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 Sculptor » Tue Jun 08, 2021 11:44 am

obsrvr524 wrote:Everyone has to believe in something.


That is the excuse of a lazy man, hoping to justify the stupid ideas he clings to.

NOLUNT CREDERE
SAPERE AUDE.
Sculptor
Thinker
 
Posts: 851
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby obsrvr524 » Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:25 pm

Sculptor wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:Everyone has to believe in something.


That is the excuse of a lazy man, hoping to justify the stupid ideas he clings to.

NOLUNT CREDERE
SAPERE AUDE.

You're in no position to be calling anyone lazy - as you attempt to cling to your own imagined credibility.
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: 2924
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby felix dakat » Wed Jun 09, 2021 7:18 pm

Vittorio wrote:
felix dakat wrote:
Vittorio wrote:I would like to know what the word means. Not what someone speculates it might mean, but what it does mean. It means something specific.

Today it is used largely as a general equivalent for Zeus. But this is not what it means, it does not mean Zeus. The reason it is used for this is that all Goths came under the rule of Rome, which worships Zeus. And so God doesn't mean Zeus, but it must mean something similar enough that the Goths were satisfied to use it as an equivalent. It is not a novel thing to occur, Catholic churches were, for example, routinely built on the old sacred places of conquered territories. They did this in England, in Mexico, and basically anywhere except for some select places in Greece. But we know that what was previously worshiped there was not Zeus. It was something else, specific.

When Goths today say "God," whether they know it or not, they mean something specific. I would like to know what that is.


Since you're into etymology, you might wish to consider the significance of the fact that Rome worshiped Jupiter not Zeus, and then figure out where the name Jupiter came from and how it is associated with Zeus. That the two gods Zeus and Jupiter came to be considered as one, as you apparently did, must also have history too.


Why should Romans be restricted to worship only Zeus or only Jupiter?

I am not saying anything controvertial. Go to your nearest Roman church that offers a Latin service or a service in any Roman dialect, and see what word they use for what they worship there.

As for why worship of Jupiter has declined, and others, I have been writing about it. You might find it interesting. It is a true tragedy. On the other hand, not to be obscene, it did give Rome the gift of Jewish religious tradition (obscene because the Jewish religion is originally extremely selective). Also, if you look at actual Roman religious ceremony practiced today, you may find that worship of others has not perhaps entirely disappeared, including Jupiter.


People who live in Rome can worship whomever or whatever they like, or, of course, nothing at all. Apart from them there are no longer any Romans per se.
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: 9319
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby Vittorio » Wed Jun 09, 2021 10:03 pm

felix dakat wrote:there are no longer any Romans per se.


If you say so.

felix dakat wrote:People who live in Rome can worship whomever or whatever they like, or, of course, nothing at all.


I must have misunderstood your earlier objection.
Vittorio
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun May 23, 2021 5:45 am

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby felix dakat » Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:09 am

Vittorio wrote:
felix dakat wrote:there are no longer any Romans per se.


If you say so.

felix dakat wrote:People who live in Rome can worship whomever or whatever they like, or, of course, nothing at all.


I must have misunderstood your earlier objection.


You must have. I made no objection.
Last edited by felix dakat on Thu Jun 10, 2021 3:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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: 9319
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby Vittorio » Thu Jun 10, 2021 5:45 am

felix dakat wrote:you might wish to consider the significance of the fact that Rome worshiped Jupiter not Zeus


This consitutes an objection. For some reason that I don't entirely gather, you desire that not to be apparent. But I must have misunderstood the nature of the objection itself.

felix dakat wrote:Apart from them there are no longer any Romans per se.


This, of course, is also an objection.
Vittorio
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun May 23, 2021 5:45 am

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby Sculptor » Thu Jun 10, 2021 9:23 am

obsrvr524 wrote:
Sculptor wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:Everyone has to believe in something.


That is the excuse of a lazy man, hoping to justify the stupid ideas he clings to.

