It is currently Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:27 am


Nietzsche and the Origins of Christianity

Fundamental ideas
  • Author
  • Message

Cosmotheist

Re: Nietzsche and the Origins of Christianity

PostTue Oct 07, 2014 7:43 am

Will wrote:

Excellent points, Cosmotheist. You've hit on the reason we don't try to "convert" or even recruit Bible-believin' Christians. We will build as Dr. Pierce planned all along: with those who are attracted to our values, our truths as we state them, and not with those people who disagree with us and oppose us. There's nothing to be gained by debating scriptures with the superstitious and the gullible. They come our way, we don't go theirs.

Thank you, Will. Exactly, as it would just be a waste of our time and efforts. :D

Building with those that are attracted to our "reality" based values and truths
and not with those that disagree with us and/or oppose us is more productive.
The superstitious and gullible will remain what they are as one can't fix stupid.

We don't go theirs, indeed, and those that are "worthy" will find their way to
us if we "put up enough signposts" so that they can find us and the way to a
"Upward Path" of Life.

Best regards,
Cosmotheist

Image

David York

Re: Nietzsche and the Origins of Christianity

PostTue Oct 07, 2014 7:13 pm

Wade Hampton III wrote:
DanielOlj79 wrote:I just happen to think it might be difficult to get rid of Christianity and replace it with Cosmotheism.


I can think of no better reason to get rid of the Christian running dogs than this:

science-hole.jpg



Well I just want to point out that I never said we shouldn't get rid of Christianity. What I was saying was it might be hard to get rid of Christianity and replace it with Cosmotheism. Not that this is what really concerns me at this point. I am more interested in freeing America from the grip of the Jews at this point then I am about religious matters.

David York

Re: Nietzsche and the Origins of Christianity

PostTue Oct 07, 2014 7:22 pm

Cosmotheist wrote:
If so, then Francis Yockey really didn't know all that much about "Darwinism nor evolution nor even mythology",
thereby. :D

A Review of Imperium by the GLF has this to say about Francis Yockey's criticism of Darwinism:

"There is much in Imperium which can be easily misinterpreted. There is something for everyone to agree with.
And there is something for everyone to disagree with. This is a distinguishing characteristic of every truly vital
and revolutionary departure.

Yockey's criticism of Darwinism is an example of the first possibility, and it should be borne in mind that he is speaking of journalistic Darwinism, not the theory of evolution. A related point is his usage of the word, race. It would have added to clarity if another word, such as nobility, was used to describe those who feel the Imperative of the Age, for the genetic interpretation of race is a necessary, useful and valid one if we are to see all of our problems clearly and accurately. Also, Yockey cites some tests of doubtful validity when he asserts that children of immigrants into America are quite different in anthropological measurements than their parents. There is no doubt some truth to this; there are bodily differences caused by food and climate, but such conclusions can be carried into the realm of Lysenkoism unless great caution is used. Troyfim Lysenko is the Russian communist quack and high priest who "proved" through his hocus-pocus that environment and not heredity creates the man. Such a theory is the basic fallacy upon which the entire communist theory of man rests, though few people realize this. But heredity is a matter of genes and genes never change except through mutation unless genes of one type (race) are mixed with genes of another type (race). One of the best books on the subject to appear recently is Dr. Conway Zirkle's Evolution, Marxian Biology and the Social Scene. Evolution, biology and genetic inheritance must be treated as matters of life-facts, and any theory for the future has to accept them."

Evolution is a proven scientific fact, based upon "rational-faith", and it is quite unlike the false and the delusional
and the "blind-faith based" religious mythologies, that Yockey so "falsely conflates". Darwinism alone can't explain
how evolution works, completely, but that is what any "scientific discovery" is all about and of which is very much
different than just "rationalizing backwards" from any "false premises" that are "blind-faith based" and solely upon
"unreliable Jewish sources".

Best regards,
Cosmotheist

Image


I wouldn't go so far as to say Evolution is scientific fact. Where is the proof of it? there are two kinds of evolution micro and macro. Micro evolution is provable but macro isn't. Macro evolution is just a theory and it depends on some degree of faith for it to be accepted as the explanation of the origins of life. By the way, evolution doesn't even explain the Origin's of life, it merely attempts to explain how life changed form from a simple form to a complex form. Like I said their is no proof in fossil records of and transitory speicies.

