Is Paganism our only hope against Islam?

[Wulfhere]

Christianity has shown itself to consist of nothing more than a bunch of spineless, craven appeasers, happy to bend over backwards to abandon their principles and adopt Muslim ones. It's no accident that more and more people are turning to Paganism.

[Grumpy Cat]

Lol paganism has it's share if spineless cowards, and big burly guys who reside at the low end of the Bell curve.

[Vasconcelos]

I think so, Christianity failed to defend us from Islam, so we need to try something else.



I'm joking, religion is a personal thing and one belives what one belives, it's our culture and heritage we must uphold to keep those towelheads' influence away.

[Wulfhere]

Lol paganism has it's share if spineless cowards, and big burly guys who reside at the low end of the Bell curve.

Most Pagans I've met are highly articulate and intelligent.

[Cato]

Not pagan religion per se, which is merely a collection of stories, rites, and rituals, but the pagan mindset that the old tales speak of: bravery, civic duty, devotion to the family, hard work, honesty, loyalty to one's friends, perhaps a certain craftiness ala Odysseus, aggressive warlikeness (i.e. not shirking away from violence), etc.

Christianity has only failed because these lionlike qualities are now lionized in the name of universal brotherhood and divine forgiveness of sins.

[Wyn]

Christianity has shown itself to consist of nothing more than a bunch of spineless, craven appeasers, happy to bend over backwards to abandon their principles and adopt Muslim ones.

Christianity is a religion, how individuals identifying as 'Christian' act is another matter entirely (the most paganish pagan in the world couldn't be more critical of modern Christian leadership than me). How Christians behave exists in a state of flux. If you lived in 16th century Iberia and you weren't an ethnically native Christian then Christianity would probably seem to you to consist of "nothing more" than aggressive bullies and racists. The same goes really for various times and places in Europe's history.


It's no accident that more and more people are turning to Paganism.

Every religion makes this claim/similar claims.

[Loki]

It's no accident that more and more people are turning to Paganism.

Are they? Is there any evidence of this?

[Wulfhere]

Christianity is a religion, how individuals identifying as 'Christian' act is another matter entirely (the most paganish pagan in the world couldn't be more critical of modern Christian leadership than me). How Christians behave exists in a state of flux. If you lived in 16th century Iberia and you weren't an ethnically native Christian then Christianity would probably seem to you to consist of "nothing more" than aggressive bullies and racists. The same goes really for various times and places in Europe's history.



Every religion makes this claim/similar claims.

Christians might have done different things in the past. It's how they act now that's important.

[Wulfhere]

Are they? Is there any evidence of this?

Read Triumph of the Moon by Prof. Ronald Hutton of Bristol University, who made a detailed study of it.

[Loki]

Read Triumph of the Moon by Prof. Ronald Hutton of Bristol University, who made a detailed study of it.

Can you give us a synopsis?

[Cato]

The pagan mindset is what is needed, not paganism itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Being_a_Pagan

Keep in mind that this book isn't a perfect expression of a purely paganized, post-Christian worldview.

[Wulfhere]

Can you give us a synopsis?

He charts the rise of the modern Pagan movement from its small beginnings in a north London suburb in the late 1940s to today. Or rather ten years ago, when it was published. Using various statistical means he estimates the number of Pagans in the UK as 100,000 and it has certainly got a lot bigger in the last ten years, though I only have anecdotal evidence for that.

[Wyn]

Christians might have done different things in the past. It's how they act now that's important.

The point I was making is that how Christians act can and does change, and so your claim that Christianity has "shown itself" to do this or that holds no water in light of a little historical research. Anyway, I won't post in this thread further because (as is usually the case) one post in and the point I've made has whizzed over your head. Honestly, it's like trying to teach a dog to use a Nintendo.

[Wulfhere]

The point I was making is that how Christians act can and does change, and so your claim that Christianity has "shown itself" to do this or that holds no water in light of a little historical research. Anyway, I won't post in this thread further because (as is usually the case) one post in and the point I've made has whizzed over your head. Honestly, it's like trying to teach a dog to use a Nintendo.

It's rather the other way round. You have completely failed to understand my point.

[Adalwolf]

Christianity has shown itself to consist of nothing more than a bunch of spineless, craven appeasers, happy to bend over backwards to abandon their principles and adopt Muslim ones. It's no accident that more and more people are turning to Paganism.

Maybe you should research history a little bit before you make such utter BS claims. The crusades defended Europe from the Islamic threat multiple times; as well as protecting the sovereignty of some respectable nations from the Turks. Hungary and Austria are great examples.

[Wulfhere]

Maybe you should research history a little bit before you make such utter BS claims. The crusades defended Europe from the Islamic threat multiple times; as well as protecting the sovereignty of some respectable nations from the Turks. Hungary and Austria are great examples.

So what went wrong, then? Why have they become a bunch of cowardly traitors?

[Adalwolf]

So what went wrong, then? Why have they become a bunch of cowardly traitors?

Liberalism within the church is what went wrong.

[Wulfhere]

Liberalism within the church is what went wrong.

Exactly. Christianity is no longer of any use.

[Cato]

The point I was making is that how Christians act can and does change, and so your claim that Christianity has "shown itself" to do this or that holds no water in light of a little historical research. Anyway, I won't post in this thread further because (as is usually the case) one post in and the point I've made has whizzed over your head. Honestly, it's like trying to teach a dog to use a Nintendo.

The knee-jerk reaction that many people have with Christianity is, in many cases, based upon the faulty premise that the dastardly Christians:

1) Follow an alien religion;

2) Came and "stole" pagan heritage;

3) Preach unmanly, unhealthy, and uncivic doctrines, such as a morbid fascination with sin and suffering, etc. as well as the idea that faith trumps things like, say, common sense and reason. Then there's the turn the other cheek teaching, or any other number of tidbits that defy common sense; the good things that Christianity teaches, tolerance of others, or faith in marriage, can be found in other belief systems, and often in a nobler fashion that have little to do with the divine (i.e. Stoicism, Confucianism, and so forth).

The only one I really regard as true is #3.

[Adalwolf]

Exactly. Christianity is no longer of any use.

Traditional Christianity just needs to be revived. Plenty of the pagans are multiculturally inclined in this day and age too.

[blan]

Christianity has shown itself to consist of nothing more than a bunch of spineless, craven appeasers, happy to bend over backwards to abandon their principles and adopt Muslim ones. It's no accident that more and more people are turning to Paganism.

NO!!! christianity has never been shown to be as such the spineless Euro Christians in places like england and the place you live maybe but there are still Christians in places like Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, the Philipines, and many other places who stand up and fight with all they for there right to maintian there culture and Religion!

these people are not cowards! the fact that they are such small minorities in such hostile muslim majority areas shows they are willing to fight.

[Smaland]

Christianity has shown itself to consist of nothing more than a bunch of spineless, craven appeasers, happy to bend over backwards to abandon their principles and adopt Muslim ones. It's no accident that more and more people are turning to Paganism.

Please don't confuse Western political leaders with Christians. They are the ones who are selling us down the river, not the average Christian. Of the Christians I've known, I've never heard any of them speak or act in this way.

Muhammed was not God's prophet, he was the prophet of Satan. "Allah" is the mask that Satan wears as he accepts the false worship of Muslims everywhere. I am an enemy of Islam yesterday, today, and forever. :)

[Wulfhere]

Traditional Christianity just needs to be revived. Plenty of the pagans are multiculturally inclined in this day and age too.

Not that many. You're thinking of New Agers.

[Cato]

Modern paganism is, by and large, a divided house. Paganism won't be able to resist the barbarians simply because it has no real cohesion. Paganism might be able to fulfill someone's spiritual needs, but it has no sociopolitical power with which to fight the barbarians. A house divided against itself cannot stand, as has been said.

There are many sorry specimens of Christianity, but also many fine specimens of the religion who bemoan the backsliding of their faith into a faith for spineless and self-abasing wretches.

[Wulfhere]

Please don't confuse Western political leaders with Christians. They are the ones who are selling us down the river, not the average Christian. Of the Christians I've known, I've never heard any of them speak or act in this way.

Muhammed was not God's prophet, he was the prophet of Satan. "Allah" is the mask that Satan wears as he accepts the false worship of Muslims everywhere. I am an enemy of Islam yesterday, today, and forever. :)

The Archbishop of Canterbury wants us to adopt Sharia Law.

[Adalwolf]

The fact is that the conservative Christians have and most likely will always be our best enclave for defending Europe. Pagans are the minority by far.

[blan]

The Archbishop of Canterbury wants us to adopt Sharia Law.

again like i said England is not the Christians of the eastern Orthodox, coptics of Egypt, or the Devout Catholic filipinos who are in danger from muslim attacks and fight back often.
i know many strong Christians from all over the americas, north america caribbean south and centeral america, do not clump all christians together with the corruption within the high rankers of the churches in your home land.
problem is many europeans in places like england are not even serious about there religion and atheism is taking over. and the new breed of devout christians are being hijacked by the evangelical nutcases.

[Wulfhere]

The fact is that the conservative Christians have and most likely will always be our best enclave for defending Europe. Pagans are the minority by far.

My experience tells me otherwise.

[Wulfhere]

again like i said England is not the Christians of the eastern Orthodox, coptics of Egypt, or the Devout Catholic filipinos who are in danger from muslim attacks and fight back often.
i know many strong Christians from all over the americas, north america caribbean south and centeral america, do not clump all christians together with the corruption within the high rankers of the churches in your home land.
problem is many europeans in places like england are not even serious about there religion and atheism is taking over. and the new breed of devout christians are being hijacked by the evangelical nutcases.

Maybe if Islam became the majority, Christians in Europe would start acting like that. I hope we never have to find out.

[Monolith]

Hungary and Austria are great examples.
Not really. They only defended their interests.

[Cato]

The Archbishop of Canterbury wants us to adopt Sharia Law.

If this is so, he's just one of the appeasers who're making things even worse for Christians. Constant appeasement will only embolded the barbarians, who willl only make more and more outrageous demands.

I'm no Christian, yet I distinctly remember Jesus speaking of such religious leaders (he was talking to the Jewish religious leaders) as being whitewashed tombs, full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness.

Christian leaders like this want to accept Muslim barbarians as brothers who worship the same God.

More enlightened pagan beliefs, like Stoicism, would regard them as ignorant fools to be either avoided or converted to a more tolerant and right-thinking view of the world; violence would be the last resort, but it shouldn't be avoided. More robust forms of paganism, say Asatru, would simply go out and fight the Muslims if they proved to be too big of a menace.

[Adalwolf]

Not really. They only defended their interests.

Well, I am sure most Hungarians would prefer adopting the religion at the time than losing their land to the Turks.

[Smaland]

The Archbishop of Canterbury wants us to adopt Sharia Law.

This may be so, but he is only one man. But even if it is true that many Christian leaders now think like him, there are still many in the rank and file who would stand against Islam.

[Savant]

For nearly all of history Christianity hasn't "shirked away from violence" either. Much of it does not now... This is a rather primitive take on things- that the prevailing mythos somehow has something to do with the current problems, because we are appeasing the wrong gods? Maybe we haven't sacrificed enough virgins to the volcano too??

The fact is Paganism and Christianity share an equally violent history, it's just that they have been emasculated by modern multiculturalism. In fact the PC orthodoxy has replaced the church as the primary distributor of ignorance in the modern world. Complete with heresy charges, inquisitions and the whole lot... This regime is just as stupid, ignorant, and regressive as the church. It impedes more developed understanding of the world, and impedes scientific progress in much the same way as the Church did. It imprisons people who commit modern day heresy (point out passages in the Koran which say it's okay to fck children and beat your wife, openly study racial differences etc). This modern day orthodoxy is holding back the progress of western civilization in much the same way that the Christian orthodoxy did.

Christianity or Paganism wont make a difference if it's some watered down, modernized, PC orthodoxy version of either.


Not pagan religion per se, which is merely a collection of stories, rites, and rituals, but the pagan mindset that the old tales speak of: bravery, civic duty, devotion to the family, hard work, honesty, loyalty to one's friends, perhaps a certain craftiness ala Odysseus, aggressive warlikeness (i.e. not shirking away from violence), etc.

Christianity has only failed because these lionlike qualities are now lionized in the name of universal brotherhood and divine forgiveness of sins.

[Groenewolf]

Not that many. You're thinking of New Agers.

Actually most of those who use the term pagan to describe themselves, at least in my country, also support some form of multicultural agenda. And are even open borderline Marxists, who want to stamp out Heathens such as myself.


Modern paganism is, by and large, a divided house. Paganism won't be able to resist the barbarians simply because it has no real cohesion. Paganism might be able to fulfill someone's spiritual needs, but it has no sociopolitical power with which to fight the barbarians. A house divided against itself cannot stand, as has been said.

Indeed, as it stands now it are mostly a lot of small groups, with some larger groups of still moderate size. With also a more anarchistic nature to a certain degrees.

[blan]

Maybe if Islam became the majority, Christians in Europe would start acting like that. I hope we never have to find out.

i hope it does not come to that for you guys either but maybe that is what england needs to get its people serious about there culture and there Religion.

[Wulfhere]

Actually most of those who use the term pagan to describe themselves, at least in my country, also support some form of multicultural agenda. And are even open borderline Marxists, who want to stamp out Heathens such as myself.


That's quite distressing to hear. It's not like that here.

[Cato]

In terms of existential views of the self, noble forms of paganism have a higher view of the self than Christianity does.

Paganism is bottom-up, viewing the divine and man from the perspective of man himself. Man is the active creator of his own myths and religious values herein, even if he accepts an ultimate source of divine authority.

Christianity is top-down, viewing the divine and man from the perspective of the Deity itself. Man is merely the passive recipient of sacred writ, and largely has no will nor purpose save what God gives to him.

This isn't a complete truism, but one of my main problems with Christianity is that it doesn't really fulfill the needs of anyone with a healthy ego. The psychological damage that can be done from a constant fear of punishment and damnation, for example, or the constant petitioning of God to perform magic tricks on one's behalf.. Well, my view of God is summed up in a statement from Poor Richard's Almanac: God helps those who help themselves.

Amen, brother Ben Franklin.

[Osweo]

It depends greatly on what country you're talking about.


This may be so, but he is only one man. But even if it is true that many Christian leaders now think like him, there are still many in the rank and file who would stand against Islam.

The ARchbishop IS fairly representative of English Christianity, of ALL major denominations. They've dwindled to a tiny core of old women and weirdos. I went to a carol service myself a fortnight or so ago, and the vicar was a right inoffensive narrow-shouldered hippy type. He made us sing pathetic crap modern carols that nobody knows and are all about the gayest parts of Christianity. One part was especially cringeworthy; he actually got out a CD player and made us listen to some shit happy-clappy sugar-coated bullshit song. A right rubbish tinny little sound it made in the old stone Norman church. I was disgusted. This vicar covers about twelve or so parishes, to give you an idea of how the Church of England has had to 'cut back' given collapsing attendance and contributions.

In England's case, it's too late for Christianity to save us. There's NO way that this religion would get its act together in time, OR overcome its fractious divisions. And ultimately, the very creed is ineffectual against a more aggressive totalitarian ideology like Islam.

[Loki]

Not that many. You're thinking of New Agers.

I think New Agery is much more popular and faster-growing than paganism. But then again, it is sometimes hard to draw the line between the two. The trend these days seems to be a loosely-defined self-exploratory spirituality that the individual customizes to his own preference. The days of strict religious dogma is over, I think. Don't put too much faith in a dogmatised sort of paganism/heathenry. It ain't gonna happen in England.

[Grumpy Cat]

Most Pagans I've met are highly articulate and intelligent.

Yeah I guess your mileage may very. I've met intelligent ones but my share of dumbasses too.

[Wyn]

I know I said I wasn't going to post in this thread again, but...



The ARchbishop IS fairly representative of English Christianity, of ALL major denominations. They've dwindled to a tiny core of old women and weirdos.

This definitely doesn't describe the church I attend.


The trend these days seems to be a loosely-defined self-exploratory spirituality that the individual customizes to his own preference. The days of strict religious dogma is over, I think. Don't put too much faith in a dogmatised sort of paganism/heathenry. It ain't gonna happen in England.

A lot of people are seem to think quite highly of Buddhism (most of them probably haven't read much into it, but it has a good reputation among the masses). If the Zen monks started a proselyting program they'd probably clean up. ;)

[Groenewolf]

Yeah I guess your mileage may very. I've met intelligent ones but my share of dumbasses too.

Most of the other ones I meet in real life are of the former, I meet most of the later only on line. Then again most dumb asses, unless they are really stupid, who come across me in real life tend to avoid me.

[Monolith]

Well, I am sure most Hungarians would prefer adopting the religion at the time than losing their land to the Turks.
Many Hungarians converted to Islam over time but many fled Central Hungary when it fell to the Ottomans, though they weren't the only nation of AH monarchy that had to fight them. But my reply wasn't about the common folk.

[Adalwolf]

I know some Wiccans in real life who are some of the leftist folk I have ever met. And would you guys have really wanted to live similar to the old Pagan times? Considering that they regularly sacrificed people and animals to the ''Gods''. :rolleyes:

[Loki]

I know some Wiccans in real life who are some of the leftist folk I have ever met. And would you guys have really wanted to live similar to the old Pagan times? Considering that they regularly sacrificed people and animals to the ''Gods''. :rolleyes:

What's wrong with being leftist?

[Adalwolf]

Is that a serious question? Most of the decadence of western civilization can be blamed on liberal ideas? Loki, do you like the fact that Muslims are growing at a rate 10X the native English? Well, in a ultra-conservative society there would be no mass immigration like this. Not to mention how the family hierarchys seem to be degraded beyond repair because of feminism - another leftist ideal.

[Loki]

Is that a serious question? Most of the decadence of western civilization can be blamed on liberal ideas? Loki, do you like the fact that Muslims are growing at a rate 10X the native English? Well, in a ultra-conservative society there would be no mass immigration like this. Not to mention how the family hierarchys seem to be degraded beyond repair because of feminism - another leftist ideal.

Yes, it's a serious question. What does left-wing have to do with Muslims in England? Do you realise that Hitler was left-wing?

[Adalwolf]

I just explained what it has to do with left-wing... Liberals support immigration more than conservatives, pretty simple isn't it?

And saying Hitler was leftish is ridiculous. Do a little research to note the differences between socialism and National socialism.

[Albion]

Both European Paganism and Christianity are treated the same by our government in the UK, just last week I saw some Lib-Dem backbencher on TV defending Islam whilst putting down Christianity and saying Christianity causes most of the problems! :mad:
Christianity has however been widely adopted by non-Europeans whereas some European Paganism movements are open to non-Europeans but generally don't attract many non-European members anyway.

Paganism in my view though could give us decent ethics and ways to live by and would make our race more alert to threats from other races and continents, but that is just my personal opinion.

[Loki]

Liberals support immigration more than conservatives, pretty simple isn't it?


Are you sure about that? It was under Tory rule that most of the third-world immigrants came to England.



And saying Hitler was leftish is ridiculous. Do a little research to note the differences between socialism and National socialism.

It's not ridiculous, it's the truth. Left and right is not just about race, don't be so narrow-focused. National-socialism is a leftist ideology.

[Wulfhere]

I know some Wiccans in real life who are some of the leftist folk I have ever met. And would you guys have really wanted to live similar to the old Pagan times? Considering that they regularly sacrificed people and animals to the ''Gods''. :rolleyes:

Paganism evolves, it's not the same as it was thousands of years ago. That's its strength. It has no dogma or holy book.

[Baron Samedi]

Most pagans are fucking dolts. And this is coming from one.

If more could be intelligent on a level of say.... Psychonaut (or me :D) then maybe there would be a chance.

But till then, absolutely not. Silver Ravenwolf will not defend Albion from the Eastern Horde.

/thread :D

[Wulfhere]

Most pagans are fucking dolts. And this is coming from one.

If more could be intelligent on a level of say.... Psychonaut (or me :D) then maybe there would be a chance.

But till then, absolutely not. Silver Ravenwolf will not defend Albion from the Eastern Horde.

/thread :D

Silver Ravenwolf is not representative of Pagans.

[Psychonaut]

Are they? Is there any evidence of this?

The growth rate is quite high. According to page 14 of the American Religious Identification Survey (http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_studies/aris.pdf), the breakdown looks like this for groups under the Neopagan umbrella:

1990 Numbers
New Age 20,000
Wiccan 8,000
Druidry 0
Pagan 0
Total: 28,000

2001 Numbers
New Age 68,000
Wiccan 134,000
Druidry 33,000
Pagan 140,000
Total: 375,000

That's going from practically no Americans self-identifying as Neopagan in 1990 to around 1.3% doing so in 2001. Not a major force yet, but we're certainly a larger group in the US than are Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and are just about as numerous as the Jews. Still no where near the 3/4 Christian majority, but time will tell which way the pendulum swings. :cool:

[Grumpy Cat]

Most of the other ones I meet in real life are of the former, I meet most of the later only on line. Then again most dumb asses, unless they are really stupid, who come across me in real life tend to avoid me.

Yeah, it's online where you meet some of the stupid ones.

[Baron Samedi]

Silver Ravenwolf is not representative of Pagans.

Hopefully you aren't either.

[Magister Eckhart]

Christianity has shown itself to consist of nothing more than a bunch of spineless, craven appeasers, happy to bend over backwards to abandon their principles and adopt Muslim ones. It's no accident that more and more people are turning to Paganism.

I don't know that this is entirely and universally true, but certainly Christianity on the whole no longer retains its ability to assert a moral authority sufficient to answer the rising tide of Mohammedanism.

[Murphy]

The Archbishop of Canterbury wants us to adopt Sharia Law.

Pope Benedict stood where Saint Thomas More was condemned in London and said "I am Peter". No doubt, you have no grasp of what this signifies, do you? If you did, you would hardly be able to speak some of the utter shite you have spewed in this thread about the state of Christianity.

And I will leave with these words: in two thousand years the institution of the Catholic Church has not fallen. An institution. Not a mere philosophy but a visible thing claiming divine authority. Who are you compared to that? Just remember you are not a mighty lion on the hunt. You are a scavenger circling above. You are a hound waiting to grovel for the leftovers from your master's table. You are weak. You yourself are not facing down your enemy. You are too impotent and flaccid to do so. So you watch from the sidelines and boast the kill as your own.

And remember one more thing.. five times the Faith has "died". Five times She has risen again.

You cannot win. We have conquered death its self. Something you fear. Something we find glory in.

And you call us weak?

[Wulfhere]

Pope Benedict stood where Saint Thomas More was condemned in London and said "I am Peter". No doubt, you have no grasp of what this signifies, do you? If you did, you would hardly be able to speak some of the utter shite you have spewed in this thread about the state of Christianity.

And I will leave with these words: in two thousand years the institution of the Catholic Church has not fallen. An institution. Not a mere philosophy but a visible thing claiming divine authority. Who are you compared to that? Just remember you are not a mighty lion on the hunt. You are a scavenger circling above. You are a hound waiting to grovel for the leftovers from your master's table. You are weak. You yourself are not facing down your enemy. You are too impotent and flaccid to do so. So you watch from the sidelines and boast the kill as your own.

And remember one more thing.. five times the Faith has "died". Five times She has risen again.

You cannot win. We have conquered death its self. Something you fear. Something we find glory in.

And you call us weak?

I really don't care what the pope meant when he said "I am Peter", though I can guess.

Christianity hasn't conquered death, though it has spread the lie that it has. If you want a bunch of paedophiles telling you what to think, go to the Catholic Church.

[Wyn]

If you want a bunch of paedophiles telling you what to think, go to the Catholic Church.

Or the Daughters of Frya priestess training college.

You should pay a great detail of attention to this portion of his post:


Just remember you are not a mighty lion on the hunt. You are a scavenger circling above. You are a hound waiting to grovel for the leftovers from your master's table. You are weak. You yourself are not facing down your enemy. You are too impotent and flaccid to do so. So you watch from the sidelines and boast the kill as your own.

As it describes you to a T. You'd shit a brick and keep quiet if some Muhammad Abdul from Leicester asked you what you thought of his religion and his god.

Then again, you have trolled (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18947) Muslim boards from behind the safety of your computer screen, so you do technically encounter and challenge Muslims, I suppose

[Wulfhere]

Or the Daughters of Frya priestess training college.

You should pay a great detail of attention to this portion of his post:



As it describes you to a T. You'd shit a brick and keep quiet if some Muhammad Abdul from Leicester asked you what you thought of his religion and his god.

Then again, you have trolled (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18947) Muslim boards from behind the safety of your computer screen, so you do technically encounter and challenge Muslims, I suppose

How can you possibly know what I'd say if some Abdul said that to me? In fact, I have always given robust responses to just such questions from them.

[Magister Eckhart]

Silver Ravenwolf is not representative of Pagans.

Unfortunately you may be quite wrong. The image "paganism" has is definitely more Silver Ravenwolf than it is Steve McNallen or even Guido von List for that matter. Our ancestors have been co-opted by the Wiccans for their neo-hippie lovefests in Salem, and we do need to deal with the Wiccan and neo-Pagan threat as much as any other.

I rather like Evola's approach, which I derive from a combination of his essays "Imperialistic Paganism" and "Against the Neo-Pagans", both often used individually and quite contrary to their original purpose. Ultimately, neo-Paganism will never be anything but a degeneration and an enemy of the West, an aid for invading hordes. Christianity, though, does not have the vigour to embolden the broad masses of Europeans to self-defence, which requires a new birth of Paganism that is virulent and organised in all the ways Christianity once was.

In short, I don't think Paganism is "the only hope" against Mohammedanism, since secular atheism seems to work too, but it's certainly the most desirable, if we could generate a Paganism that can recognise all the strengths of Christianity and arm itself with them. Adopting Christian methodology does not mean internalising Christian ethics or Christianity itself, and when the Folkish Heathens and their southern European counterparts recognise this, we'll be halfway to the Pagan rebirth that everyone is falsely convinced has already occurred.

[Wulfhere]

Unfortunately you may be quite wrong. The image "paganism" has is definitely more Silver Ravenwolf than it is Steve McNallen or even Guido von List for that matter. Our ancestors have been co-opted by the Wiccans for their neo-hippie lovefests in Salem, and we do need to deal with the Wiccan and neo-Pagan threat as much as any other.

I rather like Evola's approach, which I derive from a combination of his essays "Imperialistic Paganism" and "Against the Neo-Pagans", both often used individually and quite contrary to their original purpose. Ultimately, neo-Paganism will never be anything but a degeneration and an enemy of the West, an aid for invading hordes. Christianity, though, does not have the vigour to embolden the broad masses of Europeans to self-defence, which requires a new birth of Paganism that is virulent and organised in all the ways Christianity once was.

In short, I don't think Paganism is "the only hope" against Mohammedanism, since secular atheism seems to work too, but it's certainly the most desirable, if we could generate a Paganism that can recognise all the strengths of Christianity and arm itself with them. Adopting Christian methodology does not mean internalising Christian ethics or Christianity itself, and when the Folkish Heathens and their southern European counterparts recognise this, we'll be halfway to the Pagan rebirth that everyone is falsely convinced has already occurred.

It's quite likely, based on all I've heard, that Paganism in America is far more New Agey than it is in England.

[Magister Eckhart]

It's quite likely, based on all I've heard, that Paganism in America is far more New Agey than it is in England.

I don't know about that. The Odinic Rite has its fair share of kooky neo-pagan types, and those gatherings at Stonehenge certainly smack an awful lot of Wiccan/Thelemic hedonism rather than genuine religion.

[Wyn]

How can you possibly know what I'd say if some Abdul said that to me?

Your overall disingenuous character betrays any sense of dignity you might wish to convey.


In fact, I have always given robust responses to just such questions from them.

I don't believe you.

[Wulfhere]

I don't know about that. The Odinic Rite has its fair share of kooky neo-pagan types, and those gatherings at Stonehenge certainly smack an awful lot of Wiccan/Thelemic hedonism rather than genuine religion.

You get all sorts, but in my experience most Pagans tend to be the very antithesis of New Agers. Take a look at this, for example.

http://frya.angelfire.com/

[Magister Eckhart]

Your overall disingenuous character betrays any sense of dignity you might wish to convey.

I'm not sure this bickering between you two is really helping the discussion along at all. Surely we can put aside emotions by taking a break from the thread for a little while and then rejoining with more thoughtful offerings? It usually works for me if I just give myself 20 minutes and a cup of tea.

[Wulfhere]

Your overall disingenuous character betrays any sense of dignity you might wish to convey.



