Podcast #3: Brett McKay from Art of Manliness

[Mark Rippetoe]

Starting Strength

On YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ME_7e-Gcyqw

SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/startingstren...rength-podcast

And eventually on iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/...el/id687932160

[caseyd123]

Really cool to see SS and AOM working together on these videos. Both have had a significant impact on me since I was a freshman in college (8 or so years). Something as simple as an article by Brett telling us why we should comb/part our damn hair instead of spike it, or to always carry a handkerchief, or to wear something with a collar- or Mark telling us to get away from the machines and dumbbells and do hard shit... These things came to me at a crucial time. Not to say I am perfect, but I really respect a lot of my own character traits- traits that both AOM and SS have instilled.

[Matt Reynolds]

Very cool. I love this overarching theme that physical strength doesn't just make the other physical attributes better, but that it actually changes people for the better; emotionally, mentally, socially, and spiritually. I hate that the word "wholistic" has turned into "holistic" and represents some hippie nut-job's idea of health. We really do have the keys to a system that makes people stronger in all walks of life, across the board. It just starts with the acquirement of physical strength, but then spreads far beyond the physical.

[Aryah]

It seems like the definition of manliness is the ability to be responsible and capable with the lives of others. This is the great irony of the modern attack on manliness. Manliness is actually a burden and something not to be taken lightly.

I was recently in a bad part of town here in South Africa through circumstances beyond my control. Bad part of town here means REALLY BAD. I was with my wife and my mother in law. They both automatically looked to me to resolve the situation when the denizens of that location wanted to make trouble. It was through strength and the ability to remain calm that we got out of the situation. It really sucked though, but that's what it is to be manly in my opinion.

Also Ripp you mentioned that you see Norse Mythology and Roman and Greek Mythology in the same circle. I was surprised by that and I emphatically agree (assuming I understood your meaning correctly). Would you say Christianity is on the same circle as well? By this I mean the natural progression of the Hebrew religion without influences from Judaism, Catholicism, etc.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Christianity is not on the same circle, at all. Norse, Greek, Roman, and Hindu mythologies are all the descendants of the original Indo-European constructs, and are the geographic expressions of it after several thousand years of evolution in their respective locations and under the influence of the local beliefs they replaced.

[Aryah]

Christianity is not on the same circle, at all. Norse, Greek, Roman, and Hindu mythologies are all the descendants of the original Indo-European constructs, and are the geographic expressions of it after several thousand years of evolution in their respective locations and under the influence of the local beliefs they replaced.

Well, the nation of Judea claimed common ancestry with the Spartans. This is documented by the Maccabees. Judging by their alliances in the same documentation, I would go as far as to say that they shared ancestry with the Romans as well. Although they were so insufferable after having mixed with the Idumeans under Hyrcanus circa 150BC -- who subverted their culture under the Idumean Herods -- that the Romans sought to end them by 70AD. This is well documented by Flavius Josephus.

I'm not referring to Khazar or Arabian types who only entered the area circa 700AD. It is a common misconception that the original Israelites were actually of a different kind of people to the Romans, Persians, Greeks, Scythians, etc.

When reading accounts of Zeus it is amazing how similar the descriptions are to Christianity's own, with messengers doing his bidding and such. Paul of Tarsus reprimanded the Roman Christians for changing the original Hebrew religion into Roman paganism. Even the druidical Culdees so far away accepted Christianity on the basis of its similarity to their own beliefs. It makes sense when one considers that the migrations of these peoples came from the same place originally.

Anyway, I'm simply positing that the Hebrews (sons of Eber) formed a part of those same Indo-European constructs you mentioned. Unfortunately the History has become obscured with political agendas in modern times.

[Mark Rippetoe]

The Hebrews were Indo-Europeans? How did their monotheism evolve from the grand polytheism of the ancestral people?

[wal]

I was recently in a bad part of town here in South Africa through circumstances beyond my control. Bad part of town here means REALLY BAD. I was with my wife and my mother in law.

MIL's in my experience can take care of themselves.

So what is the difference between the Hebrew religion and Judaism?

Catholicism is the ancient Roman Empire with a Christianized veneer over it. As various Caesars found that killing off the Christians only increased their number they changed strategies. Constantine therefore "Christianized" the pagan roman gods and made Roman Catholicism the state religion. This worked quite well until they started removing the Waldensian's, Huguenots etc. So today it is still the Holy Roman Empire, a state with a head of state and recognizes no other authority.

The aim was and still is to reunite all Christian denominations and other world religions under one authority. Therefore there is no comparison of any religion with RC, RC is the sum total of all religions on the basis of the Mother and Child worship of which is the root of Babylonianism.

No title

The Mother-Son Sun Worship System | Paganism and Catholicism | Legend of Nimrod

If you want to see how it all ends read Revelation.

[Aryah]

The Hebrews were Indo-Europeans? How did their monotheism evolve from the grand polytheism of the ancestral people?

Exactly, but one has to revise the current conception. I'll elaborate a bit in my answer to wal's question below. Trying to keep this as concise as possible.

How did their monotheism evolve? The Hebrews constantly struggled with their religion moving from monotheism to polytheism. Even the concept of the "Holy Trinity" is polytheism in a way. These days Christian parents are teaching their kids about Santa and the Easter Bunny. It's not much different.

So what is the difference between the Hebrew religion and Judaism?

Great question. The Hebrew religion is well documented with the various codices (Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Bezae, Vaticanus, Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls). It can be well established what they believed when aggregating these resources. The documentation of their beliefs stopped around the time John Hyrcanus conquered the nation of Idumea circa 150BC. As I mentioned previously, Flavius Josephus documents the subversion of Judean society by these Idumeans and subsequent rule of Judea by the Idumean, Herod (there were many Herods actually). It was at this point that Judea stopped being "Hebrew" really.

Even then, Judea was just two tribes of 12 of the Israelite tribes (Judah, Benjamin and some of Levi). Even the Judeans saw the rest of the tribes as heathens. After all, they had been at war a few times after the death of Solomon when they originally split. These "lost tribes" migrated all over Europe and those two remained were captured and deported by the Babylonians. This is why apostles in the New Testament write to the "lost tribes", and this is why they received specific instructions to go to specific places. Paul of Tarsus being a learned man was ostensibly aware of the migrations.

This is why Christianity resonated so well with the people of Europe; it was such a good fit. It was only later that rabbinical writings started to happen which form the basis of the Jewish religion. The Talmud itself only started around 200AD, which is 140 years after the destruction of Jerusalem and after Christianity had spread across Europe. My point is that Judaism is not the same thing as the original Hebrew religion, although it does have commonalities.

Catholicism is the ancient Roman Empire with a Christianized veneer over it. As various Caesars found that killing off the Christians only increased their number they changed strategies. Constantine therefore "Christianized" the pagan roman gods and made Roman Catholicism the state religion. This worked quite well until they started removing the Waldensian's, Huguenots etc. So today it is still the Holy Roman Empire, a state with a head of state and recognizes no other authority.

The aim was and still is to reunite all Christian denominations and other world religions under one authority. Therefore there is no comparison of any religion with RC, RC is the sum total of all religions on the basis of the Mother and Child worship of which is the root of Babylonianism.

Absolutely. There are horrific stories of them killing Christians and Pagans alike all across Europe. Very sad.

[mgobass]

Rip, the initial grand polytheism that worshiped different gods associated with various natural objects and phenomena started developing quickly into hierarchies with on god that manages others, and king of gods and things of that nature. Hinduism had philosophers during that time that defended a view of a single god and that multiple gods were just manifestations of it. Zoroastrism (an old Persian religion still around) had a dualist view of the world that is a more balanced dichotomy that the Hebraic God vs. Devil dichotomy. I like this theory the best, but is just a pet theory supported more by my bellyfeel than by evidence. I just think that any theologian or philosopher with a modicum of spirituality that is exposed to monotheism finds that the solution most in tune with our perception of reality (and this is coming from a Hindu).

An alternative hypothesis is that several city-states used to have a god-protector and the Old Testament God was the god of the Hebrews. So the early Hebrews weren't monotheistic in the sense that "there is one god and all the other people are superstitious crazies", but more in the sense that "our God is more powerful than other peoples' gods so he must be the supreme God". This view is supported by several parts of the Old Testament. I never saw that explicitly written out by any scholar, but I think that's the current zeitgeist belief.

Btw, I don't know what are the origins of the peoples of the world, so I'm not arguing that Hebrews were Indo-Europeans, per se. I would assume so because Sumerians (pre-Iraqi peoples who are arguably the center of origin of Indo-Europeans) have a flood story in the Gilgamesh very similar to the one witnessed by Noah. However, I never cared to much about this, so I don't know enough about it. I just wanted to point out a reasonable hypothesis for the development of monotheism from grand polytheist peoples.