Religion without faith

[Lysander]

Firstly I'd like to make sure for any real neo-pagans that this post is not intended as an insult.

And now onto my point:

What exactly is neo-paganism? The whole concept is flawed. The word "neo" implies that it is something new which is strange when the whole point with it is as far as I can see, to connect with the pre-Christian roots of Europe.

I watched a documentary about Icelandic Asatruers which was interesting until one of the priests, shamans or what you call your holy men was confronted about his religion and he answered
- All other religions are fake too. The difference is, we know ours is. Haha....

Now that is a point of view that I just can't understand. The difference Mister is that we don't believe that ours is fake at all. What purpose does religion fill without faith?
It seems to me that these people just wanted an excuse to go out and live role-play Dungeons & Dragons as adults.
Again, let me stress that if there are any REAL neo-pagans out there you should not be insulted by this.

This is the same problem that I have with the otherwise great French writer de Benoist. In his book "On Being a Pagan" he criticizes Christianity and compares it to the old European religions. While he reaches some interesting conclusion I have one overall problem with him. He sees religion as a philosophical thing as opposed to a spiritual thing.
This is where I have to agree with the great traditionalist Julius Evola to whom religion is spiritual first and philosophical second.

Overall I am positive to religion and it is my firm belief that that a nation devoid of religion will eventually decline into nothingness. Nowadays money is religion and everyone can see that the west is in decline.

So to sum it up, my question is what purpose does neo-paganism serve for you who claim to be pagans but are really sceptics, agnostics or even atheists?
You claim to be neo-pagans to show your nationalism? Ridiculous.

And yet again, I have no problem with neo-pagans who actually believe in the spirituality of their religion. I'm just deeply vexed by "adult children".

[Absinthe]

It is such a funny coincidence, that the day before yesterday I had an extensive talk with a theologist working a PhD thesis on the Byzantium...

It somehow came up in the discussion that in every Byzantine text that was referring to the notion of "ανεξιθρησκεία" (religious freedom), the Christian "fathers" did not define it in the same way as we perceive it today, i.e. respecting different religions and allowing them to coexist, but as "ανεξιθρησκεία means that you must go to every end to convince the other person that his religious views are wrong, and show them to the right path" (roughly translated).

It seems to be what every christian has been doing since the dawn of their religion, and it seems to be what you are trying to do now with this thread. ;)

[Lysander]

Well, one must say that Byzantium was easy going when spreading Christianity compared to our European brothers who pretty much would cut your head off if you didn't convert, especially among the Balts who resisted well into the 11th century ;).

In any case you have misunderstood the purpose of my post. I don't have some king of a secret agenda to convert people on this board to Christianity. It is true that Jesus said "spread the gospel" which is why Christians always have been trying to convert people one way or the other. But there are better ways to do it than surfing the web.
I am NOT a missionary.

My question remains.

[Absinthe]

I did not call you a missionary, I merely pointed out the fact that almost every Christian I have met in my life is quick on judging and belittling other faiths, and I thus was wondering about the purpose of this thread.

I believe that no single soul on this board defines oneself as "neo-pagan" but rather as following their ethnic religion, but anyway, I am not a pagan myself so I better let others speak for themselves :)

[Lysander]

Ah I see... That is a shame. Boards of this sort usually attract neo-pagans, I would have very much liked an answer from one of their stock.

In any case, I am not quick to judge at all. Just as I pointed out in the initial post I have no problem with neo-pagans who actually believe in the spirituality of their religion.
But when it comes to the live role-players one must hesitate a moment and really think about what they are doing.

[Absinthe]

Are you referring to Wiccans, by any chance? :icon_ask:

[Loddfafner]

As a heathen who does not believe in the literal truth of the Voluspa, I see it partly as a matter of affiliation, of homage to my heritage, and as a vocabulary for maintaining a spiritual relationship with the cycles of nature.

[Heimmacht]

Most Heathens don't take metaphors literally, as opposed to what you refer to as neo-pagans. Back in the old days of our forefathers, they didnt have the understanding we have nowadays.

That doesnt make it more or less our ethnic believe.

[Kempenzoon]

I find the whole term "neo-pagan" to indeed be pretty ridiculous, but I find the term to be mostly used by Wiccans and other hippies.

I agree pretty much with Heimmacht and Loddfaffner on what heathendom should be about.

[Óttar]

I have written extensively on this topic, but I will write yet another post because I can't give people any room to "not have a clue." (Character flaw? :D) (No offense to you personally, I'm referring to people in general.)

I do not consider myself a "neo-pagan." I am a pagan. I think the use of the prefix neo- is ridiculous. My paganism however is not "folkish" like many people's on this board. I follow the post-classical Monism of the Alexandrian era i.e. the Hellenistic period forward. Apuleius tells us of an apparition of the goddess Isis, where she tells him, 'I have many forms, and many names, I am all that exists, has existed, and will be... I am Juno, I am Venus at Paphos, I am Ephesian Diana... The Egyptians call me by my true name, Queen Isis.'

Monism believes that there is One divine Essence with various manifestations, which are the gods and goddesses. Such a doctrine was taught in Egypt, and was popular in the Hellenistic era and in the Roman empire. The doctrine survives today in Hinduism. This doctrine was linked to the mystery cults of later antiquity.

One must understand, Catholicism itself is a mystery cult. A member is instructed through catechism and when all requirements are fulfilled they are initiated into the Eucharist. Through the sacraments of the Catholic church, they (or so the story goes) attain salvation. Now the popes claim their origin in St. Peter, but the title Pontifex Maximus was a title held by the leader of the pagan colleges in Rome. The name means "the greatest bridge (between god(s) and men.) Julius Caesar once held the title Pontifex Maximus in ancient times.

Catholicism blended Christianity with pagan customs, and converted gods into local saints. They gave the Blessed Virgin Mary many epithets which were used for pagan goddesses, i.e. Stella Maris, Regina Caeli, Seat of Wisdom etc. Isis' name in Egypt was Aset which means "She of the Throne", She was the throne on which Horus and the pharaoh sat. Imagery of Isis and Horus was an influence on the image of the Madonna and Jesus.

It is understandable that there was a blending of pagan themes in Christianity. Jesus' hebrew name was Yahushua which was Hellenized to Iesous. This made the transition easier, and people who convert to a new faith often bring elements of their old religion to the new one. Pagan holidays were made Christian. Many of the early churches dedicated to Mary were located in Ephesus where the goddess Artemis was worshipped. Mary shrines were built above many goddess shrines. The image of Jesus was syncretized with dying and resurrecting gods.

I was once Catholic, but I realized Catholicism was a blending of Christianity with mediterranean paganism and I thought: "I am drawn to the pagan elements, but the original biblical teachings have no appeal to me whatsoever." So I became pagan. I do not care about some hijacked Jewish carpenter and his dusty old desert religion. The pagans were doing just fine before the stifling ideology of Christianity came along.

I have always been interested in the cult (I use the word in its antique sense) of the Blessed Virgin Mary. To me, she is a composite figure of various mediterranean goddesses, and she embodies the feminine principle (which if you notice is non-existent in dusty old Protestantism.) I find it interesting that one of the epithets of the BVM is Porta Caeli "Gate of Heaven", and she is depicted pointing toward her son, as she shows the way. There is an old medieval Portuguese song which goes "Santa Maria maestra nos do dia" (Holy Mary show us the way to God.)

If not for her, I would have absolutely no interest scholarly or otherwise in Christianity. The feminine is dynamic, and without Mary, where would the church be? Mary is a vessel not only of the Divine, but as a way for people to be lifted upwards. Goethe said "The Eternal Feminine drives us ever heavenward." This is true, which is why the Church has so effectively used the figure of Mary to gain converts, and to advance political ends. Indeed, as it has been said "Mary is the Church." People are most attracted to a maternal archetype and they are willing to fight and die in the cause of the feminine, and of their Mother. To this day, even though I am not Catholic, I study her as through her, much can be learned about our ancient past.

I recognize however, that the image of the Great Mother and the Dying-Resurrecting god pre-date Christianity. Because of this, I go to the source which is that ancient monistic religion before it was blended with Christianity.

The original Stella Maris, Threnus Sapientiae, and Regina Caeli was Isis and other goddesses identified with Her. The original Good Shepherd was Dionysus, the original Lord of Ages was Mithras. I call the gods by their original names. I am no longer fooled by the superficial Judeo-Christian veneer, I have torn away the surface, and have moved closer to piercing the veil of Isis (although She tells us in Apuleius that no mortal has ever achieved it.) I am resolute in my attempt no matter how ill-fated (As Odin knows he must fall at Ragnarok, but remains steadfast nonetheless.)

Ave Magna Mater, Domina Mundi, Isidis Matris, macte esto.

[Psychonaut]

So to sum it up, my question is what purpose does neo-paganism serve for you who claim to be pagans but are really sceptics, agnostics or even atheists?

In my opinion, Heathenry's utility is striking. The ancestral veneration at the root of Heathenry promotes ethnic preservation more so than any other type of religion. Heathenry's pneumatology promotes strong family bonds in a way that Christianity is incapable of doing. Heathen ethics promote mental heath by focusing on living a good life in this world, rather than devoting our lives to preparation for the afterlife. The pseudo-pantheism of Heathenry also encourages us to have a healthier relationship with nature than does the dominionism of Christianity. And the list goes on and on...

[Angantyr]

There are probably no neo-pagans here, as there probably are none on most nationalist or European boards. Wiccans and their ilk are usually quite liberal and universalist. You have set up a straw man in order to knock it down.

