[Victoribus Spolia]

I have to agree with VS here. That far-rights trouble is abandonment of Christianity. Many of them are even pagan reaching out to ancient forgotten rites and rituals. This is really troublesome because Christianity is what formed the West.

Yes, the most meaningful and profound aspects of Western Civilization, those aspects which any Traditionalist worth his salt wants to see preserved, owe their existence to Christianity. Indeed, even those aspect of the pagans which were worth anything, Roman scholarship, Greek philosophy, Nordo-Germanic literature, traditions, etc., all owe their continuance to Christians preserving them.

Unlike Islam that destroys that which it cannot understand, Christians preserve that which challenges them because Christians lack ideological fear and will absorb ideas to help them make their own arguments stronger and more nuanced, and their traditions richer and more appealing. They don't merely kill their opponents, they allow their opponents to make their best arguments and present their best traditions, Christians then defeat them in debate, take what ideas and traditions from their opponents that they can reconcile to the truth, and then and only then will they kill them.

[Pants-of-dog]

I can think of several examples of Christians killing the other out of fear and ignorance and not absorbing any knowledge or wisdom from those they oppose.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Noemon Edit: Impersonating a mod

[Pants-of-dog]

Feel free to report me.

Please note that I am not an atheist, I was raised in a Catholic household, and my knowledge of revelatory practices in Christianity come from actually practicing them.

I also note that you have no rebuttal to the fact that many Christians throughout history have been oppressive and have destroyed other cultures without any attempt to learn from said cultures.

[SolarCross]

I wonder why we are now framing this conversation in terms of far-right vs the left? I prefer if we must speak in dichotomies to frame things in terms of good vs evil. Yes the left are evil but the "right" are not so always pure and good. Do we consider fascism to be "right wing"? How about the holocaust? Where does Islam fit on the left vs right spectrum? Left vs right is a false dichotomy the real dichotomy is Good vs Evil or perhaps even more objectively Order vs Chaos or Life vs Death.

@Victoribus Spolia
In the 20th century the battle of good vs evil formed up around the relatively free peoples of the world (not just the west) and the odious idiocy of communism, like as not fascism happened to be on the wrong side of that conflict even while it fought the USSR. In the 21st century I think the great enemy will once again take the form of Islam in the main (as it did before the modern era for more than a thousand years) and its little helpers within the gates. Naturally Christianity makes for rallying point against Islam. Who else but a Christian can yell "Deus Vult" and mean it? The Christian clan is very large, 2+ billion world wide, perhaps for this reason, yet despite the schisms, Christians can be afford to be zealous and exclusionary. When you have 2 billion in your camp and already have some difficulty accommodating the schisms within it why indeed look for alliances beyond?

Why do you have this odd need for psuedo-buddhist out-of-body experience?

The pursuit of truth. It is not enough for me to read about someone else's revealed truth I have to do it myself or I can't believe. I suppose that is the scientist in me; I don't want dogma I want observation.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I also note that you have no rebuttal to the fact that many Christians throughout history have been oppressive and have destroyed other cultures without any attempt to learn from said cultures.

There is nothing to rebut, like every social group on earth, Christians have done things that were inconsistent with their own creed. At the same time, I tend to view the amount of times that Christians as a collective have consciously engaged in this tends to be a lot lower than your average secularist would have you believe, must of this stemming from the fact that what I consider justified violence and conquest tends to be broader than most commentators allow for Christians to believe (this being the basis for theological debates in-house on issues such as just-war theory, colonialism and missions, etc.,)

The pursuit of truth. It is not enough for me to read about someone else's revealed truth I have to do it myself or I can't believe.

Once again, committing to the truth and experiencing truth are not contraries in Christianity, but what I am inquiring into is the sort of thing you are actually craving. If you are craving some sort of ecstasy that transcends reason then I doubt Christianity is what you are seeking; however, if you believe that heightened spiritual states and an insurmountable zeal and passion that can only come from God can be had via the means of Scripture and reason, then you have come to the right place. I have no incentive to sugar-coat it for you, it is what it is.

