Pagan Morality Superior

10 posts

Bronze Age Pervert


Plus Roman phallic pendants, etc. ....

They paid RESPECK to power of manliness as the generative principle (this can take very crude forms among primitive tribes; Koestler quotes Ibn Fadlan traveling among some Central Azn Turkoids (paging Byssus) among whom one was worshiping a wooden phallus...when the Mahomeddan asked him why, he replied that he knows he came from it, this is the only thing he knows he came from, so it's better to worship it ...of course you have to correct for the chauvinism of the Mussulman, who may have lied...)

Anyway, it is respect for the generative force of the universe, which is rooted in man as a powerful drive. It is better that he respect this drive as godlike and pay it honor. Certain pagan peoples paid this force the reverence it is owed, as divine. This is superior to anything that came after...

Any facile comparisons to modern libertinism will be immediately negged!!

Manliness generates nothing, God (YHWH) created everything, out of nothing, and all cultures and phallic statues will eventually disappear, while God reigns eternal. You "worship" finite, weak, created beings, who shall also be washed away, and are completely helpless without God, who is uncreated and eternal.

Niccolo and Donkey
Bronze Age Pervert
Your god is an abstraction that, by your admission, lives outside a world the existence of which is temporary and contingent, created out of nothing...everything is sterile, contingent, it is nothing...everything depends on this ghost god of yours who is supposed to exist but stopped interfering in history by miraculous acts even within the span of the OT (where is he in the story of Esther...which is clearly a Greek-style satire of the Hebrew religion). Even granting the truth of that book and of the NT, after he sacrificed himself and ruptured history in half, he disappears again and you should wait in humble expectation...there are no more acts again until the end of the world. The moral of this story is that you are an atheist and a nihilist, and the ancient Romans recognized the Christians and Jews (between whom they made no distinction) as god-haters, atheists, and nihilists (and furthermore as libertines, although I said no cheap shots). You believe in a transient sterile world and the only distinction between you and the atheist is this belief you have in a god that can't be seen, touched, a complete abstraction.

The world is uncreated and eternal, within it are living immortal is full of gods, demons, nymphs under the waterfall by seaside caves...nymphs live there...

The dick, furthermore, is immortal, it is such a god...a phallus disappears but engenders another one in the next generation, which is fundamentally no different...and it is fundamentally no different from that of certain animals. Of course in these festivals it is used as an incarnation of the sexual drive or force in men, which is identical in every generation and has been here since the beginning of the world in all its violent force, and is the cause of each new generation, it is an ageless and immortal god!

1st, you can quit telling me what the Romans or Greeks thought, I don't care, they aren't authorities of any sort to me.

2nd, I don't even get your criticism. Are you seriously critiquing God because he isn't as entertaining or temporally inspiring as sacralized/idealized archetypes and forces of nature? Yes God is sterile*, to us, this is the result of our fallen nature, the noetic effects of sin, and our experience as egos and lustful beings. That has no bearing on the fact that God is real, and pagan "gods" are just reflections of us, which is in fact why they are so inspiring and fun.

However the conscience of man quickened by the Holy Spirit* testifies, in all to whom it is given, that while the world is grand, it is also cold, and while we know there is a right, and a great power, we are not it, and the gods we create to please ourselves will all pass with our mortal bodies. Therefore it is only by the power of God (who is shown to everyone everywhere, whether there is particular revelation or not) that anything of man can live, and it is only to the "sterile" and true God that creation and governance of the world can be credited.

You critique God because He is abstract, but your judgement is silly by nature, your POV doesn't permit criticism, you are in no position to pick apart or analyze God. For shall the work say of him that made it, "He made me not"? Or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, "He had no understanding"? Also whether God lives above, beyond, through-out, or outside of the world is not something a man can say, it is beyond human comprehension, God is not like us or any other created thing.

3rd, the OT isn't a record of all history, and isn't intended to be. Genesis contains the act of creation, but was written with intent, to record the history of salvation and of God and His people. God never "stops" within the frame of the OT, I don't know why you would think that unless you had an erroneous view of what the bible is supposed to be revealing and recording. God never "stopped" at any point, but for revelatory purposes 90% of world history is unworthy of recording. I'm not going to covenantal history here, I know you don't care anyway.

*I'm fully aware that a false belief in ideal archetypes, and full license to indulge in every passion is more exciting than Christianity, Christianity is not fun by any means, but is terrible pain. Every day I'd "more enjoy" to revel in sinful and barbaric life than waiting in agony and guilt for the redemption of the world and coming of Jesus Christ.

*The existence of YHWH can be inferred from even the fallen natural world, given a honest rational inquiry, however man cannot by sinful nature see/does not do this/is unwilling to except the consequences. Different Christian churches have different beliefs regarding this.


I want to elaborate on the "abstraction" point. Don't you see the problem with saying that God is abstract, like that's a problem, or a reason not to believe in Him? You are demanding that He be something other than God, that you can reckon with, and positively describe. This is like a child in the womb, who doubts his mother, because he cannot see her from the outside.

Bronze Age Pervert
I would like it if you did pay some respeck to what Greeks and Romans thought, and attempted at least for a moment to get into their minds as far as this is possible for a modern like ourselves...everything else aside, do you see that your belief in the kind of god you believe in, isn't just a question of number, but that as you say, it's an entirely different kind of divinity that is in question here...and that from their point of view it's basically indistinguishable from atheism and nihilism. Maybe much as, to you, their views are indistinguishable from childish self-worship. I'm saying at least see it for one second from their point of view.

In the end the only relevant question is whether it is good for the people, or a culture, to believe one or the other; and I think the achievements of Greco-Roman civilization, and the kinds of men they bred, so outstrip anything that is the result of Christianity or of modern life, that the question answers itself. As Nietzsche said, they had great wisdom in being superficial (childish, as you put it).
Bronze Age Pervert

I will make reply to your longer post later Stubby. Meanwhile I have been a Christian gentleman and suported your post.


Now this is a thread.

BAP, why should we pay any mind to what extinct men thought? The Greeks and Romans failed, their Paganism proved incompatible with the world. They were great, fierce and mighty, but now find themselves in the museum next to the saber-tooth cat.

Bob Dylan Roof