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’m just going to lay down something that is about the most heartfelt words in existence:
There’s got to be a way to construct reality so that we know for sure that we’re not hurting a living being no matter what we do, while still having all of our desires met forever.
That’s my personal comment on religion and it’s failings … if this had been thought / taught, say, 60,000 years ago… can you even imagine how awesome this world would be?
It boggles even my mind.
Lots of interesting opinions in there. 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.
I have to admit, I am not impartial to these aphorisms. You have a clear head, even when challenged with spite. And your view is coherent. I may address some of these. I may also simply leave them, to shine by themselves, as a thoughtfully written religious aphorism ought to.
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.
I am sorry you feel slandered. However, I have not written anything particularly controversial or divorced from known fact. 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 don’t believe you understand what ‘peoples’ means, or, indeed, ‘civilization,’ or, most likely, ‘genes.’
Understood.
I don’t know.
Yes, I must be.
I am a Roman.
My mother taught me to write. I am a Roman. And I don’t know.
No, they have not. As a side note, I do appreciate the calmer tone you seem to have learned. I believe it is promising. Eventually, it might lead to an actual conversation about things, though perhaps with someone less threatening to you, at least for the first few years. You may even learn to discuss a topic, or address points, things of this nature.
I will tell you that I don’t believe there is any such thing as skill in writing, not outside the realm of art, in any case. The skill is in being aware of different things and understanding them. It is order of the mind that expresses as order in writing. Ecmandu, though his writings tend to be short and of a very limited, though inarguably deep, scope, demonstrate this order. Clear understanding and arrangement, in one’s mind, of what is known. This is the type of thing civilization entails, and is why civilized peoples develop writing.
If you think about it, writing is only recorded speech; and when you speak, you generally do not stylize. You simply bring into the open the things that are on your mind. You do this, incidentally, using words that have very specific meanings developed in a historical fashion that can be traced. This is the tragedy of the lack of tradition in Goths. The history very obviously exists but, as yet, cannot be traced. Not, in any case, to anywhere near the extent of a civilized toungue, with thousands of years of written record and thousands more of oral tradition. I fail to see why so many Gothic feelings have sprung up hurt in response to this very dry, uncontroversial fact. This means that very real, existing words can easily be used for meanings other than the actual, bringing the added nuance of implying the original meaning which, though felt, is not known for not being recorded, into this new, adulterated meaning.
If you say so.
Like I have written, I am looking for actual instances, rahter than conjectural speculations with no actual basis in any known tradition. Lack of knowledge allows creativity but, of course, not truth.
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.
Well, no, only the communist has the dishonesty to pretend ‘peace.’
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.
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.
Thank you.
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.
Unless, of course, what you refer to is ‘peace in the realm,’ which decidedly does not mean ‘peace for the rebels.’
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.
Did you know you are a racist?
And that sums you up. YOU DO NOT KNOW SHIT. Sadly you think you know, and that is worse than ignorance.
The more posts I see on this Forum the more I realise that is is a depository for mentally ill people.
SO by what definition are you “Roman”. Were you born in Rome?
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.
God is dead, ain’t you heard?
It don’t mean shit.
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 -
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.
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.
Alright.
Sadly, I believe you.
No, I did not. But if you say so.
If you say so.
Alright.
Yes.