[Pride male]

I once read that 250 white men conquered the Congo. Even with low numbers Europeans mights still be able to dominate. Another example is the battle of Rorkes Drift.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(05-01-2018 10:39 AM)Mage Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 05:52 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

The world will likely become far more Orwellian in the future with high-tech super-protected city-states for the rich and less safe diverse zones for the rest. The top city state of Nigeria will be as safe as the top city-state part of Paris. My guess is that most Muslims and enrichers won't even have access to those parts of town. The places will be largely white and largely safe, so the elite imagine their kids to live in those areas while Rotherham and Calais are left for the Whites to enjoy diversity and multiculturalism. Those areas will be as far removed from the areas their kids frequent as the moon.

At least that is their plan - whether it works out that way is another matter.

Even if so they are willingly confining their existence to a cage - a well guarded luxury cage, but still a cage. It's hard to me imagine why would they want that, but maybe that's just because I am a Pagan outdoors and nature lover. I still think their strategy is much more short term and self destructive.

Oh - the countryside would be theirs. Agenda21 would limit the serfs heavily to the slum-cities until the die out and they are left with their culled easily controlled population in some 100 years.

This 1984 constant war, rape in parks, crime and terror - all of that is just designed to destroy the more pesky potential rebels of the Whites - before they roll out the next plans of the agenda.

[nomadbrah]

(05-01-2018 10:39 AM)Mage Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 05:52 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

The world will likely become far more Orwellian in the future with high-tech super-protected city-states for the rich and less safe diverse zones for the rest. The top city state of Nigeria will be as safe as the top city-state part of Paris. My guess is that most Muslims and enrichers won't even have access to those parts of town. The places will be largely white and largely safe, so the elite imagine their kids to live in those areas while Rotherham and Calais are left for the Whites to enjoy diversity and multiculturalism. Those areas will be as far removed from the areas their kids frequent as the moon.

At least that is their plan - whether it works out that way is another matter.

Even if so they are willingly confining their existence to a cage - a well guarded luxury cage, but still a cage. It's hard to me imagine why would they want that, but maybe that's just because I am a Pagan outdoors and nature lover. I still think their strategy is much more short term and self destructive.

Yes.

I don't think this is to be underestimated. Some people from that region are entirely urbanized and domesticated for far longer.

http://jcpa.org/article/neo-paganism-in-...o-judaism/

Quote:

The ancient revulsion with regard to paganism felt by adherents of Judaism links up with the need to take stock of these contemporary phenomena. The return of paganism forces Judaism to focus on Jewish law and tradition, which proclaim that God is central in the world. Nature is not sacred and its laws represent barbarity; the Noahide laws represent civil society. There are many reasons for Jewish observers to watch attentively which direction the powerful, renewed interest in nature will take, and what consequences this may have for world Jewry.

[Sherman]

Nature never left you. That is why you are still alive. However, Judaism will not be missed.

[Super_Fire]

(04-30-2018 04:12 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

I agree, but to what extent is Catholicism legitimate if the spiritual chain of command has to be ignored?

It would be like an American state declaring secession from the union but still claiming to be American.

When push comes to shove, how is the situation going to be handled. The orders trickle down from the Vatican all the way to the priests and then the man-on-the-street. At what stage in that process is the chain to be broken, and at that point are the rebels divorced from the earthly order of Catholicism as we know it?

This is a big question, and one that began in 1965 with Vatican II.

The current Pope is the most extreme Pope to date, naturally given the social "progress" of things today, but one hard-lined, traditional Pope could easily step in next, say Vatican II was nonsense and that we're all going back to pre-1965 Catholicism.

It needs to be a grassroots effort though, and people need to speak up to their priests and bishops if anything is being passed down the line that they disagree with. Gone are the days when the Church would hold the line every time on traditional, conservative values, so people need to call out BS right away. I know that's easier said than done, but it's the only way. We can't say we're not here to pass judgment on anyone or that the Pope is beyond reproach, he's only human and he has his own political agenda.

