[SolarCross]

I am an atheist in the truest sense.

This is the Spirituality forum, an explicitly atheist-free zone, you are beating your arse cheeks in the wrong place.

[Heisenberg]

No, I'm sorry @Crantag, you're simply wrong on this.

The only parts of the Bible that Muslims accept are the Pentateuch (the first five books of the OT) and in some cases, the Psalms of David.

The New Testament is explicitly rejected as a corruption of the "Injil" (Arabic for Gospel), a book that Muslims allege Jesus wrote and preached, that has since been lost.

Given that the central theme of the New Testament is about Christ conquering death and being the only path to salvation, Muslims not accepting the Resurrection or the Trinity is not a minor deviation - it's a rejection of the whole message.

And again, none of this has anything to do with the Christian view of the Bible's character. The word Bible comes from "biblios", which literally means "library". It isn't a single book, to be read the same way throughout, and that is the way it was treated for the bulk of Christian history. The views of Muslims - who by definition interpret the Bible through the lens of the Qur'an - are not relevant here.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes he did create the glorious mystery of Time and things being done in their "correct time"...

The answer is Yes.

It is "a living book" after all.

So you believe in a perfect being who also contradicts himself, and needs humans to edit his work. Got it.

Most intelligent Christians beleive that normal humans write the Bible based on divine events and divine inspiration, but they were still Bronze age sheep herders with the knowledge and morals that came with such a time. This is why there is no mention of science or political systems that would have been unknown to Bronze age sheepherders, even though God would have known about such things.

[Albert]

They were more advance then most native American tribes and that of the rest of third world before European colonization period.

[Hong Wu]

This is an invitation to @Victoribus Spolia,@Albert, @colliric, @One Degree, @noemon, @Hong Wu, and any other sincere Christians or semi-christians to unheathen me. By unheathen me I mean orientate me or guide into Christianity. Why I am asking this? Because as some of you may have noticed from many of my recent posts I have come to the startling conclusion that evil gods actually exist contrary to how I have always believed as a scientifically literate heathen. If evil gods exist then so must good gods. So I have a straight choice between good and evil (or well perhaps neutrality is also an option maybe) so with that choice I choose good. Now I ask where are the good gods and how do I ally with them? If I look around particularly in my part of the world only Christianity really stands out as a good religion of the good gods for good people. Maybe in other times in history the old Nordic religion would suit or in other places now Hinduism, Shinto or Buddhism would suit but here in the UK now in the 21st century Christianity is the prime choice. So tell me sincere Christians where do I go from here?

Sorry for the late reply. I am only sort of a Christian. I read a lot of Buddhism, Hinduism etc. So I'm not going to try and "un-heathen" you. Just find something that works for you IMHO.

[SolarCross]

Sorry for the late reply. I am only sort of a Christian. I read a lot of Buddhism, Hinduism etc. So I'm not going to try and "un-heathen" you. Just find something that works for you IMHO.

So you are kind of a pan-theist? I was in some sense raised a scientific atheist, well I really raised myself in a sense, but periodically I have explored a bit of other religions, I have trained in Vipassana meditation and tried out some hatha yoga, I like the old pagan Greek mythology and of course the norse mythology of Odin, Freya and Thor. Lately I have been feeling a strongish pull towards the old religion of my ancestors, the norse religion, it is sort of semi-lost to time but I have some ideas on how to authentically revive it. Some kind of pan-theism may be something that works for me. Maybe subconsciously I asked you here for someone to make the broader pan-theist case?

[Hong Wu]

So you are kind of a pan-theist? I was in some sense raised a scientific atheist, well I really raised myself in a sense, but periodically I have explored a bit of other religions, I have trained in Vipassana meditation and tried out some hatha yoga, I like the old pagan Greek mythology and of course the norse mythology of Odin, Freya and Thor. Lately I have been feeling a strongish pull towards the old religion of my ancestors, the norse religion, it is sort of semi-lost to time but I have some ideas on how to authentically revive it. Some kind of pan-theism may be something that works for me. Maybe subconsciously I asked you here for someone to make the broader pan-theist case?

OK, this is really long but I think I came to a good point by the end.

