/lit/ - Literature

>2019
>being a pagan larper
all traditions start off as monotheistic and get corrupted

>2019
>not a Spinozist pantheist
It’s like you want people to know you don’t read

>current year
>not studying a multitude of conflicting viewpoints to the point where your ideas can only exist in your action and are completely incapable of being verbalised

>>14211327
Better than being a Christian larper

>>14211327
All traditions start off polytheistic and get corrupted

>>14211691
Plato disagrees.

>>14211268
>2019
Not being a Neo-Sumerian/Babylonian
Polytheist

>>14211327
Ok retard

>>14211490
why is this so accurate

>>14211268
>>14211372
>>14211490
>2020
>not being a mix of these three

>>14211327
Name one.

>>14211812
No he doesn't.

>>14211999
I cried a little. Nice trips but they don't alleviate my pain.
>>14211268
The more I learn Futhark the more I remember Varg was wrong on enough levels to accept whatever bullshit you can feed me through. Aristotle praised the Celts for being ruthless and there's a reason the Greeks weren't wiped out so quickly.

>>14211691
This. The One can only exist in polytheism.

>>14211268
Have fun in hell, mushrik.

>>14212087
Why am I going to hell?

>>14211327
Sorry bro, going out of the cave I can safely say the human spirit is good enough to create mythos on its own. Even the kikes were polytheistic when in the nomadic stage of their people, christians were originally just attempting to concede pagan traditions to an evergrowing fad of a universalist ideology, until it went to institutional levels. Monotheism is a fraud, like scientology or imperialist ideologies.

We're not greek motherfucker, paganism is local.

>>14211691
>>14211515
>>14211856
>>14212110
holy shit the level of this board. it's like you are condemned to think of religion in terms of beliefs (last poster even mention mythos). you fail to grasp the distinction between the sacred and profane, religion and belief, spirit and soul. fucking pagan larpers are unable to understand the sacred.

>yeah bros just pick the mythology you find the coolest bruh that's p much what religion is
the level of delusion

>>14212113
Paganism isn't doctrinal.

>>14212090
Polytheism is the only unforgivable sin.

paganism isn't a religion, it has no revelation. it's a system of beliefs at best and mere folklore at worst. this is the dumbest thread i've seen on lit

>>14212142
This is literally a result of Christianity and its thought, retarded larper.

>>14212087
"Hell" is a pagan concept

>>14212160
1) age
2) favorite book

>>14212142
>ressentiment of the complete lack of Christian myths

>>14212154
guess you can't be a christian then since there's 3 in that one

>>14212176
>reddit the religion results in reddit behavior
Nice job christshit

>>14212113
Define pagan first, then acknowledge the Celts, Germans, Romans, Greeks, Slavs, Nordsmen, Hindus, Samoans, Australian aboriginals, etc. If you can't find meaning in any other legends than your own people's, then you have failed to understand paganism. Maybe it's because you're not from a European region: territories aren't defined by their traditions but their whole historical background. Unless you're a larper, which is the first stage of something bigger.

>>14212142
And I'm jumping from the answer the abovementioned poster to tell you to stop whatever you're doing to consider reading Hegel for a philosophical toolbox, stop following the christian gnosis/doctrine, stop posting frogs, and view History as a hollistic recollection of events rather than a fight between [sacred/profane ; religion/belief ; spirit/soul ; sacred/unholy ; good/bad ; 4chan/Reddit ; etc.].

>>14212188
no need to tell your age it shows

>>14212189
read eliade and guénon

>>14212210
Pas Guénon parce qu'il s'est converti à l'Islam... The Illiad is a monomythic story and I have enough to do with my own personal monomyth, someday maybe.

>>14212142
>Everyone just believes whatever they want, except me of course!
>Aha now where did I put that frog image...

>>14212210
Keep sinning moralfag.

