100% Metal Forum (Death Metal and Black Metal)

Metal => Interzone => Topic started by: Conservationist on December 09, 2011, 07:02:29 PM

Title:
Post by: Conservationist on December 09, 2011, 07:02:29 PM
I think it is perfectly disingenuous to deny the Pagan roots of Christianity, and the sooner we instruct Christians in this regard, the sooner they will lose their fascination with the exoteric, which is responsible for the fundamentally liberal values of modern Christianity. Ancient Christianity had no such problem because it was (a) closer to its Pagan roots and (b) not yet democratized, at which point the proles infested it with Crowdism much as they have infested Wicca and Satanism with Crowdism.

Christianity is composed of mostly Greek influences, both from the Greek and through Judaism, which is in many ways a derivative of Greek thought, albeit in a materialistic vein, like Aristoteliaism adapted for desert living. In addition, there are clear Hindu influences in Christianity, as well as European (including Scandinavian, possibly through the influences of the Etruscan people who used a rune-like writing) Pagan origin, and the scattered religious doctrines of tribes from Egypt, Babylon, Persia, etc.

Would anyone be interested in an "Occupy Christianity" movement?

The idea is simple: bring back the Pagan idea of a divine order in which evil and good are in balance, and not all that appears evil is evil, for example the death by natural selection of the unwise.
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: Phoenix on December 09, 2011, 09:06:52 PM
For a nihilist, you are quite the Christian sympathizer. Why don't we discard the label of "Christianity", surely it has been perverted beyond help, if you can find truth in it then call it by a different name. I don't want to lose my lunch.
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: Forza Romana on December 10, 2011, 07:03:03 AM
I am sure up for this cause as I myself have journeyed the path of Paganism. It has been natural for me to do so.

You can try and have respect for Christianity but you soon lose that battle. And then you know why you fight so hard against it. Christians are stubborn and deny anyone else their freedom of religion or choice of spiritual path. You ARE wrong if you choose another path! Now THAT makes me lose my lunch! (which I just ate but the way!)
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: Conservationist on December 10, 2011, 07:22:43 AM
For a nihilist, you are quite the Christian sympathizer.

Sympathizer?

I just advocated reclaiming the religion for its pagan basis and using it to discard Crowdist morality.

I'm advocating sympathy, but only with a takeover.

Even more, I'm advocating practicality. Culture trumps religion. We all believe basically the same stuff because it's in our blood, so all that is required is disciplining the religion that is now in fashion to include our Pagan (and Hindu) heritage.
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: fallot on December 10, 2011, 11:15:30 AM
Culture doesn't trump religion. Religion is a part of culture. A change in cultural identity can occur with change in religion. It happened to my ancestors, and I am grateful. That is my tradition now.

Culture trumps weak religions.

Hey posting like this is pretty awesome! Cosmic realization!

Edit: Are you sure about the Hindu origin? I mean even if it is genetically true it's completely out of the consciousness of your peoples. Lost in the reaches of the past. How could it be introduced or made palatable? The Pagan ones actually persist in terms of values and symbols. Lots of people know and care about Vikings, few about Brahmins. Is there a real world example to look to here?
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: vigor on December 10, 2011, 12:52:01 PM
I would argue that the veneration of saints stems from a natural instinct toward pagan ancestor worship. Thoughts?

Ancient Christianity is great. Check out 'Spirit and Fire', an anthology of the writings of Origen. Neo-platonism with the Ten Commandments tossed in, and a Christ symbol representing the union between man and god? Sign me up. Christianity in antiquity provided Europe with a strong moral backbone and a divine calling to succeed. The fact of the matter is, religion is important and will always be important. Any attempt to subvert modern Christianity and bring about a 'return to form' of sorts is a smart move, because people need God and will seek it out in a number of ways. Christianity is the dominant choice among us white folk due to a strong cultural connection to it's traditions, but unfortunately that has manifested itself in the worship of a hippie egalitarian Jesus, who's concept of 'loving everyone' is pandering to the short term immediately obvious benefits instead of looking at the bigger picture. You are never going to replace Christianity with paganism in a white majority country. It is always going to be a dominant force. Why not attempt to improve it? Let's turn foreign aid missionary faggots into crusaders with a divine calling to sacrifice themselves for the sake of their people.

Black metal raged against Christianity because Christianity had turned into something sick, a representation of equality by gunpoint and materialistic consumerist culture. What's better, a return to a healthier form of the religion, or a useless attempt to burn down it's churches, both physically and metaphorically?
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: AVFN on December 11, 2011, 05:27:35 AM
I would argue that the veneration of saints stems from a natural instinct toward pagan ancestor worship. Thoughts?
Or both are just indicative of general cultic behaviour?

...that has manifested itself in the worship of a hippie egalitarian Jesus, who's concept of 'loving everyone' is pandering to the short term immediately obvious benefits instead of looking at the bigger picture.
Strange statement. Christianity is about the worship of Christ. The message of Christ, as transmited to us through the apostles, is one of egalitarianism, and praise for the weak and poor. It's not a modern corruption, that has always been the core message of Christianity.

You are never going to replace Christianity with paganism in a white majority country. It is always going to be a dominant force.
I disagree. One may not be able to actively replace it, but then actively dis/replacing a religion is a very difficult, perhaps one of the most difficult tasks imaginable, and in general, the path to religious change isn't that one dimensional. Instead, it seems quite possible that Christianity could lose its cultural and spiritual credibility due to the popularity of other ideas and its inability to relate to contemporary needs and circumstances.

Black metal raged against Christianity because Christianity had turned into something sick
I don't think I've ever read an interview with a black metal band which expresses this view. This is clearly your own view, presented as a truism with no evidence at all.
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: AVFN on December 11, 2011, 05:41:51 AM
Conservationist, I disagree with your point of view. The core philosophical messages of Christianity are, and always have been, egalitarianism and the profanity of our existence. If Christianity in Europe in the Late Antique and/or Middle Ages had some attractive features reminiscent of paganism, it is only indicative of a period of transition, when the practices and aesthetics of pre-Christian Europe had yet to be fully brought into line with the core weltanschauung of Xianity. We are now seeing, in our time, the full flowering of the core Xian doctrine. Egalitarianism = democracy, nomocracy, mass imigration, racial/cultural miscegenation; profanity of existence = ecocide, mass social anomie, atheism, excessive materialism.
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: fallot on December 11, 2011, 07:14:33 AM
The doctrines of original sin combined with universal salvation are not compatible with this idea. What values or beliefs would be brought out to lessen the impact of these?
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: Conservationist on December 11, 2011, 12:53:19 PM
AVFN and fallot: you make good points. However, Christianity is a protean doctrine. The Catholic church is one of the most anti-egalitarian organizations on earth, or at least was; further, some parts of the Bible clearly contra-indicate any egalitarian view (the parable of the five talents comes to mind). Finally, look around you: the conservatives, especially those who mention nationalism, tradition or a fighting spirit, are disproportionately Christian. We need alliance with these people.

This is a two-way exchange: we accept their belief in exchange for a change in spin/emphasis on the underlying ideas of it. We in the process convert it from an exoteric belief system to an esoteric one with a surface message of solidarity between culture, religion and heritage. That is the essence of tradition. In short, we're looking to bring forth the Pagan elements in Christianity -- and no one doubts the religion was borrowed from that tradition, do we? -- and use them to obscure the confused modern elements.

I suggest targeting some of the right-wing Christian blogs:

http://www.confederatecolonel.com/
http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/node
http://mangans.blogspot.com/
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/
http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/
http://bonald.wordpress.com/

Infuse these with the ideas of good Pagans on morality (support strong, exile the weak) and esotericism (a hierarchy by ability) and use these doctrines to contradict mis-interpreted Christian ideas like original sin (without improving oneself, humans are prone to stupidity), etc:

http://www.gornahoor.net/
http://www.primordialtraditions.com/
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/

And of course anything good you've read here.
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: FIAT on December 11, 2011, 01:44:31 PM

The idea is simple: bring back the Pagan idea of a divine order in which evil and good are in balance, and not all that appears evil is evil, for example the death by natural selection of the unwise.

A word on idioms: From the traditional Christian point of view, it is the pagan, precisely, that is the fatalist--in failing to distinguish between virtue and vice, for example--and egalitarian--in denying the hierarchies intrinsic to all existence. And again, from this same perspective, goodness and intelligence are likewise divine, whereas stupidity is synonymous with sin. To understand Christianity, one must first of all come to term with such idioms.

Regard "occupying" Christianity, the Freemasons subverted the last of traditional Western Christianity following the Second World War in a Europe weakened by the final triumph of liberalism.

Quote from: AVFN

The core philosophical messages of Christianity are, and always have been, egalitarianism and the profanity of our existence. . . . We are now seeing, in our time, the full flowering of the core Xian doctrine. Egalitarianism = democracy, nomocracy, mass imigration, racial/cultural miscegenation; profanity of existence = ecocide, mass social anomie, atheism, excessive materialism.

The natural order is implicitly divine (and, unlike the moderns would have it, an agency of intelligence and an arbiter of wisdom), anthropomorphically symbolized in the ever virgin Mother of God. Denouncements of "worldliness," so often misrepresented (occasionally deliberately by liberals) are with reference to the artifice of human cunning, often in the face of (again) natural law. Let's not forget that the French Revolution culminated with the worship of the goddess "Reason" in a desecrated Cathedral of Notre Dame in 1793, led by the very forces championing industrialization.

Ultimately, one can't have it both ways: either traditional Christianity was a legitimate religious tradition and a vehicle of truth that resulted in a glorious empire lasting a thousand years but cut short by the humanism of the so-called Renaissance, or the very confluence of the German and Latin geniuses that became Christendom ("Europe") is itself illegitimate.

A final word: the point of departure for all religious traditions involves the notion of an objective and infallible Revelation, the macrocosmic analogue of the (divine) intelligence residing within the subject of the human microcosm. Rejection of the notion of Revelation will seem to any traditional interlocutor--whether Muslim or Hindu, it doesn't matter--as a denial of intelligence itself. One does not approach a king from behind; the same holds with respect to the sacred.
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: Von List on December 11, 2011, 04:28:19 PM
Lets scrap it totally and be done with it. Convert Christian churches to pagan temples and Bring back Scandinavian/Germanic gods.


In short: Throw out Christ, bring back Thor.


The old gods need to be recognized once more. Not this modified version of Christianity we're talking about with papa Jebus. No matter what you do to it, Christianity will always be a weak, egalitarian religion from the middle east. Period. I mean, I get what is going on here. Some of you think that Christianity cannot be beaten, so therefor lets just not try but instead revise it. This, in my mind, is surrendering.




"Infuse these with the ideas of good Pagans on morality (support strong, exile the weak) and esotericism (a hierarchy by ability) and use these doctrines to contradict mis-interpreted Christian ideas like original sin (without improving oneself, humans are prone to stupidity), etc:"


All of that is going to be pretty hard to do considering Jesus loves weak people and favor's the meek and retarded. Yes, there is a hierarchy, but it is totally on its head. The meek and the sick are on top. Not the strong and the powerful.


Christianity is DEAD in the West no matter how you look at it. Even in America where large portions of the population say that they believe in god are "vanilla" Christians. They hardly understand Christianity and wear religious jewelry. Maybe show up at midnight mass on Christmas. Thats about it. It is nothing but a rotting husk. I say we support the GROWING interest there seems to be in revivalist Germanic/Scandinavian paganism. Lets embrace this resurgence and help it come to pass.



(http://i.imgur.com/OaMIy.jpg) (http://imgur.com/OaMIy)


Title: Re: ✠
Post by: scourge on December 11, 2011, 06:58:25 PM
Christianity is DEAD in the West no matter how you look at it. Even in America where large portions of the population say that they believe in god are "vanilla" Christians. They hardly understand Christianity and wear religious jewelry. Maybe show up at midnight mass on Christmas. Thats about it. It is nothing but a rotting husk.

It certainly is dying out and only maintaining itself in the Bible Belt and Deep South in the U.S. Nominal Christianity in this century is destined to be a majority sub-Saharan African religion.

I say we support the GROWING interest there seems to be in revivalist Germanic/Scandinavian paganism. Lets embrace this resurgence and help it come to pass.

The old religion is going to run into the same challenges faced by the new religion. They do not adapt well to the contemporary world, especially when secular humanism trounces each in political and social reward. Notice contemporary Christians scrambling for their own humanist credentials by way of worldly humanist works. This only discredits them further as the uneducated country bumpkins of social justice when educated liberals are involved in the same acts.
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: Von List on December 11, 2011, 07:22:54 PM


I say we support the GROWING interest there seems to be in revivalist Germanic/Scandinavian paganism. Lets embrace this resurgence and help it come to pass.

The old religion is going to run into the same challenges faced by the new religion. They do not adapt well to the contemporary world, especially when secular humanism trounces each in political and social reward. Notice contemporary Christians scrambling for their own humanist credentials by way of worldly humanist works. This only discredits them further as the uneducated country bumpkins of social justice when educated liberals are involved in the same acts.
[/quote]


That is why we need to not only change religious practice, but also how we go about other things in our culture.
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: scourge on December 11, 2011, 09:08:36 PM
Our unidirectional, cross cultural, promiscuous altruism is a key property of the new culture of the West, something that was absent with the old. The old culture vanished much more recently than the old pagan religions.

The cultural shift all happened around the French Revolution, American Manifest Destiny and finally, the slave emancipation decades of late 18th to mid 19th centuries. Christianity overall eventually began to toe the new cultural line so to speak.

The time of brutal conquests on religious grounds (Conquistadors e.g.) had given way to principled rationalist massacres for equality and human fraternity as seen with the American Civil War, the two-and-a-half world wars, and European reverse colonization.

Occupying Christianity can work by rooting out the secular humanism in gospel interpretations as heresy; human fraternity is strictly spiritual, never biological and only by God's judgement, never by man's.
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: Von List on December 11, 2011, 09:49:15 PM
I don't know, I'd rather just scrap it and go one to something better. Not put a giant band aid on something that is already broken.


Perhaps I am being impatient.
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: ~Sidereal on December 11, 2011, 11:41:47 PM
Occupying Christianity can work by rooting out the secular humanism in gospel interpretations as heresy; human fraternity is strictly spiritual, never biological and only by God's judgement, never by man's.

But if it is an anthropomorphic God of brotherly love, equality and humanism as embodied by Jesus and preached in the gospels, what is the bloody difference between 'god' and man's judgement? This is the entire universe viewed through the lense of the humanism of 2000 year old peasants. If your idea of christianity is not the gospels, then why call it 'christianity'? It's more playing with definitions.
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: ~Sidereal on December 11, 2011, 11:50:44 PM
Christianity is DEAD in the West no matter how you look at it. Even in America where large portions of the population say that they believe in god are "vanilla" Christians. They hardly understand Christianity and wear religious jewelry. Maybe show up at midnight mass on Christmas. Thats about it. It is nothing but a rotting husk. I say we support the GROWING interest there seems to be in revivalist Germanic/Scandinavian paganism. Lets embrace this resurgence and help it come to pass.

Yes. And eastern spirituality, particularly Zen buddhism and it's emphasis on 'emptiness' or sunyata. This is sooo much more perceptive of the nature of the self, consciousness and ultimetly man's place in the universe compared with anthropomophic christianity with its rediculous emphasis on how unique, timeless, enduring and basically important everyone's ego (read: soul) is.
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: ~Sidereal on December 11, 2011, 11:55:16 PM
AVFN and fallot: you make good points. However, Christianity is a protean doctrine. The Catholic church is one of the most anti-egalitarian organizations on earth, or at least was; further, some parts of the Bible clearly contra-indicate any egalitarian view (the parable of the five talents comes to mind). Finally, look around you: the conservatives, especially those who mention nationalism, tradition or a fighting spirit, are disproportionately Christian. We need alliance with these people.

Conservative christians who mention nationalism mixed with fighting spirit are usually rednecks. I need an alliance with redneck christians like I need aids. They may hit on things that seem appealing, but it's usually accidental, contingent on time and place and totally non-examined. They would not be open to modifying ideas when needed.
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: Athanasius contra mundum on December 11, 2011, 11:58:58 PM
Asserting that Christianity is egalitarian and that its conception of God is anthropomorphic is pretty much denying brilliant thinkers such as St. Thomas Aquinas, the monks who composed the Philokalia, Louis de Bonald, Josephe de Maistre, and Dante Alighieri. Christianity is patriarchal religion par excellence, and patriarchy is pretty much the most rigid heirarchical form of government and spirituality possible. Burning heretics is burning the weak (of course we offer them the sacraments beforehand), and original sin is the recognition that all men need to be improved. The central basis of Christian thought is not Christ's teaching so much as His incarnation, His unification of the human and divine nature, i.e. strive towards the transcendent. We are your future, and you will all kneel to the cross and to Rome. Vive la roi!
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: ~Sidereal on December 12, 2011, 12:02:03 AM
Asserting that Christianity is egalitarian and that its conception of God is anthropomorphic is pretty much denying brilliant thinkers such as St. Thomas Aquinas, the monks who composed the Philokalia, Louis de Bonald, Josephe de Maistre, and Dante Alighieri. Christianity is patriarchal religion par excellence, and patriarchy is pretty much the most rigid heirarchical form of government and spirituality possible. Burning heretics is burning the weak (of course we offer them the sacraments beforehand), and original sin is the recognition that all men need to be improved. The central basis of Christian thought is not Christ's teaching so much as His incarnation, His unification of the human and divine nature, i.e. strive towards the transcendent. We are your future, and you will all kneel to the cross and to Rome. Vive la roi!

Right, so you're saying leave the core books of christianity aside (the gospels) and take secondary commentary as representative of the real thing! You can argue as much as you want about the central basis of christian thought... and placing primacy on seconard commentary will only invite enless such debates... because there are so many interpretations. It's pointless
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: Athanasius contra mundum on December 12, 2011, 12:11:33 AM
Sola scriptura is a Protestant heresy, not an inherent aspect of Christianity.
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: ~Sidereal on December 12, 2011, 12:14:57 AM
I have no idea what the sola scriptura is, but you could just as easily argue that catholic exposition of the gospels is catholic heresay.
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: Athanasius contra mundum on December 12, 2011, 12:18:32 AM
You could, but I wouldn't accept your argument unless it was grounded in a defensible philosophical analysis. We'd have to use the scholastic method, in other words, to determine the validity of such a conclusion, and that would be worthy of a novel. Oh, looks like it's already been written...

http://newadvent.org/summa/

Title: Re: ✠
Post by: Conservationist on December 12, 2011, 06:28:38 AM
For me, the situation is simple:

We have a broken civilization, in which there are remnants of the old and parts of the new.

I think we should rebuild the remnants of the old, exclude the illogical parts of the new, and then shape the aggregate toward values that are not only sensible, but "rising," or give us hope for a future that is not only functional, but beautiful and inspiring.

Like ancient Rome.

If Christianity is 85% Pagan, we have 15% of it to purge through blood, steel and fire.

That's better than trying to start over, considering that 99% of the people who come in the door will expect the new and not the old, and thus reject the old any time they see it because it is beyond their understanding.

If resurrecting the Pagan faiths is a good idea, how do we explain Wicca? A worse disaster than Christianity. How about modern Buddhism? A terrible idea.

I am not saying accept Christianity. I am saying something more subversive... conquer it.
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: Von List on December 12, 2011, 08:25:56 AM
Asserting that Christianity is egalitarian and that its conception of God is anthropomorphic is pretty much denying brilliant thinkers such as St. Thomas Aquinas, the monks who composed the Philokalia, Louis de Bonald, Josephe de Maistre, and Dante Alighieri. Christianity is patriarchal religion par excellence, and patriarchy is pretty much the most rigid heirarchical form of government and spirituality possible. Burning heretics is burning the weak (of course we offer them the sacraments beforehand), and original sin is the recognition that all men need to be improved. The central basis of Christian thought is not Christ's teaching so much as His incarnation, His unification of the human and divine nature, i.e. strive towards the transcendent. We are your future, and you will all kneel to the cross and to Rome. Vive la roi!
Thinkers like Aquinas, although intelligent, made shit up to suit the times and their own thinking. Sort of like almost everyone did from the Dark Ages all the way up till now.


You're forgetting all of the venerated females in Christianity. Arguably, Mary is just as big as Jesus in some aspects.
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: Athanasius contra mundum on December 12, 2011, 10:37:18 AM
Yes, I'm sure the entire corpus of St. Thomas Aquinas, with all of its philosophical depth, could be summarized as him 'making shit up'.

Also, patriarchy isn't the denial of the value of women, it's a dignification of their natural relationships with men. I venerate the female saints of the Faith as much as any other good Catholic does.
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: AVFN on December 12, 2011, 11:26:58 AM
Conservationist, I get the impression that what you are suggesting is somewhere between a marriage-of-convenience and meta-political entryism. On the one hand, I'm not completely opposed to such an initiative. I'm neither an intransigent nor a dogmatist. The spiritualties of the future will not and cannot be the same as those of the past. Changes will develop, and on a practical level may be made to develop. However, I believe what you are proposing is undesirable for two reasons.

Firslty I believe that in essence the ideologies at the core of Christianity and pre-Christian European religions are incompatable. Christianity is by definition the worship of Christ. The story of Christ, as reported by the apostles, is of a man who submitted, without sturggle or fight, to suffering and death at the hands of his enemy in order to show that our existence is profane and valueless and to allow all people, regardless of their transgressions and/or incompetence, the opportunity to achieve everlasting life as long as they are subservient. Furthermore, Christ was a Jewish reformer, and Judaism, then and now, is monotheist and dualist. This means that our existence is interpreted as an undesirable and sinful tangent to the true being of a beyond which we are incapable of accessing without, again, subservience to His law. I cannot possibly imagine a doctrine further from the heroic/tragic triumphal overcoming-through-struggle that is clearly displayed in traditional European mythology from the Táin to the Iliad. If one were to conjure some form of syncretism between paganism and Christianity one of these central doctrines would eventually have to win out over the other because of their incompatibilty. How do we know this? Because history has shown us so. When Christianity came to Europe it did indeed adopt many pagan practices and aesthetics. Christianity was undoubtedly Europeanised, and I suspect that is what you have been driving at with your 'pagan roots of Xianity' comments. Indeed, the legal and administrative structure of the catholic church, along with many customs and rituals, were lifted directly from pagan Rome (or, more accurately, these structures assimilated the new religion). However, the process of Xianisation in Europe did not stop, and has not stopped. The protestant reformation, quite logically, looked at the bible and found absolutely no foundation for the pope or the catholic church's hierarchical structure or extensive canonical tradition, and consequently binned it all. Today, liberal atheists continue the reformation (albeit unconciously) by removing the 'superstition' of God and all notions of spirituality whilst upholding the core morality and ideology of egalitarianism and the profanity of our existence.

Secondly, there may come a time when an aliance of sorts is required, but this is not it. The interest in pre-Xian Europe and European values has been on the rise for more than a century now, from Nietzsche to de Benoist, from Wagner to Vikernes. Conversely, Christianity is being discredited more and more. Churches are emptying and Christians are increasingly being ridiculed in the media and popular culture. Now, I don't necessarily revel in this, for I have a respect for the religious in general, and a certain disdain for smug atheists, but to side with Xianity would be like boarding a sinking ship - we would go down with it!

Finally, as for your repeated comments about the pagan origins of Xianity, I don't really follow. Jesus was a Jewish reformer, Judaism was monotheist. The apostles basically preached Judaism for gentiles. So I don't agree that Xianity had pagan roots. I do however, as stated above, recognise that Xianity was Europeanised to a large extent after it became the offical religion of Rome, but, as I have also said, many of its most traditional European features have been the subject of reform and excision because of their incompatibility with the central ideology of the gospels.

Erosion, I disagree with you also. The burning of heretics is not burning the weak, it is burning the other because one is incapable of allowing or comprehending difference - difference which is diversity, diversity which is natural. It is indicative of the narrow, totalitarian and completely unrealistic world-view that has caused so much destruction throughout Europe's history. Nor is original sin a recognition that man needs improvement, it is a statement that man is wrong and cannot right himself. It is a statement that man is not fit to govern himself or to be in charge of his own destiny. It is a statement that I disagree with. Strongly.
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: Athanasius contra mundum on December 12, 2011, 01:45:41 PM
Well, your analysis of Christianity is wrong. The central basis of Christianity as pointed out by St. Athanasius is theosis, which means deification, 'God became man so that man might become god.' Christianity has pagan roots in the obvious Neoplatonic influences on the early Church fathers, and the Aristotlian influences on Medieval scholasticism. The burning of heretics is the burning of the weak, in that a proper Christian recognizes irrefutably his obligation to fulfill his duty towards theosis, which means accepting the teleological nature of himself or herself and actualizing that to the greatest degree possible. Christ's death is a sacrifice meant to embody the divinization of mankind, not a story of meek surrender in order to encourage the weak. The mistake you're making is a common one made by most modern opponents of Christianity, which is to be completely unaware of its historical and philosophical dimensions. Protestantism is not Christianity, it's a heresy. Egalitarianism, refusal of diversity and tradition, anti-heirarchical revolutions, these are all Protestantism. Also, traditional Catholicism and Orthodoxy are actually experiencing a renaissance of sorts in intellectual circles today. It isn't widely visible in the mainstream media, but that's because the left has an iron-grip on the media and mainstream academia, and has historically seen the Catholic Church (and by that I mean the Roman Catholic Church of the past, but most especially the Catholic Church as in the eternal philosophy of Catholicism) as its greatest opponent.

I've met people like you before. Your concerns are understandable, because I'm against modernity too. But people such as yourself always seemed shocked when they are introduced to the actual philosophical material of the early Church fathers, such as St. Athanasius, the Philokalia, Psuedo-Dionysius, and the Cappodocian fathers, as if this was some sort of Christianity they never knew existed.
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: fallot on December 12, 2011, 02:20:50 PM
To be clear, do you believe the doctrine yourself Erosion? Anti-modernity and a return to tradition notwithstanding, is this a vision for society or also a personal practice? A return to these traditions is a worldwide phenomenon interestingly; a natural reaction to the sorry state of modern existence one could say. What I think your view lacks (perhaps mistakenly) however, is role models. I would be interested to know how and where such a change would start (hypothetically). Outside certain European countries and (increasingly) a lot of the US, traditional practices are still fresh in the public consciousness. There, youth have something to emulate, something to contribute to towards a stable goal. What would serve this purpose for you?

I'm sure burning heretics has its place, but could you illustrate with a modern example of exactly who or what would merit this punishment if such an order came to be?
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: Athanasius contra mundum on December 12, 2011, 03:50:17 PM
I've made my allegiance to the Catholic Church explicit in another post, but I understand your uncertainty given my posts in this particular thread. For any anti-liberal institution or ideology the obvious question is how to confront liberalism, which in many ways is intrinsically tied to the psyche and the structure of the modern era. It would be difficult to confront this issue with brevity, but I feel that there is some good headway made here:

http://bonald.wordpress.com/the-conservative-vision-of-authority/
http://bonald.wordpress.com/in-defense-of-patriarchy/
http://bonald.wordpress.com/in-defense-of-censorship/
http://bonald.wordpress.com/in-defense-of-religion/
http://bonald.wordpress.com/conservatism/
http://bonald.wordpress.com/in-defense-of-tradition/
http://bonald.wordpress.com/in-defense-of-monarchy/
http://bonald.wordpress.com/in-defense-of-culture/
http://bonald.wordpress.com/evolution-and-aristotle/

These articles are what I would call a populist introduction to true conservative thought. For a detailed analysis one should turn to the metahpysics and politics of Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, Josephe de Maistre, Louis de Bonald, and even Hegel (especially his 'Philosophy of Right').

The first step, inevitably, is to cement a conservative analogue to the liberal intelligentsia.
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: Von List on December 12, 2011, 05:49:34 PM
"Yes, I'm sure the entire corpus of St. Thomas Aquinas, with all of its philosophical depth, could be summarized as him 'making shit up'."


