LANY:> But to satisfy the mainstream on this list, I will admit there are Jewish extremists (in the west bank), but you will find it hard to convince me that they ...or any other jew (or christian for this sake) will ever plot a simple mass murder of innocent people.
Oh really! I suppose the Jewish genocidal starvation in Russia is nothing.
I suppose all those bloody passages in the Talmud/Torah are not convincing enough for you. http://jewwatch.com/jew-occupiedgovernments-USSR.html
"The starvation of men, women and children has been the most approved English method of warfare since the Jews became dominant there - Ireland, China, India, the Boers, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Italy and now France, Holland, Belgium, Norway and Spain. England and the Jews, with our help, in the name of civilization and Christianity, have illegally made food contraband against friendly peaceable nations and call it economic warfare - viz: Jewish warfare - the Four Horsemen."" (War! War! War!, Cincinnatus, p. 242).
"One site that some have sought to undesign is the city of Jerusalem. Occupying a contested plot of land, Jerusalem is the apotheosis of error. Architect Lebbeus Woods observed that standing inside “the borderline are other borderlines†(38%), which is aptly illustrated by two key vectors, the vertical Western Wall and the horizontal flat rooftops of Jerusalem. Standing for thousands of years, the Western (Wailing) Wall in Jerusalem is a site of prayer and blood, the sacred topos of religious certainties rendered uncertain by politics and war. To study its façade is to study “the communication between the inside and the outside†(Tostrup 13)-to probe the depths of a single surface polished by hands, to step back from the wall, to detach ourselves from its visceral wail-is to study a design born of disunification as an unbuilt text of “full-scale realities that have not yet been made concrete†(Tostrup 12). Architects Deborah Natsios and John Young have realized the paradox of such border politics by deconstructing an above-ground horizontal plane of the Divided City utilizing the rooftops of Jerusalem.
In their essay, “Jerusalem SKY,†Natsios and Young propose a radical conjuncture of military and ecological topoi as a means of “[subordinating] pernicious surveillance to the knowledge-based act of seeing Jerusalem anew†(“SKY†np). Opting for reclaiming the sky as eco-political space (redefining total air supremacy), their project aims to track and monitor migratory bird populations whose trajectory takes them over the divided city of Jerusalem. Using the thousands of flat rooftops of Jerusalem, Natsios and Young lift the plane of conflict above ground, yet they utilize existing structures for participation in an ecological intervention into the troubled reality of Arab-Israeli relations. The project would retrofit military technology in the service of the migratory winged pilgrims making their journey south every year, using what was once the exclusive paraphernalia of war--real-time surveillance radar warning systems, satellites, and unmanned military drones. They envision “[b]ird's-eye-view perspectives of Jerusalem [that would] construct the city along the pilgrim's spiritual horizon, a vertical axis whose vanishing points converge into sanctified sky--the allegorical airspace of Jesus' and Muhammad's respective ascensions†(np)."
"One could probably argue that Judeo-Christian monotheism, as much as it implies universalism and egalitarianism, also suggests religious exclusiveness that directly emanates from the belief in one undisputed "
this is not exclusive to the monotheistic religions or to semitic identities. the argument you find probable is equally probable in any other context that allows and binds a culture-identity. your choice to apply it exclusively to the semitic is a jump to a mythical origin, as if any such argument can only begin with the semitic (the semitic as origin of precluding anti-otherness) . to begin with, the quote that dismisses any other influences, such as the greeks', on burgeoning cultures of tyranny, errs on two levels. firstly tyranny is used in a modern semblance to dismiss, unjustifiably, archaic understandings that held different connotations. the end result is an apiori calculation to end u labelling the judeochristian as being the truly tyrinnical. this is inkeeping with your lack of argument in the first place. it is all too well to interperate poetically, and viciously; this, however, can be done elsewhere. the theopoetic (rather than logical model) that served in many ways as a contrast for nietszche stood in the same position to its predecessors as did each monothestic religion to the others. usually, gods,alone or communal, are jealous creatures. polytheism or monotheism...doesnt matter. zeus is in the guise of apollo and athena in ares'. similarly, zeus has many trailing titles, some that situate him in the sky and others on earth. polytheism is a focusing on god's limbs. there is no proof or logic in your babble, simply an associating violence of accusation. yes, there was abrahamaic convenant, but for that to occur, there must have been an idea of convenant beforehand. why focus on the semites as if therein the origin? furthermore, it is a very narrow understanding, you concieve of the knife before concieving of the body.
overcome your master, you read off as being very much in slave mode.
c-whore:> this is not exclusive to the monotheistic religions or to semitic identities.
Error. Religions/identities that espouse One God/One Truth as 'the' God, 'the' Truth- the absolutism context for that purpose is exclusive to the monotheistic.
> firstly tyranny is used in a modern semblance to dismiss, unjustifiably, archaic understandings that held different connotations.
And pray tell where was such kind of tyranny practised foremost?!
> this is inkeeping with your lack of argument in the first place.
Is that why you are giving me tips on how to 'interpret' texts?
You engage me on what the antichrist really says and I do, and its obvious his observations cannot be 'interpreted' away as much as you'd like to, and so you stoop to such liners. This is in keeping with your acclaimed whore ressentiment as in the first place.
> usually, gods,alone or communal, are jealous creatures. polytheism or monotheism...doesnt matter.
How stupid is that!
You can hear the cogs of its little brain grinding can't you;
"To A, Heaven is a 'goal', right.
While B says that he also has a 'goal' ... durr ... that must mean that B TOO believes in Heaven, because they both have goals!"
The belief in 'Original Sin' and therefore redemption, etc. is exclusive only to Monotheism; polytheism does not partake of such jealous angst.
"The Greeks did not see the Homeric gods above them as masters and themselves below them as as servants, as did the Jews. They saw, as it were, only the reflection of the most successful specimens of their own caste, that is, an ideal, not a contrast to their own nature. There was a kind of symmachia [alliance].
Judaeo-Christianity on the other hand... wants to destroy, shatter, stun, intoxicate: there is only one thing it does not want: moderation, and for this reason, it is in its deepest meaning barbaric, ignoble, un-Greek." - N., Human, 114
Tyranny and monotheism go hand in hand, because it does not know moderation.
The polytheistic pagan divinities are identified with the fate and fortunes of man - i.e., there is no separation; just as the lightning does not 'flash', the lightning IS its flash.
In paganism there are divinities for all types of men, women and children - as well as for all other natural phenomena.
Life's journey is a Willed striving towards your Own nature.
The Jewish God FORBIDS other Gods to the point of death. A submission and conformity to one nature under the garb of equality.
This is called 'Monotheism' - literally 'one godism' - something completely alien to paganism.
That the Greek gods were seen to have all the human vices and virtues [such as 'envy' - which was a Greek virtue, nuanced from 'jealousy'] and were perpetually in a conflict/agon, - which was enjoyed and affirmed for its own sake, - does not make any point of comparison with the dour and terrifying atmosphere of the Bible and the Koran.
Zeus is quite able to co-exist with Dionysos - it is Jehovah who brooks no competition, and is the father of all intolerance.
Christianity claims to be 'the' Truth. It claims that ONLY through the saviour can one find salvation. It states ABSOLUTELY that there is only one God and he IS the Truth.
That is Absolute Truth.
Immutability is a feature of absolutism.
Monotheists have an absolutist mental and moral make-up.
Paganism's history is one of assimilating other gods and traditions - that is true tolerance - unlike the 'one God only' bigotry of Judaism/Christianity/Islam.
Pagan polytheism, with its endless array of gods, goddesses, demigods and heroes, pays tribute to its openness.
It was Jehovah who said, "for I am a jealous God".
Drunk without wine, the Sybil thus deplored;-
How wrong things go!
Decay! Decay! Ne'er sank the world so low!
Great Rome has turned harlot and harlot-stew,
Rome's Caesar a beast; and God has turned - Jew!.
Moses as the inventor of Jihad, Abraham as the first Hollywood .
> overcome your master, you read off as being very much in slave mode.
Typical. That's what a slavish whore would say, a master's whip is all she is used to. Have you finished recalling your ten commandments for the day and pleasing your jealous master, whore?
"With this idea [judaeo-christian everlastingness], the individual is made transcendent; as a result, he can attribute a senseless importance to himself.
In fact, it was [with]Christianity..., megalomania almost became a duty: one has to enforce eternal right against everything temporal and conditioned."
-Principles of a new evaluation, 765
"Current literature on totalitarianism seems to focus on the unpleasant side-effects of the bloated state, the absence of human rights, and the pervasive control of the police. By contrast, if liberal democracy is indeed a highly desirable and the least repressive system of all hitherto known in the West - and if, in addition, this liberal democracy claims to be the best custodian of human dignity - one wonders why it relentlessly causes social uprootedness and cultural despair among an increasing number of people? As Claude Polin notes, chances are that, in the short run, democratic totalitarianism will gain the upper hand since the security it provides is more appealing to the masses than is the vague notion of liberty(7). One might add that the tempo of democratic process in the West leads eventually to chaotic impasse, which necessitates the imposition of a hard-line regime."
I honestly don't have time but I believe there can be never enough time on certain issues. I do not belong to that currently fashionable disinterested cynical class which think 'why waste your breath!' - as one saxon motto goes, the fall of a die and its upshot is as much its web of wyrd as anything else. If that's unclear, nevermind.
I've been reading this thread with great interest.
It would be unfair to make generalisations but I can certainly say that in matters of religion and politics too..since religion is always closely mated with politics , Judaism, Christianity and Islam ----(whatver the intricacies of the religions may be) ---have been mostly responsible screwing up the world. On the whole .I.e
I'd like to comment on one funny dialogue made by cellardoor whore
--> polytheism is a focusing on god's limbs
LOL...
polytheism is a focusing on god's limbs ? ? ?..
..hehehehe that sounds like a war cry of a proselytising padre intent on saving as many heathen souls for his front-row seat in Salvation.
Something like 'worship the creator, not the creature " LOL
If I May be allowed to instruct your highness...
Nevermind about the philosophy of higher kinds of polytheist faiths like hinduism ..That would be too high for you ..
even the most basic and primitive kind of polytheism evokes more than one emanation of an image of God , since it knows that If there is a "God " and If it is all powerful ..it would be an irony if it were to be limited to one form.
First of all , you give an anthropomorphic image to the concept of God .--->Limbs etc..so that means your imagined concept of God has a form...Now every form is created by someone or something else..(we know this as architects, dont we ! )
..hence your creator has also been created..hence that shoots down your argument , since If god was created..he isnt exactly God is he. ;)
Cellardoor, Any fool who's studied the history of religions knows that Judaism ( and hence Christianity and Islam )is almost a direct derivation of 'Zoroastrianism'
"from the very creed of Zoroaster that the Jews derived all the angelology of their religion... the belief in a future state; of rewards and punishments, ... the soul's immortality, and the Last Judgment - all of them essential parts of the Zoroastrian scheme
-->King and Moore, : The Gnostics and Their Remains..
Just a Final thought for you
Zoroastrianism..It exists till today . It was the first 'monotheistic religion and FYI ,Zoroastrianism ,The Vedic religion ( the origin of Hinduism ) and a few other extinct religions have all evolved out the "polytheism" of the Indo-European people.
first learn a bit of Theology , broaden your scope of Knowledge and then comment on other's ' babble '.
Much of this seems to be about internally created group definition allowing for dirty behaviour: "My group is better than yours (we are humans! the others outside of our group are not humans!) therefore: get-out-of-jail-free card to committ atrocity"
So if you call me brother now
forgive me if I inquire:
Just according to who's plan?
When it all comes down to dust
I will kill you if I must
I will help you if I can
When it all comes down to dust!
I will help you if I must!
I will kill you if I can
Have mercy on our uniform
Man of peace or man of war:
the peacock spreads its fan
say: allah the one
allah the indurance
he not begetting he not begotten
and he had him no equal not one
truly, the topopoeisis of a desert
to be a jarred semite, when the priestly robes depart and your community of faith, its pillars and its commandments, all like dried crimson petals of a dead rose in the pages of your own book. cite, recite, incite : from the billows of earth decants, breaks ground, the heavenly b(r)ook: Echad, Ahad. LA and AL(EL), a reversal of prefixes. and here's you, rabidity, quoting the cruelties of these religions with smug spittle flying, using rationality . religion is not rational, it is not even moral. you follow rules. the three were written in quasi military environments, tribal ones. it has nothing to do with race and creed, it has to do with the social structure. this is why, till now, the big three oscillate between being occpuier and occupied, conquerer and conquered. there is no one nature to the quran, the bible or the torah even of they proclaim unity. they are measures of altruism and violence. if you accept the religion, it stands outside the region of argument. it is its own reason, so to speak. like the sacrifices of the greeks and the mayas, it fits into the rationale of the system. you compare hinduism to judaism either from within the influence of one or the other; even modern western sensibility is a sediment of judeochrisian. this is primarily why i tell you, you have no argument, you have a preference and a dislike. in the islamic sharia'a, the theif gets his hand chopped off. i rebel, i am repulsed but my only argument, so to speak, is based on humane principles, yet another system with its own principles..much of which is judeochristian in origin even. a judeo-christian-islamism adversus itself. you see semites, almost by nature, i see humans in a certain order and system, gravitating towards one branch or the other, coalescing values but not necessarily resolving contradictions (viewed from the outside). i choose not to follow such a system, or a subsystem, but this is only because it is in conflict with another system of faith. the desire to reject the jewish principles is reciprocally their's to reject others'. you are espousing another religion of exclusion, even if on the spur of an inclusivity dejected.
also this wide net, this 'semites'. many moslems are not semites, more specifically shiite moslems. many jews are not semites, essentially of european heritage. certainly christians. the sons and daughters of shem are not synonymous with the arabs and jews of today. your indiscriminant unscientific usage of the word semite, an idiosynchratic racial and linguistic family, is on par with your rabid generalizations. even now, there are semites who are not strictly monotheistic. the greece of Io is the carthage of
the fear of being conquered leads to the paranoia of conquering others. it is not embedded in one's nature or blood,
like celan, for them, to pray, to prostate in front of a nothing. a kaddish a requiem a libera me and a mi she'anah, a disembowled shahadah. to a great big nothing that eats all the other gods up like an unvanquishable kronos, a ravenous enduring emptiness (time in a dragon-tail eating) , devouring its children. before polytheism was monotheism; a plurality is only a multiple, a mode, of singularity, worshipping of the object then the idea of objectness. before monotheism was polytheism, the family of the one devouring god. monotheism is not the rejection of other gods, it is logical conclusion of the ingestion of previous gods. polytheism has always tended towards monotheism, the generations of gods eating each other, assimilating the characters and roles of gods from other regions. yes...totalitarianism can be silent, even amongst the gods. what you think is a smile hides a frown upside down.
