[annatar1914]

@ckaihatsu

What @annatar1914 is saying is that even most so-called ‘Christians’ are in fact pagans in their hearts and in the values by which they live their lives. After all, what is the “Prosperity Gospel” of the American televangelists except paganism dressed up as Christianity, a parody of Christianity? You keep trying to paint @annatar1914 as a common-or-garden American Christian nationalist, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Not everything fits neatly into your 3-d diagrams or can be found in the hallowed pages of Chris Harman’s People’s History of the World, @ckaihatsu.

@Potemkin :

Thanks friend I appreciate the elucidation of my thoughts on the matter. Perhaps I am too obtuse on this and other themes.

In any case, I take this moment to note that you might have seen where my propensity to draw a sharp delineation between the Modern and the Pre Modern is not so sharp as before. Like the Preacher in Ecclesiastes, I can say (note the pun, without getting too esoteric:-)) that " there's nothing new under the sun", in important respects.

Pagans create a mythology, as Pascal said: " they believe in the miracles of Vespasian..." , Replete with signs in the heavens and all manner of strange phenomena. Of course, I can refer one to the physicist Jacques Vallee or researcher John Keel's work for further leaps down the rabbit trail were one inclined. And a mythology needs not be entirely false either to be of effect: closer to the truth after all.

[ckaihatsu]

@ckaihatsu

What @annatar1914 is saying is that even most so-called ‘Christians’ are in fact pagans in their hearts and in the values by which they live their lives. After all, what is the “Prosperity Gospel” of the American televangelists except paganism dressed up as Christianity, a parody of Christianity? You keep trying to paint @annatar1914 as a common-or-garden American Christian nationalist, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Not everything fits neatly into your 3-d diagrams or can be found in the hallowed pages of Chris Harman’s People’s History of the World, @ckaihatsu.

Is monotheism (Christianity) more socially and historically 'progressive' and 'enlightened' than paganism, Potemkin -- ?

Post-exilic[28] Judaism, after the late 6th century BCE, was the first religion to conceive the notion of a personal monotheistic God within a monist context.[20] The concept of ethical monotheism, which holds that morality stems from God alone and that its laws are unchanging,[29] first occurred in Judaism,[30] but is now a core tenet of most modern monotheistic religions, including Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, and Baháʼí Faith.[31]

Also from the 6th century BCE, Thales (followed by other Monists, such as Anaximander, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, Parmenides) proposed that nature can be explained by reference to a single unitary principle that pervades everything.[28] Numerous ancient Greek philosophers, including Xenophanes of Colophon and Antisthenes, believed in a similar polytheistic monism that bore some similarities to monotheism.[20] The first known reference to a unitary God is Plato's Demiurge (divine Craftsman), followed by Aristotle's unmoved mover, both of which would profoundly influence Jewish and Christian theology.[28]

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

[ckaihatsu]

Byzantium survived as a last bastion of Graeco-Roman culture because the imperial bureaucracy was run by a layer of literate Greek speakers. But it was a group that lived off the production of others rather than contributing to or organising it. It therefore prided itself on its remoteness from the material world, and was afraid of any class emerging whose closeness to production might lead to it diverting some of the surplus into its own pockets. It is this which explains the sterile, pedantic character of Byzantine culture. It also explains the strength of superstitious and magical beliefs among all social groups. The priests were usually at least half-illiterate, and their message relied upon simplified stories of the saints, tales of miracles, and faith in the magic of holy relics. Where Paganism had provided people with local gods, Christianity now provided them with local patron saints. The cult of the mother goddess became the cult of the Virgin Mary. Fertility rights became Shrove Tuesday carnivals and Easter ceremonies.

Along with the superstition went the most barbaric practices. By the 8th century ‘we find mutilation of the tongue, hand and nose as part of the criminal system… The church approved of this because the tongueless sinner still had time to repent’.54 In the cities the austere moralism of the church meant there was ‘rigorous seclusion of women. No respectable woman ever appeared in the streets unveiled’.55 But there was also prostitution on a massive scale.

