the west has not risen. Nietzsche was captivated by this, and by it have been captivated people of Western culture, having forgotten the Bible, having forgotten Him, to Whom is possible to offer complaint against innocent suffering in the world. The amor fati is a romantic motif in the classical world and man can rise up no higher than it, with having lost faith in God uppermost beyond the world. Dostoevsky is Russian tragedy. And here it is more in the line of Job, than in the line of Greek tragedy. In Dostoevsky there is that selfsame God-struggle, that same outcry, that same irreconcilableness and non-submissiveness, in him there is that selfsame absence of surmounting the tragic through an aesthetic catharsis. It is remarkable, that in him is altogether no sorrow and melancholy, so characteristic of the romantic West, he is not so much a psychologist, as rather a pneumatologist, and by this is uncovered an authentically tragic element. All the whole of Russian great literature in the XIX Century was more Biblical, than Greek in its spirit. In it is heard that selfsame outcry about the suffering fate of man in the world, calling out to God and for seeking the Kingdom of God, in which would be wiped away the tears of the child. We, as Russians, have connections with Greece, and not with Rome, the connections with Greece are through our Church, through the Greek Patristics, through Platonism, through mystery. Close to us is the Greek cosmic sense. But even beyond all this, we as Russians are aware of our own connection with the Bible and with Jerusalem. Within Russian spiritual culture enters in the Greece of Plato, Neo-Platonism and mystery, and also Judaism: the Bible and the Apocalypse. The strong admixture of Tatar blood creates an unique element, in which are active spiritual principles, deriving from Jerusalem and Athens. And here is this unique East, distinct from the East of the Indian or the Mussulman, it entered into an interaction with the west, it experienced the influences of Western culture and in its own way transformed them over the course of the XIX Century. Russians love Athens, although they are not native to the Mediterranean Sea, and often they languish over Athens, since always they love to languish over some other world, they have likewise languished over Paris and over Goettingen, when they lived remote from such places (at present they languish over Moscow), but Jerusalem was for us more primary, more a bed-rock, than Athens, not only the old Jerusalem, but also the new Jerusalem, after which we seek. **
He also admits once again
** The early teachers of the Church tended to unite Jerusalem with Athens. But it is necessary to make a distinction between these two world principles and establish between them an hierarchical correlation. The centre of world culture, certainly, is in the West, but the sources, in which this world comes into contact with the other world -- are in the East. East and West -- are not so much geographic nor historical spheres, always conditional and fluid, even not types of cultures, since there are no Western cultures, into which elements of the East have not entered, -- East and West, -- are symbols, the symbol of the rising of the sun, of revelation, and of the setting of the sun -- of civilisation. **
So clearly Berdyaev isn't in the wrong here, but you WM. Your whole critique of Berdyaev is based on something he didn't even say. You attacked him for arguments he didn't even make. You attack him for being ignorant of the Greek influence on Christianity, yet he constantly saids that there was indeed Greek influence on Christianity. So your whole argument just went to :dung: because it was based on your misinterpretation of what the man actually said. And to think you have the balls to say that I'm a slanderer of the dead, when you just proved right here that you yourself are about as slanderous to the dead as anybody else here.
I would've thought much more from you WM! :thd:
How about awarding the title slanderer of the dead to yourself for the shameless illeducated remarks you said?
2003-08-26 16:35 | User Profile
** Now if you insist that Berdayev is talking about Hinduism or Pantheism here (though he isn't), I must ask: why introduce it in a conversation about Hellenism or Asatru?
If it is utterly unrelated to those religions, why pair it in a single post from Paleo, that directly addresses those two religions?**
And I knew you would try to argue this. Well PL made the point that Pagans tend to address material matters over spiritual matters, and Berdyaev explained that in short here. Many religious pratices and philosophies bear resemblences to each other around the world, and thus it's not entirely inappropiate to use them, although with caution.
In my debate against Nagel I used a taoist concept to defend Christianity and critique Nagel's concepts of paganism. As I said that truth is still the truth even when it's a Jew speaking. Just because a Jew saids the world is round does not mean we whites must believe it is actually flat.
Berdyaev was in many way generalizing about Paganism, he wasn't at this time concerning one particular pagan tradition which you think he did. In other works, he does go into more detail about Hellenic paganism.
**you insist that Berdayev is talking about Hinduism or Pantheism here (though he isn't), **
He was critiquing primarily the notions put forth by the author Nesmelov, whose ideas were based on Eastern mysticism. I never said Berdyaev was talking about Hinduism(at least not per se) in the essay. The only thing about Hinduism was that comment about responding to a Hindu attack on Christian monotheism with a defense based on Akhanaten's monotheism.
Now what do you think he was talking about WM, since you know so much more than me? Where does he say that he's attacking Hellenic paganism specifically?
Well maybe the one quote
This man has consented at times to accept each religion that pleases him, whatever a form of paganism, the religion of Babylon or Dionysianism, Brahmanism or Buddhism, even Mahometanism, but only not Christianity.
But that's hardly a major critique of Hellenic paganism, since it lists it among other pagan religions. Plus he saids that this man(modern man) often will turn to a religion that suits his whims, whatever form of paganism it is. Now that's a condmenation of modern man's religious habits, not the religion itself.
Obviously you haven't read the whole thing, because Berdyaev does indeed talk about pantheism here. > **And the man of our era is quite willing to become a pantheist, if the religious need has not ultimately gone numb within him. Pantheism and pantheistic mysticism is esteemed whether by the positivist, the atheist, the Marxist, or whatever the teaching of the contemporary time. **
<_<
** It is not a normal practice of anyone on this board to pass off absolutely unrelated material as being germane to the point under discussion. Even if this does occur, it is odd for completely unrelated material to be attached - directly - to another quote, so that it might be taken as commentary.**
Well again, PL made the point that neo-Pagans tend to address the material matters(race and ethnicity) over spiritual matters, since spiritual matters are the primary job for a religion. Berdyaev explained this in short there about paganism in general.
** Did you, perhaps, not bother to read the Berdayev essay in question? Because I have. **
Yes I read it.
** And you have misrepresented its contents as well. However, I do not wish to discuss that until we have established why you would pass off a quote which you now claim as having no relationship whatsoever to the topic under discussion, as being commentary on Paleoleftist's post, and, by extension, on the beliefs of myself and Trisk.**
How did I misrepresent it? It talked about paganism in general, and Berdyaev is very general about what he terms paganism in the essay. You misinterpreted it as being a direct assault on Hellenic paganism and spread lies about how Berdyaev lack knowledge of Greek philosophy and religion, and denied that he knew anything about the Greek influences on Christianity. I proved you wrong, since Berdyaev did indeed admit Greek influence on Christianity, he did have knowledge and even great admiration of Greek philosophy, and did have knowledge of Greek religion.
** You cannot both say that the quote applies to the topic under discussion, and then turn around and say that it does not. **
I never said that, you're twisting what I said around. I said that you oversimplified your interpretation of the quote and of Berdyaev's philosophy. As I stated eariler, you claimed Berdyaev denied the Greek influence in Christianity, I proved you wrong.
** You have some explaining to do.**
I have explained myself.
2003-08-26 18:53 | User Profile
My question: is offering someone else's land in exchange for foreskins really dignified? We'll put off for one moment, whether or not it is good. **
I'm sure the Good Lord regrets not having your opinion on the matter at the time of his negotiations. :unsure:
But I think I'm losing track of the argument here, wm. This 'foreskins for land' you keep repeating like a mantra, I am puzzled by how this buttresses your greater mission to distort and undermine traditional, orthodox Christianity. Can you bring me up to speed on this? I apologize in advance for my ignorance.
2003-08-26 19:04 | User Profile
Paleo -
You raise some uninteresting points, that are easily dealt with. If the mysteries are so 'unrepresentative' of pagan practice, why did thousands attend them every year? You know that the Mysteries of Mithra, complete with sacred meal, matched Christianity worshipper for worshipper at one point. Dionysus mysteries (you know, that 'vine' fellow) were so numerous, Imperial prosecution of them easily exceeded any attention the Christians got from the authorities. The Mysteries of Isis were so popular and widespread that they were the last to be eradicated by the Church, though a mysterious "Mary Cult", complete with Isis figurines (still worshipped by Catholics), Crescent Moons, and the "Star of the Sea" moniker, entered Christianity shortly after the last Isis temple at Philae was closed.
I deliberately gave you a large sample of quotes, both temporally and geographically, which, because of the weakness of your position and your desperation, you ignore. In addition to Plato and Plotinus, the influence of whom you and I disagree about, they include 1)A popular Hellenistic novel 2)A citizen of Athens speaking of his city and its gifts to the world 3)An inscription on a public monument, which would have been seen by thousands in a yearly ceremony, 4)a phrase from a popular poet, who would have been known even to the nonliterate from music, 5) a liturgy from a proselytizing cult of the pre-Classical period that was vastly influential and a quote from 6)Cicero, hardly a nobody, who himself is reporting the effects of Athenian civilization on Rome. Cicero is hardly some hermit on a mountiantop, after all.
The character of the Mysteries, which I give by a representative sampling of opinion stretching from 6 B.C. to 5 A.D., is not in question. Its popularity in the Hellenistic world is not in question, not even by Christian scholars, which you are certainly not. In this last claim of yours, you've descended beyond hairsplitting into outright delusion.
As to hairsplitting, your covenant/contract distinction is a naked attempt at Talmudism, at which you are not very good. That you aren't good at it speaks well of you, but that you tried it out speaks poorly.
I'll share with you my researches over at the American Heritage dictionary, but only because they're so funny.
First, contract:
1a. An agreement between two or more parties, especially one that is written and enforceable by law. See synonyms at bargain**. b. The writing or document containing such an agreement. 2. The branch of law dealing with formal agreements between parties. 3. Marriage as a formal agreement; betrothal. **
Now, covenant:
1. A binding agreement; a compact. See synonyms at bargain. 2. Law a. A formal sealed agreement or contract. b. A suit to recover damages for violation of such a contract.