I don't know if you have a copy of Francis Parker Yockee's Imperium but if you read the chapter on Darwinism, pgs 66-77, he pretty clearly explains the shortcommings of Darwinism and the theorry of evolution. I don't think this is a case of mininterpretation or misunderstanding. The points he makes are pretty self evident. I already mentioned the lack of fossil records showing any transitory species, there is also the intuitive fallacy in the theory of evolution, such as, if it requires a speices millions of years to evolve to add a neccessary appendage, such as an organ, then how did it survive throughout those same millions of years while the appendage was not yet ready for use?

Michael Olanich

Re: Nietzsche and the Origins of Christianity

PostTue Oct 07, 2014 10:23 pm

Cosmotheist wrote:A Review of Imperium by the GLF has this to say about Francis Yockey's criticism of Darwinism:


What is GLF?

Cosmotheist

Re: Nietzsche and the Origins of Christianity

PostWed Oct 08, 2014 7:59 am

DanielOlj79 wrote:
Cosmotheist wrote:
If so, then Francis Yockey really didn't know all that much about "Darwinism nor evolution nor even mythology",
thereby. :D

A Review of Imperium by the GLF has this to say about Francis Yockey's criticism of Darwinism:

"There is much in Imperium which can be easily misinterpreted. There is something for everyone to agree with.
And there is something for everyone to disagree with. This is a distinguishing characteristic of every truly vital
and revolutionary departure.

Yockey's criticism of Darwinism is an example of the first possibility, and it should be borne in mind that he is speaking of journalistic Darwinism, not the theory of evolution. A related point is his usage of the word, race. It would have added to clarity if another word, such as nobility, was used to describe those who feel the Imperative of the Age, for the genetic interpretation of race is a necessary, useful and valid one if we are to see all of our problems clearly and accurately. Also, Yockey cites some tests of doubtful validity when he asserts that children of immigrants into America are quite different in anthropological measurements than their parents. There is no doubt some truth to this; there are bodily differences caused by food and climate, but such conclusions can be carried into the realm of Lysenkoism unless great caution is used. Troyfim Lysenko is the Russian communist quack and high priest who "proved" through his hocus-pocus that environment and not heredity creates the man. Such a theory is the basic fallacy upon which the entire communist theory of man rests, though few people realize this. But heredity is a matter of genes and genes never change except through mutation unless genes of one type (race) are mixed with genes of another type (race). One of the best books on the subject to appear recently is Dr. Conway Zirkle's Evolution, Marxian Biology and the Social Scene. Evolution, biology and genetic inheritance must be treated as matters of life-facts, and any theory for the future has to accept them."

Evolution is a proven scientific fact, based upon "rational-faith", and it is quite unlike the false and the delusional
and the "blind-faith based" religious mythologies, that Yockey so "falsely conflates". Darwinism alone can't explain
how evolution works, completely, but that is what any "scientific discovery" is all about and of which is very much
different than just "rationalizing backwards" from any "false premises" that are "blind-faith based" and solely upon
"unreliable Jewish sources".

Best regards,
Cosmotheism

Image


I wouldn't go so far as to say Evolution is scientific fact. Where is the proof of it? there are two kinds of evolution micro and macro. Micro evolution is provable but macro isn't. Macro evolution is just a theory and it depends on some degree of faith for it to be accepted as the explanation of the origins of life. By the way, evolution doesn't even explain the Origin's of life, it merely attempts to explain how life changed form from a simple form to a complex form. Like I said their is no proof in fossil records of and transitory speicies.

I don't know if you have a copy of Francis Parker Yockee's Imperium but if you read the chapter on Darwinism, pgs 66-77, he pretty clearly explains the shortcommings of Darwinism and the theorry of evolution. I don't think this is a case of mininterpretation or misunderstanding. The points he makes are pretty self evident. I already mentioned the lack of fossil records showing any transitory species, there is also the intuitive fallacy in the theory of evolution, such as, if it requires a speices millions of years to evolve to add a neccessary appendage, such as an organ, then how did it survive throughout those same millions of years while the appendage was not yet ready for use?


I would and I do, as evolution is a scientific fact. :D
I already gave you the link to the proof of it above.

No, there are not just two kinds of evolution, and
it is proven whether at the micro or macro levels.

The progression of life from simple to complex is
proven, but, the actual origin of life is still a open
scientific question. Actually, you are quite wrong
about that assertion. There are "plenty" of such:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tr ... al_fossils

Yockey wrote his book Imperium back in 1948 before all
of these fossils above were discovered and from a false
"Christian" and anti-evolutionary "bias" based upon it.