The fundamental weakness of Byzantine civilisation was shown early in the 13th century when Constantinople fell to a band of thugs and adventurers from Europe. The participants in the Fourth Crusade found the city a better prize than their intended destination of Jerusalem. They pillaged it and then ruled it as a feudal kingdom. They were driven out in 1261, but the renewed Byzantine state was a pale reflection of its former self and finally fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453.

A certain sort of civilisation had been preserved for 1,000 years. But the only contact of the supposedly cultivated ruling class with the masses who did the work was via the tax collector on the one hand and the barely literate rural priests on the other. Such a civilisation could be no more than a living fossil, passing on the achievements of one epoch to another, but adding nothing itself.

No class capable of revolutionising society and giving a free rein to the forces of production had ever developed in Graeco-Roman society. The Dark Ages were the result in western Europe; 1,000 years of sterility were the result in the Balkans and Asia Minor.

Harman, _People's History of the World_, pp. 121-122

[annatar1914]

There is nothing here for an Atheist and Materialist. There's nothing here for any sort of ideology grounded in Materialism. It is intended for persons who can see with the eyes of the heart another part of reality. Those people who don't believe that that part of reality exists are not going to find anything of interest here.

@ckaihatsu :

I am asking you person to person, human being to human being, to stop posting here if you cannot understand the purpose of this part of PoFo, and enable other people who do appreciate this part of PoFo to do so.

[annatar1914]

@Potemkin , @Verv , @noemon ,and my other friends:

With this in mind, I'd like to examine the basic foundation of the problems associated with the thread in an eschatological sense. I speak only of the unenlightened of course:

Many people always and everywhere are Pagans. This worldly, which is not to say that they are Atheist strictly speaking, but relate to reality with a materialistic set of daily considerations: what shall I eat today? How much will things cost me? What pleasures can I indulge in, and pain avoid?

Most of these Pagans are working folk, which is to say that they cannot avoid a measure of suffering in this life. They are the Poor. Others much fewer constitute those living on rents and/or the labor of others, and they are those who constitute the Rich, the Bourgeoisie. Possessing a Will to Power, glory and conquests and the amassing of wealth and power are what impel them, or fear of poverty. Or envy of the Rich if actually Poor.

They tend to believe in mighty powers in the universe that can possibly help or harm them or might need to be placated in fear, for they think that these powers are pretty much as they are. In dealing with these powers they want this-worldly material results or they will search elsewhere for some other being who might complete the transactional results of riches or curses for others, success in love or other ventures. And these beings could be men, wealthy and powerful men who they can attach to for success, or the very gods, God Himself. They cannot be said to be atheists, who are universally rare in reality. For a Pagan to say they don't believe in God, is for them to say that they no longer have dealings with " God". This " God" or " that God", anyway. Not interested in Truth, just awed or intimidated or disappointed by power.

Even the goods and glories that they the Pagans do are just merely splendid vices, natural goods rewarded in this life and not the next. They cannot love God or their fellow man except in some abstract theoretical manner at best.

Regarding Christ and Christianity, the issue has never been disbelief in His miracles or those of His saints, but if He really was Who He says He Is. Magic for most Pagans is a distinct possibility in any case whatever His origin. If today Pagans do not call Christ an antisocial Black Magician who did what he did by some dark hidden arts, it is more out of fear than any theological qualms as such. Earlier Pagans had no such qualms. One's Fate/Chance/Necessity are what they truly follow in any case. Magic and Science/Technology are pretty much the same thing to them, and that is the " Modern/Premodern" distinction.

All their works are thus sins. They cannot love God Whom they do not really know or experience, and lack the Faith by which one can act well. They only seek temporal goods, and only find temporal goods.

If this is then the mass of mankind, at least we can then start with this honest assessment.

@Potemkin , @Verv , @noemon , and my other friends:

If this then is the case, it and nothing else but " Paganism" is the primary phenomenal state of religion in the world, everything else from a certain perspective is just ephemeral.

