[SPLIT from Are Spaniards and Portuguese people white?] Christianity and Paganism

[Aemma]

That's more like what modern 'heathens' do.

Uhmm no we don't, Anthropos. :) Why such an off-topic shot in this thread btw? :(

[Anthropos]

Uhmm no we don't, Anthropos. :) Why such an off-topic shot in this thread btw? :(

It was Tonsor who accused the real heathens, before the North was Christian, of 'howling at the moon and painting their faces', so my comment was quite on topic. The argument from Tonsor, and from many others as well, consisted in pointing out the ignorance of people who exclude Southerners from their definitions of Europe. In that he was quite right. It was just this comment about heathens of his that was unfounded.

Why such oversensitivity? Is there a witchhunt on people who insist on keeping with a sober understanding? Are we not preservationist enough, since we don't accept modern falsifications of our true history?

[Aemma]

Why such oversensitivity? Is there a witchhunt on people who insist on keeping with a sober understanding? Are we not preservationist enough, since we don't accept modern falsifications of our true history?

Geez Anthropos, you know me better than that. There is no witch hunt. And I am not questioning your or anybody else's "preservationism". Please don't make an issue out of something that needn't be turned into one.

You explained the context of that comment and now I know. I thank you for having responded.

Now let's carry on, amicably please. :)

[Poltergeist]

It was Tonsor who accused the real heathens, before the North was Christian, of 'howling at the moon and painting their faces', so my comment was quite on topic.

A common misconception which arises from the idea of "progress" most people these days almost take for granted.

But that's quite innocent.

What I especially scoff at is the view of European paganism by minions of the European Nouvelle Droite, an extremely naive, one-dimensional, superficial and ahistorical one. So is their view of Christianity and "monotheism": utterly simplified. Their preference for paganism over "monotheism" is based on this distorted vision and is more indebted to traditional culturally Christian notions that they are willing to admit. It turns out in the end analysis that they know nothing about either paganism or Christianity.

[Aemma]

What I especially scoff at is the view of European paganism by minions of the European Nouvelle Droite, an extremely naive, one-dimensional, superficial and ahistorical one.

Well for starters perhaps you can explain why it is so in your opinion Saltimbanque. I for one would be interested to know your thoughts on this. :)



So is their view of Christianity and "monotheism": utterly simplified. Their preference for paganism over "monotheism" is based on this distorted view and is more indebted to traditional culturally Christian notions that they are willing to admit.

Ok, and what is "monotheism" to you, if you please? :)


It turns out in the end analysis that they know nothing about either paganism or Christianity.

And there I think you make a grossly unfair and sweeping assumption that only a devotee of Christianity could possibly know anything about either. :) Do you not realise that some of us have come from academic backgrounds as well that have given us just as much sound knowledge about Christianity, monotheism, polytheism, and indigenous religions (what you so glibly refer to as "paganism")? Or do you think that we're all just a bunch of uneducated people who haven't approached their own spiritual journeys with any measure of consideration as to what life means to them and their context in the world?

I would wager that if some of you actually talked to some heathens, you would find that some of our more metaphysical concepts may not be entirely off target with your own in the grand scheme of things. But no. Unfortunately what I see are the words "heathen", "pagan" and "neo-pagan" bandied about with no consideration as to what each word actually means and how different they really are in meaning. But what is even worse is their usage in such a cavalier and tacitly derogatory manner. It's a shame really.

The thing that I think would be most refreshing one day would be for people with a real interest in discussing different spiritual approaches to actually discuss (!) things as opposed to one side or the other being victim to nonsensical empty comments from the other side--how novel of an idea! Such IS possible in a world of cultured and well-educated people who foster a sense of mutual respect towards the other and his or her learned opinion, you know. But perhaps, in the end, I am asking too much of certain people here. :(

It's a pity, really. Imagine the very fine discussions we could have if people only met each other halfway. :(

[Poltergeist]

And there I think you make a grossly unfair and sweeping assumption that only a devotee of Christianity could possibly know anything about either.

LOLISSIME! Where did I say that? What a heavy insinuation! All I did was to dismiss the superficial views of Christianity and paganism held by some intellectualoids of the Nouvelle Droite ("new right"). And I know what I am talking about because for some time I was quite interested in the metapolitical and philosophical ideas of that movement and I read quite a few of their books and articles.

[Aemma]

LOLISSIME! Where did I say that? What a heavy insinuation! All I did was to dismiss the superficial views of Christianity and paganism held by some intellectualoids of the Nouvelle Droite ("new right"). And I know what I am talking about because for some time I was quite interested in the metapolitical and philosophical ideas of that movement and I read quite a few of their books and articles.