I don't believe you.

Then you are accusing me of lying, and I have nothing further to say to you.

[Magister Eckhart]

You get all sorts, but in my experience most Pagans tend to be the very antithesis of New Agers. Take a look at this, for example.

http://frya.angelfire.com/

Well that's promising, but also seems somewhat isolated. Mohammedanism isn't just a threat to England, it's all over the West. Though, it would be nice if we could get seminaries and that sort of thing going to produce a class of goðar, I have to admit...

Have you seen my proposal for a Heathen Canon by the way? If you like this Priestess of Frya thing, I feel like we might have a lot to talk about.

[Wulfhere]

Well that's promising, but also seems somewhat isolated. Mohammedanism isn't just a threat to England, it's all over the West. Though, it would be nice if we could get seminaries and that sort of thing going to produce a class of goðar, I have to admit...

Have you seen my proposal for a Heathen Canon by the way? If you like this Priestess of Frya thing, I feel like we might have a lot to talk about.

I haven't seen it - an official collection of sacred texts?

Mohammedanism is a threat to everyone, but I've always felt that we all have to start somewhere.

[Magister Eckhart]

I haven't seen it - an official collection of sacred texts?

Mohammedanism is a threat to everyone, but I've always felt that we all have to start somewhere.

Here's my article on compiling a Heathen Canon. It's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but as you say, you have to start somewhere. I was met with some pretty vehement criticism and resistance to the very idea of a canon in the thread in which I first posted it, perhaps it will receive better reception among observers of this discussion. I should add that the article is consistent with a form of theology that has been dubbed "Truistic Theology", which preaches a faith-based heathenry with emphasis on self-reflection and genuine belief in both the literal and metaphorical truths found in Heathen scriptures.

I think approaches which start to use more Christian tools, like canonics and organisation of clergy and standardisation of ritual (which we've begun with the Book of Blótar, but have not really pursued in earnest as a community), could really turn Heathenry into a force to be reckoned with. As it stands, though, I really consider us a semi-religion that has a decent foundation but hasn't made any effort to construct a house atop it.




The Words of Gods
An Attempt at Compiling a Heathen Canon


The Role of Scripture in Ásatrú
It is no mistake that Martin Luther saw sola fide and sola scriptura as fundamentally linked—for him, all of the solas flowed ultimately from sola scriptura. His theology, he declared, was derived “from the Bible and Augustine”.[1] (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/private.php?do=newpm&u=797#_ftn1) Luther had a distinct benefit we do not have: he had almost 1,400 years of Christian theology to work with. Our religion, young as it was at the time of its interruption, has hibernated and remained young, not blessed by the Gods with minds with an appetite for theological inquiry. It is only now, almost one hundred fifty years since the first use of the word “Ásatrú” and just over half a century after the Germanic Revival began in earnest that consideration is even being given to a Heathen theology. This has been the subject of much complaint from leaders of the Ásatrú movement, not the least of which is Stephen McNallen of the Ásatrú Folk Assembly. Goði McNallen wrote in the radical traditionalist journal TYR that “the Christian interregnum must be addressed using the intellectual tools that have been developed in the intervening time—and this means examining our beliefs and expressing them in intellectually compelling ways.”[2] (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/private.php?do=newpm&u=797#_ftn2)

This work has not been about adopting Luther’s solas, but rather looking to them as guides for what demands attention in our religion—faith must certainly come first of all other things, though it need not be an absolute or an only. Scripture, likewise, is the supreme source of knowledge about our ancestors and our ancestors’ ways, and therefore becomes the first informer of our theology. In this way, what we shall fashion “Truistic” (from trú, “faith”) theology speaks in theology of solas in regard to faith and scripture, but a theology of primas—prima fide, prima scriptura. The solas of Trustic thought revolve around those eternal things—sola deis, sola gente, sola vertitate—the Gods, the Folk, the Truth.[3] (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/private.php?do=newpm&u=797#_ftn3) Just as faith must be supreme and come first, but ritual is nevertheless necessary, so too scripture must be supreme and come first, but not without theology to comment, expand, and interpret, for this is the nature of a strong religion.

The problem of elevating Faith is an easy one: it need only be declared and followed. The task of Scripture is somewhat more involved. There is no catalogue of Heathen Scripture—there are rough collections and different opinions as to what belongs in the catalogue and what does not. Most do not have the courage to make declarations of canon, preferring an approach of jedem das seine. This will not stand; a religion that lacks canon and dogma is in chaos—the Truistic approach is loath to allow our spiritual Ásgarðr to be inhabited by such destructive Þursar—to preach a faith of “do what thou wilt” or “to each his own” is to accomplish no more, to contribute no more, and to be no better than the Thelema or Wicca—chief architects of religious pretence to excuse excess and licentiousness. We are not hedonists; we are Heathens—sons of the proud, disciplined people of the North.

The Canon
In this spirit, the Truistic approach is assertive, dogmatic, and canonical. In order to know what scripture to study from, it is absolutely necessary to establish some canon of texts, some list or catalogue. There are two basic categories into which all scripture falls: the oral tradition of the Folk, and the written tradition of the Folk. The oral tradition has been recorded in the form of poetry—skaldic and Eddic. The written tradition of the Folk is found in the historical and epic texts, universally called “sagas”. Belonging also to the written tradition, but not historical, are the works of Snorri Sturlusson; these deserve special treatment and shall be so discussed later. First, however, a canon of core texts should be ventured, then a discussion of possible addenda and deuterocanonical books, a category into which Sturlusson’s works fall. The books listed shall be listed with their original Norse names, and the divisions of scripture are also given Norse names; this is meant to be a beginning, an initiation. The efforts of translators to bring the works into the several tongues of our Folk, or to choose the best existing translation, should follow but will not occur here, owing both to the defined scale of this work and to the limits on the abilities of the author.

The List of Scripture accepted as cannon, listing first the source, then the divisions, then the books themselves, shall be:

I. The Poetic, or Elder Edda, containing
1. The Four Books of Óðinn (Hávabóka), which detail the Óðinnic Quest for wisdom and knowledge and assert Óðinn as the Highest God.
i. Völspulá
ii. Hávamál
iii. Vafþrúðnismál
iv. Grímnismál
2. The Nine Books of the Gods (Ásabóka), which detail all the dealings the Gods have with one another, with humans, and with the Giants, displaying the character of the Gods.
i. Skírnismál
ii. Hárbarðsljód
iii. Hymiskvída
iv. Lokasenna
v. Þrymskvída
vi. Alvísmál
vii. Baldrs draumar
viii. Rígsþula
ix. Hyndluljóð
3. The Three Books of Magic (Galdrabóka), detailing the actions of great magicians and sorcerers such as the demi-god Volund the necromancer Svipdag, and the seeresses Fenja and Menja.
i. Svipdagsmál
ii. Vólundarkvída
iii. Gróttasöngr
4. The Twenty Books of the Niflungs (Niflungabóka), including the Helgi Cycle, the Sigurð Cycle, the Guðrún Cycle which detail the deeds and life of the great hero Sigurð, his family, his companions, his encounters, his battles, his wisdom, and his fate.
i. Helgakvída Hundingsbani I
ii. Helgakvída Hundingsbani II
iii. Helgakvida Hiorvardssonar
iv. Grípispá
v. Reginsmál
vi. Fáfnismál
vii. Sigrdrífumál
viii. Brot af Sigurðarkviðu
ix. Sigurðarkvída hin skamma
x. Sigurðarkvída
xi. Helreið Brynhildar
xii. Guðrúnarkvída I
xiii. Guðrúnarkvída II
xiv. Guðrúnarkvída III
xv. Guðrúnarhvót
xvi. Oddrúnargrátr
xvii. Átlakvída
xviii. Atlamál
xix. Hámdismál
xx. Dráp Niflunga

II. The Völsungasaga, the Saga of the Volsungs the prose counterpart to the Niflungabóka, should be considered unique amongst the so-called “legendary sagas” because of its role of augmentation to the Books of the Niflungs. It therefore would therefore come immediately after the Niflungabóka in the canon, and serve as an augmentation thereto. A new classification as the Völsungabók, or Book of the Volsungs, may be appropriate to emphasise its direct relation to the Niflungabóka.

III. The Ancient Sagas (Fornaldarsogur)including:
1. The Sagas of Ketil Hæng of Hrafnista (Hrafnistumannasögur), containing the tales of the family of Ketil Hæng the Elder. These include
i. Ketils saga hœngs (Ketil Trout’s Saga, of the man himself)
ii. Gríms saga loðinkinna (Grim Shaggy-cheek’s Saga, of the son of Ketil)
iii. Örvar-Odds saga (Arrow Odd’s Saga, of the grandson of Ketil)
iv. Áns saga bogsveigis (An Bow-bender’s Saga, of the feud between An and Ingjald, ancestor of Harald Fairhair)
2. The Asmund Sagas (Ásmundar sögur) telling of the deeds and family of Asmund the Champion-Slayer. They include
i. Illuga saga Gríðarfóstra (Illugi Grid-foster’s Saga, the tale of Illugi, who saves the troll/giantess Grid and her daughter from a curse after having been driven from his father’s court through the machinations of Björn, a cowardly and sly man, and a male master of seiðr. Illugi is foster-father to Asmund.)
ii. Ásmundar saga kappabana (The Asmund the Champion-Slayer’s Saga, the tale of Hildebrand, King of the Huns, who also appears in the Old High German Hildebrandslied, the only extant pre-Christian text written in Old High German.)
iii. Egils saga einhenda ok Ásmundar berserkjabana (Egill One-Hand and Asmund the Berserk-Slayer’s Saga, the tale of Asmund’s battles in “Russia”, corresponding roughly to contemporary Belarus, and his battles with the Slavs and Hun Berserks.)
3. The Víking Sagas (Víkingarsögur), the stories of the the family of King Víking of Sweden, specifically his son Þorstein and grandson Friðþjóf the Bold. It is arranged in the form of a prequel and a primary saga.
i. Þorsteins saga Víkingssonar (The Saga of Þorstein Víkingsson, about the travels of Þorstein, son of Víking, across the known world)
ii. Friðþjófs saga hins frœkna (The Saga of Fridthjof the Bold, about the dealings of Friðþjóf, son of Þorstein and the family of King Beli of Sogn)
4. The Gautreck Sagas (Gautreckarsögur), the stories of Gautreck, King of the Geats, noted for his strange ways, and the adventures of his sons Ketill and Hrólfr. Like the Víkingsögur it includes a prequel and a primary saga.
i. Gautrecks saga (The Saga of Gautreck, an incomplete saga about Gautreck and the earliest deeds of the hero Starkad)
ii. Hrólfs saga Gautrekssonar (The Saga of Hrólf Gautrecksson, the tale of the son of the above and his brother Ketill, and the former’s quest to win the hand of Þornbjörg, shield-maiden of Uppsala and daughter of Eirík King of Sweden.)
5. The Halfdan Sagas (Hálfdanarsögur), the stories of the son of legendary King of the Danes Hringr, another prequel-sequel set.
i. Hálfdanar saga Brönufóstra (Saga of Hálfdan Bronze-nuturer, detailing the battles of Hálfdan with trolls throughout Britain and Russia)
ii. Sörla saga sterka (Saga of Sörli the Strong, the tale of the son of one of Hálfdan’s rivals, who eventually slays the hero on behalf of the King of Oppland)
6. The Story of Fjornot and His Kin (Frá Fornjóti ok hans ættmönnum), the tale of the foundation of Norway in three books:
i. Hversu Noregr byggðist ("How Norway was inhabited")
ii. Fundinn Noregr ("Foundation of Norway")
iii. Af Upplendinga konungum ("Of the Kings of the Uplands")
7. The Saga of Hervor (Hervarar saga ok Heiðreks), the tale of the line of Angantyr, including the most famous of these, his grandson Heiðrek and the shield-maiden Hervor Heiðreksdóttir, and the story of the family’s experience with the magical sword Tyrfing. The Saga itself contains two lays of the Eddic style, the Hervararkviða, in which Hervor Angantyrsdóttir summons her father from the dead, and the Hlöðskviða, detailing the battle between the Goths under king Angantyr Heiðreksson and the Huns under his disinherited brother Hlöð Heiðreksson.
8. The Saga of Eirík the Far-Travelled (Eireks saga víðförla), the tale of the travels of a Norwegian warrior named Erik to Byzantium and then to India in search of the deathless realm of Údáinsakr. There is strong evidence of some Christian tampering with the story to corrupt the concept of the Deathless realm.
9. The Saga of Bósi and Herrauðr (Bósa saga ok Herrauðs), the tale of two comrade-warriors Bósi and Herrauðr and their adventures, including a quest of reclamation which brings the heroes into armed conflict with the Slavs and their various other feats in battles.
10. The Saga of Hálfdan Eysteinsson (Hálfdanar saga Eysteinssonar), the story of the family of Hálfdan Eysteinssonar, whose grandfather was Þránd King of Trondheim (whence the name—Þrándheimr). It follows the adventures of Eystein and his son Hálfdan.
11. The Saga of Hálf and his Heroes (Hálfs saga ok Hálfsrekka), the story of the sea-king Hálf and his band of highly disciplined warriors who accompany him in free-booting before being betrayed by his step-father King Asmund of Hordaland.
12. The Saga of Hrólf Kraki, (Hrólfs saga kraka), the tale of the great hero Hrólf Kraki and the Skjöldunga, and the happenings of the poems Beowulf and Wydsith, in which Hrólf is known as Hroðulf.
13. The Saga of Ragnarr Loðbrók (Ragnars saga loðbrókar), the saga of one of the most famous Viking leaders in the history of the Folk, who was known to be a scourge on the Christian kingdoms of France and England before being betrayed and murdered by the King of Northumbria, who killed him by throwing him into a viper pit.

IV. The Sagas of the Icelanders (Íslendingasögur), including:
1. The Saga of Egill Skalla-Grímsson (Egils saga Skalla-Grímssonar), the tale of the great skald and rune-master Egill Skallagrimsson, one of the greatest of the historical heroes and founders of Iceland. As with some other of the historical sagas, there is need to purge the work of praise of Christianity.
2. The Saga of the Ere-Dwellers (Eyrbyggja saga), which contains the only detailed description of our ancestral temples, and should be taken as a basis for such structures; chapters after the conversion should be heavily annotated to prevent mis-readings, and those passages actively detailing or praising Christian behaviour should be considered corrupted and discarded.
3. The Saga of the Confederates (Bandamanna saga), which contains legal dealings between Odd Ófeigsson and Óspak Glúmsson, the former of which suspects the latter of theft but loses his case on a legal technicality; his father then attempts the case and wins. In addition to being an important look at law, it is a completely heathen saga.
4. The Saga of Bárður ofSnæfellsnes(Bárðar saga Snæfellsáss), which details the just anger of a “half-ogre” (“ogre”, “troll”, and “giant” usually being ambiguous and generally meaning the same thing) after his mischievous nephew pushed his daughter onto an Iceberg and she floated to Greenland.
5. The Saga of Finnbogi the Strong (Finnboga saga ramma), which details the life of Finnbogi the Strong. It contains many proverbs spoken by Finnbogi, and most importantly it takes place before the coming of Christianity to Iceland.
6. The Saga of Sworn Brothers (Fóstbrœðra saga), which tells of two sworn blood-brothers Þorgeirr and Þormóðr, great warriors and, in the case of the latter, poets. The value of the work resides in the men’s loyalty to each other, rather than in the wild adventures, bloodthirst, and lusting—all of which are shown, both within this saga and in others, to lead to exile and pain.
7. The Saga of Gísli Súrsson (Gísla saga Súrssonar), which tells of Gísli, one of the first settlers of Iceland, his wife, his brother, and his sister-in-law, specifically the gossiping of the two women and their involvements with other men before their marriage and the men’s reaction to this gossip that they overhear. It contains wisdom about both the dangers of gossiping and the loyalty of a wife to her husband, as when Auðr refuses to reveal her husband to bounty hunters who seek after him.
8. The Saga of Hranfkell, Goði of Freyr (Hrafnkels saga Freysgoða), which details the life of Hrafnkell, a dedicated goði of Freyr. It contains a detailed description of the building and sacrificial rites at his temple of Freyr, which can be compared to the temple present in the Eyrbyggja saga. Hrafnkell is murderous, however, and of weak faith, abandoning Freyr when he is attacked and his temple burned (because he refused to ever pay a wergild for those he killed) and therefore also represents an example of the consequences of weak belief and refusal to abide the laws and customs of one’s people.
9. The Saga of Chicken Þórir (Hænsa-Þóris saga), which tells the story of Hænsa-Þórir, who has much wealth but refuses to share it. When those in need come and take what he refuses to share, he burns them alive in their homes (an extremely dishonourable act), and is later attacked in vendetta and beheaded for it. It contains a powerful lesson about hospitality, generosity, and participating in the Folk-community.
10. The Saga of Ref the Sly (Króka-Refs saga), which details the life of Ref the Sly, whose un-noteworthy beginnings give way to great honour and reputation through his own merit. Ref serves as an example of self-reliance and shrewdness as well as the importance of showing one’s own merit in order to prove worth to the wider community.
11. The Sagas of Courtship (Tilhugalífssögur), three tales of skalds who seek to win the hearts of ladies, and preserve their poetry. The poetry is a valuable testament to the softer feelings of love and affection felt by our ancestors for the women they sought to win as well as exemplary of what was expected of men to win the hands and hearts of women.
i. Kormáks saga (The Saga of Kormák), which tells of the skald Kormák’s life and wooing of the object of his love, Steingerðr. It also contains important information on our ancestors’ attitudes towards homosexual men and the expectations of how men are to act toward their wives.
ii. Gunnlaugs saga ormstungu (The Saga of Gunnlaug Worm-Tongue), which tells of the wooing of Helga in Fagra, granddaughter of Egill Skalla-Grímsson, and the competition between Gunnlaug and the skald Hrafn Önundarsson, in both verse and in a duel for the hand of Helga. It shows the importance of both strength of mind and strength of body in wooing a woman.

V. The Old English Poems, the oldest versions of many of the tales told in the Sagas, preserving much of the tradition of the continental half of the Germanic Folk. N.B. Christianity came first to the continental Germanics, so Christian influence needs to be identified in these and rooted out.
1. Beowulf, of the feats of the hero Beowulf Grendelsbane
2. Widsith, of the feats of the Widsith and the Kings of the Germanic tribes
3. Waldere, a fragment, of the hero Walter of Aquitaine, which mentions the smith Weland (Völund)
4. Deor, a lament which compares the sufferings of the narrator with those of the demi-gods and heroes of the Folk
5. Finnsburh, a fragment of a longer poem detailing the Battle of Finn’s Fort, which makes mention of Beowulf Grendelsbane, who is brother-in-law to the commander of the fortress, and the heroic defence of the fort against Danish attackers.

VI. The Skaldic Poems[4] (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/private.php?do=newpm&u=797#_ftn4),which include:
1. Austrfararvísur, which depict a skald shut out of a household because he is Christian and the inhabitants are devotees of Óðinn and are planning on honouring the ancient Gods.
2. Bandadrápa, a fragmentary poem praising the Norwegian King Eirík, and explicitly mentioning that he conquered “in accordance with the will of the gods”.
3. Bjarkamál, another fragment, mentioned in the Fóstbrœðra saga as being used by King Olaf to rally his out-numbered troops before the Battle of Stiklestad; it is dedicated to one of Hrólf Kraki’s band of warriors, Böðvar Bjarki.
4. Darraðarljóð, which tells of twelve Valkyries gathering the slain after the battle of Cluain Tarbh, which was fought between the Irish High-King Brian Bóruma mac Cennétig and the rebellious King of Leinster Máel Mórda mac Murchada, both of whom contended with mostly Norwegian and Danish mercenaries, and the latter of which was assisted by the Norse King of Dublin, Sigtryggr Silkiskeggi.
5. Lausavísir Hallfreðrs, which is a collection of personal one-stanza poems of the poet Hallfreðr Óttarsson lamenting his conversion to Christianity and subtly honouring Óðinn, Njörd, Freyr, and Freyja.
6. Haustlöng, which tells the tale of the kidnapping and recapture of Íðunn and the slaying of Hrungnir by Þórr.
7. Hrafnsmál, which is a conversation between a Valkyrie and a Raven about the deeds of Harald Hárfagri.
8. Húsdrápa, which tells of Þórr’s fishing of Jörmungand, the funeral of Baldr, and Heimdallr’s retrieval of the Brísingamen from Loki.
9. Kálfsvísa, which is a dedication to the horses (a sacred animal to our ancestors) ridden by the greatest heroes of legend and history in the estimation of the author.
10. Karlevimál, which is found on the Karlevi Runestone, raised by relatives or followers of the goði Sibbi Fuldarsson, who fell at the Battle of the Fýrisvellir, and gives one of the names of Óðinn, and tells of Þrúðr, one of the daughters of Þórr.
11. Krákumál, which is the dying words of Ragnarr Loðbrók, reflecting on his deeds and life and containing the sense of fulfilment he is said to have had at his death.
12. Óðins nöfn, which lists all the names of Óðinn.
13. Ragnarsdrápa, which is dedicated to Ragnarr Loðbrók and tells of the attack of Hamdir and Sorli against King Jörmunrekkr, the never-ending battle between Hedin and Högni, Þórr’s fishing for Jörmungandr, and Gefjun's ploughing of Zealand from the soil of Sweden.
14. Þórsdrápa, which is dedicated to Þórr and tells of how he came to possess Mjölnir.
15. Vellekla, which tells of Hákon Sigurðsson’s heroic defiance of Harald Blátönn’s attempt to force Christianity on Norway at the Battle of Hjörungavágr and his later campaign against Harald in the latter’s Kingdom of Denmark.

VII. Other Germanic works with no unifying category:
1. The Lay of Hildebrand (Hildebrandslied), the only extant pagan text written in Old High German, which tells of a Zweikampf between father and son. It is incomplete, but in every text which mentions Hildebrand, he defeats or kills his son, showing the triumph of the elder spirit over the younger, and the superiority of old traditions over new inventions.[5] (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/private.php?do=newpm&u=797#_ftn5)
2. The Saga of the Geats (Gutasaga), not one of the Ancient or Historical Sagas, is a Saga written on Old Gutnish rather than Old Norse proper, and tells of the local creation myth of the Geatish people and of the history of Gotland before the coming of Christianity.
3. The Merseburg Incantations (die Merseburger Zaubersprüche), originally written in Old High German, are two examples of continental galdr for the liberation of prisoners and the healing of horses.

The actual arrangement of the texts—i.e. how they should actually be printed—must be decided based on how they can be definitively translated and by whom. It is assumed that no one person can do translation of every single one of the texts, which means that the work will require a team, and that team’s version of the collected texts would be a singular work, perhaps divided into volumes. Otherwise, individual definitive translations would be required. Regardless, the texts will have to be grouped and arraigned. A tentative proposal in this regard shall be for the works from source I and VI be united into a single text to be simply called Edda, such that all poetry is united in a single versified volume. The versification should follow a standardised Book-Stanza-Line format, such that the first four lines of Hávamál 138 would become Edda 2:138:1-4. Such versification should be easy for poetic works, and it may be that, in fact, all Skaldic poetry presently extant in Sagas should be copied and included in Edda as well, to ensure easy reference and citation.

In the case of non-poetic sources, such as II, III, & IV, these should be arranged in a second volume, titled Sogur, meaning “Sagas”. This will likely be a multi-volume work, considering the large size of many of the sagas. The arrangement of books in Sogur could likely be Volume-Book-Chapter-Paragraph-Clause; however, this is burdensome. A far simpler approach would be a Book Title-Chapter-Sentence, such that each sentence is numbered for easy navigation. In this way, a random passage from Hervarar saga ok Heiðreks Chapter 3 might be styled Hrv. 3:13-21. Those sagas belonging to categories, such as the Ásmundar sögur, would be merged into a single series, such that a random selection from Ásmundar saga kappabana would become Asm. II 5:1-6. Into the collection of the Sogur should also be the Gutasaga, fitting best with the Ancient Sagas.

This leaves only the Anglo-Saxon works and the two German works. Since all of these belong to the Saxon tongue, either OE or OHG, it makes sense to derive the name from there. Just as Edda would be all poetic scripture and Sogur would be all prose scripture, this last category would need a name for the unifying characteristic it shares; all of it is in the form of poems, or lays. The OE for this is leoð, the plural of which would be leoðes. The OHG, meanwhile, uses the similar liod. Like the umlauts have been dropped from Sogur to make it easier to cite and give it multilingual compatibility, so too perhaps an adaptation of the Saxon dialects might be attempted with Leods. This would include much annotation for the correction of Christian inaccuracies in the Anglo-Saxon texts, but would nevertheless be able to fit all continental scripture into one workable volume. The division of Edda, Sogur, and Leods gives the canon three principle divisions: an important symbolic gesture as much as it is practical. Unlike the Christians, there is no dualism to our scripture, and the number three has great significance to our ancestors, as does every third multiple of three: 3, 9, 18, 27, 36, 45, &c.

Omissions
There are, of course, significant omissions from the above canon, and there is purpose in that: many of the Sagas and poems and other works were composed by Christians and heavily Christianised. The most extreme examples are, of course, Anglo-Saxon literature, which is so heavily Christianised that the most pagan works in the corpus are already mentioned above. The literature written in OE is not alone, however; many skaldic poems written in praise of Norse chieftains, jarls, and kings, were written about Christians in praise of their missionary efforts. Saxo Grammaticus, for example, took the Aeneid as his inspiration and composed the Gesta Danorum at the orders of the Archbishop of Lund. To consider this work as scriptural in its entirety would require the same treatment be given Beda Venerabilis’ Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum. Like the HEGA, the Gesta Danorum does include some valuable information, and even directly quotes original skaldic poems from pre-Christian times, but when it translates these into Latin it exaggerates them so much that it is difficult to believe they are the same thing. Take, for example, GD 2.7.4, the opening of the translation of the above listed Bjarkamal. The Latin reads thus:

Non ego virgineos iubeo cognoscere ludos
nec teneras tractare genas aut dulcia nuptis
oscula conferre et tenues astringere mammas,
non liquidum captare merum tenerumve fricare
femen et in niveos oculum iactare lacertos.
Evoco vos ad amara magis certamina Martis.
Bello opus est nec amore levi, nihil hic quoque facti
mollities enervis habet; res proelia poscit.[6] (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/private.php?do=newpm&u=797#_ftn6)

Meanwhile, the Old Norse original of the poem for this section reads:

vekka yðr at víni
né at vífs rúnum,
heldr vekk yðr at hörðum
Hildar leiki.[7] (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/private.php?do=newpm&u=797#_ftn7)

The difference is so pronounced that to translate the passages seems superfluous; the author of the Gesta Danorum, indeed, hasn’t done translation himself so much as he’s written a new poem taking the old for inspiration.

Likewise, there are many works which aside from heavily paraphrased corruption, speak of Christian deeds or criticise the deeds of Kings as “pagan”. There are further some Sagas which are explicitly Christian in message and nature; one will notice that the Brennu-Njáls saga is conspicuously absent from the canon. Not because it is not useful—indeed, one will find it cited frequently—but because the message it contains has no significance to Heathenry except as a heavily interpreted text, and a text which must be interpreted in the negative since the central characters and main plotline justify Christianity. Other sagas featuring Christians or Christian themes, such as the Eyrbyggja saga, do need editing to make them appropriate for scriptural use. The coming of Christianity to Iceland in this saga is marked explicitly, and a noticeable change exists in the saga between pre-Christian and Christian times. When such a clear and explicit divide exists, it invites us to sever the Christian infection from the healthy text, as one cuts a gangrenous limb from a healthy body. In addition to these two categories, those texts which are pre-Christian but nevertheless have no religious significance have also been omitted. In this spirit, significant texts such as the Grœnlendinga saga and Eiríks saga rauða have been left to the realm of historical or deuterocanonical information, since not only do they describe Heathenry in the negative way and Christianity in a positive way, but their insights into Heathen mores, ritual practises, and otherwise religious knowledge are non-extant.

Of course the greatest omission has not yet been discussed. The greatest issue facing the compiler of a canon is what to do with Snorri Sturlusson: he is, without a doubt, one of the most invaluable contributors to Folkish tradition, and is probably more responsible than anyone else for creating the ability to assemble a canon. Why, then, has he been left out of it? The reason for this resides in the fact that the Snorra Edda, as it is called, is simply not scriptural. It contains important excerpts and quotes from lost or fragmentary scripture, and is a helpful tool for interpretation, but the text itself does not treat the Gods or religious tradition. Rather, it speaks of historical persons and ancient Anatolian kings who came to be revered by the primitive Germanic barbarians and eventually deified. Primitive etymology joins Christian disgust with idolatry to create one of the most detailed Euhemeristic departures northern literature has ever seen—admirable, but not heathen.