Now isn't this interesting? Both entries, on the first definition, direct us on over to bargain, where more synonyms for the same word can be found.
So to bargain we go:
1. An agreement between parties fixing obligations that each promises to carry out. 2a. An agreement establishing the terms of a sale or exchange of goods or services: finally reached a bargain with the antique dealer over the lamp. b. Property acquired or services rendered as a result of such an agreement.
All three definitions, I do find roughly synonomous. Obviously there are a lot of anti-Semites over at American Heritage. Good for us.
As for your attempt to deny or explain away the "agreement between parties fixing obligations that each promises to carry out", we must return to Genesis.
**8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. **
Two parties? YHVH and Abraham (plus his seed). Check.
Fixed obligations? "I will give unto thee . . . all the land of Canaan". "Every man child among you shall be circumcised" Check.
Each promises to carry out obligations? Check. I don't want to spoil the ending for anyone interested in reading the Bible, so I won't go into details.
It would seem that your last recourse would be to claim some dignity for this arrangement, so that like marriage, which is a contract, but which is referred to more generally as a covenant, is done out of respect for an institution (something else that marriage is).
My question: is offering someone else's land in exchange for foreskins really dignified? We'll put off for one moment, whether or not it is good.
I don't think so, so I will continue to refer to the Old Testament as a contract, foreskins-for-land. At least you don't try to deny that. If you wish, you may refer to it as a 'covenant', foreskins-for-land. The respective Hebrew and Greek words will allow for both, also alliance, contract, treaty, agreement, and so forth.
Wintermute **
Wintermute,
You didnôt really get my most important points (why did I expect you to; slapping myself.) :D
If the mysteries are so 'unrepresentative' of pagan practice, why did thousands attend them every year?
If they were so holy, why did Socrates never attend them? Why were they mostly ignored by Plato, except when he was cracking jokes at them?
You are (clumsily or intentionally) mixing up two very different traditions:
Popular superstitions of vulgar character, such as the "Mysteries" of Dionysos and Isis (I can understand the Roman authorities`position; it is the position of the modern state toward "religions" such as Scientology)
Philosophies (of essentially non-religious character) such as Platonism; btw, "Neo"platonism is not Platonism, just like "Neo"marxism is not Marxism and "Neo"conservatism is not Conservatism.
And the "Covenant" in the OT clearly has the character not of a bargain, but of an order; you evaded this by hair-splitting on your part. My argument was, of course, that God is saying: You do this, or else. :gun: God is very polite, so he is calling it a "Covenant", but you obviously put too much importance into this word, at the expense of the context.
You completely ignore my argument, that Neoplatonism was, indeed, a reaction to Christianity, not the other way round.
You also ignored my Socrates qouote: A sacrifice must be made to Asclepius, because he has "cured" Socrates ailment, which is life. Now this is what I call an inspiring belief! :th: :punk:
2003-08-27 03:38 | User Profile
Hello PL,
As always it is pleasure to hear from you and I am sorry for taking so long to get to the matters at hand due to my various business and politically related matters. I understand that you time constraints are problematic to so I will not be churlish about overlooked points.
** Ahhh, now you advocate separate classes of religions, acceptable ones and unacceptable ones. Matter of fact, this is far more intolerant than what I had in mind. My solution is: One state religion which is definitely favoured by the community, but tolerance for all individual members of other faiths, in the same way even Jews -the state religionôs historical and present arch-enemies!- are tolerated in Iran. Toleration is not the same as encouragement. My position is: Tolerate everybody, encourage the adherents of the state religion. (Orthodox Church in Russia, Catholic Church in Austria, Protestants in the US, and so on.) **
Living in a Church state , very marginally so I admit, I have little to complain about but certainly fear is well founded if such recognition is accompanied by actions as have been the case far to often in the past. Basically, if the church tax can be opted out of and religious dissidents can build their own institutions and operate with zero interference then I'll not oppose the state Church. Of course if the Church is to receive state sanction and be looked upon as a valued component of society then it needs to be reformed and by that I am not referring to some liturgical or theological matter as such things are none of my concern. Rather, I speak of having the Church(es) in the Occidental world come out in support of racial separatism and a rejection of jewish influence within our nations as they once did.
** Now you are probably going to say that religions originating in Europe should be tolerated, but others shouldnôt. I will answer that I would view this as a threat, because Christianity didn't originate in Europe. :ph34r: **
Well it is true that Christianity did not originate in Europa a great many of it's rituals did (taken from Germanic tradition and Mithraism for instance) and after 1500 years the fact is that all Christian theologians worth mentioning have also been Europeans so it has become largely Occidental in form, doctrine and tenor so I am willing to accept it as such without qualifications. Yes, you are correct that I favour the discourage, not open repression, of alien faiths as they undermine societal cohesion and have no place in our nations just as our traditions should not expect tolerance else where.
** Furthermore, Schopenhauer was a Buddhist, and did propagate Buddhism. Buddhism is farther from all European world views than Islam (which has a lot in common, after all, with Christianity). Now does this mean you would crack down on any follower of Schopenhauer? **
I am aware that rare examples of great Occidentals that adhere to exotic faiths exist. Yet they are rare and to have mild discouragement of such faiths (ex. no formal recognition , tax exception, public assemblies or buildings openly committed for such use being allowed) would allow such people to exist on their own and not fear police state actions which I object to.
** And finally: There are communities of White Muslims of relatively long standing, e.g. in parts of the former Yugoslavia. What do you suggest to do with those who donôt want to convert to one of the religions you find acceptable? Expulsion? Holy War? Think it through, to all the practical conclusions. **
Outside of Albanians (who are arguably not racial Europeans) and some partly Turkic derived stock of the Balkans (again, debatably Europeans) such communities are simply not relevant. In any case, those communities don't view themselves as European and allow their religious desires to determine their cultural and political actions. While I am not particularly up on those communities I do feel that they are not European and should be treated accordingly. I suppose that the matter is one best left to nationalists in the Balkans that have to deal with them.
** I read Perunôs post as meaning you Pagans, referring to past (somewhat successful) opponents of Christianity, not you, Trisk. So I think this is a misunderstanding. **
Fair enough. I will write it up to a misunderstanding.
You certainly do not advocate destruction of Christianity as such. But you hold a position that I think is philosophically and practically untenable: Religious equality for all, except for those (such as Muslims), whom you very strongly disapprove of. I advocate that the faiths of Europa should be given genuine religious freedom in Europa and that those faiths which are alien and counter to the traditions and societal cohesion of our nations in accordance with a very broadly defined Eurocentrism should be discouraged. I will even go so far as to say that those that drawn to openly malignant faiths such as self identified Luciferians, jewry Satanists, Voodo/Muti, Santaria etc. should be expelled. The position is very tenable and immanently practical because it places indigenous faiths in the position of tolerance they deserve by virtue of being part of our heritage and proven providers of societal unity. Others faiths are tolerated but discouraged if not openly malignant or repressed if they are.
Triskelion Quote:
** As the various Heathen sects have living devotees it is clearly a living faith no matter what you may wish. **
**I have to admit the truth of this statement. But is it the same faith of old, or have you changed some Articles? Would you aid and abet the god Thor in killing the Midgard Serpent? I find this idea mildly uncomfortable, not only because the Midgard Serpent is the only member of its species and should rather be preserved, but also because its slaying leads to the End of the World, and is therefore likely better avoided. **
Well here we come a rather fundamental difference between some, i.e. my, perceptions of Heathendom and the major monotheistic faiths and that is we conceive of the documents that guide us as being descriptions not of historical events but as allegories that convey a fundamental truth about contrary forces within reality in a way. If you read about Alain DeBenoist's notion philosophy of the mythic you'll understand what I mean. With regards to the specific event you mention above the source you quoted makes the common Christian error regarding the battle in such a way as to lend credence to their own cosmology. Basically, Jormangund is a primal force of destruction unleashed during the terminal phase of earth bound decadence and destruction whose titanic battle with the contrary forces of life are but one of several battles leading to the destruction of the old order which prepares the path for the birth of a new set of a similar thesis and antithesis bringing renewal. As such, Jormangund is necessary in the way that pain and sacrifice can lead to better things.
In answer to your question I will say that yes, such an interpretation in keeping with ancestral belief.
** Excuse me? Why should Constitutional Rights not be a safeguard? **
My point exactly. The American approach to the issue of religion has much to commend it as it provides institutional safeguards.
Triskelion Quote:
** The fact that your terminology is overly limited says nothing about the usefulness of an ideology no matter how common the mis-perception is. That would be true, if I were concerned only about the mis-perception. I am, however, concerned about the ambiguity. **
** "National socialism", used for anything but the ideology of the 3R, reminds me of the Marxist term "Dictatorship of the Proletariat". The problem with that term was that it allowed Lenin to both pretend what he had in mind wasn��´t really a dictatorship (because you could define "Proletariat" so broadly it included nearly everybody) and say that he was talking, of course, about a dictatorship. In short, the flexible definition of a term helped him promise very different things to different people.
In questions of language, common use matters. **
The same could be said about any ideology be it republicanism, socialism, democracy or anything else you care to think of. As the term National Socialist applies to numerous currents of revolutionary nationalist thought in several nations schools characterized by a rejection of parliamentarianism, capitalism, jewry and a sense of Organicism as the foundation of national life differences and ambiguity are understandable but the common elements mentioned just listed define matters rather well if only in broad stroke. Certainly, those elements need further clarification and for that you need to refer to the specific school of thought in question. The tenets of the one I adhere to have been detailed else where but if you have any questions I'll be happy to address them.
** A religion is not an "institution", that should, or can, be opportunistically replaced by something else. A Church may be an "institution", if you want to call it that, but a religion isnôt. Subordinating it to practical considerations is Materialism, implicitly, whatever you may call it. **
An institution is nothing more then an organization guided by principles and practices that outlast those that create it. A church fits such a definition while the belief system upon which it is based clearly does not. My view of all belief systems, supra-rational or other wise, is done on the base of the extent to which it enhances/injures an or Organic or folkish conception of society (again, case of confusion on the matter either ask or see the "neither left nor right" article for clarification). In any case, such a view is not materialistic as it is not concerned material goods or physical comfort/indulgence but rather with a commitment to what Russell Kirk would call "permanence" If you wish to use another term I would view utilitarian as a more accurate descriptor.
