[Albert]

Apparently the majority were not because they left runestones behind in Byzantium and because at least some of them were berzerkers. They fought for Christians because Christians were willing to pay them handsomely.

Perhaps I do not know. But think of Pope's Swiss Guard they were Christian and Swiss were considered to make the best soldiers. You seem to attribute loyalty and better warrior abilities to pagans more so to Christians. I think it is just nature of the military guards that at times they becomes to corrupt to perform their function. Like the Praetorian Guard of Rome or Janissaries of the Ottomans.

[SolarCross]

This is called Old Testament higher criticism, it is a bunch of bollocks and is tainted by obscure evidence and arguments and faulty presuppositions and hermeneutics.

I've read the Epic of Gilgamesh, you ain't fooling me with that shallow gainsaying spiced with obscure polysyllables.

Do I believe the Old Testament is absolutely true? Yes. That is the orthodox theological position, I believe textual higher criticism is a bunch of garbage.

It clearly isn't absolutely true. I don't know if holding it to be absolutely true is a mainstream Christian position today, it may have been in the past, too many people know better for that to fly now though. Realistically you should accept the Torah as at best mostly allegorical or metaphorically true with only odd bits being historical and even then as testimony by imperfect human observers rather than the literal word of a god.

Well, I was part of a tradition that did forbid such, the Covenanters. The disagreement on that text is not on whether idolatry is forbidden, but whether or not Christian symbols can be idolatrous, both agree that idols to non-Christian faiths is idolatry, there is no disagreement on that, which is what we are discussing.

Right but that is because they are assuming that they alone possess the good gods thus the other gods must either not exist or be manifestations of their evil gods such as Satan or Beelzebub. This isn't a true position to take though, it's basically self-serving dishonesty. Like as not the other gods are just as likely to be alternative manifestations of the gods that the Christians hold to be good gods and in that respect it would no more be idolatry than a crucifix or a statue of Mary.

I think you fail to make a distinction between elements and circumstances of worship. Setting aside the fact that many Calvinists (as I once was) do not celebrate Christmas or wear wedding rings for the reasons you suggest, the reason why some Christians do so is because they are viewed as adiaphora. Wearing or not wearing a ring symbolizing marriage is not idolatry, but sacrificing a goat to Odin is. Putting a wreath that says "Jesus Christ is born" on your front door is not idolatry even though the wreath was originally used in worship to pagan deities of fertility, but mental assent is important in this regards as well.

For instance,
If a Christian is actually celebrating yuletide in its elements by worshipping and believing in false deities and engaging in idolatry, they are wrong and should be punished. If they are practicing Christmas as ordained by the church in its Apostolic authority which merely appropriated some circumstantial aspects of yuletide (like a Christmas tree), that is adiaphora (a matter indifferent).

Right and this is exactly the twisting double-think Christians perform to culturally appropriate from other religions while still pretending they are really pure jewish monotheists or something somewhere deep underneath all the overt paganry and despite believing in god-man demi-gods.

This is a tricky issue and should be done on a case-to-case basis. I believe in having pagan allies as subordinates (which the Varangians are a fine example), but am leary of alliances on equal footing with enemies of the faith in anything more than non-binding "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of thing. I think Pagans tends to fuck over Christians in alliances, they did so in Nazi Germany in the Reich Church Project, and have done so in other examples.

I also do not believe Christians should be unequally yolked with unbelievers, so I would not form mutual covenants with them. Christians should never marry non-Christians, start business partenerships with them, or form equal alliances with them.

They may have unbelieving servants, employees, contractors, soldiers, etc., or be such to unbelieving masters.

Christians may also make "approximate allies" with non-believers, which are non-biding in nature and can be made in the pursuit of common interests. (what may be called "natural alliances")

I would say my relationship with unbelieving far-righters on Po-Fo resembles and exemplifies this last category, as does NordicFront pagan types and Polish-Catholic anti-immigration groups working together against the EU.

I have natural alliances with many non-Christians on Po-Fo, but I would not let them marry my daughters nor would I partner with them in a business venture unless they converted. At the same time, even if they did not convert, I would still hire them to work for me, work my land, or serve me and in that relationship I would try bring them around to the truth. Likewise, Christians may work and serve unbelievers but ought to seek and desire for their masters to be converted, mainly by having them observe the good conduct and work ethic of their Christian servants. (1 Corinthians 6 & 7, and Ephesians 6).