If by pan-theism you mean a spirituality without specific religious doctrines, I think everyone does that to some degree without realizing it. People believe they are in agreement on metaphysical/theological things but they generally never are because metaphysical pondering practically never ends. I think you have what we might call spirituality, then in a certain environment, with a certain kind of persistence and a certain level of technological development, I believe that civilizations turn spirituality into religion. The issue with religion might be that in being doctrinal, it becomes inflexible, open to interpretation and attack. People are incapable of agreeing as to even the simplest interpretations of scriptures, sometimes because splitting hairs is materialistically and dialectic-ally useful. Part of what you may really be looking for is a sense of community and religious groups in the west can provide that, unfortunately it often requires you to also surrender your intellectual independence to the group because there no longer exists enough consensus in the west for vaguely spiritual people to live their lives in peace if they possess standards of conduct. It's either hedonism or some form of religious orthodoxy and that is causing a lot of people issues and this is probably also the main driving force behind the new right.

This is a bit of a tangent but right now I'm dating an Indian (Hindu-esque) girl who is actually from India (not an immigrant to America) right now and holy wow is the difference between her and western girls shocking. I'm digressing a bit but without being explicitly religious (in fact she says she doesn't like religion) she is still conservative and in some ways, still a Hindu. This isn't really something that I have seen a whole lot of in the west. If you aren't a hardcore Christian you're probably a hedonist degenerate, unless you're a part of the mostly internet-dwelling new right movement. The days of casual Christians (like how my GF is a casual Hindu) are pretty much gone. If I were to elaborate on this idea, distinct from what you're asking, the left is literally dying and in response they've abandoned the conventions of their fight with the right, trying to replace themselves with foreigners (which is changing them) and before they really die, I suspect they will realize that they have been part of the western "machine" the whole time and they will at least want to be free of that before they disappear. But enough "deep thinks" for now since this isn't really about your question at this point.

So what are you really asking for when you say you are tired of being a heathen? You're lonely, yet you aren't comfortable with just joining a church. Maybe this has to do with what you believe it means to really be a western person. So what does it mean to be western in the spiritual sense, maybe answering that will help? I was thinking earlier that being western might be the insistence upon telling what we believe is the truth. Although atheists and so-on would argue that practically everything spiritual (or rather, metaphysical) is a lie, obviously not everyone would accept that. So religious or spiritual truth is still a truth to us. And we want to tell it, no matter what happens. In other cultures, the Muslims lie constantly. The east Asians are a bit better but they lie to save face. Western people hate lying. If it takes 15 years and a jury trial and an election, they will still try to tell the truth. I have begun to wonder whether this insistence or passion for the truth, in of itself (or perhaps it's merely a revulsion to lying?) may be what characterizes the west as unique from most other places where lying to some degree or for some reason is acceptable. To vaguely use some terms that Julius Evola liked, the western conception of Olympian transcendence of immortality, sometimes loosely analogized by him in his later writings to the Chinese concept of developing and following your own law, may be fundamentally tied to the idea of truth as having inherent value. This is distinct from, say, the Hindu/Buddhist conception of the world where truth only has value insofar as it can lead to liberation from the world or cycle of existence, because in those religions the world is an illusion. You can't "really" know the truth if all of your information comes from the illusion. So in the west, the material is not an illusion (it's a creation of God and exists for a reason), therefore truth has inherent value. In the east, the material world is an illusion and the only value truth has is in dispelling that illusion. A subtle but I suspect important difference. There are of course points of agreement, such as the divine sources of knowledge (which in the east lead to liberation) and which in the west can lead to a deeper understanding that is obviously similar to the eastern concept of liberation. Maybe I'm rambling by now but what I'm trying to say is, you are still looking for the truth and for a community. I am not sure if they are the same thing or not but if you don't accept religion in the west, you may not be able to find community. If you accept religion and a community, you may not be able to find what you believe is the truth. This is the Catch-22 that the west is facing, which conservatives and tangibly spiritual people (as distinct from hippies) are all facing. And I don't really know how to resolve what I believe is this dilemma. So I wish I could provide you with a comforting answer, I really do, but I am not sure if I can and as I've phrased it, sometimes I wonder if the question is also the problem.