Seeing as how he was writing about something that probably doesn't exist, yes, he was making stuff up based off of the development of a monotheistic cult out of the middle east.
 
His arguments for God's existence alone are completely lacking

I'm not saying he didn't write good stuff in a philosophical sense. I studied them in good ol' Roman Catholic School. I'm just saying that he was writing stuff based off of his own interpretation of events that have little evidence for them.

Title: Re: ✠
Post by: Athanasius contra mundum on December 12, 2011, 06:42:24 PM
That's an unnecessary imposition of materialist 'metaphysic'. Aristotlian teleology is a yet to be refuted statement of the existence of unqualified being, i.e. existence in itself, which is the only logical statement of the intelligibilty of the universe. Keep in mind that the intelligibility of the universe, the nature of knowledge, is different from an explanation of the orgins of the material universe. The two are in no way opposed, as substance in material things is a composition of matter and form.

http://bonald.wordpress.com/in-defense-of-religion/finite-and-unlimited-being/
http://bonald.wordpress.com/book-reviews-religion/metaphysics/

And also:

Quote
'Without pretending to span within such limits the essential Thomist idea, I may be allowed to throw out a sort of rough version of the fundamental question, which I think I have known myself, consciously or unconsciously since my childhood. When a child looks out of the nursery window and sees anything, say the green lawn of the garden, what does he actually know; or does he know anything? There are all sorts of nursery games of negative philosophy played round this question. A brilliant Victorian scientist delighted in declaring that the child does not see any grass at all; but only a sort of green mist reflected in a tiny mirror of the human eye. This piece of rationalism has always struck me as almost insanely irrational. If he is not sure of the existence of the grass, which he sees through the glass of a window, how on earth can he be sure of the existence of the retina, which he sees through the glass of a microscope? If sight deceives, why can it not go on deceiving? Men of another school answer that grass is a mere green impression on the mind; and that he can be sure of nothing except the mind. They declare that he can only be conscious of his own consciousness; which happens to be the one thing that we know the child is not conscious of at all. In that sense, it would be far truer to say that there is grass and no child, than to say that there is a conscious child but no grass. St. Thomas Aquinas, suddenly intervening in this nursery quarrel, says emphatically that the child is aware of Ens. Long before he knows that grass is grass, or self is self, he knows that something is something. Perhaps it would be best to say very emphatically (with a blow on the table), "There is an Is." That is as much monkish credulity as St. Thomas asks of us at the start. Very few unbelievers start by asking us to believe so little. And yet, upon this sharp pin-point of reality, he rears by long logical processes that have never really been successfully overthrown, the whole cosmic system of Christendom.

 

Thus, Aquinas insists very profoundly but very practically, that there instantly enters, with this idea of affirmation the idea of contradiction. It is instantly apparent, even to the child, that there cannot be both affirmation and contradiction. Whatever you call the thing he sees, a moon or a mirage or a sensation or a state of consciousness, when he sees it, he knows it is not true that he does not see it. Or whatever you call what he is supposed to be doing, seeing or dreaming or being conscious of an impression, he knows that if he is doing it, it is a lie to say he is not doing it. Therefore there has already entered something beyond even the first fact of being; there follows it like its shadow the first fundamental creed or commandment, that a thing cannot be and not be. Henceforth, in common or popular language, there is a false and true. I say in popular language, because Aquinas is nowhere more subtle than in pointing out that being is not strictly the same as truth; seeing truth must mean the appreciation of being by some mind capable of appreciating it. But in a general sense there has entered that primeval world of pure actuality, the division and dilemma that brings the ultimate sort of war into the world; the everlasting duel between Yes and No. This is the dilemma that many sceptics have darkened the universe and dissolved the mind solely in order to escape. They are those who maintain that there is something that is both Yes and No. I do not know whether they pronounce it Yo.

 

The next step following on this acceptance of actuality or certainty, or whatever we call it in popular language, is much more difficult to explain in that language. But it represents exactly the point at which nearly all other systems go wrong, and in taking the third step abandon the first. Aquinas has affirmed that our first sense of fact is a fact; and he cannot go back on it without falsehood. But when we come to look at the fact or facts, as we know them, we observe that they have a rather queer character; which has made many moderns grow strangely and restlessly sceptical about them. For instance, they are largely in a state of change, from being one thing to being another; or their qualities are relative to other things; or they appear to move incessantly; or they appear to vanish entirely. At this point, as I say, many sages lose hold of the first principle of reality, which they would concede at first; and fall back on saying that there is nothing except change; or nothing except comparison; or nothing except flux; or in effect that there is nothing at all. Aquinas turns the whole argument the other way, keeping in line with his first realisation of reality. There is no doubt about the being of being, even if it does sometimes look like becoming; that is because what we see is not the fullness of being; or (to continue a sort of colloquial slang) we never see being being as much as it can. Ice is melted into cold water and cold water is heated into hot water; it cannot be all three at once. But this does not make water unreal or even relative; it only means that its being is limited to being one thing at a time. But the fullness of being is everything that it can be; and without it the lesser or approximate forms of being cannot be explained as anything; unless they are explained away as nothing.

 

This crude outline can only at the best be historical rather than philosophical. It is impossible to compress into it the metaphysical proofs of such an idea; especially in the medieval metaphysical language. But this distinction in philosophy is tremendous as a turning point in history. Most thinkers, on realising the apparent mutability of being, have really forgotten their own realisation of the being, and believed only in the mutability. They cannot even say that a thing changes into another thing; for them there is no instant in the process at which it is a thing at all. It is only a change. It would be more logical to call it nothing changing into nothing, than to say (on these principles) that there ever was or will be a moment when the thing is itself. St. Thomas maintains that the ordinary thing at any moment is something; but it is not everything that it could be. There is a fullness of being, in which it could be everything that it can be. Thus, while most sages come at last to nothing but naked change, he comes to the ultimate thing that is unchangeable, because it is all the other things at once. While they describe a change which is really a change in nothing, he describes a changelessness which includes the changes of everything. Things change because they are not complete; but their reality can only be explained as part of something that is complete. It is God.' - G.K. Chesterton

Excerpted from Chapter VII, The Permanent Philosophy, St. Thomas Aquinas

Furthermore:

Quote
'Christopher Dawson points out that all religion begins in the intuition of Being.  There are however, two such intuitions, corresponding to what Aristotle identified as the two types of being:  being in act and being in potency.  Both potency and act possess a sort of universality that can bewitch the mind.  The better religions derive from the idea of pure Act, the confluence and coincidence of all positive perfections that we call God.  Being in act has a special intelligibility.  As Aristotle pointed out, the law of contradiction only applies to actual being.  (For example, a cup of water may be both potentially hot and potentially cold, but it can actually be only one or the other.)  The worse religions (Buddhism, gnosticism) find actuality limiting because of its intelligibility–the fact that it’s always just one thing, and not also its opposite.  For Campbell, the great intuition is to see what he calls “being” as the thing underneath all forms, the thing that endures as it sheds one form and takes on another.  Fellow Aristotelians will recognize this principle (which he takes to be ultimate) as matter, i.e. potency.  Pure potency (primary matter) has a sort of universality to it.  It is, in a sense, everything and nothing at once.  In its all-encompassing aspect, it mirrors its opposite, the pure actuality of God.' - http://bonald.wordpress.com/2010/07/17/the-metaphysical-sickness-of-joseph-campbell/


So long as we have a fundamentally different understanding of the nature of being, yours being liberal and mine conservative, I don't think we're going to be able to coherently discuss our respective understandings of religious practice and its associated aspects: authority, patriarchy, etc.

I appreciate your concession to the intelligence of St. Thomas, however. I was expecting some rather childish, condescending, and vehement denial of any non-egalitarian and positive conception of Christianity, and I have been pleasantly surprised.
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: Von List on December 12, 2011, 07:07:58 PM
"So long as we have a fundamentally different understanding of the nature of being, yours being liberal and mine conservative"


Excuse me? What have I said to lead you to believe I am liberal? I can promise you that I am far from it.


Or is this a "You don't agree with me, so you're one of THEM" point of views?
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: Athanasius contra mundum on December 12, 2011, 07:10:45 PM
No, my considering your understanding of being liberal is explained in the quote above that describes the two fundamental intuitions of being. I'm sure we agree in far more areas than most liberals and I do, given your presence here, and I apologize for any implications made.

Is your username a refrence to Guido von List?
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: Von List on December 12, 2011, 07:12:24 PM
Oh, my mistake. No apologies are needed.


You and I disagree on some philosophic grounds, but that is to be expected when you consider that conservatism and traditionalism have many schools of thought under one tent.
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: Athanasius contra mundum on December 12, 2011, 07:15:14 PM
You and I disagree on some philosophic grounds, but that is to be expected when you consider that conservatism and traditionalism have many schools of thought under one tent.

A sad state of affairs, considering that intellectual synthesis in the conservative sphere is desperately needed in order to create a legitimate presence of conservatism in mainstream politics and thusly to combat liberalism. I'm pretty sure that's partially what the OP is trying to say.
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: nothingnowhere on December 13, 2011, 07:42:01 AM
Is anyone else here actually doing the work of cultural rebuilding? The internet arguments are petty bullshit; whoever accomplishes their goal is the only one who can 'win' this out.
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: fallot on December 13, 2011, 08:06:09 AM
I've learned a lot from the argument. Does it really matter? Whatever anyone else is doing is their business.
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: Von List on December 13, 2011, 10:07:34 AM

"Is your username a refrence to Guido von List?"


