Other Natural Religions

[Husky]

All the following is stolen from BV's find.



[quote name='Bharatvarsh2' date='08 August 2010 - 12:57 AM' timestamp='1281208785' post='107802']

Small part of a review "The Passion of the Greeks: Christianity and the Rape of the Hellenes" by Evaggelos G. Vallianatos:



http://mq.dukejournals.org/cgi/reprint/19/1/97

[/quote]

Now watch the magic -

p1:

While I was still trying to figure out the details of “the passion of philosophy,” that

is, what happened to Hellenic philosophy in Christian Europe, Vallianatos’s book came

to address such larger questions as, What happened to the Greeks? [color="#FF0000"]When did the Greek

Gods become “myths”[/color] and their people, the most highly evolved in the Mediterranean,

“pagans?” Why are their statues mutilated and their temples smashed? Why was so

much of their knowledge destroyed? This book tells the secret story of the Greek geno-

cide at the hands of the Christians from the fourth to the sixth centuries CE.



[color="#800080"](pp 3-4)[/color]

[...]



the infamous battle of Corinth in 146 BC, which the Greeks lost to Romans. The latter made mainland Greece a province of the

expanding Roman Empire. [color="#0000FF"]Of special interest here is the theory regarding the relation

between Hellenic historia (history) and mythologia (mythology), or “early history.” The

author explains, “God Prometheus comes to us out of what we call ‘mythology.’ Greek

mythology, however, is not a fairy tale or a legend — this is a pernicious lie the Christians

invented to denigrate the Greeks. Mythology, for the Greeks, is early history or

history lost in time, and it is the fundamental key to understanding the world, how it

works, and where we humans fit in.”[/color] In support of this theory he refers also to the work

of an expert in the field of Classical Greek studies, Mary Lefkowitz.2

In English "Myth(ology)" is used exclusively in the christian sense: a concoction/lie/fictional story/legend. And that's why christos will never use "mythology" for the babble's OT or NT/gospels: they know that myth means Lie in English and mythology means "bunch of fictional stories" whereas christos faithfully believe that the babble is early history.





p4:

Chapter 2, “Power and Importance of Greek Religion,” builds upon and elaborates

this theory. It addresses the important questions of how [color="#FF0000"]the Greeks and their gods are

literally inseparable[/color] and “why [color="#FF0000"]religion, in the form of piety for the gods expressed in[/color]

athletics, the tragic theater, the oracles, and the festivals, helped the Greeks to maintain

their Greek identity.” He insists that [color="#FF0000"]“Greek piety, the veneration of the Greeks for

their gods, was at the core[/color] of how the Greeks understood the universe, nature, the rest

of the world, and themselves. In fact the religion of the Greek people was their culture,

which was full of gods but did not have a creed, holy book or church. . . . All agricultural

festivals were propitiation to the gods for increasing the fertility of the land, for

a good harvest.” He concludes with an insightful observation: “So the Greeks started

their grand political experimentation in the gymnasion-palaistra of each polis with a

combination of training the beautiful nude body of young people with rigorous physical

exercises, and educating their minds with a command of the Greek language, music,

philosophy, mathematics and science. The nude athletic [color="#FF0000"]games of Olympia[/color] . . . were a

sort of final exams, [color="#FF0000"]an offering of piety to the gods,[/color] all in one political act and celebration

of common Greek culture.”

"the Greeks and their gods are literally inseparable". (So too the other Hellenists: the Romans.)

Exactly.



Just like Taoists, Shintos and the old dying generation of Hindus and all those Hindus who went before.



In the above brief reference too, can note how every art and skill etc. is an expression of the Hellenistic religion and derived from the Gods/Hellenes' piety to the Gods.

Same as how Hindu arts and skills are HINDU. Not "Indian". Hindu traditional music is about the Gods, even the major instruments are derived from the instruments of the Gods. Hindu traditional dances like Bharatanatyam and folk dances are Hindu, and derive from the Gods. Yoga is Hindu: a practice to connect the Hindu to his Gods. Origins of Hindu martial arts are also attributed to the Hindu Gods and the practice begins with worshipping them. Hindu "schools of thought" comes from the Hindu Gods and are about the Hindu Gods. The Hindu rituals concern the Hindu Gods. All Hindu scriptures (including the epics) down to the mantras they contain are Hindu. Traditional Hindu Temple and moorty construction are Hindu, deriving from Hindu scriptures again.