NOLUNT CREDERE
SAPERE AUDE.

You're in no position to be calling anyone lazy - as you attempt to cling to your own imagined credibility.

You are not only lazy but willfully stupid and dull.
Sculptor
Thinker
 
Posts: 851
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby Sculptor » Thu Jun 10, 2021 9:33 am

felix dakat wrote:you might wish to consider the significance of the fact that Rome worshiped Jupiter not Zeus


This is not a valid distinction.
Romans were Helenophiles and knew well that Jupiter was the same thing as Zeus.
Its a bit like saying Christians and Moslims do not worship Jahovah.

You can even find the word Zeus used instead of Jupiter in Roman writing.
The Greek and Roman pantheons had several direct correlations.
Juno-Hera
Minerva-Athena
Neptune-Poseidon
Ares-Mars
Vulcan-Hephaestus
Venus-Aphrodite
Artemis-Diana

When Virgil penned The Aeneid, concerning the Trojan war, the same events form Homer, simply used replaced words directly. Such that instead of Poseidon was have Neptune; Odysseus becomes Ulysses etc.

They had basicall the same religions, just with different names.

Note to Vittorio. This is, of course a thousand+ years before the Goths.
Sculptor
Thinker
 
Posts: 851
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby Vittorio » Thu Jun 10, 2021 11:09 am

Sculptor wrote:Note to Vittorio. This is, of course a thousand+ years before the Goths.


Correct, so the word "God" was never used. And it is not before the Goths, it is before Goths came under Roman rule.

Sculptor wrote:Romans were Helenophiles and knew well that Jupiter was the same thing as Zeus.


No, both are not held to be the same. Iovi is not the same as Deus. Jupiter is Jupiter.

Regarding the Aenid, sometimes different divinities are used for the original ones, the closest one that can be found, to transmit the story in native terms. So, for example, the word "God" is used to stand in for Zeus in Gothic renderings of Roman rites, but God is not Zeus. When the word God was used at first, Goths were not even aware of the existence of Zeus, and, one believes, they are still not.

You do bring up an interesting point, which is that early Roman aristocrats on the whole spoke Greek as their first language, much like Russian aristocrats spoke French, and that is likely how worship of Zeus became popularized in Rome.

Perhaps even possibly, considering Zeus must have been worshiped more among the aristocracy than the common people, there may have been an element of the aristocracy claiming dominance over and imposing their deity on what some of them may have considered the rabble when the Christian agenda started to be implemented. The aristocracy bringing the rest of the Romans to heel. Such as today, for example, they use a Christian-like ideology to impose the same dominance on the people, with things like socialism and climate change and whatnot, which in previous decades where the sole concern of the well-to-do. Hard to tell. If so, those fanatic aristocrats, dishonest enough to smuggle their god through this whole religious project, would have been traitors to their ilk, possibly the weaker ones (thus the need to establish dominance) that cared little for, say, Aphrodite or Hermes or any of the others.
Vittorio
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun May 23, 2021 5:45 am

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby Vittorio » Thu Jun 10, 2021 11:29 am

It is very simple. Speak the word "Zeus" to any Roman in their local dialect and see the reaction it causes. It is visceral, as knowledge of the Gods is, as religion is.

God evokes a similar visceral reaction, but not the same one Zeus does. The feelings it elicits are not the same.

The same can be said for Jupiter uttered to a Roman. Or even, at this point, a Goth, since, thanks to astrology, the word entire has been imported, the God entire acknowledged. But the strength will not be the same, the tradition that is inherited via a language being absent and so also the complete context.
Vittorio
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun May 23, 2021 5:45 am

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby Vittorio » Thu Jun 10, 2021 11:32 am

The preponderance of atheism among Goths is likely attributable to the dislocation of using God for a religious tradition that is not God's. People know, inside, when they are being lied to. The religion itself survives, in any case, on some level. But, as I wrote above, it will be much harder to pin it down given the severe lack of tradition among Goths when compared to a civilized people.