>>14212225
judge him by the ideas he presents, not by his religion, you narrow viewed retard

>>14211268
Based, polytheism intrinsically allows the mind to handle greater levels of conceptual diversity and nuance than monotheism does, due to the complex interaction between the multiplicity of deities versus the homogenous authority of one static entity. Polytheistic cultures can expand their myths and even absorb other cultural variants into it as time goes by, while monotheism remains an unchanging block of dogma.

Though I personally believe that Consciousness is Divinity, and I encourage you all to incorporate a dedicated meditation practice into your daily lives so that you might be able to reach subtler planes of experience. It's way more difficult than simply reading scriptures, or praying, but I consider it the truest and most-rewarding form of spirituality.

>>14212225
the fact you suggested hegel already tells how contaminated by the modern, sensible, cosmovision you are. what his religion has to do with anything? people from different religions read him and acknowledge his ideas

>>14212232
what part of the "you fail to grasp the distinction between religion and belief" did you not understand? to choose one belief is something you do with your psyche, to adhere to a sacred revelation is something that comes from the spirit/pneuma. have another frog

>>14212154
According to whom?

>>14212189
I'm French, we know little of our Celtic paganism.

>>14212142
How does monotheism acknowledge these things more than polytheism?

>>14212275
paganism in general is little known since there was no tradition passed from masters to pupils. only the mystery religions could be considered 'religions' and even then they were secret. paganism is pure larping

>>14212189
But you have to believe in the gods right ? What are they exactly, what is their substance ?
If you don't believe you're a larper right ? Genuinely curious.

>>14212241
You're not French so I have to tell you: since the Yellow Vests, many people from different religious and cultural backgrounds have accepted that we can never unite under a common doctrine. My people drunk wine since centuries and some people aren't used to eating pork, and we will not fight over such bullshit. We would rather make our own values of equality and brotherhood prevail over our differences. Guénon was just a soul lost to History.

>>14212249
Please put a capital to Hegel. Just so you know I studied philosophy in college so I'm a little bit sensible to whatever bullshit anyone could post on this fucking board.

>>14212275
Celtique, germanique, gallo-romain, ... We can find runes in Champagne-Ardennes, menhirs in Britanny or Roman temples in Alsace!

>>14212242
>I personally believe that Consciousness is Divinity
Stop that.

>>14212281
Go back to the desert christcuck.

>>14212314
Why? What else explains consciousness?

>>14212298
>We would rather make our own values of equality and brotherhood prevail over our differences.
Good luck with that shit. The yellow vests are united by a common enemy, meaning they have a negative identity and negative identity is fragile and cannot last long.

>>14212331
Indeed, like any revolutionnary marxist movement. From what we know, this is the only way we can gain some social avantages (or "welfare"), even though it seems to get harder and harder. People used to die for this kind of shit, and it was a lot more obvious in the past, even in the US.

>>14212268
A charismatic desert warlord from 1,400 years ago

>>14212260
1. Presuposes a faith—unfaith dichotomy
2. Presuposes polytheism has no sacred tennets that supercede sectarianism
3. Presuposes monotheism validates monotheism in-and-of itself
4. I have no interest in defending any belief rather that people do ultimately believe want they want based on some accepted principles — atheist, polytheist and monotheist alike.

>>14212330
Being human.

>>14212528
"Human" is simply a conceptual designation given to a distinct category of biological lifeform which the One Infinite Consciousness, that makes up all of reality, is presently experiencing itself through.

>>14212142
HEY GUYS, SUMERIAN MYTHOLOGY WHICH WAS DATED TO EXIST LONG BEFORE MOSES WAS ACTUALLY MONOTHEISTIC BEFORE IT WAS CORRUPTED

Anyone got any good recommendations for readings on polytheistic/pagan systems within more comprehensive universalist world views?

>>14212549
Yikes.

How are polytheistic gods any less divine than the god of the Old Testament?