Yes.
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: Conservationist on December 13, 2011, 11:00:26 AM
Is anyone else here actually doing the work of cultural rebuilding? The internet arguments are petty bullshit; whoever accomplishes their goal is the only one who can 'win' this out.

Not this tired shit again!

Yes, many here do work toward that end. That includes but is not limited to consensus-building on the intertard, on TV or in print.

Let me guess: Alain de Benoist, Michel Houellebecq, Julius Evola et al "did nothing" except "write some books (that were then posted to the intertard)".

There is some legitimacy to criticism of the all-talk-no-action folks, but... it is always used to shut down debate and to make the speaker seem grand. You don't want to fall into that trap.

There is also a lot of legitimacy to the idea of having a clear picture of what we want to do before doing it.

One step at a time...
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: AVFN on December 13, 2011, 11:31:41 AM
Well, your analysis of Christianity is wrong. The central basis of Christianity as pointed out by St. Athanasius is theosis, which means deification, 'God became man so that man might become god.' Christianity has pagan roots in the obvious Neoplatonic influences on the early Church fathers, and the Aristotlian influences on Medieval scholasticism. The burning of heretics is the burning of the weak, in that a proper Christian recognizes irrefutably his obligation to fulfill his duty towards theosis, which means accepting the teleological nature of himself or herself and actualizing that to the greatest degree possible. Christ's death is a sacrifice meant to embody the divinization of mankind, not a story of meek surrender in order to encourage the weak. The mistake you're making is a common one made by most modern opponents of Christianity, which is to be completely unaware of its historical and philosophical dimensions. Protestantism is not Christianity, it's a heresy. Egalitarianism, refusal of diversity and tradition, anti-heirarchical revolutions, these are all Protestantism. Also, traditional Catholicism and Orthodoxy are actually experiencing a renaissance of sorts in intellectual circles today. It isn't widely visible in the mainstream media, but that's because the left has an iron-grip on the media and mainstream academia, and has historically seen the Catholic Church (and by that I mean the Roman Catholic Church of the past, but most especially the Catholic Church as in the eternal philosophy of Catholicism) as its greatest opponent.

I've met people like you before. Your concerns are understandable, because I'm against modernity too. But people such as yourself always seemed shocked when they are introduced to the actual philosophical material of the early Church fathers, such as St. Athanasius, the Philokalia, Psuedo-Dionysius, and the Cappodocian fathers, as if this was some sort of Christianity they never knew existed.

Well, you clearly have a wider theological knowledge than me, so I'm going to resist the temptation to enter an argument about my interpretation of Christianity. What I will say however, is that I am not alone in my interpretation and, as you yourself recognise, it is shared by many. Hence, I doubt very much that it is entirely invalid. Protestantism may be a heresy to you, but to the vast majority of people (i.e. everyone who is not a traditional Catholic or Orthodox Christian) it is a perfectly valid form/interpretation of Xianity. Of course, very few of this dauntingly broad category are intelligent or informed enough for their opinion to count on this matter; but enough are. For instance, my own interpretation of Xianity is, predictably, one derived from Nietzsche, Heidegger, de Benoist, Evola etc. And as long as there is even a remote possibility that the interpretations that these thinkers propose for Xianity could arise, take form, and become influential institutions of thought and culture, I cannot accept Xianity as a viable ally. I think we can agree that protestantism could never have developed from paganism.

Anyway, to bring the discussion back on course, I'd like to ask if you yourself, as a traditional Catholic, would welcome an alliance with followers of heathen philosophy? What is your personal reaction to Conservationist's suggestion?
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: Athanasius contra mundum on December 13, 2011, 12:16:58 PM
I welcome an open allegiance with traditionalist pagans, Muslims, Jews, etc.
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: Forza Romana on December 13, 2011, 03:50:49 PM
On the topic of cultural rebuilding: I do this by simply being Italian and not giving in to the Americanization of who I am. My name is Giovanni, not John or what not. I am not ashamed of the Italian input of culture. Yes, there has been shit storms of fucked up situations. I will NOT deny this. But what I will not tolerate is those who give the Italian way a bad name. I have worked for many years to ensure that a pure sense of Italian culture can be seen and admired, to teach, to inspire.  This is my rant for this evening!
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: Conservationist on December 13, 2011, 04:40:01 PM
Bring back the Romans!
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: Von List on December 13, 2011, 05:36:24 PM
Ave Roma

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIuBM-fvQG0&feature=related
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: Jim Necroslaughter on December 13, 2011, 07:07:00 PM
Well, your analysis of Christianity is wrong. The central basis of Christianity as pointed out by St. Athanasius is theosis, which means deification, 'God became man so that man might become god.' Christianity has pagan roots in the obvious Neoplatonic influences on the early Church fathers, and the Aristotlian influences on Medieval scholasticism. The burning of heretics is the burning of the weak, in that a proper Christian recognizes irrefutably his obligation to fulfill his duty towards theosis, which means accepting the teleological nature of himself or herself and actualizing that to the greatest degree possible. Christ's death is a sacrifice meant to embody the divinization of mankind, not a story of meek surrender in order to encourage the weak. The mistake you're making is a common one made by most modern opponents of Christianity, which is to be completely unaware of its historical and philosophical dimensions. Protestantism is not Christianity, it's a heresy. Egalitarianism, refusal of diversity and tradition, anti-heirarchical revolutions, these are all Protestantism. Also, traditional Catholicism and Orthodoxy are actually experiencing a renaissance of sorts in intellectual circles today. It isn't widely visible in the mainstream media, but that's because the left has an iron-grip on the media and mainstream academia, and has historically seen the Catholic Church (and by that I mean the Roman Catholic Church of the past, but most especially the Catholic Church as in the eternal philosophy of Catholicism) as its greatest opponent.

I've met people like you before. Your concerns are understandable, because I'm against modernity too. But people such as yourself always seemed shocked when they are introduced to the actual philosophical material of the early Church fathers, such as St. Athanasius, the Philokalia, Psuedo-Dionysius, and the Cappodocian fathers, as if this was some sort of Christianity they never knew existed.

Well, you clearly have a wider theological knowledge than me, so I'm going to resist the temptation to enter an argument about my interpretation of Christianity. What I will say however, is that I am not alone in my interpretation and, as you yourself recognise, it is shared by many. Hence, I doubt very much that it is entirely invalid. Protestantism may be a heresy to you, but to the vast majority of people (i.e. everyone who is not a traditional Catholic or Orthodox Christian) it is a perfectly valid form/interpretation of Xianity. Of course, very few of this dauntingly broad category are intelligent or informed enough for their opinion to count on this matter; but enough are. For instance, my own interpretation of Xianity is, predictably, one derived from Nietzsche, Heidegger, de Benoist, Evola etc. And as long as there is even a remote possibility that the interpretations that these thinkers propose for Xianity could arise, take form, and become influential institutions of thought and culture, I cannot accept Xianity as a viable ally. I think we can agree that protestantism could never have developed from paganism.

Anyway, to bring the discussion back on course, I'd like to ask if you yourself, as a traditional Catholic, would welcome an alliance with followers of heathen philosophy? What is your personal reaction to Conservationist's suggestion?

And, as I remember it, Nietzsche had some especially pointed criticism for Luther and the Reformation, specifically.  It basically boiled down to the fact that it made Christianity even more egalitarian.  Nietzsche also said it was better to be a Borgia than a Parsifal.  I suppose this all implies that even Nietzsche had a certain respect for the hierarchical nature of the Catholic church.
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: Athanasius contra mundum on December 13, 2011, 08:39:17 PM
I really enjoy some of Nietzsche's work, especially his critical method of analyzing values and his praise of creativity. I agree with G.K. Chesterton's criticisms of him, as well as Evola's, however.
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: Conservationist on December 14, 2011, 01:17:25 AM
And what would a Nietzschean Christianity look like?

It would be a lot more Old Testament, like the Roman religions of blood, fire, death...

It might also be less doctrinaire and more human. That could be a failing; everything Enlightenment was and is bullshit.
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: indjaseemun on December 14, 2011, 08:02:27 AM
I hate to talk about stuff I don't understand, but I want to bring information I got from reading other people who studied christianity.

One thing is they say christianity was opposed to paganism, or at least to what it had become.

The other thing is that from what I've read, in orthodox christianity, christianity is no laughing matter, no BS: The disciplines for monks on orthodox christianity are not for the feeble minded, it is some tough shit.

Again, I know nothing about this, but this has come to me from reading others that had some knowldege on the topic.
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: Forza Romana on December 14, 2011, 09:59:54 AM
I love the Roman Idea and not what had made this wonderful empire fall. If we can rely on history to tell us, many of the races, tribes, etc rejected the Roman way, but thought better when they seen what they can offer in terms of food, structure, art and what not. The trick to it all is, how you can incorporate this into your culture and still have the identity.

It has been told the Romans, of the people they respected, one of the peoples was the Basque. Strong, and not willing to compromise their ways, the still found a way to have their identity. The Basques allowed the Roman to pass in the Pyrenees, as long as the Romans gave them their freedom. 

But yes, truly: AVE RROMA!
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: Saif al-Malik on December 14, 2011, 11:09:14 AM
It is redundant, but the Traditional forms of Christianity and Islam, even Judaism prior to its degradation integrated much of the "pagan" wisdom.  We see that the scholars of the time regarded the Greco-Roman philosophers are virtuous pagans in the case of the Christians, wise men of the Gentiles, or for Muslims, as sages on the verge of sainthood if on they were monotheists.  Unfortunately, those stoic men and women of virtue coupled with reason are gone.  Their warlike counterparts owing their allegiance to the transcendent reality have faded to nil and are at the whim of exoteric charlatans.
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: Annihilation on December 14, 2011, 11:13:25 PM
Also, traditional Catholicism and Orthodoxy are actually experiencing a renaissance of sorts in intellectual circles today.