From an Orthodox Christian perspective, this characterization of most people would go far to explain the existence and popularity of all heresies and schisms and false religions, as the Pagan mind tries to adapt the religion in a formal sense to an interior spiritual state of mind or rather lack thereof.

Furthermore, and this is vitally important to what I'm trying to say I think on this thread, Christianity in it's truest sense is predicated on it's own worldly failure over time and the reestablishment of the Pagan mindset over the formal institutions of society. This is what Christians predict for themselves and for society until Christs Second Coming.

Other religions of a Monotheistic tendency on the contrary, specifically Islam, predict worldly success capped off with a final triumph through the agency of the Mahdi and the prophet Isa. This is also important to note as I go along I think.

Let's recall again my contention that the " Pagan" mind is primed to accept success in this world, and would as soon believe a miracle to be a magical working if it was so inclined to believe that.

[noemon]

Harman's racist cultural imperialism...

Harman is yet another author to dissociate Greek elites from poorer Greek people while ignoring Byzantine education(offered for free to both sexes), art(combining classical Greek with Persian, Buddhist, Hindu and in turn inseminating them), culture(universities, theatres, sport), economy(solidus being the first and longest-living global reserve currency), law(secular code, judges, lawyers), etcetera.

Which society or economy did better than Byzantium during the 4th-14th CE?

All countries are measured against others, while anti-Byzantine authors like Harman compare it to their own idealistic utopia because they have no other country or state in the ground to put it against.

For context, the Norse and Meso-Americans were still doing human sacrifice, the Catholics were burning witches, the Muslims were marrying their 9 year old cousins, the Central Asians were genociding everybody but the Byzantines are “cruel” for “cutting off either one of the noses, ears, tongues or eyes” of their fallen adversaries while treating their lives as sacred.

Byzantium survived mega migrations/invasions, Celtic, Gothic, Avar, Persian, Huns, Slav, Muslim, Mongolian, all stopped at its borders like a wall.

It eventually withered like all great civilizations since it was mortally wounded by its allies but still remains the longest-living state ever, second to none.

[noemon]

I am in Nepal, the capital of traditional religion, the spring of shamanism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sufism, and the scene of the last Hindu monarchy as late as 2008.

If this then is the case, it and nothing else but " Paganism" is the primary phenomenal state of religion in the world, everything else from a certain perspective is just ephemeral.

You will find the people here treating life as far more sacred than Christians and westerners and their spiritual lives being a lot more fulfilling. You will find good people in the absence of moral stricture.

Abrahamic religions focus on materialistic morality and stricture while shamanic religions focus on elevating the individual spirit in harmony with life rather not telling people what is good but giving them the tools to sense and be good.
Christianity and Islam spread through materialism. Tax breaks, salvation stamps, janissaries, and Kings being lured to conversion with gold, land and prestige as carrots not spiritual elevation.

Naturalism & Spiritualism is eternal because it is default animism (which human beings are part of) while moral relativism is ephemeral like any other type of legal stricture.

Proclaiming ephemeral legalese as eternal, we become the prime sinners and fall knee deep into legalistic idolatry. The same sort as gun nuts and the 1st amendment.

Is there anything more materialistic or idolatrous than deifying written sentences, than elevating commands as deities? What's next for Abrahamism, worshiping algorithms? Is there a more materialistic culture than orthodox Abrahamism? is there a more rigid, impervious to reason, or less susceptible culture to the workings of the stars and the universe? Mega physical objects that exert quantifiable energy upon the earth, its inhabitants and our solar system?

This deification of certain books and ephemeral ideologies is our most serious handicap and impediment.

[annatar1914]

I know that the Holy Spirit blows where He wills, like the wind. And He loves the poor and the humble in heart.

I know that God is merciful and loves Mankind, He alone is good, though.

I also know that One Jesus of Nazareth said: " without Me, you can do nothing". Nothing truly good, is done without Him, the Source of all good.

Our philosophies and our humanism won't save us, pride and vanity lurk behind our efforts there. God saves us. Not without us, but certainly not us without Him, starting us on the path and continuing it.