[CynicalContrarian]

Going back to the notion of "churchian" vs. spiritual Christian :

[url=https://twitter.com/Gr8Awakeningbc/status/989503709355937793][/url]

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(05-01-2018 09:00 PM)Sherman Wrote:  

Nature never left you. That is why you are still alive. However, Judaism will not be missed.

And Islam will be even missed less than Judaism.

[Mage]

(05-04-2018 03:48 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 09:00 PM)Sherman Wrote:  

Nature never left you. That is why you are still alive. However, Judaism will not be missed.

And Islam will be even missed less than Judaism.

Sadly no, if Judaism would suddenly get banned only about 0.5% of people of this planet would get triggered. If Islam would get banned about 20% of people on this planet would get triggered. That is a scary percentage.

   

Another thing that is mind boggling to me - if we humans get only one life and if Christianity is correct - why does God allow such huge percentages of people to live and die in societies constructed on total lies? You know these people in most of majority Muslim countries - they just can't get baptized and be liberated from the original sin. There is no such option there.

[debeguiled]

(05-04-2018 01:08 PM)Mage Wrote:  

Another thing that is mind boggling to me - if we humans get only one life and if Christianity is correct - why does God allow such huge percentages of people to live and die in societies constructed on total lies? You know these people in most of majority Muslim countries - they just can't get baptized and be liberated from the original sin. There is no such option there.

Romans 2:14

[RatInTheWoods]

(05-04-2018 01:08 PM)Mage Wrote:  

Another thing that is mind boggling to me - if we humans get only one life and if Christianity is correct - why does God allow such huge percentages of people to live and die in societies constructed on total lies? You know these people in most of majority Muslim countries - they just can't get baptized and be liberated from the original sin. There is no such option there.

Far worse than that is that muslims and christians will never get to feast in the halls of valhalla and fight on the great final battlefield come ragnarok.

I lie awake at night worrying about that.

But given that I am dyslexic, I also lie awake at night wondering if their really is a dog?

[Mage]

(05-04-2018 02:30 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

(05-04-2018 01:08 PM)Mage Wrote:  

Another thing that is mind boggling to me - if we humans get only one life and if Christianity is correct - why does God allow such huge percentages of people to live and die in societies constructed on total lies? You know these people in most of majority Muslim countries - they just can't get baptized and be liberated from the original sin. There is no such option there.

Romans 2:14

You are so lazy that you didn't bother to paste the verse and make everyone who wants to understand your post search for it. It's the same as posting a link without a quote or explanation and is against forum rules.

Also the verse doesn't answer my argument.

If you are thought Islam from childbirth and you know nothing but Islam it is ridiculous to assume that you are going to observe laws of Christianity all of a sudden. Therefore the Christian Church has always historically evangelized (Read - found excuses to force their religion on others). Because if you know the law then you chances of observing the law are obviously higher. Islam doesn't even teach the Golden Rule that is common to most faiths. So it remains that your chances of salvation are much lower in non Christian world. If it were not so then the Christianity itself would be useless - why profess and evangelize something that doesn't increase your chances for a better afterlife?

It's obvious if you take a few minutes time to think about it. But you didn't - you just slammed a Bible verse in. And that is what so many people find annoying about the usual Christian tactics - no arguments, no explanation, no thinking, just thumping some verse loosely associated with the argument.

[Mage]

(05-05-2018 12:02 AM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  

Far worse than that is that muslims and christians will never get to feast in the halls of valhalla and fight on the great final battlefield come ragnarok.

I lie awake at night worrying about that.

But given that I am dyslexic, I also lie awake at night wondering if their really is a dog?

Most modern pagans myself included, believe in reincarnation, not Valhalla. Also the common understanding about Valhalla that you have is Christian made. Valhalla is just a metaphor - it's a temporal and not a permanent place for the deceased warrior to find himself after death.