There are, however, Pagan reconstructionists. European Paganism is an integral part of our European heritage, one unifected by Asian Abrahamitic beliefs. Within our number are those who truly believe and those who respect and participate in our faith and probably everything in between.

There is nothing particularly strange about that. There are many people who celebrate Christmas and yet who do not believe in Jesus as anything more than a fairy tale.

[Lysander]

Are you referring to Wiccans, by any chance? :icon_ask:

I don't even know what a Wiccan is.


As a heathen who does not believe in the literal truth of the Voluspa, I see it partly as a matter of affiliation, of homage to my heritage, and as a vocabulary for maintaining a spiritual relationship with the cycles of nature.

That's exactly what I like to call ethnic religion which serves no purpose at all. "I am Germanic and hence I'd like to believe in Thor, Freya etc".
That is not heathenism nor paganism or whatever ism you'd like to call it. It is plain and simple atheism. Or if you go back to nature religion it is Celtic Druidism. Since for an atheist the world and everything in it is seemingly pointless they start seeking for spiritualism in new age hoaxes (note: I don't see real Paganism as a hoax) and ancient religions.
The word religion itself implies that there should be some sort of belief. And since heathenism is a broken tradition it can't really be resurrected in a pure form.
What kind of spiritual relationship? Just the beauty of the seasons or a real actual spirituality?


In my opinion, Heathenry's utility is striking. The ancestral veneration at the root of Heathenry promotes ethnic preservation more so than any other type of religion. Heathenry's pneumatology promotes strong family bonds in a way that Christianity is incapable of doing. Heathen ethics promote mental heath by focusing on living a good life in this world, rather than devoting our lives to preparation for the afterlife. The pseudo-pantheism of Heathenry also encourages us to have a healthier relationship with nature than does the dominionism of Christianity. And the list goes on and on...
Ancestral veneration is all jolly good, but what's the point in sacrificing a goat for your ancestors if you don't really believe they will be better off for it?
How does paganism promote stronger family bonds?
You have got the concept of Christianity all wrong, a good life in this world will lead to a good life in the next. Nobody expects you to sit around and wait for Armageddon.
For me a healthy relation with nature is to try and preserve as much as you can of it but I have no interest in sacrificing sheep near old oaks. Obviously preserving nature has for me nothing to do with religion. Any man, woman or child with half a brain understands the value of preserving it nowadays.


There are probably no neo-pagans here, as there probably are none on most nationalist or European boards. Wiccans and their ilk are usually quite liberal and universalist. You have set up a straw man in order to knock it down.
Indeed. I was however looking for real neo-pagans who actually believe in what they do not grown men playing Dungeons & Dragons in their backyard.


There are, however, Pagan reconstructionists. European Paganism is an integral part of our European heritage, one unifected by Asian Abrahamitic beliefs. Within our number are those who truly believe and those who respect and participate in our faith and probably everything in between.
And those are the pagans who have my full respect.


There is nothing particularly strange about that. There are many people who celebrate Christmas and yet who do not believe in Jesus as anything more than a fairy tale.
Yes but these people don't go to church because their ancestors did so 600 years ago either. They don't believe and they don't pretend to believe either.
In any case Christmas is a capitalist holiday more so than spiritual nowadays.


Answer to Òttar: (will not quote for obvious reasons)
Umm.. I don't really understand where you are trying to get with all this. There's a lot of historical fact there, most of which was already known to me to begin with.
It seems to me that you're heading off topic debating whether of not Christianity is true which was not at all the intent of this thread.
Is there anything in this post that actually deals with the topic at hand, which is neo-paganism without spirituality?
Obviously your type of paganism, Hinduism or what you call it is not devoid of the spirit and hence doesn't bother me.

The prefix neo is there for obvious reasons. Paganism has been dead for 1000 years give or take X hundred years depending on where in Europe you are.
You will probably only find Christians for as long as you can get back in your family history. For me that is the very essence of traditionalism and Roman Catholicism is the strongest pan-European tradition still alive.

I must still thank you for an interesting post Òttar :thumbs up.

[Lyfing]

Oh Lordy,



Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Hebrews 11:1

Hebrews..??

We don't hope for anything. We make our own sandwiches. Hope is related to Help. We don't need, or want, any help. We count on ourselves.

A favorite Nietzsche quote (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2225&highlight=favorite) for this one..


“Do I hear correctly? They call it Judgment Day, the coming of their kingdom, the ‘Kingdom of God.’ Meanwhile they live in ‘faith,’ in ‘love,’ in ‘hope.’”

“Stop! I’ve heard enough.”

Faith has always been a word that bothers me. The Odinic-Rite says “Faith, Folk, Family”.. Whatever could that mean..?? What role could faith play..

Play..??

There is a certain utility of our heathenism, and it has to do with play..

I won't go into it to much, but there is an aspect of play with belief..that is what Campbell called “The Lesson of the Mask” (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=69465#post69465)..

...

So, this is a funny thread. There is talk of D@D and how “somewhich” ( my favorite sandwich ) way or another it has to do with us living in a fantasy world. Folks not having faith ( oh.. I assure you we play plenty.. ) and all the rest. What a joke.

Good Day..

Later,
-Lyfing

[Loddfafner]

The universe is not pointless without a God. It is just up to us conscious beings to give it its meaning and to experience it. To paraphrase Sloterdijk's summary of Nietzsche, since there is no life after death, we need to make sure we have one before death.

[Aemma]

Wow, meaty thread and meaty post I have to say. :) Welcome here btw Lysander, I've not taken the opportunity to welcome you yet so "Welcome!" :)

Ok, onto this meaty stuff :)....


I don't even know what a Wiccan is.

Wicca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca) (the noun, "Wiccan" the adjective) is identified as a neo-pagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neopaganism) spiritual tradition (I use that latter term loosely in this case) which is highly syncretic and eclectic in its development as well as its methods. For all intents and purposes it IS a fabricated spiritual tradition in the truest sense of the word "fabrication". Compare this to a spiritual tradition based on historical reconstruction, as found in polytheistic reconstructionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytheistic_reconstructionism), and you will get a sense of the very difference between the two stypes of spirituality.



Coming back to the term Neo-paganism then, you will find that most adherents of Polytheistic Reconstructionism (of which Heathenry is a part) do not employ the word "neo-pagan" to denote their pagan tradition. Clearly there is nothing "new" about it since it is deeply rooted in history, a history, I will remind people, that has been driven underground due to Christian conversions but which has nonetheless left its defiantly indelible mark in the Roman Catholic Church. (Refer to Ottar's excellent post with respect to this matter).

Thus we are NOT neo-pagan, but pagan. And I even have some Heathen friends who despise the very term "pagan" due to its derogatory nature. In the end though, we are just modern-day folk who follow older spiritual folk customs. :)

How does this tie into the concept of "faith" then?

In our spiritual tradition, there is no sense of "faith" as in the Christian tradition. The concept of "faith" is very much an Abrahamic concept stemming from the recorded (his)stories as found in the Pentateuch itself, the most significant of course being the (his)story of Abraham in the Book of Genesis. Here we learn of the ultimate exercise of faith in the Judaeo-Christian God when Abraham is requested by God to sacrifice his one and only son Isaac. This (his)story is indeed the very foundation of the Judaeo-Christian concept of "faith". Faith is the very linchpin of this spiritual tradition.

Compare this to Germanic Heathen Lore then and you'll not find any such theme of "faith" in this sense. Interactions of humans and deities and other beings in the Heathen spiritual custom are not based on placing one's fate (and therefore by extension faith) in the hands of another but in oneself (which plays into one's as well as others' wyrd(s)) along with the spiritual energy provided by one's hamingja.

Indeed when studied further one starts appreciating the very different natures of a Heathen mindset and a Christian mindset. In essence they are worlds apart.


That's exactly what I like to call ethnic religion which serves no purpose at all. "I am Germanic and hence I'd like to believe in Thor, Freya etc".

But such a statement is simplifying things to the point of ridiculousness I'm afraid to say. Heathenry is far from being an atheistic tradition. In fact I would counter that there is no such concept in Heathenry. One might interpret deities and other beings in the multiverse in very different ways, but Heathens do recognise the importance of their myths (which does not mean falsehoods btw as Christians are apt to interpret the word) and the significance of the stories of the deities and other beings in their myths. I would suspect it is only a spiritually immature Germanic Heathen that would make a comment as you've stated above.

And as for Heathenry being an ethnic religion, well I propose that this is only logical. Heathenry is a spiritual tradition borne of [I]a People, of a Folk. It encompasses not only praxis but the metaphysics which give meaning to the praxis. It is an organic process as organic as human beings are: it sprouts, grows, matures, ages, dies, and becomes reborn. Ours is not a static tradition, but one which is dynamic and has life!



The word religion itself implies that there should be some sort of belief. And since heathenism is a broken tradition it can't really be resurrected in a pure form.
What kind of spiritual relationship? Just the beauty of the seasons or a real actual spirituality?

I'm running out of time so some of this will have to do for now...thre's so much I'd like to address, but Sunna's out and my son is getting impatient ;):

But why must there be "belief"? Belief is a contentious word in the Germanic spiritual tradition and needs to be defined in order to be discussed. For the most part, we do not "believe" in our deities as a Christian would, though I admit that some of us do. But the essence of the word "belief" is different.