Well I don't think Christians are particularly trustworthy allies either as much as it pains me to make that kind of sweeping generalisation.

Anyway I have ordered from Amazon: Mere Christianity and King James Version Bible, so I guess I am going to study Christianity either way. I'll also continue explore the religion of my ancestors though too by which I mean the art of Seiðr and also perhaps I'll try berzerkergangr just for the sheer badassery of it. Might prove handy if I ever get ganged up on by muslims or commies.

We will just have to see where this goes.

[Decky]

King James version.

[Hong Wu]

Great thread here. @Victoribus Spolia making good arguments and observations as usual. Here's another concern I have with Christianity. As VS said, I am basically in the "watch it go and wait for the next one" camp.

People seem to adapt to dialogues. I made a thread recently about how I have this friend who has this quasi-Christian, narcissistic delusion about how charitable works and his own greatness seem to coincide. This is similar to me re: progressivism as hyper, secularized Christianity that stresses only the most popular parts. How can Christians oppose a "hyper" and free version of themselves?

One issue here is that most people don't have philosophies. You can't really change someone's behaviors if they aren't operating according to a philosophy in the first place. So VS and others can write great things but we are lead by the momentum of people who don't really care why they do things. Unless this changes, dialogue and writing seems to go nowhere. Just ride it out

[Victoribus Spolia]

@Victoribus Spolia making good arguments and observations as usual. Here's another concern I have with Christianity. As VS said, I am basically in the "watch it go and wait for the next one" camp.

Thank you sir. I am also glad I represented you fairly and accurately. That is always my intention.

So VS and others can write great things but we are lead by the momentum of people who don't really care why they do things.

Thanks for the black pill....ya jerk.

[Hong Wu]

Thanks for the black pill....ya jerk.

Yeah sorry man. I started to have serious apprehensions after I met a girl in America who didn't know who Barack Obama was. Crazy thing is, she seemed smarter than most people in some ways, I oddly somewhat respected the degree to which she didn't give a s-, not sure what that says about me.

There are people in my life that I've won the same argument with half a dozen times and they never seem to remember. I think those of us who actually care about why we do things are in the minority and everyone else is just pretending. I might even respect someone who doesn't pretend more than someone who does. After all, it's not like that chick who didn't know who Obama was had more or less authority than most people following politics.

[colliric]

Hey at least you never had to tell a grown adult university educated Jewish girl what the ethnic background of the most famous person in the history of our planet was....

I choose to break it to her by singing "Long time ago in Bethlehem, so the holy Bible says" with emphasis on the word "Bethlehem"...

Then I asked her where Bethlehem and Jerusalem still are today, and which ethnic group dominates that country.

[One Degree]

Yes, we seem to have a lot of people who are so comfortable with their ‘acquired knowledge’, they have never found a reason to think. I have wondered if thinking requires adversity. The more comfortable your life, the less real thinking you do? Not necessarily monetary adversity.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I have wondered if thinking requires adversity. The more comfortable your life, the less real thinking you do?

I would tend to agree with that, though its a bit of chicken-egg deal, for being educated is not the same as being a thinker as many ivy-league types are well-educated and often well-read and have experienced very little adversity. Likewise, you almost invariably have to have controversial beliefs in the first-place in order to be persecuted for them, so it seems some thinking must have been occurring already before the adversity began.

Whether their adversity creates more reflection and refinement in thought almost invariably depends on the quality of the person.

The AnCap in me though definitely sees heightened time preference as a disincentive to intellectual depth.

Our collective IQ is dropping in the west in proportion to growth of government. The less a person has to be long-term oriented the less he has to think and the less variables he has to consider in making decisions. That is why being sophisticated and hedonist in most peoples minds are only ever reserved for snobbish rich folks because they can afford to act in avant garde ways; however, in any other circumstance when we are thinking of hedonists, we think of unsophisticated barbarians like trailer-trash rednecks or ghetto-rats. They only exist though because, like the super rich (and even more so), they can now afford to be careless because of the social safety net that protects them from due consequences.

The less people have to calculate present actions in light of future consequences, the less thinking a person has to do.

Hell, most people don't even have to think ahead regarding their meals because of microwaves and fast food.

They say that necessity is the mother invention....well, in the same way, necessity is the mother of innovation and such requires thought.