2003-08-28 02:50 | User Profile
** **ÃÂ He was critiquing primarily the notions put forth by the author Nesmelov, whose ideas were based on Eastern mysticism. I never said Berdyaev was talking about Hinduism(at least not per se) in the essay. **
what do you mean by "Eastern mysticism"? Is it Buddhism and Hinduism, or the apophatic mystics of the Eastern Orthodox church? The distinction is pretty crucial.
Wintermute **
Well as I say, he wasn't talking about Hinduism/Buddhism per se. He was talking about Eastern Mysticism, which Buddhism/Hinduism certainly fall under, but I believe he was generalizing about it. Just like making statements about Western philosophy in general does not mean you're making statements about Greek philosophy per se. Same thing about Christianity, make general statements about the faith does mean you're talking about Catholicism in any specific way.
And with Berdyaev we must be careful. For as he wrote in [url=http://www.berdyaev.com/berdiaev/berd_lib/1930_353.html]East and West[/url] he states that yes there is indeed "East" and "West" but neither are monolith as it were. Russia may belong to the East, but the Russian East is different from the Hindu East, just like the Hindu East is different from the Sino East.
As he states:
** When we use the terms "East" and "West", we are operating with very abstract and conditional concepts. There exist very varied Easts and very varied Wests. The more I get into the life of the West, the more I am convinced, that no sort of a single Western culture exists, it instead was contrived by the Russian Slavophils and Westernisers for clarifying their points of opposition. At the centre of Western Europe is first of all France and Germany. But between the French and the Latin culture generally in contrast to the German culture there exists an abyss quite greater, than exists between the German culture and the Russian culture or that of India, though here even the differences are colossal. Yet it would be groundless for the French to say, that the German culture, in having created great philosophy, mysticism and music, is on account of its not having inherited the Graeco-Roman Mediterranean culture, or that it is not in direct continuance from it. The Anglo-Saxon world likewise is an altogether unique world. And the American civilisation is of far greater difference from the civilisation of the French, than the French civilisation is from the Russian. The Russian civilisation has connections with the Greek, which America possesses not at all. One can speak only about a singular Western civilisation only if there be regarded abstractly the elements of science, technology, democracy, etc. In spirit, however, the differences are enormous, The same also mustneeds be said about the East. The Russian, the Orthodox Christian East, the Islamic East, the Indian East, the Chinese East -- all these are totally different worlds. There is very little affinity between Russia and India. Hinduism does not conceive of history, does not know the person, denies the Incarnation. Christian Russia is similar to ancient Israel in its orientation to the meaning of history and the experiencing of it, as a tragedy, it believes in the Divine incarnation, it awaits the second Coming, and it tormentedly experiences the problem of the human person and its fate. **
So by Berdyaev's definition of "East" and "West", Hinduism/Buddhism and Orthodox mysticism fall under the category of Eastern mysticism, only that each belong to a different form of eastern mysticism.
2003-08-28 17:03 | User Profile
However, I am very much for Christianity affirmed as the state religion. In fact, when I went to school, Catholicism still was the Austrian state religion. I am not sure if that is still the case, in theory at least, or has been quietly dropped. Non-Christian religions should be tolerated, but should not be on an equal footing.
I do not support perfect religious equality, rather, I believe that a nation has a strong interest in religious homogeneity, every bit as much as ethnic homogeneity. After all, morality depends on religion, as much as the common good depends on morality. I would have to lie to say I see any good in religious "diversity". Tolerance, yes, but certainly no state support for non-Christians, and definitely state support for Christianity.
In short: Religious freedom, yes, religious equality, no. **
PL,
Would you have felt at home in Franco's Spain?
What do you think of the falangists?
What are your thoughts on Opus Dei?
2003-08-28 17:36 | User Profile
Neo-Nietzsche,
I get goose bumps whenever I read Nietzsche (I have all of his works in my personal library and a gigantic portrait of him is on the wall of my office at home).
I thought you might enjoy this piece:
**William Pierce on Christianity From the Membership Handbook.
2.d. Opposed Ideologies
2.d.vii. Christianity
The National Alliance is not a religious organization, in the ordinary sense of the term. It does, however, have to concern itself with religious matters, because religions influence the behavior of people, society, and governments. The doctrines of various religious groups -- Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, et al. -- deal with temporal as well as spiritual matters and therefore often conflict with National Alliance doctrine.
Christian doctrines are of much greater concern to the National Alliance than the doctrines of other large religious groups, because Christianity is the most influential religion in the United States, Europe, and the rest of the White world. Most members of the National Alliance come from families which are, or a generation ago were, at least nominally Christian, and very few come from families which practice, or practiced, Islam, Buddhism, or other religions. Furthermore, the history of our race for the last thousand years has been inextricably bound up with Christianity. The National Alliance really cannot avoid taking positions regarding Christian beliefs and practices, despite the complications this causes in our work.
The immediate and inevitable fact which forces us to come to grips with Christianity is that the mainstream Christian churches are all, without exception, preaching a doctrine of White racial extinction. They preach racial egalitarianism and racial mixing. They preach non-resistance to the takeover of our society by non-Whites. It was the Christian churches, more than any other institution, which paralyzed the will of White South Africans to survive. It is the Christian establishment in the United States which is preeminent in sapping the will of White Americans to resist being submerged in the non-White tide sweepig across the land. Most Christian authorities collaborate openly with the Jews, despite the contempt and abuse they receive in rerturn, and the rest at least follow Jewish policies on the all-important matter of race. The occasional anomaly -- a Catholic bishop in Poland speaking out angrily against Jewish arrogance, a few Protestant groups in the United States expressing sympathy for oppressed Palestinians -- does not invalidate the rule.
We are obliged, therefore, to oppose the Christian churches and to speak out against their doctrines. But we do not, as some groups have done, accuse the Christian leaders of being false Christians. We do not say, "We are the real Christians, because we stand for the values which the mainstream churches stood for a century ago, before they were subverted." We do not reach for our Bibles and point to verses which seem to be in accord with the policies of the National Alliance and contrary to the present policies of the Christian churches. A diligent Bible scholar can find in the Judeo-Christian scriptures support for -- or ammunition against -- virtually any policy whatsoever.
Beyond the immediate conflict between us and the Christian churches on racial matters there is a long-standing and quite fundamental ideological problem with Christianity. It is not an Aryan religion; like Judaism and Islam it is Semitic in origin, and all its centuries of partial adaptation to Aryan ways have not changed its basic flavor. It was carried by a Jew, Saul of Tarsus (later known as Paul), from the Levant to the Greco-Roman world. Its doctrines that the meek shall inherit the earth and that the last shall be first found fertile soil among the populous slave class in Rome. Centuries later, as Rome was succumbing to an internal rot in which Christianity played no small part, legions of Roman conscripts imposed the imported religion on the Celtic and Germanic tribes to the north.
Eventually Christianity became a unifying factor for Europe, and in the name of Jesus Europeans resisted the onslaught of Islamic Moors and Turks and expelled the "Christ-killing" Jews from one country after another. But the religion retained its alien mind-set, no matter how much some aspects of it were Europeanized. Its otherworldliness is fundamentally out of tune with the Aryan quest for knowledge and for progress; its universalism conflicts directly with Aryan striving for beauty and strength; its delineation of the roles of man and god offends the Aryan sense of honor and self-sufficiency.
Finally Christianity, like the other Semitic religions, is irredeemably primitive. Its deity is thoroughly anthropomorphic, and its "miracles" -- raising the dead, walking on water, curing the lame and the blind with a word and a touch -- are the crassest superstition.
We may have fond memories of the time before the Second World War when pretty, little girls in white dresses attended all-White Sunday schools, and Christianity seemed a bulwark of family values and a foe to degeneracy and indiscipline. We may cherish the tales of medieval valor, when Christian knights fought for god and king -- if we can overlook the Christian church's bloodthirsty intolerance, which stifled science and philosophy for centuries and sent tens of thousands of Europeans to the stake for heresy.
We may even find Christian ethics congenial, if we follow the standard Christian practice of interpreting many of its precepts -- such as the one about turning the other cheek -- in such a way that they do not interfere with our task. But we should remember that nothing essential in Christian ethics is specifically Christian. Any successful society must have rules of social conduct. Lying and stealing were shunned in every Aryan society long before Christianity appeared. Our pagan ancestors did not need Christian missionaries to tell them how to behave or to explain honor and decency to them -- quite to the contrary!
Historians may argue the pros and cons of Christianity's role in our race's past: whether or not the unity it provided during a period of European consolidation outweighed the loss of good genes it caused in the Crusades and the bloody religious wars of the Middle Ages (and through the Church's policy of priestly celibacy); whether the splendid Gothic cathedrals which rose in Europe during four centuries and the magnificaent religious musice of the 18th century were essentially Christian or essentially Aryan in inspiration; whether Christianity's stand against the evils of self-indulgence -- against gluttony and drunkenness and greed -- was worth its shackling of the human mind in superstition or not. One thing is already clear, however: Christianity is not a religion that we can wish on future generations of our race.
**We need ethics; we need values and standards; we need a world view. And if one wants to call all of these things together a religion, then we need a religion. One might choose instead, however, to call them a philosophy of life. Whatever we call it, it must come from our own race soul: it must be an expression of the innate Aryan nature. And it must be conducive to our mission of racial progress. Christianity, as the word is commonly understood, meets neither of these criteria. **
The fact is that, completely aside from the racial question, no person who wholeheartedly believes Christian doctrine can share our values and goals, because Christian doctrine holds that this world is of little importance, being only a proving ground for the spiritual world which one enters after death. Christian doctrine also holds that the condition of this world is not man's responsibility, because an omnipotent and omniscient deity alone has that responsibility.