Funny, I'm reading the Triads of St. Gregory Palamas, and the very first heading of the first part says: " philosophy does not save".

Wretched that I am I once began everything in pride, pride is something that I know very well so I'd prefer stupification of intellect and poverty of body than to be where pride can take me.

The message of this thread is simple enough: because I do not repent and the world does not repent, we'll see chastisement soon enough. Chastisement for the treason against God and Man committed by the Modern world. Looking at it from across the centuries I see the Papacy as the first Protestantism, and leading eventually to Islam.

Simple thread. The rest is just commentary.

[noemon]

I know that the Holy Spirit blows where He wills, like the wind. And He loves the poor and the humble in heart.

I know that God is merciful and loves Mankind, He alone is good, though.

I also know that One Jesus of Nazareth said: " without Me, you can do nothing". Nothing truly good, is done without Him, the Source of all good.

Our philosophies and our humanism won't save us, pride and vanity lurk behind our efforts there. God saves us. Not without us, but certainly not us without Him, starting us on the path and continuing it.

Is there anything more vain than what you just said? Do you honestly believe that a spiritual being like Jesus could have ever uttered such an expression? and even if he did, it was only relevant to the educational & spiritual ability of his interlocutor. More importantly, do you actually want him to say this?

Is there any religion more materialistic and more idolatrous than worshiping abrahamic text? Worshipping letters and words?

Poor Jesus, simple words he said, and people spread them as canons and commands, falling into the pit of textual idolatry, thus self-fulfilling the prophecy of the original sin.

Computers and slaves take commands, not spiritual beings.

Spiritual beings are good simply by mere existence or presence.

Can you even compare a Buddhist or Sufi layman, to a Christian or Sunni Muslim layman in terms of goodness? Or an ancient Greek philosopher or Zoroastrian to the prophets? It's like comparing giants of spirituality with entire spiritual & scientific systems behind them to toddlers telling children stories.

All the developments & systems in the world have been conducted by "pagans", science, philosophy, art, music, math, physics, architecture, law, charity, spiritual exercise, physical exercise, mental exercise. The only contributions of abrahamism to humanity are monistic fundamentalism, witch-hunting, textual idolatry and supreme vanity(of allegedly holding the one and only truth).

Can you compare shamanic Nepal, Japan or Korea to France, Britain, Saudi or the US on which people are more good & respectful towards each other? There is just no comparison. Saudis treat people like animals, Christians like commodities.

It is only where shamanism has survived even under the shadow of abrahamism that you find true and unadulterated goodness.

Naturalism, Spiritualism, Shamamism however you want to call it -without insulting it- is the default, primal, good state of humanity. Legalistic commands are just a very minor aspect of civilisation and abrahamism is not even among the top legal systems in any sense, either. The one and only thing abrahamism can offer is commands and legalese and even there it's lacking.

[annatar1914]

I know that the Holy Spirit blows where He wills, like the wind. And He loves the poor and the humble in heart.

I know that God is merciful and loves Mankind, He alone is good, though.

I also know that One Jesus of Nazareth said: " without Me, you can do nothing". Nothing truly good, is done without Him, the Source of all good.

Our philosophies and our humanism won't save us, pride and vanity lurk behind our efforts there. God saves us. Not without us, but certainly not us without Him, starting us on the path and continuing it.

Funny, I'm reading the Triads of St. Gregory Palamas, and the very first heading of the first part says: " philosophy does not save".

Wretched that I am I once began everything in pride, pride is something that I know very well so I'd prefer stupification of intellect and poverty of body than to be where pride can take me.

The message of this thread is simple enough: because I do not repent and the world does not repent, we'll see chastisement soon enough. Chastisement for the treason against God and Man committed by the Modern world. Looking at it from across the centuries I see the Papacy as the first Protestantism, and leading eventually to Islam.

Simple thread. The rest is just commentary.

It is what it is. It appears that this will indeed be the outcome within about 100 years, give or take a decade or so. It won't matter what a person's opinions are then, because they don't matter much now.