. the other parts want to be a tree, not the tree of the siroph, not the almond tree or the apple tree, but the immutable pine tree, the axis mundi that connects the sadness of the chosen people to the sadness of their chosen god. the levant tree par excellence. the same that witnessed the death of adonis and yasou from up the hill, the tammuz/dummuzis of the purple people, in fact it is attis . the fertile god, silent uninvolved in his own death.
and really whore this whore that. you're more anal than the semites. i recommend enemata, in which you will find the amen burried in the ate and a resolute serenity in backside pain, good scarlet friends. otherwise, kill yourself if you're so unhappy with anthill global. it seems subtractive aants are eating you aalive, breakfasting on your brains and dining on your heart.
an ant chain (or bee thread for mandelshtam: this simple thread of dead, dried bees,)
turned honey in the sun
"With
our pistil soul-bright,
with our stamen heaven-ravaged,
our corolla red
with the crimson word which we sang
over, O over
the thorn." -Celan (trans.)
"in the name,
solar vultures soar
skull aviary meatless, dive,
reveal the eidolon: scapula, white,
in the soundless inside: salt-white ants
swarm religiously " -Tammuz
" No birds. No blossoms on the dried flowers.
The manes of night’s horses are translucent.
An empty boat drifts on the naked river.
Lost among grasshoppers the word’s quiescent" -Mandelshtam (trans.)
Maria(m), between the rock'n'green of the levant and the sand storms of arabia.
nevermore: "kind of polytheism evokes more than one emanation of an image of God"
or an early form of monotheism that carried the plurality of emanations but coagulated the divinities into one. or then christianity is this kind of polytheistic. note,you're using God in the singular. in any case, the word 'emanation' itself would need to be clarified, not only in its usage but also in a history/culture of its usage to correspond with the particular theological entity.
(this is whence "polytheism is a focusing on god's limbs ", whose echo should have been "and monotheism is the communal body of gods'. in essence, i do not care much for the number of gods and their respective responsibilities. the idea, once an idea, of divinity is singular, likewise the idea of science. the content, the countability, was not a concern as it was that other's. also, the moronic resurrection of saint anslem's moronic argument for/against the form of god leads nowhere. one can say, since god is perfect (which classically begs 'what is perfect?') then god is perfect form, or all possible and impossible forms. you keep on using pronouns when there were none. 'i' do not have an imagined form of god. this is derivation of meaning out of proximities not implications,wrong neighbourhood, maria here. Also there is dispute as to how judaism relates to zoroastrianism; while there is consensus that there is much it owes to it, similarly there is much it owes to the egyptian (though according to a friend nubian) aten religion and the syrian hittite and hurian cultures . it is certainly not a 'direct derivative'. the jewish religion begins with having no other gods before jehovah...meaning, f it was not a monotheistic religion in its genesis. it makes sense for a chosen people to have a chosen god (not an only god). henotheism is one step away from monotheism, as is atheism.
christianity has its own peculair evolution and not just the literalist adversus the gnsotics who harken back to the orphaic mysteries with resonances around the region , also paul-ification of christianity. 'IES', phonecia's bacchus into JES with the latin US. a bastardized of poly & monotheism, almost like hinduism with its variant stresses on the oneness of the divine. the unravelling of a centered religion from within. christianity bears its own in the plurality of manifests and gospels. the church is everfragmenting mirroring its texts and words. the historical change in the church admits a dialectic, history as projectile has contaminated the innards of the church. a hurt is on the side of islam, when if it finds its dialectic. neither modernity nor other religions nor explicit violence will face it with a mirror. (not to show a truth, but to wake to a vunerability equal to that it left in its passage and absence). the jews: everyone is a jew, from a 'no god before me' to 'no god but me' both.
religions eat each other, they shit in layers in shared sacred sites.
and why do you two little scats, sound so gleeful in the prospect of my self flagellation? you also taste blood. in any case, thank you. it has been educational. cheers. really, sun moon and all.
..........
random googled stuff:
The monotheism of Hinduism (nevermore)
-"A casual observer might thus consider Hinduism "polytheistic," but this is a superficial view. A casual observer in Europe might likewise conclude that Christianity is functionally polytheistic upon viewing the numerous icons of god, his son, his mother, and the vast pantheons of angels and saints, many of which are the objects of worship and festival. Of course, one might object that in spite of such iconography and worship Christian theologians invariably insist upon monotheism. But Hindu theologians as well typically insist upon the unity of the divine; a more universal and applicable distinction that might be made here is that between popular and elite religiosity. ....This idea, which appears in the Vedas, is elaborated in later Hindu traditions. Each member of the so-called Hindu "trinity," ViSNu, Ziva and Devii, are in fact considered to be the absolute, eternal supreme deity of the VaiSNava, Zaiva and Zakta traditions, respectively. The VaiSNavas hold that ViSHNu is the supreme god who has manifested in the world in multiple forms (avataara) and who is thus, in theory at least, a personal god whose grace is accessible to his devotees" Are Indic Traditions Polytheistic?
A Position Paper by David Gray, PhD
-Contrary to prevailing misconceptions, Hindus all worship a one Supreme Being, though by different names. For Vaishnavites, Lord Vishnu is God. For Saivites, God is Siva. For Shaktas, Goddess Shakti is supreme. For Smartas, liberal Hindus, the choice of Deity is left to the devotee.
-Hindus who say that Siva is different from Vishnu or the Supreme Parama Sivam is different from the Supreme Para Brahman of Vedanta do not have a full knowledge of their own religion. They are demonstrating a narrow and bigoted view which is contrary to the spirit of real Hinduism which is broad-hearted and tolerant. They do a disservice to Hindu religious unity by their emphasising superficial diversity in appearance instead of emphasising the essential unity of the Reality. Let me assure you that Goddesses Sarasvati, Parvati, Lakshmi, Durga, Kali, Bhavani and Lord Siva, Narayana, Brahman, Rama, Krishna, Dattatreya, Hanuman, Garuda, Kartikeya are all Divine forms that are in reality the One and the same Universal Spirit. They are all one. There is neither difference nor antagonism between them. It is not only childish but also foolish to deny this truth. You must be wise and recognise the fact that as a Hindu you know that there is only one God. Sri Swami Chidananda Hinduism :Monotheism and Polytheism Reconciled
on the ancient greeks monotheistic kernel:
-on rivalry between the greek gods and others and their relation to humans:
"The hostility of the Greek gods
towards ardent devotees of rival gods is well?known. In the Indian muthoi similar jealousies are not uncommon. Here, if the worship of a god does not
rouse the ire of another, the devotees of different gods are often pitted against one another and each receives help from his patron deity ( ishtadeva ). Gods are like superior heroes patronizing inferior human supplicants. They must answer the call of whosoever invokes them. A deity does not wait to
measure the merits or demerits of a devotee, justice in the end is not to be meted out by him but by the all?seeing Zeus, or by dike itself, or by law of
karma" Dr. Bharat Gupt, 2002
-"As we have seen from the fate of the Greek philosopher Socrates and that of the early Christians this kind of "monotheistic" polytheism was highly exclusive. If one doubted or rejected the peculiarity of this pantheon venerated by a certain group of people, they often counteracted through persecution or even capital punishment. This shows us that polytheism already portrayed the factor of exclusiveness. However, this did not introduce a static feature into polytheistic religions. Characteristics of one god could easily be merged with those of another god and even new gods could be introduced. The Roman Jupiter, for instance, could be identified with the Greek Zeus, or the Roman Minerva with the Greek Athena, and the Persian fertility goddess Magna Mater Cybele could make its successful debut on the religious scene of imperial Rome without her adherents facing any problems"
Deciphering the Religious Landscape:
From Prehistoric and Tribal Religions to Monotheistic Religions
Hans Schwarz
Center for Theology Colloquium
Lenoir-Rhyne College
April 7, 2005
--"Hugh Lloyd-Jones, The Justice of Zeus (1971), emphasised continuity between archaic and Classical value-systems, rather than the change which
Dodds suggested. He adopts a more integrated view of shame and guilt, by considering the functions of the gods, and showing that the attributes of Zeus
even in the Iliad are those of a supreme king, and involve protecting the themistes (principles of justice)." The Influence of Greek Tragedy: discussion of philosophical and theatrical responses to Greek tragedy (author name missing)
on the polytheism in the genesis of judaism:
-Pslam 82 from Old Testament
1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. (Elohim:plurality of god)
2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.
Also 95:3: For the LORD is a great God, and a great King above all gods
.......................
Yet the Hebrew version of this, instead of reading angelos (angel), reads elohim, which strictly speaking means "gods". What the Septuagint/NT rendering makes clear, is that the Jewish translators of the OT into Greek, saw an equivelence between the two, at least in the context of this passage. (polytheism carried)
Psalm 82 would seem to bare out the same notion - with YHWH being the Father and King of the "gods"...
1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.
Or other passages like Pslam 95:3 - For the LORD is a great God, and a great King above all gods.
on semites:
- "A truly comprehensive account of "Semitic" religions would include the polytheistic religions (such as the religions of Adad, Hadad) that flourished in the Middle East before the Abrahamic religions. (semitic is not synonymous with monotheism and vice versa)" wiki
-"Modern science, in contrast, identifies an ethnic group's common physical descent through genetic research, and analysis of the Semitic peoples suggests that they share a significant common ancestry. Though no significant common mitochondrial results have been yielded, Y-chromosomal links between Near-Eastern peoples like the Palestinians, Syrians and ethnic Jews have proved fruitful, despite differences contributed from other groups (see Y-chromosomal Aaron). Although population genetics is still a young science, it seems to indicate that a significant proportion of these peoples' ancestry comes from a common Near Eastern population to which (despite the differences with the Biblical genealogy) the term Semitic has been applied." wiki
"Jesus loves me
But not my wife
Not my nigger friends
Or their nigger lives
But jesus loves me
That's for sure
'Cause the bible tells me so
Read your bible good and well
Don't forget about that apple spell
Don't fall in the wishing well
Wishing for heaven and gettin' hell" CocieRosie
well since you referred to me and I have no Idea what the fuck you are talking about ..go bite on this..while I try and decipher your post.
Om. That is full; this is full....
This fullness has been projected from that fullness.
When this fullness is subtraced from that fullness..all that remains is fullness...
When this fullness merges in that fullness, all that remains is fullness.
"For when there is duality, as it were, then one smells another, one sees another, one hears another, one speaks to another, one thinks of another, one knows another. ........
But when everything has become the Self,
then what should one smell and through what, what should one see and through what, what should one hear and through what, what should one speak and through what, what should one think and through what, what should one know and through what? ?
Through what should One know That owing to which all this is known—through what, my dear, should one know the Knower? ??
"This religion could be propagated only by generation. The father, in giving life to his son, gave him at the same time his creed, his worship, the right to continue the sacred fire, to offer the funeral meal, to pronounce the formula of prayers. Generation established a mysterious bond between the infant, who was born to life, and all the gods of the family. Indeed, these gods were his family - theoi eggeneis ; they were of his blood - theoi sunaimoi". ...This "domestic religion was transmitted only from male to male".
In the ancient days, religion was something that was passed down/transmitted; the idea of "conversion" and there being a "choice" of one!, began with the bogus Christian "doors open to all", at which point religion started to dissociate itself from race - all dregs and anyone and everyone, with no lineage took up authority on rites and customs they had no knowledge or understanding of.
"I am strong against my enemies, from the songs which I receive from my family, and which my father has transmitted to me." [Rig-Veda, Langlois, trans., v. i. p. 1 13.]
Religion thus comes to be not just spiritual, but also a material bond, in that, the strength of his father and forefathers shaped by a particular belief "actuali-izes" in him.
> the desire to reject the jewish principles is reciprocally their's to reject others'. you are espousing another religion of exclusion, even if on the spur of an inclusivity dejected.
Unlike your yahweh, I never said all monotheists should be annihilated! but that absolutist totalitarian tyranny has monotheistic roots. The Jews themselves warm up to the idea the only land they haven't been persecuted is polytheistic India under Hinduism!
Also.
"analysis of the Semitic peoples suggests that they share a significant common ancestry. Though no significant common mitochondrial results have been yielded, Y-chromosomal links between Near-Eastern peoples like the Palestinians, Syrians and ethnic Jews have proved fruitful, despite differences contributed from other groups (see Y-chromosomal Aaron). Although population genetics is still a young science, it seems to indicate that a significant proportion of these peoples' ancestry comes from a common Near Eastern population to which (despite the differences with the Biblical genealogy) the term Semitic has been applied." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semite
So my terms are valid and were used properly. No rabid vabid generalizations.
> also this wide net, this 'semites'. many moslems are not semites, more specifically shiite moslems. many jews are not semites, essentially of european heritage. certainly christians. the sons and daughters of shem are not synonymous with the arabs and jews of today. your indiscriminant unscientific usage of the word semite, an idiosynchratic racial and linguistic family, is on par with your rabid generalizations. even now, there are semites who are not strictly monotheistic.
I find you paranoid and of a poor reading capacity. I do not target a Semitic 'people', but the monotheism that characterizes them and their absolutist outlook.
> before polytheism was monotheism; a plurality is only a multiple,
a mode, of singularity, worshipping of the object then the idea of objectness. monotheism is not the rejection of other gods, it is logical conclusion of the ingestion of previous gods. before monotheism was polytheism, the family of the one devouring god. polytheism has always tended towards monotheism, the generations of gods eating each other, assimilating the characters and roles of gods from other regions.
'IES', phonecia's bacchus into JES with the latin US. a bastardized of poly & monotheism, almost like hinduism with its variant stresses on the oneness of the divine. the unravelling of a centered religion from within. henotheism is one step away from monotheism, as is atheism.
the idea, once an idea, of divinity is singular, likewise the idea of
science. the content, the countability, was not a concern as it was that other's.
Very wrong. Proper understanding of what is what needs a little more than a few minutes google search and picking on the first thing that pops up.
First of all Hinduism is NOT monotheistic, it is Mon-istic, and our monistic principle is referred to as the Brahman - its NOT a God!
Mon-ism is the metaphysics that the whole is essentially one principle, has one basic value. There's no notion of command or creator. Mono-theism believes that there is one personal God and he 'ought' to be worshipped. Monism does not postulate this ought. Monism is not dogmatic - that is the beauty of it, and that's what gives its essential Vedic feature. http://www.hvk.org/hvk/articles/0597/0036.html
Monistic theism is 'not' monotheism.
