Is Paganism our only hope against Islam?

[Vasconcelos]

Well, still don't see how Paganism and its so-called "magic" is our only hope against Islam.

[Magister Eckhart]

While I heartily agree with you on the importance of the hierophany in religion, why do you say that only ancient methodologies are effective? As one who has made a study and practice of psychonautics (or, in this discussion, we might say hieronautics) for the last twelve years, engaging in long term experimentation with a myriad of ancient and modern praxes, I can definitely say that many of the contemporary methods have surpassed those of the ancients in their efficacy. This is glaringly true when it comes to trance induction. Now that we know so much more about what actually goes on in the body/brain during trance (from hooking up Yogis to EEG machines), our methods of inducing it have really taken off. If we think of psychonautics as being similar to hacking, the old methods are more like brute force attacks, while many of the newer ones are like sophisticated viruses that fully take advantages of the brain's architecture. It's like the difference between breaking through a brick wall with a sledge hammer versus finding one loose brick that then loosens the rest.

Well you have to draw a line somewhere; the fact is that most contemporary esoterics simply cannot be trusted. Unlike the sciences, where a quack is often easy to spot, it is difficult unless one is an expert oneself to differentiate between the charlatans and the genuinely knowledgeable when it comes to the practise of mysticism, and if one cannot trust one "expert", how can one trust others?

The ancient ways we know are trustworthy, and it is better to make them a benchmark at the very least because it creates a foundation from which believers can work without the risk of being taken advantage of by charlatans and snake oil salesmen, and we have at least as many of those as the Christians do despite only coming back into practise in the last century. It's a dangerous pattern that needs to be checked somehow.

[Baron Samedi]

Och aye, and I proudly wear the devil's mark on my forehead.

You mean the Helm of Awe, right?

[Psychonaut]

I had a feeling you were going to demand a definition at some point.

It's only fair. When two opponents argue about the reality of X without bothering to define what X is, it's impossible for any progress to be made.

Therefore, I define it vaguely as well: An alternative to more conventional religious faiths-not simply worshipping, but actively directing forces not readily discernible by normal means. Creating outcomes through means not well explained by cause and effect or the laws of thermodynamics.

Holding you to this definition, how is this, "not a search for truth, but a desire for an alternative to the truth"? If we are trying to direct supernormal occurrences via means that are currently unexplained, how does that not imply a search for truth? After all, doing is better done if one knows what one is doing.

Either you recognize the source, or require more background before continuing the debate (not directed at anyone in particular).

The weakness (he would say strength) of AC's definition is that any willed (in line with his definition of will) act is magic. While this makes for a very interesting philosophy of action, it is so far removed from what even his students used the word to mean (intentionally or not), that I often wish the man had listened to his conscience and chosen a better word for what he meant be magick.

It's an obsession of mine to peel back the layers of existence and step forth into others.

Likewise.

However, when we speak of magic meaning this, others are prone to assume that we're talking about healing trees with our power crystals or some shit. We might more properly call this kind of first hand investigation into reality ontonautics (from ontos [being] and nautes [sailor/explorer]) which most of us approach by a two fold methodology:

• Psychonautics (psyche [mind]): the exploration of the mind from within
• Hieronautics (hieros [sacred]): the experiential exploration of the holy

[Psychonaut]

Well you have to draw a line somewhere; the fact is that most contemporary esoterics simply cannot be trusted. Unlike the sciences, where a quack is often easy to spot, it is difficult unless one is an expert oneself to differentiate between the charlatans and the genuinely knowledgeable when it comes to the practise of mysticism, and if one cannot trust one "expert", how can one trust others?

Ah, but the difference in our opinions may be the kinds of experts (or "experts") we're thinking about existing in modern times. I'm decidedly not, in this case talking about anyone whose books are to be found in the New Age sections of your local book store, but am specifically talking about men like John C. Lilly and Stephen LaBerge who have not only given us good empirical data about what happens in the brain during hierophantic experiences, but have also, with the aid of EEGs, given us more efficacious methods by which to induce these experiences. The ways of our ancestors have not ceased to work, but, if my goal is to get from point A to point B, why walk when I can drive? Why drive when I can take a jet? Most so-called magic is, as Peter Carroll said, sleight-of-mind; so, why not use better tricks now that we know (empirically) what they are?

[Grumpy Cat]

Well, still don't see how Paganism and its so-called "magic" is our only hope against Islam.

It's not. Pagans can't stop fighting with themselves long enough to fight against anyone else.