Take Masonry, for example, or any of the pseudo-Christian ideas such as felix da cat and observr have been expounding. The word God is used seamlessly, without a feeling of impropriety or dislocation, in any case not one different from the one felt by using the word God for Zeus. In Roman dialects, the contrast is far more jarring and the instances far fewer. Though, still, considering the many dislocations introduced via Christianity, it is still possible, and does happen.
Vittorio
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun May 23, 2021 5:45 am

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu Jun 10, 2021 2:45 pm

The Proto-Germanic meaning of *ǥuđán and its etymology is uncertain. It is generally agreed that it derives from a Proto-Indo-European neuter passive perfect participle *ǵʰu-tó-m. This form within (late) Proto-Indo-European itself was possibly ambiguous, and thought to derive from a root *ǵʰeu̯- "to pour, libate" (the idea survives in the Dutch word, 'Giet', meaning, to pour) (Sanskrit huta, see hotṛ), or from a root *ǵʰau̯- (*ǵʰeu̯h2-) "to call, to invoke" (Sanskrit hūta). Sanskrit hutá = "having been sacrificed", from the verb root hu = "sacrifice", but a slight shift in translation gives the meaning "one to whom sacrifices are made."

Depending on which possibility is preferred, the pre-Christian meaning of the Germanic term may either have been (in the "pouring" case) "libation" or "that which is libated upon, idol" — or, as Watkins opines in the light of Greek χυτη γαια "poured earth" meaning "tumulus", "the Germanic form may have referred in the first instance to the spirit immanent in a burial mound" — or (in the "invoke" case) "invocation, prayer" (compare the meanings of Sanskrit brahman) or "that which is invoked".


I have always found the word God abhorrent (especially as it is pronounced in Netherlandic) and the above clarifies why; "a god" is something which can be evoked, etc- thus to make this into a singular case, as if there is only one thing that can be evoked, is abhorrent. It is an error beyond all other errors.


I wonder if the name IOVE, the way the Romans casually addressed Jupiter, relates to YHWH ("Jahweh"). It seems that Felix perhaps aims at the similarities of these terms.


The Germanic name for Zeus is Tiwaz, the root of Tuesday, as Wotan is of Wednesday, Thor of Thursday, Freya of Friday.
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: 11587
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby felix dakat » Thu Jun 10, 2021 3:15 pm

Sculptor wrote:
felix dakat wrote:you might wish to consider the significance of the fact that Rome worshiped Jupiter not Zeus


This is not a valid distinction.
Romans were Helenophiles and knew well that Jupiter was the same thing as Zeus.
Its a bit like saying Christians and Moslims do not worship Jahovah.

You can even find the word Zeus used instead of Jupiter in Roman writing.
The Greek and Roman pantheons had several direct correlations.
Juno-Hera
Minerva-Athena
Neptune-Poseidon
Ares-Mars
Vulcan-Hephaestus
Venus-Aphrodite
Artemis-Diana

When Virgil penned The Aeneid, concerning the Trojan war, the same events form Homer, simply used replaced words directly. Such that instead of Poseidon was have Neptune; Odysseus becomes Ulysses etc.

They had basicall the same religions, just with different names.

Note to Vittorio. This is, of course a thousand+ years before the Goths.


So they knew that Jupiter was the same thing as Zeus. Okay. Please explain the ontology of Jupiter and Zeus. How do they refer to the same thing ontically?
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: 9319
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby felix dakat » Thu Jun 10, 2021 3:24 pm

Vittorio wrote:
felix dakat wrote:you might wish to consider the significance of the fact that Rome worshiped Jupiter not Zeus


This consitutes an objection. For some reason that I don't entirely gather, you desire that not to be apparent. But I must have misunderstood the nature of the objection itself.

felix dakat wrote:Apart from them there are no longer any Romans per se.


This, of course, is also an objection.