Who is having children, and who are not? Who is emigrating, and are they settling lands that will be largely depopulated otherwise? And do these immigrants have belief systems that natives are inclined to become part of to one degree or other of acceptance? Are there enough people of the kind I described earlier, of whatever formal adherence to a certain belief system, that would easily join the belief system of the immigrants once it appears that it will become the majority of inhabitants someday? And is this born out by an examination of history?

[noemon]

There is only 1 rule that needs to be followed:

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

pendâr-e nik, goftâr-e nik, kerdâr-e nik

Good thoughts, good words, good deeds

Observe how all the non-abrahamic religions declare the rule universally without defining "kinsfolk, brother or neighbor" but instead use "others".

Observe how all 3 abrahamic religions declare the golden rule as applicable only to their kinsfolk and not to the general others.

This precisely is the difference between naturalism which is pure goodness for all and abrahamism which applies "the respect for others" only to their own tribe.

[ness31]

That was the whole point of Christ though, he updated everything. So the new rule included everyone.

Pofo already destroyed the US Constitution for me; you won’t get the Golden Rule.

[noemon]

Only if they are christian.

It's not yours to give.

[ness31]

Only if they are christian.

It's not yours to give.

You will have to present me with the scriptural backing for that claim, otherwise no dice.

[Potemkin]

Only if they are christian.

It's not yours to give.

By “get”, @ness31 means “destroy”, @noemon. It’s a quirk of the English language.

And Jesus specifically told people to be respectful towards despised out-groups such as Samaritans, tax collectors, prostitutes and the like - all of whom were marginalised and discriminated against in Jesus’ time. The Pharisees used to bitterly criticise him for it. Is it his fault if most of his supposed followers turned out to be Pharisees in their hearts? Jesus himself even said something to this effect - that many would claim to be his followers, but actually be his enemies in their hearts. And what criterion did he give for distinguishing hypocritical ‘Christians’ from real ones? How well they treated the poor and the outcast in society. Every time you spurn a beggar, you are spurning Christ. He came for the Samaritans, he came for the beggars, he came for the prostitutes, he came for the sinners and the outcasts. Not just for the smug and the self-righteous. It was St Paul who made Christianity into a universal religion, but he didn’t have to try too hard. Most of the work had already been done for him.

[Tainari88]

@annatar1914 and @Potemkin and @ness31 and the others in this discussion I was thinking hard about what creates evil deeds, and the root of all the acts that are sinful and just the worst acts. And it is about separation. Being disconnected from each other, nature, and the living world. Once we do not feel any real connection to what is alive and a part of us? We fall victim to self-indulgence and egotistical false beliefs. I can pollute, I can deny someone else's humanness I can do this or that because I am separate from them. I am not them and they are not I. You feel disconnected. I thought about it and the truth is that the whole point of where evil originates is about thoughts of separation. Of being cut off from the source of light, of love and of glorious connectedness.

Who was Satan after all in the Bible? The Fallen Angel. Lucifer. The light filled angel with great power and with favored status. What made him fall from grace? Ego. And once you had that thought of I am better, I am separate, I am not connected....he fell from Heaven to the Earth. His sense of disconnectedness was what made him be lost forever. All of us humans have felt the loneliness, the separation and the lack of being whole or present and connected to this world we live in. It is a false thing though. Because everything that is present in the world out there is also part of who we are. The Ocean, the Mountains, the animal kingdom, the land and all the living plants, animals and living organisms are present in us. Through us. We are undeniably connected to each other and to the Earth. But we think somehow we are not connected. We are separate. We live with the lie that we are alone or without real belonging. From that lie we get lost. That is where the original concept of evil was done as a metaphor in the Christian bible. Satan. The fallen angel. The one who thought of the separation and as soon as he did? He fell from a perfect state of grace and togetherness with God the Divine to being the one who lives with a lack of connectivity.

[noemon]

You will have to present me with the scriptural backing for that claim, otherwise no dice.