Explained here:
https://norse-mythology.org/concepts/dea...afterlife/

and even better here:

With reincarnation you don't have to worry about your religion reaching all corners of earth for every generation for salvation. Any faith that preaches only one life must become aggressive to spread and save the souls of unbelievers. This has been true for both Christianity and Islam historically.

[Leonard D Neubache]

Quote:

Romans 2:14

New International Version (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.

New Living Translation Even Gentiles, who do not have God's written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, ...

I am the Lord thy God, thou shall not have any gods before me.
Instantly disqualified.

You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything.
Instantly disqualified for most religions.

You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.
Might work

Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.
Instantly disqualified for most religions.

Honor your father and your mother.
Likely to pass under most religions.

You shall not murder.
You must instinctively know that jihad is wrong, for example.

You shall not commit adultery.
Instinctive? Hard sell.

You shall not steal.
Likely to pass under most religions.

You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
Likely to pass under most religions.

You shall not covet your neighbor's house, wife, or property.
Likely to pass under most religions.

Doesn't make a very good case for the passage. The Ten Commandments are the fundamental cliche for "written in stone" and it disqualifies people born into heresy instantly.

Not shilling. Just playing ref.

[Mage]

Christian law:
"Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another"
Muslim law:
"surely Allah does not love the unbelievers"

Christian law:
"Love your neighbor as yourself."
Muslim law:
"fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness.”

Christian law:
"love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"
Muslim law:
"slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush."


Verdict: Not compatible

[fenetre]

(05-05-2018 04:22 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Quote:

Romans 2:14

New International Version (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.

New Living Translation Even Gentiles, who do not have God's written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, ...

I am the Lord thy God, thou shall not have any gods before me.
Instantly disqualified.

You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything.
Instantly disqualified for most religions.

You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.
Might work

Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.
Instantly disqualified for most religions.

Honor your father and your mother.
Likely to pass under most religions.

You shall not murder.
You must instinctively know that jihad is wrong, for example.

You shall not commit adultery.
Instinctive? Hard sell.

You shall not steal.
Likely to pass under most religions.

You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
Likely to pass under most religions.

You shall not covet your neighbor's house, wife, or property.
Likely to pass under most religions.

Doesn't make a very good case for the passage. The Ten Commandments are the fundamental cliche for "written in stone" and it disqualifies people born into heresy instantly.

Not shilling. Just playing ref.

I've thought about this question a lot recently. About which religion is truer, and why Christianity is arguably the most true. I'm no theologian so take my thinking for what it's worth.

There are two main points.

One. God is something to be discovered. This takes time, and the ability to understand yourself and the world around you. For example, electricity has always existed but was not discovered until relatively recently.

Pagans' understanding of God is limited to a primitive sort of understanding, because that was the level of development back then. Similarly, Hindus' and Muslims' conception of God and their development of this understanding is limited by differences in the way these cultures think, which is a function of their IQ, temperaments, other biological factors, and so on.

Is it any wonder that the superior European type has developed the greatest understanding of God, based on how he has discovered it? Why should our brilliance in discovery stop at the door of religion?

Two. Supporting my point is that we only need to look at how life is in various religious societies. "Ye shall know them by their fruits."
How can anyone hold on to the argument that all religions are equal? How is life for the average Muslim, Hindu or Christian? Which society is going to be more just, wealthy, compassionate, safe?

We know Christianity is more true because we see the fruits of the actions of 100s of millions of Christians over hundreds of years, and we compare this to the Hindu and Muslim equivalents.

No people has fully discovered God, but it's clear that Christianity is further along the road. Just zoom out a little.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

< Yeah - except the Chinese, Korean and Japanese societies break free from that. They embrace rather pagan or almost secular beliefs - their ethics are hardly mired in the 10 commandments or hellfire. They did not do much progress - true. Creativity and breaking of social habits was one of Europe's strengths. IQ explains why the lower societies did not progress. That explanation does not for the North-Asians.