The book’s purpose also has significant problems; far from an effort to preserve culture for its own sake, this didactic text was written out of concern for lack of knowledge amongst poets. Poesy in Sturlusson’s day was failing because the skalds no longer knew or understood whence their kennings came, largely owing to some very dedicated missionaries who were happy to see knowledge in the old Gods disappear completely. Sturlusson, however, felt that unless skalds knew a kenning’s origin, there was no way they could use it meaningfully—it would become nothing more than a cliché, whose meaning would be blurred and change significantly over time. In this spirit, he gathered together absolutely everything he could find on the old ways, spoke to surviving relatives of the men written of in the sagas, and gathered up all the old skaldic poems and myths and folklore he could, and wrote down the origins of the poetry. His goal was to construct a genealogy for his poets of the words and phrases they used from the knowledge he could gather of the old faith and practises. In other words, he was a philologist and an antiquarian—useful, indeed, but not holy. In regards to his other major works, the Ynglinge Saga, the Heimskringla, he is, again, a historian. In fact, his contributions in many ways are greater to the realm of history and mythography than to heathenry in any way—to include his works, in other words, would be precedent enough to include those of Georges Dumézil, Max Müller, Sir James Frazer, or even J.R.R. Tolkien—all equally useful to our faith in their studies, interpretations, compilations and, in the latter’s case especially, adaptations, but not worthy of being called prophets.

The Deuterocanonical Books
Significant excerpts from the Snorra Edda and Heimskringla are included in the canon; the skaldic poetry he cites and includes is simply too significant to omit, and, since it is quoted and not of his own pen, it qualifies as scriptural: written by our ancestors for Heathen times, certain that their descendants in one thousand years, two thousand years, three thousand years would still believe in the Gods and offer Them obeisance. Likewise, any skaldic poetry that appears in the omitted sagas that is worth including has also been included. It is, due to the interim nature of our ancestral scripture, necessary sometimes to sift through the papers and take hold of and revere only the jewels one finds. It is for this very reason that only one rune-stone has in fact been included in main scripture, because it contains a complete work of skaldic poetry, and is remarkable in that. The rune-stones are our ancestors’ earliest form of writing, the earliest recordings of our mythos in the form of logos; but as such they are even more fragmentary than most manuscripts. In the case of picture stones, it is difficult even to consider them texts. Therefore, it seemed most appropriate to allow the rune-stone tradition augment the written scripture preserved in manuscripts, to allow it a special, elevated place amongst the deuterocanonical texts.

What, then, is meant by “deuterocanonical”? Simply put, it is the opposite of protocanonical—i.e. texts that have always been considered scriptural. It is also opposed to the notion of “canonical”—i.e. texts that are presently considered canonical. The word itself comes from the Greek δευτερο meaning “second” and the Latin canon, canonis, meaning “rule, standard”, itself derived from Ancient Greek κανών, meaning “measuring rod”. Therefore, one might construe the meaning to be “a second measurement”, or, the standard, Christian definition “a second rule”. The term originally described those books of the Christian Bible not accepted by all Christians; what is known more popularly as the Apocrypha, from the Greek ἀπόκρυφος, meaning “hidden, obscure”. The meaning of the word in English is far more telling of its meaning as it was originally intended to describe the excepted books—“something of doubtful authorship”. The notion was that the state of divine inspiration, which makes a book scripture by the Christian standard, was unsure or undecided, and therefore the books could not be accepted into the canon of revealed scripture. Our meaning is slightly different; the books are not omitted for doubtful presence of divine authorship—since the only books that are divinely inspired or divinely composed in Ásatrú are those contained in the Elder Edda—but rather because they lack a religious impetus; they have no moral lesson to impart, they do not speak of the Gods, they offer nothing to the community of believers of real, fundamental importance.

In this way, the deuterocanonical books are contrasted with religiously alive texts like the Völsungasaga or the Elder Edda. They do, however, serve a distinct and indispensible function that makes them far more than mere scholarly commentaries, and elevates them to the level of a “second measurement”. The first measurement of our faith comes from the words of the Gods Themselves and the religious knowledge and moral wisdom one can gain only from Scripture. The second is an interpretation itself, and aids us in our understanding of the first measurement—like the magnifying glass needed to read the extremely small print that can sometimes befuddle us and leave gaps in our understanding of the Scripture if we take it by itself. The deuterocanonical books are there to focus the canon by educating us about mundane things, or serving as examples which we can use to contrast with the canon (as in the case of Brennu-Njáls saga). They further serve as a buffer to contemporary or Christian interpretations of our ancestral faith, because, despite lacking the spirit of canonical scripture, they nevertheless were written by our ancestors in a time that in some cases was contemporaneous with the portion of our Folk yet unconverted. They remain, in a historical sense, primary sources of information, and therefore are too special to be counted among other works which help us with interpretation such as the works of Dumézil, Grimm, and Müller.

This, then, is the beginning; the work of compiling this scripture, organizing it, and establishing a standard translation is the work of many, many more years of hard work; indeed, it took Jerome twenty-three years to translate the disparate forms of the Bible into the singular, authoritative form it would take as the Vulgate, and Luther worked for twelve years with several other men to complete his German translation of the already-compiled text. The beginning, nevertheless, has been made; a beginning which will, without a doubt, set off a fiery debate over the acceptability and accuracy of this canon, as well as the logic behind the deuterocanonical texts. It is the hope of this author that this debate will be swiftly executed and terminated; the Christian canon, first proposed by Marcion of Sinope in 140 CE, was not decided until the Synod of Hippo in 393 CE, and was not officially declared until the Synod of Carthage in 397 CE. The immediate organisation of a Synod—perhaps better styled “Althing”—or some other conciliar gathering is absolutely necessary for a decision to be made on this matter that would finally organise our religious texts and form a definitive starting point for new converts to our ancient faith.

[1] (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/private.php?do=newpm&u=797#_ftnref1) Alister E. McGrath, Christianity’s Dangerous Idea (New York: Harper One, 2002), 42.

[2] (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/private.php?do=newpm&u=797#_ftnref2) Stephen A. McNallen, “Three Decades of the Ásatrú Revival in America,” TYR: Myth – Culture – Tradition, 2 (2003-2004), 218.

[3] (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/private.php?do=newpm&u=797#_ftnref3) The use of Latin, of course, is purely for the sake of comparison.

[4] (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/private.php?do=newpm&u=797#_ftnref4) Those poems that are included in Sagas are not listed here, since they are considered an intrinsic part of the Sagas in which they are featured, which are listed above.

[5] (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/private.php?do=newpm&u=797#_ftnref5) The sole exception is the Gesta Danorum, which has Hildebrand killed by his son. The work, however, must be regarded as untrustworthy in this regard, especially considering its corruption, exaggeration, and very loose translations of older poems and stories when the author translated them into Latin.

[6] (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/private.php?do=newpm&u=797#_ftnref6)Saxonis Grammatici Gesta Danorum, ed. Alfred Holder (Straßburg: Karl J. Trübner Verlag, 1886), 59. Trans: “I do not now bid ye learn the sports of maidens, nor stroke soft cheeks, nor give sweet kisses to the bride and press the lender breasts, nor desire the flowing wine and chafe the soft thigh and cast eyes upon snowy arms. I call you out to the sterner fray of War. We need the battle, and not light love; nerveless languor has no business here : our need calls for battles.” Saxo Grammaticus, The First Nine Books of the Danish History, trans. Oliver Elton (London: David Nutt, 1894), 72.

[7] (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/private.php?do=newpm&u=797#_ftnref7) Snorri Sturlusson, Heimskringla: Nóregs Konunga Sǫgur, ed. Finnur Jónsson (Copenhagen: Mollers & Thompsen, 1893), 463. Trans.:“I wake you not to wine// nor to women’s converse,// but rather to the hard// game of Hild.” Lee M. Hollander, Old Norse Poems (New York: Columbia University, 1932), 5f.

[Wulfhere]

Here's my article on compiling a Heathen Canon. It's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but as you say, you have to start somewhere. I was met with some pretty vehement criticism and resistance to the very idea of a canon in the thread in which I first posted it, perhaps it will receive better reception among observers of this discussion. I should add that the article is consistent with a form of theology that has been dubbed "Truistic Theology", which preaches a faith-based heathenry with emphasis on self-reflection and genuine belief in both the literal and metaphorical truths found in Heathen scriptures.

I think approaches which start to use more Christian tools, like canonics and organisation of clergy and standardisation of ritual (which we've begun with the Book of Blótar, but have not really pursued in earnest as a community), could really turn Heathenry into a force to be reckoned with. As it stands, though, I really consider us a semi-religion that has a decent foundation but hasn't made any effort to construct a house atop it.

An interesting idea, certainly. I think something along those lines is already evolving, anyway. We must be very careful of not going down the same route as the Christians and Muhammedanns, though, in treating the books themselves as holy, and forever unalterable.

What's your view on more recent inspired works, such as, for example, the Oera Linda Book?

http://oeralinda.angelfire.com/

[Magister Eckhart]

An interesting idea, certainly. I think something along those lines is already evolving, anyway. We must be very careful of not going down the same route as the Christians and Muhammedanns, though, in treating the books themselves as holy, and forever unalterable.

What's your view on more recent inspired works, such as, for example, the Oera Linda Book?

http://oeralinda.angelfire.com/

So you would suggest scripture that could be changed over time? Like rewriting segments of the Bible, for instance, to say buggery is perfectly fine? I'm not sure how negative having unalterable scripture is; perhaps I've misunderstood what you mean, though. If that's the case, could you clarify? I am not sure why books should not be holy, if they contain the inspired (or in the Havamal, directly spoken) words of a God or Gods. Certainly divine speech is sacrosanct even if the God in question is not an overbearing or domineering God as the Semites would have it.

"Recent inspired works" seems to be very slippery ground in my opinion. Scripture originates in the primal epoch of a faith, before the departure into disciplined theology. We've already passed that point in our faith, and are starting to enter a time of theological reflection on scripture already inspired by the Gods.

I give my reasoning for not making the Snorra Edda scripture above, but I would be more willing to admit Sturlusson's work than possible inventions like Oera Linda or Die Geheimnis von Runen, for that matter, especially when they so obviously contradict much of the knowledge found in the ancient books. These are our gnostic Gospels; the authenticity is simply too questionable to be admitted to the canon.

[Wulfhere]

So you would suggest scripture that could be changed over time? Like rewriting segments of the Bible, for instance, to say buggery is perfectly fine? I'm not sure how negative having unalterable scripture is; perhaps I've misunderstood what you mean, though. If that's the case, could you clarify? I am not sure why books should not be holy, if they contain the inspired (or in the Havamal, directly spoken) words of a God or Gods. Certainly divine speech is sacrosanct even if the God in question is not an overbearing or domineering God as the Semites would have it.

"Recent inspired works" seems to be very slippery ground in my opinion. Scripture originates in the primal epoch of a faith, before the departure into disciplined theology. We've already passed that point in our faith, and are starting to enter a time of theological reflection on scripture already inspired by the Gods.

I give my reasoning for not making the Snorra Edda scripture above, but I would be more willing to admit Sturlusson's work than possible inventions like Oera Linda or Die Geheimnis von Runen, for that matter, especially when they so obviously contradict much of the knowledge found in the ancient books. These are our gnostic Gospels; the authenticity is simply too questionable to be admitted to the canon.

I think you've very much highlighted the problem here, because there are some who would certainly wish to admit books like the Oera Linda into the canon, and so right away conflict is created where there was none before. Who is to say which books are inspired, and which aren't?

[Treffie]

Are they? Is there any evidence of this?

Pagans are on the march (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1328968/Pagans-march--harmless-eccentrics-dangerous-cult.html)

[Magister Eckhart]

I think you've very much highlighted the problem here, because there are some who would certainly wish to admit books like the Oera Linda into the canon, and so right away conflict is created where there was none before. Who is to say which books are inspired, and which aren't?

Well let's take the Oera Linda as an example. The book not only runs entirely contrary to all historiography and archaeology, as well as the existing texts, but it can't be dated to before the 19th century.

Mythology may be many things, and among them an inspiring force, but mythology also reflects actual experiences and archetypal world-feelings that exist in a culture. Not only is Oera Linda completely out of touch with Germanic folklore (except for a few well-place words and phrases), but it doesn't even represent real mythology.

It doesn't actually take a lot to recognise inspired, authentic holy texts from off-the-wall occultist fictions; that's why so many Gnostic gospels were thrown out the window upon arrival by the Church.

Now that's not to say there aren't some blurry lines, and these need to be discussed in detail, but in cases like Oera Linda or, really, any 19th century invention, the fact is that these people are working from a fiction, not from real lore or scripture or the actual communicated spirit of the Folk through time.

In the answer to "who decides", this is addressed in the article on constructing a canon: a Synod decides. Or, if you prefer to abandon the Greek, an Althing decides. We need order and organisation, as you yourself admit, but decisions cannot be arbitrary and they cannot be completely decentralised if we want to actually meet a foreign threat as a unified body of faith.

Furthermore, I don't see any new conflicts being created; indeed, it seems to me a very small minority of people actually think the Oera Linda book is scriptural in any way, and most of them are Theosophists or another such 19th century invented religion rather than Pagans. A conflict already exists between Blatavskyites (who usually can't distinguish between mythology and fiction anyway) and Folkish Heathens; what the construction of a canon with accepted, sacrosanct texts does is merely illustrate the conflict.

In addition, I repeat my assertion above that, "I am not sure why books should not be holy, if they contain the inspired (or in the Havamal, directly spoken) words of a God or Gods. Certainly divine speech is sacrosanct even if the God in question is not an overbearing or domineering God as the Semites would have it."

[Magister Eckhart]

Pagans are on the march (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1328968/Pagans-march--harmless-eccentrics-dangerous-cult.html)

Pardon the double-post, but this is why I say the image of pagans is not of a real religion, but of a Wiccan-style quasi-religion made up of a bunch of nudist and/or cloaked idiots running about brandishing "magick wands" and acting like Hogwarts actually exists. In short, that Silver Ravenhead (or whatever its name is) person mentioned before.

[Wulfhere]

Well let's take the Oera Linda as an example. The book not only runs entirely contrary to all historiography and archaeology, as well as the existing texts, but it can't be dated to before the 19th century.

Mythology may be many things, and among them an inspiring force, but mythology also reflects actual experiences and archetypal world-feelings that exist in a culture. Not only is Oera Linda completely out of touch with Germanic folklore (except for a few well-place words and phrases), but it doesn't even represent real mythology.

It doesn't actually take a lot to recognise inspired, authentic holy texts from off-the-wall occultist fictions; that's why so many Gnostic gospels were thrown out the window upon arrival by the Church.

Now that's not to say there aren't some blurry lines, and these need to be discussed in detail, but in cases like Oera Linda or, really, any 19th century invention, the fact is that these people are working from a fiction, not from real lore or scripture or the actual communicated spirit of the Folk through time.

In the answer to "who decides", this is addressed in the article on constructing a canon: a Synod decides. Or, if you prefer to abandon the Greek, an Althing decides. We need order and organisation, as you yourself admit, but decisions cannot be arbitrary and they cannot be completely decentralised if we want to actually meet a foreign threat as a unified body of faith.

Furthermore, I don't see any new conflicts being created; indeed, it seems to me a very small minority of people actually think the Oera Linda book is scriptural in any way, and most of them are Theosophists or another such 19th century invented religion rather than Pagans. A conflict already exists between Blatavskyites (who usually can't distinguish between mythology and fiction anyway) and Folkish Heathens; what the construction of a canon with accepted, sacrosanct texts does is merely illustrate the conflict.

In addition, I repeat my assertion above that, "I am not sure why books should not be holy, if they contain the inspired (or in the Havamal, directly spoken) words of a God or Gods. Certainly divine speech is sacrosanct even if the God in question is not an overbearing or domineering God as the Semites would have it."

What would happen, as happened with Christianity, is that different sects would emerge, each fighting for their own version of scripture. Surely we can learn from their mistakes? Some of the Gnostic Gospels (not all) have as good a claim to date from the 1st century as the Canonical ones, which were in any case heavily edited. And why could it not be that more recent works such as Oera Linda could form a sort of "new testament"?

How do we know, for example, that the works you cite really do represent the words of a god? And here's another point - many Anglo-Saxonists would reject all Scandinavian texts as hopelessy late, medieval, post-1066. They would argue that, for the English, the only authentic texts are English ones. The Scandinavians, indeed, were enemies of the English.

[Wulfhere]

Pardon the double-post, but this is why I say the image of pagans is not of a real religion, but of a Wiccan-style quasi-religion made up of a bunch of nudist and/or cloaked idiots running about brandishing "magick wands" and acting like Hogwarts actually exists. In short, that Silver Ravenhead (or whatever its name is) person mentioned before.

That's just the image the media like to project.

[Cato]

Pardon the double-post, but this is why I say the image of pagans is not of a real religion, but of a Wiccan-style quasi-religion made up of a bunch of nudist and/or cloaked idiots running about brandishing "magick wands" and acting like Hogwarts actually exists. In short, that Silver Ravenhead (or whatever its name is) person mentioned before.

I once had an interest in Asatru, but the only pagan (from a Christian perspective) belief system that still has any hold over me is Stoicism, which considered the popular cults of the Greco-Roman period to be superstitions.

Dressing up in robes and pretending to be a sorcerer, how does this help one to live what the Stoics called the good life?

[Cato]

Dressing up in robes and pretending to be a sorcerer, how does this help one to live what the Stoics called the good life?

Answer, it doesn't; it only teachers mummery and a book knowledge of myths, rites, and so forth. What passes off as paganism in this day and age is merely an anti-Christian reaction.

Being able to mumble supposed incantations or knowing various esoteric tomes doesn't make one a good person, it just means one can mumble and knows esoterica, or can march in a parade with other silly people.

So, I consider the ancient, and entirely workable, philosophies such as Cynicism and Stoicism to be a superior belief system to profess than any sort of new paganism because they require practice, progression, self-reflection, and study- above all one is required to be honest with oneself as one comes to accept his or her place in a seemingly chaotic world:

"Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices me wherever I am or whatever I do."

[Cato]

From purely practical standpoints, Christianity needs to be supported and strengthened as a societal institution. I'm no Christian, yet it's been the dominant religion of the western countries since the end of Roman times. I say this in thinking of comments made by men as diverse in time and space as George Washington, Epictetus, Confucius, and Mencius, and my thoughts run something like:

The dominant religion should be supported, even if one doesn't believe in it, for the stability and strength of society. Otherwise the result is a slide into moral chaos, factionalism as new superstitions and cults rise up to replace the dying faith, and society itself is weakened.

It may be a dinosaur, but this dominant religion of the west still is Christianity and I'm more favorably inclined to it than any of the new paganisms. The new paganism has none of the qualities of being able to fight its way out of a paper bag (not unless, say, tens of millions suddenly become Asatru or somesuch), much less battle the Muslim barbarians to the death for the fate of western civilization, most especially since western people divide religion and state whereas the barbarians make no such distinction.

[Psychonaut]

Answer, it doesn't; it only teachers mummery and a book knowledge of myths, rites, and so forth. What passes off as paganism in this day and age is merely an anti-Christian reaction.


So, I consider the ancient, and entirely workable, philosophies such as Cynicism and Stoicism to be a superior belief system to profess than any sort of new paganism because they require practice, progression, self-reflection, and study- above all one is required to be honest with oneself as one comes to accept his or her place in a seemingly chaotic world...

I'll kind of agree here, but I'll also say that much of this serves a purpose. You can't dig up the old buried temples without clearing off the churches built atop them. This is not to say, that this approach to Paganism and/or Heathenry is whole or productive past a point. In the third volume of TYR, Collin Cleary addresses this. We find that this strain of strongly anti-Christian, paganism finds its zenith in Alain de Benoist's On Being a Pagan, which "is, from start to finish, Nietzschean."[1] What this results in is a paganism that is, in essence, a radical humanism.[2] He questions the validity of this hermeneutic, however, positing that de Benoist "should have looked not to Nietzsche, but to Aristotle, who was a real pagan... formulating his theory of pagan values."[3] Even de Benoist himself has come out and somewhat lamented that his Nietzschean phase of approaching Paganism in the aforementioned book has become a point of stasis for some. Indeed, his own thought is, by his admission, far more indebted to Heidegger (and thus finds itself in the classical tradition of ontology that stretches back to Plato and Aristotle) than Nietzsche.[4] I think that the point he's making here is that the strongly deconstructive methodologies of the anti-Christian (or in de Benoist's case wholly anti-Magian) can only take us so far. We can't continually destroy, but must rebuild after the wrecks have been knocked down. Historic pagan philosophies are likely a good source for these inquiries to begin, as are their contemporary manifestations (i.e. the continuum from Parmenidean thought on down to contemporary Traditionalism, or from Heracliteanism to Process Thought).

Notes:
1. Collin Cleary, "Paganism Without Gods," [i]TYR: Myth—Culture—Tradition 3:2007, 431.
2. Ibid., 432
3. Ibid., 437
4. Alain de Benoist, "On Being a Pagan: Ten Years Later, an Interview With Alain de Benoist," TYR: Myth—Culture—Tradition 2:2003-2004, 103.

[Cato]

I'll kind of agree here, but I'll also say that much of this serves a purpose. You can't dig up the old buried temples without clearing off the churches built atop them. This is not to say, that this approach to Paganism and/or Heathenry is whole or productive past a point. In the third volume of TYR, Collin Cleary addresses this. We find that this strain of strongly anti-Christian, paganism finds its zenith in Alain de Benoist's On Being a Pagan, which "is, from start to finish, Nietzschean."[1] What this results in is a paganism that is, in essence, a radical humanism.[2] He questions the validity of this hermeneutic, however, positing that de Benoist "should have looked not to Nietzsche, but to Aristotle, who was a real pagan... formulating his theory of pagan values."[3] Even de Benoist himself has come out and somewhat lamented that his Nietzschean phase of approaching Paganism in the aforementioned book has become a point of stasis for some. Indeed, his own thought is, by his admission, far more indebted to Heidegger (and thus finds itself in the classical tradition of ontology that stretches back to Plato and Aristotle) than Nietzsche.[4] I think that the point he's making here is that the strongly deconstructive methodologies of the anti-Christian (or in de Benoist's case wholly anti-Magian) can only take us so far. We can't continually destroy, but must rebuild after the wrecks have been knocked down. Historic pagan philosophies are likely a good source for these inquiries to begin, as are their contemporary manifestations (i.e. the continuum from Parmenidean thought on down to contemporary Traditionalism, or from Heracliteanism to Process Thought).

Notes:
1. Collin Cleary, "Paganism Without Gods," [i]TYR: Myth—Culture—Tradition 3:2007, 431.
2. Ibid., 432
3. Ibid., 437
4. Alain de Benoist, "On Being a Pagan: Ten Years Later, an Interview With Alain de Benoist," TYR: Myth—Culture—Tradition 2:2003-2004, 103.

Hostile feelings regarding Christianity serve no purpose other than to make the pagan devotee feel good, and this frame of mind quickly passes (as it did for me). The radical traditionalism of de Benoist, and others like him, is sort of putting the cart before the horse because it's for a class of intellectual pundits that engage in a sort of philosophical quibbling amongst themselves rather than, say, for the Everyman. This is where Christianity still is superior, by being able to appeal to the Everyman.

The best self-help manual that I've ever encountered is Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, and there're several points when he tells himself to stay away from books and over-intellectualizing. Stoicism had at its core of beliefs the triad of ethics, logics, and physics; the earlier Stoics tended to overemphasize logics and physics, leaving ethics by the wayside, but by the time of the Roman-era Stoics, ethics had more or less become the main area of study (that we know of). Epictetus knew of several men in his own day like de Benoist, basically men who "talked the talk [logic, physics] but didn't walk the walk [ethics]." Stoicism can teach us, for example, that virtue is its own reward and that mankind isn't subject to the whims and wiles of an external God (God actually dwells in each of us, so they say, as a portion of the fiery Zeus); the whole purpose of this life is to put philosophy, the love of wisdom, and hence virtue, into practice. God exists, and is thanked, but isn't the focus of one's existence; the actual focus is oneself. This can be done by anyone, man or woman, slave or emperor.

Freeing oneself from the twin traps of too much intellectualizing and clinging to popular superstitions, this is why I don't have a very high opinion of most forms of modern paganism. On one hand, you've got the de Benoists, radical post-Christian traditionalists or somesuch, and on the other, you've got the mummerers who parade around in their costumes, holding rods and staves whilst pretending to cast spells and whatnot.

[Cato]

I have a reply from someone looking who has been reading this thread from over my shoulder. These words aren't my own, but the words of an anon.

What recalcitrant ignorance! Christianity as we know it is a modern concept. Before the creation of the modern state/nations, Christianity was not a religion consisiting of faith and charity (as it has been forced to be now) but another part of the set of powers that ruled the world and that could not be separated from each other for it formed a WHOLE that was our civilization. With the arisal of the modern nations and the transfer of some forces to other forces, the Church was absorved by the king, then by the state etc. until what it is now. While Christianity remained a part of those ruling forces, the church (Popes, masses, priests, doctors, etc.) along with the other ruling forces tried to defend US from our enemies: which were believers of Allah, other forces, or HAD other aims totally unlinked to any God). The moment the state took the power, it was the state that was now the one in charge of defending us. It was just a transfer of power.

My last word, you can blame the old Christianity (sic) for trying to defeat our enemies (in the name of God and tradition) and for not getting their aims, as much as you can blame the modern state for trying to defeat our enemies (in the name of reason) and assuming all the power and responsibility and, so, not getting their aims so far. Paganism will not solve anything just like Christianity won't solve anything because it is the role of the state, not religion as we know it now.

The role of the state being the role of defender, rather than religion, as it used to be in the times when Christianity was more militant, I presume.

[Wulfhere]

I once had an interest in Asatru, but the only pagan (from a Christian perspective) belief system that still has any hold over me is Stoicism, which considered the popular cults of the Greco-Roman period to be superstitions.

Dressing up in robes and pretending to be a sorcerer, how does this help one to live what the Stoics called the good life?

Pagans don't dress up in robes and pretend to be sorcerers. Some dress up in robes on ceremonial occasions, and at other times practice real sorcery.

[Vasconcelos]

Real sorcery? Care to explain or give us an example?

[Wulfhere]

Real sorcery? Care to explain or give us an example?

It's oathbound.

[Grumpy Cat]

It's bullshit.

Fixed

[Grumpy Cat]

The Odinic Rite has its fair share of kooky neo-pagan types

More than it's share. It's a giant ball of fluff, but they hide their fluff behind extreme right-wing views.

I had an OR member admit to me that he called all four corners before a blot. :loco:

As much as I don't agree with universalism, I would consider a universalist who did a blot properly more a a true heathen a folklish person who call all four corners any days of the week.

Being folkish or universalist is an opinion, no different from my opinion that Burger King is better than McDonalds, calling all four corners is a sacrilege.

[Magister Eckhart]

Unnecessary triple post is unnecessary.


I once had an interest in Asatru, but the only pagan (from a Christian perspective) belief system that still has any hold over me is Stoicism, which considered the popular cults of the Greco-Roman period to be superstitions.

Dressing up in robes and pretending to be a sorcerer, how does this help one to live what the Stoics called the good life?

Agreed; but you do need to recognise the difference between the kooky Wiccans who do the dressing up and waving "wands" and the genuinely religious Heathens who are committed to building a religion. I think if there is something for you to be found in Stoicism, you would be surprised by how many Heathens share your disdain for the less thoughtful of our species.


Answer, it doesn't; it only teachers mummery and a book knowledge of myths, rites, and so forth. What passes off as paganism in this day and age is merely an anti-Christian reaction.

Being able to mumble supposed incantations or knowing various esoteric tomes doesn't make one a good person, it just means one can mumble and knows esoterica, or can march in a parade with other silly people.

So, I consider the ancient, and entirely workable, philosophies such as Cynicism and Stoicism to be a superior belief system to profess than any sort of new paganism because they require practice, progression, self-reflection, and study- above all one is required to be honest with oneself as one comes to accept his or her place in a seemingly chaotic world:

"Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices me wherever I am or whatever I do."