And yes it is "real spirituality" but again needs defining if we are to discuss it properly and do th discussion justice. :)



Ancestral veneration is all jolly good, but what's the point in sacrificing a goat for your ancestors if you don't really believe they will be better off for it?
How does paganism promote stronger family bonds?
You have got the concept of Christianity all wrong, a good life in this world will lead to a good life in the next. Nobody expects you to sit around and wait for Armageddon.
For me a healthy relation with nature is to try and preserve as much as you can of it but I have no interest in sacrificing sheep near old oaks. Obviously preserving nature has for me nothing to do with religion. Any man, woman or child with half a brain understands the value of preserving it nowadays.


Indeed. I was however looking for real neo-pagans who actually believe in what they do not grown men playing Dungeons & Dragons in their backyard.

And those are the pagans who have my full respect.[QUOTE]

Oh jeepers you raise interesting questions that do have sound answers. But alas, this will have to wait for now. :)

[QUOTE]Yes but these people don't go to church because their ancestors did so 600 years ago either. They don't believe and they don't pretend to believe either.
In any case Christmas is a capitalist holiday more so than spiritual nowadays.

;) How do you know? Family traditions are hard to break. This is an important way in which we define ourselves as belonging as human beings--the sociological side of things.

As for your last statement, point well taken. And I certainly wouldn't disagree there. But it bhooves us to change that and reclaim the spiritual aspect of Yule and Christmas. ;)

:) Cheers Lysander and All! Great thread btw! And welcome again!...Aemma

[Angantyr]

I don't even know what a Wiccan is.

Indeed. I was however looking for real neo-pagans who actually believe in what they do not grown men playing Dungeons & Dragons in their backyard.

Yes but these people don't go to church because their ancestors did so 600 years ago either. They don't believe and they don't pretend to believe either.
In any case Christmas is a capitalist holiday more so than spiritual nowadays.


If you do not know what a Wiccan is, then you should not be making posts stating an opinion about neo-pagans.

If you think that reconstructionists are neo-pagans, then you are even more lost.

Lastly, there are people who go to church because they are nominal Christians. They go on Christmas to sing carols. They go on Easter. They get married in a church by a priest or pastor. Families who arrange religious funeral services.

Moreover, there is a huge social difference between reconstructive Paganism and Christianity, as Psychinaut pointed out. Practicing Paganism without absolute belief is much more understandable than practicing Christianity without absolute belief. Paganism is pride in one's ancestors and one's family and one's descendants. Paganism is self-reliance and self-restraint. Paganism is a relationship with nature and a way of marking the passing of the seasons. Christianity is not based on pride or self-reliance at all, but on surrendering oneself to a god based on a concept of being unworthy.

[Óttar]

I don't even know what a Wiccan is.

And you don't really need to know. Wicca as first developed in the 1950s had some redeeming qualities, but nowadays it has become watered down fluff-bunny, pixie dust tomfoolery. See an awesome article called "Why Wiccans suck." Nowadays, they are a huge part of the problem that makes "pagans" look bad (People who play D&D in their backyard.)

The site for this article has since disappeared, but it is partly preserved in the archive below... See the FAQ and Links section.

http://web.archive.org/web/20060101040146/http://www.whywiccanssuck.com/


Answer to Òttar:[/B] (will not quote for obvious reasons)
Umm.. I don't really understand where you are trying to get with all this. There's a lot of historical fact there, most of which was already known to me to begin with.

What I'm getting at may take a small leap to get to, but I believe it is clear. I have a hard-time understanding why Catholics, the ones who know that their religion has blended with paganism, still believe in the efficacy of the Catholic Church as giving salvation. If you have correct belief, you believe Jesus was virgin-born, that Mary was immaculate, that rites can save your soul, that your sex-life should more or less be ascetic and confined to marriage only. I once heard it said "The ones who nailed him to the cross, now rule in his name." Do you not find it ironic that the very empire Jesus was against, blended and distorted his religion for political gain? Knowing the influence of pagan religion(s) on Christianity does that not challenge the efficacy of dogmas, and the spiritual power of the Pope, as appointed by God? I believe that if anyone sees the virgin birth and resurrection from the dead as more than an allegory, than this is irrational. How is one's "faith" sustained in the Catholic Church then? (I am not attempting to be adversarial, but I think my counter-argument is understandable and deserves to be addressed.)



It seems to me that you're heading off topic debating whether of not Christianity is true which was not at all the intent of this thread.

I think that if you question other's faith, than people have a right to question yours, as I am truly curious about knowing an enlightened Catholic's answer (ie a Catholic who is aware of the syncretism in his religion.) to my points.


Is there anything in this post that actually deals with the topic at hand, which is neo-paganism without spirituality?

My answer (which my post hints at with, 'I am not a neo-pagan') would be that most "neo-pagans" have no legitimacy as they are not grounded in the scholarly, they do not approach their tradition with respect and solemnity. My argument (which I have expressed in a number of other threads) is that ancient indigenous religion is something which can stand on its own. It has its own history. Apuleius, Homer, Julius Caesar, Horace, Cicero, Lucan, Ovid, Virgil, and countless others give us first-hand commentary on a once living tradition; a tradition which has no need of crystal balls, tarot, and other modern hogwash.

I believe that the crisis of modern paganism is that these D&D pseudo-pagans give us a bad name. My practice is grounded in scholarly material, primary sources, solemnity, and reputable commentary. I condemn this all-pervading pseudo-paganism just as much as you. See my other posts:

"Dignified Paganism" #1

and my contributions to the thread "Everyone's a pagan now."



Obviously your type of paganism, Hinduism or what you call it is not devoid of the spirit and hence doesn't bother me.

That's good to hear and I would agree with you that fluff-bunny D&D players are a huge part of the problem in modern "paganism".




I still object to the use (by so-called pagans) of the prefix neo- as it is imperative that true indigenous practitioners go back to the source to reconstruct their old religion(s).

[quote]For me that is the very essence of traditionalism and Roman Catholicism is the strongest pan-European tradition still alive.

So are you Catholic because you believe in the efficacy of the church as a road to salvation? Do you venerate Jesus because you believe he was the foremost example of a moral human being, that he died for your sins, was virgin born, resurrected, and the messiah?

And what do you think about the historical Yahushua ben Miriam? Would he look approvingly on his church and what it has become? Would he approve of the massive grand churches, when he told his followers to give up their families, and to give of their wealth to help the poor?

Or are you Catholic because it is "the strongest pan-European tradition" ?

No offense, but this motivation seems a matter of culture and politics rather than a matter of faith/belief or religion/spirituality.


I must still thank you for an interesting post Òttar :thumbs up.

Thank you and you're welcome. :)

[Lysander]

AAAAAARRGG! This makes me furious I spent almost an hour answering all posts and my web browser ended up CRASHING!:mad::mad::mad:

You will have to excuse me for the rather short answers now as I really don't feel like writing all that again. :mad:

@Lyfing:
And you think Herr Nietzche would have anything positive to say about paganism? ;)


The universe is not pointless without a God. It is just up to us conscious beings to give it its meaning and to experience it. To paraphrase Sloterdijk's summary of Nietzsche, since there is no life after death, we need to make sure we have one before death.

That is exactly the kind of mindset that has made the west into the liberal hell hole it is today. There is no moral and there are no obligations.
"I only live once so I will sleep around with half of the town"
"I only live once and don't want a child yet, abortion is the solution"!
etc.

Since you are never responsible for what you do you can live as you want and get away with it. Personally I find people without moral repulsing. It leads to the gay-mafia "everything is okay" type of world that makes me want to puke.
The pagan religions have their honour codes and we Christians have our bible to stop this kind of behaviour. In any case none of us could call ourselves honourable beings if we lived by the rule "you only live once".


Wow, meaty thread and meaty post I have to say. :) Welcome here btw Lysander, I've not taken the opportunity to welcome you yet so "Welcome!" :)

Thank you :).



Wicca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca) (the noun, "Wiccan" the adjective) is identified as a neo-pagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neopaganism) spiritual tradition (I use that latter term loosely in this case) which is highly syncretic and eclectic in its development as well as its methods. For all intents and purposes it IS a fabricated spiritual tradition in the truest sense of the word "fabrication". Compare this to a spiritual tradition based on historical reconstruction, as found in polytheistic reconstructionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytheistic_reconstructionism), and you will get a sense of the very difference between the two stypes of spirituality.



Coming back to the term Neo-paganism then, you will find that most adherents of Polytheistic Reconstructionism (of which Heathenry is a part) do not employ the word "neo-pagan" to denote their pagan tradition. Clearly there is nothing "new" about it since it is deeply rooted in history, a history, I will remind people, that has been driven underground due to Christian conversions but which has nonetheless left its defiantly indelible mark in the Roman Catholic Church. (Refer to Ottar's excellent post with respect to this matter).

Thus we are NOT neo-pagan, but pagan. And I even have some Heathen friends who despise the very term "pagan" due to its derogatory nature. In the end though, we are just modern-day folk who follow older spiritual folk customs. :)

How does this tie into the concept of "faith" then?

In our spiritual tradition, there is no sense of "faith" as in the Christian tradition. The concept of "faith" is very much an Abrahamic concept stemming from the recorded (his)stories as found in the Pentateuch itself, the most significant of course being the (his)story of Abraham in the Book of Genesis. Here we learn of the ultimate exercise of faith in the Judaeo-Christian God when Abraham is requested by God to sacrifice his one and only son Isaac. This (his)story is indeed the very foundation of the Judaeo-Christian concept of "faith". Faith is the very linchpin of this spiritual tradition.