I would rather say that it's a multitude of factors - obedience to authority and uniformity being some of the factors that held them all back in the feudal age - all despite dangerous enemies in Mongolia and later highly superior aggressive Western powers.

Still - I would agree that their higher IQs made it even possible for them to behave in such a relatively ethical manner despite no religion mired in fear and hell. The likelihood of a 85-IQ Japan replicating that is zero.

[Leonard D Neubache]

You don't even have to look at it historically. There are Arab Christian sects that have existed for many centuries and they're not exactly balls deep in the ninth phase of their space program.

[debeguiled]

(05-05-2018 04:22 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Quote:

Romans 2:14

New International Version (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.

New Living Translation Even Gentiles, who do not have God's written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, ...

I am the Lord thy God, thou shall not have any gods before me.
Instantly disqualified.

You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything.
Instantly disqualified for most religions.

You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.
Might work

Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.
Instantly disqualified for most religions.

Honor your father and your mother.
Likely to pass under most religions.

You shall not murder.
You must instinctively know that jihad is wrong, for example.

You shall not commit adultery.
Instinctive? Hard sell.

You shall not steal.
Likely to pass under most religions.

You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
Likely to pass under most religions.

You shall not covet your neighbor's house, wife, or property.
Likely to pass under most religions.

Doesn't make a very good case for the passage. The Ten Commandments are the fundamental cliche for "written in stone" and it disqualifies people born into heresy instantly.

Not shilling. Just playing ref.

A lot less lazy than I am.

[Mage]

Response to Fenetre.


Answer to argument One.

Europeans didn't invent Christianity. Christianity was invented by (((middle easterners))).

The native European Religion is Indo-European Paganism which branched into many forms - Grecko/Roman, Germanic, Norse, Baltic and Slavic. These forms while not exactly the same are still pretty similar at their core and the origins of many deities can be traced back to the original Indo-European paganism from where you can also find many common things in these beliefs systems with Hinduism.

Another thing that is native to Europe is philosophical thought. Philosophy was started by ancient Greeks, who were pagan Europeans. In middle ages and Renaissance Europeans combined their pagan Philosophical tradition with the (((non european))) scriptures of Bible and created theology. This theology indeed gives a relatively advanced and somewhat deep understanding about nature of God, but I would argue that there are a lot of factors that limit the possible theologian understandings about God because it carries the burden of trying to reconcile Old and New testament, insisting of Divinity of Jesus and other aspects that are there to justify history and do not deal with actual understanding of Supreme Reality.

All this time in Europe existed also a parallel philosophical movement that was independent from (((non-European))) scripture and was therefore not called theology but simply philosophy. This philosophy was secular and/or was also inspired by Paganism. Rediscovery of Greco/Roman Paganism inspired many Renaissance and modern philosophers, some of which were Christians like Descartes and Kant and some of which were secular like Voltaire and Rousseau, but both of these types of philosophers constructed philosophical thoughts independently from the Church tradition and scripture and were able to create thought, including thoughts about God independently from Church tradition. Many later European philosophers like Schopenhauer and Nietzsche also were greatly influenced by Germanic and Hindu Paganism.

So these are native European things - Paganism and Philosophy. The Western world was historically defined by these two native pillars, plus one foreign pillar - Christianity.



Answer to argument two.

Now that we know that Native European thought children are Philosophy and Paganism we can make case that it is these two things that have created the high living standard and the many freedoms of West.

Most core western values that ensure free and prosperous society are:

Presumption of innocence.
Core human rights - Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Free market.
Democracy and representative power.
Capitalism - rights to property, material and intellectual.
No taxation without representation.
Freedom of speech.
Renouncement of slavery.
Renouncement of torture.
Universal education.


