Message from @Orlunu
Discord ID: 372946877299032074
I think all aspects of it play a good role for our volk
Can't I have those ideals without the religion at all? In fact, couldn't I do it much more effectively by listening to the philosophers rather than larping as a rapist who held back science for 200 years?
Yes you can
you don't need religion to have morals and ideals similar to well, a religion's morals and ideals.
>200years, indo european religion goes waaay beyond that
People just find it more practical to translate those ideals into something more comprehensible
Its more escotetic
In pretty sure it originates from ancestral worship
Also when practicing the religion, you tap into the collective unconsciousness of europeans, kinda hard to explain what that means
^
the aryan unconsciousness
It escoteric and metaphysical
Wrong section whoops
Oh good it didnt send
what
Sent a pic i didnt mean 2 send
You need absolute morals for a properly functioning society
Religions establish these
Rate my morals -
Not religious at all. Morals stem from social contract, golden rule, and non aggression principle.
Someone breaks social contract or non aggression principle, all bets are off.
Golden rule - treat others as you'd like to be treated
Pretty much tldr version
"Social contract" is a meaningless thing to state as your rule unless you outline what said contract actually is
Golden rule is, equally, not helpful in itself. If you do not impose some other moral code upon yourself, for instance, you would wish yourself not to be punished when you are caught doing something wrong; if you do impose said code on youself and accept the consequences, then the golden rule merely states that you should apply that to everyone else. It can't, therefore, form a moral rule of its own, it merely means that you have to apply whatever your rule is universally.
NAP is a good ethical system, and synergises well with social contract theory, but I see no great advantage to it as a moral system. It is simply too easy to think up situations where violence as a response to non-violent action seems perfectly morally acceptable, even if it must be ethically condemned.
Overall, likely to lead to a decent person who won't cause any outrages, but is a bit skeletal and would probably break down in lots of awkward moral positions.
Let me try to help you understand it a little bit better - I understand I only gave you a tldr version with some buzzwords.
A social contract is a contract that you, as an individual, as well as all other individuals in X society, have agreed to uphold. I live in America, so my "social contract" is US law.
Personally, and in my ideal living environment/community, the social contract would operate on 2 axioms - the golden rule and the non aggression principle, which I hope are pretty self explanatory. For the most part, this is what US law operates on, but obviously there are some discrepancies.
So, you would allow the laws to dictate morality?
No absolutely not. In the US, *most* laws are originated from NAP and golden rule (some are not, drug possession laws for example). I'm saying in my ideal system, all laws would be in alignment with NAP and golden rule.
Thoughts on fusing Christianity and Paganism?
Ew
Gross
i'm all for it
Leave Jeebus out of my religion
christianity is a cucked religion, turn the other cheek has been corrupted to apply to ALL people, instead of ones own people only
“Worship a Jew”
No thanks bra
you fucking memelord you dont understand
it doesnt mean you need to become christian
im saying christianity could benefit of a reformation to become more combatative
like the orthodox priests blessing soldiers' guns etc.
but if you're too attached to your 'kike on a stick lelz' to see anything more than memage, that's fine too.
Dunno, it was just an idea that popped into my mind
Jolly crocodile, just a bit of research on my part. All taken from the book of John.
And quite as clearly he regards Jesus as not “a Jew.” In talking to the Jews, Jesus speaks of “your Law” (John 7:19, 8:17, 10:34) and “your circumcision” (John 7:22). Abraham is “your father” (John 8:56). When the Jews say to him, “Our ancestors ate manna in the desert” (John 6:31), Jesus replies, “What Moses gave you was not the bread from heaven” (John 6:32), and later on says, “Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert” (John 6:49).
I didn't write that out, from some website, but the scripture is accurate