And just because your faith adheres to a concept of a "devouring God", does not make it a universal thing that all Gods are or have to be so. I pointed this for a logical aptitude on your part earlier, but you have just given a splendid example of how monotheism exhibits itself - 'my god is only true, so all other gods must be like him' ! BS.
The difference between one-godism and polytheism is not about which god ate how many gods, and how many were digested and the excrement that was One; not the number of Gods but where the God or Gods stand in relation to the Cosmos. For the “Monotheists†the Cosmos was created by an ever -existing Being outside it (so in this macro-historical level it is nothing more than a mortal creation). For the “Monotheists†Cosmos is a creation that has to obey the laws of its “creatorâ€. For polytheistic Hellenes, for example, the eternal Cosmos emerges always from inside of itself (ΑΝΑΔΥΕΤΑΙ ΑΦ’ ΕΑΥΤΟΥ) and is the creator of all Gods, that obey their own laws. In Aryan Vedic Hinduism, the word for this inner law (that which gives a thing its thingness) is called Dharma, in Celtic its called Dli --- a concept that monotheists have no inkling of!
Our Gods are many and we understand them as completing the make-up of the Universal Sphere of Cosmos to its maximum potential and whole. Thus, for the Hellenes, from the ΔΩΔΕΚΑΕΔΡΟΝ ("Dodekάhedron") geometric shape (that fills up the sphere to its maximum) we imagine twelve planes, each one presenting a God inside the Cosmos and we define our Hellenic ΠΑΝΘΕΟΝ (Pάntheon, ΠΑΝ ΤΩΝ ΘΕΩΝ , All The Gods) as ΔΩΔΕΚΑΘΕΟΝ ("Dodekάtheon", Pantheon of The Twelve Gods).The Twelve Gods of theirs live inside the Shpere of Cosmos and form its various behaviors. In the same way, the twelve Zodiacs represent twelve "energies" that reach Earth.
That kind of plurality is not about being devoured up into a typical semitic conception of "sum of all zeroes = zero and all zeroes have equal rights before the one zero"! LOL
Another difference being the linearity of time, etc. etc.
Damn, are you an architect with such poor cultural understandings?!!
> the jews: everyone is a jew, from a 'no god before me' to 'no god but me' both.
yes...totalitarianism can be silent, even amongst the gods.
The difference between violent polytheists and violent monotheists is that the former kill to gain political control and the latter kill to assert theological dominance. The difference is subtle, but important. Polytheists sought control over the public sphere alone; monotheists sought control over private thoughts as well. Semitic totalitarian tyranny "wants your soul", the "submission of your spirit and soul". Go educate yourself.
Theodosius outlawed all practice of traditional (pagan) customs and beliefs and employed organized groups of men to carry out edicts.
On a more proper view of I.E. religiosity:
"In the first place, it is unmistakeably evident that Indo-European religiosity is not rooted in any kind of fear, neither in fear of the deity nor in fear of death. The words of the latter-day Roman poet, that fear first created the Gods (Statius: Thebais, III, 661: primus in orbe fecit deos timor), cannot be applied to the true forms of Indo-European religiosity, for wherever it has unfolded freely, the “fear of the Lord†(Proverbs, ix. 10; Psalms, cxi. 10) has proved neither the beginning of belief nor of wisdom.
Fear could not arise because the Indo-European does not consider that he is the creature of a deity; he neither regarded himself as a “creature†nor did he comprehend the world as a creation — the work of a creative God with a beginning in time. To him the world was far more a timeless order, within which both Gods as well as men had their time, their place and
The idea of creation is Oriental, above all Babylonic, but not from the Indo-Aryan spirit — of the world’s end, culminating in a judgment and the intercession of a kingdom of God, in which everything will be completely transformed.
Still less was a religious attitude possible here, which saw in man a slave under an all-powerful Lord God. The submissive and slavish relation of man to God is especially characteristic of the religiosity of the Semitic peoples. The names Baal, Moloch, Rabbat and others, all stress the omnipotence of the Lord God over enslaved men, his creatures, who crawl on their faces before him. For the Indo-Europeans the worship of God meant the adoration of a deity, the encouragement and cultivation of all impulses to worship, it meant colere with the Romans and therapeuein with the Hellenes. In the Semitic language the word worship comes from its root abad, which means to be a slave. Hannah (I Samuel, i. 11) begs Jahve, the Hebrew tribal God, to give her, his slave, a son. David (II Samuel, vii. 20) calls himself a slave of his God, and so does Solomon (I Kings, iii. 7). The essence of Jahve is terror (Exodus, xxiii. 27; Isaiah, viii. 13), but this has never been true of the Indo-Europeans’ Gods. The Hymn to Zeus of the stoic Kleanthes of Assos (331-233 — Max Pohlenz: Die Stoa, 1948, pp. 108 et seq., and G. Verbeke: Kleanthos van Assos, Verhandelingen van den koninklijke Academie vor Wetenschapen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van Belgie, Klasse der Letteren, Year XI, Nr. 9, 1949, p. 235), from which Paul (Acts, xvii. 28) took words to adjust himself to the Hellenic religious outlook, completely contradicts for example, the religiosity of the 90th Psalm.
In Christianity the conduct of the faithful before God is freely interpreted by the term humilis, and hence humility, meaning literally slave mind or serving the tribe, is demanded as the essence of religiosity. But this is non-Indo-European in outlook
Indo-European religiosity is not slavery, it contains none of the implorings of a downtrodden slave to his all-powerful lord, but comprises rather the confiding fulfilment of a community comprising Gods and men. Plato speaks in his Banquet (188c) of a “mutual community (philia) between Gods and menâ€. The Teuton was certain of the friendship of his God, of the astvin or the fulltrui whom he fully trusted, and with the Hellenes in the Odyssey (XXIV, 514) the same certainty is found expressed in the words “friends of the Gods†(theoi philoi). In the Bhagavad Gita of the Indians (IV, 3) the God Krishna calls the man Arjuna his friend. The highest deity such as Zeus is honoured as “Father of the Gods and of men†— as a family father, as Zeus Herkeios, not as a despot. This idea is also expressed in the names of the Gods: Djaus pitar with the Indians and Jupiter with the Romans. The name of the Indian God Mitra, which corresponded to Mithra in Iran, means “friendâ€. Mazdaism, founded by Zoroaster, called the morally acting man a friend of Ahura Mazda, the One Universal God, who in the era of Achaemenides became the God of the Persian empire. According to Plato (Laws, IV, 716) the man of moderation and self-control is above all “a friend of Godâ€.
Paul distinguishes the religiosity of the Indo-Europeans from that of the Semites, when he asserts (I Corinthians, i. 22) that while the Hellenes strove for knowledge (sophia), the Jews desired revelations (semaia), and Aurelius Augustinus, the Bishop of Hippo (Patrologiae cursus completus, Vol. XXXVII, edited by J. P. Migne, 1845, Sp. 1586; Vol. XXVIII, 1845, Sp. 1132) attempts by citing Bible passages, to disparage the wisdom (sapientia) of the Hellenes, alien to him as a Christian, as a folly before God and to find the highest wisdom only in the obedient humility (humilitas obedentiae) of the faithful.
The certainty of a destiny has not made the true Indo-European seek redemption, and even when his destiny caused him to tremble, he never turned to contrition or fearful awareness of “sinâ€. Aeschylus, who was completely permeated by Hellenic religiosity and by the power of the divine, stands upright, like every Indo-European, before the immortal Gods, and despite every shattering experience has no feeling of sin.
Thus Indo-European religiosity is not concerned with anxiety, or self-damnation, or contrition, but with the man who would honour the divinity by standing up squarely amid the turmoil of destiny to pay him homage.
The German word fromm, meaning religious or devout, is derived from the stem meaning capable or fit, and is related to the Gothic fruma, meaning first, and to the Greek promos, meaning furthermost.
The Indo-European wishes to stand before the deity as a complete man who has achieved the balanced equilibrium of his powers which the deity demands from him.
A noble balance, the constantia and gravitas, which the Romans expected in particular from their senators and high officials, has also been found preserved, by one of the most eminent scholars of the pre-Christian Teutonic spirit, the Swiss, Andreas Heusler,23 in the spiritual expression of the numerous Roman sculptures (Kurt Schumacher: Germanendarstellungen, edited by Hans Klumbach, 1935) of Teutonic men and women: “What strikes one most about these great, nobly formed features, is their mastered calm, their integral nobility, indeed their reflective mildness.â€
From the Indo-Iranian belief in the Gods of antiquity (Polytheism), Spitama Zarathustra created in approximately the ninth century B.C. the first teaching of and belief in One God (Monotheism) in the history of religions. The Gods who had been common to the Indians and Iranians now passed into the background behind the one Ahura Mazda, after whom Mazdaism is named. These other Gods, preserved in India, in Iran became the sacred immortals (amesha spentas) the representatives of the moral virtues. They were later regarded as the messengers (Greek: angeloi) of Ahura Mazda, and the archangels created by Jewish and Christian legends were modelled on them. Spitama Zarathustra erected his monotheistic form of belief in a one-sided way, purely based upon morality, but in so doing he contradicted hereditary Indo-European religiosity. Hermann Lommel (Von arischer Religion, Geistige Arbeit, Year 1, No. 23, pp. 5-6) has proved, however, that, arising from Iranian popular belief, a natural religiosity again and again broke out in Mazdaism. A curious example of these outbreaks was the creation by the Persian kings, of landscape parks and gardens, whose fame spread far and wide. One of these gardens was called pairidesa and from it derived the Old Testament idea of Paradise and of the Garden of Eden (Josef Strzygowski.
Nature religiosity has also been expressed in Iranian poetry and plastic art in the descriptions of the “Landscape filled with the glory of the deity†(khvarenah — Josef Strzygowski: Die Landschaft in der nordischen Kunst, pp. 143, 261 et seq.), akin to that of Indo-European aristocratic farmers, and the landscape parks of eighteenth century Europe.
When in January 1804, in conversation with his colleague, the philologist Riemer, Goethe expressed the view that he found it “remarkable that the whole of Christianity had not brought forth a Sophoclesâ€,
Freedom is where you can live, as pleases a brave heart; where you can live according to the customs and laws of your fathers; where you are made happy by that which made your most distant ancestors happy.
E. M. Arndt, Catechism for the Teutonic Soldier and Warrior, 1813."
"Through Christianity, the individual was made so important, so absolute, that he could no longer be sacrificed: but the species endures only through sacrifice. Genuine charity demands sacrifice for the good of the species.
...Pre-occupation with itself and its "eternal salvation" is not the expression of a rich and self-confident type, for that type does not give a damn about its salvation. Christianity is a romantic hypochondria of those whose legs are shaky. a hedonistic perspective (will this give pleasure or displeasure to me)" - Nietzsche
"On their Day of Atonement Jews ask for and receive nothing less than absolution for all the sins and wrongs against Gentiles they are about to commit in the coming year! In so doing, they cut a shrewd lawyer's deal with their God YHWH or Yahweh, that gives them an exemption in advance from all wrongdoing.
Here is the actual text of this outrageous Jewish "prayer":
"Of all vows, bonds, promises, obligations and oaths wherewith we have avowed, sworn and bound ourselves from this Day of Atonement to the next Day of Atonement, may it come unto us for good; -- of all these vows we hereby repent. They shall be absolved, released, annulled, made void, and of no effect; they shall not be binding, nor shall they have any power. Our vows shall not be vows; our bonds shall not be bonds; and our oaths shall not be oaths."
(High Holy Day Prayer Book, quoted in Judaism, ed. Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg [New York: George Braziller, 1962], p. 145.)
That's pretty clear, unambiguous language. What we have here, in fact, is nothing less than a one-year, renewable license to lie, cheat and steal with impunity, all based on a decree from the Jews' so-called holy book, the Talmud, which says:
And he who desires that none of his vows made during the year shall be valid, let him stand at the beginning of the year and declare, "Every vow which I make in the future shall be null." (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Nedarim 23a & 23b)" http://library.flawlesslogic.com/kolnidre.htm
"And I will set the Egyptians against the Egyptians: and they shall fight every one against his brother and every one against his neighbor; city against city and kingdom against kingdom. And the spirit of Egypt shall fall in the midst thereof; and I will destroy the counsel thereof: and they shall seek to the idols, and to the charmers, and to them that have familiar spirits, and to the wizards (Isaiah 19:2-3).
Afterward, he said to his brothers: 'ye shall eat the fat of the land,' and 'the good of all the land of Egypt is yours.' (Genesis 45:18,20)
"And time rolls on.
With us, they did not reckon
when setting forth their vast utopian schemes.
They thought thee dead, and us also.
They thought our faith had slackened.
They thought, the fools, that they could rely
upon our loyalties to values which we hate.
They thought they could send us to die
without us ever asking why,
when we had grown too weary to say no.
They though they had become the masters of our fate.
And here we rise and here we stand,
and give the world to understand,
that we shall never fight but for our same old dream.
For honor and for might, and what we know is right.
For the joy of asserting the privileges of our birth." [Savitri Devi]
Lost Wisdom:
"While we may believe
our world - our reality
to be that is - is but one
manifestation of the essence
Other planes lie beyond the reach
of normal sense and common roads
But they are no less real
than what we see or touch or feel
Denied by the blind church
'cause these are not the words of God
- the same God that burnt the
knowing" [Varg]
don't call him my yahweh. no where do i admit religiosity. poor reader yourself.
i am always educating myself. i do not need your telling.
don't diss my google, i am currently in a country with no almost no books allowed in, except maybe stuff on delia smith recipes and how to make a lotta money and kurans in various shapes and sizes. in any case, google came after intuition. therefor, desperate means ...
lastly, you are regurgitating the same rhetoric, with different quotes and examples. you yourself are thinking religiously. i still do not see the major rift between monotheism and polytheism. yes i was aware of the monistic personal god description. it came up in google, along with many other forms. i used the 'monotheistic in the polytheistic' hyperbolically, and deliberately, to counter nevermore's equally whimsical usage of 'kind of polytheism'. a monistic theology is similarly not a polytheism, at least not until this has been addressed: ' in any case, the word 'emanation' itself would need to be clarified'.
greek polytheism made each god into a personal god. unlike the monotheistic god, these gods were relevant to their roles, their domains of influence. one would call on hestia with matters domestic, but equally called on her with the internal affairs of the city, a larger home. perhaps she is the clearest greek link between the notion of the centred space to a generic sensibility of centredness. one could argue therefor that the sum of gods was a divine manifest in different guises, each fitting a sector of human life and culture. this is also waht i referred to earlier with the interchangeability of gods depending on the element. where the seperation between earth, ocean and underground was indistinct, the seperation amongst the three brother, zeus hades and poseidon was indistinct. in this sense, one can argue that greek polytheism also is more complex than a flippant polytheistic characterization. this higher level, higher than either a literal monotheism or polytheism, survived into more philosophical traditions, less literal, and finding their way in the judeochristian world in the form of gnostic chrstianity and sufism for instance.
i also never called the devouring god mine. and in any case, i meant all gods were devouring each other. whether literally, as with kronos, or figuratively in assimilating each other's roles and characters.so do not confuse the personal with the discursive. i did not write out of personal religious conviction. perhaps, this last is my more personal statement.
i did not call you an anti-semite, primarily because you were'nt attacking semitic people as a race per se. and in any case, calling someone an antisemite stops very short. it has almost lost potency.
but you did use the word semitic in a very loose manner. the circumference of semitism does not have to overlap with the circumference of religions that you deem semitic. state it for what it is: judaism-islam-christianity. leave the semitic out of 'semitic religion'. there are more nonsemites practicing these religions than semites.
perhaps you noted my agreement on some of your points. maybe if you werent so busy being conveniced that i was bashing you with yahweh, or whipping myself or others to frenzy. in any case, thank you for the info.
c-whore:> don't call him my yahweh. no where do i admit religiosity. poor reader yourself.