Compare this to Germanic Heathen Lore then and you'll not find any such theme of "faith" in this sense. Interactions of humans and deities and other beings in the Heathen spiritual custom are not based on placing one's fate (and therefore by extension faith) in the hands of another but in oneself (which plays into one's as well as others' wyrd(s)) along with the spiritual energy provided by one's hamingja.

Indeed when studied further one starts appreciating the very different natures of a Heathen mindset and a Christian mindset. In essence they are worlds apart.



But such a statement is simplifying things to the point of ridiculousness I'm afraid to say. Heathenry is far from being an atheistic tradition. In fact I would counter that there is no such concept in Heathenry. One might interpret deities and other beings in the multiverse in very different ways, but Heathens do recognise the importance of their myths (which does not mean falsehoods btw as Christians are apt to interpret the word) and the significance of the stories of the deities and other beings in their myths. I would suspect it is only a spiritually immature Germanic Heathen that would make a comment as you've stated above.

Many pagans seem to have a strange view on the historical part of their religion that goes something like "a vikings wouldn't kneel even for Thor" and that all pagans were semi-religious who only explained natural phenomena with the myths instead of actually believing them to be true. Nothing could in fact be further from the truth. Sure we know of some Greek philosophers who were atheists and agnostics but that doesn't mean that being an atheist was normal. I dare say that next to all Greeks believed in the Olympians. Otherwise they would not have sacrificed for them on a daily basis.

The same goes for the Germanic peoples. They weren't semi religious, they were extremely superstitious.
So let me put it this way.
Have you ever sacrificed anything for your ancestors or Gods? Did you think that your ancestors were better of for it or in scenario B that your Gods were pleased?



And as for Heathenry being an ethnic religion, well I propose that this is only logical. Heathenry is a spiritual tradition borne of [I]a People, of a Folk. It encompasses not only praxis but the metaphysics which give meaning to the praxis. It is an organic process as organic as human beings are: it sprouts, grows, matures, ages, dies, and becomes reborn. Ours is not a static tradition, but one which is dynamic and has life!

I'm just afraid it has grown too much alongside with the modern world and become just a meeting ground for nationalistic movements instead of actually having any spirituality.

I mean if you don't really believe that Thor is up there riding his chariot then you're not a pagan. You're a neo-pagan atheist.... something... It's almost like an oxymoron.
Because as I said, our ancestors did really believe in this stuff. I read a book about by a German author but his name has slipped from my mind. A shame, he wrote about the spirituality of the old Germanic religion.



But why must there be "belief"? Belief is a contentious word in the Germanic spiritual tradition and needs to be defined in order to be discussed. For the most part, we do not "believe" in our deities as a Christian would, though I admit that some of us do. But the essence of the word "belief" is different.


And yes it is "real spirituality" but again needs defining if we are to discuss it properly and do th discussion justice. :)

And that's exactly what makes you a neo-pagan and not a true heathen :).



;) How do you know? Family traditions are hard to break. This is an important way in which we define ourselves as belonging as human beings--the sociological side of things.
Trust me, I know. I was raised Traditionally-Orthodox religiously atheist I know all about breaking traditions :).



As for your last statement, point well taken. And I certainly wouldn't disagree there. But it bhooves us to change that and reclaim the spiritual aspect of Yule and Christmas. ;)

Well said!



:) Cheers Lysander and All! Great thread btw! And welcome again!...Aemma

You have a great day Aemma, see you around :).

@Angantyr:
I have read more than you might think about ancient Indo-European religions as they interest me.

But still, either you really aren't understanding what I'm getting at or you don't want to. People who get married in church because it's a tradition even if they are atheist don't claim to be Christians. I think Christian has more a cultural meaning in America than it does in Europe. In America you can expect almost everyone to say they are Christian but not too many of them actually go to church regularly. In Europe if you say you are Christian people will interpret it as you being religious.

Practicing ANY religion be it Christianity, paganism or whateverism without faith is beyond me and is what is supposed to be the subject of discussion here.


What I'm getting at may take a small leap to get to, but I believe it is clear. I have a hard-time understanding why Catholics, the ones who know that their religion has blended with paganism, still believe in the efficacy of the Catholic Church as giving salvation. If you have correct belief, you believe Jesus was virgin-born, that Mary was immaculate, that rites can save your soul, that your sex-life should more or less be ascetic and confined to marriage only. I once heard it said "The ones who nailed him to the cross, now rule in his name." Do you not find it ironic that the very empire Jesus was against, blended and distorted his religion for political gain? Knowing the influence of pagan religion(s) on Christianity does that not challenge the efficacy of dogmas, and the spiritual power of the Pope, as appointed by God? I believe that if anyone sees the virgin birth and resurrection from the dead as more than an allegory, than this is irrational. How is one's "faith" sustained in the Catholic Church then? (I am not attempting to be adversarial, but I think my counter-argument is understandable and deserves to be addressed.)

We are really getting off topic here but...
It is irrelevant who nailed Jesus to the cross, it was bound to happen it didn't matter whether the Chinese or Romans did it.
While it is true that Christianity was made the official religion for political gain I fail to see what it has to do with Catholicism anyway.
The popes are followers to St. Paul who got the keys to heaven from Jesus. The paganism that has been absorbed by the Catholic church is nothing more than tradition such as holidays and has nothing to with the spirituality.

You must excuse me but I didn't understand everything you wrote (English is a foreign language to me).




I think that if you question other's faith, than people have a right to question yours, as I am truly curious about knowing an enlightened Catholic's answer (ie a Catholic who is aware of the syncretism in his religion.) to my points.
Firstly, yes they do, and they are welcome to do so. Second, I have not questioned anybody's faith. This topic is not at all about faith. It is about atheist playing pagans. Further if you want to question my religion then start a thread about. I have a feeling that this thread is being hijacked into an anti-Christianity one.



My answer (which my post hints at with, 'I am not a neo-pagan') would be that most "neo-pagans" have no legitimacy as they are not grounded in the scholarly, they do not approach their tradition with respect and solemnity. My argument (which I have expressed in a number of other threads) is that ancient indigenous religion is something which can stand on its own. It has its own history. Apuleius, Homer, Julius Caesar, Horace, Cicero, Lucan, Ovid, Virgil, and countless others give us first-hand commentary on a once living tradition; a tradition which has no need of crystal balls, tarot, and other modern hogwash.


Amen.




I believe that the crisis of modern paganism is that these D&D pseudo-pagans give us a bad name. My practice is grounded in scholarly material, primary sources, solemnity, and reputable commentary. I condemn this all-pervading pseudo-paganism just as much as you. See my other posts:

"Dignified Paganism" #1

and my contributions to the thread "Everyone's a pagan now."




That's good to hear and I would agree with you that fluff-bunny D&D players are a huge part of the problem in modern "paganism".
Then we are not in disagreement on any point.



I still object to the use (by so-called pagans) of the prefix neo- as it is imperative that true indigenous practitioners go back to the source to reconstruct their old religion(s).

Well in any case that is just rhetoric and the least of your problem I dare say. Let's just leave it at that.



So are you Catholic because you believe in the efficacy of the church as a road to salvation? Do you venerate Jesus because you believe he was the foremost example of a moral human being, that he died for your sins, was virgin born, resurrected, and the messiah?

And what do you think about the historical Yahushua ben Miriam? Would he look approvingly on his church and what it has become? Would he approve of the massive grand churches, when he told his followers to give up their families, and to give of their wealth to help the poor?

Or are you Catholic because it is "the strongest pan-European tradition" ?

No offense, but this motivation seems a matter of culture and politics rather than a matter of faith/belief or religion/spirituality.



Well to really understand my conversion to Catholicism I would have to tell you my life story which is not really interesting at all.
Let me put it this way. I started reading works by ancient philosophers when I was around 15-16. My interest grew and I soon started reading German ones of whom my favourite was Nietzsche. I got stuck with the idea of Nihilism for maybe a year before I became a traditionalist.
Because I was a traditionalist at this point the Catholic church got my interest but as I got deeper into it it became a spiritual thing also. And so before I converted it had become mainly a spiritual thing.

And yes, the greed of catholic church during the middle ages is repulsing and very much against the scripture. But there's no point in blowing up these magnificent works of architecture any more.
Usually wherever you go in Europe the cathedrals are the buildings most worth seeing.

Live well and prosper Òttar :).

Lysander, out.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Nowadays, they are a huge part of the problem that makes "pagans" look bad (People who play D&D in their backyard.)

Most of us 'people who play D&D in their backyard' aren't pagans. Ironically enough, we don't hold a positive view of them because they get all the suburban housewives and old ladies all riled up when some kid commits suicide and then 'omgz that book has spells in it they must be into magic and witches and pagans call Rev Henry for an intervention!"

[Loddfafner]

That is exactly the kind of mindset that has made the west into the liberal hell hole it is today. There is no moral and there are no obligations.
"I only live once so I will sleep around with half of the town"
"I only live once and don't want a child yet, abortion is the solution"!
etc.

Since you are never responsible for what you do you can live as you want and get away with it. Personally I find people without moral repulsing. It leads to the gay-mafia "everything is okay" type of world that makes me want to puke.
The pagan religions have their honour codes and we Christians have our bible to stop this kind of behaviour. In any case none of us could call ourselves honourable beings if we lived by the rule "you only live once".


From my heathen perspective (other heathens may not agree), we actually do have an afterlife which consists of the consequences of our actions, and that can form a stronger basis for ethics than Christianity. The future is not some inevitable divine fate which we must accept but rather is something we must actively shape and take responsibility for.