From purely practical standpoints, Christianity needs to be supported and strengthened as a societal institution. I'm no Christian, yet it's been the dominant religion of the western countries since the end of Roman times. I say this in thinking of comments made by men as diverse in time and space as George Washington, Epictetus, Confucius, and Mencius, and my thoughts run something like:

The dominant religion should be supported, even if one doesn't believe in it, for the stability and strength of society. Otherwise the result is a slide into moral chaos, factionalism as new superstitions and cults rise up to replace the dying faith, and society itself is weakened.

It may be a dinosaur, but this dominant religion of the west still is Christianity and I'm more favorably inclined to it than any of the new paganisms. The new paganism has none of the qualities of being able to fight its way out of a paper bag (not unless, say, tens of millions suddenly become Asatru or somesuch), much less battle the Muslim barbarians to the death for the fate of western civilization, most especially since western people divide religion and state whereas the barbarians make no such distinction.

Hostile feelings regarding Christianity serve no purpose other than to make the pagan devotee feel good, and this frame of mind quickly passes (as it did for me). The radical traditionalism of de Benoist, and others like him, is sort of putting the cart before the horse because it's for a class of intellectual pundits that engage in a sort of philosophical quibbling amongst themselves rather than, say, for the Everyman. This is where Christianity still is superior, by being able to appeal to the Everyman.

The best self-help manual that I've ever encountered is Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, and there're several points when he tells himself to stay away from books and over-intellectualizing. Stoicism had at its core of beliefs the triad of ethics, logics, and physics; the earlier Stoics tended to overemphasize logics and physics, leaving ethics by the wayside, but by the time of the Roman-era Stoics, ethics had more or less become the main area of study (that we know of). Epictetus knew of several men in his own day like de Benoist, basically men who "talked the talk [logic, physics] but didn't walk the walk [ethics]." Stoicism can teach us, for example, that virtue is its own reward and that mankind isn't subject to the whims and wiles of an external God (God actually dwells in each of us, so they say, as a portion of the fiery Zeus); the whole purpose of this life is to put philosophy, the love of wisdom, and hence virtue, into practice. God exists, and is thanked, but isn't the focus of one's existence; the actual focus is oneself. This can be done by anyone, man or woman, slave or emperor.

Freeing oneself from the twin traps of too much intellectualizing and clinging to popular superstitions, this is why I don't have a very high opinion of most forms of modern paganism. On one hand, you've got the de Benoists, radical post-Christian traditionalists or somesuch, and on the other, you've got the mummerers who parade around in their costumes, holding rods and staves whilst pretending to cast spells and whatnot.

I have a reply from someone looking who has been reading this thread from over my shoulder. These words aren't my own, but the words of an anon.

What recalcitrant ignorance! Christianity as we know it is a modern concept. Before the creation of the modern state/nations, Christianity was not a religion consisiting of faith and charity (as it has been forced to be now) but another part of the set of powers that ruled the world and that could not be separated from each other for it formed a WHOLE that was our civilization. With the arisal of the modern nations and the transfer of some forces to other forces, the Church was absorved by the king, then by the state etc. until what it is now. While Christianity remained a part of those ruling forces, the church (Popes, masses, priests, doctors, etc.) along with the other ruling forces tried to defend US from our enemies: which were believers of Allah, other forces, or HAD other aims totally unlinked to any God). The moment the state took the power, it was the state that was now the one in charge of defending us. It was just a transfer of power.

My last word, you can blame the old Christianity (sic) for trying to defeat our enemies (in the name of God and tradition) and for not getting their aims, as much as you can blame the modern state for trying to defeat our enemies (in the name of reason) and assuming all the power and responsibility and, so, not getting their aims so far. Paganism will not solve anything just like Christianity won't solve anything because it is the role of the state, not religion as we know it now.

The role of the state being the role of defender, rather than religion, as it used to be in the times when Christianity was more militant, I presume.

You miss the point as much as the "pagans" who practise this sort of quasi-religion. You yourself must admit that a religion without mysticism, though, isn't truly a religion. There must be a whole; a religion must be complete, with a strong theology and also a confirmed mystery of faith. The ritual of the mass in Roman Catholicism was once part of its strength, a part of its strength that it has lost. The fact is that theology gives a religion permanency but it does not seize the minds of peasants; they need ritual and mystery to captivate and compel them religiously. As you will see at a glance, Christianity lacks this power, and today stands little more than a mummified corpse of its old form.

To say that "Christianity" is simply modern - that is ignorance. It is ignorance of the religious power of the faith even in the age when the Catholic Church was a political power. Christianity is a legitimate faith and has been for thousands of years, with or without political power in Rome. To claim, as your friend has, that Christianity is only powerful so long as it was a strong political force ignores the sacrifices of the martyrs down through history as well as the contributions of all the Church Fathers and other theologians. How would you explain the survival of Christianity in the face of political impotence? Whether one is willing to believe that Jesus of Nazareth is some kind of "saviour" or not, one cannot deny that the strength of the Church is not found merely in politics, but in the very living faith practised by millions and confirmed by thousands of thinkers and warriors - the reason why Christianity has lost its power is because the faith is dead. God is dead: Christianity no longer has the moral authority to command the minds of people trained to reject religious mystery in favour of secular scientism.

Anti-Christian feeling seems only natural among a budding faith that finds its roots in a culture that was suppressed by the rising tide of Western Christianity. I am not so sure it is as purposeless and as silly as you make it out to be. Rather, it represents an immature approach to the faith that must be outgrown, but even immaturity is necessary for a complete cycle of growth, even spiritual growth.

[2DREZQ]

Being a Christian is an individual decision. We have free will, and the ability to choose our own path.

I chose to become a Christian. I am a follower of Christ. I believe that I personally am not capable of "saving" myself. That had to be done for me. Christ, the Son of God, did that. I accept that as true, and surrender my will to Him as my King. I am autonomous, He is Soveriegn.

I consider everything I'm told is "God's will" by other men, with a one-eyed squint and one hand on my wallet.

I will stand, armed to the teeth, and defend my country against Islam, if it comes to that.

The Catholic church has weathered the storms of millenia, and is not likely to fall down an time soon. Protestantism grabbed the core strengths of "The Church" and has succeeded for centuries in no small measure by shedding each denomination like a snake sheds its skin when it becomes to restricting. When Lutheranism began to fossilize, the faith moved on, as it were. It continues to this day.

You want racial gunners? I offer you a variety of them in North America. You want altruism in spades? We've got that as well. North American Christianity is alive and well. Reports of its weakness might be compared to Japanese opinion of America's will to fight, circa early 1941.

Sorry if this is a little bit more disjointed than normal, cold meds, you know. I just had to weigh in on this subject, since it bordered on defamation of my Sovereign. Hey, at least Christians don't murder people who "insult" Christianity"!:eek:

Oh, MERRY CHRISTMAS!:wink

[Psychonaut]

As much as I don't agree with universalism, I would consider a universalist who did a blot properly more a a true heathen a folklish person who call all four corners any days of the week.

Why would orthopraxy necessarily make someone a truer representative of a religion than heteropraxy? Such views are common in Heathenry, but they're never defended with any rigor. To say that an orthopraxic methodology is superior to heteropraxy to imply that tradition weighs heavier than efficacy in regards to religious practice; is this so? If so, why do you think so? Why should I persist in an historically accurate practice that does not, for me, tend to result in a hierophany when a different, non-historical, practice does? Is the traditional methodology of approaching the divine more important than the approach itself? If so, why?

[Baron Samedi]

Fixed

Some of us actually practice magic in regards to our ancestors, and it's not bullshit.

Most folks are just too lazy to even get off internet message boards to devote themselves to a sacred art.

As far as proving it? Why should I have to?

Our ancestors were convinced....

[Green River]

Is Paganism our only hope against Islam?

Yes, paganism is are key defense against Islam and JUDEO- Christianity! :wink

[Magister Eckhart]

Is Paganism our only hope against Islam?

Yes, paganism is are key defense against Islam and JUDEO- Christianity! :wink

"is are"? Seriously? And you're from the US? Then again you are emphasising the "judeo", which means you're probably an anti-Semite, so I won't be expecting much intelligence from your corner. Prove me wrong.

:eusa_doh:


Some of us actually practice magic in regards to our ancestors, and it's not bullshit.

Most folks are just too lazy to even get off internet message boards to devote themselves to a sacred art.

As far as proving it? Why should I have to?

Our ancestors were convinced....

We can offer more support for rune magic than just "our ancestors did it". Our ancestors also used to lay men face-down on rocks and cut out their lungs.

Scriptural support for rune magic is abundant in Heathenry as a principle form of gaining access oneself to the wisdom of the Gods. No empirical proof can be given, to be sure, but no less empirical proof can be provided for Germanic rune magic or Graeco-Roman augery than for the Christian Mysteries of Faith. Yet, the ritual power of these beliefs and their actualisation in practise is undeniable.

Indeed, a lot of "magick" and "sorcery" is completely contrived nonsense meant to augment the fascination with Ouija boards that these infantile neo-pagans call "religion". Crystals, wand-waving, tarot cards and drug-induced hazes, all are little more than masturbatory acts for the purpose of the pretence that one is "deep" or "mystical".

The difference is the level of truth in the practise, and the level of true faith. There is power hidden in this world from the man bound to his senses, spiritual power and spiritual experience which is completely esoteric in nature; the ancient and primordial practises of the earliest worshippers are the only true access to this otherwordly reality, which is why in many cases what Wulfhere is calling "sorcery", what is really more properly a mystery of faith embodied in ritual, is definitely a real experience.

Furthermore, the burden of proof in these cases really rests on the non-believer rather than the believer. The atheist and the sceptic are spitting in the face of over ten millennia of human history and then place the burden of proof on those who hold to older ways; it's the worst cop-out in history, and it's been tolerated in the West for far too long.

[Brynhild]

Fixed

I'd like to know why it's such a bullshit view to be held oathbound for the sake of a brotherhood. If that's their rules, then that's their rules. If people don't want to be held to such oaths (and I'm one of those) then it's a simple process of not joining.


More than it's share. It's a giant ball of fluff, but they hide their fluff behind extreme right-wing views.

I had an OR member admit to me that he called all four corners before a blot. :loco:

As much as I don't agree with universalism, I would consider a universalist who did a blot properly more a a true heathen a folklish person who call all four corners any days of the week.

Being folkish or universalist is an opinion, no different from my opinion that Burger King is better than McDonalds, calling all four corners is a sacrilege.

KKK are right-wing fundamentalist Christians as well. You're going to get rotten apples in every bunch. Attitudes such as those already mentioned are just going to drive solitaries like myself further underground. Why? Because I couldn't be fucked with people who are forever critical of things they know absolutely nothing about!

I think Nationalist pride is missing more than anything, and you don't need to be of a religious persuasion, just mindful of your heritage and culture. Minority groups and multiculturalism are taking those rights away from people with each passing day, making it increasingly difficult for us to remember who we are.

[2DREZQ]

KKK are right-wing fundamentalist Christians as well.


Uhmmm...

No.

The basic activities and most of the beliefs espoused by the Klan place them at odds with the Teachings of Christ that are central to the fundamentalist mindset. Speaking as someone who could be described as a fundamentalist, and has actually been exposed to Klan beliefs.

[Psychonaut]

the ancient and primordial practises of the earliest worshippers are the only true access to this otherwordly reality

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.

[Grumpy Cat]

Sorry Bryn, I just think wulfhere has a penchant for being full of shit and he's using "being oathbound" as an excuse. YouTube or it didn't happen.

Other people who do magic have no problem putting it on YouTube or even on TV.

As for other questions for me, I will respond when I get access to a real computer. Don't feel like posting a long response on a smartphone.

[Wulfhere]

Sorry Bryn, I just think wulfhere has a penchant for being full of shit and he's using "being oathbound" as an excuse. YouTube or it didn't happen.

Other people who do magic have no problem putting it on YouTube or even on TV.

As for other questions for me, I will respond when I get access to a real computer. Don't feel like posting a long response on a smartphone.

Can you provide a link to any YouTube clip that involves real magic, please?

[Grumpy Cat]

Can you provide a link to any YouTube clip that involves real magic, please?

Hellasson sent me one once, ask him.

[Vasconcelos]

Can you provide a link to any YouTube clip that involves real magic, please?

There's no such thing as real magic, only tricks that people don't realize/understand and as a consequence have no way to properly explain.

[Psychonaut]

There's no such thing as real magic, only tricks that people don't realize/understand and as a consequence have no way to properly explain.

That's a very, very, very broad statement that is entirely contingent upon what is meant by the term magic. I'm willing to bet that your definition is different from that being used by others in this thread. But, if you're going to be adamant about the unreality of such a thing, your definition would be nice to know before anyone starts arguing with you. :)

[Wulfhere]

There's no such thing as real magic, only tricks that people don't realize/understand and as a consequence have no way to properly explain.

Really? And you know this how, exactly?

[Adalwolf]

There's no such thing as real magic, only tricks that people don't realize/understand and as a consequence have no way to properly explain.

''Magic'' performed at the carnival or on a stage show is very different from the kind that people dabble with when they get involved with the occult.

[Murphy]

''Magic'' performed at the carnival or on a stage show is very different from the kind that people dabble with when they get involved with the occult.

Indeed. The cost of dealing with the demonic is a high price.

[Wulfhere]

Indeed. The cost of dealing with the demonic is a high price.

Do you have personal experience of this?

[Murphy]

Do you have personal experience of this?

Please. I am no fool. I wont even stay in a friend's house if they pull out a ouija board.

[Grumpy Cat]

Indeed. The cost of dealing with the demonic is a high price.

Yeah I've heard it before. Pat Robertson claiming all the troubles in Haiti (earthquake, hurricanes, poverty, corrupt governments, and now cholera) are caused by the use of black magic by Haitians during the slave revolt.

[Wulfhere]

Please. I am no fool. I wont even stay in a friend's house if they pull out a ouija board.

You say you are no fool, and yet in the next sentence say a very foolish thing.

[Vasconcelos]

Really? And you know this how, exactly?

You can't prove it doesn't exist (as you can't with anything else), but no one proved it does exist either.

As a skeptical and someone who's been a realist and a fan of physics (aswel as atheist/agnostic) since I grew a brain, I simply ignore the so-called "magic" until someone comes up with scientific proof for it's existence.

But this is contraditory, because if it is explained, it's no longer magic, is it?

[Wulfhere]

You can't prove it doesn't exist (as you can't with anything else), but no one proved it does exist either.

As a skeptical and someone who's been a realist and a fan of physics (atheist/agnostic) since I grew a brain, I simply ignore the so-called "magic" until someone comes up with scientific proof for it's existence.

Then I suggest you widen your experience. Try training in a magical order, for example. You might be quite shocked.

[Adalwolf]

Yeah I've heard it before. Pat Robertson claiming all the troubles in Haiti (earthquake, hurricanes, poverty, corrupt governments, and now cholera) are caused by the use of black magic by Haitians during the slave revolt.

That is quite possibly true. Twice now the French and Americans have gone to Haiti with the best intentions of setting up a stable economy and introducing them to Christianity. Both times they let their societies crumble and rejected Jesus in turn for their Voodoo snake worship BS. The natural disasters frequently hitting Haiti is likely the wrath of God himself.

[Vasconcelos]

Then I suggest you widen your experience. Try training in a magical order, for example. You might be quite shocked.

I'd rather improve my knowledge in something that is actually useful for my people, like the fields of physics, especially in my own area of civil engineering.

[Grumpy Cat]

You can't prove it doesn't exist (as you can't with anything else), but no one proved it does exist either.

As a skeptical and someone who's been a realist and a fan of physics (aswel as atheist/agnostic) since I grew a brain, I simply ignore the so-called "magic" until someone comes up with scientific proof for it's existence.

There's a scientific explanation for a lot of magic. We just now call it medicine and potions are called drugs.

But there is some that cannot be explained or hasn't been explained by science yet (but probably will in the future).

[Vasconcelos]

There's a scientific explanation for a lot of magic. We just now call it medicine and potions are called drugs.

But there is some that cannot be explained or hasn't been explained by science yet (but probably will in the future).

This is what I meant.

[Wulfhere]

There's a scientific explanation for a lot of magic. We just now call it medicine and potions are called drugs.

But there is some that cannot be explained or hasn't been explained by science yet (but probably will in the future).

There may well be magical explanations for what is known as "science", too.

[2DREZQ]

There may well be magical explanations for what is known as "science", too.

Every time we peel back another layer of the Universe there is less magic and more understanding.

Yet, it seems to me, the ancient soothsayers, alchemists, and astrologers were on a hunt for the truth, for deeper understanding of the Universe and its' rules of operation.

If you could call back from "beyond" the great alchemists and wizards of all time, they would abandon their smoky stone-tower secret labs and apply for jobs at Fermilab and CERN, or go to work for Genitech and Pfizer.

Our modern fascination with magic is (at least in those I have been exposed to) not a search for truth, but a desire for an alternative to the truth. A desire to possess secrets not available to the common-minded regardless of their intellect. Science is the true decendant of those Socerers; modern followers of Magic recoil at the democratization of knowledge and seek an emotional state something like nostalgia mixed with the old secret-handshake-to-get-in.

Searching for wonder beyond the minds capacity to encompass? Take a look at the Scale of the Universe thread! Geez, quarks and quantum foam? string theory? What has magic got to compare to that?

PS. If you practice Magic and feel this does not describe you, my apologies. I can only describe those people I've interacted with, not everybody out there.

[Wulfhere]

Every time we peel back another layer of the Universe there is less magic and more understanding.

Yet, it seems to me, the ancient soothsayers, alchemists, and astrologers were on a hunt for the truth, for deeper understanding of the Universe and its' rules of operation.

If you could call back from "beyond" the great alchemists and wizards of all time, they would abandon their smoky stone-tower secret labs and apply for jobs at Fermilab and CERN, or go to work for Genitech and Pfizer.

Our modern fascination with magic is (at least in those I have been exposed to) not a search for truth, but a desire for an alternative to the truth. A desire to possess secrets not available to the common-minded regardless of their intellect. Science is the true decendant of those Socerers; modern followers of Magic recoil at the democratization of knowledge and seek an emotional state something like nostalgia mixed with the old secret-handshake-to-get-in.

Searching for wonder beyond the minds capacity to encompass? Take a look at the Scale of the Universe thread! Geez, quarks and quantum foam? string theory? What has magic got to compare to that?

PS. If you practice Magic and feel this does not describe you, my apologies. I can only describe those people I've interacted with, not everybody out there.

Magic complements science, it's not an alternative to it.

[Psychonaut]

So many opinions about magic, but not a single definition of what anyone means by the word...

Since this is a word with a million different meaning, encompassing everything from theurgy to prestidigitation, it would be lovely if those of you with very strong opinions one way or the other would tell us which definition you're meaning when you say magic.

[2DREZQ]

So many opinions about magic, but not a single definition of what anyone means by the word...

Since this is a word with a million different meaning, encompassing everything from theurgy to prestidigitation, it would be lovely if those of you with very strong opinions one way or the other would tell us which definition you're meaning when you say magic.

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

I'm obviously not a practitioner. My "definition" can be no more specific than that of those who practice magic. I've never gotten a real good explanation from them either.

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.

I know-could be better.

[Nodens]

Incoming old news:


the science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with the will

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

[Wulfhere]

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

I'm obviously not a practitioner. My "definition" can be no more specific than that of those who practice magic. I've never gotten a real good explanation from them either.

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.

I know-could be better.

That's actually quite a good definition.

[Wulfhere]

Incoming old news:



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

Crowley.

[Baron Samedi]

I'm both amazed and amused by the opinions voiced here.

Magic, no matter what paradigm you come across, must first be experienced in a subjective manner before utilizing it in the objective universe. For those that don't understand this concept... Read a book (as opposed to talking shit on an internet forum).

No one becomes a magus/sorcerer/witch/vitki/seidkona/whatever overnight. Not even me, someone who has been practicing diligently for about 3 years now. It's an obsession of mine to peel back the layers of existence and step forth into others.

In any case, it is not for us to prove to the rest of the world that these things are "real". Those with the eyes to see, and the Will to sacrifice damn near all shall be the ones that persevere.

[Wulfhere]

I'm both amazed and amused by the opinions voiced here.

Magic, no matter what paradigm you come across, must first be experienced in a subjective manner before utilizing it in the objective universe. For those that don't understand this concept... Read a book (as opposed to talking shit on an internet forum).

No one becomes a magus/sorcerer/witch/vitki/seidkona/whatever overnight. Not even me, someone who has been practicing diligently for about 3 years now. It's an obsession of mine to peel back the layers of existence and step forth into others.

In any case, it is not for us to prove to the rest of the world that these things are "real". Those with the eyes to see, and the Will to sacrifice damn near all shall be the ones that persevere.

Even after the best part of 30 years in magical groups one is still learning. Wouldn't it be boring, otherwise?

[Murphy]

Blind fools. You are turning yourselves into pawns of the demonic.

[Brynhild]

Blind fools. You are turning yourselves into pawns of the demonic.

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

[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. :laugh:

You mean the Helm of Awe, right? :D

[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. :thumb001:

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C_Lilly) and Stephen LaBerge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 :D

[2DREZQ]

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.

Oh, I know. It just amused me because I'm usually the one demanding that someone define their terms.




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.


Excellent questions!

First of all, I would say that I've never seen anything that constitutes scientific proof that magic actually does anything. The burden of proof does lay with the claimant, after all.
The searchers of old used the best tools they had available, which was little beyond their own senses. They plodded ahead, often hampered as much as helped by the work of those before them. Their "spirit", if you will, lead to the modern scientific method and the technology we have to conduct our search today. Those same men would not continue to use the same methods (In my opinion, granted) today if they were offered the knowledge we have and the use of modern tools. No 14th century equivalent of a gas chromatograph exists. Why gaze at the stars with the naked eye when someone offers the use of the Hubble or Mount Palomar?
Look, I'm not trying to insult or denigrate those who find solace or excitement in the pursuit of Magic (though my own faith tells me it's a dangerous path-but that's another discussion). It seems to be an emotional journey, not an intellectual one. It's an emotional response to the fact that we are revealing mysteries every day-a backlash if you will. It feels like a desire to be part of an inner circle of initiates whose knowledge is beyond the common run of men. How special are you if everybody around you knows all the same stuff, or can google it and go you one better?

I almost forgot: The part about it being currently unexplained. Implicit in that term is the idea that sufficient investigation will reveal an explaination acceptable to the scientific mind. What methods, then should be used in such an investigation? Those millenia old methods that have not revealed much to date, or modern scientific method and tools? And, should we find logical explainations, will it then cease to be magic?


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.


Agreed. The thread starter seemed to be more in the mode of dissing Christianity than lamenting our fate as a civilization before the onslaught of Islam.

Christianity is concerned with the salvation of souls. It "combats" Islam in the world of ideas-presenting an alternative to the "religeon of peace" to the masses. Thus, even if you don't believe in Salvation through faith in Christ yourself, it is only expedient to support the evangelization of the world as a bulwark against the spread of this "faith". Christianity has a historical record of being quite effective in this area (We ARE still here 13 centuries later, after all.)
The immediate concern is what we do in the physical world against those who already believe there are 72 virgins waiting for them? ( Me, I'd pick 15 well trained courtesans...)

Might I suggest a hard look at immigration, tanks, rifles, cruise missiles...

[blan]

the logic people here are using is simply daft. ((Christianity did not repel islam so Christianity is worthless and we need to become pagans)) well by that logic i can say pagan religion is inferior because it failed to repel Christianity. so how strong is paganism if it can not fight off a ((weak spineless religion)) like Christianity

[Savant]

Yah man, when will these ppl learn? Everyone with any common sense can see it's simply because we haven't thrown enough virgins into the volcano lately... :cool:


the logic people here are using is simply daft. ((Christianity did not repel islam so Christianity is worthless and we need to become pagans)) well by that logic i can say pagan religion is inferior because it failed to repel Christianity. so how strong is paganism if it can not fight off a ((weak spineless religion)) like Christianity

[2DREZQ]

Yah man, when will these ppl learn? Everyone with any common sense can see it's simply because we haven't thrown enough virgins into the volcano lately... :cool:


Well, That could be due to a serious shortage...







of Volcanos.
:D

[Albion]

Blind fools. You are turning yourselves into pawns of the demonic.

Come on, you don't really go around believing that rubbish do you? You sound like some medieval priest about to commence a book burning. :D


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.

Alas, most of the Neo-Pagan movements are simply stupid or run by hippies. There are some smaller and genuinely decent movements out there though.


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.

Yes, indeed it has. Christianity in the UK is associated with two types of people: the elderly interfering types and the country bumpkins. Sadly I have the one or two of the elderly interfering types in my family. :rolleyes:


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.

How would you know, have you applied to even one movement? From the sounds of it you have and subsequently got put off by the one movement and use this to form your bias against the whole Pagan collection of faiths.
Please base statements on facts. Cheers.


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.

It takes an intelligent person not to follow the crowd like most people. Christianity is the crowd, and atheism is the other one.
Of course there are some morons and idiots within heathenism and paganism, but Christianity has them in bulk, more idiots and morons than all Pagan movements probably have members put together.


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.

When times are tough people pray to "god", with this in mind I think its more likely that most turn to the bible to be honest.
Joining a "fringe" religion helps them get in touch with their ancestors or be with like minded people.
You talk as if Christianity is the only religion, some people don't believe it or don't like it for whatever reasons, others do like it - accept their opinions.
Oh, and for the record Christians are known where I live for acting all "high and mighty", that is thinking they're better than other people - just the attributes you proscribe to Pagans above.


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.

Maybe the lot you were with. And do you really compare Heathens to the French and Catholicism? Heathens can't do such things because they don't number nearly enough to simply go around and make a big show of things.
Heathens don't impose their wills on anything, just the major religions are able and like to do that.


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?

Open your history book and look at the pages covering from modern human's evolution to the Viking conversions to Christianity, that is if your history book goes back that far and you believe in evolution. :D
See how Europe's foreign religion was imposed on Europe by the sword. Abrahamic religions belong in the Middle East from whence they came.

[Sellanrå]

Not pagan religion per se, which is merely a collection of stories, rites, and rituals, but the pagan mindset that the old tales speak of: bravery, civic duty, devotion to the family, hard work, honesty, loyalty to one's friends, perhaps a certain craftiness ala Odysseus, aggressive warlikeness (i.e. not shirking away from violence), etc.

Christianity has only failed because these lionlike qualities are now lionized in the name of universal brotherhood and divine forgiveness of sins.


"It is the strength of the northern mythological imagination that it faced this problem, put the monsters in the centre, gave them Victory but no honour, and found a potent but terrible solution in naked will and courage. 'As a working theory absolutely impregnable.' So potent is it, that while the older southern imagination has faded for ever into literary ornament, the northern has power, as it were, to revive its spirit even in our own times. "

Beowulf: the Monsters and their Critics, JRR Tolkien

Tolkien was a practicing Christian, yet, he realized our culture's need for courage, 'naked will' and other 'lionlike' values. He also looked to the possibility of strengthening our fading Christian culture with the resources of our latent pagan past. I don't think it was paganism that made our ancestors heroic; it was our ancestors that made paganism heroic. After they converted from paganism they possessed the same solar, aristocratic, warrior spirit as Christians, tempered and improved by charity. Grace perfects nature it does not overthrow or annihilate it. St Thomas' contention is that man's nature, gifts, abilities, etc are not supplanted or smothered by grace, or say his acceptance of Christianity, but actually brought to their perfection or their true fulfillment. In the case of the Germanic people, Christianity should infuse us with more of the northern or gothic spirit, courage, loyalty, honesty, etc. I think history would tend to confirm this up to the modern age and the beginning of secularism. I think this would also be the case for our Gothic traditions in pagan times. The old pagan myths, when understood from a Christian framework, have the ability to make us better Christians (and hence better Goths).

[Wyn]

See how Europe's foreign religion was imposed on Europe by the sword.

It doesn't make sense to speak of 'Europe' as a monolithic entity in this context. The English were converted generally by way of missionaries and when local leaders/kings converted, and there was a steady period of 'dual worship' of the traditional Germanic gods and of the Christian God over a couple of hundred years or so. England's transition to Christianity was rather smooth.

Abrahamic religions belong in the Middle East from whence they came.

Christianity (of the Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican kind) is far too European to be at home in the Middle East.