[SolarCross]

Once again, committing to the truth and experiencing truth are not contraries in Christianity, but what I am inquiring into is the sort of thing you are actually craving. If you are craving some sort of ecstasy that transcends reason then I doubt Christianity is what you are seeking; however, if you believe that heightened spiritual states and an insurmountable zeal and passion that can only come from God can be had via the means of Scripture and reason, then you have come to the right place. I have no incentive to sugar-coat it for you, it is what it is.

I want to fight evil with zeal and I want to directly explore great ultimate truth, so I do think Christianity does have something to offer me, a lot actually, where the rub happens is that it is apparent to me that Christianity isn't the only source of knowledge or power but even while, as you know, Christianity is not wholly intolerant of other wisdom having absorbed and preserved many of the customs and knowledge of the pagans of Europe there is however an exclusionary tendency too, a tendency to throw everything which doesn't neatly fit into a sectarian Christian box into the Evil which must be Purged box, like as not Christians even throw other Christians into this box witness the Wars of Religion which plagued Europe for centuries. Perhaps that is the devil (or Loki ever the trickster) at work on the inside?

Let me ask you this: Can I be a Christian and also explore the spirituality of what I consider to be the other good religions? Can I be a pantheist Christian?

[Albert]

Yes, the most meaningful and profound aspects of Western Civilization, those aspects which any Traditionalist worth his salt wants to see preserved, owe their existence to Christianity. Indeed, even those aspect of the pagans which were worth anything, Roman scholarship, Greek philosophy, Nordo-Germanic literature, traditions, etc., all owe their continuance to Christians preserving them.

Unlike Islam that destroys that which it cannot understand, Christians preserve that which challenges them because Christians lack ideological fear and will absorb ideas to help them make their own arguments stronger and more nuanced, and their traditions richer and more appealing. They don't merely kill their opponents, they allow their opponents to make their best arguments and present their best traditions, Christians then defeat them in debate, take what ideas and traditions from their opponents that they can reconcile to the truth, and then and only then will they kill them.

Well the fact that the most aggressive of pagans in Europe, Scandinavians eventually embraced Christianity shows something. Christianity historically was not spread by the sword but through missionaries and preaching. Along side other diverse religions and philosophies, especially that which existed in the Roman Empire.

Jesus essentially opened Judaism to the rest of the world, before then from what I understand reading the bible, Jews were this mystical secluded religious/ethnic sect. That not many new much about, because of how ancient Jews took care not to interact with other peoples of the empire. They saw other non-Jews as spiritually unclean and took great care to preserve their seclusion. When Jesus came he essentially opened up 'gods' people, who were preserving and preparing god's way for humanity.

Edit: It was a strange phenomena even for the Romans at the time. That these secluded people of whom not much was know and their ways, started to open up to them and rest of the empire.

Imagine you are playing one of those games like Oblivion and Skyrim. You have this vast empire with numerous different races and cultures and one day one of those obscure races like the wooden elves who live at the corner of the empire started to come out of their seclusion preaching about the messiah and kingdom of heaven. It is how I imagine it was at that time.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Can I be a Christian and also explore the spirituality of what I consider to be the other good religions?

Depends on what you mean by the terms: "explore" and "spirituality."

There is a line between "Exploring" and "Idolatry" that should not be breached. There is a point behind the commandment of God "You Shall No Other gods Before Me."

Can I be a pantheist Christian?

No. That would be a contradiction.

That is like asking me if you could be an atheist and a catholic, which is also retarded and I don't care how much some of the communists on PoFo have deluded themselves otherwise.

Christianity is theistic, God is metaphysically distinct from His creation in some way (the manner of which is debated, which is fine), Pantheism denies this at a fundamental level. So I would say no.

Keep in mind though, I am going to be honest with you, I am not going to twist Christianity so that you can join it and that is in spite of my desire to see every man, woman, and child on earth be converted. I believe Christianity is true, perfect in its doctrine, rational, and absolute.