I intended the statements merely as a suggestion and a statement of fact.
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: 9319
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby promethean75 » Thu Jun 10, 2021 3:38 pm

I've always found the ontic correlation between Jupiter and Zeus to be truly fascinating and it is something I have thought much about.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4743
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby felix dakat » Thu Jun 10, 2021 5:44 pm

promethean75 wrote:I've always found the ontic correlation between Jupiter and Zeus to be truly fascinating and it is something I have thought much about.


Have you reached any insights about it? I mean we have this historical phenomena where worship of a god arises in particular society and then through a process of interaction with another society that god is amalgamated with a god from the second society. Presumably at one point the gods each had their own mythologies, rites and practices. Those are somehow synthesized. So eventually it is said that the two gods, in this case Zeus and Jupiter, are the same. But it wasn't always so. Or was it?

Historians now tell us that this is also what happened in the history of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah when Elohim and Yahweh were united into one supreme god in the Hebrew texts. This may have happened when the texts were redacted during the Babylonian captivity. And the unity is not necessarily seamless, as one seems to be able to detect differences in character between the two in the contexts of the stories. If one digs down can one find similar differences between Zeus and Jupiter?
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: 9319
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby Vittorio » Thu Jun 10, 2021 9:26 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:
The Proto-Germanic meaning of *ǥuđán and its etymology is uncertain. It is generally agreed that it derives from a Proto-Indo-European neuter passive perfect participle *ǵʰu-tó-m. This form within (late) Proto-Indo-European itself was possibly ambiguous, and thought to derive from a root *ǵʰeu̯- "to pour, libate" (the idea survives in the Dutch word, 'Giet', meaning, to pour) (Sanskrit huta, see hotṛ), or from a root *ǵʰau̯- (*ǵʰeu̯h2-) "to call, to invoke" (Sanskrit hūta). Sanskrit hutá = "having been sacrificed", from the verb root hu = "sacrifice", but a slight shift in translation gives the meaning "one to whom sacrifices are made."

Depending on which possibility is preferred, the pre-Christian meaning of the Germanic term may either have been (in the "pouring" case) "libation" or "that which is libated upon, idol" — or, as Watkins opines in the light of Greek χυτη γαια "poured earth" meaning "tumulus", "the Germanic form may have referred in the first instance to the spirit immanent in a burial mound" — or (in the "invoke" case) "invocation, prayer" (compare the meanings of Sanskrit brahman) or "that which is invoked".


I have always found the word God abhorrent (especially as it is pronounced in Netherlandic) and the above clarifies why; "a god" is something which can be evoked, etc- thus to make this into a singular case, as if there is only one thing that can be evoked, is abhorrent. It is an error beyond all other errors.


This is far too speculative for me to accept any of it, and even ignoring its speculative nature, its claims are so vague as to be meaningless. Nothing is being said here. In fairness, that is admitted. The truth is, right now: no one knows.

Fixed Cross wrote:I wonder if the name IOVE, the way the Romans casually addressed Jupiter, relates to YHWH ("Jahweh"). It seems that Felix perhaps aims at the similarities of these terms.


I have wondered this as well. The genealogy of which God is actually worshipped, by name, where, has different cross-pollinations, specially among peoples that inhabited the coasts of the Mediterranean for a long time. I sometimes think it is entirely possible that they are referring to the same divinity.

Fixed Cross wrote:The Germanic name for Zeus is Tiwaz, the root of Tuesday, as Wotan is of Wednesday, Thor of Thursday, Freya of Friday.


Zeus is the God of the sky, Tiwaz is the God of the sky. That does not make them the same entity. Nor would they be the same entity as a Sumerian sky God, etc.

