Becoming a Priest

[Nimbostratus]

Just started studying theology and began my discernment process

Learning to become a priest

See Catholicism the only pragmatic way for me to act. Try to transform the sickness into health; Christianity must be reformed from within, and that will only happen if we start working on it.

This will be the last time I visit this forum, and I wish you all here good luck (and hope most here will start to walk their talk in real life. Modernity is a force of evil, and must be fought on all levels)

I wish ANUS - CORRUPT - AMERIKA etc all the luck in the future (knowing you are fighting for life, not against it)

goodbye

I assume you like good metal music, you understand its spirit, and so I wish you good luck in your endeavor.

[Conservationist]

I have observed a general drift towards Christian tolerance here


which is very strange

Back in 1992, we thought the jihad against Christianity was a good idea.

Then it became clear that everything Christianity was, in worse form, was found in liberalism. Atheism played right into liberalism. It encourages a form of self-pity. It desacralizes reality.

Then it also became clear that mentioning paganism or vedanta got a lot of nods and no activity.

In the meantime, what have Christians been doing? Reproducing, raising healthy children, home-schooling and voting conservative.

This site has always been tolerant of Hinduism and Paganism; it has just added another religion to the mix, with the caveat that it must be non-dualistic and adopt the pagan warlike spirit.

Black metal destroyed itself with easy answers that were imitated by idiots. The jihad against Christianity has failed. The jihad against liberalism was quickly avoided by those with dollar signs in their eyes. We need a new message and new direction.

If that message is "I embrace traditional society, including ethno-nationalism, adualistic religion and eugenics," then that's more realist than insisting on ideological purity and achieving nothing like post-1994 black metal, neo-Nazism and other comforting religions for human failures.

[Von List]

I have observed a general drift towards Christian tolerance here


which is very strange

In the meantime, what have Christians been doing?

Not really practicing Christianity, that is for sure. Oh, and I'm pretty darn sure than millions upon millions of Christians vote left in every election. Also, lets not fool ourselves. Healthy children? If America is majority "Christian" and a growing number of "Christian" children are fat, dumb and do nothing but obsess over Xbox and farmville, I would hardly call that healthy. Voting conservative? Bah. There ARE NO real conservatives now to even vote for!

don't forget that a large portion of American "Christians" are non-Europeans.



Christianity *is* dead. We have to face this reality. Most Christians are cafeteria, vanilla Christians. Just look at the USA. Do you seriously think this culture is a Christian one? Bah. America's god is money, comfort and excess, not Christ. There is probably only a small percentage that ACTUALLY adhear as close as possible to being Christ-like, but they are seen as buffoons and fringe elements by other "mainstream" Christians. The rest of Christendom in America are only in name and wear a crucifix while living out lavishly sinful lives. Maybe they go to church. Sometimes.

The only "Christians" I will ever respect are the Amish. They walk the walk.


Good luck selling ethno-nationalist eugenics to mainstream "Christian" America. That is an immediate lost cause. (I agree with those things, by the way)



Gott ist tot. Embrace this fact. Move on. Leave this dead husk behind.

[Conservationist]

Can't agree. Around here, the healthy Euripids are almost all Christians and conservative. They are growing in number. There are many Christian idiots too, but most atheists are hipsters -- I don't want to be an atheist, then, if that's our standard of judgment. Further, God may be dead but the idea of unitive culture, with religion in line with ethnicity and conservatism, is coming back. I see your Nietzsche and raise you one Samuel Huntington.

I'm not saying I'm all like YAY! CHRISTIANITY! -- but I've been a perennialist for the better part of two decades, and in our belief, all religions are descriptions of reality and thus none are fundamental. All eventually return to adualism. Christianity is one voice for this truth. If those who are working hardest for my people are Christian, I can reach parity of language with them without giving up my adualistic belief. If fellow adualists do this en masse, Christianity will soon be the First Church of Aldous Huxley, which is my goal.

Note there are many early Christian adualists, including Emerson, Blake and Eckhart.

These are separate from all that I loathe, which is dualism (including materialism) and liberalism. I still support the idea of "God" more than Jesus -- he's too submissive for me.