[Grumpy Cat]

Come on, you don't really go around believing that rubbish do you? You sound like some medieval priest about to commence a book burning. :D



Alas, most of the Neo-Pagan movements are simply stupid or run by hippies. There are some smaller and genuinely decent movements out there though.



Yes, indeed it has. Christianity in the UK is associated with two types of people: the elderly interfering types and the country bumpkins. Sadly I have the one or two of the elderly interfering types in my family. :rolleyes:



How would you know, have you applied to even one movement? From the sounds of it you have and subsequently got put off by the one movement and use this to form your bias against the whole Pagan collection of faiths.
Please base statements on facts. Cheers.



It takes an intelligent person not to follow the crowd like most people. Christianity is the crowd, and atheism is the other one.
Of course there are some morons and idiots within heathenism and paganism, but Christianity has them in bulk, more idiots and morons than all Pagan movements probably have members put together.



When times are tough people pray to "god", with this in mind I think its more likely that most turn to the bible to be honest.
Joining a "fringe" religion helps them get in touch with their ancestors or be with like minded people.
You talk as if Christianity is the only religion, some people don't believe it or don't like it for whatever reasons, others do like it - accept their opinions.
Oh, and for the record Christians are known where I live for acting all "high and mighty", that is thinking they're better than other people - just the attributes you proscribe to Pagans above.



Maybe the lot you were with. And do you really compare Heathens to the French and Catholicism? Heathens can't do such things because they don't number nearly enough to simply go around and make a big show of things.
Heathens don't impose their wills on anything, just the major religions are able and like to do that.



Open your history book and look at the pages covering from modern human's evolution to the Viking conversions to Christianity, that is if your history book goes back that far and you believe in evolution. :D
See how Europe's foreign religion was imposed on Europe by the sword. Abrahamic religions belong in the Middle East from whence they came.

Obviously you have mistaken me for a Christian and decided to make a dig at the Canadian education system which is superior to most European countries (except Finland and Switzerland).

When I get a computer I'll make a more in depth response since I don't feel like making a long post on a smartphone.

[poiuytrewq0987]

There is only one true God! (http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Cylon_Religion)

http://www.diamondharmony.com/productimages/prodimg/CR582M/yellow/fl.jpg

Death to the worshipers of false Gods! (http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Soldiers_of_the_One)

[Albion]

It doesn't make sense to speak of 'Europe' as a monolithic entity in this context

When a religion is foreign to the whole continent it does.


The English were converted generally by way of missionaries and when local leaders/kings converted, and there was a steady period of 'dual worship' of the traditional Germanic gods and of the Christian God over a couple of hundred years or so. England's transition to Christianity was rather smooth.

But in Europe as a whole it didn't always go that way, in Norway it was pretty violent.


Christianity (of the Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican kind) is far too European to be at home in the Middle East.

Maybe so, but the Middle East is its roots.


Obviously you have mistaken me for a Christian

No, I just got fed up with you using the same tired arguments against Pagans as Liberals and multiculturalists use against us racists . Right-wing, fringe groups... sounds like the familiar baseless insults to me.


a dig at the Canadian education system which is superior to most European countries (except Finland and Switzerland).

Where did I say that? No, I was just talking about sheep following the Shepard actually, this being Christians and Atheists who question nothing.


When I get a computer I'll make a more in depth response since I don't feel like making a long post on a smartphone.

Ah, yeah its awful that way, I know. I use a touch screen smartphone on here sometimes, god how I long for a physical keyboard. :thumbs up

[Guapo]

Sure why not. the Islamic god is a pagan god. The generic Arabic word for god is ilah but Allah means "The god". Allah was the chief pagan diety (a moon god who had 3 daughters, one of which was named Manat) of the pre-Islamic Arabic pantheon of gods, and therefore Allah is still the same pagan god.

[Wyn]

When a religion is foreign to the whole continent it does.


But in Europe as a whole it didn't always go that way, in Norway it was pretty violent.

Your claim:


See how Europe's foreign religion was imposed on Europe by the sword. Abrahamic religions belong in the Middle East from whence they came.

This is demonstrably untrue (see esp. the British Isles). Don't speak in absolutes ("...imposed on Europe by the sword") if you don't want to be understood in absolutes. Christianity was not "imposed on Europe" by the sword and as you've admitted you're aware of this.


Maybe so,

Not maybe.


but the Middle East is its roots.

The thing about roots is that they don't always define the essence of a thing. The focal Christian concept of God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitarianism) is Indo-European, the one revered as the Messiah himself is deified (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:1&version=NIV) by pagan Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos) theology and the influence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenic_philosophy_and_Christianity) of Greek thought (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_Neoplatonism) is plain to see. This doesn't even include the many "saints" who are merely European gods put into a Christian context. All of this is to be expected given that many of the earliest Christian thinkers were Europeans of the Roman Empire and that they wanted to make their religion palatable to the Hellenistic population. Christianity had to adapt to Europeans, otherwise they wouldn't have accepted it. That Christianity originates in the Middle East is indisputable. Equally indisputable is that the religion very quickly became different to the Middle East's Semitic religions.

[Albion]

Your claim:
This is demonstrably untrue (see esp. the British Isles). Don't speak in absolutes ("...imposed on Europe by the sword") if you don't want to be understood in absolutes. Christianity was not "imposed on Europe" by the sword and as you've admitted you're aware of this.


So what? It was in part, so just because they didn't impose it everywhere by the sword it doesn't make it any better does it?


Not maybe.

Yes maybe. If Islam took root in the West with a Western façade it'd still be a Middle-Eastern religion.


The thing about roots is that they don't always define the essence of a thing. The focal Christian concept of God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitarianism) is Indo-European, the one revered as the Messiah himself is deified (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:1&version=NIV) by pagan Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos) theology and the influence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenic_philosophy_and_Christianity) of Greek thought (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_Neoplatonism) is plain to see. This doesn't even include the many "saints" who are merely European gods put into a Christian context. All of this is to be expected given that many of the earliest Christian thinkers were Europeans of the Roman Empire and that they wanted to make their religion palatable to the Hellenistic population. Christianity had to adapt to Europeans, otherwise they wouldn't have accepted it. That Christianity originates in the Middle East is indisputable. Equally indisputable is that the religion very quickly became different to the Middle East's Semitic religions.

Yeah, that's a good point but it sort of makes Christianity the weird offspring of both Europe and the Mid-East. Whilst I accept that Christianity is probably too far ingrained into European culture to simply just deny it as being in any part European, I still see it as a Middle-Eastern religion.

When the priests of the Roman Empire were deciding at the Council of Nicea on how to Europeanize and spread Christianity to Europe what gave them such authority to speak for it as a whole? The Council of Nicea decided on how to continue Rome's legacy through the pope via the medium of religion.


Sure why not. the Islamic god is a pagan god. The generic Arabic word for god is ilah but Allah means "The god". Allah was the chief pagan diety (a moon god who had 3 daughters, one of which was named Manat) of the pre-Islamic Arabic pantheon of gods, and therefore Allah is still the same pagan god.

He's not of European forms of Paganism though.

[Wyn]

So what? It was in part, so just because they didn't impose it everywhere by the sword it doesn't make it any better does it?

So what? Your claim was that Christianity was "imposed on Europe by the sword" which you know not to be universally true. Europe cannot be spoken of as a monolith here because different populations have different histories with Christianity. I didn't say that something made anything "better" or some such nonsense, don't put words in my mouth. I'm examining this from as neutral a position as I'm able, not trying to claim that any particular thing is better or worse.


Yes maybe. If Islam took root in the West with a Western façade it'd still be a Middle-Eastern religion.

Yeah, that's a good point but it sort of makes Christianity the weird offspring of both Europe and the Mid-East. Whilst I accept that Christianity is probably too far ingrained into European culture to simply just deny it as being in any part European, I still see it as a Middle-Eastern religion.


This is the important part. Whether or not it can be called simply a façade is highly debatable. We're not talking about a Middle Eastern religion with a few European add-ons here. Christianity as practiced in Europe developed under the guidance of European (primarily Hellenistic) thinkers located in the Roman Empire and the religion was shaped by this from the very beginning and at crucial stages in its development.

The fundamentally Indo-European influences on Christian theology and Christology go beyond being a "façade" in my opinion (obviously this is all completely subjective) and show a natural progression of what was bound to happen to any new religious movement that sprang up in the Roman Empire.


When the priests of the Roman Empire were deciding at the Council of Nicea on how to Europeanize and spread Christianity to Europe what gave them such authority to speak for it as a whole? The Council of Nicea decided on how to continue Rome's legacy through the pope via the medium of religion.

Those present at CoN were essentially the movers and shakers of Christian proto-orthodoxy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-orthodox_Christianity). Their (if it can be called theirs, after all, they were simply the leaders of a religion that was already being shaped by the inhabitants of the empire) brand of the religion was the most popular and as such they were the most influential (in comparison to the "gnostic Christians" and other much smaller movements without real organised leadership). Naturally, when they gave one doctrine the "approved" stamp and another the "reject" one then that was what the Church as a whole was going to believe and so that was what was spread. The religion was adapting to its Hellenistic converts and philosophers, never mind what individuals priests/bishops had in mind. Regardless of their power as individuals, and even of the authority of the council, their influential position coupled with the Hellenism of the empire made sure that their brand of Christianity was going to be the brand of Christianity. That's just the way it goes - they had the numbers on their side. "It is what it is", as they say.

[Albion]

So what? Your claim was that Christianity was "imposed on Europe by the sword" which you know not to be universally true. Europe cannot be spoken of as a monolith here because different populations have different histories with Christianity. I didn't say that something made anything "better" or some such nonsense, don't put words in my mouth. I'm examining this from as neutral a position as I'm able, not trying to claim that any particular thing is better or worse.

Oh okay then, we'll do it your way then.


We're not talking about a Middle Eastern religion with a few European add-ons here. Christianity as practiced in Europe developed under the guidance of European (primarily Hellenistic) thinkers located in the Roman Empire and the religion was shaped by this from the very beginning and at crucial stages in its development.

Yes, I suppose the question is whether it is a Middle Eastern religion anymore or if its absorbed so much European influences that it is mainly European. So yes, I guess in my opinion it is more European than Middle-Eastern, at least now anyway.


The fundamentally Indo-European influences on Christian theology and Christology go beyond being a "façade" in my opinion (obviously this is all completely subjective) and show a natural progression of what was bound to happen to any new religious movement that sprang up in the Roman Empire.

Yeah, I suppose you're right. I just wanted to see if the Vatican crew on here would get wound up :D, I don't have strong views of Christianity or Heathenism either way.


Those present at CoN were essentially the movers and shakers of Christian proto-orthodoxy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-orthodox_Christianity). Their (if it can be called theirs, after all, they were simply the leaders of a religion that was already being shaped by the inhabitants of the empire) brand of the religion was the most popular and as such they were the most influential (in comparison to the "gnostic Christians" and other much smaller movements without real organised leadership). Naturally, when they gave one doctrine the "approved" stamp and another the "reject" one then that was what the Church as a whole was going to believe and so that was what was spread. The religion was adapting to its Hellenistic converts and philosophers, never mind what individuals priests/bishops had in mind. Regardless of their power as individuals, and even of the authority of the council, their influential position coupled with the Hellenism of the empire made sure that their brand of Christianity was going to be the brand of Christianity. That's just the way it goes - they had the numbers on their side. "It is what it is", as they say.

Yeah, some good points raised there.

So once a foreign religion and brought to certain areas by the sword, but now an integral part of European culture.
Heathenism has its place too though, I'd like to see a good revival of it in a true form as possible. It could exist as a minority religion at around 5% of the population of Europe.

[Grumpy Cat]

When a religion is foreign to the whole continent it does.



But in Europe as a whole it didn't always go that way, in Norway it was pretty violent.



Maybe so, but the Middle East is its roots.



No, I just got fed up with you using the same tired arguments against Pagans as Liberals and multiculturalists use against us racists . Right-wing, fringe groups... sounds like the familiar baseless insults to me.



Where did I say that? No, I was just talking about sheep following the Shepard actually, this being Christians and Atheists who question nothing.



Ah, yeah its awful that way, I know. I use a touch screen smartphone on here sometimes, god how I long for a physical keyboard. :thumbs up

I didn't say pagans were right-wing fringe, just simply fringe. Some are left-wing fringe. A lot of them are society outcasts who got into it in high school when they were social outcasts.

I was around Heathenry for 10 years, and sure, not all of them are crazy but a good number of them are. Also being half faroese I know that some view the modern Heathen scene as an insult to their heritage and culture.

I remember first hearing of the movie 300 on pagan boards and thinking "So... Is this a movie or the average pagan's credit score?"

[Albion]

I didn't say pagans were right-wing fringe, just simply fringe. Some are left-wing fringe. A lot of them are society outcasts who got into it in high school when they were social outcasts.

I was around Heathenry for 10 years, and sure, not all of them are crazy but a good number of them are. Also being half faroese I know that some view the modern Heathen scene as an insult to their heritage and culture.

I remember first hearing of the movie 300 on pagan boards and thinking "So... Is this a movie or the average pagan's credit score?"

How do some see it as an insult? Yes I see the whole hippie sector of it as an insult where they dance around Stonehenge naked and generally act as hippies do, but what of the rest of the movements, the proper one's trying to recreate it?

[Adalwolf]

Come on, you don't really go around believing that rubbish do you? You sound like some medieval priest about to commence a book burning. :D

There has been many terrifying first hand experiences from people who have messed with the occult. Some people may be able to handle it, but others can develop serious psychotic problems.


Alas, most of the Neo-Pagan movements are simply stupid or run by hippies. There are some smaller and genuinely decent movements out there though.

Correct; and the Wiccans aren't much better either I hear. In this modern age, these types of Pagans vastly outnumber the genuine groups.


Yes, indeed it has. Christianity in the UK is associated with two types of people: the elderly interfering types and the country bumpkins. Sadly I have the one or two of the elderly interfering types in my family.

And what are Heathens associated with there? Liberal green ecofriendly or anti-social weirdos who like to conjure up potions and spells. Besides, you're interpreting a universal matter and subjecting it to your opinion within the UK. :coffee:


It takes an intelligent person not to follow the crowd like most people. Christianity is the crowd, and atheism is the other one.

That is such failed logic. Most people who genuinely follow a religion or not is because of personal experience.


Open your history book and look at the pages covering from modern human's evolution to the Viking conversions to Christianity

And old Scandinavia was so lovely wasn't it. I mean regular bog lynchings and sacrifices of people and animals to the Gods would be a cherished tradition.

Btw, you completely overlook the fact how the Crusades helped Europe fend off attacks from the Muslims regularly.

[Psychonaut]

...green ecofriendly...

What's wrong with being green and ecofriendly?

[Brynhild]

There has been many terrifying first hand experiences from people who have messed with the occult. Some people may be able to handle it, but others can develop serious psychotic problems.

There have been experiences to the extreme of Christians taking the doctrine way too seriously as well, or having family members imposing it on them in such ways that they suffer long-term trauma. It's like anything, you mess with what you don't know and you will suffer the consequences.


Correct; and the Wiccans aren't much better either I hear. In this modern age, these types of Pagans vastly outnumber the genuine groups.

The basic problem with new agers and neo-pagans is the utter lack of respect of identity and culture that they try to incorporate in magical rites. It's like being a jack of all trades but a master of none.


And what are Heathens associated with there? Liberal green ecofriendly or anti-social weirdos who like to conjure up potions and spells.

I don't have a problem with being environmentally friendly but I don't attach that to any religious view. There are also plenty of anti-socials and again they needn't be restricted to those who practice a specific religion.


That is such failed logic. Most people who genuinely follow a religion or not is because of personal experience.

I can actually see this sheep mentality but that doesn't necessarily apply to everyone. It's the more vulnerable who are likely to take it literally than the otherwise more level-headed who take what they need and discard the rest.


And old Scandinavia was so lovely wasn't it. I mean regular bog lynchings and sacrifices of people and animals to the Gods would be a cherished tradition.

At least that way of life was understood among those who practised it. I wouldn't exactly call the acts of the Inquisition to hunt down and wipe out so-called witches, based on hearsay and malicious gossip, civilised either. The Malleus Maleficarum was a book specifically written describing various methods of torture, to the delight of those who didn't need much of an excuse to exert their sadistic behaviour onto those others that were considered outsiders.

[Aemma]

Not pagan religion per se, which is merely a collection of stories, rites, and rituals, but the pagan mindset that the old tales speak of: bravery, civic duty, devotion to the family, hard work, honesty, loyalty to one's friends, perhaps a certain craftiness ala Odysseus, aggressive warlikeness (i.e. not shirking away from violence), etc.

Christianity has only failed because these lionlike qualities are now lionized in the name of universal brotherhood and divine forgiveness of sins.

Pardon? In my worldview, one is part and parcel of the other. You cannot have one without the other. Don't belittle the religion Pall. It is as valid a form of spirituality as any and much more entrenched in actual culture than not. We do not "merely" have a collection of stories, rites and rituals. :mad:

[Guapo]

Say no to paper bags. Save-A-Tree®

[Aemma]

The pagan mindset is what is needed, not paganism itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Being_a_Pagan

Keep in mind that this book isn't a perfect expression of a purely paganized, post-Christian worldview.

You used to be pagan. You yourself should know that your comment above does not make any sense! :rolleyes:

[Magister Eckhart]

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

"Superstition" (i.e. mysticism) isn't the only component of religion; in fact, it's not even the dominant component, as much as the scientistic atheists of modernity would like us to believe otherwise.


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 :D

Well the Mohammedan question is a cultural question, and while Huntington does put too much emphasis on religion in culture, that does not mean that religion does not play a major role in culture. We're dealing with a cultural conflict here that cannot simply be solved by destroying both cultures with irreligiosity and liberalism.


the logic people here are using is simply daft. ((Christianity did not repel islam so Christianity is worthless and we need to become pagans)) well by that logic i can say pagan religion is inferior because it failed to repel Christianity. so how strong is paganism if it can not fight off a ((weak spineless religion)) like Christianity

Christianity did repel Mohammedanism, and quite successfully at that, but let's think for a moment: how much of the Christian ethos still has dominant moral sway in the West? The fact is that we need something to fill the moral vacuum left by Christianity as it decays and collapses; Heathenry and Mohammedanism represent two of the possibilities. I prefer Heathenry myself.


Come on, you don't really go around believing that rubbish do you? You sound like some medieval priest about to commence a book burning. :D

I respect the sentiment if it's genuine; at least one Christian is still a true believer.


Alas, most of the Neo-Pagan movements are simply stupid or run by hippies. There are some smaller and genuinely decent movements out there though.

See my post in response to AcadianDriftwood.


Yes, indeed it has. Christianity in the UK is associated with two types of people: the elderly interfering types and the country bumpkins. Sadly I have the one or two of the elderly interfering types in my family. :rolleyes:

There's nothing wrong with interfering faith as long as its genuine faith. At any rate it's better than the sodomite-run, child-molesting, Mohammedan-friendly Christianity that dominates the organised Churches in the UK. The first sign that Christianity is dead is the acceptance of sodomites into the clergy.


How would you know, have you applied to even one movement? From the sounds of it you have and subsequently got put off by the one movement and use this to form your bias against the whole Pagan collection of faiths.
Please base statements on facts. Cheers.

I agree here; I've never heard of this sort of "testing" of which he speaks at all. Perhaps its localised, but even in my encounters with the most thick-headed of brutes attracted to the hammer, I've not seen this.


It takes an intelligent person not to follow the crowd like most people. Christianity is the crowd, and atheism is the other one.
Of course there are some morons and idiots within heathenism and paganism, but Christianity has them in bulk, more idiots and morons than all Pagan movements probably have members put together.

Here, you're flat wrong. We have just as many idiots and just as much of a herd as the Christians or atheists. Christians might have more of a herd than we do numerically, but that's only because our total numbers, including the kook Wiccans, Thelemic, Theosophic, etc. movements all put together still only make up a fraction of the total number of Christians, so it's no real comparison to say "well they have more idiots than we do", because in reality, statistically speaking, we probably have more kooks and idiots than either the Christians, the Jews, or even the atheists.


When times are tough people pray to "god", with this in mind I think its more likely that most turn to the bible to be honest.
Joining a "fringe" religion helps them get in touch with their ancestors or be with like minded people.
You talk as if Christianity is the only religion, some people don't believe it or don't like it for whatever reasons, others do like it - accept their opinions.
Oh, and for the record Christians are known where I live for acting all "high and mighty", that is thinking they're better than other people - just the attributes you proscribe to Pagans above.

Just because there are no atheists in foxholes does de-legitimate religion in good times.

I admire him talking of Christianity in this way: I wish more Christians did this, then Christianity would be more reliable as a tool for Western preservation. The strength of the Christian comes from this sort of puritanical streak - we could use more of it among heathens.

You're actually committing the same error here AD commits above; not all Christians think or act like this, in fact I'd wager not even a majority do. If they did, Christianity would be a stronger defence against Mohammedanism than it is. The fact is that most Christians are not as bigoted as they could be, or their bigotry could serve our purposes. They are more likely to accept and to forgive these days than to take up a sword and be overbearing crusaders.


Maybe the lot you were with. And do you really compare Heathens to the French and Catholicism? Heathens can't do such things because they don't number nearly enough to simply go around and make a big show of things.
Heathens don't impose their wills on anything, just the major religions are able and like to do that.

Open your history book and look at the pages covering from modern human's evolution to the Viking conversions to Christianity, that is if your history book goes back that far and you believe in evolution. :D
See how Europe's foreign religion was imposed on Europe by the sword. Abrahamic religions belong in the Middle East from whence they came.

Ireland converted without a drop of blood being spilt. Most of the blood spilt by Christians in converting the Mediterraneans was Christian, not pagan. The Norse suffered at the hands of the Chrisitans, to be sure, but again, I admire the crusading spirit, which was itself borrowed from converted Germanics who valued victory in battle over moral victory. The fact is that the only faith capable of resurrecting this tribal spirit today is Heathenry, or so I believe, and I don't think I'm alone in this.


"It is the strength of the northern mythological imagination that it faced this problem, put the monsters in the centre, gave them Victory but no honour, and found a potent but terrible solution in naked will and courage. 'As a working theory absolutely impregnable.' So potent is it, that while the older southern imagination has faded for ever into literary ornament, the northern has power, as it were, to revive its spirit even in our own times. "

Beowulf: the Monsters and their Critics, JRR Tolkien

Tolkien was a practicing Christian, yet, he realized our culture's need for courage, 'naked will' and other 'lionlike' values. He also looked to the possibility of strengthening our fading Christian culture with the resources of our latent pagan past. I don't think it was paganism that made our ancestors heroic; it was our ancestors that made paganism heroic. After they converted from paganism they possessed the same solar, aristocratic, warrior spirit as Christians, tempered and improved by charity. Grace perfects nature it does not overthrow or annihilate it. St Thomas' contention is that man's nature, gifts, abilities, etc are not supplanted or smothered by grace, or say his acceptance of Christianity, but actually brought to their perfection or their true fulfillment. In the case of the Germanic people, Christianity should infuse us with more of the northern or gothic spirit, courage, loyalty, honesty, etc. I think history would tend to confirm this up to the modern age and the beginning of secularism. I think this would also be the case for our Gothic traditions in pagan times. The old pagan myths, when understood from a Christian framework, have the ability to make us better Christians (and hence better Goths).

Again, the tribal Germanic spirit that Christianity once had itself and has since abandoned in favour of a purer form of Christian religion is really what needs to be recovered. I think Tokien and several others in the 1930s and 1940s saw this.


It doesn't make sense to speak of 'Europe' as a monolithic entity in this context. The English were converted generally by way of missionaries and when local leaders/kings converted, and there was a steady period of 'dual worship' of the traditional Germanic gods and of the Christian God over a couple of hundred years or so. England's transition to Christianity was rather smooth.

Christianity (of the Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican kind) is far too European to be at home in the Middle East.

Yes. Christianity was Westernised but has been shedding this Western shell for some centuries now, and not much of the old Western spirit still really remains in it today.


Sure why not. the Islamic god is a pagan god. The generic Arabic word for god is ilah but Allah means "The god". Allah was the chief pagan diety (a moon god who had 3 daughters, one of which was named Manat) of the pre-Islamic Arabic pantheon of gods, and therefore Allah is still the same pagan god.

No.

"Pagan" as a concept is completely Abrahamic in origin, even if the word itself is Latin. Likewise "Gentile", "Heathen", etc. all these words were taken from Latin and Greek, but the concepts they convey are entirely Abrahamic. No Abrahamic deity can be pagan. That's rather the whole point of Abrahamic religion.

Exodus 20:2-7

I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Deuteronomy 6:4

Shema Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Eḥad "Hear, Oh Israel! The LORD is thy God, the LORD alone!"

John 14:6

I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Sura 112:1-4

He is God, (the) One, The Self-Sufficient Master, He begets not, nor was He begotten; And there is none co-equal or comparable unto Him.

Sura 6:133

Thy Lord is self-sufficient, full of Mercy: if it were His will, He could destroy you, and in your place appoint whom He will as your successors, even as He raised you up from the posterity of other people




There has been many terrifying first hand experiences from people who have messed with the occult. Some people may be able to handle it, but others can develop serious psychotic problems.

Correct; and the Wiccans aren't much better either I hear. In this modern age, these types of Pagans vastly outnumber the genuine groups.

Btw, you completely overlook the fact how the Crusades helped Europe fend off attacks from the Muslims regularly.

All of this is true, but at the same time does not answer the pivotal question of the contemporary usefulness of Christianity.


What's wrong with being green and ecofriendly?

It depends on whether you're actually being environmentally conscious or whether you're doing what people claim is eco-friendly. The Green movement today is the most masturbatory phenomenon the West has ever conceived, and is more full of misinformation than most infomercials. Take recycling, for example. Recycling today wastes more energy and does more damage to the environment than producing any number of things from scratch - the only truly environmentally friendly way to recycle is to recycle metal, but say that and you're an evil capitalist industrialist pig. Likewise, there are a lot of undeniable benefits of so-called "factory farming" that the environmental movement refuses to admit, and all the "Greens" out there, including in the Heathen community, do little more than act like hippie parrots.

[Aemma]

Plenty of the pagans are multiculturally inclined in this day and age too.

It entirely depends on which strain of paganism one talks about. Just like any other spiritual path/religion, philosophies vary.

[Psychonaut]

Recycling today wastes more energy and does more damage to the environment than producing any number of things from scratch - the only truly environmentally friendly way to recycle is to recycle meta

Perhaps, but the point of recycling is also to decrease the amount of shit that ends up in landfills, keeping them smaller and less numerous. It's certainly cheaper to buy a new DVD player than to fix a broken one, but when you throw away everything that it's cheaper to replace than rehabilitate, you end up with endless mountains of garbage.

[Murphy]

All of this is true, but at the same time does not answer the pivotal question of the contemporary usefulness of Christianity.

Catholicism is the basis of everything in the West that I assume you love. The watermark of our civilisation was a Catholic time. How could one establish a communist country if everyone was a capitalist?

Earlier in your post you said that Christianity is loosing it's Western heart. The West its self is failing because of the continued assaults on the Church.

The Church is not Western. The West is Catholic.

[Magister Eckhart]

Catholicism is the basis of everything in the West that I assume you love. The watermark of our civilisation was a Catholic time. How could one establish a communist country if everyone was a capitalist?

Earlier in your post you said that Christianity is loosing it's Western heart. The West its self is failing because of the continued assaults on the Church.

The Church is not Western. The West is Catholic.

Actually, the only way to establish a communist country is if everyone is a Capitalist. That's the whole point, in fact.

What we are seeing today, and I think you and I are on the same page here, is that Christianity and the West are being divorced - liberal attacks on religion can be blamed, but Christianity, especially Catholicism, have definitely also abandoned its warrior instinct.

The West is the West, and the West only: it is a whole. The Church is part of the West, and it was the religious impetus that drove the West for the majority of our history. Sir Peter Ustinov, when he was filming Luther, remarked that Luther was in fact too good a Catholic to remain part of the Catholic Church. I don't think this is inaccurate, because it emphasises just how far from traditional Christianity Protestantism went after Luther's death, and just how little Protestantism today is indebted to Martin Luther. Overall, however, you again miss the principal question: what is the contemporary effectiveness of Christianity. I would submit that ultimately Nietzsche might not be right about a lot of things, but one thing he was definitely right about was the fact that Christianity has lost its moral effectiveness in the West.