Ok, but this is how I read your post hence my response. My sincere apologies to you then, Saltimbanque. :)

In the interest of furthering this discussion then, perhaps you can elaborate as to what you think makes the Nouvelle Droite's take on Christianity and paganism so superficial? I personally quite enjoy Alain de Benoist's writings by the way but I am never above reading and trying to understand the criticisms of thinkers either.

So again in the spirit of positive intellectual exchange, I would be very interested to know your opinion with respect to the Nouvelle Droite's ideas Christianity and paganism and generally on the place of religion in modern society. :)

[Anthropos]

I certainly have every right to disapprove of the way that mordern 'heathens' (with quotation marks) parasite on the real heathens before the North was Christian. People have a right to believe whatever they want to believe, but to come along with silly folkish-romantic and creativistic notions and practices of 'heathenry', and to claim, like Psychonaut does, that 'heathens' are the only real preservationists, or that they are more inclined to be preservationists, is downright offensive. It's a falsification of a history that Christians and 'heathens' share! Is that so hard to see?

[Allenson]

We're just exercising our free will. There's nothing wrong with that, right? ;)

[Anthropos]

We're just exercising our free will. There's nothing wrong with that, right? ;)

If you are inclined to falsify history in the name of preservation, then there is something wrong with it. You usually don't, as far as I know, but there are others who do.

[Psychonaut]

and to claim, like Psychonaut does, that 'heathens' are the only real preservationists, or that they are more inclined to be preservationists, is downright offensive.

Let's do some basic proportional logic here. Out of all the international Heathen organizations, only one is what we call Universalist (meaning that they believe Heathenry to be the appropriate religion for anyone [irrespective of ancestry] who wishes to practice it). The remaining organizations are all Folkish, and are principally composed of folks who hold preservationist views. In the US, this comes out to about 3/4 (there being three main Folkish organizations of comparable size in the US) of all self-professed Heathens being tied into preservationism.

Can you honestly say that the figure comes close to approaching that with Christians?

I've never said that only Heathens are "real" preservationists. I'll proudly stand by them against existential threats any day. That doesn't change the fact that a religion for which ancestry and ancestor veneration is paramount is more conducive to ethnic preservation than one at whose core lies universalism.

[Anthropos]

Let's do some basic proportional logic here. Out of all the international Heathen organizations, only one is what we call Universalist (meaning that they believe Heathenry to be the appropriate religion for anyone [irrespective of ancestry] who wishes to practice it). The remaining organizations are all Folkish, and are principally composed of folks who hold preservationist views. In the US, this comes out to about 3/4 (there being three main Folkish organizations of comparable size in the US) of all self-professed Heathens being tied into preservationism.What relevance does this have for the discussion?


I've never said that only Heathens are "real" preservationists. I'll proudly stand by them against existential threats any day. That doesn't change the fact that a religion for which ancestry and ancestor veneration is paramount is more conducive to ethnic preservation than one at whose core lies universalism.

You know what I am talking about, and so do others on this forum, I am quite sure. I'm not going to look up the post right now, but you recently said that 'heathens are more likely to be preservationists'. Are you denying this?

As for this about 'universalism', you are saying something very peculiar. You are saying that a religion that has only a very limited view of reality, and a claim to nothing but an instance of relative and biased truth, is more preservationist. No argument needs to be made against that, because it's a position that defeats itself.

[Anthropos]

By the way, I use 'heathen' (with quotation marks) in an attempt to meet 'heathens', who have objected to being called neopagans, half way. Neopagan is not a derogative, in my opinion, but if 'heathens' insist that it is, I'll let them have it their way, I guess.

In Swedish the word heathen can only have one meaning, and that is 'a non-Christian'. Historically it refers to those who were not yet baptised, and with reference to now living individuals it means the same or 'someone who rejects/slanders (the teachings of) Christianity'.

The proper name of neopaganism in Swedish is a word that translates literally as neoheathenry, because it is not at all the same thing as pre-Christian heathenry. A tiny few are in denial of this, as a result of their adherence to a marginal subculture and a longing for some kind of holism. They know of no other way to get what they want than to falsify language along with history, unfortunately.

Neoheathenry is not a word of proper English though, as far as I am aware, and thus neopagan is the correct term that should be used. Not only is it more correct in usage, but it also corresponds to a pattern in form and meaning with other terms such as 'neospirituality', 'neofolk' (a style of music) etc.