Christian ethics can lead to the conclusion of Reagan's first Secretary of the Interior, James Watt, that we need not worry about destroying the environment because Jesus will come back any day now. In contrast with this extreme irresponsibility, Heathen and atheist ethics secure our future.

Christian ethics can lead to horrific abuses against those whose sexual relationships are natural and consensual but do not fit their mold. I am thinking of all those gay teens whose Christian parents beat them and threw them out into the street to fend for themselves.

Christian ethics are a matter of adhering to a few rituals without regard to the immediate human consequences and so forms a front of respectability that provides cover for corruption and betrayal. I have in mind America's Senator Ensign and Governor Sanford.

[Lyfing]

@Lyfing:
And you think Herr Nietzche would have anything positive to say about paganism? ;)

I think Herr Nietzsche was beyond positive and negative..



God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?

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

Did you get that..??

What of new gods (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1718)..is there to be belief in them or us..we are them you know..??


19. That the strong races of northern Europe have not repudiated the Christian God certainly reflects no credit on their talent for religion--not to speak of their taste. They ought to have felt compelled to have done with such a sickly and decrepit product of decadence. But there lies a curse on them for not having had done with it: they have taken up sickness, old age, contradiction into all their instincts--since then they have failed to create a God! Almost two millennia and not a single new God! But still, and as if existing by right, like an ultimate and maximum of the God-creating force, of the creator spiritus in man, this pitiable God of Christian monotono-theism! This hybrid of the void, conceptualism and contradiction, this picture of decay, in which all decadence instincts, all cowardliness and weariness of soul have their sanction!

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1718


I don't really know what else to say. Faith is a catchword for the weak and botched..Believe in yourself while you live here on Mother Earth. Give her a name..it can be Nerthus or even Jord. Born of her we are and when we die to her we will go. Womb to tomb rhymes for a reason. That is how god/esses are made..!! I do nothing because I have to ( must ) only because I want to..I am my own Lord..there is no Lord my God who I fear..I fear myself..


What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: 'This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more' ... Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: 'You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine.' [The Gay Science, §341]

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

Later,
-Lyfing

[Loddfafner]

If faith is, by definition, accepting what one is told without question, then yes, I am happy to have my religion without it, thank you.

[Jamt]

Skalla-Grimsson defenently had fate. Then he lost it but in the end he got it back. There was a better class of Odinists in those days:

I had good things from the Lord of the Spear, I become ready to trust in him before the victory-lord, the friend of chariots broke friendship with me.

I make no sacrifice to the brother of Vilir, the foremost of gods, out of eagerness. Yet Mimr`s friend has provided for me recompense for injuries if I make better count.

The wolf`s adversary, used to fights, gave me a flawless art and that temper which made known enemies out of tricksters.

Now things are hard for me, the sister of double adversary stand on the headland, yet I shall gladly, with good courage and unconcerned, Wait for my death.

Egill Skalla-Grimson, Sonatorrek. 22-25.

[Loddfafner]

Is fatalism a necessary component of heathenry, or is it a part of the bronze age package along with slavery, human sacrifices, and overall absence of modern conveniences that is best left behind in adapting heathenry to the conditions we live in now?

[Rudy]

Religion without faith is an organization that could be beneficial to it's members with the proper level of commitment and dedication.

It reminds me that some religious gatherings in prison are really gang meetings.

[Psychonaut]

Is fatalism a necessary component of heathenry, or is it a part of the bronze age package along with slavery, human sacrifices, and overall absence of modern conveniences that is best left behind in adapting heathenry to the conditions we live in now?

Fatalism? No. Determinism? Probably. The former is a logically miscalculated response to the latter.

[Óttar]

I dare say that next to all Greeks believed in the Olympians. Otherwise they would not have sacrificed for them on a daily basis.

The ancients had many great men (and some women) who could've interpreted things allegorically and had a different perspective on the gods. I'm sure these smart people of vision, had a critical eye. I believe there actually is some criticism of overly superstitious country folk by initiates of ancient mystery religions. I'm sure someone must have climbed Mt. Olympus to find that there were no flesh and icchor gods there.


I'm just afraid it has grown too much alongside with the modern world and become just a meeting ground for nationalistic movements instead of actually having any spirituality.

I think the same is true for many people who call themselves Catholic. And yet, the census says there are 2 billion Christians without having asked each one the degree of their belief. I believe that in dogmatic exoteric Christianity believing everything absolutely is of the utmost necessity.


I mean if you don't really believe that Thor is up there riding his chariot then you're not a pagan.

And I mean if you believe that the communion wafer and wine is literally the body and blood of Christ, you have mental problems. It is partly this literalism which I find makes Christianity repellent. That along with exalting asceticism as a virtue and pervasive religious intolerance.


The paganism that has been absorbed by the Catholic church is nothing more than tradition such as holidays and has nothing to with the spirituality.

Pagan titles are routinely used in liturgy and prayers. If one were to take all the pagan elements out you would have dusty old Protestantism, where all you have to do to make a church is put two pieces of wood together (+) on the wall of a barn. The pagan elements are what attract so many people to Catholicism and Orthodoxy in the first place.

And doesn't Traditionalism focus on the esoteric aspects of religion? In this way I think it is more in-line with Gnosticism than dogma.

[Lyfing]

http://www.drugwar.com/images/mykena5.jpg


I want to make a large point of this remark, as announcing what is to remain, throughout the breadth and length of the history of religions in the West, the chief occasion for the sordid, sorry chronicle of collision, vituperation, coercion, and spilled blood. For in the Levantine sphere, as well as in the Greek, a deeply rooted contrast prevails between the pre-Semetic, pre-Aryan mystic-emotional religion of the agrarian neolithic and Bronze Age populations, and, on the other hand, "the temperate religion" ( let us call it so, for the time being ) of the various invading warrior folk, "who entrusted the protection of the unwritten [later, written] laws of their patriarchal order to their gods." Indeed, we do not merely "sense," we experience acutely in our souls, and have documented for every period of our culture, the force that holds apart in us these contrary trends. But the one point to be stressed in the present portion of our chapter is simply that neither to the patriarchal Aryans nor to the patriarchal Semites belong the genial, mystic, poetical themes of the lovely world of a paradise neither lost nor regained but ever present in the bosom of the goddess-mother in whose being we have our death, as well as life, without fear.

Occidental Mythology, Pages53-54

Fate has it's place. With the Norns. Sometimes I think they are Nerthus. Even the Morrigan of Celtic Mythology. Just who leads the Wild Hunt..??

It's a mixed up package. With the Jews their patriarchy dominated. With us we listen to our women. We ate Eve's apple. Can we call her Idunna..?? We didn't even dream up sin..we became gods.

Later,
-Lyfing

[SwordoftheVistula]

That is exactly the kind of mindset that has made the west into the liberal hell hole it is today. There is no moral and there are no obligations.
"I only live once so I will sleep around with half of the town"
"I only live once and don't want a child yet, abortion is the solution"!
etc.

Since you are never responsible for what you do you can live as you want and get away with it. Personally I find people without moral repulsing. It leads to the gay-mafia "everything is okay" type of world that makes me want to puke.
The pagan religions have their honour codes and we Christians have our bible to stop this kind of behaviour. In any case none of us could call ourselves honourable beings if we lived by the rule "you only live once".

This problem is also present in most forms of Christianity, which claims that faith and taking Jesus as your 'personal savior' provides eternal salvation no matter what you have done in life, no matter what was done in life prior to this. Some of the worst people in society, people who have committed hideous crimes, people on death row now claim to be 'Christian' and think they will have salvation.






I think Christian has more a cultural meaning in America than it does in Europe. In America you can expect almost everyone to say they are Christian but not too many of them actually go to church regularly.

This is true. A couple weeks ago in my apartment building, we were discussing what religion we were, one guy said "I'm Episcopalian...I don't even know what that is."

Also many Catholics like the Catholic school system here and send their kids there for the education, even though they are secular/atheist at heart.


Practicing ANY religion be it Christianity, paganism or whateverism without faith is beyond me and is what is supposed to be the subject of discussion here.


Well, there's this:


a meeting ground for nationalistic movements

Also the schools, summer camps for kids, place for socializing, and it provides direction in life to some troubled people. In many countries significant legal and tax benefits for 'religions', in some even a chance to collect a 'church tax' to fund their activities.

Perhaps a better question is, what good is faith? Someone with faith in an afterlife may be content with skating through this life with a minimum of effort. At the other extreme, you have people engaging in suicide terrorist attacks because of their strong faith. Without positive clear minded direction to guide the followers, they might all follow eachother off a cliff or who knows what.


I'm sure someone must have climbed Mt. Olympus to find that there were no flesh and icchor gods there.

No doubt some did-but what did they do afterwards? Use this newfound knowledge to take advantage of or give direction to the vast majority of people who still had faith? If they shouted from the rooftops that there were no flesh and blood gods on top of Mt. Olympus, who would have believed them? How would the ruling authorities have reacted?

[Lysander]

Just letting you know that I have my hands full at the moment and wont be able to respond just yet.
They have found two chests of gold under a medieval church in my childhood village and I was visiting there so I didn't have time to answer your posts.

So I'm not being rude and not reading your posts. I read some of them and will read all of them and also give answers soon enough.
Maybe later today maybe not. In any case Lysander will be back :).

Ciao till then.