So yeah, this was all over the place. Another way to phrase the west's issue, is that when they can be broadly convinced that they have the truth, they're comfortable. The failures of a Peace of Westphalia-like mentality, of colonization, of overpopulation and environmentalism, of war and conquest itself (due to nuclear weapons) have all shaken western people. The really traditional forms of Christianity no longer appear to offer the truth that western people want. The left has gone off in a million directions, is literally dying, is literally replacing itself. The right often has their heads in the sand, pretending that none of the stuff I mentioned happened. Unless we get a new conception of the truth that we are comfortable with, it's over. And maybe that's what you really wish that you had. And if that's correct, I'm afraid that I can't offer that to you, I can only point out to you that we don't have all of the information and when that happens, expecting the truth is probably too much, it will only make you frustrated.

[One Degree]

Well another thread brought me to one of my concerns that might be appropriate here.
Our civilizations are based upon the religious idea of choosing between ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. Eternal life depends upon it. We are obsessed with ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ and it causes great stress.
The problem is we seldom know what we are about to do is the right thing or not. Organized religions will not hesitate to give you guidance each step. Some find great comfort in that, or pretend to.
The problem is, imo, reality is not a choice between right and wrong. Our choices should be determined by what we think the long term results will be of the path that choice sets us on. The rightness is determined later.
So, make a choice on what religious path you think might lead where you want to go. Only later, will you find out if that is the path for you. If not, change paths. You did nothing wrong.
Enjoy the journey knowing you are free to change it and judgement comes at the end by you. Hopefully that judgement will be amusement at the wrong turns instead of guilt.

[Albert]

There are two essential perceptions of morality I find.

I) Morality is derived from oneself, it is a man created construct of right and wrong. This is a common perception I find.

II) Morality is derived from objective right and wrong. It is a universal law and truth that does not belong to no one and is not created by man.

@Hong Wu So there is no need to create a new construct of truth, it is already there. What west needs is to recognize it.

[SolarCross]

@Hong Wu
Thanks for your response, it may take a while for me to digest it so in the mean time here is a little rambling of my own:

I was describing myself using the term heathen in a slightly perverse way. "Heathen" is a word English Christian people invented for what they considered to be "godless" people, it is a virtual synonym of the more latin word "pagan", both words have an original meaning of "related to the rural areas or wilderness" because when Christianity spread through Europe it being a literate religion transmitted by foreigners tended to convert urban areas fast and hard but be slower to take over the obscure rural areas of Europe hence generating the stereotype that rural people, pagans in latin and heathens in english, were godless meaning not believers of the Christian gods. Of course in those days the godless were not actually godless but in fact had a surplus of gods being polytheists who worshipped innumerable gods many related to natural phenomena: the cycle of the seasons, storms, forests and wilderness etc. In this day an age words like heathen are fairly anachronistic and are not used much but in a way "science" from when it split with Church Orthodoxy, back in the days of Galileo and Giordano Bruno, was eventually to become a godless religion in its own right, with its own prophets which in our times would be the likes of Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan. The religion of Science isn't really "godless" any more than the old religions of Europe because in absence of a Grand Unified Theory it attributes the creation of the universe to be the work of many active agents: natural selection, gravity, electo-magnetism, chaos theory, Fibonacci series and many other deities both lesser and greater who work together to craft the universe. The difference between the old heathen and new heathen is that the new heathens assume all their deities are all blind, mindless and aimless. So as a modern heathen I have been persuaded by the gospel of Dawkins and Sagan to believe the universe was made by blind watchmakers but in coming to doubt that is actually the case I face the choice of becoming either an old heathen who believes in many natural forces with their own intelligence or a new Christian who believes in fewer gods but doesn't think they are really part of this world or I don't know what.

Another semi-random point is that I don't seek a religion that I can just read about in books; it should be a religion that I do as much as I read about. I have no special dislike for book learning particularly but if a religion has no methods for finding truth without the book it is then essentially a dead religion in my eyes. Christianity is a pretty bookish religion but on the other hand rare individuals do seem to be able to do direct awareness of the divine. What Christianity may lack though is a solid method for doing that, so that it happens at all is mostly down to dumb luck it seems. I had thought the old religion of the norse and saxons was similarly approachable only through books, which is kind of why I never pursued it despite my interest, the surviving literature is pretty sketchy and partial, possibly far more so than the Christian books, and if that was the case then that would make it a dead religion of which one could only be nostalgic but never living. However more recently I realised that the methods by which the old practitioners came by their cosmology in the first place are not lost or even that hard to learn. It raises the interesting prospect of receiving the cosmology afresh without the mediating form of imperfect and partial books but instead from the original sources just as the cosmology was first discovered.