It is very hard to establish, for reasons I have expounded on enough, how long those names had been in use. It is sad that the passing of tradition was not seriously developped among Goths. However, that the weekdays bear their names indicates deep significance, and suggests that one possible theory that conjectured that they might be synchretizations and essencially made up on the spot as a kind of reaction to Roman Gods, since what little direct mention of them exists tends to come from a post-contact with Rome era, is incorrect. One thing that makes me believe tha that religion is, however, not altogether that old, even among the Goths, is that none of the names made it into proper religious ceremony like God did. It seems to me there must have been an older religion that simply did not get carried on, perhaps as a result of contact with Rome, perhaps earlier. It could be a situation similar to Mexico, where a very old religious capital inspired religions among the Mayans, and later the Nahuatl, but the details of which were not known even to them, who ascribed the city itself to giants.

It will not come as a surprise, to me, in any case, that peoples with similar sensibilities should have similar Gods. This happened, for example, between the Mayans and Nahuatl, and as has been observed, between Greeks and Romans and Jews and, possibly, Goths, though with Goths the case is less clear. This does not make them "the same God." And, indeed, they are not.

When a people, like the Goths, or even the Romans in very early times, has very little tradition and is faced with a far superior culture, it is easy to use local names for these foreign Gods and simply forget the old traditions, because of a barbaric loose affiliation with tradition. But this does not change the meanings of things, and the original religion is never truly lost. Jupiter was and is still Jupiter, to the point where one alleges that Jupiter is Zeus but you say that Jupiter is Thor while Zeus is Tiwaz. It is a hopeless falsehood. Words have meanings, and the words for the names of Gods, as even a Goth must see, specially so.

One enjoys the fact that the Jewish tradition is so accutely aware of this fact, that for a long time the centerpiece of their worship was a secret name for that which they worshiped, guarded very carefully by its priests. It is a modern nihilist idea that names don't matter, perhaps related to Chomsky's idea that all lannguages say the same thing, and simply use different sounds. A Roman, of course, laughs.
Vittorio
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun May 23, 2021 5:45 am

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby Vittorio » Thu Jun 10, 2021 9:27 pm

felix dakat wrote:
Vittorio wrote:
felix dakat wrote:you might wish to consider the significance of the fact that Rome worshiped Jupiter not Zeus


This consitutes an objection. For some reason that I don't entirely gather, you desire that not to be apparent. But I must have misunderstood the nature of the objection itself.

felix dakat wrote:Apart from them there are no longer any Romans per se.


This, of course, is also an objection.


I intended the statements merely as a suggestion and a statement of fact.


Good sir, I am not sure you understand what objection means.
Vittorio
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun May 23, 2021 5:45 am

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby Sculptor » Thu Jun 10, 2021 9:58 pm

Vittorio wrote:
Sculptor wrote:Note to Vittorio. This is, of course a thousand+ years before the Goths.


Correct, so the word "God" was never used. And it is not before the Goths, it is before Goths came under Roman rule.

Wrong.
The Goti were a Germanic tribe emerging from the East of Rome about the year 550AD.
Rome came under Gothic rule.
We know about them mainly through Jordanes, himself of part gothic ancestry.
We do not get the word God from the Goths.
The word God comes to us through the German tribes that invaded the British Isles, pincipally the Saxons, who bestowed their langauge on these lands. English spread the world over by colonisation.
Other tribes from Germany also had much to conribute to the history if Europe, such as the Franks who gave their name to France, but not much of their language.

Sculptor wrote:Romans were Helenophiles and knew well that Jupiter was the same thing as Zeus.


No, both are not held to be the same. Iovi is not the same as Deus. Jupiter is Jupiter.

You are a bit ignorant of sme basic facts of history.

Regarding the Aenid, sometimes different divinities are used for the original ones, the closest one that can be found, to transmit the story in native terms.

Gibberish
So, for example, the word "God" is used to stand in for Zeus in Gothic renderings of Roman rites, but God is not Zeus. When the word God was used at first, Goths were not even aware of the existence of Zeus, and, one believes, they are still not.

You do bring up an interesting point, which is that early Roman aristocrats on the whole spoke Greek as their first language, much like Russian aristocrats spoke French, and that is likely how worship of Zeus became popularized in Rome.

