Some Theological Aphorisms

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby Vittorio » Sun Jun 13, 2021 8:28 am

obsrvr524 wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:Might you be wanting to know the particular conception of construct or methods that they had concerning the initiator or creator of all things? - not merely the basic idea but the particulars involved?

Vittorio -

If you could answer that question I might be able to answer your question (or at least give you a pointer as to where to look) - or maybe not.


No, I don't believe you can. We are searching for a very specific entity, 'God,' and have very little interest in reconstructing based on a synchretic religious conception constructed after the fact.
Vittorio
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun May 23, 2021 5:45 am

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby Vittorio » Sun Jun 13, 2021 8:31 am

Fixed Cross wrote:The well that the Hebrews conceptualize, Ayn-Soph (No-Limit) births their gods, Eheieh (I am that I am), YHWH, the Elohim, and all the others.


This is good, this is the kind of thing I am looking for. I must admit, though, a certain distrust of your given definitions as they are considering your demonstrated comfort with synchretic reconstructions. In any case, I would like to see more of this, if you can keep it specific and faithful to record, to tradition. As you may have read, I used your rendering of Elohim for one of my writings earlier. This is actual scholarship, and smells more of Judaism than of Gothitry.
Vittorio
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun May 23, 2021 5:45 am

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby Vittorio » Sun Jun 13, 2021 8:43 am

felix dakat wrote:Lots of interesting opinions in there.


Thank you.

felix dakat wrote: Funny how you criticize the Goths as "innately racist" and then you talk about "mixing the blood" of peoples. How is that not racism? I see race as a social construct that gets conflated with ethnicity.


You will note that I did not ever mention 'race,' or 'ethnicity,' for that matter, which means the same. I agree they are barbaric constructs, mostly employed in the Gothic world. Even where Romans exhibit some racism, it will rarely make reference to a race or ethnicity, but simple things like skin color and provenance.

What I spoke about is 'peoples,' which existence is obvious, patent, and which denial is suspect for reasons I will name later. What makes racism is not the distinctions between people, though the pseudoacademic constructs you mentioned do help it, which very simply exist. Racism is not a sicentific perspective, it is an active policy. And the policy of racism is not to mix a perceived 'race,' presumably one's own, whatever race may mean, with others, and to seek the benefit of one's 'race,' again, whatever that may mean, at the detriment of others. It is an attitude and a feeling, not an abstract idea. You see in Gothic lands in America, for example, the genetic traits of groups of people remain largely unchanged for many generations. This inculdes among the most mightyly pontificating of moralists. Indeed, very often the denial of the existence of difference between people comes hand in hand with a strict enforcement of the maintenance of this difference, with policies like avoiding 'cultural appropriation' and other such things. Rome, a civilized people, seeks always to mix and incorporate, to apropriate, to make its own and give itself away. If there are no differences, there is also no mixing, no enrichment.

I hope this explains it somewhat though, as I have written, I lack the strict absolutest of faith in your honesty. Indeed, I find where the condemnation of 'racism' is most vitriolic, it is also most present. But that is only based on experience, and may or may not be your case, though your appelation of 'ethnicity' already rings many familiar bells.

The essencial difference is this: a Roman sees peoples, and the desire to mix them. A Goth sees categories of people, and the need to keep them separate.
Vittorio
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun May 23, 2021 5:45 am

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby Vittorio » Sun Jun 13, 2021 9:10 am

Vittorio wrote:Well, no, only the communist has the dishonesty to pretend 'peace.'


Unless, of course, what you refer to is 'peace in the realm,' which decidedly does not mean 'peace for the rebels.'
Vittorio
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun May 23, 2021 5:45 am

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby Sculptor » Sun Jun 13, 2021 9:35 am

Vittorio wrote:
Sculptor wrote:You do not learn civilisation from your genes, but from your culture.


I don't believe you understand what 'peoples' means, or, indeed, 'civilization,' or, most likely, 'genes.'

:lol: That just reflects badly on you, not me.
I have a Master's in Intellectual History a BA in Ancient History and Archaeology, and have studied evolutionary theory extensively, in particular a thesis written for be MA.

Sculptor wrote:This whole thing is just a bizzare litany of prejudice and misconceptions.


Understood.
Did you know you are a racist?