[Hong Wu]

It's an interesting idea, to experience this cosmology as such, but one thing I've noticed is that religions tend to be very advanced in this area. So you might "save yourself time" by just reading the religion, if your goal is knowledge more so than experience. This is not to say that there aren't debates within or between religions, the Bible for example acknowledges and tries to sidestep some of them (such as the grace Vs. works debate) but it can be a lot faster to read them anyway.

[SolarCross]

It's an interesting idea, to experience this cosmology as such, but one thing I've noticed is that religions tend to be very advanced in this area. So you might "save yourself time" by just reading the religion, if your goal is knowledge more so than experience. This is not to say that there aren't debates within or between religions, the Bible for example acknowledges and tries to sidestep some of them (such as the grace Vs. works debate) but it can be a lot faster to read them anyway.

The strong practical and experiential element of the eastern religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism (via yoga) and Daoism is, I now think, what drew me to explore them over the closer more bookish and academic western religions despite myself being a westerner. You can't become enlightened by reading about the Buddha's enlightenment, you must do it yourself also. At best reading about it can inspire you to take the same path but it cannot walk the path for you.

[Pants-of-dog]

Another semi-random point is that I don't seek a religion that I can just read about in books; it should be a religion that I do as much as I read about. I have no special dislike for book learning particularly but if a religion has no methods for finding truth without the book it is then essentially a dead religion in my eyes. Christianity is a pretty bookish religion but on the other hand rare individuals do seem to be able to do direct awareness of the divine. What Christianity may lack though is a solid method for doing that, so that it happens at all is mostly down to dumb luck it seems. I had thought the old religion of the norse and saxons was similarly approachable only through books, which is kind of why I never pursued it despite my interest, the surviving literature is pretty sketchy and partial, possibly far more so than the Christian books, and if that was the case then that would make it a dead religion of which one could only be nostalgic but never living. However more recently I realised that the methods by which the old practitioners came by their cosmology in the first place are not lost or even that hard to learn. It raises the interesting prospect of receiving the cosmology afresh without the mediating form of imperfect and partial books but instead from the original sources just as the cosmology was first discovered.

Help the poor. Be kind to strangers. Protect the widow and the orphan. Be kind. Forgive. Love your neighbour as you love yourself. Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof.

There are also practices like constant prayer.

The important thing is to try and find a way to incorporate the divine into your everyday life. And the Bible is full of ways to do this. Interestingly enough, most of these practices are focused on community, helping the poor, and seeing the divine in other people.

[Hong Wu]

The strong practical and experiential element of the eastern religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism (via yoga) and Daoism is, I now think, what drew me to explore them over the closer more bookish and academic western religions despite myself being a westerner. You can't become enlightened by reading about the Buddha's enlightenment, you must do it yourself also. At best reading about it can inspire you to take the same path but it cannot walk the path for you.

POD actually touched upon the problem with western Christian activism, which is that it did have a "path of action" (charitable works) but this path of action was conceived of largely during the western European dark ages, when war, famine and plague were commonplace. I think one subtle reason that these other religions have fared somewhat better politically speaking than western Christianity has is because their "path of action" was not as strictly charitable, so they have adapted better. Although things like Buddhism have definitely seen a similar loss of esteem, they haven't become as ridiculed and attacked politically. So while the right (which is ironically more Christian than the left) sees the deeper elements and messages of Christianity, the left sees only the materialistic benefits of its path of action, views the right as hypocrites and so-on.

A book I'm reading right now is called Yoga, Immortality and Power. It provides an excellent description of Indian religious philosophy, mostly Hinduism but it somewhat touches upon the related religions like Buddhism and Jainism. I think it's a good way for a western person to be introduced to these ideas.

