tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817911217098974229.post2130340327514251774..comments2023-11-05T04:09:26.194-05:00Comments on e g r e g o r e s: Nazis & Christians & Pagans, Oh My! (Part One)Apuleius Platonicushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11761230673724504084noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817911217098974229.post-33124447236452461942009-12-30T17:23:06.289-05:002009-12-30T17:23:06.289-05:00Neorxnawang: The linguistic issues you bring up ar...Neorxnawang: The linguistic issues you bring up are, I think quite important, and are considered to be so generally in Theodism. We certainly do revive some of this older vocabulary, as a way of bringing our thinking more in line with pre-Christian Germanic thinking. For that reason, among others, we also use early Germanic languages for liturgical reasons.Nick Ritternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817911217098974229.post-72938595202406859852009-12-30T13:15:00.182-05:002009-12-30T13:15:00.182-05:00Neorxnawang: "I have personally taken to refe...Neorxnawang: "I have personally taken to referring to Yahweh by *name* rather than with the anti-pagan title 'God'."<br /><br />I think that is a very good practice. I usually refer to "Jehovah", or "the (Judeo-) Christian 'God'".Apuleius Platonicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11761230673724504084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817911217098974229.post-4937471414379970622009-12-29T22:38:17.642-05:002009-12-29T22:38:17.642-05:00I'm glad we can agree. I think there are a lot...I'm glad we can agree. I think there are a lot of linguistic issues we can look at stemming from the Christianization of the English people and, as a result, the language. From my heathen standpoint, this is a good example of that we should take a look at and reconsider, and I have personally taken to referring to Yahweh by *name* rather than with the anti-pagan title "God".<br /><br />Language is a crucial aspect of societal mores and not only reflects but also influences. I remember reading an interesting study on the warping of Germanic languages towards portraying women as lesser beings after Christianization as well.<br /><br />We lost some important words around that time that I think we would do well to bring back, even if only in pagan circles for now.Neorxnawanghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02605746614944521619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817911217098974229.post-29633639626217352432009-12-29T19:25:50.804-05:002009-12-29T19:25:50.804-05:00Apuleus Platonicus,
>>Are you really arguin...Apuleus Platonicus,<br /><br />>>Are you really arguing that kiling 6 million Jews is a side issue, and that the real question is where Adolf came down on Trinitarianism?<br /><br />If you have to decide if John is a Christian you don't ask if he has ever committed genocide. You will ask if he goes to church regularly, takes part in Eucharist and what he believes. If John turns out to be Adolf, the rules suddenly change.<br /><br />Or did I miss the point of the article and it's about whether Hitler killed 6 million Jews?<br /><br />But, anyway, if you insist that he was motivated by Christianity, I give up. I just find it to be a simple solution of a complex problem. If we use this argument in a debate against Christians, we will surely lose.<br /><br />Anonymous,<br />this seems to be a talk of a deaf and a mute (no offense)<br />>>I will again quote … Germanic tribes adopted Christianity, 'God' became a masculine syntactic form<br />And I will once again say that modern English nouns have no grammatical gender. That is why some monotheists refer to their God as “She” and “Her”. English grammar allows that.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09637071118811437466noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817911217098974229.post-67556943929774115492009-12-29T17:40:33.215-05:002009-12-29T17:40:33.215-05:00When the ancient Greek Pagans used said "ho t...When the ancient Greek Pagans used said "ho theos" this should never be translated as "God". Nor should it be translated at "the god". The first translation is inaccurate. The second translation is unacceptable because "ho theos" was normal, acceptable, recognizable, everyday Greek, while "the god" is a linguistic monstrosity that occurs nowhere in actual speech.<br /><br />"Ho theos" should always be translated as "the Divine" or even "the Gods". In Timaeus 27b-c Socrates and Timaeus use "theos", "theoi" and also "theoi kai theai" interchangeably (in the accusative case, though).<br /><br />Here is an English translation, where "God" is used, for "ho theos". By leaving the mistranslation "God" in place I hope to emphasize that, at least as far as Plato was concerned, this "God" is interchangeable with both "Gods" and also with "Gods and Goddesses", which makes perfect sense from a polytheistic perspective. <br /><br />Socrates: "Bounteous and magnificent, methinks, is the feast of speech with which I am to be requited. So then, it will be your task, it seems, to speak next, when you have duly invoked the Gods."<br /><br />Timaeus: "Nay, as to that, Socrates, all men who possess even a small share of good sense call upon God always at the outset of every undertaking, be it small or great; we therefore who are purposing to deliver a discourse concerning the Universe, how it was created or haply is uncreate, must needs invoke the Gods and Goddesses (if so be that we are not utterly demented), praying that all we say may be approved by them in the first place, and secondly by ourselves. Grant, then, that we have thus duly invoked the deities."Apuleius Platonicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11761230673724504084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817911217098974229.post-82504112004653245592009-12-29T17:27:41.180-05:002009-12-29T17:27:41.180-05:00Dear Anonymous: OK, that clears it up. Sorry I did...Dear Anonymous: OK, that clears it up. Sorry I didn't see that originally.<br /><br />And I have to also agree with you now that I understand your point. The kind of usage of "God" that Denis refers to is implicitly Judeo-Christian. All too many Pagans don't understand that.Apuleius Platonicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11761230673724504084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817911217098974229.post-79291503437731900682009-12-29T17:22:11.073-05:002009-12-29T17:22:11.073-05:00Regarding the masculinity in "God", I wi...Regarding the masculinity in "God", I will again quote Barnhart's Dictionary of Etymology (1995:323): "The Germanic words for 'god' were originally neuter, but after the Germanic tribes adopted Christianity, 'God' became a masculine syntactic form."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817911217098974229.post-46762687489329889502009-12-29T17:20:33.451-05:002009-12-29T17:20:33.451-05:00My comment regarding usage of the term "god&q...My comment regarding usage of the term "god" is in response to Denis, who wrote "I can use the word God in abstract sense, meaning the Divine, like some ancient Greek authors did. Does that make me Christian?" Thank you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817911217098974229.post-50738448683329149932009-12-29T16:02:39.500-05:002009-12-29T16:02:39.500-05:00Denis: "Yes, but the article is in the monoth...Denis: "Yes, but the article is in the monotheism series. So it looks like we start from the ancient time and end up with Christianity eventually leading to Nazism. Or is it just my impression?"<br /><br />Apuleius' response: The article is not specifically included in the Monotheism series. I do provide links to the posts in that series because, as I explain, they closely parallel Richard R. Browning's presentation of the "Background" of the Final Solution. Browning is not some Pagan conspiracy theorist. He is one of the world's leading historians specializing in Holocaust studies.<br /><br />Denis: Can you identify his denomination?<br /><br />Apuleius: That would be Catholicism.<br /><br />Denis: I cannot think of a Christian denomination compatible with his views. <br /><br />Apuleius: Which views are those? Are you really arguing that kiling 6 million Jews is a side issue, and that the real question is where Adolf came down on Trinitarianism?Apuleius Platonicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11761230673724504084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817911217098974229.post-23259033252028753272009-12-29T15:37:44.175-05:002009-12-29T15:37:44.175-05:00Anonymous,
Contemporary modern English doesn't...Anonymous,<br />Contemporary modern English doesn't have grammatical gender. Who in this discussion referred to “God” as masculine?<br /><br />Nick Ritter,<br />Yes, but the article is in the monotheism series. So it looks like we start from the ancient time and end up with Christianity eventually leading to Nazism. Or is it just my impression?<br /><br />Apuleus Platonicus,<br />it's easier to say what Hitler's religion wasn't rather than to say what it was. Can you identify his denomination? I cannot think of a Christian denomination compatible with his views. Otherwise, anyone is a Christian, just a non-standard one.<br /><br />Of course you can simply say that he was formally a Catholic. I say he was concerned about expediency rather than theology.<br /><br />As a side note, I even read parts of Ulfila's Bible in the original as a student. Arianism is a remarkable branch of Christianity. No Arian theological works survived, though, so what we know about it, we know mostly from their opponent's viewpoint.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09637071118811437466noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817911217098974229.post-16667303280360762772009-12-29T14:21:55.349-05:002009-12-29T14:21:55.349-05:00Apuleius,
What "Anonymous" is stating i...Apuleius,<br /><br />What "Anonymous" is stating is factually correct, although I don't see how it relates to this conversation. The word "god" was certainly grammatically neuter in pre-Christian Germanic laguages, and could apply to male or female gods equally well. Only after Christianity did the word "god" become grammatically masculine. I'm not getting how "god" (with a small g) is neuter, while "God" (with a big g) is masculine, though. That's just an odd statement.<br /><br />@ Denis: While I'm not entirely sure, and while I certainly wouldn't want to take the wind out of Apuleius' sails here, it seems like our host might be winding up to show how Nazism was *not* (contrary to the current pope's statements) a "pagan phenomenon." If that's the case, a look at whether or not the authors of Nazism were Christian, Pagan, or neither is pertinent, thus I don't think Apuleius is pulling a Godwin.Nick Ritternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817911217098974229.post-61831617919435258032009-12-29T14:00:11.033-05:002009-12-29T14:00:11.033-05:00Dear Anonymous: What, pray tell, are you prattling...Dear Anonymous: What, pray tell, are you prattling on about precisely?<br /><br />Where is it that you find the "masculine singular 'God'" being used in this blog??? <br /><br />There are, of course, individual "male" Gods, and referring to one of them as a "God" is perfectly compatible with polytheism. Other usages could be problematic, but you will not find them in anything I have written.Apuleius Platonicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11761230673724504084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817911217098974229.post-67412668701939748352009-12-29T13:55:35.117-05:002009-12-29T13:55:35.117-05:00There is zero evidence for Hitler being an atheist...There is zero evidence for Hitler being an atheist, just as there is zero evidence that Hitler ever embraced any religion other than Christianity. All of the direct evidence, based on what Hitler himself wrote and said, is that he was a Christian. <br /><br />There were people around Hitler who claimed to follow some kind of "volkish" pre-Christian religion. Hitler rejected their ideas and ridiculed them (including even in the case of Himmler). The case of Himmler and other "neo-paganists" shows that even they never really broke from Christianity and were consistently favorable toward Luther, Jesus and Meister Eckhardt.<br /><br />Many early Christians denied the resurrection, and even those who accepted it argued endlessly over precisely what it means. The Arians, the largest and historically most important of the non-orthodox sects, rejected the Nicene formula of Jesus' "dual-nature", which is central to the orthodox understanding of the resurrection. The Arians also had their strongest base of support among the various "Germanic" peoples, especially the "Goths" groups. They even had their own Bible written in the Gothic language.Apuleius Platonicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11761230673724504084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817911217098974229.post-82114835847061445842009-12-29T13:40:33.213-05:002009-12-29T13:40:33.213-05:00If you are, as you say, a polytheist, you may want...If you are, as you say, a polytheist, you may want to consider using the gender-neutral "god" rather than the masculine singular "God". The term "god" originally stems from Germanic paganism and only after Christianization did it refer to a single male being in the sky; the Semitic Yahweh. Per Barnhart (1995:323): "The Germanic words for 'god' were originally neuter, but after the Germanic tribes adopted Christianity, 'God' became a masculine syntactic form."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817911217098974229.post-27306572805289397012009-12-29T12:57:17.117-05:002009-12-29T12:57:17.117-05:00>>So Hitler is "deeply religious" ...>>So Hitler is "deeply religious" AND he rejects "founding a religion"?<br /><br />Absolutely. That is precisely what I was driving at. He seems to have said different things suitable for the moment or, in other words, was a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogy#Some_famous_demagogues" rel="nofollow">demagogue</a>. <br /><br />>>statements attributed to Hitler's "Table Talk" are bogus<br /><br />Thanks for the link. The linked author's main intention was to prove that Hitler was not an atheist which makes a big difference. Besides, certain conclusions the author arrives at look completely unfounded.<br /><br />For instance, the author compares a translated quote from 13 December 1941 with the original and concludes that “the difference in meaning here is radical” because is refers to “criticism of one form of Christianity”, but it doesn't follow from the provided quotation. No context is provided either, from which we could conclude this.<br /><br />Similarly, the author insists that “Hitler does not deny Christ but claims Christ for himself”, which doesn't follow from the provided quotation. In the same fashion a Manichean or Muslim could claim Christ for himself, but that doesn't make them Christian. The rest of the comment is just as unfounded.<br /><br />The author's final conclusion that “his Christianity was odd, surely, but so is that of many die-hard believers today” is itself odd. If someone doesn't believe in physical resurrection, denies the authority of a certain Paul of Tarsus and whatever religion he founded and other Christian dogmas, especially that of the Church he formally belonged to, he can hardly be called Christian.<br /><br />In a similar manner I could write that Hitler was an atheist, but his atheism was odd, because he mentioned God in his speeches.<br /><br />I personally don't believe in resurrection in flesh, as I find it illogical. I don't believe in miracles in the conventional sense. But I do concede that there might have lived a person, say, a Jewish preacher, who was made into Jesus Christ. Thus I do not entirely deny Christ but rather reinterpret him. I can use the word <i>God</i> in abstract sense, meaning <i>the Divine</i>, like some ancient Greek authors did. Does that make me Christian? I know can't be one because I am a polytheist, but according to the author I might be considered one.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09637071118811437466noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817911217098974229.post-91569545783610489722009-12-29T10:29:21.863-05:002009-12-29T10:29:21.863-05:00The "evidence" for Hitler making "a...The "evidence" for Hitler making "anti-Christian" comments relies on either outright fabrications or ambiguous second and third hand sources. <br /><br />Here is a very nice article showing that the "anti-Christian" statements attributed to Hitler's "Table Talk" are bogus:<br />http://ffrf.org/fttoday/2002/nov02/carrier.php<br /><br />As far as the famous passage from his diary goes, Goebbels himself wrote elsewhere in his diary that both the Catholic and Protestant Churches are "rotten", but then he goes on to proudly proclaim that the Nazis have "brought back the image of Christ".<br /><br />Also, just the day before the "anti-Christianity" quote, Goebbels had written in his diary, "The Fuehrer rejects any thought of founding a religion." So Hitler is "deeply religious" AND he rejects "founding a religion"?Apuleius Platonicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11761230673724504084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817911217098974229.post-88866165854461131282009-12-29T05:55:03.500-05:002009-12-29T05:55:03.500-05:00Apuleus Platonicus,
you have hereby demonstrated t...Apuleus Platonicus,<br />you have hereby demonstrated the truth of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law" rel="nofollow">Godwin's law</a> :).<br />On a more serious note, the wikipedia <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_beliefs" rel="nofollow">article</a> seems to be more balanced. If you carefully choose quotations from Hitler and his sidekicks you can attribute to him almost anything (see the linked article).Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09637071118811437466noreply@blogger.com