I call him your yahweh because you displayed an anxiety attack bordering on rage that I didn't criticize Islam and was pointing at the root of it in judea.
> i still do not see the major rift between monotheism and polytheism
That's because you are still counting them in nos. You can take a horse to a pond but...
> yes i was aware of the monistic personal god description. it came up in google, along with many other forms. i used the 'monotheistic in the polytheistic' hyperbolically, and deliberately, to counter nevermore's equally whimsical usage of 'kind of polytheism'.
Nevermore never said that. He said 'Nevermind about the philosophy of higher kinds of polytheist faiths like hinduism', meaning - higher faiths than monotheism , Not 'kind of polytheism' in the manner you (mis-)understand. Poor reading again.
> one could argue therefor that the sum of gods was a divine manifest in different guises, each fitting a sector of human life and culture. this is also waht i referred to earlier with the interchangeability of gods depending on the element. where the seperation between earth, ocean and underground was indistinct
And henotheism is not all that straight cut. There are basically two views of it from opp. sides.
One defn. is the worshiping of one favourite/personal god amongst the others.
Second defn. is while believing in the reality of the powers of the other gods, and because of this very reality, what was required was that one 'should not turn to them'.
This second is Israelite henotheism, and common to other semitic monotheism as well.
Clumping them together like you do is a serious error.
> and finding their way in the judeochristian world in the form of gnostic chrstianity and sufism for instance.
umm I don't even want to know what sufism is...
> i meant all gods were devouring each other. whether literally, as with kronos, or figuratively in assimilating each other's roles and characters
"Monotheism is both the outcome of and a factor in creating a negative dualistic mindset which finds its way to all realms of life. Lacking an mature internal integration, those who seek an illusive one form of what some term "God" generally see all of life in strict terms of white vs. black. You are either with us or against us, God vs. Devil, Heaven vs. Hell, The True Religion vs. the false religion(s), Man vs.Women and Conservative vs. Liberal are just a few of the segregationist views of this one dimensional type of thinking."
- Google
“The picture of a God[yhwh] who knew no moderation in his emotions and suffered precisely from this lack of moderation. He himself admitted that he was eaten up with rage and jealousy and this knowledge was painful to him. Insight existed along with obtuseness, loving-kindness along with cruelty, creative power along with destructiveness . . . .Such a condition is only conceivable either when no reflecting consciousness is present at all, or when the capacity for reflection is very feeble. . . A condition of this sort can only be described as amoral.†(The Portable Jung, p. 527)
So, its a poor and a bad argument to just simply 'universalize' things away saying 'all gods devour each other'... such fluffy statements carry no value, since some gods are better integrated and have stronger assimilative powers than others. Some are stable, some are unstable. And if you are going to now say all gods have the same devouring powers, this time it really will be you and your yhwh.
Nevermind all this. Putting it simply, lets assume I tell you,
- My god is the truth and there is no truth but him.
- Even if you have a red flower in your hand, if my god says its blue, then its blue.
- If you don't submit to this truth, its my duty to wage war on you and persecute you, for you are an infidel.
Let me know if that kind of absolutism is not tyranny to you.
> leave the semitic out of 'semitic religion'. there are more nonsemites practicing these religions than semites.
Why would I do such a thing?! Unlike you, I do believe religion and race have strong ties, and non-semites practising semitic religion for all practical purposes are monotheistic too since that's their governing make-up of how they see the world.
"you displayed an anxiety attack bordering on rage that I didn't criticize Islam and was pointing at the root of it in judea."
-that was neither rage nor anxiety. you suck at being a shrink. again, poor, no..crap, reading.if it helps, my religious background is irrelevant; you are obviously choosing to disregard that.
"Nevermore never said that. (...) higher kinds of polytheist faiths "
- so are you nevermore's biatch, so to speak? in either case, how easy to deliver a '(mis)understand' and then eject a quote. for every reference, there is another to challenge it. i mean, 'jewwatch'? seriously, jump of the anthill.
"What you are referring to is called pluriform monotheism - and that's not Greek."
-thats not what i was describing.
"And henotheism is not all that straight cut. There are basically two views of it from opp. sides"
-likewise, mono and poly theism in all their forms. these are terms that can be held to question and that can be used to suit different interpretation..and this is exactly why they came to be. unlike you, i do not adopt a dogmatic static stance. your spurtings are merely other people's garbage.
"Clumping them together like you do is a serious error"
- i did not clump. i did not even mention henotheism nor took it there. i derive an understanding out of features of greek religion. i did, and still do not, care to characterize it in terms of one word in order to relate it to another religion. the challenge is to the dogmatic categorization of a word. furthermore, i do not see it as a science; it is primarily interperative. again, i repeat, u judge from within your own circle of belief/religion or its lack. the clump is in your mind.
"umm I don't even want to know what sufism is..."
-i do not care
"So, its a poor and a bad argument to just simply 'universalize' things away saying 'all gods devour each other"
-you are right there. but i did not generalize in order to construe an argument. it wasn't an argument, it was my own 'religion' so to speak. bluntly, i did not care about you reading that part (as well as some others) in order for it to be an 'argument'. it was a poetic tool, not a truth.
-"Let me know if that kind of absolutism is not tyranny to you."
yes, to me. but if a country, a people and a culture choose it, this too is their right. in which case it no longer becomes a tyranny, to them. again, different spheres of influence in dissonance. it is tyranny to you, to me but not him or her.
"for all practical purposes are monotheistic too since that's their governing make-up of how they see the world."
-yes, i forgot. they are all ants to you. i thought hinduism preached...no, practiced acceptance and tolerance. no..ants, ants all ants. why not just say roaches, at least it would have historical resonance.
The word "religion" comes from the Latin root word "religio",broadely meaning to 're-connect'
Go google that.
------------------
I'm really marvelling at your stupidity.
If not your cross-eyed perceptions and inferences of theology, then it's your bad communication and/or typing skills.
(even that's a mystery because most of the text you are posting are copy-pastes from websites)
You "thought" hinduism preached..no ..practiced tolerance,whatever ....
Do yourself a favour, please don't think ! Don't let you mind wander - it's far too small to be let out on its own !
----------------------------
If need be , it would have taken me very little effort to piss all over you're fireworks that you'r setting off but you'r not worth even that.
The icing on the cake of your absurdity is the hippie-style song lyrics you quote at the end of your post . haha
You're too funny !
In my humble opinion, please work on your grammar, spellings punctuations etc before you tackle the finer "subtlelties" of Religion.
I admit "subtlelties" and mixed messages are not my forte .I would think that intellectual sissies who can't speak to the point would employ those.
Now, Do yourself a favour... stop tripping on whatever and go "religio" with what's left of your brain.
and stick to architecture, philosophy isn't your cup of tea.
c-whore:> that was neither rage nor anxiety. you suck at being a shrink. again, poor, no..crap, reading.
You diag-nosed your own symptoms vomit-ing all over the place... and claiming ressentiment on your own part! I guess the waft of your own stink must have gotten to your head you can't tell one thing from another. You poor piece of blurring dementia...
I wondered what that smell was!
Seething with ressentiment the injured feral cat returns with its stinking wounds...
> if it helps, my religious background is irrelevant; you are obviously choosing to disregard that.
Don't flatter yourself LOL! have never showed the slightest interest or the curiosity in you or your religious background. If you want your fragile ego tingled, pls. take it elsewhere.
> so are you nevermore's biatch, so to speak?
Are you yhwh's bitch, so to speak? Or have you whored for so many, you can't keep count anymore. Maybe that's why one is the same and good as any other to you... religiously, philosophically, personally... you suffer making distinctions.
Nevermind a shrink, you need medical help!
Secondly the yellow liver that you are, YOU brought in what nevermore said, explaining your senile boring unnecessary explanations at a 'counter' when you should have addressed that to him directly, and when you should have been attending classes on reading and logic! You engage me in your false understandings, you bet I will set it straight.
> in either case, how easy to deliver a '(mis)understand' and then eject a quote. for every reference, there is another to challenge it. i mean, 'jewwatch'? seriously, jump of the anthill.
What audacity to misinterpret someone and falsely tarnish them of whimsy when one's own brain is as small as an anthill...
And what challenge?! You are yet to make one decent meaningful statement of any 'any' significant value. Swines give themselves airs... and often resort to defensive provocations because they have no substance to begin with. You whore have proved a swine.
> thats not what i was describing.
Yes, you were.
> likewise, mono and poly theism in all their forms.
You are clumping again.
> these are terms that can be held to question and that can be used to suit different interpretation..and this is exactly why they came to be.
BS. Go take a look at a penguin philosophical dictionary. Twisting and evading words for what they stand for according to one's convenience is the mark of a cowardly defeatist.
I challenge you to quote any pagan polytheistic text that have such hatred, vengeance, impotence, ressetiment, slavishness, and the call for annihilation and persecution as the semitic monotheistic texts do.
Do it whore.
> unlike you, i do not adopt a dogmatic static stance. your spurtings are merely other people's garbage.
Funny coming from someone who said was desperate and has only been relying on google for education hahahahhaa
Its almost tragi-comic to say, you really have no idea of what even the word dogmatic means.
> i did not clump. i did not even mention henotheism nor took it there. i derive an understanding out of features of greek religion. i did, and still do not, care to characterize it in terms of one word in order to relate it to another religion. the challenge is to the dogmatic categorization of a word. furthermore, i do not see it as a science; it is primarily interperative. again, i repeat, u judge from within your own circle of belief/religion or its lack. the clump is in your mind.
If you cannot see your own doing, that's not my problem. And yes, you did clump, and you have been generalizing things away from the very beginning. Speak of dogmatic now! 'Primarily interpretive' - must be a late development on your part since at the start you were talking of all gods as a god in generality. Go cloud someone else. And yes you brought in henotheism in the prv. but one post to show how the clumping of the zeus-es in all three planes without distinction can be a case of poly/mono/heno. Unfortunately for you, the rigors of discipline do not permit such clumping and lumping to your convenience, because for one thing - monotheism has no regard for moirai which is the case for all monism - whether it be from the start of a Heraclitean piety or Vedanta. Your terrible confusion is because of the fact you have not grasped the difference between oneness and sameness. And if I have to educate you any more about it, I will have to start charging you fees.
> it wasn't an argument, it was my own 'religion' so to speak.
I don't care. Not interested.
> yes, to me. but if a country, a people and a culture choose it, this too is their right. in which case it no longer becomes a tyranny, to them. again, different spheres of influence in dissonance. it is tyranny to you, to me but not him or her.
It is their 'personal' right. Meganomanically imposing that as a universal right at the point of a sword IS Evil, IS Tyranny. A country, a people, a culture that do not have it in them to respect the way of others, deserve no respect in return. And all wailing and crying afterwards and making narcisstic poems on exile isn't going to win anything for them. What snobbish solipsism.
> yes, i forgot. they are all ants to you.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
> i thought hinduism preached...no, practiced acceptance and tolerance. no..ants, ants all ants.
We not only preach and practise, but also encourage respect for religious freedom unlike the barbaric idealogies of the stinking desert-whores. And such camels and sundry have taken advantage of our vast-heartedness as our history has shown and our present continues to see it when forced conversions and bastardly demonic prosetylizations are practised by the semitic trinity - all things are ants to them. ants, all ants. So save your lectures for the 'uncivilized third world' where you may package such 'faiths' in the garb of interpretive convenience and 'market' such trash megalomanical archaic modes of basic survival and fear complex that gets called a 'religion'.
> yes, why bother. stay where you are.
Your 'responses' to my thread have done nothing but illustrate the incredible degeneracy of spirit and intellect among such depraved creatures as yourself.
She has no ideas, no critical faculty, no creativity, no philosophical sense; she is, in essence, a Defeated twaddle. Such slave-whores as yourself are not only a disgrace, but are an insult to the vegetable world from which you emanate.
And since it is so important for your fragile ego to plead on Yahweh's case, Hahahaha, don't mind me; I allow you your little bit of slavish schadenfroh.....
Jew - Muslim
LANY:> But to satisfy the mainstream on this list, I will admit there are Jewish extremists (in the west bank), but you will find it hard to convince me that they ...or any other jew (or christian for this sake) will ever plot a simple mass murder of innocent people.
Oh really! I suppose the Jewish genocidal starvation in Russia is nothing.
I suppose all those bloody passages in the Talmud/Torah are not convincing enough for you.
http://jewwatch.com/jew-occupiedgovernments-USSR.html
"The starvation of men, women and children has been the most approved English method of warfare since the Jews became dominant there - Ireland, China, India, the Boers, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Italy and now France, Holland, Belgium, Norway and Spain. England and the Jews, with our help, in the name of civilization and Christianity, have illegally made food contraband against friendly peaceable nations and call it economic warfare - viz: Jewish warfare - the Four Horsemen."" (War! War! War!, Cincinnatus, p. 242).
Destruction can take subtle 'clean' bloodless forms as has already been posted: http://www.feastofhateandfear.com/archives/anonymous.html
> I get a feeling they recruited a group of you here on the site...
Now, who's 'they'? methinks that is a typical semitic paranoia speaking...