Although some Christians do believe Christian doctrine wholeheartedly, most do not. Most instinctively feel what we explicitly believe, even if they have repressed those feelings in an effort to be "good" Christians. Because of this many nominal Christians, even those affiliated with mainstream churches, can, under the right circumstances, be persuaded to work for the interests of their race. Other nominal Christians -- especially those who stand apart from any of the mainstream churches -- have interpreted Christian doctrine in such an idiosyncratic way that the contradictions between their beliefs and ours have been minimized.
For these reasons we want to avoid conflict with Christians to the extent that we can. We don't want to give unnecessary offense, even when we speak out against the doctrines of their churches. We don't want to ridicule their beliefs, which in some cases are sincerely held. Some of these people later will reject Christianity's racial doctrines. Some will reject Christianity altogether. We want to help them in their quest for truth when we can, and we want to keep the door open to them.
Members who want to study the subject of Christianity and its relationship to our task in depth should read Which Way Western Man?, by our late member William Simpson. The book's initial chapters describe the spiritual odyssey of a man of exceptional spiritual sensitivity, who was far more intensely a Christian than nearly any Christian living today and who eventually understood the racially destructive nature of Christianity and rejected it.
A more concise study of the difference between the Christian world view and ours is given in Wulf Sorensen's The Voice of Our Ancestors, which was reprinted in National Vanguard No. 107.**
2003-08-28 19:10 | User Profile
Christian denominations constantly denounce "racism" and favour mass immigration (in large part to fill in their abandoned pews and for the accompanying financial reasons). Hence, modern Christianity has become the enemy of Western civilization and the White man.
Okie,
Simply calling those who disagree with you as "Satanists", etc. is rather silly and medieval, no? It makes one suspect that you result to such wild rhetoric because of the paucity of your arguments.
Seriously, what moral standards does someone with such a passionate hatred of universal morality (at least the only one we in the western world have known) retain?
Ethics have been developed as a branch of human knowledge long before Christians proclaimed their moral systems based upon divine authority. The field of ethics has had a distinguished list of pagan thinkers contributing to its development: from Socrates, Democritus, Aristotle, Epicurus, and Epictetus, and others. There is an influential atheist philosophical tradition that maintains that ethics is an autonomous field of inquiry, that ethical judgments can be formulated independently of revealed religion, and that human beings can cultivate practical reason and wisdom and, by its application, achieve lives of virtue and excellence. Moreover, philosophers have emphasized the need to cultivate an appreciation for the requirements of social justice and for an individual's obligations and responsibilities toward others. Thus, atheists deny that morality needs to be deduced from religious belief or that those who do not espouse a religious doctrine are immoral. For most atheists, ethical conduct is, or should be, judged by critical reason, and their goal is to develop autonomous and responsible individuals, capable of making their own choices in life based upon an understanding of human behaviour. Morality that is not God-based need not be antisocial, subjective, or promiscuous, nor need it lead to the breakdown of moral standards. Although atheists believe in tolerating diverse lifestyles and social manners, atheists do not think they are immune to criticism. Racialist atheists maintain that it is possible for human beings to lead meaningful and wholesome lives for themselves and in service to their race without the need of religious commandments or the benefit of clergy. There have been any number of distinguished pagans and atheists who have demonstrated moral principles in their personal lives and works: Protagoras, Lucretius, Epicurus, Spinoza, Hume, Thomas Paine, Voltaire, Diderot, Mark Twain, George Eliot, John Stuart Mill, Ernest Renan, Charles Darwin, F.W. Nietzsche, Thomas Edison, Clarence Darrow, Robert Ingersoll, Gilbert Murray, Albert Schweitzer, and Bertrand Russell, among others.
2003-08-28 19:15 | User Profile
No William-Pierce-style atrocities necessary, if you have a strong, religious leadership.) **
I wasn't aware that Pierce committed any "atrocities".
Another post-humous smear?
2003-08-28 19:21 | User Profile
He was beginning to grow cold about the groin, when he uncovered his face, for he had covered himself up, and said (they were his last words) -- he said: Crito, I owe a c*ck to Asclepius; will you remember to pay the debt? The debt shall be paid, said Crito; is there anything else? There was no answer to this question
You have your own theories, Paleo, which you have presented. I see a gently melancholic scene with humorous overtones. All the doctrinal stuff has been hashed out for hours before, and on the point of death, he suddenly remembers a debt - just the sort of thing one remembers on a deathbed.
Possibly you sense echoes of profundity here because your connection with semi-rural areas is limited. **
You now stoop to even deny the hero of your hero his profundity. :(
Interpretation of this Socrates quote is one of the few things where I happen to be in perfect agreement with Nietzsche. Perhaps NN might want to remove the shroud from your understanding of this scene. NN? :)
2003-08-28 19:29 | User Profile
However, I am very much for Christianity affirmed as the state religion. In fact, when I went to school, Catholicism still was the Austrian state religion. I am not sure if that is still the case, in theory at least, or has been quietly dropped. Non-Christian religions should be tolerated, but should not be on an equal footing.
I do not support perfect religious equality, rather, I believe that a nation has a strong interest in religious homogeneity, every bit as much as ethnic homogeneity. After all, morality depends on religion, as much as the common good depends on morality. I would have to lie to say I see any good in religious "diversity". Tolerance, yes, but certainly no state support for non-Christians, and definitely state support for Christianity.
In short: Religious freedom, yes, religious equality, no. **
PL,
Would you have felt at home in Franco's Spain?
What do you think of the falangists?
What are your thought on Opus Dei? **
-Francoôs Spain, in the light of present knowledge, was certainly not as bad as the Left considered it to be. Obviously I am not Spanish, and today is not 5 decades ago, but a fair reconsideration of this regimeôs advantages and disadvantages would be in order.
-The Falangists, to be frank, I know nothing about them.
-Opus Dei has a certain cult-like character to it; it should not necessarily be seen as representative of Catholicism, or of the best variant of Catholicism.
2003-08-28 19:33 | User Profile
No William-Pierce-style atrocities necessary, if you have a strong, religious leadership.) **
I wasn't aware that Pierce committed any "atrocities".
Another post-humous smear? **
I was obviously not talking about the politician, as the politician W.P. was pretty irrelevant, but about the author. Atrocities make most of the content of his works, so they certainly describe his writing style.
Please refrain from offending my intelligence. ;)
2003-08-28 19:43 | User Profile
Neo-Nietzsche,
I get goose bumps whenever I read Nietzsche (I have all of his works in my personal library and a gigantic portrait of him is on the wall of my office at home).
I thought you might enjoy this piece:
**William Pierce on Christianity From the Membership Handbook.
2.d. Opposed Ideologies
2.d.vii. Christianity
The National Alliance is not a religious organization, in the ordinary sense of the term. It does, however, have to concern itself with religious matters, because religions influence the behavior of people, society, and governments. The doctrines of various religious groups -- Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, et al. -- deal with temporal as well as spiritual matters and therefore often conflict with National Alliance doctrine.
Christian doctrines are of much greater concern to the National Alliance than the doctrines of other large religious groups, because Christianity is the most influential religion in the United States, Europe, and the rest of the White world. Most members of the National Alliance come from families which are, or a generation ago were, at least nominally Christian, and very few come from families which practice, or practiced, Islam, Buddhism, or other religions. Furthermore, the history of our race for the last thousand years has been inextricably bound up with Christianity. The National Alliance really cannot avoid taking positions regarding Christian beliefs and practices, despite the complications this causes in our work.
The immediate and inevitable fact which forces us to come to grips with Christianity is that the mainstream Christian churches are all, without exception, preaching a doctrine of White racial extinction. They preach racial egalitarianism and racial mixing. They preach non-resistance to the takeover of our society by non-Whites. It was the Christian churches, more than any other institution, which paralyzed the will of White South Africans to survive. It is the Christian establishment in the United States which is preeminent in sapping the will of White Americans to resist being submerged in the non-White tide sweepig across the land. Most Christian authorities collaborate openly with the Jews, despite the contempt and abuse they receive in rerturn, and the rest at least follow Jewish policies on the all-important matter of race. The occasional anomaly -- a Catholic bishop in Poland speaking out angrily against Jewish arrogance, a few Protestant groups in the United States expressing sympathy for oppressed Palestinians -- does not invalidate the rule.
We are obliged, therefore, to oppose the Christian churches and to speak out against their doctrines. But we do not, as some groups have done, accuse the Christian leaders of being false Christians. We do not say, "We are the real Christians, because we stand for the values which the mainstream churches stood for a century ago, before they were subverted." We do not reach for our Bibles and point to verses which seem to be in accord with the policies of the National Alliance and contrary to the present policies of the Christian churches. A diligent Bible scholar can find in the Judeo-Christian scriptures support for -- or ammunition against -- virtually any policy whatsoever.
Beyond the immediate conflict between us and the Christian churches on racial matters there is a long-standing and quite fundamental ideological problem with Christianity. It is not an Aryan religion; like Judaism and Islam it is Semitic in origin, and all its centuries of partial adaptation to Aryan ways have not changed its basic flavor. It was carried by a Jew, Saul of Tarsus (later known as Paul), from the Levant to the Greco-Roman world. Its doctrines that the meek shall inherit the earth and that the last shall be first found fertile soil among the populous slave class in Rome. Centuries later, as Rome was succumbing to an internal rot in which Christianity played no small part, legions of Roman conscripts imposed the imported religion on the Celtic and Germanic tribes to the north.
Eventually Christianity became a unifying factor for Europe, and in the name of Jesus Europeans resisted the onslaught of Islamic Moors and Turks and expelled the "Christ-killing" Jews from one country after another. But the religion retained its alien mind-set, no matter how much some aspects of it were Europeanized. Its otherworldliness is fundamentally out of tune with the Aryan quest for knowledge and for progress; its universalism conflicts directly with Aryan striving for beauty and strength; its delineation of the roles of man and god offends the Aryan sense of honor and self-sufficiency.