>>14211268
>2019
>not a Roman henotheist
>2019
>he isn't Mamertine

>>14212853
Roman religion was Hellenistic

>>14212868
big if true

>>14212714
t. brainlet

>>14213006
powerful
the complete consciousness of the cosmos is clearly within you

>>14211327
Then all the men who knew that their wives were burning incense to other gods, along with all the women who were present—a large assembly—and all the people living in Lower and Upper Egypt, said to Jeremiah, "We will not listen to the message you have spoken to us in the name of the LORD! We will certainly do everything we said we would: We will burn incense to the Queen of Heaven and will pour out drink offerings to her just as we and our fathers, our kings and our officials did in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. At that time we had plenty of food and were well off and suffered no harm. But ever since we stopped burning incense to the Queen of Heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have had nothing and have been perishing by sword and famine."

The response from the Lord's "prophet" is quite convenient. Archetypically (((subversive))).

>ever being a polytheist

>>14212142
>just pick the mythology you find the coolest bruh
But christianity is the prime example of bringing local beliefs into its structure to facilitate its spread. Your posts read like a 14 year old who writes about retaking jerusalem while asking his mommy for tendies, you have absolutely no idea about what christianity actually entailed and think it's all this pretty fairy tale, no intrigues for power, etc.
And let's not forget the obnoxiousness of thinking that when you believe something blindly it's "pure, sacred" and when others do it it's superstition.

>>14212688
He might not even know what that is, otherwise he would know 90% of christian lore is a cheap rip off of middle eastern polytheistic religions.

>>14212714
I wasn't the one who called you a brainlet. I'm more than happy to let you have your own personal views which are different from mine. It's the people on this site who have to insult others who feel differently to them, which you technically did to me in a minor way by responding to a serious post with a "yikes" remark. Though I'm not offended, it's just the culture here.

>>14212113
Is paganism local?
Or is it really animism that is local?
I'm really really into local spirituality

>>14212281
>there was no tradition passed
Yes there was, tradition was mainly transmitted through women in the form of tales and so forth, the thing is those women were persecuted as witches.
>>14212283
>if you don't believe in a literal figure in the sky you're a larper
It's mindblowing how you fail to see the abrahamic bias in your words. Most of all it is surprising how people like you never seem to understand how centralizing religion was historically within governments' interest(which was done alongside encouraging urbanisation - see ancient Persia for good examples of that), it isn't for nothing that a bunch of monotheist religions popped up along the silk road around the same age.

>>14214641
Oh, and there was also a "druid conference" of sorts in Wales where druids from different corners of the celtic world gathered

>>14211327
History shows us the very opposite, rather. Monotheism is always the product of some form of later autistic tyranny, be it by the Egyptians, the Jews, the Christians or the Arabs. Pagans can happily include monadic conceptions among their philosophies and myths, and allow people of more philosophical bents to study them while letting the commoners connect to the more conventional fables. And they can absorb other culture's deities and narratives into their own without any cognitive dissonance, possessing a mind which is equipped to see unity-within-diversity rather than diversity-as-blasphemy like every monotheistic culture does, hence why they inevitably fracture into an uncountable number of sects which nevertheless all believe they possess the "one unblemished truth".

>>14214641
>>14214650
Can you provide sources for
>centralization of religion coinciding with urbanisation
and more particularly
>druidic conference
?
I'm extremely interested in both of these.

tfw not an ancient greek
Us burgers are going to have to deify our own cultural heritage. There is enough roman larping from the founding fathers. We could have Mars-Patton, Jupiter-Washington, Mercury-Franklin

>>14215517
No, our gods are superheroes. You're thinking too literally.

>>14212087
>2019
>not being a monist polytheist
Insisting on a creation separate from it's creator is basically polytheism anyway.

There's no such thing as polytheism, in the end it always monotheism hidden behind myths.

>>14215667
Typical monotheist propoganda.
Do you realize that there is not one of ANYTHING in the natural world? It does not make any sense for there to be only 1 god.

>>14215626
Superheroes are fucking gay though. fuck that.

>>14212189
>stop posting frogs
"No."