[One Degree]

I would tend to agree with that, though its a bit of chicken-egg deal, for being educated is not the same as being a thinker as many ivy-league types are well-educated and often well-read and have experienced very little adversity. Likewise, you almost invariably have to have controversial beliefs in the first-place in order to be persecuted for them, so it seems some thinking must have been occurring already before the adversity began.

Whether their adversity creates more reflection and refinement in thought almost invariably depends on the quality of the person.

The AnCap in me though definitely sees heightened time preference as a disincentive to intellectual depth.

Our collective IQ is dropping in the west in proportion to growth of government. The less a person has to be long-term oriented the less he has to think and the less variables he has to consider in making decisions. That is why being sophisticated and hedonist in most peoples minds are only ever reserved for snobbish rich folks because they can afford to act in avant garde ways; however, in any other circumstance when we are thinking of hedonists, we think of unsophisticated barbarians like trailer-trash rednecks or ghetto-rats. They only exist though because, like the super rich (and even more so), they can now afford to be careless because of the social safety net that protects them from due consequences.

The less people have to calculate present actions in light of future consequences, the less thinking a person has to do.

Hell, most people don't even have to think ahead regarding their meals because of microwaves and fast food.

They say that necessity is the mother invention....well, in the same way, necessity is the mother of innovation and such requires thought.

Yes, that fits nicely with my irritation with people unable to look into the future where their decisions are leading. I see so many of my comments totally ignored on this like the future is not worth considering in decisions.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, we seem to have a lot of people who are so comfortable with their ‘acquired knowledge’, they have never found a reason to think. I have wondered if thinking requires adversity. The more comfortable your life, the less real thinking you do? Not necessarily monetary adversity.

If that were the case, white hetero cis middle/upper class men from the developed world would be doing the least amount of real thinking.

You might be on to something there.

[One Degree]

If that were the case, white hetero cis middle/upper class men from the developed world would be doing the least amount of real thinking.

You might be on to something there.

To believe members of this imaginary group does not experience adversity is a racist stereotype.

[Pants-of-dog]

Then it’s a good thing that I never made that assumption.

[One Degree]

Then it’s a good thing that I never made that assumption.

You proved you made the assumption as soon as you limited your comments to that group.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, you are doing that thing where you misread someone’s post so that you can get offended.

It is entirely possible for white het cis well-off men from the developed world to experience adversity, and for them to simultaneously experience significantly less adversity than others.

[Albert]

I find innovativeness is not necessary inspired by adversity. As Pant pointed out a tribal African man has much more adversity and necessity, yet he is not as innovative as a civilized white hetero cis man in America or Europe. How come? There must be more to it.

Since this is going to be in context in this thread. I personally believe this is something out of our control. This aspect to us is unknown. Why did god chose the European hetero cis proud white man from British isles to lead us into industrialization? Or Greeks and Italians (Romans) to give us so much innovation? Perhaps science and human knowledge will advance so far as to understand how that exactly comes about one day and god will reveal it to us. But until then we do not know.

Unless you a racialist and believe it is all genetics, but then that is also out of our control.

[SolarCross]

Unless you a racialist and believe it is all genetics, but then that is also out of our control.

Genetics isn't out of our control though and gets less out of our control by the day.

[Albert]

It is in a way, but even smart people have dumb kids. Or dumb people have gifted kids. There is also genetic mutation that happens naturally. But even then there is also environment that has consequences on persons development.

[SolarCross]

It is in a way, but even smart people have dumb kids. Or dumb people have gifted kids. There is also genetic mutation that happens naturally. But even then there is also environment that has consequences on persons development.

Agreed, environment is as important as genetics and they have a symbiotic relationship too. Genetics influences how well an organism does in its environment and the environment in turn shapes which genetic patterns are promoted and which are weeded out. People ask "is it nature or nurture?" but it is really both working reflexively together.

[Albert]

Exactly, there are just to many variables that we can not control nor are we intelligent enough as humans to understand them all. We can try our best. For example in many ways this is where America I believe succeeded the most in modernity, especially in 19th early 20th century. They truly tired to achieve a society where opportunity for ones' talent was given to its citizens and in many respect they had done it. This is why America has found so much prosperity.

I believe this is one of the best things we can do at the moment with our limited knowledge, is to give opportunity to fulfill their talent for all regardless of the status and rank.