I am a traditionalist western Christian, I am a confessor of orthodox Christian theology and a son of the true catholic church.

[One Degree]

@Victoribus Spolia Just to be argumentative: You said I can not depend upon my reasoning because of the “fall from grace”. Do you not depend upon your reasoning to determine you are interpreting God’s message correctly? I understand the ‘acceptance of God’ argument, but the acceptance can not come before the ‘reasoning’ that leads you to accept.

[Albert]

Reasoning is dependent on our understanding. If our understanding is limited so will be our reasoning. For example importing millions of migrants is reasonable if one does not see that culture and ethnicity plays a major role in formation of society. Yet one who understands that culture and ethnicity have a major social impact will reason differently.

This is why in the bible there is high stress on understanding and wisdom above knowledge and reason. The greatest thing one can ask from god is understanding and wisdom.

In a sense bible says understanding is received by grace not acquired by personal effort.

[SolarCross]

Depends on what you mean by the terms: "explore" and "spirituality."

There is a line between "Exploring" and "Idolatry" that should not be breached. There is a point behind the commandment of God "You Shall No Other gods Before Me."

I think the pantheist proposition is that all the gods as humans know them are faulty perceptions of a single ultimately unknowable pantheon. Thus Odin or Zeus is not necessarily another god from Yahweh but instead different perceptions of the same god.

The ancient jews used to be polytheists and all the stories in their Torah used to be polytheistic legends some of them belonging to other polytheistic peoples like the Sumerians. Early in the crystalisation of the Hebrew literature there was a great revisionism of their books to make all the many good gods smooshed together to make a singular super god which they conflated with their own petty tribal god they called Yahweh. They didn't bother so much to revise the evil or enemy gods which is why there are so many different evil gods: Leviathan, Abbadon, Satan, Baal & Lilith.

There is a definite problem taking the literature literally, especially when it concerns the supposed supremacy of Yahweh. The truth is that the literature is a fossilised butcher's job.

That doesn't mean there isn't anything of value in the Torah but you have to treat it a bit intelligently. By a certain stupidly strict interpretation of commandment 2, on idolatry, would make every Christian an idolater because what else is a cross or ikon or statue of mary but a graven image? Somehow most Christians, perhaps self-servingly, don't make that interpretation.

No. That would be a contradiction.

That is like asking me if you could be an atheist and a catholic, which is also retarded and I don't care how much some of the communists on PoFo have deluded themselves otherwise.

Christianity is theistic, God is metaphysically distinct from His creation in some way (the manner of which is debated, which is fine), Pantheism denies this at a fundamental level. So I would say no.

Keep in mind though, I am going to be honest with you, I am not going to twist Christianity so that you can join it and that is in spite of my desire to see every man, woman, and child on earth be converted. I believe Christianity is true, perfect in its doctrine, rational, and absolute.

I am a traditionalist western Christian, I am a confessor of orthodox Christian theology and a son of the true catholic church.

It isn't a contradiction to be a pantheist Odinist though. There is no problem with being a Odinist and doing Buddhist meditation or practising Yoga. I don't think your perception is quite right that Christianity needs to be twisted to accommodate pantheism because actually Christians have been "twisting" to accommodate polytheists from the very beginning, arguably it wouldn't have been such a successful religion if it didn't, and even you do that when you celebrate yuletide but call it Christmas and wear a gold ring on the third finger of your left hand to show you are married just as was the ancient pagan Roman tradition. Some piety is false piety.

Another question: if Christianity suddenly can't accept pantheism can it accept non-Christian allies? Before you answer I'd like to invite you to read about the Varangian Guard of the Byzantine Empire.

The Varangian Guard was only used in battle during critical moments, or where the battle was most fierce.[21] Contemporary Byzantine chroniclers note with a mix of terror and fascination that the "Scandinavians were frightening both in appearance and in equipment, they attacked with reckless rage and neither cared about losing blood nor their wounds".[21] The description probably refers to berserkers, since this state of trance is said to have given them superhuman strength and no sense of pain from their wounds.