>>14214641
>figure in the sky
>religion as civic tool

>>14215784
>in the natural world
Thats the point retard

>>14215978
Gods and creation are both part of the natural world.

>>14215978
>god is not natural
So he's what, then?

>>14215955
Hm. Yeah, but idk what else fits.
Anthropomorphic gods of freedom and money and exploration perhaps.
I don't think baseball & apple pie define us anymore, though.

>>14216161
Then God is subsumed by a greater entity and therefore cannot himself be God.
>>14216207
Supernatural,obviously

>>14216288
Define supernatural

>>14216303
Outside the natural world

>>14216332
Where is outside?

>>14216347
>where
there's your first mistake

>>14215667
Every god is a part of the One, but they are also all distinct and perfect divinities

>>14216207
>then what creates god????
Fucking retard, you can't ask that question.

>>14216332
Define the natural world

>>14215784
>he thinks God is one of the ειδος and not the νους.
God is not a species, He is the unmoved mover from all things were created, and as such there can only be one.

>>14215667
yes
>>14216359
no

>>14216379
Define define

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/julian_apostate_galileans_1_text.htm

>>14216380
Ive been asking /lit/ for weeks but not gotten an answer yet. What is a Thomist or Aristotelian rebuttal to Kant?

>>14216367
Typical monotheist censorship

>>14216380
How do you know all this? Are you a god?

>>14216397
i never read kant and never will. why should one read kant? do you need help

>>14216367
>>14216380
>you can't ask questions about Yahweh's nature
Why not?

>>14216380
>the unmoved mover
Are you saying that your god is the big bang?

>>14216358
Don't use the word outside if you don't want a question related to location.

>>14216420
that was pretty much established 2300 years ago bro.
>>14216435
no. big bang is a natural phenomena and marked the beginning of substantial time and space. God is eternal and outside of time.

>>14216445
What was established? Your godhood?
>God is outside of time and nature
uh, ok. What is this creature to which you refer? How does it have any effect on us?

>>14216442
Would transcendent be a better word?

>>14216460
Creation is entirely dependent on the Creator

>>14216474
It seems like you are saying that god is an idea, which seems like a useful definition, although I don't see why there's only got to be just one.

>>14216460
>creature
are you doing this on purpose? have you no intellectual background?

>>14216491
Well now we're getting closer. I'm not a platonist, but such a concept is a useful way in grasping God.
God is largely intangible. To define something is to give it a limit. God cannot be limited, thus is indefinite. The main contention I encounter in conversations about God is the imprecise use of words in the discussion. For example, when I said God is outside space and time, outside refers to space, and thus appears contradictory. The transcendent essence of God requires a more abstract and loose use of terms, mostly allegorically. Aquinas invented a whole thing about it

>>14216494
A creature unique in all the world, a solitary god of which there is no other: surely you understand the strangeness of this concept.

>>14216587
>in the world
Unique to be sure, by necessity of ontology. But definitely not in the world. Creation had a starting point. Contingency has a necessity. Once you orient your mind in such a way to remove the constraints of space and time, God becomes easier to grasp, conceptually. The problem here is worldly thinking holding you back

>>14216523
>>14216597
But why wouldn't there be more than one?

>>14216625
By virtue of being the highest idea, the first cause, or the sole necessary condition, the One's essence could not be divided into multiple parts, otherwise there would be still another genus under which it is subsumed and subordinate to. Even if "gods" exist in some way between us and the One, they are subordinate to it and therefore an aspect of Creation rather than themselves being Creators. Therefore there is only One (1) God Who is totally whole in Himself

>>14212170
No, Hell is a justice concept. You are a pagan for not believing in Hell however.

>>14211268
>current year
>not being a quranist muslim

>>14216762
Check the etymology retard

>>14216666
But you just said that. You are just stating these premises as though they are self-evident, but I don't think they are at all.
There is no reason why there couldn't be multiple causes, or at least a female cause + male cause.