[Aemma]

I don't know about that. The Odinic Rite has its fair share of kooky neo-pagan types, and those gatherings at Stonehenge certainly smack an awful lot of Wiccan/Thelemic hedonism rather than genuine religion.

Huh? OR members don't usually gather at Stonehenge but at White Horse Stone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Horse_Stone).

And nice talk about a group that's at least trying to do some good in the world via deeds, there TW. I don't expect you to understand, but whatever. The last thing our movement needs is one heathen dissing another, especially during Yule. But I guess this matters very little to you. :rolleyes:

[Magister Eckhart]

Huh? OR members don't usually gather at Stonehenge but at White Horse Stone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Horse_Stone).

And nice talk about a group that's at least trying to do some good in the world via deeds, there TW. I don't expect you to understand, but whatever. The last thing our movement needs is one heathen dissing another, especially during Yule. But I guess this matters very little to you. :rolleyes:


Sorry if I was unclear:

Idea 1.

I don't know about that. The Odinic Rite has its fair share of kooky neo-pagan types

Idea 2.

and those gatherings at Stonehenge certainly smack an awful lot of Wiccan/Thelemic hedonism rather than genuine religion.

And I'm trying to be fair, really. The Odinic Rite has a lot of kooks and idiots, as anyone (except the OR) will be willing to admit. The AFA has some too, and as for the Asatru Alliance... well I have my fair share of critiques of them as well.

One thing you will never hear me criticise about any of these, however, is their existence. We need organisation and order, to be sure, and I think organisations like the AFA and the AA and the OR all contribute something positive as examples. I fail, however, to see where somehow it is a negative thing to offer criticism and critique of their negative attributes.

I offer critiques of the OR because, frankly, they don't seem to be a predominantly positive force. The OR seems to like to sow dissent more than order. Between the fixation they have on bringing prisoners and gutter-trash into the faith and the feuds they engage in with the AFA and AA, it seems to me they are the least helpful of the three to Asatru.

I fail to see what the point of all this is. "Doing good in the world via deeds"? First of all: why is it important for Heathens to do good for the world. Secondly: when did good deeds become pivotal point of Heathenry? Thirdly: why are deeds at all more important than faith to anyone really concerned with the betterment of Heathenry? Finally, what has this at all to do with the effectiveness of Heathenry in preserving the West? It seems to me that you're simply parroting a typically liberal concern for the fiction "humanity" that has been the chief reason we have a Mohammedan problem at all.

And, I will have you, and everyone else, know that I don't "dis". Last I checked, my skin colour was white and I didn't grow up in inner-city America. How anyone could get away with using contemporary Negro slang in this sort of setting while criticising me for my approach to Germanic Heathenry seems satirical rather than serious.

[Aemma]

Hostile feelings regarding Christianity serve no purpose other than to make the pagan devotee feel good, and this frame of mind quickly passes (as it did for me). The radical traditionalism of de Benoist, and others like him, is sort of putting the cart before the horse because it's for a class of intellectual pundits that engage in a sort of philosophical quibbling amongst themselves rather than, say, for the Everyman. This is where Christianity still is superior, by being able to appeal to the Everyman.

The best self-help manual that I've ever encountered is Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, and there're several points when he tells himself to stay away from books and over-intellectualizing. Stoicism had at its core of beliefs the triad of ethics, logics, and physics; the earlier Stoics tended to overemphasize logics and physics, leaving ethics by the wayside, but by the time of the Roman-era Stoics, ethics had more or less become the main area of study (that we know of). Epictetus knew of several men in his own day like de Benoist, basically men who "talked the talk [logic, physics] but didn't walk the walk [ethics]." Stoicism can teach us, for example, that virtue is its own reward and that mankind isn't subject to the whims and wiles of an external God (God actually dwells in each of us, so they say, as a portion of the fiery Zeus); the whole purpose of this life is to put philosophy, the love of wisdom, and hence virtue, into practice. God exists, and is thanked, but isn't the focus of one's existence; the actual focus is oneself. This can be done by anyone, man or woman, slave or emperor.

Freeing oneself from the twin traps of too much intellectualizing and clinging to popular superstitions, this is why I don't have a very high opinion of most forms of modern paganism. On one hand, you've got the de Benoists, radical post-Christian traditionalists or somesuch, and on the other, you've got the mummerers who parade around in their costumes, holding rods and staves whilst pretending to cast spells and whatnot.


Ok I wasn't going to say anything but between reading about heathen canons (for the love of all that is holy in this world!) and Viking-wannabe dress up parties that you seem to equate with Asatruar, well let's just say something's gotta give!

Seriously Pall, I'm not sure what blotar you've been attending but I assure you, most heathens do not "dress up" and play make believe. And IF, and read it correctly I said IF, a person chooses to dress for the occasion, as in honour the sense of occasion with special garments, I really don't see what the issue is. There is an argument to be made for the wearing of certain vestments for religious purposes. For some it is a tool for tapping into the spiritual dimension, or rather the sacred through the profane. There is no need to belittle such a practice. It might not be the right approach for you but for others it is. And well, so be it.

This is the beauty of heathenry in the end: NO CANONS, NO DOGMA, NO "oh my gods I'm doing it all wrong and if Odin finds out, well then, hmm I'm not sure what but something is bound to happen because, well he's Odin, right?"

[Cato]

You used to be pagan. You yourself should know that your comment above does not make any sense! :rolleyes:

In many ways, I still am, as I accept many of the positions of Stoicism, which also teaches that much of what people think that they need is entirely unnecessary. The stories of gods and heroes, while enjoyable, are ultimately meaningless; the power, the authority, comes the Ruling Power, God that is, that exists within oneself.

And what doesn't make sense? The pagan mindset is need and not paganism? That makes perfect sense to me. Let me give you a perfect example of a pagan mindset without any paganism:

Chapter 3

How a man should proceed from the principle of God being the father of all men to the rest

If a man should be able to assent to this doctrine as he ought, that we are all sprung from God in an especial manner, and that God is the father both of men and of gods, I suppose that he would never have any ignoble or mean thoughts about himself. But if Caesar should adopt you, no one could endure your arrogance; and if you know that you are the son of Zeus, will you not be elated? Yet we do not so; but since these two things are mingled in the generation of man, body in common with the animals, and reason and intelligence in common with the gods, many incline to this kinship, which is miserable and mortal; and some few to that which is divine and happy. Since then it is of necessity that every man uses everything according to the opinion which he has about it, those, the few, who think that they are formed for fidelity and modesty and a sure use of appearances have no mean or ignoble thoughts about themselves; but with the many it is quite the contrary. For they say, "What am I? A poor, miserable man, with my wretched bit of flesh." Wretched. Indeed; but you possess something better than your "bit of flesh." Why then do you neglect that which is better, and why do you attach yourself to this?

Through this kinship with the flesh, some of us inclining to it become like wolves, faithless and treacherous and mischievous: some become like lions, savage and untamed; but the greater part of us become foxes and other worse animals. For what else is a slanderer and a malignant man than a fox, or some other more wretched and meaner animal? See, then, and take care that you do not become some one of these miserable things.

Thales said that the world is full of gods, yet there is ultimately a single God, who is the source of those called gods, heroes, spirits, etc. I'm very content to being the son of God, and I'd rather be like this than an emperor or a king or a prince. Likewise, what Epictetus teaches in the above is that this heritage is open to all, and is predicated only upon self-discovery.

This is the sort of paganism that needs to be taught, utilitarian and nondogmatic and gradually progressive. Stoicism can be taught to a Christian as to someone who worships the Aesir or the Vanir, and then they'll see that religion is more or less not a requirement to have a proper relationship with external divine beings and that, indeed, religious beliefs are often predicated upon existential fears (such as the Christian fear of damnation). When one reaches this point of belief in the divine, one can say, as did Cleanthes:

Lead me, O Zeus, and lead me, Destiny,
What way soe'er ye have appointed me!
I follow unafraid: yea, though the will
Turn recreant, I needs must follow still.

Even if I become a wretch, I still must follow the decrees of Fate and God.

However, the pre-existing superstitions should be supported purely because they provide a moral framework for the ignorant or unwise (as men as far afield as Confucius and Mencius advised). In this case, it's Christianity, and a preponderance of new cults and new superstitions only serves to erode the moral base that Christianity provides- and these new superstitions can be anything from atheism and humanism to the new pagan groups.

[Magister Eckhart]

This is the beauty of heathenry in the end: NO CANONS, NO DOGMA

You know, I change my mind. You have convinced me, really, that there is no hope that Heathenry will ever offer any resistance against Mohammedanism in the West if this is the attitude that is going to be taken.

If Heathenry cannot get rid of this idiotic libertarianism then it will simply shrivel up and die, remaining forever, as AcadianDriftwood has said, a fringe pseudo-religion without the virility to ever challenge any force, much less the massed cultural armies already within the borders of the West.

I can only hope and pray I'm wrong about the Church, because I am really sincerely concerned that I am very, very wrong about Heathenry. When I work with Psychonaut and his Theological project, I get put into this hopeful haze of intelligence and a desire to take this little project of ours and make it a real religion rather than a weekend hobby. Is it really all an illusion? Will this religion I have embraced because of the undeniable spiritual drive of my ancestors really allow itself to be completely destroyed because it is unable to realise that it simply cannot stand on its own feet without serious theological work?

As I look forward, I am filled with foreboding. There are simply two few Wagnerians, Psychonauts, and Pallamedes in our ranks...

The death of Heathenry and the triumph of Mohammedanism, just as the death of Heathenry and the triumph of Christianity resides exactly in the fact that Heathenry has no Canon and no Dogma, and Heathens are simply too thick-headed to see the necessity of establishing a Canon and established Dogma and Doctrine in our faith.

[Aemma]

Sorry if I was unclear:

No you're not so spare me.

And don't be so condescending.


And I'm trying to be fair, really. The Odinic Rite has a lot of kooks and idiots, as anyone (except the OR) will be willing to admit. The AFA has some too, and as for the Asatru Alliance... well I have my fair share of critiques of them as well.

Critiques and criticisms I will accept but puerile comments such as "kooks and idiots" I will not. How about you start "critiquing" in a mature manner your own AFAers first, hmm please? And then let your fingers do the walking (over) the rest of us lowly non-AFAer Heathens, will you?


One thing you will never hear me criticise about any of these, however, is their existence. We need organisation and order, to be sure, and I think organisations like the AFA and the AA and the OR all contribute something positive as examples.

Have you read the rest of your post? :confused:



I fail, however, to see where somehow it is a negative thing to offer criticism and critique of their negative attributes.

As I said above, speak about your own group first. Don't sling trash about an org. you've never been a member of. It is highly improper. Oh and you can be sure, I will be defending the OR here as long as you keep being inimical towards it.


I offer critiques of the OR because, frankly, they don't seem to be a predominantly positive force. The OR seems to like to sow dissent more than order. Between the fixation they have on bringing prisoners and gutter-trash into the faith and the feuds they engage in with the AFA and AA, it seems to me they are the least helpful of the three to Asatru.

Hmm how enlightened of you to be speaking of other human beings as gutter trash. As for the feuds, you know as well as I do, all roads are two-way. And to be quite blunt about it, of course you wouldn't recognise any of the OR's contributions since you know nothing about this org to begin with. That's fine keep your blinders on.

Oh and don't think I'm so naive as to think that the OR is perfect. It is not. But it surely is a better org for some of us than whatever else is out there. Of course you wouldn't understand and I don't expect you to. People like you rarely do.


I fail to see what the point of all this is. "Doing good in the world via deeds"? First of all: why is it important for Heathens to do good for the world. Secondly: when did good deeds become pivotal point of Heathenry? Thirdly: why are deeds at all more important than faith to anyone really concerned with the betterment of Heathenry? Finally, what has this at all to do with the effectiveness of Heathenry in preserving the West? It seems to me that you're simply parroting a typically liberal concern for the fiction "humanity" that has been the chief reason we have a Mohammedan problem at all.

Oh good grief. I forgot why I don't engage you in discourse any longer. Now I remember. That you would read all of the above in my one statement speaks volumes to me. You have neither the will nor the integrity to actually volley ideas with a fellow heathen, much less a female one, but instead prefer to pontificate your Heathen absolutes and make yourself come across as some authority on the matter. I hate to burst your bubble, Cookie, but you're just another one of the peasants who is seeking their own truth in this morass we call Life.


And, I will have you, and everyone else, know that I don't "dis". Last I checked, my skin colour was white and I didn't grow up in inner-city America. How anyone could get away with using contemporary Negro slang in this sort of setting while criticising me for my approach to Germanic Heathenry seems satirical rather than serious.

Spare me the condescension will you? I am too old for your contempt and too tired of sophomoric upstarts such as yourself to have any significant bearing on my life. :rolleyes:

[Cato]

As I look forward, I am filled with foreboding. There are simply two few Wagnerians, Psychonauts, and Pallamedes in our ranks...

One of my reasons for ultimately rejecting religious-based heathenry or paganism was that it simply became an intellectualism to many of the followers, teaching little in the way of practical and useful morality and being more interested in sophistries, rituals, and the like.

I redoubled my efforts to become more knowledgeable on Stoicism and Cynicism, pushing questions of God and the divine into the background; I accept that God exists, that there are gods, or lesser divine beings (call them angels or demi-gods or heroes), but this isn't the issue at hand. What is important is my attempts to live well, which aren't predicated upon a specific religion's belief system.

For example, when I talk to Christians, Christians think I'm a Christian, even if the only word that I use to talk to them is "God" when I actually mean "the Stoic conception of God" rather than "the Christian conception of God." Likewise deists, or even Jews. The point is to be able to communicate the universal applications of your belief systems to others, and not, say, get bogged down in religious specifics such as "I'm performing a hammer-harrowing before this blot" or "I'll make the sign of the cross when I pray." No one really cares about that stuff when all that they want are things like, say, happiness, contentment, peace of mind, etc. I've applied Stoic wisdom to several conversations that I've had with Christians, and they seem to think I'm in touch with Jesus or somesuch. :)

The tales of the old deities are all well and good, enjoyable for teaching virtues, but these virtues are still put into practice in the human realm. So, mighty Thor being honest and brave isn't really any different than, say the lame slave Epictetus being honest and brave. The lessons one learns from Thor are, in the end, the same as the lessons that Epictetus teaches in his classroom, or that Jesus teaches to the Christians.

[Aemma]

You know, I change my mind. You have convinced me, really, that there is no hope that Heathenry will ever offer any resistance against Mohammedanism in the West if this is the attitude that is going to be taken.

If Heathenry cannot get rid of this idiotic libertarianism then it will simply shrivel up and die, remaining forever, as AcadianDriftwood has said, a fringe pseudo-religion without the virility to ever challenge any force, much less the massed cultural armies already within the borders of the West.

I can only hope and pray I'm wrong about the Church, because I am really sincerely concerned that I am very, very wrong about Heathenry. When I work with Psychonaut and his Theological project, I get put into this hopeful haze of intelligence and a desire to take this little project of ours and make it a real religion rather than a weekend hobby. Is it really all an illusion? Will this religion I have embraced because of the undeniable spiritual drive of my ancestors really allow itself to be completely destroyed because it is unable to realise that it simply cannot stand on its own feet without serious theological work?

As I look forward, I am filled with foreboding. There are simply two few Wagnerians, Psychonauts, and Pallamedes in our ranks...

The death of Heathenry and the triumph of Mohammedanism, just as the death of Heathenry and the triumph of Christianity resides exactly in the fact that Heathenry has no Canon and no Dogma, and Heathens are simply too thick-headed to see the necessity of establishing a Canon and established Dogma and Doctrine in our faith.

I never said it could not have serious theological discussion. Why else would I be a contributing writer to the same journal otherwise? :confused:

Again, you read whatever you like to read into what I write. So be it. I should know better than to expect anything more from you.

But please, my shoulders are broad but my name is not Atlas. And I'll be damned, dear fellow Heathen to be the one who will be shouldering the burden of Heathenry not achieving its potential because *you* say I am to blame. You're looking for a scapegoat it seems. I'm not up for playing the part. I suggest you look elsewhere.

I bet you haven't even read any of my posts here. And so know nothing about how I think or feel about our movement(s). Of course not. Your self-interest is more than evident. And you have never even given me a chance. Would it have been differently were my name not Aemma but instead Hengest I wonder?

Nope Heathen, of the three it will not be you and much less Pallamedes making the largest impact on Heathen thought, but Psy. I would indeed stake my life on that very statement.

~The thick-headed heathen~

[Cato]

Nope Heathen, of the three it will not be you and much less Pallamedes making the largest impact on Heathen thought, but Psy. I would indeed stake my life on that very statement.

I'm not trying to convert people to a specific religion, so your comments that I'm trying to impact heathenism is a moot point.

What do I want to convert people to, perhaps?

To not blame.
To not find fault.
To follow God.
To obey the law.
To accept things as they come, and not be a wretch.
To be brave.
To be honest.
To die nobly.
To pay lip service to religion, if need be.
To recognize good and bad choice, and the power of impressions.
etc.

None of these things are predicated upon a specific religion, are they, yet you seem to think that my comments are intended as, what, anti-heathen comments? This isn't so, only your own impression of my commentary makes it so.

[Adalwolf]

What's wrong with being green and ecofriendly?

It all depends on the extent and emphasis that the person puts on the Green movement. In my own understanding, it always seems to be the ultra-liberals who subscribe to this and who would rather see their own race go extinct than for an animal or tree to be destroyed. :rolleyes:


There have been experiences to the extreme of Christians taking the doctrine way too seriously as well, or having family members imposing it on them in such ways that they suffer long-term trauma.

Sure, it works both ways as the pedophile priests have shown with their total lack of moral integrity. But to make the comparison between Satanic rituals and trauma from the church is very lopsided. With the first causing much more problems.


The basic problem with new agers and neo-pagans is the utter lack of respect of identity and culture that they try to incorporate in magical rites. It's like being a jack of all trades but a master of none.

Indeed. But the fact is that the Heathen movement is a micro-organism in popularity compared to Christianity. And this is when we include the all the new agers and Wiccans.


It's the more vulnerable who are likely to take it literally than the otherwise more level-headed who take what they need and discard the rest.

The more vulnerable? I don't think so. More like the one who has done his homework reading the bible, and has seen multiple prophecies come true which has formed a genuine belief...



I wouldn't exactly call the acts of the Inquisition to hunt down and wipe out so-called witches, based on hearsay and malicious gossip, civilised either.

Call me a hypocrite, but I believe this was perfectly acceptable. Maybe not the public witch burnings, but these people needed to be stopped. Don't be naive, you should know the potential dangers of magick if you are interested in such a thing.

[Cato]

I can talk to Christians, Asatruar, atheists and the like and speak their lingo, so to speak. Some of them like what I've got to say, and some'll want to wring my neck.

When I talk to them, regardless of belief, the basic thing I'd like to ask them is:

Why do you believe what you believe?

My expectation is this, were I to answer my own question:

I believe what I believe to make me a good and wise person.

All too often this answer is:

I believe what I believe because I fear hell.

I believe what I believe because I think it's my ancestral religion

I believe what I believe because the Bible (or science) tells me so.

Et cetera. I find these sorts of answers to be not the proper answers, as a man or woman who lives in agreement with God and Nature would answer as I did initially:

I believe what I believe to make me a good and wise person.

Nothing else maters; when death comes, as it will, shall I die like a wretch or as a free man who accepts his end? Thus, the teachings of Bibles, Eddas, science books and the like mean little in the end if the knowledge isn't put into the human sphere, or if one is made wretched by the existential instruction.

[Aemma]

I'm not trying to convert people to a specific religion, so your comments that I'm trying to impact heathenism is a moot point.

What do I want to convert people to, perhaps?

To not blame.
To not find fault.
To follow God.
To obey the law.
To accept things as they come, and not be a wretch.
To be brave.
To be honest.
To die nobly.
To pay lip service to religion, if need be.
To recognize good and bad choice, and the power of impressions.
etc.

None of these things are predicated upon a specific religion, are they, yet you seem to think that my comments are intended as, what, anti-heathen comments? This isn't so, only your own impression of my commentary makes it so.

Nah read your boy up there Pall. I'm not the one who brought your name into this. He did.

It seems you've been chosen as one of the heathen trinity. Hope you enjoy your tenure! ;)

[Cato]

Nah read your boy up there Pall. I'm not the one who brought your name into this. He did.

It seems you've been chosen as one of the heathen trinity. Hope you enjoy your tenure! ;)

I don't know very much about Wagnerian, I follow my own doctrines.

My tenure, as always, will be as a man. What do you want me to do, get frustrated because you don't like what I'm saying? :confused: I've spoken of basic morality, which transcends doctrine, yet you seem to think that I've got it out for heathens such as yourself.

From a purely Stoic standpoint, heathens, as well as Christians and atheists, are entirely irrelevant to me, since they can't bring me existential happiness, as this sort of happiness is predicated upon the self and the self's relationship to God as a portion of the divine (and understanding that one is God and a child of God).

My doctrinal belief system starts and stops with myself and if I say something that someone values, so be it. Likewise, if I say something that someone is offended by, so be it. In both cases, the choice is made by someone else.

Do you choose to be offended by what I say? So be it.

[Aemma]

I don't know very much about Wagnerian, I follow my own doctrines.

My tenure, as always, will be as a man. What do you want me to do, get frustrated because you don't like what I'm saying? :confused: I've spoken of basic morality, which transcends doctrine, yet you seem to think that I've got it out for heathens such as yourself.

From a purely Stoic standpoint, heathens, as well as Christians and atheists, are entirely irrelevant to me, since they can't bring me existential happiness, as this sort of happiness is predicated upon the self and the self's relationship to God as a portion of the divine (and understanding that one is God and a child of God).

My doctrinal belief system starts and stops with myself and if I say something that someone values, so be it. Likewise, if I say something that someone is offended by, so be it. In both cases, the choice is made by someone else.

Do you choose to be offended by what I say? So be it.

Don't get all uppity with me Pall. The only reason why I mentioned your name is because your boy up there did. No skin off my nose if you didn't want to be referred to in this holy heathen trinity. Take it up with him not me.

As for having it out for heathens, I never said such a thing. There are things you say that I agree with and then others that I disagree with. It is what it is, Pall. But don't drag me into this. I have no issues with you personally.

[Cato]

But don't drag me into this. I have no issues with you personally.

Yet you made several somewhat angrified posts to me, in responsa to my posts in this thread to begin with. So, I replied as the Ruling Power directed me to speak. Why then do you seem to take offense with me? What's wrong?

Am I your friend or not, what aren't you saying? Is not one apology good enough for you, or have you yet to see mine on your profile's message board?

[Groenewolf]

Sure why not. the Islamic god is a pagan god. The generic Arabic word for god is ilah but Allah means "The god". Allah was the chief pagan diety (a moon god who had 3 daughters, one of which was named Manat) of the pre-Islamic Arabic pantheon of gods, and therefore Allah is still the same pagan god.

Reasoned in the same way the God of the Bible. Jaweh, is also a pagan god. Because at first it was the tribal god of the Jews, who also had a wive (http://www.amazon.com/Hebrew-Goddess-3rd-Enlarged/dp/0814322719/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1293516059&sr=8-1), and was a minor god within the overall Semitic pantheon. With the generic term for god being El, and in some parts of the old testament they talk about Elohim, which is the plural.

However it would be foolish in both cases that the term still refers to same deity it used to refer to.

[Magister Eckhart]

Nah read your boy up there Pall. I'm not the one who brought your name into this. He did.

It seems you've been chosen as one of the heathen trinity. Hope you enjoy your tenure! ;)

I mention him because I respect the amount of genuine thought and appreciation he has for ordered religion, and his honesty in placing himself outside of the religious hullabaloo. He's beholden to philosophy in the Greek sense, which I find most Heathens simply are not.

For my own part, I hold to religion, religion which "ties together" (ligare), which as Cicero expressed "re-reads", religion with a strong legal tradition. Religion without law, tradition, custom, and observance is not religion.

I never claimed at any point that Psychonaut, myself, or Pallamedes all thought the same, only that we all thought deeply. I do not observe the same habit in people who refuse to accept the necessity of dogmatic and/or doctrinal structures in a religion, or the canonisation of holy books as inspired scripture, which only pseudo-religions avoid.

I know well that Pallamedes, in fact, disagrees with many of the things I hold to be important in a religion, but I also see from what he says that he has thoughtful reasons. I believe in directness, and so I declare that I do not observe the same in persons who take your approach. You may take what you wish from that, whether you think it condescending or rude or sophomoric or whatever other adjective you wish to apply to it.

Pallamedes, I apologise if I've brought any wrath down on you from people like Aemma by expressing my admiration for your thoughtfulness; it seems to me that the source of any hostility that has been expressed toward you has come from my bringing your name up.


I can talk to Christians, Asatruar, atheists and the like and speak their lingo, so to speak. Some of them like what I've got to say, and some'll want to wring my neck.

When I talk to them, regardless of belief, the basic thing I'd like to ask them is:

Why do you believe what you believe?

My expectation is this, were I to answer my own question:

I believe what I believe to make me a good and wise person.

All too often this answer is:

I believe what I believe because I fear hell.

I believe what I believe because I think it's my ancestral religion

I believe what I believe because the Bible (or science) tells me so.

Et cetera. I find these sorts of answers to be not the proper answers, as a man or woman who lives in agreement with God and Nature would answer as I did initially:

I believe what I believe to make me a good and wise person.

Nothing else maters; when death comes, as it will, shall I die like a wretch or as a free man who accepts his end? Thus, the teachings of Bibles, Eddas, science books and the like mean little in the end if the knowledge isn't put into the human sphere, or if one is made wretched by the existential instruction.

This is real stoicism and a thoughtful critique of religion and atheism. This is admirable.


Ok I wasn't going to say anything but between reading about heathen canons (for the love of all that is holy in this world!) and Viking-wannabe dress up parties that you seem to equate with Asatruar, well let's just say something's gotta give!

Seriously Pall, I'm not sure what blotar you've been attending but I assure you, most heathens do not "dress up" and play make believe. And IF, and read it correctly I said IF, a person chooses to dress for the occasion, as in honour the sense of occasion with special garments, I really don't see what the issue is. There is an argument to be made for the wearing of certain vestments for religious purposes. For some it is a tool for tapping into the spiritual dimension, or rather the sacred through the profane. There is no need to belittle such a practice. It might not be the right approach for you but for others it is. And well, so be it.

This is the beauty of heathenry in the end: NO CANONS, NO DOGMA, NO "oh my gods I'm doing it all wrong and if Odin finds out, well then, hmm I'm not sure what but something is bound to happen because, well he's Odin, right?"

This is an unthinking, anarchic, emotional reaction because you feel offended, mixed with a subtle anti-Christianity that defines a juvenile treatment of Heathenry. This is not admirable.

That's really the summation of what I've been trying to say. I don't include any sarcasm, mockery, or subtle jabs. I have flat critique and flat praise to offer and that's pretty much it.

I do get very frustrated, to be sure, with people who are hindering efforts that will make Heathenry, my own religion, worthy to stand in the place of the fallen Christian faith, and I admit my emotional and depressed proclamation to this effect was somewhat out of place here. My hope for Heathenry has been significantly damaged by reading Aemma's posts, but I still hold that if the sort of Heathenry Aemma embraces dies away and is replaced with an organised, ordered and standardised Heathenry with Doctrine, Canon, and developed Theology, each peculiar (as necessary) to respective Folks, then Heathenry will succeed in becoming a real force for the defence of Western culture against the Mohammedan onslaught, which is the point of this thread.

If Heathenry cannot do this, and if the Heathenry Aemma embraces is victorious, there is no hope for the West, because the Church has grown too old and too weak to bear a sword. I think there is some hope that if we fall, it is the Orthodox faith of the untested Russian culture which will be able to resist the domination of the Mohammedan wave, and will be the predominant religious and cultural challenge to Mohammedanism in the coming centuries. However, this hope is only slightly greater than the hope for Heathenry in the West. Evola's Imperialismo Pagano will simply not be victorious in the face of the Neo-Pagans who want neither a proud nor an organised religion, but an individualist, ritual-dominated anarchy posing as true faith.

[Psychonaut]

Thirdly: why are deeds at all more important than faith to anyone really concerned with the betterment of Heathenry?

This is, IMO, a very interesting question that I'd like to debate on its own, so I made a separate thread (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=320713) for it.


I never claimed at any point that Psychonaut, myself, or Pallamedes all thought the same, only that we all thought deeply.