I did not say that because it was not the case.
Roman aristocrats learned Greek as SECOND langauge to learn philsophy and law.
And Russians also learned French as a SECOND language. French was the langauge of diplomacy throughout the world.


Perhaps even possibly, considering Zeus must have been worshiped more among the aristocracy than the common people, there may have been an element of the aristocracy claiming dominance over and imposing their deity on what some of them may have considered the rabble when the Christian agenda started to be implemented. The aristocracy bringing the rest of the Romans to heel. Such as today, for example, they use a Christian-like ideology to impose the same dominance on the people, with things like socialism and climate change and whatnot,

Utter bullshit.
which in previous decades where the sole concern of the well-to-do. Hard to tell. If so, those fanatic aristocrats, dishonest enough to smuggle their god through this whole religious project, would have been traitors to their ilk, possibly the weaker ones (thus the need to establish dominance) that cared little for, say, Aphrodite or Hermes or any of the others.


Rambling.
Sculptor
Thinker
 
Posts: 851
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby Vittorio » Thu Jun 10, 2021 10:09 pm

Sculptor wrote:The Goti were a Germanic tribe emerging from the East of Rome about the year 550AD.


Don't be silly. "Goth" is just a name Romans use for the collection of tribes that descended from Scandinavia and spread throughout the mainland, as far China and Portugal. No Scandinavian movement out of Scandinavia that produced any of the Goth people we know today is reckoned as anything but Goths, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, etc, none of the distinctions made on the basis of some as yet (for reasons stated) unknowable cultural distinction but simply on the direction they took when they left Scandinavia.

Sculptor wrote:Rome came under Gothic rule.


Why then do they observe our Gods, follow our political mandates, and generally speaking wear suits? Did not every last Gothic king bow to the Roman pope? Yes they did. I find Gothic reckoning of history funny, as if at one point there was Rome populated by hundreds of millions of Romans and then one day Goths came, and all Romans no longer existed and it was simply Goths plundering the ruins of a disappeared people. I suppose Clovis just spontaneously decided to be baptized.

Chinamen wear suits, and so do Goths.

Sculptor wrote:German tribes


A name later applied to a specific branch of Goths. To distinguish them, for example, from Slavs. All Goths.

Sculptor wrote:You are a bit ignorant of sme basic facts of history.


Ok.

Sculptor wrote:Gibberish


Yes, I am sure it is to you. A Roman of any provenance or level of education would pause, and consider. Goths are so young, that they do not even fully grasp what it is that history is.

Sculptor wrote:I did not say that because it was not the case.


Ok.

Sculptor wrote:And Russians also learned French as a SECOND language.


Ok.

Sculptor wrote:Utter bullshit.


I realize it is not simple for you.

Sculptor wrote:Rambling.


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

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby Sculptor » Thu Jun 10, 2021 10:16 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:The Germanic name for Zeus is Tiwaz, the root of Tuesday, as Wotan is of Wednesday, Thor of Thursday, Freya of Friday.


There is more than the normal amount ot Bull Shit on this thread.

Tiu, or Tyr to the vikings was the god os Tuesday (Tiusday). It was not parallel to Zeus, but to Ares and Mars the gos of War.

Gods and their functions, as top god or a god who runs a paricular fucntion change! Not only their names but their importance and fucntion.
Thus Wotan, or Odin was Mr. Wednesday, which was analogous in some ways to Mercury rather than Zeus.
Jupiter or Jove goes for THursday which is the Thrunder day represented by THOR.
For Rome Thursday's god is top dog whereas in the "germanic" tradition is a less being in charge of thunder bolts as si Jove and Zeus.
Frigg (Friggday or Friday) was Venus, who in Greece was Aphrodite.

There is more standardisation in the DAYS of the week Europewide. Which indicated that ordinary life has aways been a lot more important than what the gods are doing.