Sculptor wrote:You can obviously write, but how the fuck did you collect such a massive range of misconceptions and nonsense?


I don't know.

And that sums you up. YOU DO NOT KNOW SHIT. Sadly you think you know, and that is worse than ignorance.

Sculptor wrote:It's amazing just how wrong you are in so many matters I shudder to think how you've collected this series of beliefs.


Yes, I must be.

Sculptor wrote:Have you ever been to school or are you completely self taught?


I am a Roman.

The more posts I see on this Forum the more I realise that is is a depository for mentally ill people.

Sculptor wrote:Presumably you went to school to learn to write. When did it all go wrong for you?


My mother taught me to write. I am a Roman. And I don't know.


SO by what definition are you "Roman". Were you born in Rome?
Sculptor
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1121
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby Sculptor » Sun Jun 13, 2021 9:42 am

Vittorio wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:Rome had this hilarious notion of 'restoring peace', meaning massacring everybody and burning all the cultural artifacts they could find.


Rome conquered, like all other peoples conquer. Even the Gauls you sentimentally gripe about went to war among themselves, ...


This is a misconception.
Gauls may well have been at war with each other, and on a regular basic. Tribes akin to them and sometimes erroneously called Celts sacked Greece and Rome on occaision.
But they were NOT in the habit of conquest. If they had been, maybe there would have been no Rome. Neither did they commit genocide on any peoples.
The only time they came near to the sort of unity to conquer, Vercengetorix, was the nominal leader of the pact against Caesar, who was uhumiliated and dragged through the streets of Rome like a trophy.
War was heavily ritualised with changing alliances and raiding. With each generation of young men, neighbouring tribes prepared for new rounds of competative battles.
Gauls had more in common with Counting coup of the North American Indian tribes than they did with Rome.

If you want a comparison; Rome is to Nazi Germany, what Gauls are to the free world.
Last edited by Sculptor on Sun Jun 13, 2021 9:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sculptor
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1121
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby Sculptor » Sun Jun 13, 2021 9:44 am

Vittorio wrote:To a Roman, it is of little concern. I simply want to know what 'God' means.


God is dead, ain't you heard?

It don't mean shit.
Sculptor
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1121
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby obsrvr524 » Sun Jun 13, 2021 10:39 am

So it wasn't the word "God" you were interested in but rather what the original people worshiping God thought they were worshiping?

- And you want it to sound scholarly -
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
    It's just same Satanism as always -
    • separate the bottom from the top,
    • the left from the right,
    • the light from the dark, and
    • blame each for the sins of the other
    • - until they beg you to take charge.
    • -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3138
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby felix dakat » Sun Jun 13, 2021 2:29 pm

Vittorio wrote:
felix dakat wrote:Lots of interesting opinions in there.


Thank you.

felix dakat wrote: Funny how you criticize the Goths as "innately racist" and then you talk about "mixing the blood" of peoples. How is that not racism? I see race as a social construct that gets conflated with ethnicity.


You will note that I did not ever mention 'race,' or 'ethnicity,' for that matter, which means the same. I agree they are barbaric constructs, mostly employed in the Gothic world. Even where Romans exhibit some racism, it will rarely make reference to a race or ethnicity, but simple things like skin color and provenance.

What I spoke about is 'peoples,' which existence is obvious, patent, and which denial is suspect for reasons I will name later. What makes racism is not the distinctions between people, though the pseudoacademic constructs you mentioned do help it, which very simply exist. Racism is not a sicentific perspective, it is an active policy. And the policy of racism is not to mix a perceived 'race,' presumably one's own, whatever race may mean, with others, and to seek the benefit of one's 'race,' again, whatever that may mean, at the detriment of others. It is an attitude and a feeling, not an abstract idea. You see in Gothic lands in America, for example, the genetic traits of groups of people remain largely unchanged for many generations. This inculdes among the most mightyly pontificating of moralists. Indeed, very often the denial of the existence of difference between people comes hand in hand with a strict enforcement of the maintenance of this difference, with policies like avoiding 'cultural appropriation' and other such things. Rome, a civilized people, seeks always to mix and incorporate, to apropriate, to make its own and give itself away. If there are no differences, there is also no mixing, no enrichment.