For starters, you have not even presented the scriptural backing for your claim.

Second, since when do Christians believe that Muslims, pagans or Jews are going to heaven without them converting to Christianity?

Lastly, the scriptural backing for my argument has already been provided by Annatar1914.

Try harder luv.

[noemon]

By “get”, @ness31 means “destroy”, @noemon. It’s a quirk of the English language.

And Jesus specifically told people to be respectful towards despised out-groups such as Samaritans, tax collectors, prostitutes and the like - all of whom were marginalised and discriminated against in Jesus’ time. The Pharisees used to bitterly criticise him for it. Is it his fault if most of his supposed followers turned out to be Pharisees in their hearts? Jesus himself even said something to this effect - that many would claim to be his followers, but actually be his enemies in their hearts. And what criterion did he give for distinguishing hypocritical ‘Christians’ from real ones? How well they treated the poor and the outcast in society. Every time you spurn a beggar, you are spurning Christ. He came for the Samaritans, he came for the beggars, he came for the prostitutes, he came for the sinners and the outcasts. Not just for the smug and the self-righteous. It was St Paul who made Christianity into a universal religion, but he didn’t have to try too hard. Most of the work had already been done for him.

Hers to keep is all the same meaning.

Followers you said Potemkin but its not just “the followers being Pharisees”, its official Christian policy across the board that exempts non-Christians from the Kingdom of Heaven.

As Annatar said we can at least be honest in this area.

[ness31]

For starters, you have not even presented the scriptural backing for your claim.

Are you joking? You want me to provide scriptural backing for a key component to the Sermon on the Mount? Was it VIP entry only or something?

Second, since when do Christians believe that Muslims, pagans or Jews are going to heaven without them converting to Christianity?

Here I share your criticism. Not to be conflated with the Golden Rule.

Lastly, the scriptural backing for my argument has already been provided by Annatar1914.

Try harder luv.

I mean, I’ve been following the tread loosely so I might have missed the scriptural backing to which you’re referring. This isn’t the easiest thread to follow okay - I’m doing my best

Last I checked you were calling Annatars brand of Christian Nationalism a form of vanity which I might have nodded along to; and then you went full anti Abrahamic saying the Golden Rule was found to be lacking on the Diversity and Inclusion front

The Golden Rule is an ethos. But you know this Noemon, why are you being confrontational?

[noemon]

Are you joking? You want me to provide scriptural backing for a key component to the Sermon on the Mount? Was it VIP entry only or something?

Here I share your criticism. Not to be conflated with the Golden Rule.

I mean, I’ve been following the tread loosely so I might have missed the scriptural backing to which you’re referring. This isn’t the easiest thread to follow okay - I’m doing my best

Last I checked you were calling Annatars brand of Christian Nationalism a form of vanity which I might have nodded along to; and then you went full anti Abrahamic saying the Golden Rule was found to be lacking on the Diversity and Inclusion front

The Golden Rule is an ethos. But you know this Noemon, why are you being confrontational?

It is not Annatar's brand, it is Christian scripture as found in John. "Confrontational" please. It's just a fact, with all the things said against "pagans", pointing out the obvious about the exclusionary vanity of these statements is the least of that. Would it make it any less vain, had I not pointed it out?

Christians, Jews and Muslims are the only religions claiming to possess the one and only truth, an extremely vain position for a spiritual religion to take and a source of great trouble and a lot of hurt as well as a barrier preventing them from extending the golden rule to people outside their groups.

The Golden Rule is an ethos that should be applied to all humanity and not only to the ingroup as abrahamics have it.

That is the point of its ethos.

Bottom line is, abrahamism engages in 2 major errors:

1) It demands of people to worship text which is the very definition of materialism & idolatry. It is even worse than religious art, because even religious art is not worshipped as the Bible itself is.
2) It excludes out-group people thereby demanding of them to alter their identity before they can gain access to heaven. Goodness is about actions, words and deeds and not about confessional identitarianism.

I do not see abrahamic religions staying relevant without overcoming these 2 major issues.