"One site that some have sought to undesign is the city of Jerusalem. Occupying a contested plot of land, Jerusalem is the apotheosis of error. Architect Lebbeus Woods observed that standing inside “the borderline are other borderlines†(38%), which is aptly illustrated by two key vectors, the vertical Western Wall and the horizontal flat rooftops of Jerusalem. Standing for thousands of years, the Western (Wailing) Wall in Jerusalem is a site of prayer and blood, the sacred topos of religious certainties rendered uncertain by politics and war. To study its façade is to study “the communication between the inside and the outside†(Tostrup 13)-to probe the depths of a single surface polished by hands, to step back from the wall, to detach ourselves from its visceral wail-is to study a design born of disunification as an unbuilt text of “full-scale realities that have not yet been made concrete†(Tostrup 12). Architects Deborah Natsios and John Young have realized the paradox of such border politics by deconstructing an above-ground horizontal plane of the Divided City utilizing the rooftops of Jerusalem.
In their essay, “Jerusalem SKY,†Natsios and Young propose a radical conjuncture of military and ecological topoi as a means of “[subordinating] pernicious surveillance to the knowledge-based act of seeing Jerusalem anew†(“SKY†np). Opting for reclaiming the sky as eco-political space (redefining total air supremacy), their project aims to track and monitor migratory bird populations whose trajectory takes them over the divided city of Jerusalem. Using the thousands of flat rooftops of Jerusalem, Natsios and Young lift the plane of conflict above ground, yet they utilize existing structures for participation in an ecological intervention into the troubled reality of Arab-Israeli relations. The project would retrofit military technology in the service of the migratory winged pilgrims making their journey south every year, using what was once the exclusive paraphernalia of war--real-time surveillance radar warning systems, satellites, and unmanned military drones. They envision “[b]ird's-eye-view perspectives of Jerusalem [that would] construct the city along the pilgrim's spiritual horizon, a vertical axis whose vanishing points converge into sanctified sky--the allegorical airspace of Jesus' and Muhammad's respective ascensions†(np)."
http://lingua.utdallas.edu/rhetoric/glitcheuristics/glitcheuristics.html
"One could probably argue that Judeo-Christian monotheism, as much as it implies universalism and egalitarianism, also suggests religious exclusiveness that directly emanates from the belief in one undisputed "
this is not exclusive to the monotheistic religions or to semitic identities. the argument you find probable is equally probable in any other context that allows and binds a culture-identity. your choice to apply it exclusively to the semitic is a jump to a mythical origin, as if any such argument can only begin with the semitic (the semitic as origin of precluding anti-otherness) . to begin with, the quote that dismisses any other influences, such as the greeks', on burgeoning cultures of tyranny, errs on two levels. firstly tyranny is used in a modern semblance to dismiss, unjustifiably, archaic understandings that held different connotations. the end result is an apiori calculation to end u labelling the judeochristian as being the truly tyrinnical. this is inkeeping with your lack of argument in the first place. it is all too well to interperate poetically, and viciously; this, however, can be done elsewhere. the theopoetic (rather than logical model) that served in many ways as a contrast for nietszche stood in the same position to its predecessors as did each monothestic religion to the others. usually, gods,alone or communal, are jealous creatures. polytheism or monotheism...doesnt matter. zeus is in the guise of apollo and athena in ares'. similarly, zeus has many trailing titles, some that situate him in the sky and others on earth. polytheism is a focusing on god's limbs. there is no proof or logic in your babble, simply an associating violence of accusation. yes, there was abrahamaic convenant, but for that to occur, there must have been an idea of convenant beforehand. why focus on the semites as if therein the origin? furthermore, it is a very narrow understanding, you concieve of the knife before concieving of the body.
overcome your master, you read off as being very much in slave mode.
a whore with much ressentiment
did you get to the second?
c-whore:> this is not exclusive to the monotheistic religions or to semitic identities.
Error. Religions/identities that espouse One God/One Truth as 'the' God, 'the' Truth- the absolutism context for that purpose is exclusive to the monotheistic.
> firstly tyranny is used in a modern semblance to dismiss, unjustifiably, archaic understandings that held different connotations.
And pray tell where was such kind of tyranny practised foremost?!
> this is inkeeping with your lack of argument in the first place.
Is that why you are giving me tips on how to 'interpret' texts?
You engage me on what the antichrist really says and I do, and its obvious his observations cannot be 'interpreted' away as much as you'd like to, and so you stoop to such liners. This is in keeping with your acclaimed whore ressentiment as in the first place.
> usually, gods,alone or communal, are jealous creatures. polytheism or monotheism...doesnt matter.
How stupid is that!
You can hear the cogs of its little brain grinding can't you;
"To A, Heaven is a 'goal', right.
While B says that he also has a 'goal' ... durr ... that must mean that B TOO believes in Heaven, because they both have goals!"
The belief in 'Original Sin' and therefore redemption, etc. is exclusive only to Monotheism; polytheism does not partake of such jealous angst.
"The Greeks did not see the Homeric gods above them as masters and themselves below them as as servants, as did the Jews. They saw, as it were, only the reflection of the most successful specimens of their own caste, that is, an ideal, not a contrast to their own nature. There was a kind of symmachia [alliance].
Judaeo-Christianity on the other hand... wants to destroy, shatter, stun, intoxicate: there is only one thing it does not want: moderation, and for this reason, it is in its deepest meaning barbaric, ignoble, un-Greek." - N., Human, 114
Tyranny and monotheism go hand in hand, because it does not know moderation.
The polytheistic pagan divinities are identified with the fate and fortunes of man - i.e., there is no separation; just as the lightning does not 'flash', the lightning IS its flash.
In paganism there are divinities for all types of men, women and children - as well as for all other natural phenomena.
Life's journey is a Willed striving towards your Own nature.
The Jewish God FORBIDS other Gods to the point of death. A submission and conformity to one nature under the garb of equality.
This is called 'Monotheism' - literally 'one godism' - something completely alien to paganism.
That the Greek gods were seen to have all the human vices and virtues [such as 'envy' - which was a Greek virtue, nuanced from 'jealousy'] and were perpetually in a conflict/agon, - which was enjoyed and affirmed for its own sake, - does not make any point of comparison with the dour and terrifying atmosphere of the Bible and the Koran.
Zeus is quite able to co-exist with Dionysos - it is Jehovah who brooks no competition, and is the father of all intolerance.
Christianity claims to be 'the' Truth. It claims that ONLY through the saviour can one find salvation. It states ABSOLUTELY that there is only one God and he IS the Truth.
That is Absolute Truth.
Immutability is a feature of absolutism.
Monotheists have an absolutist mental and moral make-up.
Paganism's history is one of assimilating other gods and traditions - that is true tolerance - unlike the 'one God only' bigotry of Judaism/Christianity/Islam.
Pagan polytheism, with its endless array of gods, goddesses, demigods and heroes, pays tribute to its openness.
It was Jehovah who said, "for I am a jealous God".
Drunk without wine, the Sybil thus deplored;-
How wrong things go!
Decay! Decay! Ne'er sank the world so low!
Great Rome has turned harlot and harlot-stew,
Rome's Caesar a beast; and God has turned - Jew!.
Moses as the inventor of Jihad, Abraham as the first Hollywood .
> overcome your master, you read off as being very much in slave mode.
Typical. That's what a slavish whore would say, a master's whip is all she is used to. Have you finished recalling your ten commandments for the day and pleasing your jealous master, whore?
A Halcyonian.
"With this idea [judaeo-christian everlastingness], the individual is made transcendent; as a result, he can attribute a senseless importance to himself.
In fact, it was [with]Christianity..., megalomania almost became a duty: one has to enforce eternal right against everything temporal and conditioned."
-Principles of a new evaluation, 765
"Current literature on totalitarianism seems to focus on the unpleasant side-effects of the bloated state, the absence of human rights, and the pervasive control of the police. By contrast, if liberal democracy is indeed a highly desirable and the least repressive system of all hitherto known in the West - and if, in addition, this liberal democracy claims to be the best custodian of human dignity - one wonders why it relentlessly causes social uprootedness and cultural despair among an increasing number of people? As Claude Polin notes, chances are that, in the short run, democratic totalitarianism will gain the upper hand since the security it provides is more appealing to the masses than is the vague notion of liberty(7). One might add that the tempo of democratic process in the West leads eventually to chaotic impasse, which necessitates the imposition of a hard-line regime."
- History and Decadence by Sunic
http://doctorsunic.netfirms.com/english10.html
Its in so called liberal democracies where totalitarianism really brews.
The illusionalism of the liberal morality:
First stage. Demanding 'justice' from those in power.
Second stage. Demanding 'freedom' to get away from those in power.
Third stage. Demanding 'equal rights' to prevent one's competitors from coming to power.
- The metamorphosis of the Slave Will, pure and simple.
@metamechanic,
I honestly don't have time but I believe there can be never enough time on certain issues. I do not belong to that currently fashionable disinterested cynical class which think 'why waste your breath!' - as one saxon motto goes, the fall of a die and its upshot is as much its web of wyrd as anything else. If that's unclear, nevermind.
Your post on cosumerism and monumentality interested me a little.
http://www.archinect.com/forum/threads.php?id=29324_0_42_0_C
You write there, "Mies showed us the perfect void, but as a monument for the rest of humanity this was useless."
Would you care to elaborate a bit on that, since this thread too in a way deals with issues of humanity? The perfect void?
I've been reading this thread with great interest.
It would be unfair to make generalisations but I can certainly say that in matters of religion and politics too..since religion is always closely mated with politics , Judaism, Christianity and Islam ----(whatver the intricacies of the religions may be) ---have been mostly responsible screwing up the world. On the whole .I.e
I'd like to comment on one funny dialogue made by cellardoor whore
--> polytheism is a focusing on god's limbs
LOL...
polytheism is a focusing on god's limbs ? ? ?..
..hehehehe that sounds like a war cry of a proselytising padre intent on saving as many heathen souls for his front-row seat in Salvation.
Something like 'worship the creator, not the creature " LOL
If I May be allowed to instruct your highness...
Nevermind about the philosophy of higher kinds of polytheist faiths like hinduism ..That would be too high for you ..
even the most basic and primitive kind of polytheism evokes more than one emanation of an image of God , since it knows that If there is a "God " and If it is all powerful ..it would be an irony if it were to be limited to one form.
First of all , you give an anthropomorphic image to the concept of God .--->Limbs etc..so that means your imagined concept of God has a form...Now every form is created by someone or something else..(we know this as architects, dont we ! )
..hence your creator has also been created..hence that shoots down your argument , since If god was created..he isnt exactly God is he. ;)
Cellardoor, Any fool who's studied the history of religions knows that Judaism ( and hence Christianity and Islam )is almost a direct derivation of 'Zoroastrianism'
"from the very creed of Zoroaster that the Jews derived all the angelology of their religion... the belief in a future state; of rewards and punishments, ... the soul's immortality, and the Last Judgment - all of them essential parts of the Zoroastrian scheme
-->King and Moore, : The Gnostics and Their Remains..
Just a Final thought for you
Zoroastrianism..It exists till today . It was the first 'monotheistic religion and FYI ,Zoroastrianism ,The Vedic religion ( the origin of Hinduism ) and a few other extinct religions have all evolved out the "polytheism" of the Indo-European people.
first learn a bit of Theology , broaden your scope of Knowledge and then comment on other's ' babble '.
You'll show me heaven , will ya Abraham ????
All the 9 planets are named after our pagan gods.
;)
Here's to drawing lines in the sand!
Much of this seems to be about internally created group definition allowing for dirty behaviour: "My group is better than yours (we are humans! the others outside of our group are not humans!) therefore: get-out-of-jail-free card to committ atrocity"
So if you call me brother now
forgive me if I inquire:
Just according to who's plan?
When it all comes down to dust
I will kill you if I must
I will help you if I can
When it all comes down to dust!
I will help you if I must!
I will kill you if I can
Have mercy on our uniform
Man of peace or man of war:
the peacock spreads its fan
-l. cohen
vomiting back:
say: allah the one
allah the indurance
he not begetting he not begotten
and he had him no equal not one
truly, the topopoeisis of a desert
to be a jarred semite, when the priestly robes depart and your community of faith, its pillars and its commandments, all like dried crimson petals of a dead rose in the pages of your own book. cite, recite, incite : from the billows of earth decants, breaks ground, the heavenly b(r)ook: Echad, Ahad. LA and AL(EL), a reversal of prefixes. and here's you, rabidity, quoting the cruelties of these religions with smug spittle flying, using rationality . religion is not rational, it is not even moral. you follow rules. the three were written in quasi military environments, tribal ones. it has nothing to do with race and creed, it has to do with the social structure. this is why, till now, the big three oscillate between being occpuier and occupied, conquerer and conquered. there is no one nature to the quran, the bible or the torah even of they proclaim unity. they are measures of altruism and violence. if you accept the religion, it stands outside the region of argument. it is its own reason, so to speak. like the sacrifices of the greeks and the mayas, it fits into the rationale of the system. you compare hinduism to judaism either from within the influence of one or the other; even modern western sensibility is a sediment of judeochrisian. this is primarily why i tell you, you have no argument, you have a preference and a dislike. in the islamic sharia'a, the theif gets his hand chopped off. i rebel, i am repulsed but my only argument, so to speak, is based on humane principles, yet another system with its own principles..much of which is judeochristian in origin even. a judeo-christian-islamism adversus itself. you see semites, almost by nature, i see humans in a certain order and system, gravitating towards one branch or the other, coalescing values but not necessarily resolving contradictions (viewed from the outside). i choose not to follow such a system, or a subsystem, but this is only because it is in conflict with another system of faith. the desire to reject the jewish principles is reciprocally their's to reject others'. you are espousing another religion of exclusion, even if on the spur of an inclusivity dejected.
also this wide net, this 'semites'. many moslems are not semites, more specifically shiite moslems. many jews are not semites, essentially of european heritage. certainly christians. the sons and daughters of shem are not synonymous with the arabs and jews of today. your indiscriminant unscientific usage of the word semite, an idiosynchratic racial and linguistic family, is on par with your rabid generalizations. even now, there are semites who are not strictly monotheistic. the greece of Io is the carthage of
the fear of being conquered leads to the paranoia of conquering others. it is not embedded in one's nature or blood,
like celan, for them, to pray, to prostate in front of a nothing. a kaddish a requiem a libera me and a mi she'anah, a disembowled shahadah. to a great big nothing that eats all the other gods up like an unvanquishable kronos, a ravenous enduring emptiness (time in a dragon-tail eating) , devouring its children. before polytheism was monotheism; a plurality is only a multiple, a mode, of singularity, worshipping of the object then the idea of objectness. before monotheism was polytheism, the family of the one devouring god. monotheism is not the rejection of other gods, it is logical conclusion of the ingestion of previous gods. polytheism has always tended towards monotheism, the generations of gods eating each other, assimilating the characters and roles of gods from other regions. yes...totalitarianism can be silent, even amongst the gods. what you think is a smile hides a frown upside down.