I hope this explains it somewhat though, as I have written, I lack the strict absolutest of faith in your honesty. Indeed, I find where the condemnation of 'racism' is most vitriolic, it is also most present. But that is only based on experience, and may or may not be your case, though your appelation of 'ethnicity' already rings many familiar bells.

The essencial difference is this: a Roman sees peoples, and the desire to mix them. A Goth sees categories of people, and the need to keep them separate.


So it seems you are espousing a theory of Roman supremacy and Gothic inferiority. And you, not surprisingly, identify with being a Roman. Do you recognize that this could be no more than ethnocentric in-group pride?
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 9449
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby Vittorio » Mon Jun 14, 2021 12:54 am

felix dakat wrote:So it seems you are espousing a theory of Roman supremacy and Gothic inferiority. And you, not surprisingly, identify with being a Roman. Do you recognize that this could be no more than ethnocentric in-group pride?


Again, I believe you lack either comprehension or honesty. But if you say so.
Vittorio
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun May 23, 2021 5:45 am

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby Vittorio » Mon Jun 14, 2021 12:55 am

obsrvr524 wrote:So it wasn't the word "God" you were interested in but rather what the original people worshiping God thought they were worshiping?

- And you want it to sound scholarly -


No, it is the word 'God' I am interested in. Perhaps not in a way that pleases you, but it is, in fact, what interests me.
Vittorio
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun May 23, 2021 5:45 am

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby Vittorio » Mon Jun 14, 2021 12:57 am

Sculptor wrote::lol: That just reflects badly on you, not me.


Alright.

Sculptor wrote:I have a Master's in Intellectual History a BA in Ancient History and Archaeology,


Sadly, I believe you.

Sculptor wrote:Did you know you are a racist?


No, I did not. But if you say so.

Sculptor wrote:And that sums you up. YOU DO NOT KNOW SHIT. Sadly you think you know, and that is worse than ignorance.


If you say so.

Sculptor wrote:The more posts I see on this Forum the more I realise that is is a depository for mentally ill people.


Alright.

Sculptor wrote:SO by what definition are you "Roman". Were you born in Rome?


Yes.
Vittorio
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun May 23, 2021 5:45 am

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby Vittorio » Mon Jun 14, 2021 1:06 am

Sculptor wrote:This is a misconception.


What is?

Sculptor wrote:Gauls may well have been at war with each other, and on a regular basic.


I suppose you mean a regular basis. Yes they did. And, in this way, by conquering each other, larger amounts of them were brought under the rule of some of them, consolidating larger principalities, and regularly enslaving and generally doing all these things to each other that your emotion, if not your intellect, attaches to.

Sculptor wrote:But they were NOT in the habit of conquest.


This is, of course, wrong.

Sculptor wrote:If they had been, maybe there would have been no Rome.


On the contrary. They did, and there was Rome, and, in the end, there was only Rome. Gauls are among the peoples that were almost entirely civilized, and they all speak Latin now and observe Zeus.

Sculptor wrote:The only time they came near to the sort of unity to conquer, Vercengetorix, was the nominal leader of the pact against Caesar, who was uhumiliated and dragged through the streets of Rome like a trophy.


Yes, the ultimate conqueror of the Gauls did not fare well against Rome.

Sculptor wrote:War was heavily ritualised with changing alliances and raiding. With each generation of young men, neighbouring tribes prepared for new rounds of competative battles.


I am not sure you understand what 'highly ritualized' means. Roman warfare was also highly ritualized. In Rome, too, neighbouring tribes prepared for new rounds of competitive battles.

Sculptor wrote:Gauls had more in common with Counting coup of the North American Indian tribes than they did with Rome.


I wonder if you are familiar with the types of fates that awaited conquered Indian tribes (I mean, of course, by other Indian tribes, or Indian empires, as the case might have been).

Sculptor wrote:If you want a comparison; Rome is to Nazi Germany, what Gauls are to the free world.


If you say so.

Interestingly, Nazi Germany was a purist racist Gothic rebellion against Rome. Because Goths have little to no tradition or memory, they largely used their bastardized interpretations of what Rome is to design their own societal goals. They were squashed.

Their leader wisely shot, poisoned and burned himself before Rome could get to him.
Vittorio
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun May 23, 2021 5:45 am

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby Vittorio » Mon Jun 14, 2021 1:54 am

Sculptor wrote:God is dead, ain't you heard?