At one time the highest political authority in Christendom employed actual berserker Odinists as the most trusted elements in its military.

It may be that the old lost art of berserkergangr has been recovered by certain adventurous souls.

Would you really say no to authentic modern berserkers being on your side in the fight against evil? There has to be something spunky to counter Islamic martyr bombers.

[Victoribus Spolia]

You said I can not depend upon my reasoning because of the “fall from grace”.

The noetic effects of sin are an immediate cause for one's reasoning to reject the message of scripture prior to being regenerated; however, for the regenerated man, he is was once blind and now He sees. When I speak of the noetic effects of sin regarding human reason, I am referring to man's reason in regards to approaching to topic of true religion; not necessarily to make simple inferences. Thus, there is a difference between a man's use of his reason prior to and after the work of regeneration.

Thus, I would say that there is a difference between how the man outside of the faith and inside the faith can interpret scripture.

Hence, 1 Corinthians 1:18:

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Do you not depend upon your reasoning to determine you are interpreting God’s message correctly?

Yes, but my presuppositions which inform my reasoning process have changed by the regneration of the Spririt so that I accept certain axioms that an unbeliever cannot possibly accept. These presuppositions, like in all areas of life, affect how we apply our reasoning (what are also called transcendental beliefs, or preconditions of intelligibility).

Furthermore, scriptural interpretation is also based on certain rules so that its dependency on human opinions is limited. The most of important of these is probably scriptura scripturae interpres; wherein, clearer texts are to be used to understand more obscure texts, etc. This doctrine assumes that the main authoritative interpretation for any text, are other texts, thus that God is the absolute interpreter. Second, this assumes that Scripture is coherent in its message, Third, this assumes that Scripture is a revelation from God and thus must be perspicuous (otherwise what would the point be?), and Fourth this assumes that Scripture must be handled with reverence for the One who Authored it. Thus, as you can see, even this interpretive rule assumes a dispositional attitude on the part of Christian exegete that does not seem to obtain in the case of a heathen.

I understand the ‘acceptance of God’ argument, but the acceptance can not come before the ‘reasoning’ that leads you to accept.

Obviously one's reason requires that one assents to a proposition as either true or false (propositional logic), but the disposition behind this acceptance must be changed or else you will never accept the truth of Gospel propositions, that is the doctrine of original sin regarding one trying to rationally approach God. Its not that Christianity is not rational, but that ordinarily reasonable men refuse to accept its rationality because of their obstinate hearts that hate what Scripture actually teaches. There is an distinction between proof (rationality) and persuasion (dispositional attitudes).

Christian arguments can be proven, but persuading you to accept them is an entirely different matter and requires supernatural intervention.

As they old saying goes:

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

[Albert]

@SolarCross
The trouble with Varangians is that they were uncivilized barbarians. They did not know much about tactics nor discipline. Their savagery gave them raw instinctual advantage on one-on-one combat but when it came to organized battle and tactics they were considerably at disadvantage. This is why Roman army will usually defeat a barbarian one, because of tactics and organization. Brain beats muscle in the end.

Yet as shock troops in a civilized military barbarians like Varangians were useful. As their raw savagery can be tactically guided to the best advantage.

[SolarCross]

The trouble with Varangians is that they were uncivilized barbarians. They did not know much about tactics nor discipline. Their savagery gave them raw instinctual advantage on one-on-one combat but when it came to organized battle and tactics they were considerably at disadvantage. This is why Roman army will usually defeat a barbarian one, because of tactics and organization. Brain beats muscle in the end.

Yet as shock troops in a civilized military barbarians like Varangians were useful. As their raw savagery can be tactically guided to the best advantage.

The Varangians weren't just shock troops they were the emperor's bodyguard because unlike Christians they actually keep their oaths and don't back stab, the Emperor of the Christians found the "barbarians" to be more trustworthy than the slippery Christians. Is oath keeping really barbarian? Or maybe snooty "civilised" people are the real barbarians then?