Evidence?
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: Athanasius contra mundum on December 14, 2011, 11:36:26 PM
As I said, statistical evidence is difficult because the liberal-dominated mainstream media refuses to acknowledge such a movement for obvious reasons. However, there is evidence in the recent uprising of reactionary Christian blogs hosted by college professors, of which Bruce Charlton's Miscellany and Throne and Altar are two out of a handful of examples.

I see you have a link to Plotinus' Enneads in your signature. One of the most excellent philosophical works I have ever read.
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: Conservationist on December 16, 2011, 07:07:39 PM
Quote
So what’s the deal here? Why have Christians failed so miserably across the board in their sacred duty to uphold the sanctity of matrimony and prevent dissolution?

What’s happening is that Christianity has become an industry of sorts, and it caters to its consumers, who are overwhelmingly female. As wealth has transferred to women, who are the biggest discretionary spenders in the US by a wide margin, churches and preachers have turned to supplication to earn their daily bread.

...

Clearly, Molly has decided it’s time to find a proper husband, who she intended to deceive regarding her chastity. Why church? Because she knows that church is where men receive training regarding how to behave as husbands. Additionally, she knows that churches no longer treat marriage as a contract between those who enter into it and God, but rather a contract between the parties themselves, with God (whose advocate is the preacher) as the judge. And, as in family law, women will push the contract in their favor at every opportunity, resulting in ever more excuses for breaking it if she so chooses. As Dalrock has demonstrated, many Christian leaders will oblige her.

...

If true Christianity is to survive, it may need to reintroduce some of the characteristics of the early church, including segregation by gender. Male-only services may be of some value, as would removal of women from the altar. Supplication for profit must be eschewed, too. It’s a tall order, and probably more than Western Christians are willing to take on. The future of Christianity in the Western world looks tenuous at best.

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/11/21/is-christianity-salvageable/

Nietzsche railed against the feminine in politics and philosophy. Stop there. This article goes into Mens' Rights territory, which is inhabited by spineless neckbeards who want feminism for men so they can finally get laid without having to pay in baht.

I think it's worthy considering where Christianity went wrong. I think excessively monotheistic religions suffer from a notion of morality, with God as judge, which becomes a search for he who violates the crowd commandment to be nice to the weak/meek. This is the problem with Christianity, in a nutshell. It is exoteric, preaches a simple dogma, and part of this is the morally judging God. I prefer the Pagan view in every way here: praise to Odysseus, who "found a way" when there was none to be found, and who needed no morality because he always knew what was right according to the aristocratic hierarchy. He did not need simplistic rules for proles.

If Christianity could be restored to its pagan state, without the emosexual faggotry based on prole individualism a.k.a. selfishness, it would be a truly great religion. The Catholic church had glimpses of this, but it too became calcified and entrenched. Hence Martin Luther. The problem with protestantism is that it accelerates the individualism. It, too, needs taming.

I think we should propose a new church that is essentially Pagan but Christian in name, and adopts from Christianity the good things: social conservatism, piety, prayers of solitude, and the Old Testament God.

The rest can be Greco-Roman, Hindu, or elder Eddas.

As far as the mens' rightsers go, they're fools. There are no good options for men until liberalism is crushed.

Quote
'Tradition' as promoted by Evola, Schuon, H. Smith, and Nasr, and a few other luminaries of the 'Tradition' theory, endorse something like esoteric allegorical understanding of fields of knowledge.  Do they uncritically assume there was a single historical individual who was the necessary kernel for the eventual Jesus figure?  Do they promote mysticism, in their promotion of their 'esoteric knowledge'?  If so, what is their conception of mysticism or esotericism -- is it founded on the psychological phenomena of the mystic altered state?

All the no-Jesus researchers agree that there was no Jesus; Jesus was instead a matter of esoteric allegory.  But that replaces a misunderstanding by an unknown: what are no-Jesus researchers proposing when they propose that the Jesus figure was a matter of "esoteric allegory"?  One simple, materialist answer: "it means annual fertility of crops, which filled the simple-minded ancients with great fear and awe and a deep religious sense of dependency.

An equivalent alternative answer: "it means the sun and astrology/cosmology.  The ancients really thought astrology was interesting, and useful for crops, navigation, and prediction."

Those meanings *are* very important, but they omit the most essential spirit of the matter.  The answers miss a certain essential quality of what astrology/cosmology and fertility *meant*.  Those answers are correct as far as they go, which isn't very far, given that they omit mystic-state, psychological experiencing, which ignited these fields and brought them alive, brought them down to earth below, into the heart of the individual psyche.  Theorists of 'Tradition' agree with this view to some extent, which I am trying to identify.

Proponents of "Jesus as visionary plant minister" or "Jesus as visionary plant" say their proposed meaning is a better candidate; that it makes more sense to centralize the amanita cap than the sun as real, ultimate, uber-referent of the Jesus figure.  There is some truth to that argument, because the visionary plant is closer to psychological phenomena than the sun is, because the plant produces the phenomena.

However, even more central must be the allegorized psychological phenomena themselves -- the *experience* of the sun-like white-light phenomenon in the psyche; the *experience* of spacetime crucifixion in the psyche.  Therefore I agree that the sun doctrine could be a revealed secret, but only weakly, and that visionary plants could be a somewhat more hidden and profound secret, but that the ultimate hidden and revealed, most profound secret must be the experiential intense mystic-state phenomena in the individual psyche.

Perhaps the ultimate unveiled and revealed secret is "the kingship of God", meaning specifically that there's no individual free will in the all-fated cosmos.

http://www.egodeath.com/JesusFigureEsotericOrigin.htm

I trust the solar gods more than anthropomorphic ones.
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: Athanasius contra mundum on December 17, 2011, 06:11:13 AM
You're completely disregarding aspects of Christianity such as monasticism, theosis, knightly orders, etc. I recommend you read some more Chesterton and Belloc, and some more theological works such as the Philokalia and the Summa Theologica, and perhaps look over Dante's Comedy again (stop trying to claim it for something other than Catholicism, Dante would hate you for that).

You can't just equate leftist Christianity with all of Christianity and declare the religion dead. I could utilize that same logic against Hinduism, due to the fact that India is Westernizing at an exponential rate. I'm sure there are Hindu right blogs that are equivalent to this:

http://bonald.wordpress.com/in-defense-of-patriarchy/

http://bonald.wordpress.com/in-defense-of-monarchy/

http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/ralph/workbook/ralprs14c.html

I'll admit that Chesterton was from a far better time, but let's see what he has to say on Christianity as it relates to other religions, shall we?
Quote
'...But we must look elsewhere for his real rivals, and the only real rivals of the Catholic theory. They are the heads of great heathen systems; some of them very ancient, some very modern, like Buddha on the one hand or Nietzsche on the other. It is when we see his gigantic figure against this vast and cosmic background, that we realise, first, that he was the only optimist theologian, and second, that Catholicism is the only optimist theology. Something milder and more amiable may be made out of the deliquescence of theology, and the mixture of the creed with everything that contradicts it; but among consistent cosmic creeds, this is the only one that is entirely on the side of Life.
 
Comparative religion has indeed allowed us to compare religions-- and to contrast them. Fifty years ago, it set out to prove that all religions were much the same; generally proving, alternately, that they were all equally worthy and that they were all equally worthless. Since then this scientific process has suddenly begun to be scientific, and discovered the depths of the chasms as well as the heights of the hills. It is indeed an excellent improvement that sincerely religious people should respect each other. But respect has discovered difference, where contempt knew only indifference. The more we really appreciate the noble revulsion and renunciation of Buddha, the more we see that intellectually it was the converse and almost the contrary of the salvation of the world by Christ. The Christian would escape from the world into the universe: the Buddhist wishes to escape from the universe even more than from the world. One would uncreate himself; the other would return to his Creation: to his Creator. Indeed it was so genuinely the converse of the idea of the Cross as the Tree of Life, that there is some excuse for setting up the two things side by side, as if they were of equal significance. They are in one sense parallel and equal; as a mound and a hollow, as a valley and a hill. There is a sense in which that sublime despair is the only alternative to that divine audacity. It is even true that the truly spiritual and intellectual man sees it as a sort of dilemma; a very hard and terrible choice. There is little else on earth that can compare with these for completeness. And he who will not climb the mountain of Christ does indeed fall into the abyss of Buddha.
 
The same is true, in a less lucid and dignified fashion, of most other alternatives of heathen humanity; nearly all are sucked back into that whirlpool of recurrence which all the ancients knew. Nearly all return to the one idea of returning. That is what Buddha described so darkly as the Sorrowful Wheel. It is true that the sort of recurrence which Buddha described as the Sorrowful Wheel, poor Nietzsche actually managed to describe as the Joyful Wisdom. I can only say that if bare repetition was his idea of Joyful Wisdom, I should be curious to know what was his idea of Sorrowful Wisdom. But as a fact, in the case of Nietzsche, this did not belong to the moment of his breaking out, but to the moment of his breaking down. It came at the end of his life, when he was near to mental collapse; and it is really quite contrary to his earlier and finer inspirations of wild freedom or fresh and creative innovation. Once at least he had tried to break out; but he also was only broken-- on the wheel.
 