. the other parts want to be a tree, not the tree of the siroph, not the almond tree or the apple tree, but the immutable pine tree, the axis mundi that connects the sadness of the chosen people to the sadness of their chosen god. the levant tree par excellence. the same that witnessed the death of adonis and yasou from up the hill, the tammuz/dummuzis of the purple people, in fact it is attis . the fertile god, silent uninvolved in his own death.
and really whore this whore that. you're more anal than the semites. i recommend enemata, in which you will find the amen burried in the ate and a resolute serenity in backside pain, good scarlet friends. otherwise, kill yourself if you're so unhappy with anthill global. it seems subtractive aants are eating you aalive, breakfasting on your brains and dining on your heart.
an ant chain (or bee thread for mandelshtam: this simple thread of dead, dried bees,)
turned honey in the sun
"With
our pistil soul-bright,
with our stamen heaven-ravaged,
our corolla red
with the crimson word which we sang
over, O over
the thorn." -Celan (trans.)
"in the name,
solar vultures soar
skull aviary meatless, dive,
reveal the eidolon: scapula, white,
in the soundless inside: salt-white ants
swarm religiously " -Tammuz
" No birds. No blossoms on the dried flowers.
The manes of night’s horses are translucent.
An empty boat drifts on the naked river.
Lost among grasshoppers the word’s quiescent" -Mandelshtam (trans.)
Maria(m), between the rock'n'green of the levant and the sand storms of arabia.
nevermore: "kind of polytheism evokes more than one emanation of an image of God"
or an early form of monotheism that carried the plurality of emanations but coagulated the divinities into one. or then christianity is this kind of polytheistic. note,you're using God in the singular. in any case, the word 'emanation' itself would need to be clarified, not only in its usage but also in a history/culture of its usage to correspond with the particular theological entity.
(this is whence "polytheism is a focusing on god's limbs ", whose echo should have been "and monotheism is the communal body of gods'. in essence, i do not care much for the number of gods and their respective responsibilities. the idea, once an idea, of divinity is singular, likewise the idea of science. the content, the countability, was not a concern as it was that other's. also, the moronic resurrection of saint anslem's moronic argument for/against the form of god leads nowhere. one can say, since god is perfect (which classically begs 'what is perfect?') then god is perfect form, or all possible and impossible forms. you keep on using pronouns when there were none. 'i' do not have an imagined form of god. this is derivation of meaning out of proximities not implications,wrong neighbourhood, maria here. Also there is dispute as to how judaism relates to zoroastrianism; while there is consensus that there is much it owes to it, similarly there is much it owes to the egyptian (though according to a friend nubian) aten religion and the syrian hittite and hurian cultures . it is certainly not a 'direct derivative'. the jewish religion begins with having no other gods before jehovah...meaning, f it was not a monotheistic religion in its genesis. it makes sense for a chosen people to have a chosen god (not an only god). henotheism is one step away from monotheism, as is atheism.
christianity has its own peculair evolution and not just the literalist adversus the gnsotics who harken back to the orphaic mysteries with resonances around the region , also paul-ification of christianity. 'IES', phonecia's bacchus into JES with the latin US. a bastardized of poly & monotheism, almost like hinduism with its variant stresses on the oneness of the divine. the unravelling of a centered religion from within. christianity bears its own in the plurality of manifests and gospels. the church is everfragmenting mirroring its texts and words. the historical change in the church admits a dialectic, history as projectile has contaminated the innards of the church. a hurt is on the side of islam, when if it finds its dialectic. neither modernity nor other religions nor explicit violence will face it with a mirror. (not to show a truth, but to wake to a vunerability equal to that it left in its passage and absence). the jews: everyone is a jew, from a 'no god before me' to 'no god but me' both.
religions eat each other, they shit in layers in shared sacred sites.
and why do you two little scats, sound so gleeful in the prospect of my self flagellation? you also taste blood. in any case, thank you. it has been educational. cheers. really, sun moon and all.
..........
random googled stuff:
The monotheism of Hinduism (nevermore)
-"A casual observer might thus consider Hinduism "polytheistic," but this is a superficial view. A casual observer in Europe might likewise conclude that Christianity is functionally polytheistic upon viewing the numerous icons of god, his son, his mother, and the vast pantheons of angels and saints, many of which are the objects of worship and festival. Of course, one might object that in spite of such iconography and worship Christian theologians invariably insist upon monotheism. But Hindu theologians as well typically insist upon the unity of the divine; a more universal and applicable distinction that might be made here is that between popular and elite religiosity. ....This idea, which appears in the Vedas, is elaborated in later Hindu traditions. Each member of the so-called Hindu "trinity," ViSNu, Ziva and Devii, are in fact considered to be the absolute, eternal supreme deity of the VaiSNava, Zaiva and Zakta traditions, respectively. The VaiSNavas hold that ViSHNu is the supreme god who has manifested in the world in multiple forms (avataara) and who is thus, in theory at least, a personal god whose grace is accessible to his devotees" Are Indic Traditions Polytheistic?
A Position Paper by David Gray, PhD
-Contrary to prevailing misconceptions, Hindus all worship a one Supreme Being, though by different names. For Vaishnavites, Lord Vishnu is God. For Saivites, God is Siva. For Shaktas, Goddess Shakti is supreme. For Smartas, liberal Hindus, the choice of Deity is left to the devotee.
A Splendrous Lotus with Four Superb Petals www.hunduismtoday.com
-Hindus who say that Siva is different from Vishnu or the Supreme Parama Sivam is different from the Supreme Para Brahman of Vedanta do not have a full knowledge of their own religion. They are demonstrating a narrow and bigoted view which is contrary to the spirit of real Hinduism which is broad-hearted and tolerant. They do a disservice to Hindu religious unity by their emphasising superficial diversity in appearance instead of emphasising the essential unity of the Reality. Let me assure you that Goddesses Sarasvati, Parvati, Lakshmi, Durga, Kali, Bhavani and Lord Siva, Narayana, Brahman, Rama, Krishna, Dattatreya, Hanuman, Garuda, Kartikeya are all Divine forms that are in reality the One and the same Universal Spirit. They are all one. There is neither difference nor antagonism between them. It is not only childish but also foolish to deny this truth. You must be wise and recognise the fact that as a Hindu you know that there is only one God. Sri Swami Chidananda Hinduism :Monotheism and Polytheism Reconciled
on the ancient greeks monotheistic kernel:
-on rivalry between the greek gods and others and their relation to humans:
"The hostility of the Greek gods
towards ardent devotees of rival gods is well?known. In the Indian muthoi similar jealousies are not uncommon. Here, if the worship of a god does not
rouse the ire of another, the devotees of different gods are often pitted against one another and each receives help from his patron deity ( ishtadeva ). Gods are like superior heroes patronizing inferior human supplicants. They must answer the call of whosoever invokes them. A deity does not wait to
measure the merits or demerits of a devotee, justice in the end is not to be meted out by him but by the all?seeing Zeus, or by dike itself, or by law of
karma" Dr. Bharat Gupt, 2002
-"As we have seen from the fate of the Greek philosopher Socrates and that of the early Christians this kind of "monotheistic" polytheism was highly exclusive. If one doubted or rejected the peculiarity of this pantheon venerated by a certain group of people, they often counteracted through persecution or even capital punishment. This shows us that polytheism already portrayed the factor of exclusiveness. However, this did not introduce a static feature into polytheistic religions. Characteristics of one god could easily be merged with those of another god and even new gods could be introduced. The Roman Jupiter, for instance, could be identified with the Greek Zeus, or the Roman Minerva with the Greek Athena, and the Persian fertility goddess Magna Mater Cybele could make its successful debut on the religious scene of imperial Rome without her adherents facing any problems"
Deciphering the Religious Landscape:
From Prehistoric and Tribal Religions to Monotheistic Religions
Hans Schwarz
Center for Theology Colloquium
Lenoir-Rhyne College
April 7, 2005
--"Hugh Lloyd-Jones, The Justice of Zeus (1971), emphasised continuity between archaic and Classical value-systems, rather than the change which
Dodds suggested. He adopts a more integrated view of shame and guilt, by considering the functions of the gods, and showing that the attributes of Zeus
even in the Iliad are those of a supreme king, and involve protecting the themistes (principles of justice)." The Influence of Greek Tragedy: discussion of philosophical and theatrical responses to Greek tragedy (author name missing)
on the polytheism in the genesis of judaism:
-Pslam 82 from Old Testament
1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. (Elohim:plurality of god)
2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.
Also 95:3: For the LORD is a great God, and a great King above all gods
.......................
Yet the Hebrew version of this, instead of reading angelos (angel), reads elohim, which strictly speaking means "gods". What the Septuagint/NT rendering makes clear, is that the Jewish translators of the OT into Greek, saw an equivelence between the two, at least in the context of this passage. (polytheism carried)
Psalm 82 would seem to bare out the same notion - with YHWH being the Father and King of the "gods"...
1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.
Or other passages like Pslam 95:3 - For the LORD is a great God, and a great King above all gods.
on semites:
- "A truly comprehensive account of "Semitic" religions would include the polytheistic religions (such as the religions of Adad, Hadad) that flourished in the Middle East before the Abrahamic religions. (semitic is not synonymous with monotheism and vice versa)" wiki
-"Modern science, in contrast, identifies an ethnic group's common physical descent through genetic research, and analysis of the Semitic peoples suggests that they share a significant common ancestry. Though no significant common mitochondrial results have been yielded, Y-chromosomal links between Near-Eastern peoples like the Palestinians, Syrians and ethnic Jews have proved fruitful, despite differences contributed from other groups (see Y-chromosomal Aaron). Although population genetics is still a young science, it seems to indicate that a significant proportion of these peoples' ancestry comes from a common Near Eastern population to which (despite the differences with the Biblical genealogy) the term Semitic has been applied." wiki
"Jesus loves me
But not my wife
Not my nigger friends
Or their nigger lives
But jesus loves me
That's for sure
'Cause the bible tells me so
Read your bible good and well
Don't forget about that apple spell
Don't fall in the wishing well
Wishing for heaven and gettin' hell" CocieRosie
by the way, the vomit went all....unedited
@whore ,
well since you referred to me and I have no Idea what the fuck you are talking about ..go bite on this..while I try and decipher your post.
Om. That is full; this is full....
This fullness has been projected from that fullness.
When this fullness is subtraced from that fullness..all that remains is fullness...
When this fullness merges in that fullness, all that remains is fullness.
--Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad.
oh yea forgot ..
p.s
"For when there is duality, as it were, then one smells another, one sees another, one hears another, one speaks to another, one thinks of another, one knows another. ........
But when everything has become the Self,
then what should one smell and through what, what should one see and through what, what should one hear and through what, what should one speak and through what, what should one think and through what, what should one know and through what? ?
Through what should One know That owing to which all this is known—through what, my dear, should one know the Knower? ??
????
?
--Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad
c-whore:> it(religion) has nothing to do with race and creed, it has to do with the social structure.
Not so. The very word religion is from re-ligare - meaning a 'binding back' to the ways of racial ancestors and their creed.
see pgs. 28, 29, 31, 32: http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/fustel/AncientCity.pdf
"This religion could be propagated only by generation. The father, in giving life to his son, gave him at the same time his creed, his worship, the right to continue the sacred fire, to offer the funeral meal, to pronounce the formula of prayers. Generation established a mysterious bond between the infant, who was born to life, and all the gods of the family. Indeed, these gods were his family - theoi eggeneis ; they were of his blood - theoi sunaimoi". ...This "domestic religion was transmitted only from male to male".
In the ancient days, religion was something that was passed down/transmitted; the idea of "conversion" and there being a "choice" of one!, began with the bogus Christian "doors open to all", at which point religion started to dissociate itself from race - all dregs and anyone and everyone, with no lineage took up authority on rites and customs they had no knowledge or understanding of.
"I am strong against my enemies, from the songs which I receive from my family, and which my father has transmitted to me." [Rig-Veda, Langlois, trans., v. i. p. 1 13.]
Religion thus comes to be not just spiritual, but also a material bond, in that, the strength of his father and forefathers shaped by a particular belief "actuali-izes" in him.
> the desire to reject the jewish principles is reciprocally their's to reject others'. you are espousing another religion of exclusion, even if on the spur of an inclusivity dejected.
Unlike your yahweh, I never said all monotheists should be annihilated! but that absolutist totalitarian tyranny has monotheistic roots. The Jews themselves warm up to the idea the only land they haven't been persecuted is polytheistic India under Hinduism!
Also.
"analysis of the Semitic peoples suggests that they share a significant common ancestry. Though no significant common mitochondrial results have been yielded, Y-chromosomal links between Near-Eastern peoples like the Palestinians, Syrians and ethnic Jews have proved fruitful, despite differences contributed from other groups (see Y-chromosomal Aaron). Although population genetics is still a young science, it seems to indicate that a significant proportion of these peoples' ancestry comes from a common Near Eastern population to which (despite the differences with the Biblical genealogy) the term Semitic has been applied."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semite
So my terms are valid and were used properly. No rabid vabid generalizations.
> also this wide net, this 'semites'. many moslems are not semites, more specifically shiite moslems. many jews are not semites, essentially of european heritage. certainly christians. the sons and daughters of shem are not synonymous with the arabs and jews of today. your indiscriminant unscientific usage of the word semite, an idiosynchratic racial and linguistic family, is on par with your rabid generalizations. even now, there are semites who are not strictly monotheistic.
I find you paranoid and of a poor reading capacity. I do not target a Semitic 'people', but the monotheism that characterizes them and their absolutist outlook.
> before polytheism was monotheism; a plurality is only a multiple,
a mode, of singularity, worshipping of the object then the idea of objectness. monotheism is not the rejection of other gods, it is logical conclusion of the ingestion of previous gods. before monotheism was polytheism, the family of the one devouring god. polytheism has always tended towards monotheism, the generations of gods eating each other, assimilating the characters and roles of gods from other regions.
'IES', phonecia's bacchus into JES with the latin US. a bastardized of poly & monotheism, almost like hinduism with its variant stresses on the oneness of the divine. the unravelling of a centered religion from within. henotheism is one step away from monotheism, as is atheism.
the idea, once an idea, of divinity is singular, likewise the idea of
science. the content, the countability, was not a concern as it was that other's.
Very wrong. Proper understanding of what is what needs a little more than a few minutes google search and picking on the first thing that pops up.
First of all Hinduism is NOT monotheistic, it is Mon-istic, and our monistic principle is referred to as the Brahman - its NOT a God!