Right. ;)

My only canon is the symphonic interplay of the heavenly bodies as viewed from a grove in the woods. But, on the topic of Heathen canons, have you checked out Sallustius' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallustius) attempt at assembling a Graecco-Roman catechism (http://www.goddess-athena.org/Encyclopedia/Friends/Sallustius/index.htm)?

[Cato]

Pallamedes, I apologise if I've brought any wrath down on you from people like Aemma by expressing my admiration for your thoughtfulness; it seems to me that the source of any hostility that has been expressed toward you has come from my bringing your name up.


There's no need to apologize; I'm not miffed.

The appeal of any religion left my mind when I began to put into practice the cut-and-dry applications of the Stoics. While I'll support religion in a general sense, as a way to keep the masses in some semblance of moral order, I've come to the conclusion that I can't be attached to a particular religious doctrine. This statement is predicated upon no belief in any deity, with the subject being the self:

Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry.

I've got enough trouble as a human being, attempting to deal with emotion and the decrees of God, so what sense is there in placing excessive religious trivia into my mind? To my knowledge, I'm the only professing Stoic on the forum, one among Christians, heathens, secularists, etc. That makes me something of a gadfly, and I can't say that I've been a perfect Stoic, but the doctrines are easy to return to if you begin to forget them; the Stoic sage, like El Doroado, is a legend. The process of self-reflection can be brutally honest at times, and makes one realize that, in the words of Obi-Wan to Luke:
Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

So, my point of view is to try to be a good and noble man, to thank Zeus/Providence/God, to accept fate, to try to be a social being, etc. Nothing can hurt or offend me that comes from without, only my choice makes it so; this seems to be what Aemma took offense at in my commentary, when no offense was meant on my part, but her impression of my explanations was to see me as being in a position adversarial to her religious beliefs (this is not so). My comments about mummery, sorcerers, and people dressing up in robes and coustumes was hyperbole and served only to illustrate how ridiculous I find many contemporary strains of paganism. Stoicism teaches to take the point of view and center it on oneself; the self becomes the entire means for happiness and sadness, one is kin to the Ruling Power of Zeus inside oneself, and all that matters is to be content with what one has (i.e. internally). I've tested the soundness of these positions via the harshness of my own life and I find them quite able to be practiced consistently and rigorously. They can be forgotten of course, but this doesn't mean that a backslide into oblivion'll occur or that Zeus is going to send you to hell.

[Wyn]

Because at first it was the tribal god of the Jews,

I'm not sure if your aware of it, but the Kenite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenite) hypothesis states that YHWH was originally the god of the nomadic Kenites, later adopted by Israel. Just some food for thought.


who also had a wive (http://www.amazon.com/Hebrew-Goddess-3rd-Enlarged/dp/0814322719/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1293516059&sr=8-1),

Aye, Yahweh and his Asherah (http://books.google.com/books?id=z72KmReV-bIC&pg=PA113&dq=%22YHWH+and+his+Asherah%22&hl=en&ei=vugZTbaKJ4aWhQfCkbmVCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22YHWH%20and%20his%20Asherah%22&f=false).


With the generic term for god being El, and in some parts of the old testament they talk about Elohim, which is the plural.

There are some (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+12:12&version=NIV) clearly (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+15:11&version=NIV) polytheistic (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut%2032:8-9&version=NIV) remnants in the OT, but I don't think the plural "Elohim" is one of them. As far as I know ancient Semites could refer to any individual god, king, great man etc as "Elohim".

[Albion]

You're actually committing the same error here AD commits above; not all Christians think or act like this, in fact I'd wager not even a majority do. If they did, Christianity would be a stronger defence against Mohammedanism than it is. The fact is that most Christians are not as bigoted as they could be, or their bigotry could serve our purposes. They are more likely to accept and to forgive these days than to take up a sword and be overbearing crusaders.

By "acting all high and mighty" I didn't mean in a good way, most are uber-liberal multiculturalists in this part of England.


The fact is that the only faith capable of resurrecting this tribal spirit today is Heathenry, or so I believe, and I don't think I'm alone in this.

I see it that way too.


Perhaps, but the point of recycling is also to decrease the amount of shit that ends up in landfills, keeping them smaller and less numerous.

Agreed. I'm so sick of us thinking by covering something with dirt it'll just "disappear". The only thinks we should be burying are animal waste, untreated wood (although it could be used to make mulches, chipboards or wood pellets) and natural materials which can degrade in the ground better. Even these impact on the environment though, but at least they aren't still around hundreds of years latter.

[Wyn]

Heathenism has its place too though, I'd like to see a good revival of it in a true form as possible. It could exist as a minority religion at around 5% of the population of Europe.

Part of the problem heathenry faces now IMO is the same problem that it faced when Christianity was gaining converts left and right - lack of organised leadership and lack of solid canonical authority. Heathens today scoff and mock the "dogmatism" of the "Abrahmic" religions and people who "worship the Jewish god" and all that other shit, but it's precisely this that preserved them all for so long. Would Christianity have gotten so much as a foothold among the the Anglo-Saxon kings/tribes if they had worshipped "jealous" gods who demanded exclusivity, had an at least partially-set in stone set of scriptures, and an organised, dogmatic set of beliefs? I don't think so.

The Jews today are generally irreligious, but historically overall have resisted Christianisation and Islamicisation, even when the pressure was on them from their hostile hosts. They know doubt owe this to their so-often-mocked dogmatic religion.

[Jamt]

"It is the strength of the northern mythological imagination that it faced this problem, put the monsters in the centre, gave them Victory but no honour, and found a potent but terrible solution in naked will and courage. 'As a working theory absolutely impregnable.' So potent is it, that while the older southern imagination has faded for ever into literary ornament, the northern has power, as it were, to revive its spirit even in our own times. "

Beowulf: the Monsters and their Critics, JRR Tolkien

Tolkien was a practicing Christian, yet, he realized our culture's need for courage, 'naked will' and other 'lionlike' values. He also looked to the possibility of strengthening our fading Christian culture with the resources of our latent pagan past. I don't think it was paganism that made our ancestors heroic; it was our ancestors that made paganism heroic. After they converted from paganism they possessed the same solar, aristocratic, warrior spirit as Christians, tempered and improved by charity. Grace perfects nature it does not overthrow or annihilate it. St Thomas' contention is that man's nature, gifts, abilities, etc are not supplanted or smothered by grace, or say his acceptance of Christianity, but actually brought to their perfection or their true fulfillment. In the case of the Germanic people, Christianity should infuse us with more of the northern or gothic spirit, courage, loyalty, honesty, etc. I think history would tend to confirm this up to the modern age and the beginning of secularism. I think this would also be the case for our Gothic traditions in pagan times. The old pagan myths, when understood from a Christian framework, have the ability to make us better Christians (and hence better Goths).

Interesting post Sellanrå. Its hard to see much christian resistance towards Islam at the moment, Its all secular and weak. When the consumer economy/society really starts stumbling something spiritual and strong should come.

[Aemma]

I mention him because I respect the amount of genuine thought and appreciation he has for ordered religion, and his honesty in placing himself outside of the religious hullabaloo. He's beholden to philosophy in the Greek sense, which I find most Heathens simply are not.

For my own part, I hold to religion, religion which "ties together" (ligare), which as Cicero expressed "re-reads", religion with a strong legal tradition. Religion without law, tradition, custom, and observance is not religion.

I never claimed at any point that Psychonaut, myself, or Pallamedes all thought the same, only that we all thought deeply. I do not observe the same habit in people who refuse to accept the necessity of dogmatic and/or doctrinal structures in a religion, or the canonisation of holy books as inspired scripture, which only pseudo-religions avoid.

I know well that Pallamedes, in fact, disagrees with many of the things I hold to be important in a religion, but I also see from what he says that he has thoughtful reasons. I believe in directness, and so I declare that I do not observe the same in persons who take your approach. You may take what you wish from that, whether you think it condescending or rude or sophomoric or whatever other adjective you wish to apply to it.

Pallamedes, I apologise if I've brought any wrath down on you from people like Aemma by expressing my admiration for your thoughtfulness; it seems to me that the source of any hostility that has been expressed toward you has come from my bringing your name up.



This is real stoicism and a thoughtful critique of religion and atheism. This is admirable.



This is an unthinking, anarchic, emotional reaction because you feel offended, mixed with a subtle anti-Christianity that defines a juvenile treatment of Heathenry. This is not admirable.

That's really the summation of what I've been trying to say. I don't include any sarcasm, mockery, or subtle jabs. I have flat critique and flat praise to offer and that's pretty much it.

I do get very frustrated, to be sure, with people who are hindering efforts that will make Heathenry, my own religion, worthy to stand in the place of the fallen Christian faith, and I admit my emotional and depressed proclamation to this effect was somewhat out of place here. My hope for Heathenry has been significantly damaged by reading Aemma's posts, but I still hold that if the sort of Heathenry Aemma embraces dies away and is replaced with an organised, ordered and standardised Heathenry with Doctrine, Canon, and developed Theology, each peculiar (as necessary) to respective Folks, then Heathenry will succeed in becoming a real force for the defence of Western culture against the Mohammedan onslaught, which is the point of this thread.

If Heathenry cannot do this, and if the Heathenry Aemma embraces is victorious, there is no hope for the West, because the Church has grown too old and too weak to bear a sword. I think there is some hope that if we fall, it is the Orthodox faith of the untested Russian culture which will be able to resist the domination of the Mohammedan wave, and will be the predominant religious and cultural challenge to Mohammedanism in the coming centuries. However, this hope is only slightly greater than the hope for Heathenry in the West. Evola's Imperialismo Pagano will simply not be victorious in the face of the Neo-Pagans who want neither a proud nor an organised religion, but an individualist, ritual-dominated anarchy posing as true faith.

I'm truly astonished that my mere words would have such an impact on one with such a seemingly unshakeable faith and religious mission, if you will. You give me too much credit TW.

And what exactly do you know of my heathenry? Indeed, tell me, as a fellow heathen what you know about me, my philosophies, my thoughts and practices? I have no proof at all that you have ever even read any of my posts here other than those which you wish to read in a different context, those found here especially. I am more than the present sum of posts in this thread, as we are all. When you do tell me who I am and what I am about, please do present them in a manner befitting a discussion point for point so we may engage in real healthy discussion. I am not interested in your criticisms of me (as of yet) but instead of your perceptions of what "type of heathen" I happen to be. I doubt you have an accurate fix as to who or what I'm all about. I very very much doubt it.

I must say I do find it quite ironic that you would have me pegged as one without some modicum of "dogma or canon" given that I am a member of the OR. Can you not appreciate the irony in all of it? You accuse me of not being dogmatic enough yet I am a member in good standing of one of the most dogmatic Heathen orgs around. Now tell me, how do you reconcile such a thing? You make great assumptions about me and iterate them here as truth. And you wish to call me the enemy of heathenry. I find this intriguing to say the least. Should heretics actually exist in heathenry and I am so deemed one by you, then I wear the title with honour.

Your turn...you have the floor.

[Aemma]

Part of the problem heathenry faces now IMO is the same problem that it faced when Christianity was gaining converts left and right - lack of organised leadership and lack of solid canonical authority. Heathens today scoff and mock the "dogmatism" of the "Abrahmic" religions and people who "worship the Jewish god" and all that other shit, but it's precisely this that preserved them all for so long. Would Christianity have gotten so much as a foothold among the the Anglo-Saxon kings/tribes if they had worshipped "jealous" gods who demanded exclusivity, had an at least partially-set in stone set of scriptures, and an organised, dogmatic set of beliefs? I don't think so.

The Jews today are generally irreligious, but historically overall have resisted Christianisation and Islamicisation, even when the pressure was on them from their hostile hosts. They know doubt owe this to their so-often-mocked dogmatic religion.

I understand your pov Wyn, but you fail to acknowledge the subtleties of the impact of culture (that is one's view of oneself as part of a particular People)in terms of internalising "religion". Anyway, I must dash but I do wish to return to this. Dogma does not a religion make. Too much of it renders a belief system static, and eventually stagnant. A middlewise approach as the Havamal dictates is usually, in my experience, the most productive way of ensuring longevity to most things in life, even religion.

[Wyn]

I understand your pov Wyn, but you fail to acknowledge the subtleties of the impact of culture (that is one's view of oneself as part of a particular People)

Okay, sorry mother. :D :p


Dogma does not a religion make. Too much of it renders a belief system static, and eventually stagnant. A middlewise approach as the Havamal dictates is usually, in my experience, the most productive way of ensuring longevity to most things in life, even religion.

I agree, but... *serious alternate reality mode here* imagine that the Germanics of Europe had the following at the time of their contact with Christianity:

1. a 'high priest' (or network of high priests - lots of individual tribes had chief priests and so on, but imagine one that covered all or at least many of those worshipping Woden/Odin);
2. a collection of scriptures, however small or big, that they all shared and were concious of all sharing;
3. a distinct set of beliefs that stemmed either from tradition or scripture (not necessarily hundreds of dogmatic laws as with Israel and their Tanakh, but some beliefs/practises that they all recognised as universally truthful)
4. [optional ;)] a 'common origin' type of ancestor myth that they all believed in that made them recognise themselves as related to one another on an important, religious level.

...I can't help thinking that history would've played out very differently. :shrug: That's the key to longevity in my opinion - unity.

Just my opinions and summisings...what happened, happened.

[Osweo]

I agree, but... *serious alternate reality mode here* imagine that the Germanics of Europe had the following at the time of their contact with Christianity:

1. a 'high priest' (or network of high priests - lots of individual tribes had chief priests and so on, but imagine one that covered all or at least many of those worshipping Woden/Odin);
2. a collection of scriptures, however small or big, that they all shared and were concious of all sharing;
3. a distinct set of beliefs that stemmed either from tradition or scripture (not necessarily hundreds of dogmatic laws as with Israel and their Tanakh, but some beliefs/practises that they all recognised as universally truthful)
4. [optional ;)] a 'common origin' type of ancestor myth that they all believed in that made them recognise themselves as related to one another on an important, religious level.

...I can't help thinking that history would've played out very differently. :shrug: That's the key to longevity in my opinion - unity.

Hmmm, a LOT of that holds true for Druidry. It would still have been wiped out. The Волхв in Russia were suppressed by the newly Christian state too.
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%85%D0%B2%D1%8B

English summary;

Volkhvy were heathen priests in pre-Christian Rus’. Volkhvy were believed to possess mystical powers, particularly the ability to predict the future. The first literary reference to a volkhv occurs in the Primary Chronicle under the year 912; there, the priest-soothsayer predicts Prince Oleh's death. With the adoption of Christianity the pagan priests came under persecution and sometimes tried to channel social discontent against the church. [1]

Volkhvy were part of the witch hunts in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/%D0%9A%D0%BD%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8C_%D0%93%D0%BB%D0%B5% D0%B1_%D0%A1%D0%B2%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D 0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87_%D1%83%D0%B1%D0 %B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%B5%D1%82_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1% 85%D0%B2%D0%B0_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%9D%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0% B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC _%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B5.jpg/800px-%D0%9A%D0%BD%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8C_%D0%93%D0%BB%D0%B5% D0%B1_%D0%A1%D0%B2%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D 0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87_%D1%83%D0%B1%D0 %B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%B5%D1%82_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1% 85%D0%B2%D0%B0_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%9D%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0% B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC _%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B5.jpg
Русский: Князь Глеб Святославович убивает волхва на Новгородском вече (Княжий суд). 1898. Andrei Ryabushkin (1861–1904)
King Gleb Svyatoslavovich kills a volkhv at the Novgorod Veche (a Slavonic 'althing').

As for the parts that don't hold true, well, you're asking a non-Roman world to be Roman. These effective aspects of Christianity are largely the absorption of the apparatus of Roman statehood into a religion. It's no coincidence that the modern clerical terms owe a lot to those of the civil administration in the late Empire - Deacon, Diocese etc. That an Empire with Roman Law ended up producing a Canon is likewise quite natural.

[Wyn]

Hmmm, a LOT of that holds true for Druidry. It would still have been wiped out. The Волхв in Russia were suppressed by the newly Christian state too.

I honestly don't think that 'Druidry' can be considered to be the kind of structured and organised ethno-religion that I'm describing.

But the particulars themselves aren't the most important thing here. I'm pondering the route history would've taken for the Germanics if they had all been members of an organised, centralised ethno-religion with a set canon/set of beliefs and concious religious unity. If the earliest missionaries had encountered this sort of population (religion does bind people together) I can't see them having the success they did (which in the end was near-total, save for remnants in the forms of saints and local traditions and so on...when kings converted, their populations - gradually or quickly - did the same and despite dual worship existing for a time, in the end old Woden lost the match).


As for the parts that don't hold true, well, you're asking a non-Roman world to be Roman.

These effective aspects of Christianity are largely the absorption of the apparatus of Roman statehood into a religion. It's no coincidence that the modern clerical terms owe a lot to those of the civil administration in the late Empire - Deacon, Diocese etc. That an Empire with Roman Law ended up producing a Canon is likewise quite natural.

Actually, I'm not - the inspiration for most of my musings here are the leaders of monotheistic Yahwism (not an actual term you come across, but you know what I'm referring to) of old who formed and organised a religion out of disorganised polytheisms spread across an entire region based on the pillars I listed. And their legacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism) is plain to see despite the fact that they were almost certainly innovators who at one stage were the minority trying to attract the loyalties of a majority (this example isn't perfect for a number of reasons, but the ethno-religious history of the Jews is an important precedent when discussing this sort of thing and is at least a testament to the power of such things - everything is hypothetical here because none of this actually happened...as I said, strong alternate reality goggles have to be worn).

[Magister Eckhart]

This is, IMO, a very interesting question that I'd like to debate on its own, so I made a separate thread (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=320713) for it.

Thanks for that I'll get right over there.


Right. ;)

My only canon is the symphonic interplay of the heavenly bodies as viewed from a grove in the woods. But, on the topic of Heathen canons, have you checked out Sallustius' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallustius) attempt at assembling a Graecco-Roman catechism (http://www.goddess-athena.org/Encyclopedia/Friends/Sallustius/index.htm)?

I think there's a lot of value in looking to the Emperor Julian and his lieutenants in strengthening Heathenry. The failure of Julian in his project has more to do with his premature death, I am convinced, than with his methods.

One of the things that did significantly harm to the Julian project was the success of Augustine's method of strengthening the new faith through the use of pagan teachings and pagan education (exactly what I'm trying to convince people to do with Heathenry and Christianity now). Julian failed because the Christians were using pagan texts in a Christian way, robbing the pagans of their exclusive cultural control.

I shall have to read more Sallustius' programmes.


Part of the problem heathenry faces now IMO is the same problem that it faced when Christianity was gaining converts left and right - lack of organised leadership and lack of solid canonical authority. Heathens today scoff and mock the "dogmatism" of the "Abrahmic" religions and people who "worship the Jewish god" and all that other shit, but it's precisely this that preserved them all for so long. Would Christianity have gotten so much as a foothold among the the Anglo-Saxon kings/tribes if they had worshipped "jealous" gods who demanded exclusivity, had an at least partially-set in stone set of scriptures, and an organised, dogmatic set of beliefs? I don't think so.

A lot of this problem comes from the fact that when Christianity first arrived, the Heathens had an inadequate understanding of what they were up against. Over a thousand years of dormancy, this has changed little; a lack of introspection, of learning, and of understanding has deprived heathenry of any kind of leadership that comes from the bosom of Christianity. Most converts, and the leaders who come from this mass of converts, are uneducated entirely, let alone in Christian teaching, theology, and history. All one needs to do is look at the leaders of most kindreds to see just how ignorant and disinclined toward theological thought most contemporary "goði" are. The difference between the leaders of old and contemporary leaders is that the leaders of old were ignorant through no fault of their own: Christianity was completely foreign to their world; today, heathens are ignorant by choice. As you say, they are preoccupied with avoiding "Abrahamic" influences, with avoiding the "evils" of dogma, of an organised canon, of a structured institution.


The Jews today are generally irreligious, but historically overall have resisted Christianisation and Islamicisation, even when the pressure was on them from their hostile hosts. They know doubt owe this to their so-often-mocked dogmatic religion.

Absolutely.


I'm truly astonished that my mere words would have such an impact on one with such a seemingly unshakeable faith and religious mission, if you will. You give me too much credit TW.

It can be very disturbing when someone one considers very thoughtful espouses attitudes that are so dangerous to the success of the faith. It gives me great pause when I misjudge people.


And what exactly do you know of my heathenry? Indeed, tell me, as a fellow heathen what you know about me, my philosophies, my thoughts and practices? I have no proof at all that you have ever even read any of my posts here other than those which you wish to read in a different context, those found here especially. I am more than the present sum of posts in this thread, as we are all. When you do tell me who I am and what I am about, please do present them in a manner befitting a discussion point for point so we may engage in real healthy discussion. I am not interested in your criticisms of me (as of yet) but instead of your perceptions of what "type of heathen" I happen to be. I doubt you have an accurate fix as to who or what I'm all about. I very very much doubt it.


This is the beauty of heathenry in the end: NO CANONS, NO DOGMA, NO "oh my gods I'm doing it all wrong and if Odin finds out, well then, hmm I'm not sure what but something is bound to happen because, well he's Odin, right?"

That's what I know you believe, and that's what's problematic. If something like this is fundamental to your beliefs, it's really immaterial what the rest of your beliefs are. The material point is that such categorical rejection of things that can be so helpful to the survival of our faith is deadly to the mission of making Heathenry a viable religion.


I must say I do find it quite ironic that you would have me pegged as one without some modicum of "dogma or canon" given that I am a member of the OR. Can you not appreciate the irony in all of it? You accuse me of not being dogmatic enough yet I am a member in good standing of one of the most dogmatic Heathen orgs around. Now tell me, how do you reconcile such a thing? You make great assumptions about me and iterate them here as truth. And you wish to call me the enemy of heathenry. I find this intriguing to say the least. Should heretics actually exist in heathenry and I am so deemed one by you, then I wear the title with honour.

Your turn...you have the floor.


This is the beauty of heathenry in the end: NO CANONS, NO DOGMA, NO "oh my gods I'm doing it all wrong and if Odin finds out, well then, hmm I'm not sure what but something is bound to happen because, well he's Odin, right?"

So you are dogmatic but you believe one of the most positive attributes of heathenry is lack of Dogma? How do those two work together.

So you are a member of the OR? I can understand your inappropriately emotional reaction to my criticism of it, and your automatic assumption that since I'm criticising the OR I must be a member of the AFA, a group with which the OR has been involved in a continuous feud since the break-up of IAOA; I'm not surprised at your emotional and violent reactions to my critique.


I agree, but... *serious alternate reality mode here* imagine that the Germanics of Europe had the following at the time of their contact with Christianity:

1. a 'high priest' (or network of high priests - lots of individual tribes had chief priests and so on, but imagine one that covered all or at least many of those worshipping Woden/Odin);
2. a collection of scriptures, however small or big, that they all shared and were concious of all sharing;
3. a distinct set of beliefs that stemmed either from tradition or scripture (not necessarily hundreds of dogmatic laws as with Israel and their Tanakh, but some beliefs/practises that they all recognised as universally truthful)
4. [optional ;)] a 'common origin' type of ancestor myth that they all believed in that made them recognise themselves as related to one another on an important, religious level.

...I can't help thinking that history would've played out very differently. :shrug: That's the key to longevity in my opinion - unity.

Just my opinions and summisings...what happened, happened.


Hmmm, a LOT of that holds true for Druidry. It would still have been wiped out. The Волхв in Russia were suppressed by the newly Christian state too.

Well a lot of the power of Christianity came from the structure the church adopted from the old power of the Roman Empire. It became more politically viable to be Christian because of Roman power. Therefore, not just organisation, but Roman organisation is where the strength of Christianity came from, and we can use this to our advantage.


As for the parts that don't hold true, well, you're asking a non-Roman world to be Roman. These effective aspects of Christianity are largely the absorption of the apparatus of Roman statehood into a religion. It's no coincidence that the modern clerical terms owe a lot to those of the civil administration in the late Empire - Deacon, Diocese etc. That an Empire with Roman Law ended up producing a Canon is likewise quite natural.

Definitely true, but can Roman methodologies not be adapted to our benefit, in the way Roman classical education and institutions were adapted to serve Christian purposes?

[Cato]

Definitely true, but can Roman methodologies not be adapted to our benefit, in the way Roman classical education and institutions were adapted to serve Christian purposes?

For some, any mention of Rome sends them into paroxysms of frothing at the mouth.

[Magister Eckhart]

For some, any mention of Rome sends them into paroxysms of frothing at the mouth.

Well that rather speaks to their own unthinking, animal approach to the faith, doesn't it? And, I would submit, it also decidedly proves that rejection of Rome is completely rabid and emotional, making it an irrational and inappropriate view to hold.

[Cato]

Well that rather speaks to their own unthinking, animal approach to the faith, doesn't it? And, I would submit, it also decidedly proves that rejection of Rome is completely rabid and emotional, making it an irrational and inappropriate view to hold.

Rome's influence cuts across time and space, be it pagan Rome or Christian Rome, but there are many who want to deny what's obvious and act as if Rome's impressive legacy has no pull even now.

[Magister Eckhart]

Rome's influence cuts across time and space, be it pagan Rome or Christian Rome, but there are many who want to deny what's obvious and act as if Rome's impressive legacy has no pull even now.

That's true enough; but Rome's legacy today in the West and the power of Rome while she still lived and breathed are two different things -- perhaps if more people recognised that the Western Rome and the Classical Rome were separate realities we'd make more headway. The Roman power that exists in and preserves the West is an energy that if harnessed is irresistible and could lead to a new birth of religious fervour even in these dry days of Darwinian scientism.

Our cultural drive is different from the Roman cultural drive, but Classical methods of governance and order - in all walks of life, not just the political - are the key to enduring success.

[Cato]

That's true enough; but Rome's legacy today in the West and the power of Rome while she still lived and breathed are two different things -- perhaps if more people recognised that the Western Rome and the Classical Rome were separate realities we'd make more headway. The Roman power that exists in and preserves the West is an energy that if harnessed is irresistible and could lead to a new birth of religious fervour even in these dry days of Darwinian scientism.

Our cultural drive is different from the Roman cultural drive, but Classical methods of governance and order - in all walks of life, not just the political - are the key to enduring success.

I'll take one example of Christian Rome's influence: The conversion of the Anglosaxons to Roman [and Celtic] Christianity. There would be no England or English nation hadn't the the old tribes converted to Christianity, yet you've got plenty of heathens there who simply want to deny any continental impact from Roman Catholicism on their little view of the world.

All the kingdoms of the heptarchy did was fight with each other until Alfred of Wessex (aka the Great) was able to call himself "King of the Anglo-Saxons" in the fight against the Danelaw. What was Alfred? A Roman Christian, yet you'd think that he never existed to the people who want to go back to the days of Penda of Mercia or some other battling heathen warlord.

[Wulfhere]

I'll take one example of Christian Rome's influence: The conversion of the Anglosaxons to Roman [and Celtic] Christianity. There would be no England or English nation hadn't the the old tribes converted to Christianity, yet you've got plenty of heathens there who simply want to deny any continental impact from Roman Catholicism on their little view of the world.

All the kingdoms of the heptarchy did was fight with each other until Alfred of Wessex (aka the Great) was able to call himself "King of the Anglo-Saxons" in the fight against the Danelaw. What was Alfred? A Roman Christian, yet you'd think that he never existed to the people who want to go back to the days of Penda of Mercia or some other battling heathen warlord.

The Anglo-Saxon kingdoms fought each other just as much as Christians, as they did when Pagan. Alfred succeeded because the English faced a common enemy.

[Cato]

The Anglo-Saxon kingdoms fought each other just as much as Christians, as they did when Pagan. Alfred succeeded because the English faced a common enemy.

Which they do today also, and paganism is simply going to be steamrolled by the towelheads because they've got no unity or centralized doctrines to empower a pagan version of Alfred.

Wanting to live in tribes when your country is one of the battlegrounds that the global ummah is waging against just about everyone on the globe.. Well, good luck there.

The sorts of people that England needs to resist the towelheaded hordes are the semi-heathen ones like the legendary Beowulf, not some pansy in a cassock.

[Wyn]

I'll take one example of Christian Rome's influence: The conversion of the Anglosaxons to Roman [and Celtic] Christianity. There would be no England or English nation hadn't the the old tribes converted to Christianity, yet you've got plenty of heathens there who simply want to deny any continental impact from Roman Catholicism on their little view of the world.