A western traditionalist basically views all "paths of action" as being the same thing, something that a western Christian would obviously not do, yet western Christianity (I'm not sure about eastern orthodox Christianity) has not really developed a contextually appropriate path of action besides that of having a lot of kids and seeking conquest, which as I mentioned, has also stopped being viable in most places/situations. This is not to say that there's been no efforts in this area; things like "always be painfully nice" and so-on are almost like early Buddhist forms of the cultivated mindset. I actually attempt that latter thing myself, with mixed successes and people usually assume I'm a Christian which is a little ironic since my inspiration was early Buddhism more-so than modern Christianity but I digress again. What I'm saying is I guess what you may want is a "path of action", a tangible way to make your spirituality a part of your life and there are many ways someone can attempt to do that.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Well this thread went to shit.....which was entirely predictable.

[SolarCross]

POD actually touched upon the problem with western Christian activism, which is that it did have a "path of action" (charitable works) but this path of action was conceived of largely during the western European dark ages, when war, famine and plague were commonplace. I think one subtle reason that these other religions have fared somewhat better politically speaking than western Christianity has is because their "path of action" was not as strictly charitable, so they have adapted better. Although things like Buddhism have definitely seen a similar loss of esteem, they haven't become as ridiculed and attacked politically. So while the right (which is ironically more Christian than the left) sees the deeper elements and messages of Christianity, the left sees only the materialistic benefits of its path of action, views the right as hypocrites and so-on.

It isn't quite the case that the sustained surge in prosperity which Europeans have enjoyed since the industrial revolution had diminished the value of charitable works and therefore also practical everyday Christianity. There was something more deliberate going on, the secular governors of Europe and their imitators around the world actively and forcibly took over the main activities by which Christians did their charity: education, medicine and general welfare. We call this usurper the welfare state. Prior to that most people at some time or another would have interacted with the Church for some or likely all of these needs and consequently be persuaded in a very direct and personal way by this benevolent propaganda of the deed as to the value of Christianity and its practitioners and institutions. The welfare state as it expanded pushed Christianity to the sidelines. This was done pretty explicitly to advance a secular agenda at the expense of Christianity.

Also I would say there is a bit more to the practice of Christianity than charity there is also a powerful way of surviving official oppression and there is a capacity to rapidly build large and well functioning communities. You can read about Christians surviving official oppression in the Gulag Archipelago and also in Congressional Testimony of REV. RICHARD WURMBRAND, what is notable is that for all the weapons, prison cells and tortures used on the Christians to break them of their religion their faith survives it. In the ruins of communism the Christian faith is in revival. Of course their example is Jesus Christ whose most important story concerns his survival of injustice and oppression without surrendering his Truth on the Cross and his promise that all his followers will have the means to do so too. It seems a little incongruous but the Christian community is growing fast and strong in China, it is expected that within a few decades there will be more Christians in China than members of the communist party and more Christians in china than any other country in the world. But of course it makes sense when you consider the nature of the government there. Jesus's story of being a good guy going around helping people then getting falsely harassed and oppressed by the authorities but enduring all even his own death to emerge triumphant in the end is a message that has to resonate pretty well with everyday Chinese people living under communist rule. Paradoxically communism may be stimulating the growth of Christianity in China.

A western traditionalist basically views all "paths of action" as being the same thing, something that a western Christian would obviously not do, yet western Christianity (I'm not sure about eastern orthodox Christianity) has not really developed a contextually appropriate path of action besides that of having a lot of kids and seeking conquest, which as I mentioned, has also stopped being viable in most places/situations.

Okay now you are making a dig at @Victoribus Spolia. But here you are wrong too, because demographics is destiny and if you don't conquer someone else will and that will never change.

What I'm saying is I guess what you may want is a "path of action", a tangible way to make your spirituality a part of your life and there are many ways someone can attempt to do that.

What I want is direct revelation for starters. The eastern religions have strong methodologies for developing mind sight, which I have explored some, and it seems the old religions of Europe had them too, though I may be wrong it is not apparent to me that Christianity does. Clearly it happens for Christians but because they expect it as a gift from god they don't have a method for pro-actively developing it, is my guess.