Mon-ism is the metaphysics that the whole is essentially one principle, has one basic value. There's no notion of command or creator. Mono-theism believes that there is one personal God and he 'ought' to be worshipped. Monism does not postulate this ought. Monism is not dogmatic - that is the beauty of it, and that's what gives its essential Vedic feature. http://www.hvk.org/hvk/articles/0597/0036.html
Monistic theism is 'not' monotheism.
And just because your faith adheres to a concept of a "devouring God", does not make it a universal thing that all Gods are or have to be so. I pointed this for a logical aptitude on your part earlier, but you have just given a splendid example of how monotheism exhibits itself - 'my god is only true, so all other gods must be like him' ! BS.
The difference between one-godism and polytheism is not about which god ate how many gods, and how many were digested and the excrement that was One; not the number of Gods but where the God or Gods stand in relation to the Cosmos. For the “Monotheists†the Cosmos was created by an ever -existing Being outside it (so in this macro-historical level it is nothing more than a mortal creation). For the “Monotheists†Cosmos is a creation that has to obey the laws of its “creatorâ€. For polytheistic Hellenes, for example, the eternal Cosmos emerges always from inside of itself (ΑΝΑΔΥΕΤΑΙ ΑΦ’ ΕΑΥΤΟΥ) and is the creator of all Gods, that obey their own laws. In Aryan Vedic Hinduism, the word for this inner law (that which gives a thing its thingness) is called Dharma, in Celtic its called Dli --- a concept that monotheists have no inkling of!
Our Gods are many and we understand them as completing the make-up of the Universal Sphere of Cosmos to its maximum potential and whole. Thus, for the Hellenes, from the ΔΩΔΕΚΑΕΔΡΟΝ ("Dodekάhedron") geometric shape (that fills up the sphere to its maximum) we imagine twelve planes, each one presenting a God inside the Cosmos and we define our Hellenic ΠΑΝΘΕΟΝ (Pάntheon, ΠΑΝ ΤΩΝ ΘΕΩΝ , All The Gods) as ΔΩΔΕΚΑΘΕΟΝ ("Dodekάtheon", Pantheon of The Twelve Gods).The Twelve Gods of theirs live inside the Shpere of Cosmos and form its various behaviors. In the same way, the twelve Zodiacs represent twelve "energies" that reach Earth.
That kind of plurality is not about being devoured up into a typical semitic conception of "sum of all zeroes = zero and all zeroes have equal rights before the one zero"! LOL
Another difference being the linearity of time, etc. etc.
Damn, are you an architect with such poor cultural understandings?!!
> the jews: everyone is a jew, from a 'no god before me' to 'no god but me' both.
yes...totalitarianism can be silent, even amongst the gods.
The difference between violent polytheists and violent monotheists is that the former kill to gain political control and the latter kill to assert theological dominance. The difference is subtle, but important. Polytheists sought control over the public sphere alone; monotheists sought control over private thoughts as well. Semitic totalitarian tyranny "wants your soul", the "submission of your spirit and soul". Go educate yourself.
Theodosius outlawed all practice of traditional (pagan) customs and beliefs and employed organized groups of men to carry out edicts.
On a more proper view of I.E. religiosity:
"In the first place, it is unmistakeably evident that Indo-European religiosity is not rooted in any kind of fear, neither in fear of the deity nor in fear of death. The words of the latter-day Roman poet, that fear first created the Gods (Statius: Thebais, III, 661: primus in orbe fecit deos timor), cannot be applied to the true forms of Indo-European religiosity, for wherever it has unfolded freely, the “fear of the Lord†(Proverbs, ix. 10; Psalms, cxi. 10) has proved neither the beginning of belief nor of wisdom.
Fear could not arise because the Indo-European does not consider that he is the creature of a deity; he neither regarded himself as a “creature†nor did he comprehend the world as a creation — the work of a creative God with a beginning in time. To him the world was far more a timeless order, within which both Gods as well as men had their time, their place and
The idea of creation is Oriental, above all Babylonic, but not from the Indo-Aryan spirit — of the world’s end, culminating in a judgment and the intercession of a kingdom of God, in which everything will be completely transformed.
Still less was a religious attitude possible here, which saw in man a slave under an all-powerful Lord God. The submissive and slavish relation of man to God is especially characteristic of the religiosity of the Semitic peoples. The names Baal, Moloch, Rabbat and others, all stress the omnipotence of the Lord God over enslaved men, his creatures, who crawl on their faces before him. For the Indo-Europeans the worship of God meant the adoration of a deity, the encouragement and cultivation of all impulses to worship, it meant colere with the Romans and therapeuein with the Hellenes. In the Semitic language the word worship comes from its root abad, which means to be a slave. Hannah (I Samuel, i. 11) begs Jahve, the Hebrew tribal God, to give her, his slave, a son. David (II Samuel, vii. 20) calls himself a slave of his God, and so does Solomon (I Kings, iii. 7). The essence of Jahve is terror (Exodus, xxiii. 27; Isaiah, viii. 13), but this has never been true of the Indo-Europeans’ Gods. The Hymn to Zeus of the stoic Kleanthes of Assos (331-233 — Max Pohlenz: Die Stoa, 1948, pp. 108 et seq., and G. Verbeke: Kleanthos van Assos, Verhandelingen van den koninklijke Academie vor Wetenschapen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van Belgie, Klasse der Letteren, Year XI, Nr. 9, 1949, p. 235), from which Paul (Acts, xvii. 28) took words to adjust himself to the Hellenic religious outlook, completely contradicts for example, the religiosity of the 90th Psalm.
In Christianity the conduct of the faithful before God is freely interpreted by the term humilis, and hence humility, meaning literally slave mind or serving the tribe, is demanded as the essence of religiosity. But this is non-Indo-European in outlook
Indo-European religiosity is not slavery, it contains none of the implorings of a downtrodden slave to his all-powerful lord, but comprises rather the confiding fulfilment of a community comprising Gods and men. Plato speaks in his Banquet (188c) of a “mutual community (philia) between Gods and menâ€. The Teuton was certain of the friendship of his God, of the astvin or the fulltrui whom he fully trusted, and with the Hellenes in the Odyssey (XXIV, 514) the same certainty is found expressed in the words “friends of the Gods†(theoi philoi). In the Bhagavad Gita of the Indians (IV, 3) the God Krishna calls the man Arjuna his friend. The highest deity such as Zeus is honoured as “Father of the Gods and of men†— as a family father, as Zeus Herkeios, not as a despot. This idea is also expressed in the names of the Gods: Djaus pitar with the Indians and Jupiter with the Romans. The name of the Indian God Mitra, which corresponded to Mithra in Iran, means “friendâ€. Mazdaism, founded by Zoroaster, called the morally acting man a friend of Ahura Mazda, the One Universal God, who in the era of Achaemenides became the God of the Persian empire. According to Plato (Laws, IV, 716) the man of moderation and self-control is above all “a friend of Godâ€.
Paul distinguishes the religiosity of the Indo-Europeans from that of the Semites, when he asserts (I Corinthians, i. 22) that while the Hellenes strove for knowledge (sophia), the Jews desired revelations (semaia), and Aurelius Augustinus, the Bishop of Hippo (Patrologiae cursus completus, Vol. XXXVII, edited by J. P. Migne, 1845, Sp. 1586; Vol. XXVIII, 1845, Sp. 1132) attempts by citing Bible passages, to disparage the wisdom (sapientia) of the Hellenes, alien to him as a Christian, as a folly before God and to find the highest wisdom only in the obedient humility (humilitas obedentiae) of the faithful.
The certainty of a destiny has not made the true Indo-European seek redemption, and even when his destiny caused him to tremble, he never turned to contrition or fearful awareness of “sinâ€. Aeschylus, who was completely permeated by Hellenic religiosity and by the power of the divine, stands upright, like every Indo-European, before the immortal Gods, and despite every shattering experience has no feeling of sin.
Thus Indo-European religiosity is not concerned with anxiety, or self-damnation, or contrition, but with the man who would honour the divinity by standing up squarely amid the turmoil of destiny to pay him homage.
The German word fromm, meaning religious or devout, is derived from the stem meaning capable or fit, and is related to the Gothic fruma, meaning first, and to the Greek promos, meaning furthermost.
The Indo-European wishes to stand before the deity as a complete man who has achieved the balanced equilibrium of his powers which the deity demands from him.
A noble balance, the constantia and gravitas, which the Romans expected in particular from their senators and high officials, has also been found preserved, by one of the most eminent scholars of the pre-Christian Teutonic spirit, the Swiss, Andreas Heusler,23 in the spiritual expression of the numerous Roman sculptures (Kurt Schumacher: Germanendarstellungen, edited by Hans Klumbach, 1935) of Teutonic men and women: “What strikes one most about these great, nobly formed features, is their mastered calm, their integral nobility, indeed their reflective mildness.â€
From the Indo-Iranian belief in the Gods of antiquity (Polytheism), Spitama Zarathustra created in approximately the ninth century B.C. the first teaching of and belief in One God (Monotheism) in the history of religions. The Gods who had been common to the Indians and Iranians now passed into the background behind the one Ahura Mazda, after whom Mazdaism is named. These other Gods, preserved in India, in Iran became the sacred immortals (amesha spentas) the representatives of the moral virtues. They were later regarded as the messengers (Greek: angeloi) of Ahura Mazda, and the archangels created by Jewish and Christian legends were modelled on them. Spitama Zarathustra erected his monotheistic form of belief in a one-sided way, purely based upon morality, but in so doing he contradicted hereditary Indo-European religiosity. Hermann Lommel (Von arischer Religion, Geistige Arbeit, Year 1, No. 23, pp. 5-6) has proved, however, that, arising from Iranian popular belief, a natural religiosity again and again broke out in Mazdaism. A curious example of these outbreaks was the creation by the Persian kings, of landscape parks and gardens, whose fame spread far and wide. One of these gardens was called pairidesa and from it derived the Old Testament idea of Paradise and of the Garden of Eden (Josef Strzygowski.
Nature religiosity has also been expressed in Iranian poetry and plastic art in the descriptions of the “Landscape filled with the glory of the deity†(khvarenah — Josef Strzygowski: Die Landschaft in der nordischen Kunst, pp. 143, 261 et seq.), akin to that of Indo-European aristocratic farmers, and the landscape parks of eighteenth century Europe.
When in January 1804, in conversation with his colleague, the philologist Riemer, Goethe expressed the view that he found it “remarkable that the whole of Christianity had not brought forth a Sophoclesâ€,
Freedom is where you can live, as pleases a brave heart; where you can live according to the customs and laws of your fathers; where you are made happy by that which made your most distant ancestors happy.
E. M. Arndt, Catechism for the Teutonic Soldier and Warrior, 1813."
- Hans Gunther, http://www.earlson.nordish.net/raie/index.htm
Judaeo-Christianity is megalomania.
"Through Christianity, the individual was made so important, so absolute, that he could no longer be sacrificed: but the species endures only through sacrifice. Genuine charity demands sacrifice for the good of the species.
...Pre-occupation with itself and its "eternal salvation" is not the expression of a rich and self-confident type, for that type does not give a damn about its salvation. Christianity is a romantic hypochondria of those whose legs are shaky. a hedonistic perspective (will this give pleasure or displeasure to me)" - Nietzsche
"On their Day of Atonement Jews ask for and receive nothing less than absolution for all the sins and wrongs against Gentiles they are about to commit in the coming year! In so doing, they cut a shrewd lawyer's deal with their God YHWH or Yahweh, that gives them an exemption in advance from all wrongdoing.
Here is the actual text of this outrageous Jewish "prayer":
"Of all vows, bonds, promises, obligations and oaths wherewith we have avowed, sworn and bound ourselves from this Day of Atonement to the next Day of Atonement, may it come unto us for good; -- of all these vows we hereby repent. They shall be absolved, released, annulled, made void, and of no effect; they shall not be binding, nor shall they have any power. Our vows shall not be vows; our bonds shall not be bonds; and our oaths shall not be oaths."
(High Holy Day Prayer Book, quoted in Judaism, ed. Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg [New York: George Braziller, 1962], p. 145.)
That's pretty clear, unambiguous language. What we have here, in fact, is nothing less than a one-year, renewable license to lie, cheat and steal with impunity, all based on a decree from the Jews' so-called holy book, the Talmud, which says:
And he who desires that none of his vows made during the year shall be valid, let him stand at the beginning of the year and declare, "Every vow which I make in the future shall be null." (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Nedarim 23a & 23b)"
http://library.flawlesslogic.com/kolnidre.htm
"And I will set the Egyptians against the Egyptians: and they shall fight every one against his brother and every one against his neighbor; city against city and kingdom against kingdom. And the spirit of Egypt shall fall in the midst thereof; and I will destroy the counsel thereof: and they shall seek to the idols, and to the charmers, and to them that have familiar spirits, and to the wizards (Isaiah 19:2-3).
Afterward, he said to his brothers: 'ye shall eat the fat of the land,' and 'the good of all the land of Egypt is yours.' (Genesis 45:18,20)
The Monotheistic Orthodox Church in Greece against the pagans:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1810722,00.html
Jews and Muslims buddy buddies:
http://library.flawlesslogic.com/orientalism.htm
More on the real Koran:
http://library.flawlesslogic.com/koran.htm
"And time rolls on.
With us, they did not reckon
when setting forth their vast utopian schemes.
They thought thee dead, and us also.
They thought our faith had slackened.
They thought, the fools, that they could rely
upon our loyalties to values which we hate.
They thought they could send us to die
without us ever asking why,
when we had grown too weary to say no.
They though they had become the masters of our fate.
And here we rise and here we stand,
and give the world to understand,
that we shall never fight but for our same old dream.
For honor and for might, and what we know is right.
For the joy of asserting the privileges of our birth." [Savitri Devi]
Lost Wisdom:
"While we may believe
our world - our reality
to be that is - is but one
manifestation of the essence
Other planes lie beyond the reach
of normal sense and common roads
But they are no less real
than what we see or touch or feel
Denied by the blind church
'cause these are not the words of God
- the same God that burnt the
knowing" [Varg]
Making honey out of vomit...
Triumph, Light...