Finally Christianity, like the other Semitic religions, is irredeemably primitive. Its deity is thoroughly anthropomorphic, and its "miracles" -- raising the dead, walking on water, curing the lame and the blind with a word and a touch -- are the crassest superstition.
We may have fond memories of the time before the Second World War when pretty, little girls in white dresses attended all-White Sunday schools, and Christianity seemed a bulwark of family values and a foe to degeneracy and indiscipline. We may cherish the tales of medieval valor, when Christian knights fought for god and king -- if we can overlook the Christian church's bloodthirsty intolerance, which stifled science and philosophy for centuries and sent tens of thousands of Europeans to the stake for heresy.
We may even find Christian ethics congenial, if we follow the standard Christian practice of interpreting many of its precepts -- such as the one about turning the other cheek -- in such a way that they do not interfere with our task. But we should remember that nothing essential in Christian ethics is specifically Christian. Any successful society must have rules of social conduct. Lying and stealing were shunned in every Aryan society long before Christianity appeared. Our pagan ancestors did not need Christian missionaries to tell them how to behave or to explain honor and decency to them -- quite to the contrary!
Historians may argue the pros and cons of Christianity's role in our race's past: whether or not the unity it provided during a period of European consolidation outweighed the loss of good genes it caused in the Crusades and the bloody religious wars of the Middle Ages (and through the Church's policy of priestly celibacy); whether the splendid Gothic cathedrals which rose in Europe during four centuries and the magnificaent religious musice of the 18th century were essentially Christian or essentially Aryan in inspiration; whether Christianity's stand against the evils of self-indulgence -- against gluttony and drunkenness and greed -- was worth its shackling of the human mind in superstition or not. One thing is already clear, however: Christianity is not a religion that we can wish on future generations of our race.
**We need ethics; we need values and standards; we need a world view. And if one wants to call all of these things together a religion, then we need a religion. One might choose instead, however, to call them a philosophy of life. Whatever we call it, it must come from our own race soul: it must be an expression of the innate Aryan nature. And it must be conducive to our mission of racial progress. Christianity, as the word is commonly understood, meets neither of these criteria. **
The fact is that, completely aside from the racial question, no person who wholeheartedly believes Christian doctrine can share our values and goals, because Christian doctrine holds that this world is of little importance, being only a proving ground for the spiritual world which one enters after death. Christian doctrine also holds that the condition of this world is not man's responsibility, because an omnipotent and omniscient deity alone has that responsibility.
Although some Christians do believe Christian doctrine wholeheartedly, most do not. Most instinctively feel what we explicitly believe, even if they have repressed those feelings in an effort to be "good" Christians. Because of this many nominal Christians, even those affiliated with mainstream churches, can, under the right circumstances, be persuaded to work for the interests of their race. Other nominal Christians -- especially those who stand apart from any of the mainstream churches -- have interpreted Christian doctrine in such an idiosyncratic way that the contradictions between their beliefs and ours have been minimized.
For these reasons we want to avoid conflict with Christians to the extent that we can. We don't want to give unnecessary offense, even when we speak out against the doctrines of their churches. We don't want to ridicule their beliefs, which in some cases are sincerely held. Some of these people later will reject Christianity's racial doctrines. Some will reject Christianity altogether. We want to help them in their quest for truth when we can, and we want to keep the door open to them.
Members who want to study the subject of Christianity and its relationship to our task in depth should read Which Way Western Man?, by our late member William Simpson. The book's initial chapters describe the spiritual odyssey of a man of exceptional spiritual sensitivity, who was far more intensely a Christian than nearly any Christian living today and who eventually understood the racially destructive nature of Christianity and rejected it.
A more concise study of the difference between the Christian world view and ours is given in Wulf Sorensen's The Voice of Our Ancestors, which was reprinted in National Vanguard No. 107.** **
**William Pierce on Christianity From the Membership Handbook.
2.d. Opposed Ideologies
2.d.vii. Christianity
...
The fact is that, completely aside from the racial question, no person who wholeheartedly believes Christian doctrine can share our values and goals...**
Thatôs what I say all the time. Thanks for clearing this up. :wub:
2003-08-28 19:58 | User Profile
No William-Pierce-style atrocities necessary, if you have a strong, religious leadership.) **
I wasn't aware that Pierce committed any "atrocities".
Another post-humous smear? **
I was obviously not talking about the politician, as the politician W.P. was pretty irrelevant, but about the author. Atrocities make most of the content of his works, so they certainly describe his writing style.
Please refrain from offending my intelligence. ;) **
I apologize if I offended your intelligence (it was certainly not my attention).
But when you say that Pierce advocated "atrocities", I would like to see some evidence, could you cite or link to it?
2003-08-28 20:22 | User Profile
**Thatôs what I say all the time. Thanks for clearing this up.à:wub: **
Just what are your goals and values?
(Besides the promotion of a militant, rigid Catholicism. Scary...)
As to your pipe-dream of a re-Christianized Europe...It ain't gonna happen, you know?
**....
**How is it possible for traditional Christianity as Mr. Craig depicts it to be revived? I really don't grasp this. Christianity has died or declined to its present state because of the effects of modern science and historical scholarship; it's all very well for Christian intellectuals to concoct fancy apologetics for Christianity, but the fact is that it is simply impossible for modern educated men to believe in the Bible or the claims of the church to the degree necessary for the revival of traditional Christianity. **
At the time Christianity first appeared and for many centuries afterward, it was a plausible set of beliefs because it shared with paganism a supernaturalist world view. Even highly educated men, Christian or not and usually even non-religious people, readily believed in supernatural phenomena and explanations--miracles, magical cures, curses, witchcraft, demonic possession, ghosts, omens, various kinds of fortune telling, etc. They were as ready to invoke supernatural explanations of natural phenomena they didn't understand as to invoke or look for naturalistic ones, and they really did not have very convincing explanations of phenomena they knew were natural (magnetism, thunder and lightning, earthquakes, etc.). Hence, it was not implausible to minds steeped in supernaturalism to believe that a man could rise from the dead, that loaves and fishes could be created from nothing, that a man could walk on water, that virgins could give birth, and that some beings (gods, demigods, magicians) could work miracles.
Today, virtually no educated person and few uneducated ones believe in this kind of supernaturalism. Some may suspend their normal naturalistic habits of mind to acknowledge belief in biblical miracles, but almost no one believes that supernatural explanations are as plausible as naturalistic ones. Since the 18th century, modern science has offered naturalistic explanations and denied the existence of the supernatural so effectively that the modern mind has simply retreated from and abandoned a supernaturalistic world view. Yet the restoration of just such a supernaturalistc world view is what would be required for traditional Christianity to be revived as the dominant creed of Western man. I do not say that it is not possible to be some kind of a Christian, but it is not possible to be a traditional Christian if you are intellectually serious in the light of modern science.
The only people in the last century who have been serious Christians have been either ignoramuses (i.e., people who because of stupidity and ignorance or because of willful blindness have closed their minds to the implications of science) or intellectuals (Kierkegaard, Dostoevski, T.S. Eliot, C.S. Lewis, etc.), who are able to come up with extremely sophisticated defenses of it that most people can't understand and which are usually intensely personal. That may be fine for intellectuals, but a religion confined to them and the ignorati will not be traditional Christianity and cannot be a culturally dominant force or an effective guide for most people. Given the blows suffered by Christianity in the last 200 years or so, I see no alternative to the conclusion that the Christian cat is out of the bag and can't be put back in as long as the forces that let him out are still in existence, and personally I would take those forces (science and scholarship) over Christianity. [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=10592]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...showtopic=10592[/url]**
2003-08-28 21:44 | User Profile
Atrocities make most of the content of his works, so they certainly describe his writing style.
Please refrain from offending my intelligence. ;) **
I apologize if I offended your intelligence (it was certainly not my attention).
But when you say that Pierce advocated "atrocities", I would like to see some evidence, could you cite or link to it? **
Apology accepted.
If P. 'advocated' atrocities, depends on if you read his works as just-so stories, or as political wishlists/manuals. I tend to think that any commonsensical person would believe the latter. However that may be, I limited myself to saying that the description of atrocities makes most of the content of his works.
His magnum opus, the 'Turner Diaries', is sold on the mainpage of the NA. It is not online in English, to my knowledge, but it is, or was, online in a German translation. I am surprised you do not know that.
2003-08-28 23:49 | User Profile
Just what are your goals and values?
(Besides the promotion of a militant, rigid Catholicism. Scary...) **
It will take a book to answer that. But I am not really that militant, rigid and scary. :)
My goals and values are the Christian goals and values; however, abuse of these values has happened, so this needs to be better explicated, starting with this beautiful quote from the Lectures on the History of Philosophy by G.W.F.Hegel:
Universal history is the exhibition of Spirit in the process of working out the knowledge of what it [Spirit] potentially is. Just as the seed bears in itself the whole nature of the tree, including the taste and form of its fruit, so do the first traces of Spirit virtually contain the whole of its own history. The Orientals did not attain the knowledge that Spirit, in the form of mankind, is free. They only knew that "one is free." But in those terms, the freedom of that one person was only caprice, whether exhibited as ferocity, a brutal recklessness of passion, or as mildness and tameness of the desires, either of which is merely an accident of nature. That "one" was thus only a despot, not a really free man. The consciousness of freedom first arose among the Greeks, and therefore they were free, though they, just as the Romans, knew only that "some are free," not man as such. Even Plato and Aristotle did not know that. Thus the Greeks had slaves, and the whole of their life and the maintenance of their splendid liberty was implicated with the institution of slavery. That fact, on the one hand, made their liberty only an accidental, transient and limited growth and, on the other hand, constituted it a rigorous thralldom of our common nature, i.e., of the human. The Germanic nations, under the influence of Christianity, were the first to attain the consciousness that man, as man, is free, that it is the freedom of Spirit which constitutes Spirit's essence. This consciousness arose first in religion, the most inward region of Spirit. But the introduction of the principle [of consciousness] into the various relations of the actual world has involved a more extensive problem than did its simple implantation [into the soul], a problem whose solution and application have required a severe and lengthened process of culture. In proof of this, we may note that slavery did not cease immediately on the reception of Christianity. Still less did liberty predominate in states or did governments and constitutions adopt a rational organization or recognize freedom as their own basis. The application of the principle to political relations and its thorough molding and interpenetration of the constitution of society is a process identical with history itself. . . . The history of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of freedom. . . .