Meanwhile, modern indians keep trying to sell these as "secular" "Indian". There's nothing merely "Indian" about them - not part of any universal "Indian" "culture" or "civilisation". They are Hindu religion. (E.g. Carnatic music or Bharatanatyam is an act of devotion to the Hindu Gods, it concerns no other religion - not even any other Dharmic religion, which have nothing to do with them).



The Indians - those who sell the Religion of the Gods piecemeal - are traitors, even though some of them insist on calling themselves Hindu even as they sell off the religion on foreign shores. If these people's ancestors were "polytheistic idolators" but they aren't so anymore themselves, then they're not traditionalists ("heathens") anymore. They're simply successfully-subverted (alienated) people. (<- If they weren't alienated, they'd still be practising their ancestrally-handed-down religion, i.e. following ancestral tradition.)

They have lost something. They just don't know that they have, nor what that something is, nor how important it is. But all the same, they insist on keeping the label Hindu and associating themselves with the Religion of the Hindu Gods, even as they try to distance themselves from the Gods and separate all those Hindu things derived from the Hindu Gods which are actually inseparable from the Religion/Gods.





And this. At last, a one-line quote. Note how I'm not speaking. pp 6-7:

Chapter 6 is titled “Julian the Great,” not surprisingly, since Julian was the champion

of the “pagan” party and, in this regard, the opposite of Constantine and his pro-

Christian policies. His rise to power, his short rule, and his tragic fall (362 – 3) are

described in detail following Ammianus’s account. Julian was determined to restore

the worship of the gods and the honored Greek-Roman traditions. Thus, he “declared

religious freedom in the empire,” although he made it public that he was not a Christian

“but a faithful follower of the Greek and Roman [color="#FF0000"]gods[/color].” He “immersed himself in

Greek [color="#FF0000"]religion[/color] with the passion of a person who waited an entire life for that moment”; <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[color="#FF0000"]he “loved Greek philosophy and the gods, for the two were inseparable.”[/color] He made a distinction

between Christianity and Judaism and showed more respect for the latter. He

also considered rebuilding “the sacred city of Jerusalem.” But he always saw Christianity

as “an illegal, treasonous and newfangled cult and ideology that destroyed Greek

culture.”

See? Greek Philosophy=part of the Religion of the Gods of the Hellenes. I.e. Philosophy is a part of Hellenismos, and it concerns and is from the Gods.

The two are inseparable.



(And it's just like how Hindu arts, skills, and the various Hindu schools of thought are inseparable from the Hindu religion (=religion of the Hindu Gods), but I already said that). <- It's funny how there's always been this need to wait for other traditionalists to say it in order to find one's own voice. And of all of them - but there was no comparison - Julian says it so well, both in word and action. What a great Find Julian was. He may be (long) dead, but the fact that he existed - that such a human existed - is all that matters. Notice how when he says it, people take note. He is that kind of man: either respected/admired by all those with sense or deeply feared by his diseased enemies. But no one can ignore him, try as modern subversionists might (and they do try - desperately - to make little of his role and importance in history).





[quote name='Bharatvarsh2' date='08 August 2010 - 12:57 AM' timestamp='1281208785' post='107802']

Also an interesting remark in the review on page 7:

He iscritical of Polymnia Athanassiadi who, following the line of St. Gregory, sees in Julian a

fanatic man and “the very incarnation of evil.”3

[/quote]The paragraph containing the statement BV refers to:

Julian even prohibited, rightly in the opinion of the author, Christians “from teaching

Greek and Roman philosophy, poetry and literature.” These were replete with references

to Greek religion and reverence for the gods. How could Christians appreciate

their beauty, understand their truth, and interpret it correctly? Gregory of Nazianzus,

who had met Julian as a student in Athens, called him “a public and private enemy”

and an “apostate,” an epithet that stuck with him thereafter. To counterbalance this,

Vallianatos calls Julian “ the Great” and a “philosopher-king.” If it was not obvious

that he loves Julian, the author tells us so. Because of this love, he admits that his portrait

of this tragic emperor is “probably more one-sided than I would like it to be.” [color="#0000FF"]He is

critical of Polymnia Athanassiadi who, following the line of St. Gregory, sees in Julian a

fanatic man and “the very incarnation of evil.”3[/color]

I did already think it possible she was a subversionist.

But that certainly would explain it: her apparent hatred of Julian makes clear why she lied so impossibly about him. A "monotheist/religious innovator" indeed. He was a traditionalist who loved his Gods more than anything (also: the Gods were the goal of Hellenismos' - hence his - Philosophy).