Alone upon the earth, and lifted and liberated from all the wheels and whirlpools of the earth, stands up the faith of St. Thomas weighted and balanced indeed with more than Oriental metaphysics and more than Pagan pomp and pageantry; but vitally and vividly alone in declaring that life is a living story, with a great beginning and a great close; rooted in the primeval joy of God and finding its fruition in the final happiness of humanity; opening with the colossal chorus in which the sons of God shouted for joy, and ending in that mystical comradeship, shown in a shadowy fashion in those ancient words that move like an archaic dance; "For His delight is with the sons of men." '
 
Excerpted from Chapter IV of 'Saint Thomas Aquinas', by GK Chesterton...

Or perhaps his understanding of modern, degenerated Christianity?
Quote
A different perspective that I was not privy to prior to reading this, Chesterton criticizes the modern world on the basis that it is constituted by 'wasted virtue', and isolated morals that have devolved in their separation from the main paradigm... this in contrast to Nietzsche, who supposes that the 'paradigm', viz. Christianity, is instead the villain... Anyway, without further ado.... today's quotation!


'The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues. When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was shattered at the Reformation), it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful. For example, Mr. Blatchford attacks Christianity because he is mad on one Christian virtue: the merely mystical and almost irrational virtue of charity. He has a strange idea that he will make it easier to forgive sins by saying there are no sins to forgive. Mr. Blatchford is not only an early Christian, he is the only early Christian who ought really to have been eaten by lions. For in his case the pagan accusation is really true: his mercy would mean mere anarchy. He really is the enemy of the human race - because he is so human...

'It is only with one aspect of humility that we are here concerned. Humility was largely meant as a restraint upon the arrogance and infinity of man. He was always outstripping his mercies with his own newly invented needs. His very power of enjoyment destroyed half his joys... Hence it became evident that if a man would make his world large, he must be always making himself small. Even the haughty visions, the tall cities, and the toppling pinnacles are the creations of humility. Towers that vanish upwards above the loneliest star are the creations of humility. For towers are not tall unless we look up at them; and giants are not giants unless they are larger than we. All this gigantesque imagination, which is, perhaps, the mightiest of pleasures of man, is at bottom entirely humble. It is impossible without humility to enjoy anything - even pride.

'But what we suffer from today is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. Nowadays the part of a man that a man does assert is exactly the part he ought not to assert - himself. The part he doubts is exactly the part he ought not to doubt - the Divine Reason... We should be wrong if we had said hastily that there is no humility typical of our time; but it so happens that it is practically a more poisonous humility than the wildest prostrations of the ascetic. The old humility was a spur that prevented a man from stopping; not a nail in his boot that prevented him from going on. For the old humility made a man doubful about his efforts, which might make him work harder. But the new humility makes a man doubtful about his aims, which will make him stop working altogether.'

GK Chesterton, Orthodoxy

Proper Catholic society would resemble the society of Middle-Earth. We do not see God as judge purely for the sake of denigrating those who fall outside of the social order, but as a means towards the ascetic end of Christianity. The single most important aspect to the Faith is Christ's incarnation, His unification of God and man in one person. Our goal is, through asceticism, to realize the resemblance of all things to God, and thus the proper method of responding to those things. Sometimes the proper method isn't the one that makes itself readily apparent, sometimes it is, it's all a matter of realizing beauty. That's what Christianity is: the doctrine of beauty, the doctrine of reforming the world into a symphony, or a cathedral, in a somewhat metaphorical manner.

If we're going to be pointing the finger at someone, we're going to have to point it at nigh every single thing about society today. I'll repeat myself, the first step is to synthesize conservative opposition to the modern world, and we Catholics, pagans, Jews, and Muslims need to work together in this. I suppose atheists could join in on the effort, but I have my doubts as to whether they'll understand the conservative conception of authority or not, at least fully.

Title: Re: ✠
Post by: Conservationist on December 17, 2011, 08:00:20 AM
http://bonald.wordpress.com/in-defense-of-monarchy/

Remember that my thesis is that Crowdism infests and destroys everything. It has within my sight infested and destroyed: Paganism, national socialism, black metal, drug culture, death metal, local charitable organizations, several businesses, two administrations, etc.

However, we need to make the Christian faith inured to Crowdism so that it does not easily lend itself to being taken over by the Crowd, yet is able to motivate and harness them.

I will always appreciate the standouts like Bonald, Eckhart, Blake, etc. but these are not mainstream Christianity. (It may be that mainstream anything is headed to Douchebag Street by virtue of mainstream, not what it specifically is.)

The point is that Christianity, if it returns to its Pagan roots, will be stronger and might serve as a religion for Europe. It needs to be fully Europeanized, which means removing the anti-Aryan measures such as egalitarianism ("the meek shall inherit the earth") and a monotheism that supports a personal moral relationship to God in which the pitied are to be supported.

Can we do that?

Quote
I'll admit that Chesterton was from a far better time, but let's see what he has to say on Christianity as it relates to other religions, shall we?
Quote
'...But we must look elsewhere for his real rivals, and the only real rivals of the Catholic theory. They are the heads of great heathen systems; some of them very ancient, some very modern, like Buddha on the one hand or Nietzsche on the other. It is when we see his gigantic figure against this vast and cosmic background, that we realise, first, that he was the only optimist theologian, and second, that Catholicism is the only optimist theology. Something milder and more amiable may be made out of the deliquescence of theology, and the mixture of the creed with everything that contradicts it; but among consistent cosmic creeds, this is the only one that is entirely on the side of Life.
 
Comparative religion has indeed allowed us to compare religions-- and to contrast them. Fifty years ago, it set out to prove that all religions were much the same; generally proving, alternately, that they were all equally worthy and that they were all equally worthless. Since then this scientific process has suddenly begun to be scientific, and discovered the depths of the chasms as well as the heights of the hills. It is indeed an excellent improvement that sincerely religious people should respect each other. But respect has discovered difference, where contempt knew only indifference. The more we really appreciate the noble revulsion and renunciation of Buddha, the more we see that intellectually it was the converse and almost the contrary of the salvation of the world by Christ. The Christian would escape from the world into the universe: the Buddhist wishes to escape from the universe even more than from the world. One would uncreate himself; the other would return to his Creation: to his Creator. Indeed it was so genuinely the converse of the idea of the Cross as the Tree of Life, that there is some excuse for setting up the two things side by side, as if they were of equal significance. They are in one sense parallel and equal; as a mound and a hollow, as a valley and a hill. There is a sense in which that sublime despair is the only alternative to that divine audacity. It is even true that the truly spiritual and intellectual man sees it as a sort of dilemma; a very hard and terrible choice. There is little else on earth that can compare with these for completeness. And he who will not climb the mountain of Christ does indeed fall into the abyss of Buddha.
 
The same is true, in a less lucid and dignified fashion, of most other alternatives of heathen humanity; nearly all are sucked back into that whirlpool of recurrence which all the ancients knew. Nearly all return to the one idea of returning. That is what Buddha described so darkly as the Sorrowful Wheel. It is true that the sort of recurrence which Buddha described as the Sorrowful Wheel, poor Nietzsche actually managed to describe as the Joyful Wisdom. I can only say that if bare repetition was his idea of Joyful Wisdom, I should be curious to know what was his idea of Sorrowful Wisdom. But as a fact, in the case of Nietzsche, this did not belong to the moment of his breaking out, but to the moment of his breaking down. It came at the end of his life, when he was near to mental collapse; and it is really quite contrary to his earlier and finer inspirations of wild freedom or fresh and creative innovation. Once at least he had tried to break out; but he also was only broken-- on the wheel.
 
Alone upon the earth, and lifted and liberated from all the wheels and whirlpools of the earth, stands up the faith of St. Thomas weighted and balanced indeed with more than Oriental metaphysics and more than Pagan pomp and pageantry; but vitally and vividly alone in declaring that life is a living story, with a great beginning and a great close; rooted in the primeval joy of God and finding its fruition in the final happiness of humanity; opening with the colossal chorus in which the sons of God shouted for joy, and ending in that mystical comradeship, shown in a shadowy fashion in those ancient words that move like an archaic dance; "For His delight is with the sons of men." '
 
Excerpted from Chapter IV of 'Saint Thomas Aquinas', by GK Chesterton...

Or perhaps his understanding of modern, degenerated Christianity?
Quote
A different perspective that I was not privy to prior to reading this, Chesterton criticizes the modern world on the basis that it is constituted by 'wasted virtue', and isolated morals that have devolved in their separation from the main paradigm... this in contrast to Nietzsche, who supposes that the 'paradigm', viz. Christianity, is instead the villain... Anyway, without further ado.... today's quotation!


'The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues. When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was shattered at the Reformation), it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful. For example, Mr. Blatchford attacks Christianity because he is mad on one Christian virtue: the merely mystical and almost irrational virtue of charity. He has a strange idea that he will make it easier to forgive sins by saying there are no sins to forgive. Mr. Blatchford is not only an early Christian, he is the only early Christian who ought really to have been eaten by lions. For in his case the pagan accusation is really true: his mercy would mean mere anarchy. He really is the enemy of the human race - because he is so human...

'It is only with one aspect of humility that we are here concerned. Humility was largely meant as a restraint upon the arrogance and infinity of man. He was always outstripping his mercies with his own newly invented needs. His very power of enjoyment destroyed half his joys... Hence it became evident that if a man would make his world large, he must be always making himself small. Even the haughty visions, the tall cities, and the toppling pinnacles are the creations of humility. Towers that vanish upwards above the loneliest star are the creations of humility. For towers are not tall unless we look up at them; and giants are not giants unless they are larger than we. All this gigantesque imagination, which is, perhaps, the mightiest of pleasures of man, is at bottom entirely humble. It is impossible without humility to enjoy anything - even pride.