You would first have to know what 'God' means, young man.

Sculptor wrote:It don't mean shit.


Perhaps that idea eases your mind. It does, of course, mean something terribly specific. I would like to know what that is.
Vittorio
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun May 23, 2021 5:45 am

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Jun 14, 2021 10:22 am

One of mine:

In this current reality construction; it not about good or bad, it’s about better or worse.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12176
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby felix dakat » Mon Jun 14, 2021 1:35 pm

Vittorio wrote:
felix dakat wrote:So it seems you are espousing a theory of Roman supremacy and Gothic inferiority. And you, not surprisingly, identify with being a Roman. Do you recognize that this could be no more than ethnocentric in-group pride?


Again, I believe you lack either comprehension or honesty. But if you say so.


If all you have to counter my proposition is an ad hominem argument against me, our dialogue has come to a close.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 9449
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby Sculptor » Mon Jun 14, 2021 1:37 pm

Vittorio wrote:
Sculptor wrote:God is dead, ain't you heard?


You would first have to know what 'God' means, young man.

It is so obvious that I am older and wiser than you.
I was even once a Christian, but I saw the light.

Sculptor wrote:It don't mean shit.


Perhaps that idea eases your mind. It does, of course, mean something terribly specific. I would like to know what that is.


Do not hold your breath. Even if you had the mental capacity, it would have to mean something in the first place :lol:
Sculptor
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1121
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby Sculptor » Mon Jun 14, 2021 1:42 pm

Vittorio wrote:
Sculptor wrote:This is a misconception.


What is?

Sculptor wrote:Gauls may well have been at war with each other, and on a regular basic.


I suppose you mean a regular basis. Yes they did. And, in this way, by conquering each other, larger amounts of them were brought under the rule of some of them, consolidating larger principalities, and regularly enslaving and generally doing all these things to each other that your emotion, if not your intellect, attaches to.

No this did not happen.
Gauls were not imerialists.
The Gallic/ Celtic tribes were as fluid when they sacked Greece as when they were slaughtered by Rome. EVen the alliance brought together by Vercingetorix failed at Alesia.

Sculptor wrote:But they were NOT in the habit of conquest.


This is, of course, wrong.

Prove it.

Sculptor wrote:If they had been, maybe there would have been no Rome.


On the contrary. They did, and there was Rome, and, in the end, there was only Rome. Gauls are among the peoples that were almost entirely civilized, and they all speak Latin now and observe Zeus.

Gauls were better civilised before Rome than under its yoke.
ANd enjoyed better standards of living and more liberty, until Rome enslaved Europe.

Sculptor wrote:The only time they came near to the sort of unity to conquer, Vercengetorix, was the nominal leader of the pact against Caesar, who was uhumiliated and dragged through the streets of Rome like a trophy.


Yes, the ultimate conqueror of the Gauls did not fare well against Rome.

Because Gaellic tribes and "celts" did not share an ideoology of conquest.

Sculptor wrote:War was heavily ritualised with changing alliances and raiding. With each generation of young men, neighbouring tribes prepared for new rounds of competative battles.


I am not sure you understand what 'highly ritualized' means. Roman warfare was also highly ritualized. In Rome, too, neighbouring tribes prepared for new rounds of competitive battles.
[

Sculptor wrote:Gauls had more in common with Counting coup of the North American Indian tribes than they did with Rome....If you want a comparison; Rome is to Nazi Germany, what Gauls are to the free world.


If you say so.

Interestingly, Nazi Germany was a purist racist Gothic rebellion against Rome.


:lol:
You are a moron
Sculptor
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1121
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby Fixed Cross » Mon Jun 14, 2021 4:17 pm

Vittorio wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:Rome had this hilarious notion of 'restoring peace', meaning massacring everybody and burning all the cultural artifacts they could find.


Rome conquered, like all other peoples conquer. Even the Gauls you sentimentally gripe about went to war among themselves, and were not kind about it, as I am sure you must be able to imagine. The difference is that Rome brought civilization with it where it conquered, the res publica. Under no other rule has the learning of writing, to select one very small specific example, been widespread. We have discussed the res publica elsewhere, but I am unsure if you grasp the subtleties of its implications. This, again, I attribute to a short, Gothic, wild memory. The gift is too new, it is not understood. That is my belief. As well as what I wrote earlier, that Goths are innately racist and reluctant to mix, so that an instinctual approach to and knowledge of these historical traditions older than the Gothic reckoning are not inherited.