Discussing part of the meaning:
The consciousness of freedom first arose among the Greeks, and therefore they were free, [color=blue][Wintermute will be happy to hear that, and Hegel did, indeed, hold the Greeks in high regard, however:][/color] though they, just as the Romans, knew only that "some are free," not man as such. Even Plato and Aristotle did not know that. Thus the Greeks had slaves, and the whole of their life and the maintenance of their splendid liberty was implicated with the institution of slavery. That fact, on the one hand, made their liberty only an accidental, transient and limited growth and, on the other hand, constituted it a rigorous thralldom of our common nature, i.e., of the human. The Germanic nations, under the influence of Christianity, were the first to attain the consciousness that man, as man, is free, that it is the freedom of Spirit which constitutes Spirit's essence. [color=blue][That is, Medieval Germanic Christianity was more authentic than any earlier variant, because the understanding of the implications of the new Faith took time, and the fact that the Germans were a blank slate (unlike with the Greeks, Hegel doesnôt consider their tribal religions worth mentioning) was working to their advantage -the Christianity of the Fathers was tainted with pre-Christian influences, clearly considered, by Hegel, as a disadvantage, compared to the Germans whose home-made superstitions were so childish and irrelevant that they could absorb Christianity more fully and completely than anyone ever before][/color] This consciousness arose first in religion, the most inward region of Spirit. But the introduction of the principle [of consciousness] into the various relations of the actual world has involved a more extensive problem than did its simple implantation [into the soul], a problem whose solution and application have required a severe and lengthened process of culture. [color=blue][Christianity is the highest religion theoretically possible, there can be no "better prototype", so to speak. But in one important aspect, in the external aspect, Medieval Germanic Christianity is the proper starting point, not the end. The Medieval Era did not yet know what Political Christianity entails:][/color] In proof of this, we may note that slavery did not cease immediately on the reception of Christianity. Still less did liberty predominate in states or did governments and constitutions adopt a rational organization or recognize freedom as their own basis. The application of the principle to political relations and its thorough molding and interpenetration of the constitution of society is a process identical with history itself. . . . The history of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of freedom. . . [color=blue][In other words, Christianity is the meaning of history, and ultimately of mankind itself, both in its inward, from Medieval Germany onwards, and its outward, i.e. political, implantation, which belongs to the present and future. Applied Christianity is the only reasonable, and ultimately the only possible, program for the Third Millennium.][/color]
2003-08-29 00:29 | User Profile
Perhaps my sense of humor is lacking. I can't think of any other explanation. **
Perhaps; or perhaps you simply donôt understand Plato.
**What, then, he said, is still remaining to us of the work of legislation?
Nothing to us, I replied; but to Apollo, the god of Delphi, there remains the ordering of the greatest and noblest and chiefest things of all.
Which are they? he said.
The institution of temples and sacrifices, and the entire service of gods, demigods, and heroes; also the ordering of the repositories of the dead, and the rites which have to be observed by him who would propitiate the inhabitants of the world below. These are matters [427c] of which we are ignorant ourselves, and as founders of a city we should be unwise in trusting them to any interpreter but our ancestral deity. He is the god who sits in the center, on the navel of the earth, and he is the interpreter of religion to all mankind.**
[url=http://plato.evansville.edu/texts/jowett/republic15.htm]http://plato.evansville.edu/texts/jowett/r.../republic15.htm[/url]
In my German edition, things are made even clearer: [color=blue]He is the god who sits in the center, on the navel of the earth, and therefore the interpreter of religion to all mankind.[/color] Plato is not remotely taking Apollo, or the entire Greek religion, seriously. You do not become "the interpreter of religion to all mankind" by sitting on a navel. :D Much as I admire Platoôs irony, I do not admire your acquaintance with Plato. :rolleyes:
2003-08-29 01:06 | User Profile
As to Hegel, I don't care much for him... **
Naturally not.
It is wise to learn to swim before you dive for pearls, so you have to try to understand Plato, before you even bother with Hegel. I absolve you. :hyp:
2003-08-29 01:11 | User Profile
Interesting points Sam Francis makes, but I noticed he failed to mention anything about the Eastern Christian heritage. As far as I know, there was little if any Germanic influence in that sphere of Christianity. In fact thats one argument made by the Eastern Orthodox Church against the Catholic church is that they were too readily influenced by non-Christian elements in their theology.
However, there has always been cultural diversity within the Christian church. Yes, Christianity is universalistic, but that depends on your definition of universal. Universal does not neccessarily mean "uniform", in that we must all be the same. No, universal means that we're united despite our cultural differences. We respect and honour those differences but stay united. So Christianity among Germanic peoples will be Germanized, Christianity among Slavs will be Slavized, and so on. This is a good and healthy thing; it shows that the One Truth of God can be celebrated in many different ways by various cultures.
For the record, I'm a Catholic, but I'm not a Roman Catholic. There is a difference between the two. I'm a Byzantine Catholic, which is an [url=http://home.nyc.rr.com/mysticalrose/eastern.html]Eastern rite[/url] of the Catholic church.
I don't know about Plato dissing Apollo, but I do believe in "the Republic" Plato dismisses many of Homer's stories, which I do believe form the basis of greek mythology.
2003-08-29 01:47 | User Profile
I apologize for being such a poor guide.
Wintermute **
I wish you meant it. :(
Another quote:
And now Simmias and Cebes, I have answered those who charge me with not grieving or repining at parting from you and my masters in this world; and I am right in not repining, [69e] for I believe that I shall find other masters and friends who are as good in the world below. But all men cannot receive this, and I shall be glad if my words have any more success with you than with the judges of the Athenians.
[url=http://plato.evansville.edu/texts/jowett/phaedo2.htm]http://plato.evansville.edu/texts/jowett/phaedo2.htm[/url]
To wit:
And now Simmias and Cebes [color=blue][the gullible friends at whose expense the following joke is going][/color], I have answered those who charge me with not grieving or repining at parting from you and my masters in this world [color=blue][the Gods of Athens][/color]; and I am right in not repining, [69e] for I believe that I shall find other masters and friends who are as good in the world below. [color=blue][even in the dreadful Greek underworld is he going to find more worthy friends than Simmias and Cebes and better Gods than the Gods of Athens][/color] But all men cannot receive this, [color=blue][some wonôt get the joke; he is thinking of Wintermute here][/color] and I shall be glad if my words have any more success with you than with the judges of the Athenians. [color=blue][This gives him away. It is utterly impossible to be less successful than in front of judges who immediately after your speech deal you a death warrant.][/color]
Now if one thing is truly admirable about Platoôs Socrates, itôs the incredible dryness of his humour. But itôs totally lost on some. :rolleyes:
2003-08-29 02:32 | User Profile
I showed that the Greeks did regard Delphi as the Center of the World, and that it featured a "navel stone", or Omphalos, just as Plato's text refers to.
...
You can begin your amends by directly addressing the Delphi/Navel/Center of the World issue, above.
Wintermute **
There is no issue.
When did I deny that "the Greeks did regard Delphi as the Center of the World, and that it featured a "navel stone", or Omphalos, just as Plato's text refers to."
Of course they did. And, as I explained, Plato made fun of their belief. If you simply canôt understand him, donôt accuse me of lying! :taz:
The 2nd quote I used to make that even clearer. A core portion of Platoôs work is making ridicule of the Athenian believes. If he was in agreement with Socrates about this, or just used Socrates as his mouthpiece, we cannot know. But we know what Plato thought, even if 'we' does not include you here, because you clearly donôt understand a word of what he says. :taz: :taz: :rolleyes:
2003-08-29 02:40 | User Profile
I noted in passing that Aristotle thought slavery would pass out of fashion with improvements in techne: you ignore this, though you do find time to speculate on my swimming ability.
**
:lol: Aristotle did not believe in such improvements in techne. (Unsurprisingly, 2.300 years before they happened.) He thought slavery would never pass out of fashion. Hegel understood this, so did I, you didnôt, because of your chronic inability to understand irony. :rolleyes:
"There is only one condition in which we can imagine managers not needing subordinates, and masters not needing slaves. This condition would be that each (inanimate) instrument could do its own work,..." (which will never happen, is his meaning)
You do not understand a single ancient author well. If the responsibility for Greek pagan religious revival is on your shoulders, Christianity has nothing to fear. :D
2003-08-29 03:00 | User Profile
I do not mean to affirm that the description which I have given of the soul and her mansions is exactly true -- a man of sense ought hardly to say that. **
Could he be more sincere? :rolleyes:
We can hardly blame a pre-Christian Greek philosopher, who was aware of how ridiculous the ideas of the Athenians were, for his Agnosticism. Nor do I blame him for his occasional dishonesty -which Plato openly advocated in the Politeia-, given that the Athenians had already murdered his teacher.
But your taking everything Plato says literally at its face value is amazing! Did I mention I have a bridge to sell you? :)
2003-08-29 03:20 | User Profile
For besides being happier in that world than in this, they will be immortal, if what is said is true.
Wherefore, O judges, be of good cheer about death, and know this of a truth - that no evil can happen to a good man, either in life or after death. He and his are not neglected by the gods; nor has my own approaching end happened by mere chance. **
For besides being happier in that world than in this, they will be immortal, if what is said is true.
Note the conditional sentence.
Wherefore, O judges, be of good cheer about death, and know this of a truth - that no evil can happen to a good man,
Except becoming victim of judicial murder, that is.
either in life or after death. He and his are not neglected by the gods;
Because the gods of Athens donôt exist.
nor has my own approaching end happened by mere chance.
Rather, it has happened because the Athenians are stupid and evil.
WM, your quotes are catastrophic for your cause. :jest:
When will you learn to read with care?