'But what we suffer from today is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. Nowadays the part of a man that a man does assert is exactly the part he ought not to assert - himself. The part he doubts is exactly the part he ought not to doubt - the Divine Reason... We should be wrong if we had said hastily that there is no humility typical of our time; but it so happens that it is practically a more poisonous humility than the wildest prostrations of the ascetic. The old humility was a spur that prevented a man from stopping; not a nail in his boot that prevented him from going on. For the old humility made a man doubful about his efforts, which might make him work harder. But the new humility makes a man doubtful about his aims, which will make him stop working altogether.'

GK Chesterton, Orthodoxy

Proper Catholic society would resemble the society of Middle-Earth. We do not see God as judge purely for the sake of denigrating those who fall outside of the social order, but as a means towards the ascetic end of Christianity. The single most important aspect to the Faith is Christ's incarnation, His unification of God and man in one person. Our goal is, through asceticism, to realize the resemblance of all things to God, and thus the proper method of responding to those things. Sometimes the proper method isn't the one that makes itself readily apparent, sometimes it is, it's all a matter of realizing beauty. That's what Christianity is: the doctrine of beauty, the doctrine of reforming the world into a symphony, or a cathedral, in a somewhat metaphorical manner.

If we're going to be pointing the finger at someone, we're going to have to point it at nigh every single thing about society today. I'll repeat myself, the first step is to synthesize conservative opposition to the modern world, and we Catholics, pagans, Jews, and Muslims need to work together in this. I suppose atheists could join in on the effort, but I have my doubts as to whether they'll understand the conservative conception of authority or not, at least fully.

You make some good points in the above, but I can't let it stand. I am, after all, Satan.

I like the idea of Middle Earth, but that requires more than religion alone.

I don't like Jesus. He's a whiny hipster. His occasional good points (the parable of the talents) are drowned out in a sea of drama. In fact, what has kept me away from Christianity for most of my life, and made me hate it virulently, is the entire Christ story. It's a retarded mythos stolen from more intelligent people. It is sappy, fundamentally Middle Eastern in its "show tunes" quality of saccharine and yet manipulative pandering, and utterly useless but for one thing: day laborer Jesus tells his tormentors that he is not afraid of death, and he will do what is right, "regardless." That alone is beautiful. It is made less beautiful by the talk of assured immortality. As a nihilist, I find what is exhilarating is the decision to do what is right no matter what comes, whether eternal non-existence or eternal light. To me, that is the essential challenge of life.

I do not believe the goal should be God or Christianity. Rather, it should be the divine order of the cosmos, of which Christianity is one interpretation. Any other view is prone to human fallacy. The point should be underscored, however, that a caste system exists and most of us lack validity in any criticism of our religious leaders. We are not all equal. Only the ones at the top really count. And this should be hammered home into their tinny thin little skulls.

I agree we have to point the finger at everything in modern society today. And what is its origin? 1789, and before that, a gradual process of liberalization which Christianity did not stop.

If I were to accept Christianity, it would have to be Pagan, which is to say, adding Satan to the pantheon. Evil and good together are necessary. Evil is horrible and stupid, in one view (see the other thread), but it is also what enables variability. Nothing gold can stay. So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: nous on December 17, 2011, 10:04:44 AM
He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Meister Eckhart would turn in his grave if he knew that the same person who mentions him favorably ridicules the Son of God. And he would say: "the more they blaspheme, the more they praise Him."

Learn humility. Even if you are not a Christian: who do you think you are that you could judge a Prophet? Moses, Jesus, Muhammad etc. are all above suspicion for any man who has any reverence for God; they are His messengers and ipso facto outshine us all in perfection.

It is made less beautiful by the talk of assured immortality.

All true Philosophers and all religious Prophets have proclaimed and defended the idea of the the immortality of the soul, while differing in subtleties. But whether that life then will be pleasant or unpleasant, they proclaim, depends on how we live our life on this earth:

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."
Matthew 7:21

Quote
It's a retarded mythos stolen from more intelligent people.

I think you don't believe it because you lack confidence in God, i.e. that He could do it. However, every religion requires such belief. It is not so difficult if one starts with the premise that God is omnipotent; consequently every wonder is normal--although still awe-inspiring--when one considers who is responsible for it.

Quote
I find what is exhilarating is the decision to do what is right no matter what comes, whether eternal non-existence or eternal light.

This is a false dilemma. Whatever you do that is right, God will not punish you for it in the Hereafter. But the standard is His, and the judgement is His also. Still, He says: My Mercy precedes my Wrath.

Quote
Evil and good together are necessary. Evil is horrible and stupid, in one view (see the other thread), but it is also what enables variability.

You think that Reality were incompatible with Christianity, which again is a false dilemma persisting in your mind. Yes, this world necessarily contains evil; evil is, so to speak, incorporated in it. It is laughable, though, to accuse Christianity of ignoring evil. You might disagree with what is identified as evil, but that is something else entirely. For a Christian, every deed that leads to the death of the soul is fleshly and evil, even if it looks neat from the outside. And every deed that lets it live in God is holy and good, even if it looks ludicrous from the outside. But to understand what exactly leads to the death of the soul, one needs to hear the Word of God and practice It; the outsider who does not practice a religion is like one who is blindfolded, and only with some effort will he be able to remove his blindfold and finally see, cf. Plato's Cave allegory.
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: fallot on December 17, 2011, 11:17:56 AM
The decision to do what is right stands whether the promise of reward in a hereafter exists or not (or even if a hereafter exists). When you believe, you believe, you don't pay lip service or clamor for eternal life and pleasure. If the Lord of the Universe commands, then as an infinitesmally smaller element you obey, for that is the voice of existence itself. The motivation is absolute purpose.
Title: Re: ✠
Post by: Athanasius contra mundum on December 17, 2011, 01:14:57 PM
I don't like Jesus. He's a whiny hipster. His occasional good points (the parable of the talents) are drowned out in a sea of drama. In fact, what has kept me away from Christianity for most of my life, and made me hate it virulently, is the entire Christ story. It's a retarded mythos stolen from more intelligent people. It is sappy, fundamentally Middle Eastern in its "show tunes" quality of saccharine and yet manipulative pandering, and utterly useless but for one thing: day laborer Jesus tells his tormentors that he is not afraid of death, and he will do what is right, "regardless." That alone is beautiful. It is made less beautiful by the talk of assured immortality. As a nihilist, I find what is exhilarating is the decision to do what is right no matter what comes, whether eternal non-existence or eternal light. To me, that is the essential challenge of life.

I do not believe the goal should be God or Christianity. Rather, it should be the divine order of the cosmos, of which Christianity is one interpretation. Any other view is prone to human fallacy. The point should be underscored, however, that a caste system exists and most of us lack validity in any criticism of our religious leaders. We are not all equal. Only the ones at the top really count. And this should be hammered home into their tinny thin little skulls.

I agree we have to point the finger at everything in modern society today. And what is its origin? 1789, and before that, a gradual process of liberalization which Christianity did not stop.

If I were to accept Christianity, it would have to be Pagan, which is to say, adding Satan to the pantheon. Evil and good together are necessary. Evil is horrible and stupid, in one view (see the other thread), but it is also what enables variability. Nothing gold can stay. So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.

Without the resurrection, the sacrifice of the Mass, and thus the entire ritual binding of the Catholic Faith would not be possible. No one is going to feel it necessary to subsume themselves into a traditional, sacred form if they feel they can put them on or take them off like they do with their favorite clothing. Through moral consensus, as is reached in the Faith, we are able to impart character and thus positive achievement upon society. Your criticisms of the resurrection are frankly trite. Firstly, the claim that the meek shall inherit the earth is an exhortation to betterment of oneself. It is the weak who need to be pushed, not the strong. The strong should instead be focused on how to best organize the weak in order to cultivate strength in said weaklings; thus the entire ethos of pity that you denigrate without any serious consideration. Remember, Christ also said 'be perfect as your Father is perfect'. Perfect here means far more than the common perspective of never doing wrong, as Aquinas goes into intense detail to demonstrate. It is also good to remember, as Chesterton said, that one should be the most healthy kind of patriot of the cosmos: that is a patriot who is both unwilling to refuse the cosmos out of selfishness, but is also willing to smash the cosmos to make it better. Of course, better must be understood in a fashion that obviously isn't selfish, thus Chesterton's first point in that twofold understanding of true cosmic patriotism. The understanding of Satan as a source of evil is an infantile, Protestant conception as well. Evil does not have its source in Satan, because evil cannot have any real being if we define evil in a non-contradictory manner. Satan is a symbol for one thing, and one thing only: self-pandering inability, and the denial of the cosmic order that you exhort others to recognize and adapt to. Satan does not cause sin, he only tempts others to it, and even then only very rarely. We also must understand that the proper understanding of sin, the understanding that isn't self-contradictory such as the modern, mainstream Protestant understanding, is what separates the individual from being able to recognize the beauty of particularized things. The resurrection, to an Orthodox Christian such as myself, is not a time to cry over the death of your savior; that's stupid. It's a time of intense glory and revelation, because it represents the uncovering of the doctrine of beauty to the world.

P.S.: Anyone who perceives paradise as a land of eternal happiness has a faulty understanding of paradise.