I disagree with the claim that Christianity began in the New Testament or that Rabbinic Judaism is the same religion as the one the Israelites practiced. Rather than just repeating what he said, I recommend you go read The Religion of the Apostles by Fr. Stephen de Young. He gives like 50 examples of 1) the God of the New Testament being the same as the OT 2) Rabbinic Judaism emerging as a distinct, separate scholarly tradition exclusively to oppose Christianity in about 400 AD (the reaction of the Jewish scholarly class to Christianity's legality and adoption).
Also, the religion of the Israelites itself was quite legalistic, I don't see evidence for claiming RJ is "more" legalistic than the religion that dictated Le mixed cloths etc.
Do you have a source (Lol) for Yahweh emerging from a greateer skyfather archetype? He seems to have always been Yahweh for as long as we've had evidence of him at all (since about 2000BC iirc)
I remember a while back I used to think you were pagan for some reason. Same with natsaxon and electionmaps (actually I don't know about natsaxon? curious...)
I just went through like a 12 month period where I talked a lot about baganism in order to learn more about it. And I read a bunch of primary texts etc. to actually understand what it's about. But I've never stopped being an Ortholarp
I would like to say that I count myself among "Pagang", or maybe agnostic. But this argument isn't really Christians vs. Pagans. You'll have to go to India to get something like that. It's theism vs. athiesm. Modern, right wing pagans aren't pagans, they're Evolutionists. And I capitalize that to show that it's not just a belief in evolution, it's a belief in the practical (possibly moral) superiority of evolution over all. "Pagans" believe in the emperical first, and the metaphysical second. Most metaphysical beliefs are vague to avoid conflict with our empericism. The faith of pagans is an intentional placebo, created knowingly, in order to make us stronger and help us with our real goal: reproduction and evolution.
"Life affirming" isn't something that's pleasurable, it's something that improves one's access to resources and positive selective evolutionary pressures. The violence of blacks can vaguely serve this purpose, but they don't really have a proper understanding of their actions and the impact on their future descendants. Africans steal and kill amd destroy Detroit, Vikings steal and kill and build Stockholm.
Just wanted to clear up what is a perfectly reasonable misunderstanding, since a lot of pagang don't like to admit this. I should probably make a full post about my beliefs some time.
I think its interesting that there are few pagans who *literally* worship Wotan or think the Sagas / Eddas etc. are *literal* events. But if Life Affirming means improving access to resources and positive evolutionary pressures, why did historic pagans act the way they did?
For example, stealing from others instead of creating their own industry. Medieval Nordics didn't have a lot going on outside ship building, some farming and metallurgy. Surely perpetual low-grade warfare is not the greatest way to improve access to resources?
One claim you should address is Christianity being owned/led by third-worlders in the modern era, or the claim that it was essentially the BLM of Ancient Rome. It'd be interesting to read your thoughts
Nietzsche viewed Christianity via the lends of nihilism, his analysis is fundamentally flawed because of this. He believed that since Christianity protected the weak that it was anti-power and thus ‘slave morality’ as opposed to strong ‘master morality.’ This is ridiculous and since Freddy wasn’t a slave master, military commander, or even a businessman his reflections on power are lacking legitimacy in my view.
You need to read N-man; your current (mis)understanding of slave-morality leads to a lackluster argument. Otherwise, coming from a detractor of Christianity, this was a great read.
Nietzsche was a major inspiration for Thedor Herzl for obvious reasons, and is therefor often cited in Zionist works, but I don't recall Nietzsche himself ever advocating for it. His so-called "rejection of NS" usually comes from modern defenders of Nietzsche attempting to distance themselves from the movement, whether misinterpreting his philosophy (which is unfortunately very common) or to simply escape the ideological pogroms of right-wing intellectuals. Because Nietzsche predates the inception of NS, it is disingenuous to state that he had an opinion on the movement, though I believe his writings make it quite clear that he would have viewed it at worst a step closer to the realization of the Superman (everyone knows H-man viewed this as one of his top priorities). He did despise antisemites and nationalists for good reason, so there may be some legitimacy to the "anti-NS" argument; his reasons for this are often discussed on ifunny and I don't think it necessary to speak on it again here. However, I think the steps the Germans took to advance the coming of the Superman would have outweighed any animosity Nietzsche felt towards them.
Bottom feeders validating something is not a defense of it. The Bottom Feeders of today are making the NuJudaicDescendent of tomorrow.
In all of this though, it never addressed the most important insult: Christianity is a religion centered around Yahweh’s Chosen People, the Jews, and we are all their Rightful Servants and Slaves.
where's a good place to start with Nietzsche?