All the kingdoms of the heptarchy did was fight with each other until Alfred of Wessex (aka the Great) was able to call himself "King of the Anglo-Saxons" in the fight against the Danelaw. What was Alfred? A Roman Christian, yet you'd think that he never existed to the people who want to go back to the days of Penda of Mercia or some other battling heathen warlord.

Yes, there's a lot to be said for the importance of religion and its relation to ethnicity. The two are thoroughly intertwined, and with the decline in religious observance we're seeing England/the English looking the pan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flush_toilet) square in the face. England got its kiss of death in the early 1900s, I'm afraid.

[Cato]

Yes, there's a lot to be said for the importance of religion and its relation to ethnicity. The two are thoroughly intertwined, and with the decline in religious observance we're seeing England/the English looking the pan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flush_toilet) square in the face. England got its kiss of death in the early 1900s, I'm afraid.

Paying lip service to Christianity for the public good isn't so great an evil, is it? Yet you'd think that'd be like wanting some doubting Thomas to swallow a hot coal. Plenty of the Founding Fathers, Englishmen by extraction, were doubting Thomases who nevertheless kept up appearances and attended worship services.

[2DREZQ]

... worthy to stand in the place of the fallen Christian faith, and I admit my emotional and depressed proclamation to this effect was somewhat out of place here. My hope for Heathenry has been significantly damaged by reading Aemma's posts, but I still hold that if the sort of Heathenry Aemma embraces dies away and is replaced with an organised, ordered and standardised Heathenry with Doctrine, Canon, and developed Theology, each peculiar (as necessary) to respective Folks, then Heathenry will succeed in becoming a real force for the defence of Western culture against the Mohammedan onslaught, which is the point of this thread.

If Heathenry cannot do this, and if the Heathenry Aemma embraces is victorious, there is no hope for the West, because the Church has grown too old and too weak to bear a sword. I think there is some hope that if we fall, it is the Orthodox faith of the untested Russian culture which will be able to resist the domination of the Mohammedan wave, and will be the predominant religious and cultural challenge to Mohammedanism in the coming centuries. However, this hope is only slightly greater than the hope for Heathenry in the West. Evola's Imperialismo Pagano will simply not be victorious in the face of the Neo-Pagans who want neither a proud nor an organised religion, but an individualist, ritual-dominated anarchy posing as true faith.

Based on what I have read so far, I would say the answer to this thread question is a definitive NO.

The next question we should ask is: Then what will?

For Europe, it appears to me that the answer is: You're screwed.

For the North American continent things might be very different. I believe that the underlying power of the Christian message is undiminished, but that is not where the opposition to Islam may be found, at least not the sword-carrying variety. I believe that the Christian message can compete with the Moslem faith for the hearts and minds of the people on more than even terms. Islam, as a faith, is not a unified juggernaut, as they would wish us to believe it is.

American Nationalism can be every bit the effective tool needed to save western civilization (at least our version of it.) What is required is a sea-change in American public opinion, and those are to be had more often and more readily than is commonly supposed. The American people need to see Islam as a threat (quite a few already do), and move that threat up the priority board to DefCon One. We are being told by our media and leaders that Islam is not such a threat. This message is actually not having a great impact. Distraction from the magnitude of the threat is more effective and has worked well so far, but that can change overnight.

Here is what I believe may happen:

Europe dissolves in an acid bath of Islamic funded and fomented anarchy, or a direct Islamic "takover" of the institutions and governments. Islamic sharia law or some such nonsense takes hold. America FINALLY wakes up and does something about it.

That really doesn't help most of you, but thanks for saving us for a change. :D

[Osweo]

.
Well a lot of the power of Christianity came from the structure the church adopted from the old power of the Roman Empire. It became more politically viable to be Christian because of Roman power. Therefore, not just organisation, but Roman organisation is where the strength of Christianity came from, and we can use this to our advantage.
Wait a minute. ISLAM'S power comes not from an adoption of Romanism. There are OTHER ways to succeed than the Roman. Perhaps you're not looking hard enough for alternatives, but have lumped for something that was simply close to hand, and which yet might not best SUIT us on a deeper level?

China did well enough without the structures you're proposing to lock us into. You need to think beyond your Classical learning.

Definitely true, but can Roman methodologies not be adapted to our benefit, in the way Roman classical education and institutions were adapted to serve Christian purposes?
Christianity fit, or was made to fit, the Roman state system. Is our civilisation identical to the Imperium in its institutions, ethos, organisation and ethnic content? No. That tells me that we can't simply inherit Rome's old clothes.

My understanding of things, looking at the state of the world in 2010, is that we northern Europeans aren't actually very GOOD at this extreme urbanism lark. We came to it too recently. And our open accepting societies bring us all into direct competition with people whose ancestors have been doing it for MILLENNIA longer than we have.

You want us to dive deeper into this sort of way of life, by bending our ancient inheritance around foreign forms. Our very soul is being poured into vessels that can't contain it. Something will snap if we go too far down that route, I reckon.

Instead of signing our own death warrant like this, we should be exploring how to turn our technological advances to our service in creating a civilisation NOT reliant on centralised states and parasitic cities (and thereby NOT in need of a religious organisation derived from such a political order). We CAN have a strong defence against other civilisations without aping the Empires of the past. Our advances in weaponry and other technology don't need to be coupled with the civilisational traits that ultimately come from Sumer and the Nile (never mind Rome). We are entering a new paradigm, where new rules might apply. Perhaps the religious stirrings under discussion in this thread already reflect these new possibilities that we can almost sniff on the wind now?

For some, any mention of Rome sends them into paroxysms of frothing at the mouth.
:rolleyes: What Rome are you talking about though? As I sit here in Britannia Superior and reflect on how Rome has affected my landscape, I think of the Roman Army. The roads, the engineering and the disciplined valour of it all. Macsen Wledig was the only Roman that the Britons really remembered - and this was provincial Romanitas, in its most virile state. A family in my immediate forebears bore the surname 'Walton'. Looking at their distribution on the map, it seems fair to say that the tun in question was named after the Roman WALL (not a settlement of Welsh as the name is elsewhere in the country). I have an intimate blood link with a Rome that IS respectable. A Rome FAR from the filthy gaudyness and dishonest backstabbing down by the Tiber.




There would be no England or English nation hadn't the the old tribes converted to Christianity,
:rolleyes2: That's just plain wrong. What were the Bretwalda wielding, for Fuck's sake? Simple geography and common destiny united all Germanics in Britain. The chances for nation-building here were greater than for any other part of the Germanic world, even, given the less obvious borders elsewhere. Christianity filled a political space that already existed. It didn't define it!

Paying lip service to Christianity for the public good isn't so great an evil, is it? Yet you'd think that'd be like wanting some doubting Thomas to swallow a hot coal. Plenty of the Founding Fathers, Englishmen by extraction, were doubting Thomases who nevertheless kept up appearances and attended worship services.
Lip service is only valuable when the MAJORITY are still fervent believers. We can't have a society where more than three quarters are 'faking it'! And that's what we're talking about in England now.

You think we haven't considered what you're talking about? I brought it up with my Catholic grandmother once, suggesting that atheists might better shut up on their private conscience for the sake of ethnic solidarity. She rejected it as a dishonesty, thinking sham belief worse than outright irreligion!

[Magister Eckhart]

Based on what I have read so far, I would say the answer to this thread question is a definitive NO.

The next question we should ask is: Then what will?

For Europe, it appears to me that the answer is: You're screwed.

Here is what I believe may happen:

Europe dissolves in an acid bath of Islamic funded and fomented anarchy, or a direct Islamic "takover" of the institutions and governments. Islamic sharia law or some such nonsense takes hold. America FINALLY wakes up and does something about it.

/thread.

[Cato]

I'm surprised that this thread became inactive. The pundits of paganism were hard fighting for a while there but I guess they wandered off to concoct some more a few more fables and dream up some new rituals. :lol:

Ruminating on the events in Japan over the last few days, I browsed my copy of Nitobe Inazo's Bushido: The Soul of Japan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushido:_The_Soul_of_Japan

"He [Nitobe] found in Bushido, the Way of the Warrior, the sources of the virtues most admired by his people: rectitude, courage, benevolence, politeness, sincerity, honor, loyalty and self-control. His approach to his task was eclectic and far-reaching."

http://www.sacred-texts.com/shi/bsd/index.htm

A complete and unified ethos which defined an entire nation and which developed over several centuries, in other words, and which still continues to influence Japanese customs and manners even though the samurai are no more. This is also what Islam is, an ethos in toto, which defines the characteristics of the Muslims and which, in the past in the west, defined the characteristics of Christians.

What does paganism offer by way of comparison to Bushido, Christianity, or Islam? It wants to return to something whose time has come and gone. It might be Christianity's time, but what succeeds it isn't going to be a zombified paganism. :lol: Why? Typically, unless it be Wicca or unitarian universalism, it's broken up along ethnic or racial lines, no? What hope has a disunited paganism in the face of a force like Islam?

The same hope a gutted, liberalized Christianity has: none.

The only time in history when the west had any power is when it had a single, unifying belief: Christianity. Or, rather a single unifying worldview that developed from Christianity and its cultural and religious forebearers, much as Bushido developed from several different points of origin (Buddhism, especially Zen, Confucianism, the folk customs and folk religion of Japan, etc.).

Wanting to return to paganism is to want to board a sinking ship insofar as I'm concerned. No so-called pagan can get away from Christianity, the influence of the Enlightenment, the lifestyle of an industrial/post-industrial society, etc.

God exists, and there it lies.

[Grumpy Cat]

Pagans are constantly bickering.

Most Heathens have serious ego problems, and as a result, cannot cooperate with anybody. The "community" is a farce.

So, if paganism is the only hope, I better save up for a burqa.

[Don]

Paganism, Christianism or Godzillism, the islamic invasion can only be dealt with Firm and Strong determination.

We have already a history of centuries to learn. We did it once.

[Cato]

Pagans are constantly bickering.

Most Heathens have serious ego problems, and as a result, cannot cooperate with anybody. The "community" is a farce.

So, if paganism is the only hope, I better save up for a burqa.

I enjoy reading the old hero stories (Iliad, Odyssey, Beowulf), but it's retrogressive to want to return to the sorts of beliefs of people from hundreds or thousands of years ago, even if these beliefs are interpreted via modern methodology.

Modern paganism is often mated to an idiotic form of nationalism, and the end result is a further fracturing of the occident into a collection of bickering factions. This situation is perfect for the Muslims to come in and take over, as is currently happening; they see our weaknesses, see us as a weak people, and that's all she wrote.

[Cato]

Paganism, Christianism or Godzillism, the islamic invasion can only be dealt with Firm and Strong determination.

We have already a history of centuries to learn. We did it once.

The trouble is caballero, the replacement options for Christianity that exist in the western countries (atheism, nationalism, paganism, secular humanism, etc.) are a pretty pathetic bunch of choices, especially considering the moral aspects.

[Don]

The trouble is caballero, the replacement options for Christianity that exist in the western countries (atheism, nationalism, paganism, secular humanism, etc.) are a pretty pathetic bunch of choices, especially considering the moral aspects.

The replacement is one: Freedom, an antithesis to Islam and to West.

Tolerate the Intolerance?

[Cato]

The replacement is one: Freedom, an antithesis to Islam and to West.

Tolerate the Intolerance?

Do you mean multicultural toleration? :wink

[Grumpy Cat]

I enjoy reading the old hero stories (Iliad, Odyssey, Beowulf), but it's retrogressive to want to return to the sorts of beliefs of people from hundreds or thousands of years ago, even if these beliefs are interpreted via modern methodology.

The problem, in Asatru/Heathenry specifically, is that people take this "hero" thing a little too far. Everybody thinks they're some brave hero, when they are really beer guzzling assholes.

I mean, a Heathen will jump at your throat for liking the wrong kind of music. I tried to get into stuff just on a local level but even drama happens there. Screw that!

Basically, Heathenry is like high school. I got out of there 11 years ago. What's sad is that it's full of people in their 40s and 50s who act like catty teenagers.

[Magister Eckhart]

Not that I'm against gravedigging, but I feel like this whole conversation is going to run the same course again with the repeated criticisms of Heathenry and Christianity back and forth and at the end we're going to conclude with the same thing 2DREZQ ended the last run with.

There's a reason I said "/thread" after his post-- it really did close the discussion; I don't think we can continue this without merely rehashing what we all have already said.

[Baron Samedi]

The problem, in Asatru/Heathenry specifically, is that people take this "hero" thing a little too far. Everybody thinks they're some brave hero, when they are really beer guzzling assholes.

I mean, a Heathen will jump at your throat for liking the wrong kind of music. I tried to get into stuff just on a local level but even drama happens there. Screw that!

Basically, Heathenry is like high school. I got out of there 11 years ago. What's sad is that it's full of people in their 40s and 50s who act like catty teenagers.

I take it the Canadian heathen thing didn't work out?

[Cato]

The problem, in Asatru/Heathenry specifically, is that people take this "hero" thing a little too far. Everybody thinks they're some brave hero, when they are really beer guzzling assholes.

I mean, a Heathen will jump at your throat for liking the wrong kind of music. I tried to get into stuff just on a local level but even drama happens there. Screw that!

Basically, Heathenry is like high school. I got out of there 11 years ago. What's sad is that it's full of people in their 40s and 50s who act like catty teenagers.

I've been accused of taking myself too seriously but never about paganism. It was a novel fad to me, even as recently as a year or so ago, but the end result was that I didn't feel any real deep connection to what was (is) being passed off as authentic belief.

This is also true with Christianity, but to a lesser degree. The only thing I've really taken away from Christianity is a belief in God, hence my earlier quote from Paine: God exists, and there it lies.

[Cato]

Not that I'm against gravedigging, but I feel like this whole conversation is going to run the same course again with the repeated criticisms of Heathenry and Christianity back and forth and at the end we're going to conclude with the same thing 2DREZQ ended the last run with.

There's a reason I said "/thread" after his post-- it really did close the discussion; I don't think we can continue this without merely rehashing what we all have already said.

People forget and need to be reminded from time to time.

[Magister Eckhart]

People forget and need to be reminded from time to time.

:confused: The thread is only three months old. And if everyone is going to repeat the same stuff over and over again, it seems to me that they don't need much "reminding".

Admit it, you were bored. :p

[Cato]

:confused: The thread is only three months old. And if everyone is going to repeat the same stuff over and over again, it seems to me that they don't need much "reminding".

Admit it, you were bored. :p

It's called the myth of the eternal return, boredom has nothing to do with it.

[Grumpy Cat]

I take it the Canadian heathen thing didn't work out?

No, the NS and NB Heathens got in a scuffle. I'm still hanging out with the NB Heathens and the moot is still going to happen. I wasn't involved in this whole drama at all but I still think it's stupid. It's typical dogmatic bullshit (you don't think exactly like me, hence I don't like you).

I'm going to try to relocate to New Brunswick rather than back home.

The NB Heathens are mostly Acadian - I might just propose a kindred that only allows Acadians. Yeah, uber-folkish there.

[Lithium]

Most of the pagans nowadays are basically hippies, so there is no hope in them.

[Motörhead Remember Me]

Is Paganism our only hope against Islam?

-YES!
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_LigS6z64iiM/SxSJQhzbqKI/AAAAAAAAAIU/vgRft3pvCxY/s1600/vader_thumbs_up.jpg
Paganism is our only hope against the madness of the Three Evil Middle Eastern religions!

[Grumpy Cat]

Most of the pagans nowadays are basically hippies, so there is no hope in them.

Hippies or brainwashed neocons.

[Adalwolf]

There is no hope in Paganism and will never be. People believing otherwise are in a pseudo-utopian dream like state.

[Cato]

There is no hope in Paganism and will never be. People believing otherwise are in a pseudo-utopian dream like state.

Sort of like realm that the Marxists dream of?

[Don]

Do you mean multicultural toleration? :wink

I mean tolerate Islam.

A foreigner, primitive, senseless and violent cult that, in particular for Spaniards, represents an ancient enemy who once invaded our lands in hordes whose our ancestors fought with bravery and determination since we learnt from history that the cohabitation IS NOT POSSIBLE and the unique language this cult understand is the Sword.

[Cato]

I mean tolerate Islam.

A foreigner, primitive, senseless and violent cult that, in particular for Spaniards, represents an ancient enemy who once invaded our lands in hordes whose our ancestors fought with bravery and determination since we learnt from history that the cohabitation IS NOT POSSIBLE.

Understood, thanks for the clarification sir!

[Dead Eye]

I don't see how a revival of Paganism will help.It went down the same road that Christianity is going down(weak and dumbed down)so how will reviving it do any good?

If anything,we need a revival of Chrsitianity,or for it to be pushed back on track,because it was the only thing protecting us from Islam while Paganism is quite tolerant of other religions.

[Wulfhere]

I don't see how a revival of Paganism will help.It went down the same road that Christianity is going down(weak and dumbed down)so how will reviving it do any good?

If anything,we need a revival of Chrsitianity,or for it to be pushed back on track,because it was the only thing protecting us from Islam while Paganism is quite tolerant of other religions.

Paganism gives us back our connection with the land.

[Lumi]

I know some Wiccans in real life who are some of the leftist folk I have ever met. And would you guys have really wanted to live similar to the old Pagan times? Considering that they regularly sacrificed people and animals to the ''Gods''. :rolleyes:

Hey. Not all pagans are fluff bunny Wiccans.
There are those of us who do practice old magick and make symbolic sacrifices (because, you know, killing people and animals is illegal and the last thing pagans want is even more bad press...).
Also, I'm not a hippie. Nor am I a liberal. So quit with the stereotypes, please. Paganism does not just apply to Witches either.

I think Christianity has failed, and the Pagan ideals of defending yourself and your family are the way to defeat Islam. Paganism taught bravery, courage, selflessness and to respect others and treat them as you would wish to be treated yourself. So, if someone hurts you, kick their ass.

[heathen_son]

Hey. Not all pagans are fluff bunny Wiccans.

No one has said they are. Just most. Disagree?


There are those of us who do practice old magick and make symbolic sacrifices (because, you know, killing people and animals is illegal and the last thing pagans want is even more bad press...).

By "old magick", do you mean as old as Crowley?

There are people out there who actually sacrifice animals. Legally. Wholesomely. They found that symbolic sacrifice didn't seem to cut it.


Also, I'm not a hippie. Nor am I a liberal. So quit with the stereotypes, please.

You are conforming to the stereotype that all Wiccan's have a persecution complex. No one has called you a hippie or a liberal.

[PetiteParisienne]

Anything that allows Europeans to regain some self respect will help stem the tide of Islam. Paganism could be very helpful, as it would encourage rediscovery of identity in terms of roots.

[Flintlocke]

I propose an "umbrella" of values and duty. Such as courage, clear sense of identity, pride, duty to your tribe, etc. All our religions can exist under such circumstances so the problem isn't totally religious but it is the mental weakening of yoorope's ppls.

[GeistFaust]

Christianity is a rogue virus which is going to destroy and usurp the tribalism and the identity of our peoples. Its time we wake up, and try to squeeze the Jewish/Semitic nonsense out of it as soon as possible. Christianity is a carrier of that disease called Cosmopolitan, which correlates with its spirit of Univeralism and Millenarianism. Its time to crush and smash this force by creating cults which center on a more naturalistic and folkish approach to reality. These cults will center around a more Folk centered theology, which will not teach such nonsense as the equality of all peoples, and that we should allow weak links to infilitrate in society.


I am a Nietszchean in this regard, because I believe in resurrecting the approaches and feelings of the ancient Greeks in all their wonderful and beauty. The ancient Greeks were a noble people who believed the truth was the world, and all abstractness and void insignificance was seen as a pile of nonsense.


Its time we build a Folkish and naturalistic religion whose symbolism centers around the beauty, goodness, and truth of religion as it can be found in its people and the surrounding nature. All transcendent material is a fallacious lie from which we can deduce nothing of sense or construct a consistent and clear system of dogma or doctrine.


The European peoples need to return to their old religious spirit, which was filled with all the nobility and sublimity of the soul, and to stop letting themselves degenerate with the resentful belief system of Christianity.


Ideas of virtue, heroism, and folk consciousness should all be brought back to replace the shanty system of morals in Christianity, the sick subjugation to foreign ideals, and a communistic/anarchic view of socio-political models, which center of a multi-cultural mindset.

[Lumi]

No one has said they are. Just most. Disagree?

I do, actually.




By "old magick", do you mean as old as Crowley?

I mean old as in passed down through the generations.


There are people out there who actually sacrifice animals. Legally. Wholesomely. They found that symbolic sacrifice didn't seem to cut it.

Well good for them. What's your point?




You are conforming to the stereotype that all Wiccan's have a persecution complex. No one has called you a hippie or a liberal.

No one here has called me a hippie or a liberal. Elsewhere, yes, even afted I explain that I'm not Wiccan. I follow a different path altogether.

[heathen_son]

I'm not Wiccan. I follow a different path altogether.

Sorry Lumi, I got confused here. I mistook you for a Wiccan, as in the past you have said that you practice astral projection. You also said you practiced "old Magick" spelt anachronistically like Crowley the occultist spelt it. And you insinuated that you have inherited practices of pagan origin. You also stated that Loki visits you in dreams, and that you "like having Loki around" even if he does hide your things, like he is some sort of familiar thing in your life. You just sound typical of a lot of Wiccans I know.

But your profile said you were Asatru, so I appear to be mistaken :thumbs up

[Ville]

Islam, a totalitarian ideology, will ultimately be destroyed by Time - not unlike potent in its time Christianity died a natural death.

Or, paraphrasing the Book of Ecclesiastes, I would say: to everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven: a time for Christian God to die, and a time for Allah to go away.

[Teyrn]

The Order of Bards, Ovates & Druids and their wiccan allies will clearly save us all from the saracen hordes. :rolleyes:

It's a substitution of one form of superstition for another form of superstition, from Christianity to paganism, and the assumption that paganism is something good merely because it rejects Christian spiritual hegemony or whatever and that the pagan deities are better than the Christian deity is too overly naive and simplistic.

A better question might be to ask is why people are coming to prefer the pagan superstitions over the Christian superstition? The typical batty neo-pagan will probably go on about Burning Times, witch-hunts, forced conversions, and other crap, but the thoughtful neo-pagans might say something more like "Christianity has nothing of value to teach." This implies that as a moral force Christianity is pretty much spent and worn-out, a bit of existential rubbish like other failed religions, and then out come the Christian apologists and the battle is joined. Clearly then Christianity is not spent and worn-out if people are willing and able to defend it so zealously, in which case the neo-pagans have their work cut out for them.

[2Cool]

Science and education is the most effective tool against religion. Educate people, teach them critical thinking, and they will realize how stupid their beliefs are. However, doing what most people are doing: mistreating Muslims, discriminating them based on their beliefs, making a us vs them mentality, using laws to ban burkas/minarets, and more, is only going to make matters worse since they will associate themselves more and more with their religion. People tend to hold more closely to their beliefs and have their guard up when are treated like crap and feel like their culture is threatened.

[Elessar]

I think so, Christianity failed to defend us from Islam, so we need to try something else.
Yes, Christianity, as an entity in the 20th century, has utterly failed in protecting Europe from Islam. That's probably because Christianity hasn't been ruling for the past 2-300 years. How this makes sense when it wasn't the role of any religion (the lack thereof in fact) that determined governmental policy that opened Europe's doors after the 2nd world war is beyond me.
We need to try something else? Why does repulsing an invader have to be under some pretext of a religion? There are plenty of atheists who aren't content with our present crisis, not to mention there being a multitude of Christians as well, despite the anti-christ rhetoric that's spewed by neopagans and the like.

[Mercury]

Due to recent advancements in communication, such as the Internet, few Western nations will be associated with ONE religion or one religious belief. Individuals will pick out what religion they like and there will be even a greater diversity of religious beliefs in the future. So asking if the West should be Islamic, Christian, or Pagan is basically irrelevant. We don't live in that age anymore. Westerners are increasingly individualistic and will pick out their own spirituality for themselves.

Now Heathenry and European-centered religions in general can install a feeling of ethnocentrism and racial pride that isn't found in modern day universalistic Christian sects. The only form of Christianity that I would promote for a racialist white is Mormonism or some form of British Israelite type religion.

[GeistFaust]

Yes, Christianity, as an entity in the 20th century, has utterly failed in protecting Europe from Islam. That's probably because Christianity hasn't been ruling for the past 2-300 years. How this makes sense when it wasn't the role of any religion (the lack thereof in fact) that determined governmental policy that opened Europe's doors after the 2nd world war is beyond me.
We need to try something else? Why does repulsing an invader have to be under some pretext of a religion? There are plenty of atheists who aren't content with our present crisis, not to mention there being a multitude of Christians as well, despite the anti-christ rhetoric that's spewed by neopagans and the like.


It has failed because it is beginning to lose its roots and its purely European nature. It is starting to globalize as most things are in today's cosmopolitan world. This is leading it to a mediocrity and degeneration, which is causing it to be become more open and tolerant to other religions and non-European cultures. The great days of Christianity were typified by European culture, Pagan ideology, and a military spirit.


This all made Christianity a truly marvelous phenomenon to an extent, but the bestial and pestilent Semitic underpinnings of Christianity has haunted it from the beginning. The Europeanization and Paganization of Christianity was a necessity, but it was a not a necessity it could keep in place. Its Semitic substratum of Christianity allowed, quite unfortunately for the entrance of unwanted components and elements.


This is because Christianity lays on this false and shanty basis where all men and cultures are to be perceived as equal and equally productive/intelligent in the eyes of God. This is nothing more than a pile of shit, and its time we wake up and either watch what was largely an invention of ours become Globalized into mediocrity or to make it our own again and a unique expression of culture.


In the process we should negate the Semitic underlyings of Christianity and return it to some Post-Reformationist status with elements of modernization imbued into it. The great Christian spirit of the Crusaders led to many a Romantic feeling, which brought about and invoked noble and sublime feelings.


These noble and sublime feelings projected themselves in the desire to conquer, gain wealth, and was a Proto form of European colonization. This spirit of the crusaders was transported to it by Germanic peoples, largely Anglo-Saxons/Germans/Viking descended people who advocated for this opportunistic approach.


They basically used their secularist, materialistic, and militaristic spirit as a grounds for Christianity's feelings, which filled it with master morality and an unquenchable soul. A soul which was bent on opening all horizons to mankind, but on the basis it was Europeanized and simply for the European man.


It was this opportunistic drive to make the world a unique expression of self through the constant striving to conquer land and foreigner inspired some of the noblest feelings in the Middle Ages.


An age which manifested and expressed many a sick feeling, which had been cast over it by the Semitic substratum within it. The Crusaders justified Christianity on the basis of their Sturm und Drang policy, and Christianity was actualized in its noble and sublime spirit through this drive to conquer and make profit.

[Joe McCarthy]

Pagans have a long history of getting pwned by Muslims.

[GeistFaust]

Pagans have a long history of getting pwned by Muslims.


I don't think many European pagans though. A lot of the people who defeated the Muslims earlier on were fresh from their conversion to Christianity from Paganism. They had still not given up many of their pagan traditions and customs for the most part. The crusader spirit was driven by a spirit of master morality, which centered around those countries in the Germanic nation.

The energies of Christianity were largely re-directed and re-structured in a positivistic manner, which centered around the Pagan approach to reality. Europeans would never give up on this positivistic manner of approaching reality, and this would crop up within the frameworks of Europe's socio-cultural affairs.


The Reformation was largely a result of the fact that Christian sentiment was largely a stagnant mass, which only acted as a catalyst or energy force that was eventually re-directed and re-organized around Paganistic instincts and drives.

[Sarmatian]

A better question might be to ask is why people are coming to prefer the pagan superstitions over the Christian superstition?

Amazingly the more modern science learn about our universe and human nature the more parralels we can find with pagan beliefs. Heathenry naturally evolved out of depths of human super-subconscious while Christianity, Islam and Judaizm are artificial constructs which declining some important aspects of human life.

[Teyrn]

Amazingly the more modern science learn about our universe and human nature the more parralels we can find with pagan beliefs. Heathenry naturally evolved out of depths of human super-subconscious while Christianity, Islam and Judaizm are artificial constructs which declining some important aspects of human life.

The creation story in Genesis can be said, and has been said, to follow the standard Big Bang-based cosmological model. The writers of the biblical account of creation didn't conjure it up out of thin air- they apparently used existing, i.e. pagan, Near Eastern accounts of creation as a foundation and what they did do was to ascribe the creation of the cosmos to a single deity rather than a group of deities.