Post by Tautalos on Dec 19, 2005 16:43:19 GMT -5
Afraid of Pagan free speech.
After I posted the article «Pagan Power in Modern Europe - and an Hindu's view», one of the members answered; and when I answered to his answer, striking down all his arguments, my message did not show up, and one of the moderators wrote:
forum.stirpes.net/showthread.php?p=69273#post69273
So, the thread was closed (I could not post in it anymore) moved from the Religion's issues and placed in a part of the forum named «Camara obscura», that is, a sort of dungeon where they keep the «forbidden» messages ;D
Many of my other threads were not published yet. Here they are:
(Concerning the text about the Germanization of Christianity, also placed in Dodona):
A brilliant analysis agains which I saw no good argument until know.
Based on the most important part of the whole story.
Indeed.
I repeat (in colour):
You would have to ask that to the author of the text. Speaking for myself, I am far from desiring a return to anything Christian.
Which lands? The lands of the Kallas, for instances?...
Wrongly supported, as could be seen.
Actually, India haves more population than Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh alltogether.
Moreover, the whole northern Africa was Christian before the Muslim invasion... remember that? So was Palestina.
Oh, and Asia Minor (oh dear...).
That's a pure lie. Because when Islam arrived to Europe, Paganism was... wait... stollen and murdered by Christianity.
------------------------------------------
To another member:
No, it is not. You did not present a single argument of those precious «refutations» mentioned by you when I wrote that the basis of your speech is «magister dixit».
Or perhaps you are too lazy to remember those arguments... remember Plato attacking the writting because it provoked laziness of mind...
No, it is not... because that promiscuity that you hate so much had already been forbidden before the last major visits to the place... also, the vast majority of the visitors did not even notice the presence of Budhists.
Less than before. Less and less...
It did not. Christianity is against all types of discrimination.
That's right.
Philosophically, yes. But there was no militancy in that.
Only if Jesus was educated by Greeks....
No. You are just irritated for not having a proper answer to that.
But don't worry. This is not for money, you will not get poor because of this.
---------------------------
Again, to Mynydd:
And so?...
And leaving their land without people to work on it; and creating the situation of today - if that did not happen, we would not have to deal with tons of African immigrants now.
When did I mock their beliefs? Give a straight and direct answer.
That's not a shame.
A shame is to bow to a foreign Jewish prophet while considering the Deities of our blood as either demons or false. Now that's a serious shame, the worst that ever existed upon the face of the Earth.
Paganism is, in the first place, a matter of honour. But I don't expect that universalist-fraternalists (i.e., Christians) understand that.
----------------------
To Perun:
You are the one spitting in the legacy of your own ancestors by using the name of one of the major Deities of your people and yet worshipping only a foreign God. That's spitting, urinating, defecating.
Catholic means «universal» - thus, it cannot be a part of any national identity in the whole planet.
----------------------
No. He is right.
By mere convenience.
Yeshua himself said that everybody should love everybody without frontiers and not only their own kin; once, someone told him «Jesus, your mother and cousins are there and want to see you», and Jesus answered «My mother and cousins are these (pointing to his apostles) that you see here, those that follow me.» This is a clear statement of anti-national universalism.
While renouncing to their genuine Deities, how great...
-----------------------
I believe more in the credibility of my dictionary than in you. Specially because the Portuguese equivalent the word, gentio, haves the same meaning.
I don't know which is your source to speak about what the «vast majority» thought. What I know is that Jews were sometimes persecuted and generally despised. Part of the expression «hip hip hurrah» comes from the Roman mob chasing the Jews - «hip» means «Hierusalem ist perdita», or «Jerusalem is lost».
Also, Tacitus didn't like the Jews... nor did Celsus. Nor did Julian, actually.
And if that is true, it only shows the Pagan tolerance.
Too bad for the Christian hords converting Pagans by force, in Saxony, in Baltic lands, in Rome, in Greece.
From another forum, Dodona, I quote the words of an Hellenic Gentile:
For us greeks (and I believe the definition can apply to other nations as well) the definition of Ethnos - Nation was given by the Athenians to the Spartan emissaries, in 479 before christian counting, and is recorded by Herodotos in his 'Histories' (8th 'Ourania' 144). Before the final battle of the Persian Wars, that of Plateae, the Spartans, worrying that Athenians may 'medesoun' (join forces with the medes - persians), send their emissaries to persuade them not to. The Athenians give a proud answer to them, in the same time declaring their will to go to war against the Persians. Keep in mind that despite the defeat of their naval fleet the previous year at Salamis, the Persians had the larger part of their infantry and cavalry still intact, so you can imagine the seriousness of such a decision.