Thanks fella, I appreciate the QRD. Nietzsche is on da reading list now
Watched some of Russel Walter’s videos, they’re fantastic. Thanks for the recommendation
I disagree with the claim that Christianity began in the New Testament or that Rabbinic Judaism is the same religion as the one the Israelites practiced. Rather than just repeating what he said, I recommend you go read The Religion of the Apostles by Fr. Stephen de Young. He gives like 50 examples of 1) the God of the New Testament being the same as the OT 2) Rabbinic Judaism emerging as a distinct, separate scholarly tradition exclusively to oppose Christianity in about 400 AD (the reaction of the Jewish scholarly class to Christianity's legality and adoption).
Also, the religion of the Israelites itself was quite legalistic, I don't see evidence for claiming RJ is "more" legalistic than the religion that dictated Le mixed cloths etc.
Do you have a source (Lol) for Yahweh emerging from a greateer skyfather archetype? He seems to have always been Yahweh for as long as we've had evidence of him at all (since about 2000BC iirc)
I remember a while back I used to think you were pagan for some reason. Same with natsaxon and electionmaps (actually I don't know about natsaxon? curious...)
I just went through like a 12 month period where I talked a lot about baganism in order to learn more about it. And I read a bunch of primary texts etc. to actually understand what it's about. But I've never stopped being an Ortholarp
This was a great read. Thanks for putting it all together like this. I really love that Napoleon quote too.
Don’t let Bloodtheism read this!
He'll pick out one line he doesn't like and ignore everything else btw
I would like to say that I count myself among "Pagang", or maybe agnostic. But this argument isn't really Christians vs. Pagans. You'll have to go to India to get something like that. It's theism vs. athiesm. Modern, right wing pagans aren't pagans, they're Evolutionists. And I capitalize that to show that it's not just a belief in evolution, it's a belief in the practical (possibly moral) superiority of evolution over all. "Pagans" believe in the emperical first, and the metaphysical second. Most metaphysical beliefs are vague to avoid conflict with our empericism. The faith of pagans is an intentional placebo, created knowingly, in order to make us stronger and help us with our real goal: reproduction and evolution.
"Life affirming" isn't something that's pleasurable, it's something that improves one's access to resources and positive selective evolutionary pressures. The violence of blacks can vaguely serve this purpose, but they don't really have a proper understanding of their actions and the impact on their future descendants. Africans steal and kill amd destroy Detroit, Vikings steal and kill and build Stockholm.
Just wanted to clear up what is a perfectly reasonable misunderstanding, since a lot of pagang don't like to admit this. I should probably make a full post about my beliefs some time.
I think its interesting that there are few pagans who *literally* worship Wotan or think the Sagas / Eddas etc. are *literal* events. But if Life Affirming means improving access to resources and positive evolutionary pressures, why did historic pagans act the way they did?
For example, stealing from others instead of creating their own industry. Medieval Nordics didn't have a lot going on outside ship building, some farming and metallurgy. Surely perpetual low-grade warfare is not the greatest way to improve access to resources?
You should make that post btw
One claim you should address is Christianity being owned/led by third-worlders in the modern era, or the claim that it was essentially the BLM of Ancient Rome. It'd be interesting to read your thoughts
these are good ones, noted!
Nietzsche viewed Christianity via the lends of nihilism, his analysis is fundamentally flawed because of this. He believed that since Christianity protected the weak that it was anti-power and thus ‘slave morality’ as opposed to strong ‘master morality.’ This is ridiculous and since Freddy wasn’t a slave master, military commander, or even a businessman his reflections on power are lacking legitimacy in my view.
Short form content, is longest essay yet
BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP
You need to read N-man; your current (mis)understanding of slave-morality leads to a lackluster argument. Otherwise, coming from a detractor of Christianity, this was a great read.
What do you guys make of Nietzsche’s alleged Zionism and otherwise rejection of NS?
Nietzsche was a major inspiration for Thedor Herzl for obvious reasons, and is therefor often cited in Zionist works, but I don't recall Nietzsche himself ever advocating for it. His so-called "rejection of NS" usually comes from modern defenders of Nietzsche attempting to distance themselves from the movement, whether misinterpreting his philosophy (which is unfortunately very common) or to simply escape the ideological pogroms of right-wing intellectuals. Because Nietzsche predates the inception of NS, it is disingenuous to state that he had an opinion on the movement, though I believe his writings make it quite clear that he would have viewed it at worst a step closer to the realization of the Superman (everyone knows H-man viewed this as one of his top priorities). He did despise antisemites and nationalists for good reason, so there may be some legitimacy to the "anti-NS" argument; his reasons for this are often discussed on ifunny and I don't think it necessary to speak on it again here. However, I think the steps the Germans took to advance the coming of the Superman would have outweighed any animosity Nietzsche felt towards them.
Bottom feeders validating something is not a defense of it. The Bottom Feeders of today are making the NuJudaicDescendent of tomorrow.
In all of this though, it never addressed the most important insult: Christianity is a religion centered around Yahweh’s Chosen People, the Jews, and we are all their Rightful Servants and Slaves.