[Victoribus Spolia]

It isn't quite the case that the sustained surge in prosperity which Europeans have enjoyed since the industrial revolution had diminished the value of charitable works and therefore also practical everyday Christianity. There was something more deliberate going on, the secular governors of Europe and their imitators around the world actively and forcibly took over the main activities by which Christians did their charity: education, medicine and general welfare. We call this usurper the welfare state. Prior to that most people at some time or another would have interacted with the Church for some or likely all of these needs and consequently be persuaded in a very direct and personal way by this benevolent propaganda of the deed as to the value of Christianity and its practitioners and institutions. The welfare state as it expanded pushed Christianity to the sidelines. This was done pretty explicitly to advance a secular agenda at the expense of Christianity.

Also I would say there is a bit more to the practice of Christianity than charity there is also a powerful way of surviving official oppression and there is a capacity to rapidly build large and well functioning communities. You can read about Christians surviving official oppression in the Gulag Archipelago and also in Congressional Testimony of REV. RICHARD WURMBRAND, what is notable is that for all the weapons, prison cells and tortures used on the Christians to break them of their religion their faith survives it. In the ruins of communism the Christian faith is in revival. Of course their example is Jesus Christ whose most important story concerns his survival of injustice and oppression without surrendering his Truth on the Cross and his promise that all his followers will have the means to do so too. It seems a little incongruous but the Christian community is growing fast and strong in China, it is expected that within a few decades there will be more Christians in China than members of the communist party and more Christians in china than any other country in the world. But of course it makes sense when you consider the nature of the government there. Jesus's story of being a good guy going around helping people then getting falsely harassed and oppressed by the authorities but enduring all even his own death to emerge triumphant in the end is a message that has to resonate pretty well with everyday Chinese people living under communist rule. Paradoxically communism may be stimulating the growth of Christianity in China.

All very well said.

Okay now you are making a dig at @Victoribus Spolia. But here you are wrong too, because demographics is destiny and if you don't conquer someone else will and that will never change.

Well, to be fair, @Hong Wu, and I have discussed our differences on this point before in his Deep Thinks.

Obviously, as a Christian, I have a dominionist outlook which is informed by my philosophy of time (which is linear in the Augustinian sense).

Hongwu's thought is strongly informed by a hyper-cyclical theory of time stemming from eastern religion and its Far-Right interpretation from guys like Julius Evola which precludes the idea of a One True Faith that is marching mankind into its final cosmic conflict. Thus, there is a sense in Hongwu's arguments that western religious thought has run its course, it is no longer a relevant zeitgeist for the problems facing the west and its solutions are inadequate.

He does not think that fecundity and conquest are viable or realistic solutions.

However, at root, it is the exclusivity claim of Western Christianity that Hongwu is critiquing here, the "my way of the high-way" sorta ultimatum behind the attitudes of orthodox thinkers that refuse to see other "Western traditionalisms" as equally viable options in defense of the west.

He is correct in his analysis, but my main objection to the belief that Far-Right thinkers should take a "many possible paths" approach is that it lacks the sort of zeal that traditionalists need in order to perpetuate themselves into the future. It is exactly the uncompromising religious zeal that carries the Muslims in their victorious march into Europe and has helped to sustain them against decadence. It was this same spirit that allowed Christianity to supplant western paganism at the fall of Rome and has preserved it against muslims until recently.

Statism, the true religion of the west and the greatest manifestation of satanism on the earth, is preparing the west for doom, and no inclusive traditionalism of "many paths" will secure a western traditionalism in the future....it simple isn't mean enough or ballsy enough to get the job done. the exclusivity claim of western Christianity is EXACTLY what is needed to make the future hopeful and, oddly enough, it is always such zealots who opt to have children, never the flimsy inclusivist far-righters. Secular far-right folks do not reproduce at even close to the rate of ultra-conservative Catholics and evangelicals and the fact that far-right guys would rather turn to an ambivalent Darwinist interpretation or LARP as Odinists baffles me.