These are the actual things that have made West ahead and superior to the rest of the world. Note that none of these things are Christian. None of these things are found in Bible. Christian world lived without these things for around 1500 years, depending on which thing exactly we look to. For 1500 years Christians were ok, with slavery, serfdom, trials without proof, certain classes being taxed without having rights, tortures used to extract confessions, absolute monarchs having rights to kill servants on a whim and most people being illiterate. During all those times Europe was pretty much on the same level of development as India or China or Japan or the Muslim world.

Only when the things I mentioned above - which were all things suggested by philosophers who draw inspirations from various religious traditions and secular traditions, not things suggested by priests and the church, sometimes things resisted by church - only when these thing became widely adopted in Western culture did Western culture indeed become a better place to live then any other part of the world.

So good living is fruits that have at least two roots - Philosophy and Indo-European Paganism. It could be argued that Christianity is a third root, but by no means it is the only root and by no means it is the most important root.

Now take a look at cultures that have Christianity but do not have European genes and love for philosophy. I can think of two examples:

1.Latin America
2.Philippines.

In both Latin America and Philippines about 90% of people are Christian. Does this makes their living standard higher then the rest of the world? Are they equal to Europeans in Europe and North America? Do they even surpass the non-Christian and non-European Japanese, Koreans and Chinese?

What is interesting that the religion there mutates with their genetic predispositions. In Mexico they worship Santa Muerte despite being Catholics and Vatican prohibiting that cult. In Philippines they flail living people to cross to reenact suffering of Christ despite also being Catholics and Vatican condemning it. But they just gotta do it. That is their nature. Both Latin America and Philippines have high crime rates, corruption rates and other problems. The amount of problems is about inversely proportional to the amount of European genes in their population.



So to summarize.

Europeans are smart and will make the best out of everything they have. They were forced to adapt Christianity by monarchs using it to secure their power, but Europeans made the best out of it and made a great civilization drawing inspiration from their Pagan ancestors that led to the fall of those monarchs again. Europeans created values that are universal and can lead to prosperity in almost any country with any religion, if only it is not something as backwards as Islam.
Even if future Europe becomes Islamist and loses all Christian traces - White European Muslims will find a way to creep some Pagan independent thought in this and create some philosophy that will make European Muslim countries better then Arabian Muslim countries.

If Rome had not adopted Christianity - my guess West would still be ahead of the rest of the world. It's interesting how at that time there existed two superpowers on Earth - Rome and China. BTW they knew about each other but never met.


It's interesting that Christianity is used today almost as an excuse to avoid looking at racial realities. No - it just couldn't be that Europeans are simply smarter and more creative and more noble and more brave then anyone else - it must be Christianity, that is responsible for this. To imply otherwise would be racist right? Interesting how Christianity acts as a shield for liberal values despite liberals hating it.

[Leonard D Neubache]

It constantly amazes me how the events of history hundreds or thousand of years ago continue to ripple modern waters. In the West the saying goes "all roads lead to Rome" and in historical terms to some degree this still holds true.

[Mage]

(05-06-2018 03:59 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

It constantly amazes me how the events of history hundreds or thousand of years ago continue to ripple modern waters. In the West the saying goes "all roads lead to Rome" and in historical terms to some degree this still holds true.

I consider all of the European Middle age history as Roman history - Middle age Europe is just fragmented Rome.

Arguments:

- Eastern Rome a.k.a Byzantium continued to exist until 1453, most of this time it still was a major superpower.
- Western Rome didn't fell because the barbarians "invaded Rome" as is the common impression we get in school. The "barbarians" who fell Rome were just governors of the conquered provinces of Roman empire who proclaimed independence, proclaimed their right to the Emperor status, sometimes looted Rome city. Later these provinces became future medieval kingdoms.
- In middle ages most kings with enough ambition and resources hoped to restore the former Roman Empire and achieve title of Emperor - meaning the sovereign of all Christian world (Rome) and successor to Roman Emperors. Many European kings even proclaimed themselves as Emperors prematurely as a propaganda move to justify their conquest and Rule. Charlemagne and his Holy Roman Empire is best example.
- The term "middle ages" is not a modern invention. It comes from middle ages themselves. They viewed this age of separation as temporary and thought that in close future Christ will return and establish the 1000 year kingdom uniting all Christians with Rome as center again.
- Rome still controlled most Western European politics trough it's religious authority. It even expanded by adding Baltic and Scandinavia under it's influence.
-When did middle ages end - the border between middle and new ages is a time period marked by three events all associated to Rome:
1453 - Fall of Constantinople. Eastern Rome is conquered by Muslim Turks.
1492 - Columbus discovers America. Known world map changes and the theater of European history moves outside or the borders of Classical Roman world.
1517 - Martin Luther creates Protestantism and Rome loses monopoly of spiritual authority in territories of Western Rome.

We all White people and Europeans, even if we live in Americas or in Australia are Romans to a degree. History of Rome is our common history. We cannot understand ourselves if we do not understand Rome.

Even after the nominal end of Middle ages such people as Napoleon and Nazi's tried to pose themselves as successors of Rome by controlling it's former territories, claiming Emperor status (Napoleon) and using Roman regalia (both Napoleon and Nazi's).


Why is this paradigm then not thought in schools? Well for the fallowing main reasons:

- History is manly written by western scholars trying to draw away attention from two major facts:

1. Byzantium was equal to Western Europe and Orthodoxy is equal to Catholicism. Russia is spiritual successor of Byzantium. Moscow is the third Rome after (Constantinople being second) in Orthodox views. The purpose is to elevate Western history and downplay Eastern (read - Russian) history. We see here that even such huge events as Nuclear Race and Cold war and current day NATO vs Russia relations are just continuation of the divide between Western and Eastern Roman empire.

2. It is shameful to admit that Rome was destroyed by Islam and not by some mystic "barbarians" who were actually Romans themselves. It is shameful to admit that for about 1400 years Islam has bullied Christian world, attacking it constantly, pirating Mediterranean, enslaving our women and hindering our contacts with India and China for 1000 years.

Also if it were not for Islam constantly fighting Byzantium for 900 years - it is not unlikely that Byzantium would have regained control over the Western part of Roman empire. Then today Orthodoxy would have been the dominant Christian denomination and Catholicism might have been something very small. That is the dark secret and the silent pact between Westerners politicians and Islam. The true political paradigm is still to this day that of Western Rome fighting Eastern Rome and Islam was just useful unaware outside ally in this combat.

The hiding of the true nature of Islam is nothing new. It is not just modern SJW polemics. It is a thousand year old Christian tradition to hide and downplay the crimes of Islam even if it means sacrificing our own history. As explained brilliantly by this guy here:

We are lied to by being thought that Middle ages started with fall of Rome. No Rome didn't fall, it was still there, just changed and more divided. The "fall of Rome by barbarians" is a fragmentation event with no bigger significance then division between Western and Eastern Rome. What really did start middle ages Was Islam - a new force that pestered the Roman empire for all this time period and that didn't allow it to unite again. Paradoxically it caused Europeans to invent ocean sailing ships and navigation because they could not reach India trough land and that made Europeans the dominant colonial power. So we see that Islam has a major role in both the true transition from ancient ages to middle ages and the transition from middle ages to the new ages.

[Super_Fire]

(05-05-2018 09:41 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

< Yeah - except the Chinese, Korean and Japanese societies break free from that. They embrace rather pagan or almost secular beliefs - their ethics are hardly mired in the 10 commandments or hellfire. They did not do much progress - true. Creativity and breaking of social habits was one of Europe's strengths. IQ explains why the lower societies did not progress. That explanation does not for the North-Asians.

I would rather say that it's a multitude of factors - obedience to authority and uniformity being some of the factors that held them all back in the feudal age - all despite dangerous enemies in Mongolia and later highly superior aggressive Western powers.