ôï åëëçíéêüí åïí üìáéìüí ôå êáé ïìüãëùóóïí
êáé èåþí éäñýìáôÜ ôå êïéíÜ êáé èõóßáé<br>ÞèåÜ ôå ïìüôñïðá
to ellinikon eon omaimon te kai omoglosson
kai theon idrimata te koina kai thisiai
ithea te omotropa
the hellenic which is the similarity in blood and in language
and common institutions of the Gods and sacrifices
and the ethics move in the same way
Thus, Ethnos - Nation is defined by four parameters: similar blood, similar language, similar religion, similar ethics. One can understand that when we talk about 'reviving our Ethnos', we talk about reviving anyone or all of the above elements. Thus our revived Ethnos needs not be characterized differently (f.e pagan, prechristianic etc) than what it really is: celtic, slavic, roman, german, scandinavian, lithuanian etc.
That's due pettyness and individual pride, not due to lack of folk-spirit.
That's false, as can be read above.
Also, Plato stated, in his «Republic», that every war amongst Greeks was a civil war.
There are civil wars everywhere - and there were lots of wars amongst Christians in Europe.
No, it was not. At the beginning, Roman citizenship was not given to everybody. And there was, always, a clear distinction between the Roman rites and the foreign ones.
After I posted the article «Pagan Power in Modern Europe - and an Hindu's view», one of the members answered; and when I answered to his answer, striking down all his arguments, my message did not show up, and one of the moderators wrote:
forum.stirpes.net/showthread.php?p=69273#post69273
Could anyone check that this guy is not actually an Indian immigrant infiltrated?
Thread moved to C.O.
Thread moved to C.O.
So, the thread was closed (I could not post in it anymore) moved from the Religion's issues and placed in a part of the forum named «Camara obscura», that is, a sort of dungeon where they keep the «forbidden» messages ;D
Many of my other threads were not published yet. Here they are:
(Concerning the text about the Germanization of Christianity, also placed in Dodona):
A pseudo-analysis
A brilliant analysis agains which I saw no good argument until know.
based on only one part of the whole story
Based on the most important part of the whole story.
Amazing..
Indeed.
Please, show where in your first answer this is obvious.
I repeat (in colour):
You would have to ask that to the author of the text. Speaking for myself, I am far from desiring a return to anything Christian.
Incidentally the lands conquered by Islam and which have remained Islamic were mostly Pagans.
Which lands? The lands of the Kallas, for instances?...
An "if" supported by historical facts
Wrongly supported, as could be seen.
India included Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh. Today Islamic or mostly Islamic countries.
Actually, India haves more population than Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh alltogether.
Moreover, the whole northern Africa was Christian before the Muslim invasion... remember that? So was Palestina.
Oh, and Asia Minor (oh dear...).
That's a gratuitous insult. While Christianity has fought Islam (and defeated it) for hundreds of years, Paganism has done.. wait... nothing.
That's a pure lie. Because when Islam arrived to Europe, Paganism was... wait... stollen and murdered by Christianity.
------------------------------------------
To another member:
That's more true for you than for me.
No, it is not. You did not present a single argument of those precious «refutations» mentioned by you when I wrote that the basis of your speech is «magister dixit».
If you're too lazy to read Greeley's arguments, than thats your problem.
Or perhaps you are too lazy to remember those arguments... remember Plato attacking the writting because it provoked laziness of mind...
No not really. Fatima was just an example. If vistors are down, it's most likely because of the administration there allowing Buddhist
No, it is not... because that promiscuity that you hate so much had already been forbidden before the last major visits to the place... also, the vast majority of the visitors did not even notice the presence of Budhists.
Nevertheless; Christian holy sites throughout Europe recieve many visitors.
Less than before. Less and less...
Actually it did.
It did not. Christianity is against all types of discrimination.
Sure....whatever.
That's right.
So was Hellenism.
Philosophically, yes. But there was no militancy in that.
In fact many scholars even try to claim that Christianity's "universalism" was a Greek influence.
Only if Jesus was educated by Greeks....
You're just making pathetic arguments here.
No. You are just irritated for not having a proper answer to that.
But don't worry. This is not for money, you will not get poor because of this.
---------------------------
Again, to Mynydd:
Tautalos, the Portuguese, like all the other Hispanic peoples, gave their blood to reconquer their lands from Islam under the sign of Christianity.
And so?...
They sailed the world and discovered new lands, under the sign of the Cross, leaving their lifes in bringing most glory and grandeur to their name.
And leaving their land without people to work on it; and creating the situation of today - if that did not happen, we would not have to deal with tons of African immigrants now.
I would understand that you portrayed yourself as a Paganist, an Agnostic, or a tree-hugger. But what you do is mocker their beliefs,
When did I mock their beliefs? Give a straight and direct answer.
There cannot be more shame than that,
That's not a shame.
A shame is to bow to a foreign Jewish prophet while considering the Deities of our blood as either demons or false. Now that's a serious shame, the worst that ever existed upon the face of the Earth.