[Lysander]

From my heathen perspective (other heathens may not agree), we actually do have an afterlife which consists of the consequences of our actions, and that can form a stronger basis for ethics than Christianity. The future is not some inevitable divine fate which we must accept but rather is something we must actively shape and take responsibility for.
You shape your afterlife in Christianity too. Not in the same way as you do with paganism but lets just say that you lead it one way or the other.



Christian ethics can lead to the conclusion of Reagan's first Secretary of the Interior, James Watt, that we need not worry about destroying the environment because Jesus will come back any day now. In contrast with this extreme irresponsibility, Heathen and atheist ethics secure our future.
I would call that an idiots reasoning to be honest.



Christian ethics can lead to horrific abuses against those whose sexual relationships are natural and consensual but do not fit their mold. I am thinking of all those gay teens whose Christian parents beat them and threw them out into the street to fend for themselves.
The beating is a little bit extreme but I wouldn't accept it if any of my children would turn out that way either. It's not the natural state of things and it is repulsing.



Christian ethics are a matter of adhering to a few rituals without regard to the immediate human consequences and so forms a front of respectability that provides cover for corruption and betrayal. I have in mind America's Senator Ensign and Governor Sanford.
You lost me now. No clue what you're getting at here :).


@Lyfing:
The question is where he was getting at with the whole "God is dead" statement. The secularization of European society seems most likely.

I wouldn't go as far as to call myself a God, that's a bit over the top really. Be you Christian, heathen or even atheist.

As for the strong northern Europeans not accepting Christianity, he was way off there. Northern Europe was the very stronghold of Protestantism until the 1950ies.
What kept together the Swedish empire for an example? Their protestant faith. Again and again the kings and priests of the Swedish army told them that they were the guardians of protestantism. There were never any nationalistic tendencies but rather fundamental Christian ones.

I don't do anything I don't want to either, where are you getting with this?

@Óttar:
It is true, you should always take any census with a full fist of salt as they can never really cover everything. But a census that does cover everything would be simply too large and complex. In any case they are useful because still provide a perspective on things.

Well since it's not even blood you're drinking.... ;)
In any case, how can you really call yourself a pagan if you don't believe in it? Then it is neo-paganism as the "old ones" did really believe in their tales.

A barn could serve as a church, yes. The grandiose cathedrals don't really serve any purpose.
I disagree, I think the tradition and spirituality is what attracts people to Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

What traditionalism focuses on is anybody's opinion really, there are no set rules for it. And further the esotericism is often, if not always, tied to the spirituality.


This problem is also present in most forms of Christianity, which claims that faith and taking Jesus as your 'personal savior' provides eternal salvation no matter what you have done in life, no matter what was done in life prior to this. Some of the worst people in society, people who have committed hideous crimes, people on death row now claim to be 'Christian' and think they will have salvation.

Hence the purgatory exists :).



Well, there's this:



Also the schools, summer camps for kids, place for socializing, and it provides direction in life to some troubled people. In many countries significant legal and tax benefits for 'religions', in some even a chance to collect a 'church tax' to fund their activities.
Yes but then why not admit that? Why actually say that you religion is whatever it is why not just say you're interested in it? I'm interested in paganism but I'm not a pagan.



Perhaps a better question is, what good is faith? Someone with faith in an afterlife may be content with skating through this life with a minimum of effort. At the other extreme, you have people engaging in suicide terrorist attacks because of their strong faith. Without positive clear minded direction to guide the followers, they might all follow eachother off a cliff or who knows what.
Faith is the rock upon which I stand. It gives me strength and has helped me countless times.
I can't be accountable for what Islamic faith brings around. Some may see it as bravery just as when Germanic warriors stood their ground to be slaughtered to the last man by Roman legions or as suicide and idiocy. The truth is in the eye of the beholder.

[Lyfing]

Hey Lysander,

When Nietzsche says “the task is to breed an animal able to keep promises” he is talking about the ability of nobility to create by way of their oaths kept a cohesive community..of gods ( in the beginning is their Word ).

Christianity has this notion of a personal god where the emphasis is on the individual and their relationship which ultimately leads to rewards (or punishments) or whatnot. Since I have already opened the Nietzsche can..this can be called a slave morality. Ever heard of thrall morality..??


The early Germanic need for spiritual evolution or a reward system may have actually, at least partially been driven by the clash between the older Germanic socio-economic class system and the introduction of Christianity which had a spiritual evolution/spiritual reward system built into its class-system. By following Christianity, large numbers from the peasant class were guaranteed a an equal place in heaven which they most certainly would not attain in this reality; the rewards for the thrall and peasant classes would not only be freedom from pain and suffering after death but also from unfair or unjust land owners. Secondly, from the beginning of the conversion it was made clear to the early Germanics that their anomnipotent gods were transient and limited in power and scope while the Christian God was omnipotent, undying, and was omnipresent, not in need, therefore, of sacrifice through the community--The Father-Son-Holy Ghost was a personal God which could be approached by anyone equally from the lowest slave to the highest king. Prayer and Piety were the great equalizers.

Germanic Spirituality (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=72185#post72185), by Bil Linzie, page 24

Now, onto this notion of a noble community..



The heathen gods appear in the sagaic literature to be concerned with the function and development and maintenance of community whereas the Christian Jesus was concerned about the individual soul.

…

It is almost inconceivable for the modern man to think that there are no just rewards after death, that the class system continues after death, and that the “the greatest good” may actually be simply “doing one's best.”

Reflecting back on the Havamal, then, the poem does not appear to be a system guiding one's personal interactions with the mysteries of the universe but rather, and much more simply, a set of common-sense guidelines for maintaining social stability within a community and between communities. The sense of self was apparently much broader and dependent upon relationships than the more modern concept which is really dependent upon the relationship between an individual and his god(s).

Germanic Spirituality (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=72185#post72185), by Bil Linzie, pages 24 & 25

So, that is pretty much what I was getting at.

Later,
-Lyfing

[Jamt]

Lyfing.

Why do you seek understanding about the early Germanic spiritual evolution in Nietzsche? Modern research must be far more reviling as it has a bigger foundation. Do Heathens or you get some sort of spiritual influence from the man?

[Lyfing]

Hey Jamt,

In many ways indeed I do.

My mythological slant on life has been heavily influenced by the writings of Joseph Campbell. It was in them that my interest in Nietzsche was at first fueled. Campbell saw four functions of mythology. About the third of which he writes..


The social function of a mythology and of the rites by which it is rendered is to establish in every member of the group concerned a “system of sentiments’ that can be depended upon to link him spontaneously to its ends. The “system of sentiments” proper to a hunting tribe would be improper to an agricultural one; that proper to a matriarchy is improper to a patriarchy; and that of any tribal group is improper to this day of developed individuals crossing paths from east to west and from north to south.

…

In sum: the individual is now on his own. “It is all untrue! Anything goes!” (Nietzsche). The dragon “Thou Shalt!” has been slain-for us all.

Joseph Campbell.. (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4351)

To go a little further, in his talking with Moyers about the moral of the story of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight he says..


A third position, closer than Gawain's to that of the Buddha, yet loyal still to the values of life on this earth, is that of Nietzsche, in Thus Spake Zarathustra. In a kind of parable, Nietzsche describes what he calls the three transformations of the spirit. The first is that of the camel, of childhood and youth. The camel gets down on his knees and says, "Put a load on me." This is the season for obedience, receiving instruction and the information your society requires of you in order to live a responsible life.

But when the camel is well loaded, it struggles to its feet and runs out into the desert, where it is transformed into a lion -- the heavier the load that had been carried, the stronger the lion will be. Now, the task of the lion is to kill a dragon, and the name of the dragon is "Thou shalt." On every scale of this scaly beast, a "thou shalt" is imprinted: some from four thousand years ago; others from this morning's headlines. Whereas the camel, the child, had to submit to the "thou shalts," the lion, the youth, is to throw them off and come to his own realization.

And so, when the dragon is thoroughly dead, with all its "thou shalts" overcome, the lion is transformed into a child moving out of its own nature, like a wheel impelled from its own hub. No more rules to obey. No more rules derived from the historical needs and tasks of the local society, but the pure impulse to living of a life in flower.

Joseph Campbell.. (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4351)

So, in Nietzsche, Campbell saw a means by which to do away with those “sets of sentiments”, those “thou shalts” that hold a society together, and also keep one bound by it's limitations. All in the name of believing and trusting in man..


Today we know, for the most part, that our laws are not from God or from the universe, but from ourselves; are conventional, not absolute; and that in breaking them we offend not God but man....The old god is dead, with his little world and his little, closed society. The new focal center of belief and trust is mankind.

Joseph Campbell.. (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4351)

All of this is very important in one's reconstruction of Heathenry. Only when one kills the dragon called “thou shalt” of the modern multi-cultural Christian crock of crap, or in other words does away with the set of sentiments that hold said society together, does one have the ability to move out of their own nature. And, with that, and only then, comes the potential to re-create the world-view of one's ancestors.

Later,
-Lyfing

[Lysander]

@Lyfing:
First of all, that's a very interesting post :).

While the belief in a better afterlife may have paralysed the thralls into accepting their "lot in life" on this earth I think one should be careful about drawing slave mentality conclusions from it.
Fact of the matter is that it was more often then not among the Germanic tribes the chieftains who converted first, sometimes after losing a battle to save their skin or their lands from invasions and sometimes for unknown reasons such as with Harold Bluetooth of Denmark.