Still - I would agree that their higher IQs made it even possible for them to behave in such a relatively ethical manner despite no religion mired in fear and hell. The likelihood of a 85-IQ Japan replicating that is zero.

Lots of Asians believe in Buddhist conceptions of Hell.

Parents tell their children that if they waste food, they'll have to eat it all in Hell, for example. Temple ruffians are especially into this.

[rotekz]

"Christian at heart, but Pagan in the soul."

[Extinguished Light]

(05-05-2018 09:29 AM)fenetre Wrote:  

I've thought about this question a lot recently. About which religion is truer, and why Christianity is arguably the most true. I'm no theologian so take my thinking for what it's worth.

There are two main points.

One. God is something to be discovered. This takes time, and the ability to understand yourself and the world around you. For example, electricity has always existed but was not discovered until relatively recently.

Pagans' understanding of God is limited to a primitive sort of understanding, because that was the level of development back then. Similarly, Hindus' and Muslims' conception of God and their development of this understanding is limited by differences in the way these cultures think, which is a function of their IQ, temperaments, other biological factors, and so on.

Is it any wonder that the superior European type has developed the greatest understanding of God, based on how he has discovered it? Why should our brilliance in discovery stop at the door of religion?

Two. Supporting my point is that we only need to look at how life is in various religious societies. "Ye shall know them by their fruits."
How can anyone hold on to the argument that all religions are equal? How is life for the average Muslim, Hindu or Christian? Which society is going to be more just, wealthy, compassionate, safe?

We know Christianity is more true because we see the fruits of the actions of 100s of millions of Christians over hundreds of years, and we compare this to the Hindu and Muslim equivalents.

No people has fully discovered God, but it's clear that Christianity is further along the road. Just zoom out a little.

The hindu conception of god and the universe is fairly complex and interesting actually. Neils Bohr spoke of how he used to read the Upanishads to help him figure out which questions to ask in his study.

Rene Guenon, one of the greatest perennialists, wrote an interesting book summarizing the theology: "Man and his Becoming According to the Vedanta". I read it recently and it really provided a fascinating conception of life and the universe.

Interestingly, most modern Indians don't seem to describe their religious beliefs according to the written theology. Perhaps this is due to regional differences, and partially due to the massive body of different texts compiled over many years as opposed to a single Bible or Quran.

But then again, I don't find many Christians are particularly solid on theology either.

[Extinguished Light]

@Fenetre:

Here are some excerpts from a great piece by Martin Lings on the life and work of Rene Guenon: http://www.worldwisdom.com/public/viewpd...Guenon.pdf

On the nature of the absolute:

Quote:

One of the points to be mentioned first is the question of the distinction which has to be made at the divine level and which is made in all esoterisms but cannot be made exoterically, that is, in religions as given to the masses today-the distinction between the Absolute and the beginnings therein of relativity. The Absolute which is One, Infinite, Eternal, Immutable, Undetermined, Unconditioned, is represented in Hinduism by the sacred monosyllable Aum, and it is termed Atma, which means Self, and Brahma which is a neuter word that serves to emphasize that it is beyond all duality such as male and female. And it is also termed Tat (That), just as in Sufism, the Absolute is sometimes termed Huwa (He). Then we have what corresponds in other religions to the personal God, lshvara, which is the beginning already of relativity, because it is concerned with manifesta­ tion, the term that Hindus use for creation, and creation is clearly the beginning of a duality-Creator and created. lshvara is at the divine level, yet it is the beginning of relativity.

In all esoterism one finds the same doctrine. Meister Eckhart came into difficulties with the Church because he insisted on making a dis­tinction between God and Godhead—Gott und Gottheit. He used the second term for the Absolute, that is for the absolute Absolute, and he used God for the relative Absolute. It could have been the other way around, it was just that he needed to make some difference. In Sufism one speaks of the Divine Essence and the Essential Names of God such as the One, the Truth, the All-Holy, the Living, and the Infinitely Good, al-Rahman, which contains the roots of all goodness and which is also a name of the Divine Essence. Below that there are the Names of Qualities, like Creator, the Merciful, in the sense of one who has Mercy on others, and that is clearly the beginning of a duality. In every esoterism this distinction is made even at the level of the Divinity. It cannot exist below esoterism because it would result in the idea of two Gods; a division in the Divinity would be exceedingly dangerous in the hands of the mass of believers. The Divine Unity has to be maintained at all costs.