Gibbon may not have approved of Julian's most core nature, but at least he conveyed it accurately; I borrow R. Smith's stress of the importance of Gibbon's statement (with context):

Gibbon's verdict, though, was studiedly ambiguous, and when he wished to convey the heart of the man he looked elsewhere: 'A devout and sincere attachment for the gods of Athens and Rome constituted the ruling passion of Julian.'19 <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> In my [color="#800080"](R.Smith)[/color] view, that judgement deserves to stand.

But who cares about Athanassiadi's motivated opinion? (There are many in the christowest who are working hard to subvert the public view/understanding of the insubvertible Julian, precisely because he continues to be deadly to christianism.) Because the reality is not to be ignored, it speaks for itself:

Julian was simply the greatest human in History (even his failures are those that only the very great could have made: his aims were Great). The world is naturally divided into people who know and rightly understand this, and the truly pitiable who don't. All heathens warm to him upon learning of his existence: even though his words and actions were for the purpose of other (i.e. his own) Gods - rather because his words/actions were for the purpose of his Gods - heathens all over the world recognise in him one of their own, their own Hero (<- in the right=only sense of that word). The one whose words/actions echo what is in their own hearts and which they didn't know how to translate. But he - even his very life - is so articulate.



This bit in the above quoteblock:

If it was not [color="#0000FF"]obvious[/color] that he loves Julian, the author tells us so. Because of this love, he admits that his portrait of this tragic emperor is “probably more one-sided than I would like it to be.” [color="#800080"](NOT a tragic emperor. He tried. With the sort of ability only he possessed.)[/color]

Yes. Of course. And it's always obvious. Though such words of admission tend to be superfluous when the other words they write, their actions (the fact that they choose to write it at all) and most importantly, the degree to which they understand him, are consonant.



But curious how that's yet another author whose words I've actually read who spells it out loud: that they love (<- that word) Julian. And then there's some more authors/persons who have essentially said the same, and repeatedly, though in a great many other words. But then, like I said, it is always obvious with or without the direct admission. And always inevitable too: because, isn't Julian a Captain among men. He even wrests admiration from those who couldn't otherwise be bothered.

One naturally looks up to him and admires him - it is automatic - so these writers' feelings of deep and sincere admiration are only natural. Even the memory of his person is a refuge to all who learn of him: that such a human being - brave, undaunted, above all capable (with the boundless mental and physical energy required for his mammoth purpose) - existed. The man with the Right Words, the Right Actions - above all, the Right Motivations - and not a hint of this current deplorable universal cowardice concerning the Gods.

There will be no other like him. But we had the one. Only one Hero for all heathenisms.





[color="#0000FF"]ADDED:[/color]

p.7

[color="#0000FF"]"Clearly the author identifies with Julian and his project: “He, no more than I, had no

choice in growing up Christian. We dumped Christianity because it had been imposed

on us by the force of the church and the government in his case, and by the force of

unexamined tradition in my case."[/color]

Julian continues to be profoundly influential. Facilitating complete Proper reversions even long after his death (because he was a proper, complete traditionalist - he's the heathen's exemplary Heathen). And that's yet *another* reason for why he remains the greatest man in history.

Heathens are very fortunate because The Greatest Hero in the world - the Best of the Best - is an extreme Arch Heathen, the Ultimate Heathen. He is defined by his heathenism (hence also his eloquence on behalf of heathenism).





p4.

In chapter 3, “Apollonios of Tyana: Hellas is the World,”

[...] For, like Vallianatos, “he

passionately tried to preserve Hellenic culture by choosing its ascetic and scientific

version worked out by Pythagoras 700 years before his time. . . . [color="#FF0000"]He urged the Greeks

and Romans to stand by their traditions[/color], studying nature and medicine, [color="#FF0000"]offering piety

to their gods[/color]. . . .



[...]



Chapter 4, “The Treason of Christianity,” is one of the longest and most passion-

ate of the chapters. It narrates the failure of the Roman state to deal effectively with

the serious danger that the rapidly growing “insidious and seditious” Christian sect

represented, although the authorities were aware of its devious, antisocial behavior.

One Roman emperor after another underestimated the threat of Christianity until it was

too late to stop it

And that was the Romans, who were more clever by far than today's Hindus are.



At least the GrecoRomans, being traditionalists as they were (they stuck to their beloved Gods), stood a chance in the ideological war thrust on them. (That they lost was by a sordid twist of fate: christianism cheated by stabbing the victor before he was through.)