Paganism is, in the first place, a matter of honour. But I don't expect that universalist-fraternalists (i.e., Christians) understand that.
----------------------
To Perun:
Yes Im sure Tautolus wishes to spit on the legacy
You are the one spitting in the legacy of your own ancestors by using the name of one of the major Deities of your people and yet worshipping only a foreign God. That's spitting, urinating, defecating.
Catholicism has always been a major component of national identity to the Hispanic nations.
Catholic means «universal» - thus, it cannot be a part of any national identity in the whole planet.
----------------------
He is wrong in his assertion that this is the result of "Germanization".
No. He is right.
The combination of Christianity with ethnic identiy existed since the very beginning.
By mere convenience.
Christ himself asserted his ethnicity,
Yeshua himself said that everybody should love everybody without frontiers and not only their own kin; once, someone told him «Jesus, your mother and cousins are there and want to see you», and Jesus answered «My mother and cousins are these (pointing to his apostles) that you see here, those that follow me.» This is a clear statement of anti-national universalism.
and so did St. Paul in his Epistles. The Apostles themselves decreed that Christians would celebrate the faith within their cultural contexts: Hebrew customs would only apply to Hebrew Christians; while Roman Christians could celebrate their own customs.
While renouncing to their genuine Deities, how great...
-----------------------
You're dictionary is clearly wrong.
I believe more in the credibility of my dictionary than in you. Specially because the Portuguese equivalent the word, gentio, haves the same meaning.
Nevertheless, the vast majority of pagans had a positive attitude towards Jews.
I don't know which is your source to speak about what the «vast majority» thought. What I know is that Jews were sometimes persecuted and generally despised. Part of the expression «hip hip hurrah» comes from the Roman mob chasing the Jews - «hip» means «Hierusalem ist perdita», or «Jerusalem is lost».
Also, Tacitus didn't like the Jews... nor did Celsus. Nor did Julian, actually.
It was only the exclusive nature of Judaism that prevented the pagans from incorporating the Jewish god into their pantheon. The special treatment Jews received under pagan rule was unknown elsewhere in the ancient world.
And if that is true, it only shows the Pagan tolerance.
Excuse me, but the notion of free will is at the heart of Christian doctrine.
Too bad for the Christian hords converting Pagans by force, in Saxony, in Baltic lands, in Rome, in Greece.
Nope. Steven Grosby did a study showing that notions of nationhood in the ancient world were strongest in places like Egypt, Babylon, and Biblical Israel; but were weakest in Greece and Rome.
From another forum, Dodona, I quote the words of an Hellenic Gentile:
For us greeks (and I believe the definition can apply to other nations as well) the definition of Ethnos - Nation was given by the Athenians to the Spartan emissaries, in 479 before christian counting, and is recorded by Herodotos in his 'Histories' (8th 'Ourania' 144). Before the final battle of the Persian Wars, that of Plateae, the Spartans, worrying that Athenians may 'medesoun' (join forces with the medes - persians), send their emissaries to persuade them not to. The Athenians give a proud answer to them, in the same time declaring their will to go to war against the Persians. Keep in mind that despite the defeat of their naval fleet the previous year at Salamis, the Persians had the larger part of their infantry and cavalry still intact, so you can imagine the seriousness of such a decision.
ôï åëëçíéêüí åïí üìáéìüí ôå êáé ïìüãëùóóïí
êáé èåþí éäñýìáôÜ ôå êïéíÜ êáé èõóßáé<br>ÞèåÜ ôå ïìüôñïðá
to ellinikon eon omaimon te kai omoglosson
kai theon idrimata te koina kai thisiai
ithea te omotropa
the hellenic which is the similarity in blood and in language
and common institutions of the Gods and sacrifices
and the ethics move in the same way
Thus, Ethnos - Nation is defined by four parameters: similar blood, similar language, similar religion, similar ethics. One can understand that when we talk about 'reviving our Ethnos', we talk about reviving anyone or all of the above elements. Thus our revived Ethnos needs not be characterized differently (f.e pagan, prechristianic etc) than what it really is: celtic, slavic, roman, german, scandinavian, lithuanian etc.
I'd also add the rest of Europe, where petty tribalism prevailed.
That's due pettyness and individual pride, not due to lack of folk-spirit.
The notion of a truely united Hellenic nation didnt develop untill the Byzantine Empire.
That's false, as can be read above.
Also, Plato stated, in his «Republic», that every war amongst Greeks was a civil war.
Yet tribal rivalries were the norm among the pagans.
There are civil wars everywhere - and there were lots of wars amongst Christians in Europe.
and was the basis of the Roman identity.
No, it was not. At the beginning, Roman citizenship was not given to everybody. And there was, always, a clear distinction between the Roman rites and the foreign ones.