On more personal manifestations of the absolute:

Quote:

Now Guénon, in this book, traces with all clarity the hierarchy of the universe from the Absolute, from the personal God, down to the created logos, that is buddhi, which is the word which means intellect and which has three aspects-Brahma (this time the word is masculine), Vishnu, and Shiva. Strictly speaking in the hierarchy of the universes these devas (this is the same word linguistically as the Latin deus), have the rank of what we would call archangels. Hinduism is so subtle however that though they are created they can be invoked as Names of the Absolute because they descend from the Absolute and they return to the Absolute. They can be invoked in the sense of the Absolute Brahma, in the sense of Atma, in the sense of Aum.

Theological parallel between Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam:

Quote:

The Hindu doctrine, like Genesis, speaks of the two waters. The Koran speaks of the two seas, the upper waters and the lower waters. The upper waters represent the higher aspect of the created world, that is, of the manifested world, corresponding to the different heavens in which are the different paradises. It is all part of the next world from the point of view of this world. The lower waters represent the world of body and soul, and all is a manifestation of the Absolute.

On the possibility of a multiverse:

Quote:

In the later religions it is as if Providence had shepherded mankind into a narrower and nar­ rower valley: the opening is still the same to heaven but the horizontal outlook is narrower and narrower because man is no longer capable of taking in more than a certain amount. The Hindu doctrine of the samsara, that is, of the endless chain of innumerable worlds which have been manifested, and of which the universe consists, would lead to all sorts of distractions. Nonetheless, when one is speaking of an Absolute, Eternal Divinity, the idea that that Infinitude produced only one single world in manifesting itself does not satisfy the intelligence. The doctrine of the samsara does, on the other hand, satisfy, but the worlds are innumerable that have been manifested.

On god made flesh:

Quote:

Hinduism also has the avataras, and that a Christian can well understand, that is, the manifestations, the descents, of the Divinity. Of course a Christian would not recognize the descents of the Hindu avataras because for the average Christian there has only ever been one descent and that is Christ Himself, but Hinduism recognizes the descent as an inexhaustible possibility and it names ten avataras who have helped maintain the vitality of the religion down to the present day. The ninth avatara, which is called the foreign avatara, is the Buddha himself because, although he appeared in India, he was not for Hindus but clearly for the Eastern world. The breadth of Hinduism is seen also in its prefiguration of exoterism which is the recognition of the Three Ways. These are still Ways back to God-the three margas-the way of knowledge, the way of love, and the way of action—three ways which correspond to the inclinations and affinities of different human beings.

On the aryan affinity for hinduism:

Quote:

Another point which makes the terms of Hinduism so right for giving Europeans the message is that they have as Aryans an affinity with Hinduism because they are rooted in the religions of Classical Antiquity which are sister religions to Hinduism; their structure was clearly the same as the structure of Hinduism. Of course they degener­ ated into complete decadence and have now disappeared. Nonetheless our heritage lies in them and Guenon gives us, one might say, the possibility of a mysterious renascence in a purely positive sense by his message of the truth in Hindu terms. This affinity must not be exag­ gerated however, and Guenon never advised anybody who was not a Hindu, as far as I know, to become a Hindu.

There is a lot more of interest in the study of perennialism and the study of comparative religion in general. I would hesitate to speak with too much conviction on the theological nature of a given religion without first studying it first.

On the other hand, we can easily comment on the way that these theologies are practiced IRL, which is where we can maybe look at the biological, environmental, and cultural contexts of the people practicing them.