[Von List]

I agree that a united community needs some sort of spiritual core, but I just do not see Christianity as that core. Does Christianity have some good elements? Sure it does. But on the whole? No thank you.



Mainstream Christianity is merely a convenience for people now.



I'm really not sure how you can champion Christianity, but somehow not include Christ. I too agree that he is too submissive. However, There is no Christianity without Christ. Christ connects it all together. Being a Christian in large part includes trying to be "Christ-like". You cannot have this without Christ. If you go modifying Christ to be something he is not, you're abandoning everything Christianity was built on and might as well have put your efforts into forging something else with your time and effort.


When we talk of modern Christianity, we're talking about a rotting apple. Yeah, some are healthy and whatnot, but it is nothing but a dying religion. Even "conservative" Christians lean left in many ways. Like sending aid to Africa, blindly defending "democracy" (whatever that is) and other modern delusions. No thanks.



What we need is a new faith built upon reverence of nature, the universe, and primal forces. To me, the best way to achieve this is through Germanic/Scandinavian heathenism. Just one guy's opinion.

[Sammaellofi]

Look, I'm 100% behind Nietzsche, but my culture is of the WASP variety and since the Ango-Germans have built their culture around the reforned church, I have to accept who I am and where my values come from.  We follow Luther today, but at least we followed Wotan yesterday.  The blood is still the same, or as good as it could be considering.

Whether you like or not, if you live in America or Europe, you are a Christian and you have christian values.  Even when you violate those values, your mind accepts that what you did was wrong, because all around you those laws are constantly reinforced, even by non-believers like me or you. 

Religion, I believe, is not a choice at all.

[§Transcix]

In the meantime, what have Christians been doing? Reproducing, raising healthy children, home-schooling and voting conservative.

If you want to promote Christianity, be a good Christian but raise your children agnostically and let them make their own decisions. Anything less and I think you're really raping them in one of the most insidious ways, it's a recipe for blind faith.

The jihad against Christianity has failed.

It was orchestrated by Christianity and neo-conservatism to begin with.

The jihad against liberalism was quickly avoided by those with dollar signs in their eyes.

In my view America is a conservative fascist state, and the media manages to help perpetuate this by fooling people into believing the opposite and using liberalism as a boogeyman. In modern politics liberalism is so much more desireable mainly because it's less Christian--the elite recognizes how well-suited Christianity is to render the masses manipulable. Mainstream Christianity has the best threats (hell), the best scare tactics (Satanic influences), the best numbing and attractive doctrine (everything will be OK if you accept God's forgiveness), the best polarizing doctrine (good/evil, god is on our country's side, abortion is murder, homosexuality is evil, etc), the best confidence-reducing doctrine (you're all sinners who need to be saved by an external force), the list goes on and on. Of course true Christianity isn't like this, but it does tend to be rather sheepish, it's for the less fortunate and weak (the universe is indeed merciful), so it needs the left-hand path by its side to do the 'dirty work' and guard against corruption and false idols and, frankly, to rule (which is why the left-hand path has been demonized from the start).

The timeline you're painting seems to be originating from an idealistic perspective, treating things like paganism, Christianity, political process and political history, treating them as they should ideally be, not as they actually are. An honest Jihad, that's a good one! Hardly any wars--be they physical, political, social or religious--are fought on the basis of principle and belief, despite what the soldiers are told.

[Conservationist]

Mainstream Christianity is merely a convenience for people now.

Mainstream anything is fail.

Even "conservative" Christians lean left in many ways. Like sending aid to Africa, blindly defending "democracy" (whatever that is) and other modern delusions.

Those are neocons.

What we need is a new faith built upon reverence of nature, the universe, and primal forces. To me, the best way to achieve this is through Germanic/Scandinavian heathenism. Just one guy's opinion.

I'm proposing exactly that, only that we develop it through an existing religion (an achievable goal) instead of trying to create a spinoff and hope that everyone joins (an impossible goal).

Christianity won out over paganism for a reason... it's more organized and clearer in what it does. That isn't to say paganism is bad, only that as society grows, it needs a religion like Christianity.

Much like our Republican party isn't perfect, but is our best option, Christianity is far from perfect but is our best option. If it were invaded by Vedantist metalheads, it would end up being more like our pagan ancestors and without the impossible, NS-tinged crusade of bringing back a Wagnerian option.