To a Roman, it is of little concern. I simply want to know what 'God' means.

Fixed Cross wrote:Communists avant la lettre.


Well, no, only the communist has the dishonesty to pretend 'peace.'

You are only just beginning your studies of Rome, that is clear.

I hope you will be studying the Roman historians at one point, preferably in Latin.

I am actually educated in Latin and Roman culture, and can only frown in wonder at some of the statements you're making. You don't think Romans glorified their conquests as peace? Come on now.

Nor did the Romans themselves look down on other cultures as you do; your propaganda smacks of banal racism, with its very poor understanding of culture. Whereas Rome knew no such thing, as shown in its lineage of emperors.

This game you play, that because you are South American, Catholic, you can represent Rome as if you are its legislator, can be as easily reversed. You are a person from the provinces which have been subjected to Roman rule and you have lost culture of your older ancestors; you are not Etruscan, and you are not descendent of Latium.

The Germans, furthermore, are the true descendants of the Greeks in terms of Philosophy and Science. Rome produced nothing in these terms and was merely a vessel, in this sense, for Greece to be brought to the Germans.
The strong act as they may, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Nietzsche's Heritage; The Philosophy of the Future - Some Music - The Magical Tree of Life
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 11611
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby Fixed Cross » Mon Jun 14, 2021 4:28 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:The impossibility of absolute homogeneity?

Or: the lack of power of "nothing" to enforce itself?

Oh wait Im someone else... or... aren't we all, in the end, the same no-mind?

The well that the Hebrews conceptualize, Ayn-Soph (No-Limit) births their gods, Eheieh (I am that I am), YHWH, the Elohim, and all the others. It is the same well as the Buddhistic Void - all these ideas are the same, the result of pushing human intuition to its natural limit.

There is more to know. And looking back at the posts between you and James - James actually gave you every opportunity to see it. In his admitted reluctance - he stated what God is all about in the very practical sense (the construct and methods) but in a way that those unqualified could not see it. There is a very profound reason to not just tell everyone (he mentioned that as well) - so he revealed it cryptically. Without being vetted and ordained - there are very good reasons to not reveal any more than the basic idea - "The Creator". You apparently disqualified yourself.

I have an archive of fairy large proportions of my private discussions with James, he developed RM:AO under my influence. Sorry bud.
The strong act as they may, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Nietzsche's Heritage; The Philosophy of the Future - Some Music - The Magical Tree of Life
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 11611
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby Fixed Cross » Mon Jun 14, 2021 4:34 pm

Vittorio wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:This originally pretty good thread decided into a ludicrous attempt to slander Indo European culture.


I am not sure 'Indo European' has any real meaning. All I see are conjectural reconstructions of a language and a people that there is no evidence for, no tradition of. This fits into what I have written about Goths, and the simple impossibility of a sense of history.

But this is just your own ignorant racism.

You seem to have reached for racism, and to that end, to feigning a pseudo Roman identity in the taste-scheme of fascism, just in order to be belligerent to cultures you have even less understanding of than you have of Rome, the culture you are appropriating without even knowing its language or ethics, likely without ever having been there.

I am sorry you feel slandered. However, I have not written anything particularly controversial or divorced from known fact.

Youve had your racist rants, that is all. They're not close enough to facts to be considered divorced from them.

It is perhaps this itself which constitutes a threat to the Gothic worldview, one of myth and conjecture, daughter of a culture divorced entirely from millennia of tradition. The reason is not only it undergoing the rulership of another people, which has happened to all peoples at one point or another, but the lack of tradition, passed down in oral or written form, to constitute a memory of what has happened in the past. This lack itself does not create, but allows a state where Platonic universalities, of atemporal 'truths' that occur spontaneously as 'phenomena' are sought, and any reference to concrete fact and history a simple threat to a conception of the world. It does, my Gothic friends have to admit, correspond very closely to the stereotypical conception one might have of a 'savage' or an 'Indian.' But, as I said, this is not of necessity. And the question remains, in all its interest, what does 'God' mean?

I would direct you to studies of etymology of Sanskrit and Dutch, Sanskrit and German, Persian and Dutch/German - but you barbarians aren't prone to actual study.

Please.
The strong act as they may, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Nietzsche's Heritage; The Philosophy of the Future - Some Music - The Magical Tree of Life
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 11611
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby Fixed Cross » Mon Jun 14, 2021 4:39 pm

Vittorio wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:The well that the Hebrews conceptualize, Ayn-Soph (No-Limit) births their gods, Eheieh (I am that I am), YHWH, the Elohim, and all the others.


This is good, this is the kind of thing I am looking for. I must admit, though, a certain distrust of your given definitions as they are considering your demonstrated comfort with synchretic reconstructions. In any case, I would like to see more of this, if you can keep it specific and faithful to record, to tradition. As you may have read, I used your rendering of Elohim for one of my writings earlier. This is actual scholarship, and smells more of Judaism than of Gothitry.

You said "Eli". And yet you claim to be champion of literacy.

Offering yourself to the barbaric practice of racist forgery of history, you have sadly not earned my further instructions (which I do have prepared) beyond being corrected in your most dramatic mistake; your original suggestion that the idea of a well is something alien to Judaism.

Your style is praiseworthy and you possess keen intuition. With a shitload of literary discipline you could actually convince people that you're Roman.
My sincere recommendation is that you start by learning Latin, and ditch the liberality of pretending that Spanish and French are the same as Latin. They're both infinitely easier, of less discipline and form;

It was the Germans who appropriated Greece and Rome precisely because of the discipline hewn into their language; the cases.
And stop trying to be a racist. You're thankfully not actually smelling like one like that honest to god peon "Sculptor" and so many illiterates.



(And I get this Spiel of trying to define all of the German world as "Goths", which would be the same as a Dutchman defining all Mediterranean Europe as "garlic-countries". Yeah you can play that game, it's being done, it's easy. It's a dumb game.)
The strong act as they may, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Nietzsche's Heritage; The Philosophy of the Future - Some Music - The Magical Tree of Life
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 11611
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby Vittorio » Mon Jun 14, 2021 10:07 pm

felix dakat wrote:If all you have to counter my proposition is an ad hominem argument against me, our dialogue has come to a close.


This is an interesting choice of words. In any case, that is a shame, you will be missed.
Vittorio
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun May 23, 2021 5:45 am

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby Vittorio » Mon Jun 14, 2021 10:09 pm

Sculptor wrote:It is so obvious that I am older and wiser than you.


Yes, if you say so.

Sculptor wrote:I was even once a Christian, but I saw the light.


Alright.

Sculptor wrote:Do not hold your breath.


I am not.

Sculptor wrote:Even if you had the mental capacity, it would have to mean something in the first place :lol:


Well, young friend, I do at least have the mental capacity to know that words have meanings. That is, in fact, what constitutes a word.

The meaning of this one is of great interest to me.
Vittorio
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun May 23, 2021 5:45 am

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby Vittorio » Mon Jun 14, 2021 10:14 pm

Sculptor wrote:No this did not happen.
Gauls were not imerialists.
The Gallic/ Celtic tribes were as fluid when they sacked Greece as when they were slaughtered by Rome. EVen the alliance brought together by Vercingetorix failed at Alesia.


I never said they were imperialist. Ineed, they were not. Certainly, however, they were expansionist. You seem to hold the fact that they were ultimately never able to expand beyond the Gallic world, though they did consolidate principalities within it, as proof of lack of a warring and conquering mentality. They were simply more savage.

Sculptor wrote:Prove it.


I am afraid, young man, I have better things to do with my time.

Sculptor wrote:Gauls were better civilised before Rome than under its yoke.


If you say so.

Sculptor wrote:ANd enjoyed better standards of living and more liberty, until Rome enslaved Europe.


Yes, if you say so.

Sculptor wrote:Because Gaellic tribes and "celts" did not share an ideoology of conquest.


I am not 100% certain I understand what you mean by 'ideology of conquest.'

Sculptor wrote::lol:
You are a moron


Yes, if you say so.
Vittorio
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun May 23, 2021 5:45 am

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users