>>14216891
Not everything boils down to etymology. It is self-evident that the good ones and the evil ones do not deserve to end up in the same place. Self-evident for most.

>>14216944
It's pathetic trying to squirm your way out of it.
>You are pagan for not believing in Hell
>Even though Hell is a pagan word and no one's even arguing whether or not it exists

>>14216359
This. Does anyone actually discuss this?

>>14216938
Wew lad
We're assuming Creation
Creation requires a Creator. A Creator cannot exist in multiplicity, else it would not be the highest and therefore unable to be the Creator. If Creators existed in multiplicity, they would belong to a genus which is something separate from the creators and therefore its existence is not dependent on them. Therefore the multiple creators are not the highest Creator as there is still something above them.
That is the reason polytheism is impossible. That is not just me stating it, those are rational arguments. If you want a follow up from more proper sources, research Spinozas necessary and sufficient conditions, Anselm's ontological argument, and Aquinas and Aristotle's First Cause and unmoved mover. They all reach at the essence of the One. There is no argument regarding the essence of multiple creators that is sound.

>>14216445
>God is outside of time
People who say this have absolutely no understanding of theology

>>14216944
Give chapter & verse for the existence of hell.

>>14216999
Hindus

>>14216996
If you had eyes you'd recognize this place.

>>14216380
>and as such there can only be one
Unless there is a trinity of course

>>14217037
Open the Quran at a random page.

>>14217037
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/search.php?q=hell&bsec=N
Why do people demand to be spoonfed

>>14217030
>a creator would not exist in multiplicity else it would not be the highest
Assumption: a creator must be the highest
Assumption: a hierarchy must exist
A creator must NOT necessarily be the highest: it may be one component among many.
In looking at the world, only a stupid man would assert that a mushroom is better than an amoeba, or a lion better than a peacock. "Better" or "superior" are subjective concepts.
I am aware that there are many others who are monotheists, and I am sure they aregue the point well. I prefer a personal interaction/ a back and forth discussion.

>>14217071
All these refer to Hades, which is a Greek concept.

>>14217046
>it's 3 but it's really 1
>but 3
>but 1 really
>but also totally 3

What's this, a good thread on /lit/?

>>14217075
I literally provided an argument for rhe necessity of a creator being the highest.
Better and superior are not subjective concepts in an Aristotelian sense. You have reverted back to materialistic thinking
Dont express any fruitful information from shitposting on this stupid image board.
>>14217087
Some actually refer to Ghenna which is not Greek, but regardless the New Testament is full of Greek concepts which in no way undermines it.

>>14217110
Gehenna was a place where children were sacrificed by fire.
The concept of punishment by fire could be a metaphor, and the hell of eternal pain and suffering is nowhere in the Bible.

>>14217128
Children weren't sacrificed at ghenna lmao
And yes eternal suffering is in the bible. Look up the second death

>>14217110
You said
>if creators existed in multiplicity, they would belong to a genus which is something separate from the creators and therefore its existence is not dependent on them.
Yet a singular creator is assumed not to be dependent on itself. I don't this invalidates the idea that there could be more than one creator.
You said
>better and superior are not subjective in the Aristotlean sense
But I don't know why you think that.

>>14217139
From Wikipedia
>Gehenna is a small valley in Jerusalem. In the Hebrew Bible, Gehenna was initially where some of the kings of Judah sacrificed their children by fire.[1] Thereafter, it was deemed to be cursed (Book of Jeremiah 7:31, 19:2–6).[2]

>>14216666
Read On the Gods and the World by Sallustius

>>14216999
Read On the Gods and the World by Sallustius

>>14216999
How does the second death imply eternal suffering and not a complete destruction of the soul?

>>14211490
>>not studying a multitude of conflicting viewpoints to the point where your ideas can only exist in your action and are completely incapable of being verbalised

literally me

Give me one coherent argument why polytheism is preferable to monotheism.

>>14217153
>Gee why I don't understand your assumptions? It's almost like I don't actually bother studying metaphysics and mysticism

You have no real comprehension of religion. Be honest with yourself and realize that you like to absorb beliefs passively instead of putting in the work and reading.

>>14211372
Imagine thinking Spinoza is an atheist.

>>14217306
Meh
Your argument broke down under scrutiny.
Too bad: I like your style of thinking.

>>14213966
It's really just not worth expending mental effort on arguing with your sort of dullard.

>>14211327
based

>>14213966
is this RIPPEN?

>>14212170
No, it absolutely isn't

>>14217347
Nah, that guy gave up on you because you're an actual retard. You actual don't have an argument because you're not even on the same plane in this discourse and it's obvious when you say shit like "I don't know why you think that" and "that's an assumption so you're wrong" when we're pulling from texts and ideas from neoplatonism. You aren't actually adding anything new or worth discussing when you have passive knowledge like yourself

>>14216891
etymology doesnt mean definition retard

>>14217496
>passive knowledge
Also known as
>not brainwashed
I'm not asking to hear neoplatonism: I'm wondering what the guy actually thinks. I take a much more personal approach.

>>14212157
>it has no revelation

>>14217565
Silly anon, don't you know all REAL religions come from psychedelic revelations?

>>14217473
>>14217500
"Hell" derived from pre-Christian English "hel" / "helle" meaning netherworld, underworld or grave. Compare "Sheol" from pre-Christian Hebrew meaning netherworld, underworld or grave.

>>14217623
B-but muh eternal burning amd laughing demons

>>14217496
Neoplatonism is entirely compatible with polytheism

>>14212157
>On what account then the ancients, neglecting such discourses as these, employed fables, is a question
not unworthy our investigation. And this indeed is the first utility arising from fables, that they excite us
to inquiry, and do not suffer our cogitative power to remain in indolent rest. It will not be difficult
therefore to show that fables are divine, from those by whom they are employed: for they are used by
poets agitated by divinity, by the best of philosophers, and by such as disclose initiatory rites. In oracles
also fables are employed by the gods; but why fables are divine is the part of philosophy to investigate.
Since therefore all beings rejoice in similitude, and are averse from dissimilitude, it is necessary that
discourses concerning the gods should be as similar to them as possible, that they may become worthy of
their essence, and that they may render the gods propitious to those who discourse concerning them; all
which can only be effected by fables. Fables therefore imitate the gods, according to effable and
ineffable, unapparent and apparent, wise and ignorant; and this likewise extends to the goodness of the
gods; for as the gods impart the goods of sensible natures in common to all things, but the goods
resulting from intelligibles to the wise alone, so fables assert to all men that there are gods; but who they
are, and of what kind, they alone manifest to such as are capable of so exalted a knowledge. In fables
too, the energies of the gods are imitated; for the world may very properly be called a fable, since bodies,
and the corporeal possessions which it contains, are apparent, but souls and intellects are occult and
invisible. Besides, to inform all men of the truth concerning the gods, produces contempt in the unwise,
from their incapacity of learning, and negligence in the studious; but concealing truth in fables, prevents
the contempt of the former, and compels the latter to philosophize. But you will ask why adulteries,
thefts, paternal bonds, and other unworthy actions are celebrated in fables? Nor is this unworthy of
admiration, that where there is an apparent absurdity, the soul immediately conceiving these discourses
to be concealments, may understand that the truth which they contain is to be involved in profound and
occult silence.

>>14212157
>the absolute state of newfags

>>14217313
Where did I say that? I don’t believe that at all. Or are you one of the retards who considers pantheism to be atheistic? Or maybe you just can’t read.

>>14217752
Maybe you're taking things too personally and feeling attacked because you're creating context. I was making fun of atheist readings of Spinoza

>>14217532
He basically already told us certain aspects of his core beliefs, you're just too dim to see. Passive acquisition of knowledge won't even allow you the ability of inference.

>>14211490
this 100%

>>14212157
go back, newfriend