And sure, heathenry is not really specific about anything. It has been formed since Indo-European times into a socio-economical structure that worked for that specific tribe or race. The similarity betwixt them is that they all only offer guidelines for a society and moral stories and are not as controlling as Christianity one might say.

[Óttar]

@Lyfing:
heathenry is [...] a socio-economical structure that worked for that specific tribe or race.

People here seem to think of ancient religion as being "folkish." How does one account then for mystery cults (Isis, Dea Syria, Cybele, Dionysus, Mithras etc.) which did not confine themselves to polis, tribe, or population group?

[Psychonaut]

People here seem to think of ancient religion as being "folkish." How does one account then for mystery cults (Isis, Dea Syria, Cybele, Dionysus, Mithras etc.) which did not confine themselves to polis, tribe, or population group?

These were all late developments that occurred after cosmopolitanism had already set into the region. I don't know any thing about Dea Syria or Cybele, but the cults of Isis, Dionysus and Mitra were not originally universalist mystery cults, just as "Hinduism" was not originally monistic.

[Lyfing]

Hey Lysander,

Thanks man.

You are right in saying that it was the nobles who converted first. I think it is safe to say that they did this for trade, and other not so “spiritual”, reasons. Or, maybe their wife was one. They were full of those character traits esteemed from patriarchal ages old..they were cunning, ruthless, and all the rest..hardly the meek Christians who turned the other cheek.

The conversion seems to have been more subtle though. With little things that changed the world-view. It really did take a long time that way. This can be seen in the Eddas and Sagas. They are half-heathen/half-christian. It can all be a good study.

However, parallels can be drawn here with those having a slave morality finding salvation in the Lord thy God. Fear the Lord thy God you know. Do as he wants and you can live forever with him. This is really to me a psychological thing Campbell described as “Atonement with the Father”..


Atonement with the Father

In this step the person must confront and be initiated by whatever holds the ultimate power in his or her life. In many myths and stories this is the father, or a father figure who has life and death power. This is the center point of the journey. All the previous steps have been moving in to this place, all that follow will move out from it. Although this step is most frequently symbolized by an encounter with a male entity, it does not have to be a male; just someone or thing with incredible power.

Campbell: Atonement consists in no more that the abandonment of that self-generated double monster - the dragon thought to be God (superego) and the dragon thought to be Sin (repressed id). But this requires an abandonment of the attachment to ego itself, and that is what is difficult. One must have a faith that the father is merciful, and then a reliance on that mercy. Therewith, the center of belief is transferred outside of the bedeviling god's tight scaly ring, and the dreadful ogres dissolve. It is in this ordeal that the hero may derive hope and assurance from the helpful female figure, by whose magic (pollen charms or power of intercession) he is protected through all the frightening experiences of the father's ego-shattering initiation. For if it is impossible to trust the terrifying father-face, then one's faith must be centered elsewhere (Spider Woman, Blessed Mother); and with that reliance for support, one endures the crisis - only to find, in the end, that the father and mother reflect each other, and are in essence the same. The problem of the hero going to meet the father is to pen his soul beyond terror to such a degree that he will be ripe to understand how the sickening and insane tragedies of this vast and ruthless cosmos are completely validated in the majesty of Being. The hero transcends life with its peculiar blind spot and for a moment rises to a glimpse of the source. He beholds the face of the father, understands - and the two are atoned." [10]

Biblical applications: In the gospels, Jesus wrestles with his impending death in the Garden of Gethsemane, before submitting to his Father's will.

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

I do think the thralls had a slave morality. I don't see how they couldn't have.

What about the karls..??



Then gan he grow and gain in strength,
tamed the oxen and tempered ploughshares,
timbered houses, and barns for the hay,
fashioned carts, and followed the plough.

The Lay of Rig 22, Hollander trans.

It was with the farmers that the old customs persisted. For a very long time. Even until the TVs came around by way of folktales. One saying used to be “Apples don't fall far from trees” ( a favorite of mine since I was a boy )..now.. “You can be anything you want if you set your mind to it” has replaced it. Obama's talks are live on BET..!!

And, things like this have taken all emphasis of the inborn talents within us that we get from our family and replaced them with the poor lonely soul seeking salvation, not within the community here on earth ( there is the luck we have in being born in our family and following in their footsteps ) but in Heaven by way of a single soul whose father is there..not here..amen.

What else is there to say..??

I didn't mean for this to be a thing about class or caste or Rig. But, so it has become.


Up grew Earl within the hall,
gan bucklers wield and the bowstring fasten,
gan the elmwood bend and arrows shaft;
gan hurl the spear and speed the lance,
gan hunt with hounds, and horses ride,
gan brandish swords and swim the sea.

Out of woodlands cam Rig walking,
came Rig walking, and taught him runes;
his own name gave him as heir and son,
bade him make his own the udal lands,
the udal lands and olden manors.

The Lay of Rig 36 & 37, Hollander trans.

I4s0nzsU1Wg

Hey Ottar,

The mystery cults are interesting. They came with the mingling of folks. Very useful are they in seeing how symbology works when the “folkish factor” has been removed. Joseph Campbell was a big proponent of that stuff..

On the back of The Masks of God books it says..


The Masks of God is one of his masterworks. Upon completing it he wrote. “Its main result for me has been its confirmation of a thought I have long and faithfully entertained: of the unity of the race of man, not only in its biology but also in its spiritual history, which has everywhere unfolded in the manner of a single symphony, with its themes announced, developed, amplified and turned about, distorted, reasserted, and today, in a grand fortissimo of all sections sounding together, irresistibly advancing to some kind of mighty climax, out of which the next great movement will emerge.”

There is a post (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=67479&postcount=14) in my Joseph Campbell thread (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4351) that goes with this..

http://www.thecityreview.com/s06can8.jpg


We note in Figure 23 that where the knife runs into the bull the blood comes forth as grain—conforming to the old myth already recalled, as well as to the Zoroastrian theme of grain from the marrow of the Ox. A serpent glides beneath, representing, as the serpent always does, the principle of life bound to the cycle of renewal, sloughing death. The dog, who is in Iranian myth the friend and counterpart of man and in the episode of the first couple ate the first bite of meat, here eats the grain ( the blood ), as the archetype of life nourished by the sacrifice, while the scorpion gripping the bull's testicles typifies the victory of death as well—since death as well as life is an aspect of the one process of existence.

Occidental Mythology, page 259

Good stuff..it helps me reconstruct folkish Heathenry..:thumbs up

Later,
-Lyfing

[Óttar]

...Or, maybe their wife was one. They were full of those character traits esteemed from patriarchal ages old..they were cunning, ruthless, and all the rest..hardly the meek Christians who turned the other cheek.

I always wondered if the kings and everybody (warriors, cardinals, popes, merchants etc.) were truly Christian, why did they not lead lives based upon Christian "virtues" like humility, obedience, meekness, poverty etc.

King James in his framing of divine right of kings, used examples from the Old Testament only. One must ask would Yahushua ben Miryam approve of all the killing, slaughter, treachery, and debauchery commited by people who truly believed themselves to be Christian? So is this Christianity really about Yahushua ben Miryam, the one who is no doubt central to the Christian movement or is it mostly about tradition, and people picking and choosing what they want to maintain the status quo?

[Lyfing]

Who is Yahushua ben Miryam..??

Religion is a funny thing. It means re-linking. Within indigenous cultures there is no need for such. None of them have a name for it. It's just the way it is. It is inseparable from who they are.

This is why, with certain personages, whatever it is they do, under which whatever name they do it, their world-view sheweth forth. Or, so I have it figured.

That is an old argument though.

The reason I bring it up is because the reason they didn't act like “Christians” is because they weren't. A world-view is the hardest thing to change. It is deep off inside of us. It comes from all that is around us. It can be inseparable from us. A communal sense of society.

Today, these things are in reverse. Instead of being Heathens calling ourselves Christians we are Christians calling ourselves Heathens..!! World-views are hard to change. And, there is really a mess of it all.

Anyhow,

Later,
-Lyfing

[Nodens]

Who is Yahushua ben Miryam..??

Yeshua son of Miriam

Jesus son of Mary


Today, these things are in reverse. Instead of being Heathens calling ourselves Christians we are Christians calling ourselves Heathens..!! World-views are hard to change. And, there is really a mess of it all.

Primarily an issue in Protestant Europe as many Calvinist factions managed to 'purify' the church and culture of it's more European elements (seen as Catholic).

[Lyfing]

Hey Nodens,

What is a Nietzschean Heathen..??

Later,
-Lyfing

[Nodens]

What is a Nietzschean Heathen..??

The most useful term of expressing my personal convictions that wasn't already taken.

More to the point, Nietzsche's philosophy may be applied to numerous cultural/aesthetic systems, Heathenism being the one I find the greatest affinity for.

Edit: Further clarification. I accept a predominantly Nietschean worldview in regards to epistemology and ethics, but a Heathen aesthetic/symbolism. The main point is express that I ascribe to more modern/philosophical worldview than many who follow a strict reconstructionist or eclectic/syncretic ideal.

[SwordoftheVistula]

People here seem to think of ancient religion as being "folkish." How does one account then for mystery cults (Isis, Dea Syria, Cybele, Dionysus, Mithras etc.) which did not confine themselves to polis, tribe, or population group?


These were all late developments that occurred after cosmopolitanism had already set into the region. I don't know any thing about Dea Syria or Cybele, but the cults of Isis, Dionysus and Mitra were not originally universalist mystery cults, just as "Hinduism" was not originally monistic.