2003-08-29 04:20 | User Profile
**When will you learn to read with care? **
Since reading with care, in the Paleoleftist way, reveals:
1)YHVH made no Covenant with the Jews
2)The Sabbath is not the seventh day
3)Plato mocked the Mysteries
4)Plato mocked the Delphic Oracle
5)Plato mocked Apollo
6)Socrates was an agnostic who didn't believe in the afterlife, and then lied about it
I can tell you exactly when I will begin reading in this careful manner:
After my first brain embolism.
Or when I am appointed chairman of the Yale Humanities program.
But not before.
Wintermute **
Weak attempt at humour.
You could at least try to read me carefully.
6)Socrates was an agnostic who didn't believe in the afterlife, and then lied about it.
We only know what Plato makes Socrates say. As I clearly indicated.
Plato, on the other hand, had no compunctions about lying at all:
**Well then, I will speak, although I really know not how to look you in the face, or in what words to utter the audacious fiction, which I propose to communicate gradually, first to the rulers, then to the soldiers, and lastly to the people. They are to be told that their youth was a dream, and the education and training which they received from us, an appearance only; in reality during all that time they were being formed and fed in the womb of the earth, where they themselves [414e] and their arms and appurtenances were manufactured; when they were completed, the earth, their mother, sent them up; and so, their country being their mother and also their nurse, they are bound to advise for her good, and to defend her against attacks, and her citizens they are to regard as children of the earth and their own brothers.
You had good reason, he said, to be ashamed of the lie which you were going to tell.
True, I replied, [415a] but there is more coming; I have only told you half. Citizens, we shall say to them in our tale, you are brothers, yet God has framed you differently. Some of you have the power of command, and in the composition of these he has mingled gold, wherefore also they have the greatest honour; others he has made of silver, to be auxilaries; others again who are to be husbandmen and craftsmen he has composed of brass and iron; and the species will generally be preserved in the children. But as all are of the same original stock, [415b] a golden parent will sometimes have a silver son, or a silver parent a golden son. And God proclaims as a first principle to the rulers, and above all else, that there is nothing which should so anxiously guard, or of which they are to be such good guardians, as of the purity of the race. They should observe what elements mingle in their offspring; for if the son of a golden or silver parent has an admixture of brass and iron, [415c] then nature orders a transposition of ranks, and the eye of the ruler must not be pitiful towards the child because he has to descend in the scale and become a husbandman or artisan, just as there may be sons of artisans who having an admixture of gold or silver in them are raised to honour, and become guardians or auxiliaries. For an oracle says that when a man of brass or iron guards the State, it will be destroyed. Such is the tale; is there any possibility of making our citizens believe in it?
[415d] Not in the present generation, he replied; there is no way of accomplishing this; but their sons may be made to believe in the tale, and their sons' sons, and posterity after them.**
[url=http://plato.evansville.edu/texts/jowett/republic14.htm]http://plato.evansville.edu/texts/jowett/r.../republic14.htm[/url]
Plato believed in telling most outrageous lies as a matter of principle. Reading him we must continuously be on our guard. That you fail to do so is not a reason to accuse me of not understanding Plato, while I try my best to explain him.
2003-08-29 12:13 | User Profile
**We only know what Plato makes Socrates say. As I clearly indicated. **
No.
We also have the records of Xenophon and Diogenes Laertes. **
The entire remains of your post is pure rhetoric; you didnôt -and canôt!- prove a single interpretation of mine untrue.
If you were yourself sincere, the worst you could say is that I misread Plato. This would be wrong, of course, but I would grant you that you are honestly mistaken. That you accuse me of dishonesty -which would not even be justified if I were wrong about Plato!- just proves that you are, yourself, dishonest!
As an old philosophical text is obviously open to interpretation, what an honest person disagreeing with me would do is trying to disprove my interpretations of the texts. You do not even try to do so, but only resort to adhoms, which makes me fast lose any previous respect I had for you.
The quote about Xenophon is the only serious part of your post, and the only part that I may consider a honest mistake. Your error is that you attribute to me any views on the historical Socrates at all. However, as I have made clear -at least twice!- I have been speaking only about Socrates-as-a-Platonic-character, that is, about Plato. Plato, I am clearly stating, was either an Atheist, a Deist or an Agnostic, did not believe in the Athenian religion, and used the gods as props for furthering his politics. Basing any serious religious views on Plato, I consider ridiculous. About the views of the historical Socrates, I have no opinion, since he didnôt leave anything written. If you disagree with me about Plato, fine, best start disproving my quote of the ridiculous lies he advocated openly.
Btw, you also dishonestly claim I know nothing about the Oracle. Whereas my argument always has been that Plato didnôt take the Oracle seriously. The "to all mankind" part in that statement gives him away to any intelligent person, because Plato knows that nobody except the Greeks believed in the Oracle. His exaggeration is a clear indication he is not serious in the first place. This I base on the assumption that Plato is a highly intelligent author, while you assume him to be a moron.
And btw, I do not claim any superhuman reading skills. What I claim is that either your reading skills are rather unsatisfying, or you are consciously misrepresenting Plato. Make your choice.
2003-08-30 07:29 | User Profile
**Oh are we talking about the Inquisition again?ÃÂ :y The Inquisition had the lowest rate of executions than anyother judicial court in all of Europe. In the Spainish Empire for 300 years, less than 4000 people were ever executed. Most people did not serve in jails, and if they actually did it was for only a few months at most.
In fact the Inquisition was created in response to the uncontrollable fanaticism of local mobs of heresy hunters, the indifference of certain ecclesiastics, the violence of secular courts and the bloodshed of many crusades. It was created to exercise greater control over the determination and prosecution of heresy, to make it more orderly and legal.
So all the violence you so accuse the Church of commiting was actually committed by mislead fanatics and/or oppurtunistic rulers who used this as an excuse to build a greater power base.**
Perun 1201,
A few points on the Inquistion:
Apologists, such as yourself, who argue that the Inquisition must be judged by the standards of its time, not by those of the twentieth-first century avoid mentioning that the said Inquisition (the Inquisition officially ended in 1813, Okie; not ââ¬Åcenturiesââ¬Â ago) was not only a evil compared with the twentieth-first century, it was evil compared with the eleventh when torture was outlawed and men and women were guaranteed a fair trial. It was evil compared with the age of the pagan Diocletian, for no one was then tortured and killed in the name of Jesus crucified.
Itââ¬â¢s also worth comparing countries that went along with the Inquisition with others, such as England, that did not. Since William the Conqueror, the common law of England had maintained a healthy disrespect for theocracy. A person was innocent until found guilty. The common law guaranteed basic elements of justice denied to the accused in the Inquisition: a man was judged by his peers, allowed witnesses to speak on his behalf, had the right to legal counsel and a public trial. The law forbade torture, knowing that it would only lead to hypocrisy and perjury.
Itââ¬â¢s noteworthy that one of the few prelates big enough to stand up to Innocent and his blood-lust was Stephen Langton, an Englishman versed in the common law. In splendid defiance of papal absolutism, he wrote: "Natural law is binding on princes and bishops alike; there is no escape from it. It is beyond the reach of the Pope himself.ââ¬Â
Such was the intimidation by the Inquisition that no theologian, except ââ¬Åhereticsââ¬Â like Marsilio of Padua and Martin Luther, raised his voice against it. Had anyone spoken out he would have been immediately silenced. Had he written against it, he would have found himself censored in advanced. The murderous tyranny continued unopposed. Not a single bishop in all those centuries raised his voice in protest at the way his flock was being exterminated by the Catholic Church, further proof that bishops in those days were puppets of the Holy See. Yet courageous Germanic Protestants like Balthasar Hubmaier had clearer heads and braver hearts. Hubmaier wrote a whole tract against the burning of heretics in 1524. In a haunting series of propositions, he wrote:
Thirteen: The inquisitors are the greatest heretics of all, since, against the doctrine and example of Christ, they condemn heretics to the fire.
Fourteen: For Christ did not come to butcher, destroy and burn that those who live might live more abundantlyââ¬Â¦.
Twenty-eight: To burn heretics is in appearance to profess Christ, but in reality to deny himââ¬Â¦
Thirty-six: It is clear to everyone, even the blind, that a law to burn heretics is an invention of the devil. ââ¬ÅTruth is immortal.ââ¬Â
Trying to excuse the papacy for the Inquisition by referring to contemporary standards fails for another reason. The papacy went on with its bad ways long after every civilized country in Europe had abandoned them. Juts as the sixteenth-century Reformation helped purify some aspects of the papacy, some aspects of the nineteenth-century theological liberalism heartily condemned by Rome (and by you and PL), eventually swept the cruel tyranny to which blood-thirsty popes and Curia were excessively attached.
There is one final flaw in appealing to earlier standards of behaviour in an attempt to exonerate the papacy. The whole emphasis of Roman Catholic moral teaching today is that it is above temporal and relativizing considerations. Others may vacillate about the wrongness of contraception or abortion but not Roman Catholics guided by the Holy Father. John Paul II, for example, claims to teach an absolute morality, one based on natural law; not he, not even God himself can change it, since it is rooted in and springs from the nature of man himself.
If this is so, how can you excuse the false, strident, even pernicious moral judgments of criminal popes by referring to the ââ¬Åstandards of the timeââ¬Â?
The Catholic church is faced with a harsh choice: either its teaching is as relative as anyone elseââ¬â¢s, in which case it has no special claim to be heard. Or its teaching is absolute, in which case the behviour of popes and their Inquisition is totally inexcusable. What it cannot do is claim both absolute wisdom and freedom from historic guilt.
Lord Acton, a Catholic, thought that the Inquisition was nothing short of ââ¬Åreligious assassinationââ¬Â¦The principle of the Inquisition was murderous.ââ¬Â As to the popes, they ââ¬Åwere not only murderers in the great style, but they made murder a legal basis of the Christian Church and the condition of salvation.ââ¬Â
See John Eric (ed.), The Popes; WEH Lecky, History of European Morals, 2 vols.; Peter De Rosa, Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy.