^If anyone read this whole post, get a life!
life is beauuuuuuuuuuuutiful.
don't call him my yahweh. no where do i admit religiosity. poor reader yourself.
i am always educating myself. i do not need your telling.
don't diss my google, i am currently in a country with no almost no books allowed in, except maybe stuff on delia smith recipes and how to make a lotta money and kurans in various shapes and sizes. in any case, google came after intuition. therefor, desperate means ...
lastly, you are regurgitating the same rhetoric, with different quotes and examples. you yourself are thinking religiously. i still do not see the major rift between monotheism and polytheism. yes i was aware of the monistic personal god description. it came up in google, along with many other forms. i used the 'monotheistic in the polytheistic' hyperbolically, and deliberately, to counter nevermore's equally whimsical usage of 'kind of polytheism'. a monistic theology is similarly not a polytheism, at least not until this has been addressed: ' in any case, the word 'emanation' itself would need to be clarified'.
greek polytheism made each god into a personal god. unlike the monotheistic god, these gods were relevant to their roles, their domains of influence. one would call on hestia with matters domestic, but equally called on her with the internal affairs of the city, a larger home. perhaps she is the clearest greek link between the notion of the centred space to a generic sensibility of centredness. one could argue therefor that the sum of gods was a divine manifest in different guises, each fitting a sector of human life and culture. this is also waht i referred to earlier with the interchangeability of gods depending on the element. where the seperation between earth, ocean and underground was indistinct, the seperation amongst the three brother, zeus hades and poseidon was indistinct. in this sense, one can argue that greek polytheism also is more complex than a flippant polytheistic characterization. this higher level, higher than either a literal monotheism or polytheism, survived into more philosophical traditions, less literal, and finding their way in the judeochristian world in the form of gnostic chrstianity and sufism for instance.
i also never called the devouring god mine. and in any case, i meant all gods were devouring each other. whether literally, as with kronos, or figuratively in assimilating each other's roles and characters.so do not confuse the personal with the discursive. i did not write out of personal religious conviction. perhaps, this last is my more personal statement.
i did not call you an anti-semite, primarily because you were'nt attacking semitic people as a race per se. and in any case, calling someone an antisemite stops very short. it has almost lost potency.
but you did use the word semitic in a very loose manner. the circumference of semitism does not have to overlap with the circumference of religions that you deem semitic. state it for what it is: judaism-islam-christianity. leave the semitic out of 'semitic religion'. there are more nonsemites practicing these religions than semites.
perhaps you noted my agreement on some of your points. maybe if you werent so busy being conveniced that i was bashing you with yahweh, or whipping myself or others to frenzy. in any case, thank you for the info.
cellardoor , that was an impeccable turnaround and an even more impressive retreat.lol
c-whore:> don't call him my yahweh. no where do i admit religiosity. poor reader yourself.
I call him your yahweh because you displayed an anxiety attack bordering on rage that I didn't criticize Islam and was pointing at the root of it in judea.
> i still do not see the major rift between monotheism and polytheism
That's because you are still counting them in nos. You can take a horse to a pond but...
> yes i was aware of the monistic personal god description. it came up in google, along with many other forms. i used the 'monotheistic in the polytheistic' hyperbolically, and deliberately, to counter nevermore's equally whimsical usage of 'kind of polytheism'.
Nevermore never said that. He said 'Nevermind about the philosophy of higher kinds of polytheist faiths like hinduism', meaning - higher faiths than monotheism , Not 'kind of polytheism' in the manner you (mis-)understand. Poor reading again.
> one could argue therefor that the sum of gods was a divine manifest in different guises, each fitting a sector of human life and culture. this is also waht i referred to earlier with the interchangeability of gods depending on the element. where the seperation between earth, ocean and underground was indistinct
Wrong. zzzz...
What you are referring to is called pluriform monotheism - and that's not Greek.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-38215
And henotheism is not all that straight cut. There are basically two views of it from opp. sides.
One defn. is the worshiping of one favourite/personal god amongst the others.
Second defn. is while believing in the reality of the powers of the other gods, and because of this very reality, what was required was that one 'should not turn to them'.
This second is Israelite henotheism, and common to other semitic monotheism as well.
Clumping them together like you do is a serious error.
> and finding their way in the judeochristian world in the form of gnostic chrstianity and sufism for instance.
umm I don't even want to know what sufism is...
> i meant all gods were devouring each other. whether literally, as with kronos, or figuratively in assimilating each other's roles and characters
"Monotheism is both the outcome of and a factor in creating a negative dualistic mindset which finds its way to all realms of life. Lacking an mature internal integration, those who seek an illusive one form of what some term "God" generally see all of life in strict terms of white vs. black. You are either with us or against us, God vs. Devil, Heaven vs. Hell, The True Religion vs. the false religion(s), Man vs.Women and Conservative vs. Liberal are just a few of the segregationist views of this one dimensional type of thinking."
- Google
“The picture of a God[yhwh] who knew no moderation in his emotions and suffered precisely from this lack of moderation. He himself admitted that he was eaten up with rage and jealousy and this knowledge was painful to him. Insight existed along with obtuseness, loving-kindness along with cruelty, creative power along with destructiveness . . . .Such a condition is only conceivable either when no reflecting consciousness is present at all, or when the capacity for reflection is very feeble. . . A condition of this sort can only be described as amoral.†(The Portable Jung, p. 527)
So, its a poor and a bad argument to just simply 'universalize' things away saying 'all gods devour each other'... such fluffy statements carry no value, since some gods are better integrated and have stronger assimilative powers than others. Some are stable, some are unstable. And if you are going to now say all gods have the same devouring powers, this time it really will be you and your yhwh.
Nevermind all this. Putting it simply, lets assume I tell you,
- My god is the truth and there is no truth but him.
- Even if you have a red flower in your hand, if my god says its blue, then its blue.
- If you don't submit to this truth, its my duty to wage war on you and persecute you, for you are an infidel.
Let me know if that kind of absolutism is not tyranny to you.
The scourge of monotheism:
http://www.newagedatabase.com/monotheism.htm
> leave the semitic out of 'semitic religion'. there are more nonsemites practicing these religions than semites.
Why would I do such a thing?! Unlike you, I do believe religion and race have strong ties, and non-semites practising semitic religion for all practical purposes are monotheistic too since that's their governing make-up of how they see the world.
> in any case, thank you for the info.
You are welcome.
Holy crap dude. Get a hobby!
"you displayed an anxiety attack bordering on rage that I didn't criticize Islam and was pointing at the root of it in judea."
-that was neither rage nor anxiety. you suck at being a shrink. again, poor, no..crap, reading.if it helps, my religious background is irrelevant; you are obviously choosing to disregard that.
"Nevermore never said that. (...) higher kinds of polytheist faiths "
- so are you nevermore's biatch, so to speak? in either case, how easy to deliver a '(mis)understand' and then eject a quote. for every reference, there is another to challenge it. i mean, 'jewwatch'? seriously, jump of the anthill.
"What you are referring to is called pluriform monotheism - and that's not Greek."
-thats not what i was describing.
"And henotheism is not all that straight cut. There are basically two views of it from opp. sides"
-likewise, mono and poly theism in all their forms. these are terms that can be held to question and that can be used to suit different interpretation..and this is exactly why they came to be. unlike you, i do not adopt a dogmatic static stance. your spurtings are merely other people's garbage.
"Clumping them together like you do is a serious error"
- i did not clump. i did not even mention henotheism nor took it there. i derive an understanding out of features of greek religion. i did, and still do not, care to characterize it in terms of one word in order to relate it to another religion. the challenge is to the dogmatic categorization of a word. furthermore, i do not see it as a science; it is primarily interperative. again, i repeat, u judge from within your own circle of belief/religion or its lack. the clump is in your mind.
"umm I don't even want to know what sufism is..."
-i do not care
"So, its a poor and a bad argument to just simply 'universalize' things away saying 'all gods devour each other"
-you are right there. but i did not generalize in order to construe an argument. it wasn't an argument, it was my own 'religion' so to speak. bluntly, i did not care about you reading that part (as well as some others) in order for it to be an 'argument'. it was a poetic tool, not a truth.
-"Let me know if that kind of absolutism is not tyranny to you."
yes, to me. but if a country, a people and a culture choose it, this too is their right. in which case it no longer becomes a tyranny, to them. again, different spheres of influence in dissonance. it is tyranny to you, to me but not him or her.
"for all practical purposes are monotheistic too since that's their governing make-up of how they see the world."
-yes, i forgot. they are all ants to you. i thought hinduism preached...no, practiced acceptance and tolerance. no..ants, ants all ants. why not just say roaches, at least it would have historical resonance.
"Why would I do such a thing?!"
- yes, why bother. stay where you are.
"You are welcome. " kisses
...................................................
nevermore, subtletly and mixed messages are not your forte. dust.
cellardoor,
The word "religion" comes from the Latin root word "religio",broadely meaning to 're-connect'
Go google that.
------------------
I'm really marvelling at your stupidity.
If not your cross-eyed perceptions and inferences of theology, then it's your bad communication and/or typing skills.
(even that's a mystery because most of the text you are posting are copy-pastes from websites)
You "thought" hinduism preached..no ..practiced tolerance,whatever ....
Do yourself a favour, please don't think ! Don't let you mind wander - it's far too small to be let out on its own !
----------------------------
If need be , it would have taken me very little effort to piss all over you're fireworks that you'r setting off but you'r not worth even that.
The icing on the cake of your absurdity is the hippie-style song lyrics you quote at the end of your post . haha
You're too funny !
In my humble opinion, please work on your grammar, spellings punctuations etc before you tackle the finer "subtlelties" of Religion.
I admit "subtlelties" and mixed messages are not my forte .I would think that intellectual sissies who can't speak to the point would employ those.
Now, Do yourself a favour... stop tripping on whatever and go "religio" with what's left of your brain.
and stick to architecture, philosophy isn't your cup of tea.
how do I sign off here....
"ash" ? LOL
c-whore:> that was neither rage nor anxiety. you suck at being a shrink. again, poor, no..crap, reading.
You diag-nosed your own symptoms vomit-ing all over the place... and claiming ressentiment on your own part! I guess the waft of your own stink must have gotten to your head you can't tell one thing from another. You poor piece of blurring dementia...
I wondered what that smell was!
Seething with ressentiment the injured feral cat returns with its stinking wounds...
> if it helps, my religious background is irrelevant; you are obviously choosing to disregard that.
Don't flatter yourself LOL! have never showed the slightest interest or the curiosity in you or your religious background. If you want your fragile ego tingled, pls. take it elsewhere.
> so are you nevermore's biatch, so to speak?
Are you yhwh's bitch, so to speak? Or have you whored for so many, you can't keep count anymore. Maybe that's why one is the same and good as any other to you... religiously, philosophically, personally... you suffer making distinctions.
Nevermind a shrink, you need medical help!
Secondly the yellow liver that you are, YOU brought in what nevermore said, explaining your senile boring unnecessary explanations at a 'counter' when you should have addressed that to him directly, and when you should have been attending classes on reading and logic! You engage me in your false understandings, you bet I will set it straight.
> in either case, how easy to deliver a '(mis)understand' and then eject a quote. for every reference, there is another to challenge it. i mean, 'jewwatch'? seriously, jump of the anthill.
What audacity to misinterpret someone and falsely tarnish them of whimsy when one's own brain is as small as an anthill...
And what challenge?! You are yet to make one decent meaningful statement of any 'any' significant value. Swines give themselves airs... and often resort to defensive provocations because they have no substance to begin with. You whore have proved a swine.
> thats not what i was describing.
Yes, you were.
> likewise, mono and poly theism in all their forms.
You are clumping again.
> these are terms that can be held to question and that can be used to suit different interpretation..and this is exactly why they came to be.
BS. Go take a look at a penguin philosophical dictionary. Twisting and evading words for what they stand for according to one's convenience is the mark of a cowardly defeatist.
I challenge you to quote any pagan polytheistic text that have such hatred, vengeance, impotence, ressetiment, slavishness, and the call for annihilation and persecution as the semitic monotheistic texts do.
Do it whore.
> unlike you, i do not adopt a dogmatic static stance. your spurtings are merely other people's garbage.
Funny coming from someone who said was desperate and has only been relying on google for education hahahahhaa
Its almost tragi-comic to say, you really have no idea of what even the word dogmatic means.
> i did not clump. i did not even mention henotheism nor took it there. i derive an understanding out of features of greek religion. i did, and still do not, care to characterize it in terms of one word in order to relate it to another religion. the challenge is to the dogmatic categorization of a word. furthermore, i do not see it as a science; it is primarily interperative. again, i repeat, u judge from within your own circle of belief/religion or its lack. the clump is in your mind.
If you cannot see your own doing, that's not my problem. And yes, you did clump, and you have been generalizing things away from the very beginning. Speak of dogmatic now! 'Primarily interpretive' - must be a late development on your part since at the start you were talking of all gods as a god in generality. Go cloud someone else. And yes you brought in henotheism in the prv. but one post to show how the clumping of the zeus-es in all three planes without distinction can be a case of poly/mono/heno. Unfortunately for you, the rigors of discipline do not permit such clumping and lumping to your convenience, because for one thing - monotheism has no regard for moirai which is the case for all monism - whether it be from the start of a Heraclitean piety or Vedanta. Your terrible confusion is because of the fact you have not grasped the difference between oneness and sameness. And if I have to educate you any more about it, I will have to start charging you fees.
> it wasn't an argument, it was my own 'religion' so to speak.
I don't care. Not interested.
> yes, to me. but if a country, a people and a culture choose it, this too is their right. in which case it no longer becomes a tyranny, to them. again, different spheres of influence in dissonance. it is tyranny to you, to me but not him or her.
It is their 'personal' right. Meganomanically imposing that as a universal right at the point of a sword IS Evil, IS Tyranny. A country, a people, a culture that do not have it in them to respect the way of others, deserve no respect in return. And all wailing and crying afterwards and making narcisstic poems on exile isn't going to win anything for them. What snobbish solipsism.
> yes, i forgot. they are all ants to you.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
> i thought hinduism preached...no, practiced acceptance and tolerance. no..ants, ants all ants.
We not only preach and practise, but also encourage respect for religious freedom unlike the barbaric idealogies of the stinking desert-whores. And such camels and sundry have taken advantage of our vast-heartedness as our history has shown and our present continues to see it when forced conversions and bastardly demonic prosetylizations are practised by the semitic trinity - all things are ants to them. ants, all ants. So save your lectures for the 'uncivilized third world' where you may package such 'faiths' in the garb of interpretive convenience and 'market' such trash megalomanical archaic modes of basic survival and fear complex that gets called a 'religion'.
> yes, why bother. stay where you are.
Your 'responses' to my thread have done nothing but illustrate the incredible degeneracy of spirit and intellect among such depraved creatures as yourself.
She has no ideas, no critical faculty, no creativity, no philosophical sense; she is, in essence, a Defeated twaddle. Such slave-whores as yourself are not only a disgrace, but are an insult to the vegetable world from which you emanate.
And since it is so important for your fragile ego to plead on Yahweh's case, Hahahaha, don't mind me; I allow you your little bit of slavish schadenfroh.....
ALERE FLAMMAM
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.