Just check out Heathen forums: people are constantly fighting over the most asinine shit, there's all out e-wars between organizations and forums, people make up rumours about eachother and everything. They act like gangsta rappers. Well actually gangsta rappers are a step above because at least when they talk crap they back it up by either shooting or beating up their rivals whereas Heathens just talk crap. I've gotten so many death threats but I'm still alive even after a good five years of receiving my last one. LOL

[Magister Eckhart]

It's not. Pagans can't stop fighting with themselves long enough to fight against anyone else.

Just check out Heathen forums: people are constantly fighting over the most asinine shit, there's all out e-wars between organizations and forums, people make up rumours about eachother and everything. They act like gangsta rappers. Well actually gangsta rappers are a step above because at least when they talk crap they back it up by either shooting or beating up their rivals whereas Heathens just talk crap. I've gotten so many death threats but I'm still alive even after a good five years of receiving my last one. LOL

I wish I could say he was wrong, but the fact is that most heathens are drawn to the religion because they want to play-act as Vikings, drink a lot of beer, and get totally badass tattoos, dude. They're little more than drunken bikers with a hammer around their neck instead of a motorbike under them-- in fact, a lot of them are bikers or skinheads. From my experience most "kindred" members are either half-educated community college graduates or drunken, brawling plebs. It's why I abandoned the entire notion of heathen kindreds.

That said, we've attracted a lot of soft-headed peasants to the faith, but I'm not sure that this necessarily makes the religion soft-headed. There are a number of us who do have an intelligent understanding of the religion and want to develop it theologically. I think that perhaps the question of this thread is whether Paganism has better potential than Christianity, rather than a better actuality than Christianity. I think that yes, we can better channel the force of Folkish Heathenry against foreign invaders than a culturally devoid Christianity. Too many Christians already see similarities between Mohammedanism and their own faith, and Christianity itself lacks the moral imperative to become a real militant force in contemporary times-- I don't think one can deny this.

[Grumpy Cat]

I wish I could say he was wrong, but the fact is that most heathens are drawn to the religion because they want to play-act as Vikings, drink a lot of beer, and get totally badass tattoos, dude. They're little more than drunken bikers with a hammer around their neck instead of a motorbike under them-- in fact, a lot of them are bikers or skinheads. From my experience most "kindred" members are either half-educated community college graduates or drunken, brawling plebs. It's why I abandoned the entire notion of heathen kindreds.

That said, we've attracted a lot of soft-headed peasants to the faith, but I'm not sure that this necessarily makes the religion soft-headed. There are a number of us who do have an intelligent understanding of the religion and want to develop it theologically. I think that perhaps the question of this thread is whether Paganism has better potential than Christianity, rather than a better actuality than Christianity. I think that yes, we can better channel the force of Folkish Heathenry against foreign invaders than a culturally devoid Christianity. Too many Christians already see similarities between Mohammedanism and their own faith, and Christianity itself lacks the moral imperative to become a real militant force in contemporary times-- I don't think one can deny this.

You're right, but I'm sorry, I see no chance of "folkish Heathenry" ever being anything besides a fringe movement. They fight to much and are too addicted to drama. A new person joins and they treat them like shit. They claim it's a "test" but in reality it turns people off.

Intelligent, well-educated people are a minority in Heathenry and the ones who get into it eventually end up being burned by the chest thumpers anyways.

These people need courses in social interaction. Many of them are socially inept unemployed rejects who aren't that intelligent who are lashing out at the society that turned them down, and joining a fringe religion to make themselves feel special.

This coming from someone who has been a Heathen for 10 years. Being around made me realize most of these people are not brave when they don't have a computer monitor in front of them, so I don't have much faith. TBH I have more faith in the Roman Catholic Church, and I am not a Catholic, but you just have to open a history book to know that they have defended French-Canadian culture from the Anglo hordes for centuries and they will continue to do so for other hordes. What have Heathens done?

[Cato]

Well, still don't see how Paganism and its so-called "magic" is our only hope against Islam.

Embracing old superstitions or inventing new superstitions won't defeat the barbarians.

[Radola]

Well, still don't see how Paganism and its so-called "magic" is our only hope against Islam.

Vasconcelos wrote exactly the same sentence I wanted to write here...Can anyone tell me, how the hell can any religion help us with the Islamic problem?? It´s not possible, no religion is able to save us. We must do it ourselves.
btw. this is definitely one of the most ridiculous threads I have seen on The Apricity