[Psychonaut]

What relevance does this have for the discussion?

It was a direct response to your claim that it was "offensive" to imply that Heathens are more likely to be preservationists.


You know what I am talking about, and so do others on this forum, I am quite sure. I'm not going to look up the post right now, but you recently said that 'heathens are more likely to be preservationists'. Are you denying this?

Not at all. Heathens are more likely to be preservationists.


As for this about 'universalism', you are saying something very peculiar. You are saying that a religion that has only a very limited view of reality, and a claim to nothing but an instance of relative and biased truth, is more preservationist. No argument needs to be made against that, because it's a position that defeats itself.

I'm just stating that there is a difference in perspective. Many Heathens have a pluralistic epistemology (quite similar to those espoused by William James (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_james), John Dewey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey), and late period Wittgenstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittgenstein)) that stems from our Folkism. Monotheists and Monists usually disagree with this, but it's not at all uncommon amongst us. You may think it a self defeating position if you've never studied it, but I'd suggest reading up on the arguments posited by the aforementioned philosophers prior to making any kind of judgment. But hey, that's just my 2¢. :shrug:


By the way, I use 'heathen' (with quotation marks) in an attempt to meet 'heathens', who have objected to being called neopagans, half way. Neopagan is not a derogative, in my opinion, but if 'heathens' insist that it is, I'll let them have it their way, I guess.

Thanks...I guess. It's only common courtesy to refer to religious adherents by the name they desire.

[Anthropos]

It was a direct response to your claim that it was "offensive" to imply that Heathens are more likely to be preservationists.Yes, I know. And I have replied to that. Preservationist does obviously have a very specialised meaning for you. My notion of it is more openended.




Not at all. Heathens are more likely to be preservationists.
That's not true. Many, nay most even, at least in Europe, are hippies and new age folks.



I'm just stating that there is a difference in perspective.

That's exactly what I said.

I have read works by William James and Wittgenstein. Dewey I haven't read. And I will not have the time to read everything during my lifetime.

[Psychonaut]

Yes, I know. And I have replied to that. Preservationist does obviously have a very specialised meaning for you. My notion of it is more openended.

I should've been more specific with my working; I'm referring specifically to ethnic preservation—something that is not explicitly found in Christianity outside of certain racialist branches in the US. I'll agree that there was a de facto function of ethnic preservation that Christianity provided in the past, but the assimilation of millions of non-Europeans into the Christian fold has all but negated this.

[Anthropos]

I should've been more specific with my working; I'm referring specifically to ethnic preservation—something that is not explicitly found in Christianity outside of certain racialist branches in the US. I'll agree that there was a de facto function of ethnic preservation that Christianity provided in the past, but the assimilation of millions of non-Europeans into the Christian fold has all but negated this.

There just is no way whatever that our points of view are going to agree on anything much. You've got to realise that. I didn't - and I NEVER did, not even when I regarded myself as a pagan of sorts - adopt a religion, faith, outlook or anything like that, as some kind of support for my individual preferences. I was always on the quest for truth, and I still am. For someone to say that contemporary 'heathenry' is more preservationist or more ethnopreservationist makes no sense whatever from this point of view.

Nothing prevents Christians from being ethnonationalists, by the way. The Gospel does not preach race-mixing or anything like that. The reasons why I am not ethnonationalist or nationalist have nothing to do with religion.

[Psychonaut]

There just is no way whatever that our points of view are going to agree on anything much.

Possibly. :)


I didn't - and I NEVER did, not even when I regarded myself as a pagan of sorts - adopt a religion, faith, outlook or anything like that, as some kind of support for my individual preferences.

Our disagreement is, again, one of terms. Abrahamic religions tend to put things in terms of doxa, whereas polytheists do so in terms of praxis.


I was always on the quest for truth, and I still am.

You'll get no quarrel from me here. I am first and foremost true to my pseudonym—a psychonaut. Per ardua ad astra!


Nothing prevents Christians from being ethnonationalists, by the way.

Agreed. As is evidenced by the large numbers of Christians within ethnic preservationist circles, Christians certainly do engage in this. My point was only that, percentage wise, Heathens are much more likely to be so than are Christians.

[Anthropos]

Our disagreement is, again, one of terms. Abrahamic religions tend to put things in terms of doxa, whereas polytheists do so in terms of praxis.

I disagree with this. I am sure that our differences are differences not of any such superficialities but of personality and being.