[Albert]

It appears the guard was Christian.

The Guard was first formally constituted under Emperor Basil II in 988, following the Christianization of Kievan Rus' by Vladimir I of Kiev. Vladimir, who had recently usurped power in Kiev with an army of Varangian warriors, sent 6,000 men to Basil as part of a military assistance agreement.[2][3][4] Basil's distrust of the native Byzantine guardsmen, whose loyalties often shifted, with fatal consequences, as well as the proven loyalty of the Varangians, many of whom had previously served in Byzantium, led the Emperor to employ them as his personal guardsmen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varangian_Guard

[Pants-of-dog]

There is nothing to rebut, like every social group on earth, Christians have done things that were inconsistent with their own creed. At the same time, I tend to view the amount of times that Christians as a collective have consciously engaged in this tends to be a lot lower than your average secularist would have you believe, must of this stemming from the fact that what I consider justified violence and conquest tends to be broader than most commentators allow for Christians to believe (this being the basis for theological debates in-house on issues such as just-war theory, colonialism and missions, etc.,)

I think we can agree that the history of Christianity is diverse enough to provide examples of both of the behaviours we describe.

It seems that Christians have tended to be more accommodating of other religions and practices when they had to be, in order to spread their faith to those they could not forcibly convert, or when there was some sort of economic gain.

Also, Christians have historically oppressed and systematically destroyed the knowledge and wisdom of other cultures when they had the power to do so, and there was an economic incentive.

This makes sense if we assume that Christians are just as rational and self serving as the rest of humanity.

Once again, committing to the truth and experiencing truth are not contraries in Christianity, but what I am inquiring into is the sort of thing you are actually craving. If you are craving some sort of ecstasy that transcends reason then I doubt Christianity is what you are seeking; however, if you believe that heightened spiritual states and an insurmountable zeal and passion that can only come from God can be had via the means of Scripture and reason, then you have come to the right place. I have no incentive to sugar-coat it for you, it is what it is.

@SolarCross

I agree with VS here insofar as you should be very clear about what exactly you want from religion.

And you should accept that no matter what you decide, religion comes with duties that are, and should be, onerous. If you are choosing a religion just to have some spiritual justification for anti-communism, then religion might not be a good fit for you.

I also agree that you cannot be Christian and pantheist. You can be a pantheist who grew up in a Christian household, and be culturally Christian but religiously pantheist, but pantheism and the Nicene creed seem irreconcilable to me.

[SolarCross]

It appears the guard was Christian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varangian_Guard

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.

[Victoribus Spolia]

The ancient jews used to be polytheists and all the stories in their Torah used to be polytheistic legends some of them belonging to other polytheistic peoples like the Sumerians. Early in the crystalisation of the Hebrew literature there was a great revisionism of their books to make all the many good gods smooshed together to make a singular super god which they conflated with their own petty tribal god they called Yahweh. They didn't bother so much to revise the evil or enemy gods which is why there are so many different evil gods: Leviathan, Abbadon, Satan, Baal & Lilith.

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.

There is a definite problem taking the literature literally, especially when it concerns the supposed supremacy of Yahweh. The truth is that the literature is a fossilised butcher's job.

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.

That doesn't mean there isn't anything of value in the Torah but you have to treat it a bit intelligently. By a certain stupidly strict interpretation of commandment 2, on idolatry, would make every Christian an idolater because what else is a cross or ikon or statue of mary but a graven image? Somehow most Christians, perhaps self-servingly, don't make that interpretation.

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.

and even you do that when you celebrate yuletide but call it Christmas and wear a gold ring on the third finger of your left hand to show you are married just as was the ancient pagan Roman tradition. Some piety is false piety.

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).

if Christianity suddenly can't accept pantheism can it accept non-Christian allies? Before you answer I'd like to invite you to read about the Varangian Guard of the Byzantine Empire.

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).

[Victoribus Spolia]

ut pantheism and the Nicene creed seem irreconcilable to me.

Agreed.