The answer is right in front of everyone, the most active and powerful conservative western chauvinists in the west are the ultra-conservative evangelicals and Catholics, why the far-right has refused to monopolize on this population is insanity and can really only be explained by their own depravity and rebellion against God.... that some of these Far-Right individuals are themselves worshippers of a satanic statism themselves is also not surprising and their future is the same as Rei Murisame, whose views progressed until she blurred the line between fascism and communism until the point now that the former was absorbed into the latter. In the end, she represents exactly why the Far-Right will devolve into statism and communism, because it is wishy-washy on traditionalism, obsessed with technological progress, and hateful of both Christianity and private property

....it is no surprise she is a self-avowed Satanist.

There can be no compromise between such and Christians, and it is the Christians alone who are the only true defenders of the west and who are the only realistic hope for its future or continuation in any sense whatsoever.

All of us have a decision to make on the right. There are four choices.

1. The Traditional Christian. Playing The Long Game for Victory (The Joyful and Optimistic Who Are Dogmatically and Zealously Affirming Traditional Values, Are Plugged Into A Massive Like-Minded Community, and Are Growing Against Statism.)

2. Some Other Traditionalist, Resolved To Watch The Collapse (The Chronically Depressed Dressed Up Like Vikings on Weekends Complaining About I.Q. and Immigration on Po-Fo But Unable To Do Shit About It Since There Is No Neo-Pagan Darwinist Dating Sites)

3. The Cultural Relativist, Resolved To Watch The Collapse (The Zen-Calm Personal Traditionalist Who Believes That The West Has Just Had Its Turn and Ran Its Course, But Was Not Particularly Special, So Grab Some Popcorn and Wait For The Next Manifestation of Traditional Vitality to Arise Elsewhere). [this is where I believe Hongwu is at]

4. The Reductionist, Who Betrays The Right Altogether (Those Who Are Consoled By The Fact That Communists Are Not Necessarily The Same As SJWs and Are Willing To Admit That All Statism Evolves Into Communism and Such Should Be Embraced Rather Than Become A Traditionalist Christian AnCap [The Way of Rei Murisame [Note: She herself believed that these were the two alternatives of political thought, and she chose lucifer with Gusto]

[Victoribus Spolia]

What I want is direct revelation for starters. The eastern religions have strong methodologies for developing mind sight, which I have explored some, and it seems the old religions of Europe had them too, though I may be wrong it is not apparent to me that Christianity does. Clearly it happens for Christians but because they expect it as a gift from god they don't have a method for pro-actively developing it, is my guess.

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

The Ecstasy of Passion that comes from a true and committed belief to the Revelation of God in Scripture has been enough to collapse empires and survive the most vicious tyrannical oppression. I assure you, once you commit it, it is more than sufficient to fill your spiritual needs.....If what you are looking for is a good trip, find something wacky to smoke, but I wouldn't make my worldview commitment decisions based on what "religion" will give me the best artificial dream-state.

You are correct though that Eastern Orthodoxy has a practice that is sorta eastern-esque in this, its called Hesychasm.

But you are correct that the Western religion does not have a pro-active system for reaching God because its rather counter to its monergistic theological thrust, which is that sinful man cannot ascend to God, but God must condescend to man by Grace and from there God may raise him up based on man's participation in the appointed means of Grace entrusted to the church....

For instance, Calvin's doctrine of Pnuematic Presence in the Eucharist argued that Christians were spiritually ascendant to the throne of Christ in Heaven to partake of Him and obtained a special Union with Him every time they ate and drank of the Lord's Supper. (as a Lutheran I disagree with this view of the Supper, however, it illustrates an Augustinian attempt to explain how a sinner can ascend to God, only by God first lifting you up through your availing yourself of His appointed means).

[Albert]

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.

People like Richard Spencer identify themselves as Christian culturalist. Meaning they identify Christianity as sole religion of the west but do not necessary themselves believe in it. I find atheism, paganism and general agnosticism quite prevalent in far-right circles.

[Pants-of-dog]

As I said, Christianity does have a pro-active system for reaching God: Help the poor. Be kind to strangers. Protect the widow and the orphan. Be kind. Forgive. Love your neighbour as you love yourself. Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof.

I find many right wing and conservative Christians ignore this, probably because they would rather focus on the parts of Christianity that are self-serving, like being sexist and anti-communist and whatnot, but the practices mentioned (along with constant prayer and other forms of Christian meditation) will lead to direct revelation of God.