Finally, Iââ¬â¢m getting tired of reading Perunââ¬â¢s posts on how the advent of Christianity had nothing to do with precipitating the collapse of the Roman Empire. Two groups hated the Roman system, i.e., the Jews and Christians. Both entities wanted its destruction and zealously worked to achieve that end.
*In Gibbon's view, Christianity made for the decline and fall of Rome by sapping the faith of the people in the official (pagan) religion, thereby undermining the state which that religion supported and blessed*. To be sure, Gibbon is not blind to the fact that other cults and sects within the Empire were also competing with one another in their attempt to attract believers. As he admits, "Rome, the capital of a great monarchy, was incessantly filled with subjects and strangers from every part of the world, who all introduced and enjoyed the favourite superstitions of their native country" (Ibid., Ch. 2). However, Christianity was to be distinguished from the other flourishing sects in its claim to exclusivity, or in other words, in its claim that it alone held the key to "Truth" and to Heaven, and that all its competitors were vicious and damned. Moreover, as the early Christians believed in the imminent end of this world, they all put their thoughts in the "next" world. This other-worldly attitude proved most disastrous to the Empire during the barbarian invasions, since the Christians, instead of bearing arms to serve the state and the public good, diverted men from useful employments and encouraged them to concentrate on heavenly and private salvation**. Needless to say, Gibbon's anti-Christian position aroused the fury of his Christian contemporaries. Reading Gibbon's chapters on the various aspects of Christianity -- its origin and growth; its institutions; its theology and theological discords; its heroes, heretics, and villains -- one cannot fail to be overwhelmed by his vast knowledge of the subject. This is all the more amazing if we note that despite being reconverted by Daniel Pavilliard to Protestantism, he actually lost faith in Christianity as he read more and more books on philosophy, foreign cultures, and religious controversies through the years. However, instead of showing indifference to a religion in which he no longer shared any enthusiasm, he went the opposite direction and read so many works of the theologians and church historians that his erudition could shame any Christian believer. As John Cardinal Newman confessed, "It is notorious that the English Church is destitute of an Ecclesiastical History; Gibbon is almost our sole authority for subjects as near the heart of a Christian as any can well be" ("Milman's View of Christianity," quoted in G. W. Bowersock et. al., eds. [1976], p. 203). On another occasion, Cardinal Newman wrote, "It is melancholy to say it, but the chief, perhaps the only English writer who has any claim to be considered an ecclesiastical historian, is the unbeliever Gibbon" (quoted in J. W. Swain [1966], p. 70). **
See [url=http://www.his.com/~z/gibho1.html]http://www.his.com/~z/gibho1.html[/url]
See also [url=http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/religious_controversy/chapter_21.html]http://www.infidels.org/library/historical...chapter_21.html[/url]
Traditional christianity even tells how [color=blue]God appoints Guardian angels to each nation; to serve and protect the people of that nation. They are referred to as tutelary angels or ethnarchs[/color].
Sweet, I feel much better now! :hyp:
2003-08-30 18:39 | User Profile
Frederich, you raise interesting points, all of which I will reply to later. But now I'm a little too busy, and replying to this will take some time.
However, it should be mentioned, that I used to be an Atheist and many of the arguments your mentioned I myself used to argue, so I am fimilar with them.
2003-08-31 23:44 | User Profile
Well Frederich, I'm still somewhat busy at the moment, but I will address some of your arguments. I've noticed you rely heavily on the works of Gibbon, which is alright. To argue my point, I turn to the 5th century theologian St. Augustine, who was a former pagan and lived around the time of the fall of Rome. Even then Pagans were arguing that Christianity weakened Rome, to which Augustine replied in many of works but most notably in his "the City of God".
**Finally, Iââ¬â¢m getting tired of reading Perunââ¬â¢s posts on how the advent of Christianity had nothing to do with precipitating the collapse of the Roman Empire. Two groups hated the Roman system, i.e., the Jews and Christians. Both entities wanted its destruction and zealously worked to achieve that end. **
Well Augustine makes an interesting argument that to blame Christianity for Rome's fall is not only wrong but simplistic. As Augustine argued, Rome faced diaster, corruption, and decline even before "christ was a twinkle in a carpenter's eye". Need we forget Rome was sacked by the Gauls and Rome nearly collasped when Hannibal invaded. Need we also forget that Rome fell victim to ambitious warlords like Sulla and later Julius Caesar, which eventually brough the end of the Roman republic. All this before Christ was born. So the seeds of Rome's fall was sown before Christianity came onto the scene.
** In Gibbon's view, Christianity made for the decline and fall of Rome by sapping the faith of the people in the official (pagan) religion, thereby undermining the state which that religion supported and blessed. **
Didn't the Roman system fall apart and civil war raged before Constantine, the first Christian Emperor, united and brought peace to the Roman Empire? And as I argued before, the Roman system fell apart even before Christ's birth, so one cannot blaim Christianity for Rome's fall.
Augustine also makes another good point, if worshipping the Christian god brought the fall of Rome, than you're implying that worshipping the pagans would've prevented it. But how could worshipping the pagan gods have prevented the fall of Rome when the Gods couldn't prevent the sack and fall of Troy?
** To be sure, Gibbon is not blind to the fact that other cults and sects within the Empire were also competing with one another in their attempt to attract believers. As he admits, "Rome, the capital of a great monarchy, was incessantly filled with subjects and strangers from every part of the world, who all introduced and enjoyed the favourite superstitions of their native country" (Ibid., Ch. 2). However, Christianity was to be distinguished from the other flourishing sects in its claim to exclusivity, or in other words, in its claim that it alone held the key to "Truth" and to Heaven, and that all its competitors were vicious and damned. **
Well then no wonder Christianity succeeded because these other "religions" fully admitted they didn't teach the truth. Truth must be exclusive or else it's not true. A religion that doesn't teach truth is not a true religion.
** Moreover, as the early Christians believed in the imminent end of this world, they all put their thoughts in the "next" world. This other-worldly attitude proved most disastrous to the Empire during the barbarian invasions, since the Christians, instead of bearing arms to serve the state and the public good, diverted men from useful employments and encouraged them to concentrate on heavenly and private salvation.**
Now this is ridiculas, it's even anti-Christian. Christians have always been called upon to be citizens in their communities, "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, render unto God what is God's".
As St. Augustine argued and so does the historian Will Durant that the immorality and sexual liscence of the Roman pagans(promoted by their Gods) was what caused the collaspe of public virtue in Rome, thus the collaspe of Rome. Will Durant interesting talks about pagans would often prefer sexual pleasure over reproduction, so abortions was common among pagan communities. While the Christians forbade abortion and were more interested in reproudction. So the Pagans stop having babies while the Christians didn't. Also the Barbarians also kept reproducing, so the population kept becomming more and more Barbarian and/or Christian. So it was the Pagans that brought the calamity on themselves, and what the Pagans did then is what many Westerners are doing now.
** Reading Gibbon's chapters on the various aspects of Christianity -- its origin and growth; its institutions; its theology and theological discords; its heroes, heretics, and villains -- one cannot fail to be overwhelmed by his vast knowledge of the subject. This is all the more amazing if we note that despite being reconverted by Daniel Pavilliard to Protestantism, he actually lost faith in Christianity as he read more and more books on philosophy, foreign cultures, and religious controversies through the years. However, instead of showing indifference to a religion in which he no longer shared any enthusiasm, he went the opposite direction and read so many works of the theologians and church historians that his erudition could shame any Christian believer. As John Cardinal Newman confessed, "It is notorious that the English Church is destitute of an Ecclesiastical History; Gibbon is almost our sole authority for subjects as near the heart of a Christian as any can well be" ("Milman's View of Christianity," quoted in G. W. Bowersock et. al., eds. [1976], p. 203). On another occasion, Cardinal Newman wrote, "It is melancholy to say it, but the chief, perhaps the only English writer who has any claim to be considered an ecclesiastical historian, is the unbeliever Gibbon" (quoted in J. W. Swain [1966], p. 70).ÃÂ **
Well can say similar things about Augustine. He was a Pagan, then later converted to many other mystical cults that were around at the time, untill becomming a Christian. He showed much knowlegde of Roman history, philosophy, and its pagan religion. So my source is just as powerfully convincing as Gibbon.
** ** Traditional christianity even tells how God appoints Guardian angels to each nation; to serve and protect the people of that nation. They are referred to as tutelary angels or ethnarchs. **
Sweet, I feel much better now! **
Well it should be noted that almost every religion has a notion of a guardian spirit that guards something. Need we forget this is prevelant throughout all forms of paganism, indeed why else would need so many gods? Horus was the god that protected the Pharaohs and the Egyptian kingdom. Janus protected doors. Athena was the protector of Athens. So Christianity is not such a freak religion that many try to claim it is.
2003-09-03 06:51 | User Profile
Perun,
I haven't forgotten about you!
Iââ¬â¢m sorry that itââ¬â¢s taking so long.
Iââ¬â¢ll get to your post soon.
Let me just point out to you that the fact that Christianity played a very significant role in precipitating or hastening the collapse of the Roman Empire isnââ¬â¢t really controversial amongst the vast majority of scholars (the great Gibbon is not the only one to have come to that view!). So, Iââ¬â¢m somewhat surprised that you would want to argue this point. But anyway, Iââ¬â¢ll cite other sources in the near future.
2003-09-03 16:45 | User Profile
Let me just point out to you that the fact that Christianity played a very significant role in precipitating or hastening the collapse of the Roman Empire isn?t really controversial amongst the vast majority of scholars (the great Gibbon is not the only one to have come to that view!). So, I?m somewhat surprised that you would want to argue this point. **
Well Frederich, the notion that Christianity brought down the Roman Empire is often argued by atheists, secularists, pagans, etc people who have an agenda against Christianity. And notice I said often, so that does not mean always. However, there are many scholars who argue the other way that Christianity did play a role(or at least a significant role) in bringing Rome down. Now many of these are people are of course people who wish to defend Christianity, but yet suprisingly there are many non-Christians(and even atheists) who argue this as well. So there's diversity on both sides of the debate.