And more sense comes from discussions from this when you remind yourself that god are MYTHICAL and not actually real in any meaningful sense.
:lol: :lol:
Sculptor
Thinker
 
Posts: 851
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby Vittorio » Thu Jun 10, 2021 10:21 pm

Sculptor wrote:Tiu, or Tyr to the vikings was the god os Tuesday (Tiusday). It was not parallel to Zeus, but to Ares and Mars the gos of War.


@Fixed Cross, I hope this illustrates my point.
Vittorio
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun May 23, 2021 5:45 am

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby Sculptor » Thu Jun 10, 2021 10:32 pm

Vittorio wrote:
Sculptor wrote:The Goti were a Germanic tribe emerging from the East of Rome about the year 550AD.


Don't be silly. "Goth" is just a name Romans use for the collection of tribes that descended from Scandinavia and spread throughout the mainland,

Wrong again. The word Goth is of Germanic origin. By the tie of the Goths, it was lass about Germans being Romanised, but about Rome becoming Germanised. The entire empire was over run by Germanic tribes of one sort or another.

Sculptor wrote:Rome came under Gothic rule.


Why then do they observe our Gods, follow our political mandates, and generally speaking wear suits?

This does not make any sense

Did not every last Gothic king bow to the Roman pope? Yes they did.

Eventually the whole (known world) became Christianised, even Ireland, Scandinavia and the British Isles. Yet the British Isles France and Rome ALL fell to German tribes.

I find Gothic reckoning of history funny, as if at one point there was Rome populated by hundreds of millions of Romans

You really do not have much of a grasp of basic history. There were at its MAXIMUM peak 3 million people in the Roman Empire. You are trying to understand this problem with very little knowledge.

...and then one day Goths (and Ostragoths, and the Franks, and the Vandals, and the Saxons, Angles, Jutes, Huns,) came, and all Romans no longer existed

No one is saying that at all
and it was simply Goths plundering the ruins of a disappeared people. I suppose Clovis just spontaneously decided to be baptized.

Political expedience showed him the best way to control the people.
This happened in Britain, and Ireland too. And when the Pagen Viking took the land they too converted.

Chinamen wear suits, and so do Goths.

Seriously what the actual fuck are you talking about?

Sculptor wrote:German tribes


A name later applied to a specific branch of Goths. To distinguish them, for example, from Slavs. All Goths.

Only to people that have not studied history.

Sculptor wrote:You are a bit ignorant of sme basic facts of history.


Ok.

Sculptor wrote:Gibberish


Yes, I am sure it is to you. A Roman of any provenance or level of education would pause, and consider. Goths are so young, that they do not even fully grasp what it is that history is.

Sculptor wrote:I did not say that because it was not the case.


Ok.

Sculptor wrote:And Russians also learned French as a SECOND language.


Ok.

Sculptor wrote:Utter bullshit.


I realize it is not simple for you.

Sculptor wrote:Rambling.


Yes, indeed.


So what is the point?
God is a Germanic word. Used in English speaking countries, Germany uses Gott, as both words share the same root.
Other names for god are far too numerous to mention.
But the virus of the idea is not bounded by the name, sadly.
Sculptor
Thinker
 
Posts: 851
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby Sculptor » Thu Jun 10, 2021 10:32 pm

Vittorio wrote:
Sculptor wrote:Tiu, or Tyr to the vikings was the god os Tuesday (Tiusday). It was not parallel to Zeus, but to Ares and Mars the god of War.


@Fixed Cross, I hope this illustrates my point.


What point?
Sculptor
Thinker
 
Posts: 851
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Some Theological Aphorisms

Postby felix dakat » Fri Jun 11, 2021 4:53 am

Vittorio wrote:
felix dakat wrote:
Vittorio wrote:
This consitutes an objection. For some reason that I don't entirely gather, you desire that not to be apparent. But I must have misunderstood the nature of the objection itself.


This, of course, is also an objection.


I intended the statements merely as a suggestion and a statement of fact.


Good sir, I am not sure you understand what objection means.


I object to that insinuation. ; )
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: 9319
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users