The false assumption that it takes millions of years to
evolve an organ is a red-herring. We can see that in a
common change from a tadpole to a frog from gills that
are needed in water, to lungs to breathe air that "both"
organs are used while making the transition from one
environment to the other.

That said, do you still believe that "faith" in the sun of
rising tomorrow is the same as the "faith" of believing
that it will not rise tomorrow because of "Jews" saying
that it won't? :D

Best regards,
Cosmotheist

Image

Cosmotheist

Re: Nietzsche and the Origins of Christianity

PostWed Oct 08, 2014 8:08 am

Michael Olanich wrote:
Cosmotheist wrote:A Review of Imperium by the GLF has this to say about Francis Yockey's criticism of Darwinism:


What is GLF?


GLF for Gnostic Liberation Front.
See:
http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/f ... yockey.htm

Best regards,
Cosmotheist

Image

Michael Olanich

Re: Nietzsche and the Origins of Christianity

PostWed Oct 08, 2014 10:43 am

Cosmotheist wrote:
Michael Olanich wrote:
Cosmotheist wrote:A Review of Imperium by the GLF has this to say about Francis Yockey's criticism of Darwinism:


What is GLF?


GLF for Gnostic Liberation Front.
See:
http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/f ... yockey.htm

Best regards,
Cosmotheist

Image


Never heard of them before.

And, it does not seem like a credible source.. that site is chock full of nutty conspiracy theories.

It's clear where Yockey stood in his views. One must step out of the Cosmotheist mindset to understand and judge them accordingly.

Also, Revilo Oliver praised his work Imperium as a masterpiece. I find that to be the most credible source of all.

Sincerely,

Michael

Cosmotheist

Re: Nietzsche and the Origins of Christianity

PostWed Oct 08, 2014 8:54 pm

Michael wrote:

Never heard of them before.

And, it does not seem like a credible source.. that site is chock full of nutty conspiracy theories.

It's clear where Yockey stood in his views. One must step out of the Cosmotheist mindset to understand and judge them accordingly.

Also, Revilo Oliver praised his work Imperium as a masterpiece. I find that to be the most credible source of all.



Michael, the GLF are not well-known.
Yes, true enough, they are not a very credible source, thereby.
That said, even a "broken clock" is correct at least twice a day. :D

Indeed, and sometimes his views were based upon false assumptions.
On the contrary, the "Cosmotheist mindset" is the correct way to both
"truly understand" and to "properly judge" his "views" and as any other.

I do agree with RO that "Yockey's Imperium was a masterpiece" but that
does not mean that there were not also some parts of it that RO wouldn't
himself have agreed with and/or that were not actually factually correct
.

Best regards,
Cosmotheist

Image

David York

Re: Nietzsche and the Origins of Christianity

PostThu Oct 09, 2014 8:50 am

Cosmotheist wrote:I would and I do, as evolution is a scientific fact. :D
I already gave you the link to the proof of it above.

No, there are not just two kinds of evolution, and
it is proven whether at the micro or macro levels.

The progression of life from simple to complex is
proven, but, the actual origin of life is still a open
scientific question. Actually, you are quite wrong
about that assertion. There are "plenty" of such:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tr ... al_fossils

Yockey wrote his book Imperium back in 1948 before all
of these fossils above were discovered and from a false
"Christian" and anti-evolutionary "bias" based upon it.

The false assumption that it takes millions of years to
evolve an organ is a red-herring. We can see that in a
common change from a tadpole to a frog from gills that
are needed in water, to lungs to breathe air that "both"
organs are used while making the transition from one
environment to the other.

That said, do you still believe that "faith" in the sun of
rising tomorrow is the same as the "faith" of believing
that it will not rise tomorrow because of "Jews" saying
that it won't? :D

Best regards,
Cosmotheist

Image


I don't want to give you the impression that I'm trying to argue that Christianity is more believable than Science or Evolution, or that Christianity is even AS believable as Science, that's not really what I believe at all. I'm just saying that in certain respects Yockee was correct about Science and Evolution not being completely accurate theories of how species came into being. They might be correct, but I think the point is that even with Science we still don't know all the nuances of how life works, and especially about what the origins of life was. This doesn't mean that we should accept Christianity as the correct explanation. It simply means that Science doesn't have all the answers. I don't think Yockee was writing what he wrote because he was biased by Christianity, I think he has his own theory on how great civilizations are born, live and die, and how they are really organisms with souls. He describes them as life forms that go through different stages, such as religious-mythological, Materialistic/rationalist and scientific, Capitalist and then socialist, etc. Imperium is a very good book, I'm still not finished reading it, but it is quite a challenging read. Yockee was a very sophisticated writer. I suppose he may have had some outdated thoughts, since it was written in 1948, but I definitely don't think he was trying to defend Christianity in that book.