[Conservationist]

Look, I'm 100% behind Nietzsche, but my culture is of the WASP variety and since the Ango-Germans have built their culture around the reforned church, I have to accept who I am and where my values come from.  We follow Luther today, but at least we followed Wotan yesterday.  The blood is still the same, or as good as it could be considering.

Whether you like or not, if you live in America or Europe, you are a Christian and you have christian values.  Even when you violate those values, your mind accepts that what you did was wrong, because all around you those laws are constantly reinforced, even by non-believers like me or you. 

Religion, I believe, is not a choice at all.

This is essentially it. It's hypocrisy to say we support ethno-culturalism and then ignore the religions dimension. We may not fully accept the religion as it is, thus we need to modify it toward our ends. I recall at least one world leader doing this in the past, and Von List will tell you who it was.

In the meantime, what have Christians been doing? Reproducing, raising healthy children, home-schooling and voting conservative.

If you want to promote Christianity, be a good Christian but raise your children agnostically and let them make their own decisions. Anything less and I think you're really raping them in one of the most insidious ways, it's a recipe for blind faith.

That's an interesting liberal opinion. However, my opinion is that it's best to give children a consistent worldview that works for you, and let them develop independently if they feel the need, instead of requiring independent development before they have any hope of a clue.

The jihad against liberalism was quickly avoided by those with dollar signs in their eyes.

In my view America is a conservative fascist state

And what conservative or fascist values does it have?

[Jim Necroslaughter]

There is clearly a "puritanical" streak running through metal when you really think about it.  In fact, what metal needs these days is more discipline.

[lafindumonde]

I do not think changing Christianity is hopeless. It has been done before. Even smaller splinter groups have successfully flourished. A new force wouldn't even have to claim it found magical new gospels written in gold. Members would only have to accept that a literal mass-reading of religious texts is prone to failure and truth comes more directly from a higher source.

[Sammaellofi]

In the meantime, what have Christians been doing? Reproducing, raising healthy children, home-schooling and voting conservative.

If you want to promote Christianity, be a good Christian but raise your children agnostically and let them make their own decisions. Anything less and I think you're really raping them in one of the most insidious ways, it's a recipe for blind faith.

"It's ok to have values that you hold higher than anything else, but don't teach them to your children.  That way they can choose bad values if they want."

Nope.

[lafindumonde]

In the meantime, what have Christians been doing? Reproducing, raising healthy children, home-schooling and voting conservative.

If you want to promote Christianity, be a good Christian but raise your children agnostically and let them make their own decisions. Anything less and I think you're really raping them in one of the most insidious ways, it's a recipe for blind faith.

"It's ok to have values that you hold higher than anything else, but don't teach them to your children.  That way they can choose bad values if they want."

Nope.

Agreed, assuming the adult hasn't completely wasted their life - wouldn't it be more harmful to not provide children with guidance from years of accumulated wisdom? It would be foolish to expect an immature and inexperienced child to reach the same conclusions as an adult.

[christopher]

Interesting thread.  I was raised Catholic, and I have recently been considering returning to the faith.

 I still support the idea of "God" more than Jesus -- he's too submissive for me.

The submissiveness of Christianity was at one time a major point to which I objected.  But I no longer see this as a problem at all.  Is it wrong to view submission to God as equivalent to acceptance of reality and our limitations?  Submitting to those things which are beyond our control (and thus, in God's domain)?  This is not really submission at all.  Neither is "submitting" to the rules of God which essentially just tell us to behave in our own best collective long-term interest.

[Conservationist]

No matter what religion you undertake, two vital principles:

More than twenty-five centuries have passed since that which has been called the Perennial Philosophy was first committed to writing; and in the course of those centuries it has found expression, now partial, now complete, now in this form, now in that, again and again. In Vedanta and Hebrew prophecy, in the Tao Teh King and the Platonic dialogues, in the Gospel according to St. John and Mahayana theology, in Plotinus and the Areopagite, among the Persian Sufis and the Christian mystics of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance–the Perennial Philosophy has spoken almost all the languages of Asia and Europe and has made use of the terminology and traditions of every one of the higher religions. But under all this confusion of tongues and myths, of local histories and particularist doctrines, there remains a Highest Common Factor, which is the Perennial Philosophy in what may be called its chemically pure state. This final purity can never, of course, be expressed by any verbal statement of the philosophy, however undogmatic that statement may be, however deliberately syncretistic. The very fact that it is set down at a certain time by a certain writer, using this or that language, automatically imposes a certain sociological and personal bias on the doctrines so formulated. It is only the act of contemplation when words and even personality are transcended, that the pure state of the Perennial Philosophy can actually be known. The records left by those who have known it in this way make it abundantly clear that all of them, whether Hindu, Buddhist, Hebrew, Taoist, Christian, or Mohammedan, were attempting to describe the same essentially indescribable Fact.

...

At the core of the Perennial Philosophy we find four fundamental doctrines.

First: the phenomenal world of matter and of individualized consciousness–the world of things and animals and men and even gods–is the manifestation of a Divine Ground within which all partial realities have their being, and apart from which they would be non-existent.

Second: human beings are capable not merely of knowing about the Divine Ground by inference; they can also realize its existence by a direct intuition, superior to discursive reasoning. This immediate knowledge unites the knower with that which is known.

Third: man possesses a double nature, a phenomenal ego and an eternal Self, which is the inner man, the spirit, the spark of divinity within the soul. It is possible for a man, if he so desires, to identify himself with the spirit and therefore with the Divine Ground, which is of the same or like nature with the spirit.

Fourth: man’s life on earth has only one end and purpose: to identify himself with his eternal Self and so to come to unitive knowledge of the Divine Ground.

http://www.amerika.org/texts/the-perennial-philosophy-aldous-huxley/

(G = Guru, D = Disciple)

G: First we shall try to understand what is meant by Advaita. How have you understood it?

D: I have heard it explained thus: dvi means two, dvita means the state of being two, that is two-ness. Dvaitam is the same as dvita. Advaita is therefore that thing in which there is no two-ness or duality.

G: Quite so. What do you call that some thing in which there is two-ness?

D: It is brAhman.

G: Perfectly right. And by brAhman you mean that basic principle of reality where from the universe derives its existence, whereon it rests� and wherein it disappears?

D: Yes.

G: Let us ignore the word brAhman and its full significance for a moment. You give the name of Advaita to the principle which is responsible for the creation, maintenance and dissolution of the universe?

D: Quite so.

G: You mean then that there is no two-ness in this principle?

D: Yes.

G: In other words, you mean that that principle is one and one only?

D: Certainly

G: To explain it again, you mean that there are no two such principles?

D: Yes.

G: And you claim that our system of thought is rightly called Advaita as it enunciates the doctrine of the non-existence of two such principles?

D: Quite so.

G: That is all right. Now we shall consider for a moment the other systems of thought, be it Christianity or Mohammedanism, visishtAdvaitA or dvaitA, tarka or yogA, be it any system of thought which admits the existence of a principle which is responsible for the creation, the sustenance and the dissolution of the universe. Do any of these systems ever proclaim that there are two such principles or do they all agree in proclaiming that there is and can be only one such principle?

D: No system postulates any plurality in God. There may be and is plurality among the devAs, who are as much created beings as ourselves, but certainly none in the Supreme Godhead. He is ever One.

G: Quite so. No system therefore enunciates any duality so far as God is concerned?

D: It is so.

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/articles/Significance_of_the_name_Advaita.htm

Some things to keep in mind.

Advaita is probably the original belief system of all Indo-Europeans. It decayed into pre-modern Hinduism, which was then improved upon by Buddhism and Christianity, but not without fault. It was roughly parallel to the ideas of European paganism, both in Northern Europe and the Greco-Roman sphere.

The goal is not to Christianize oneself, but to realityize Christianity and bring it back as an effective religion. If in 500 years, there is almost no mention of Jesus (back to being a minor prophet and saint) and no mention of pity, it will be a fully pagan religion.

Evola's point is the only good one: Christianity confuses esoteric and exoteric elements of the faith. But as even he points out, the medieval church had no such illusions. It was only when the proles overpopulated that this confusion became profitable.