[Poltergeist]

Our disagreement is, again, one of terms. Abrahamic religions tend to put things in terms of doxa, whereas polytheists do so in terms of praxis.

No way. Maybe only some "Christianity" according to the (former?) Pope Lutiferre I, now "agnostic".

[Loddfafner]

I don't see anything wrong with painting one's face and howling at the moon. It has been too long since I did anything like that.

[Anthropos]

I don't see anything wrong with painting one's face and howling at the moon. It has been too long since I did anything like that.

I didn't say it would be. I said that it comes closer to characterising modern 'heathens' or neopagans than the pre-Christian heathens. I don't approve of such falsifications of history. It is not just about a few singular mistakes. It is a whole subculture at this point.

[Jamt]

I don't approve of such falsifications of history. It is not just about a few singular mistakes. It is a whole subculture at this point.

You will only ware yourself out if you tear in to all things that you don’t approve of. :)

[Anthropos]

You will only ware yourself out if you tear in to all things that you don’t approve of. :)

It is a very marginal phenomenon and nothing much to worry about. At the same time, I don't like it. It's wrong by common sense and good manners, in my opinion, to make some kind of subculture out of unfounded revisionisms. It's parasitic, and causes new obstacles to cultural preservation, especially for people who may be drawn in to accept these revisions, as if it was 'our history' (as a result, for example, of some stereotypical perception of all serious historical accounts along with the traditional one as 'politically correct'). I have every right to say what I think about it.

[Jamt]

It is a very marginal phenomenon and nothing much to worry about. At the same time, I don't like it. It's wrong by common sense and good manners, in my opinion, to make some kind of subculture out of unfounded revisionisms. It's parasitic, and causes new obstacles to cultural preservation, especially for people who may be drawn in to accept these revisions, as if it was 'our history' (as a result, for example, of some stereotypical perception of all serious historical accounts along with the traditional one as 'politically correct'). I have every right to say what I think about it.

I believe it draws people to cultural preservation and traditionalism and that it’s a good thing, even the spirituality of it is good in many cases. Several of the Heathens on Apricity know a hell lot more about pre-Christian religion than most including me. No need to rip their heads off and scream hippy at them. Not all the time anyway.

And besides, a narrative and well grounded hypothesis is necessary to be able to say anything about spirituality or Scandinavian and European pre-history, otherwise we have nothing but archeological and scientific data and not much more. If you find anything specific that Psy or Lyf or someone else gets wrong in your opinion, take it up.

[Anthropos]

I believe it draws people to cultural preservation and traditionalism and that it’s a good thing, even the spirituality of it is good in many cases. Several of the Heathens on Apricity know a hell lot more about pre-Christian religion than most including me. No need to rip their heads off and scream hippy at them. Not all the time anyway.

And besides, a narrative and well grounded hypothesis is necessary to be able to say anything about spirituality or Scandinavian and European pre-history, otherwise we have nothing but archeological and scientific data and not much more. If you find anything specific that Psy or Lyf or someone else gets wrong in your opinion, take it up.

Falsifications:

The claims to a 'heathen tradition' is parasitic. Modern 'heathenry', despite superficial similarities, is not connected to pre-Christian heathenry.
The claim that European culture is heathen at the core with a Christian veneer is parasitic. Heathenry never preserved anything that could warrant this claim. The claims to that effect by modern 'heathens' or neopagans are fictional and have no basis. European culture is Christian. (This is still so despite secularisation: it cannot bring back heathenry.) Christianity did preserve its own sources and proofs that this is so. Remnants of pre-Christian culture in the outer applications do not change this quite simple fact, which is objective in nature. It does not depend on the religious point of view, but it can, on the contrary, easily be confirmed by atheists and agnostics as well as by those neopagans who don't stake such false claims.

[Fred]

Jamt, Anthropos and Saltimbanque all have been able to assess this subject without taking it personally. In that, so have I. I experienced a time in my life, when I chose the "what if?" route with respect to revisionist mockeries of non-Christian "religions" with some tie to Europe. At first, the material I had available was all ahistorically ignorant of true and documented traditions as they did exist. Far too many engaged people spend their time trying to reclaim something, by spin-doctoring and making counter-claims. One of the most amusing actualities of our time, is those who call Christianity a dead religion, but then go ahead and fancifully resurrect something our own ancestors progressed past, in their search for truth. While I speak of progression, it is only true progression insofar as man lost his way and then found it again. I believe truth, rather than simple ritual, is more important.

[Solomon_Grundy]

???

:confused:

[Ibericus]

Whi did you revive a 2-yeard old thread ?