Sincerely,
Daniel

Cosmotheist

Re: Nietzsche and the Origins of Christianity

PostThu Oct 09, 2014 8:35 pm

DanielOlj79 wrote:
Cosmotheist wrote:I would and I do, as evolution is a scientific fact. :D
I already gave you the link to the proof of it above.

No, there are not just two kinds of evolution, and
it is proven whether at the micro or macro levels.

The progression of life from simple to complex is
proven, but, the actual origin of life is still a open
scientific question. Actually, you are quite wrong
about that assertion. There are "plenty" of such:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tr ... al_fossils

Yockey wrote his book Imperium back in 1948 before all
of these fossils above were discovered and from a false
"Christian" and anti-evolutionary "bias" based upon it.

The false assumption that it takes millions of years to
evolve an organ is a red-herring. We can see that in a
common change from a tadpole to a frog from gills that
are needed in water, to lungs to breathe air that "both"
organs are used while making the transition from one
environment to the other.

That said, do you still believe that "faith" in the sun of
rising tomorrow is the same as the "faith" of believing
that it will not rise tomorrow because of "Jews" saying
that it won't? :D

Best regards,
Cosmotheist

Image


I don't want to give you the impression that I'm trying to argue that Christianity is more believable than Science or Evolution, or that Christianity is even AS believable as Science, that's not really what I believe at all. I'm just saying that in certain respects Yockee was correct about Science and Evolution not being completely accurate theories of how species came into being. They might be correct, but I think the point is that even with Science we still don't know all the nuances of how life works, and especially about what the origins of life was. This doesn't mean that we should accept Christianity as the correct explanation. It simply means that Science doesn't have all the answers. I don't think Yockee was writing what he wrote because he was biased by Christianity, I think he has his own theory on how great civilizations are born, live and die, and how they are really organisms with souls. He describes them as life forms that go through different stages, such as religious-mythological, Materialistic/rationalist and scientific, Capitalist and then socialist, etc. Imperium is a very good book, I'm still not finished reading it, but it is quite a challenging read. Yockee was a very sophisticated writer. I suppose he may have had some outdated thoughts, since it was written in 1948, but I definitely don't think he was trying to defend Christianity in that book.

Sincerely,
Daniel


Ok, Daniel, but, that was exactly the "impression" that you were making with those prior posts.
So you do understand that there is a big difference between a "blind faith" and a "rational faith",
and that these two never should be "conflated" now?

You would be correct about "scientism" not being accurate, but, evolution and science are the most
accurate "tools" that we do have for discovering these truths and these facts of Reality and of Life.
Both are "methods of discovering" and their knowledge is not complete without acknowledging what
is most fundamental: Consciousness. Both the "Cosmic and Universal Consciousness of the Creator",
and the individuated one, or the Divine Spark that's all within your own self.

Yes, no science has all of the answers, yet, and even of exactly how life began and the failure of science
to even acknowledge "spirit or soul or consciousness" that "is within everything and that everything is all
within it" reflects science's self-imposed limited method of ever getting to that one great Whole Truth of
Reality.

I think that Yockey got it backwards giving "souls and spirits" to "Civilizations", as opposed to "race souls"
actually giving rise to them, of which actually makes more sense and really puts the horse before the cart.

Hegel with his "spiritual dialectic" does seem closer to the truth of history than Yockey's "given stages" of
"cultural and economic" evolution. His attacks on evolution and of Darwinism as just being "materialism"
do seem to me to be mostly from his "Christian bias" and that being acquired from when he had gone to
the Catholic University of Notre Dame. Evolution is "materialism" only if you accept the false notion that it
is what really exists, as opposed to the Whole Truth of Cosmotheism, that the Consciousness within all,
and that's within one's own self, alone, is what really exists! Yockey was a product of his time and of his
own limited knowledge of what was known in 1948. Nevertheless, it is an interesting read with many of
his original ideas being truly inspired and inspiring, even if they were not always being "factually-accurate",
and were "greatly-influenced" by Spengler and his writings.

Best regards,
Cosmotheist

Image
PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest