Occidental culture

B E L I E F   -   R E L I G I O N   -   T H E O L O G Y

Religion is certainly both a collective and a personal issue, but the collective side is more powerful and retroacts to each person, so that one doesn't really know, whether one is religious because of personal or because of collective decisions, interests, motives and so on. I think most people don't believe what they want to believe personally, but some do. Most people believe what the rulers want them to believe, and merely some people believe what they want themselves to believe.

So for the most part religion is political. De jure and de facto religious freedom is merely those people guaranteed who live in states with a judical and collective guarantee of religious freedom, protection of minorities. So if you want to be a heathen (again), you have to know whether your state, if you have one, does guarantee you your heathendom, your heathenish life. If you live in a Western state, then your heathendom, your heathenish life is guaranteed. If you live in a Non-Western state, then your heathendom, your heathenish life is not guaranteed.

Is there still (or again?) any heathenish state in the world like it was in ancient times, for example in the polities of the ancient Greece, the ancient Rome, the ancient Carthage and so on.

Arminius lived from about 17 B.C. to about 21, and this man stands especially for (1) freedom and (2) heathendom, pagandom. Arminius saved freedom and heathendom (pagandom); if he had not done this, Europe would have developed in a different way. We don't know, whether it would have been better or not, we merely know, that it would have been different.

(1) Arminius fighted slavery. He and many German tribes fighted the civilised barbarism, the Greek-Roman civilisation, at that time represented by the Roman Empire.

Caesar and Arminius lived nearly at the same time - Caesar died 1½ decades before Arminius was born -, Caesar was the embodiment of getting powerful by money, and Arminius was the embodiment of getting powerful by virtues (e.g. of his tribe). Arminius defeated the ancient Romans because the virtues defeated the money. Rome at this time was merely a decadent civilisation and ruled merely by money. If Caesar had not defeated the Gauls, he would have lost all his power and probably committed suicide. Today the Dollar Empire has very similar problems as the ancient Roman Empire had at Ceasar’s time.

In the year 9 Arminius defeated the ancient Romans by annihilating three legions of Augustus’ army - Augustus was the first „Ceasar“ after Caesar (himself!) -, and Augustus despaired of that fact.

At that time the ancient Romans had reached their maximum of power, but had similar birthrates as we have today because they were just as decadent as we are today. They tried to replace the lack of children by slaves who were captured by war and brought into colonies. But at last the decadence had been stronger, so the Romans became less and less, the Germans became more and more in the Imperium Romanum, and at last the Germans conquered the Imperium Romanum also by military actions.

(2) Heathendom (pagandom) is what the civilised barbarians and the so called „barbarians“ have in common - so it was, so it is, and so it will be (except if all culture, history will end [**|**|**]).

A culture with civilisation produces very much more entropy than a culture without civilisation. In the meantime the whole globe and nearly all human beings are civilised. So the problems are so huge that we have to ask ourselves whether we really can continue this way of life; and if we don't really can continue this way of life, we should ask ourselves whether we are able to change this way of life and how we should do it; and if we are able to do it, it could be better to do it as heathens (pagans) again?

Should we become heathens (pagans) again? Or not? Or is it indifferent?

The consequences of the Thirty-Years-War have shown how people with different religious denominations come together again - after such a great war with so much harm (! [in spite or because of that? {that is an interesting question}]) - and be able to live peacefully together. My wife is a Lutheran (Protestant), I am a Catholic - no problem at all! We are of the opinion that also in the 1960's there were no problems between Catholics and Lutherans (Protestants ) in Germany.

I was born in the 1950’s in a 99%-Catholic village; during my time as a schoolboy and also later one of my best friends was a Lutheran (Protestant) - his family was the only Lutheran family (besides three other families which were refugees / displaced persons from East Prussia in East Germany) in our village, all other families were Catholic. There was no problem at all between all the Catholics and the Lutherans. And I did not make any other experience in other regions of Germany at that time. So relating to cantacts between Catholics and Lutherans I have been making no bad experiences in Germany since my first experience with such a contact.

And since I was about 15 years old I have been asking myself whether the Thirty-Years-War was the cause / reason of the fact that Catholics and Lutherans or Huguenots (they were refugees / displaced persons from France) and other denominations have had as well as no or even no problems with each other since the end of that Thirty-Years-War.

Is it acceptable if we say that polytheism is part of paganism? If so - and I say: yes, polytheism is part of paganism -, then we can also say that monotheism is less tolerant than polytheism. Thereby the probability for the following declaration rises: yes, the heathendom will bring freedom back to us (**|**). But this heathendom would have to be very powerful, because the montheistic religions do not want the heathendom to be powerful.

Ideology is a modern religion and more a neurosis than the non-modern religion, the normal religion. In parts Freud's “Psychoanalyse” is an ideology, a modern religion, and thus more a neurosis than the non-modern religion, the normal religion.

Non-modern religious behaviour can be compared with some aspects of a child behaviour. Modern religion behaviour can be compared with some aspects of an adult behaviour. It is not possible to eliminate religion because either it resists all attacks as a non-modern religion or it becomes a modern religion, an ideology. By hiding behind an ideology, it is easier for the modern religion to enforce its nihilism. Modern religions - ideologies - are always nihilistic.

Why did so many heathens became monotheists? What was the success of the missionaries?

1.) Chosen people in the case of the Judaism?
2.) Salvation (especially by Jesus) in the case of the Christendom / Christianity?
3.) Capture / conquest and power by war in the case of the Islam / Mussulmans / Mussulmen?

Will also many monotheists become heathens? And without missionaries?

1.) ?
2.) ?
3.) ?

Probably we can't overcome monotheism because it exists and - especially - because we know that it exists. So we can’t forget it or it will take a very long time to forget it. A very long time, although not als long as it takes to forget nihilism and especially the meaning of nihilism.

If the heathendom wants to be more successful, it has to become political in order to eliminate the monotheistic memory.

But probably it does not want to be more successful, and probably it is the right decision because of the monotheistic envy and revenge.

I think, heathendom will as long remain a small religious group of a minority as monotheism remains in the memory.

Science is already partly a religion.

Most of the current scientists are so corrupt, that the word “scientist” is not the right word for them and their profession. They are saying what the rulers want them to say - and that has nothing to do with science, but very much with religion, with being obedient to ideology as modern religion.

Yes, it is unbelievable how religious science has become. According to my theory and also because of that fact I often say that ideologies are modern religions. Therefore it is not surprising to me that this has happened and happens an will happen (until the time when science will be no science anymore, but to 100% the new religion, probably worldwide). Once every Westerner thougt religion was replaced by science, in the future every Westerner or even every human being will think the reverse.

Who is really thinking? God?

When you think that you think, what do you then think about the question “who is really thinking”?

“Psyche” is not defined. Psychology has no object at all.

One of the least understood concepts is that of the “psyche”. Formerly the word “psyche” was used mythological and religiously and actually relatively well understood, since modernism it has been going through the propaganda mills, and no one can really say what it could be or even is. Misunderstood words or concepts are especially well suited for the propaganda and the establishment of new religions. Funny, isn't it? No, that's not funny, that's fateful, isn't it?

“Psyche” is not defined. Psychology has no object at all.

There is no psychological object (for research and so on). So it is not true if someone says that “psychology is the scientific or objective study of the psyche” (**). It is not proven that „psychology is the scientific or objective study of the psyche” (**); and as long as this is not proven one can say that the definition of “psyche” is unproven and probably false.It is also not true that the word “psyche” is “one of the fundamental concepts for understanding human nature from a scientific point of view” (**), since there is no psychological “nature”, because there is no psychlogical object.

No other words or concepts are more misused for power, control, propaganda, agitation, oppression, elimination etc. than (1.) “psyche” (incl. “psychological”, “psychology”, “psychiatric”, “psychiatry” and so on), (2.) “social” (incl. “sociological”, “sociology” and so on), (3.) “eco” (incl. “ecological”, “ecology”, also “economic[al]”, “economy”, “economics”etc.) and (4.) “climate”.

Interestingly religion and science are much closer than most people believe. Sometimes they are so similar that one may think they were one and the same.

There is only one fundament of religion and science: the belief - belief in truth. B.t.w.: philosophy has this fundament too.

Belief as the belief (or faith) in truth is the fundament, and then it goes:


The result is a new beleif (or faith) in truth.

The Occidental culture is a Faustian culture, a culture of science and has a very long history. To me this Faustain culture is the most interesting and the most likable culture of all times. But nevertheless: also this Faustian culture has two sides: a good one and a bad one. After this culture had eked out its science it reached the top of its history - science seemed to be „free“ -, then it created a new theology (new divinity) because science was regarded as a kind of deity, but then, when the first serious enemies of science emerged, it had to change its new theology (new divinity) into new religion. Today the Westerners are still on this way of changing science from a new theology (new divinity) into a new religion, but they are already very close to the goal of this way: a new belief (or faith) in truth.

What does that mainly mean?

The Faustian culture has been defending its science more and more due to the fact that it has been getting more and more enemies. One of the consequences is that science has been becoming a part of the rulers, thus its former enemies.

An Occidental scientist of the Occidental culture's modern times can never be an atheist, or an areligious one, or an disbeliever - that has been being imposible since the Occidental science started its “way” from a new theology (new divinity) to a new religion and its goal: a new belief (or faith) in truth.

There is no doubt that science is a success story of the Occidental culture, perhaps the most successful story of all times, so I am proud and grateful. But this is also not a never-ending story, and perhaps it will end very badly.

The next time you visit the scientific “church” (“universiy”) or a a public discussion of the so-called scientific “experts” (priests and preachers), you may be reminded of the two sides of science.

Once science was an enemy of the rulers, today it is almost entirely under the control of the rulers.

Theres is no fundamental distinction between science and religion. Both - and also philosophy - begin and end with the belief: belief in truth.

You should not always believe what you have learned in school(s) or universities.

Long ago, before the historical religions, there were only primitive religions, and this primitive religions were based on evidence too. Most crucial is the belief, the belief in the truth. And primitive pople believe as well in truth as modern people. There is no difference. The fundament is the same. Different are merely the objects and the methods, but neither the objects nor the methods are the fundaments of science. When science has its objects and methods, then it has already left his starting point since a relative long time. The fundament of religion, theology (divinity), philosophy, and science is always belief in truth. Then they go different ways or meanders. At last they find together again, but as new forms.

Some specific sciences (branches of science) or scientific communities do not accept the possibility of being wrong, and do not give opportunities to truly test the accuracy of their claims.

Again: Religion and science are not the same, but they have the same fundament, and that's the reason why they are similar and often “behave” in the same way.

Humans are able to see, the most animals are able to see. Are humans and animals the same? No. Can they act in the same way? Yes. They are related, have the same origin, the same fundament.

Many Catholic and Protestant Christians defend the Islam in order to destroy their own religious community. So why I am saying that? The modern Occidental Christianity is the only religious community which destroys itself. Today Christianity is the most attacked religious community. So it is more attacked than Islam. Christianity is attacked by other religious systems and also by itself.

I don’t know any Western Christian who would say: “I am a proud Christian”. This Christian would not survive the agitation of the Western media.

Christianity is originally a so-called “monotheistic” religion, and as a such it demands defending other religions, especially other “monotheistic“ religions. Hinduism as a whole is no so-called “monotheistic” but a “polytheistic” religion. And in polytheistic religions the defense of other religions is not as big a problem as in “monotheistic” religions because polytheistic religions are able to integrate other religions. Thus: when Christianity defends other religions, then it attacks itself because it is actually a “monotheistic” religion; and because the modern Western Christianity has been destroying itself more and more since the beginning of its modern times it probably has been changing from a monotheistic to a polytheistic religion.

And if all religions do that what the modern Western Christianity has been doing since the beginning of its modern times, then there would merely be polytheistic religions. And polytheistic religions can also be called as one polytheistic religion, if there is no monotheistic religion anymore (maybe that will be the case in future).

Maybe for 99% of the humans in the future the religion will be a polytheistic one (similar to what the monotheists call heathendom), the society and its economy and policy either a “Brazilanised” one with an impending dominance of the machines, or similar to that of the hunters and collectors of the past.

The author “The Idiot”was a Russian, and Russia has never been a part of the Western culture. All Orthodox Christians have never been a part of the Western culture. The border (see above) between the Catholic and Protestant Christians, thus the Westerners, on the one side and the Orthodox Christians on the other side has been existing as border since the 4th century or earlier because the Roman Empire had been declining since the 2nd century.

Dostojewski believed in the Orthodox Christianity and didn’t want Russia to copy the Western culture, but Russia had been doing it since tsar Peter (“the Great”). Probably Dostojewski’s books were based on that two aspects.

„Tolstoi ist das vergangene, Dostojewski das kommende Rußland.“ - Oswald Spengler, Der Untergang des Abendlandes, 1917-1922, S. 792 **
“Tolstoi is the past, Dostojewski the coming Russia.”

„Tolstoi ist mit seinem ganzen Innern dem Westen verbunden. Er ist der große Wortführer des Petrinismus, auch wenn er ihn verneint. Es ist stets eine westliche Verneinung. .... Der echte Russe ist ein Jünger Dostojewskis, obwohl er ihn nicht liest, obwohl und weil er überhaupt nicht lesen kann. Er ist selbst ein Stück Dostojewski. .... Das Christentum Tolstois war ein Mißverständnis. Er sprach von Christus und meinte Marx. Dem Christentum Dostojewskis gehört das nächste Jahrtausend.“ - Oswald Spengler, Der Untergang des Abendlandes, 1917-1922, S. 792, 794 ** **
“Tolstoi with his whole inside is connected to the West. He is the great spokesman of Petrinism, although he denies it. It is always a Western denial. .... The real Russian is a disciple of Dostoevsky, though he does not read it, though, and because he can not read. He himself is a piece of Dostoevsky. .... The Christianity of Tolstoi was a misunderstanding. He spoke of Christ and meant Marx. The next millennium belongs to the Christianity of Dostoevsky.”

When will the “new religion” be complete? First of all they had to create a “new theology” because they had to create some gods, divinities, godhoods. But after that they had to create that “new religion”, and that has more practical aspects that we have been noticing for so long. Spirit is a taboo, although science is not possible at all without spirit. They are forcing more and more in their religious system. But obviously it is inevitable. The “new religion” is not finished yet. There is going to come something more to us.

The reasons why beliefs, thoughts, theories, metaphysical ontologies, philosophies of physics are different refers to the difference of cultures. Two examples of that much different that they are antipodes are the Apollonian culture and the Faustian culture. The humans of the Apollonian Culture always interpret physical bodies staticallly, the humans of the Faustian culture dynamically. So it is no wonder that in the Faustian culture a „Faust“ came to the idea to interpret the dynamics (and no longer the rest position, the statics) as the normal state of a physical body and to postulate forces as the cause of this dynamics.

Newtons physcal theory is one of these Faustian physical theories, although there had been many more Faustian physical theories before Newton, especially those of Johann(es; Georg) Faust himself, or of Galileo Galilei, or of Johannes Kepler, and also after Newton.

We really do not know for sure whether Nietzsche wasn’t against Jesus. Nietzsche in his “early times as a philosopher” was not against Jesus, Nietzsche in his “middle times as a philosopher” was not very much against Jesus, and Nietzsche in his “late times as philosopher” was against Jesus, although not always. It is really difficult to find the truth about Nietzsche's relationship with Jesus and Christianity because the whole Nietzsche has to be considered.

Nietzsche in his middle and late time of an adult philosopher admired the original Christianity mainly just because of its historical success. And who was the one who historically brought the Christianity to the success? It was Paulus.

I invite you to come to Europe because Europe has almost no real Christians anymore. So according to your statements Europe would have to be a paradisie. Funny, because the reverse is right. Again: Come to Europe! For example and very especially: Come to France which is almost islamic and voodoo-like, just “delicious”.

Science is no cure-all, no universal remedy. Currently science is on the best way to become a new religion. Do you believe that will be a “better” religion?

Anti-theism is just another theism. Anti-theism always refers to theism. Interestringly, the history shows us that a-theism has always behaved like anti-atheism, thus also like another theism. Theory and theism belong together. So if you want to attack theism, then you also attack science.

A muslim knows that theism and theory are related, that they are very similar to each other, probably he even says that they are „the same“ because his culture is one of the most religious cultures of all time.

There has never been a culture without any religion and theology. But when cultures decline religion and theology have to decline as well - this seems to be a declining “law”.

Don’t think that religion will be destroyed just because Christianity will be destroyed. That’s an dangerous, fatal error. And if you want to destroy Occidental values and traditions why don’t you start with science which is one of the most typical Occidental forms but not the Christianity which is also and even originally an Oriental form?

The base of religion and theology (also theism) is belief respectively faith. The German word for “belief” is „Glaube“ (and “to believe” = „glauben“), and this has its roots in the the term „FÜR WAHR HALTEN“ - HOLD FOR TRUE (ACCEPT AS TRUE) -, so that one can also say that philosophy, science, and something near have also their roots in what religion and theology have their roots; but science and philosophy are more elaborated and “higher” than religion and theology. For belief there are also two sides and ways: (1.) a practical side and way and (2.) a theoretical side and way. (1.) The practical belief leads to religion and perhaps, if becoming an elaborated form, to science; (2.) the theoretical belief leads to theology and perhaps, if becoming a higher form, to philosophy. All cultures have this sides and gone this two ways but differently. When Westerners are saying that there is “a huge difference between religion and science and between theology and philosophy”, then they are saying more about themselves and their culture because that difference is not as huge as they always assume.

Theism is merely the ideologised form of theology. Antitheism is just another theism. Theology is the theoretical side and way (=> 2.) of belief, the belief in God („qeos“, “theós” «» “God”). And if you don't want to belief in God, then you can call yourself „disbeliever“ but not „antitheist“ because an antitheist is just another theist, although or because of the attempt to become a disbeliever. Because of the fact that antitheism refers to theism and although both fighting against each other both a parts of Hegel's dialectic process and have to bow to it, thus became a synthesis, and in the case of theism there can merely be theism as the thesis, antitheism as the antithesis, and syntheism as the synthesis. And one can easily guess what syntheism is.

Any and every antitheist is (at last) another theist, and (unfortunately or fortunately) atheists prove permanently that they are also merely another theists. It is easily to prove.

At last antitheism can’t overcome the theism. There is no example in history. All examples show that if theology or theism is opposed by antitheology or antitheism the result is always a syntheism, consequently a new theism.

And that is really interesting!

“Atheists” have just another God. In other words: atheists who say that God does not exist and is impossible are antitheists, because their “arguments” are the same as those of the antitheists. Merely those atheist who say that there is no evidence for the existence of God are real atheists (so-called “agnostic atheists”). But those who allegedly “know” that God does not exist are antitheists, thus another theists, because they merely have another God(s). We may not forget that metaphysically God is a personalised moral instance and the creator of the universe. Who is the personalised moral instance and the creator of the universe for the atheists? And does he exist? Yes, he does! As a ghost of all ghostly ancestors. Should I name some of them? I think I don’'t have to, because you probably know them anyway. One can say that it is impossible to see, to recognise, to identify God, but one can not say that the existence of God is impossible. Those who say so are antitheists in the sense that they fight the theists with the (wanted or not wanted) result of another theists, namely: syntheists. For example: antimonotheists fight monotheists and get the polytheists as syntheists. There are many examples in history, especially in the Indian history. It is impossible to eliminate God out of the human brains. It is also impossible to eliminate the nothingness out of the human brains. It is a huge difference wether one says “God does not exist” or “I do not know that God does not exist”. A real atheist does not say the former but the latter; an unreal atheist, thus an antitheist always says the former and never the latter, although the former is untrue because it is impossible to know wether God exists.

The African bushman knew nothing about steam maschines and guns of the White man (the Caucasian) before both met for the first time. Then the White man showed him some of them, and the bushman thought they were Gods. The same event in America, and here the so-called “Indios” or “Indians” didn’t even know that horses existed, and they thought that one horseman and one horse together were one God.

Wether something is or not does not only depend on thinkling and imaging, because (for example) zero, the nothingnesss, or the infinity can be thought and imagined, but according to James S. Saint’s „RM:AO“ they do not exist, because they have no affect.

Again my examples:

The African bushman knew nothing about steam maschines and guns of the White man (the Caucasian) before both met for the first time. Then the White man showed him some of them, and the bushman thought they were Gods. The same event in America, and here the so-called “Indios” or “Indians” didn’t even know that horses existed, and they thought that one horseman and one horse together were one God.

I don’t know wether the bushman and the “Indio” (“Indian”) could imagine the things and White humans before they saw them for the first time. But nevertheless: Those things and the White man existed. Do you know what I mean?

Do you think and/or imagine nothing when you think of “zero”, or “nothing”, or the “nothingness”?

When I think of nothing or the nothingness I often think of the word “nothing” (“n-o-t-h-i-n-g”) or the word “nothingness” (“n-o-t-h-i-n-g-n-e-s-s”), because the words “nothing” and “nothingness” exist as well as (for example) the words “zero” and “infinity”. What do you think when you think of God?

Do you not believe that there is very much lie, hypocrisy, blatancy, bravado, showing-off, just exhibitionism when some people behave, speak, think about anything and everything that has to do with “qeos”, “theós”, thus with God, with theology, with antitheology, with theisms, with antitheism, etc., often even then if those people “believe” (!) that they are “atheists”, so that it is difficult to say who is more theistic - the theist or the antitheist or even the atheist?

It is not possible to “know” God, because if it were, the belief in him would make no sense anymore. Those who just want to oppose the theists say that they “know” that God does not exist, although it is impossible to know that, and when they say “know”, they mean “believe”, so that one can never know wether the atheists or the antitheists are the real deists, the real believers in God respectively substituted God.

The Ancient Greek morpheme “a” means “not” / “non”, “without”, whereas the Ancient Greek morpheme “anti” means “against” / “contra”. So the atheist is someone who ignores theists, theism, and their god(s), whereas the antitheist is someone who opposes (fights against) theists, theism, and their god(s).

But how or with which weapons do antitheists oppose, fight against theists, theism, and their god(s)? They do it with their own theism, the antitheism, their owm god(s), the antigod(s).

The most atheists are merely antitheists because they can’t ignore theists, theism, and their god(s).

I know that the Western modernity changed the meaning of the Ancient Greek prefix “a”, because of rhetorical reasons. But all this rhetorical reasons don’t matter for those who know what is meant by the original morphemes “a” and “anti” and what is meant by the rhetorical morphemes “a” and “anti”.

Another example:

Are antifeminists called “afeminists”? What do antifeminists do? They refer to the feminists and their ideology, the feminism, so they are just another feminists when they merely oppose the feminists. Demanding the same advantages for antifeminists (i.e. “masculinists”) that feminists demand for themselves is just another feminism with the same ways and means and the only distinction which we can call “opposition” or “fighting against”. Feminism, militarism, theism, ... and so on (there is just no end ...) - they are all part of Hegel's Dialektik, so they develop according to Hegel's dialectic process: thesis => antithesis => synthesis.

Religion and science are different, they are not the same, but hey have the same root: belief.

Every culture is inimitable, and the Faustian culture is a science culture. Most of science is Faustian science, thus Faustian culture.

Faustians have a never-satisfied thirst for knowledge. Therefore the typical Faustian cloisters, abbeys, and consequently the relatively free universities, the typical Faustian systems of education and science.

That all is unique. That all lacks- in Non-Faustian cultures.

If there were not a Faustian culture there would not be the typical Faustian cloisters, abbeys, and consequently the relatively free universities, the typical Faustian systems of education and science, the technical and consequently the economical and social progress with all its good and bad sides.

Humans’ pleasure and replication are already separated. So humans are now a species between animals (humans) and (humans,) machines or gods, not far away from (those) machines between humans and gods.

Will we get a syncretistic religion? ** **

Those people who say that they are “not religious” are often more religious than the other people.

Do you really know what “religion” is and/or means?

<= || =>

- Register -


  Occidental culture