Would it be safe to assume then, that 'universalist' religions of some kind would have risen to prominence due to the increased contact between cultures, regardless of where these religions originated? If say, as was mentioned on one of the other threads, the Romans had chosen Zoroastrianism instead of Christianity, wouldn't they have formed it into something essentially similar in order to serve the same purpose- to unify and control the diverse and wide-flung elements of the empire?


Primarily an issue in Protestant Europe as many Calvinist factions managed to 'purify' the church and culture of it's more European elements (seen as Catholic).

In superficial form yes, but what as to world-view? The concepts of 'Protestant work ethic' and 'Manifest Destiny' seem more in line with what was described on this thread as a 'European world view'. One advantage cited to Protestantism was that it did not consider poverty to be a virtue. If I remember correctly the Calvinists were the ones with the view of 'predestination' which would free them from the 'slave mentality' attributed to Christians, since they didn't have to rush around doing 'good works' (money and service to the lower elements of society) in order to get into heaven.

Also, the decentralized bottom-up system offered more room for this:


It was with the farmers that the old customs persisted. For a very long time. Even until the TVs came around by way of folktales.




I always wondered if the kings and everybody (warriors, cardinals, popes, merchants etc.) were truly Christian, why did they not lead lives based upon Christian "virtues" like humility, obedience, meekness, poverty etc.

King James in his framing of divine right of kings, used examples from the Old Testament only. One must ask would Yahushua ben Miryam approve of all the killing, slaughter, treachery, and debauchery commited by people who truly believed themselves to be Christian? So is this Christianity really about Yahushua ben Miryam, the one who is no doubt central to the Christian movement or is it mostly about tradition, and people picking and choosing what they want to maintain the status quo?

Since human nature is inclined towards such things as "killing, slaughter, treachery, and debauchery" rather than "humility, obedience, meekness, poverty etc" it's natural that the people, especially the leaders of society, would act the same regardless of what religion they claim to follow. Sometimes one of the "humility, obedience, meekness, poverty etc" types like Jimmy Carter manages to make his way to the top, and you get an even bigger disaster. They just get completely lost, because the world doesn't work the way they think it should.





They have found two chests of gold under a medieval church in my childhood village and I was visiting there so I didn't have time to answer your posts

You're just trying to trick us into going to church aren't you :D

[Lysander]

@ Lyfing:
It is true that many European kings offered the Catholic church money to convert the Scandinavians, a part of this money was used to persuade the viking kings. The English and French were especially interested in it to stop the raids as they cost more money than the conversions did.
And yes the stories of these half heathens are indeed funny when they claim to be Christian but their view of the world has not really changed :).

As for the Karls I'm not really sure what they are, I know of Huscarls who were well armed soldiers serving as bodyguards to rich chieftains or kings.

I still disagree with that point of view. I'd argue that it's more about a loving father than a punishing one. Just as I see my own father as an authority I don't have any sort of slave mentality under him, he is a loving father.

I'm not so much for the whole idea that if your father was a farmer you should be one too. My parents both come from farming villages yet me nor my older brother chose to pursue that career.





You're just trying to trick us into going to church aren't you :D
Oh no! You exposed me :shakefist

[SwordoftheVistula]

As for the Karls I'm not really sure what they are, I know of Huscarls who were well armed soldiers serving as bodyguards to rich chieftains or kings.

That's basically it. They were the predecessors of the 'knights'-the original 'middle class'.

[Nodens]

In superficial form yes, but what as to world-view? The concepts of 'Protestant work ethic' and 'Manifest Destiny' seem more in line with what was described on this thread as a 'European world view'. One advantage cited to Protestantism was that it did not consider poverty to be a virtue. If I remember correctly the Calvinists were the ones with the view of 'predestination' which would free them from the 'slave mentality' attributed to Christians, since they didn't have to rush around doing 'good works' (money and service to the lower elements of society) in order to get into heaven.

True, one would be hard pressed to describe the Reformation in non-schizophrenic terms. While it does represent a reaction of the northern mentality against the southern, it more often than not had a Judaizing effect as well. The Calvinist notion of predestination would tend to make moral systems irrelevant if applied too literally, and seems more of an attempt to rationalize the practical effect of omnipotence with the appearance of free will.

[Psychonaut]

Would it be safe to assume then, that 'universalist' religions of some kind would have risen to prominence due to the increased contact between cultures, regardless of where these religions originated? If say, as was mentioned on one of the other threads, the Romans had chosen Zoroastrianism instead of Christianity, wouldn't they have formed it into something essentially similar in order to serve the same purpose- to unify and control the diverse and wide-flung elements of the empire?

Sure. Christianity is hardly unique in being a universalist faith. Buddhists were preaching universalist egalitarian creeds four hundred years before the birth of Christ. However, the ubiquity of univeralism doesn't excuse it. I would agree with Alain de Benoist that it's one of the symptoms of a societal decline.

[Nodens]

Universalism itself isn't too problematic until it is combined with exclusivism and aggressive proselytism (and in the case of New Testament Christianity strong anti-folkism).

[Psychonaut]

Universalism itself isn't too problematic until it is combined with exclusivism and aggressive proselytism (and in the case of New Testament Christianity strong anti-folkism).

Wouldn't you say that universalism is, by definition, anti-folkish?

[Óttar]

While it does represent a reaction of the northern mentality against the southern...

How exactly would you define "northern" mentality and "southern" mentality? And what is it essentially that sets them apart?

[Psychonaut]

How exactly would you define "northern" mentality and "southern" mentality? And what is it essentially that sets them apart?

Sounds like Evola's split between the Northern (Solar/Uranian/Masculine) and Southern (Lunar/Cthonic/Feminine) from Revolt Against the Modern World.

[Óttar]

Sounds like Evola's split between the Northern (Solar/Uranian/Masculine) and Southern (Lunar/Cthonic/Feminine) from Revolt Against the Modern World.

This is the heart of my enquiry. No wonder I've always felt more of an affinity for the Greeks and Romans. But then I wonder, why was the Roman imperial cult personified/associated with Sol Invictus?

Nodens input would be appreciated too.

[Nodens]

Wouldn't you say that universalism is, by definition, anti-folkish?

To an extent, but the early Christian Church was founded on the explicit rejection of any ethnic or civic identity, whereas this hostility was absent (or at least less passionate) in the "Eastern" universalist systems.


Sounds like Evola's split between the Northern (Solar/Uranian/Masculine) and Southern (Lunar/Cthonic/Feminine) from Revolt Against the Modern World.

I was actually thinking of Nietzshe,


perhaps even the most remarkable creation of Richard Wagner is not only at present, but for ever inaccessible, incomprehensible, and inimitable to the whole latter-day Latin race: the figure of Siegfried, that VERY FREE man, who is probably far too free, too hard, too cheerful, too healthy, too ANTI-CATHOLIC for the taste of old and mellow civilized nations. He may even have been a sin against Romanticism, this anti-Latin Siegfried

But Evola puts it well too.


This is the heart of my enquiry. No wonder I've always felt more of an affinity for the Greeks and Romans. But then I wonder, why was the Roman imperial cult personified/associated with Sol Invictus?

Imperial Rome would likely have fallen into Evola's north.

The system is really a spectrum with few, if any, absolutes.

[Psychonaut]

To an extent, but the early Christian Church was founded on the explicit rejection of any ethnic or civic identity, whereas this hostility was absent (or at least less passionate) in the "Eastern" universalist systems.

That's exactly that I'm getting at; that very rejection of ethnic identity, which is the heart of universalism, is intrinsically opposed to folkism.

[Nodens]

That's exactly that I'm getting at; that very rejection of ethnic identity, which is the heart of universalism, is intrinsically opposed to folkism.

I'd have to refer back to the exclusivist factor. For instance one may be a Greek before one is a Neoplatonist, but still be both in a meaningful sense. Any meaningful interpretation of Christianity would require one to be a Christian before any other identity.

[Psychonaut]

I'd have to refer back to the exclusivist factor. For instance one may be a Greek before one is a Neoplatonist, but still be both in a meaningful sense. Any meaningful interpretation of Christianity would require one to be a Christian before any other identity.

You might be right about that. It was certainly the case in Japan as well that, regardless of whether one was Buddhist or Christian, one was first Japanese and almost always maintained some connection to Shinto. Neoplatonism and Gnosticism probably would've developed similarly. I'm not so sure about the cults of Mithras or Sol Invictus, but I guess there's really no way to know for sure. Christianity's militant universalism might be a Semitic peculiarity that only manifests in it and Islam.

[Liffrea]

I think the true question is do you need religion in order to be spiritual?

Religion is, in reality, man made doctrines and rituals developed in order to create some form of uniformity in practise and unity in the practitioners.

For me the rituals of Odinism are secondary in importance, I don’t blot often nowadays and I wouldn’t claim to have any special connection to divine forces that enter my life on a regular basis. That’s not how I see divinity anyway, for me that view is just the same as someone who touches wood or doesn’t walk under ladders, it’s just superstition to believe that someone is watching out for you, I don’t believe so, nobody is looking out for me, except me.

That doesn’t equate to atheism, though, I’m no atheist if we take that word to mean someone who simply believes the universe is one of matter-energy transfer and nothing else, I don’t believe that either. I believe there are “forces” at work in the multiverse (as I see it) I believe man, through outside agency, has been given the means (our mind) in order to understand and comprehend to some degree these “forces”. I have “faith” that man has a purpose and destiny, a role to play if you like, that we are meant to progress in our understanding of the multiverse, that is our purpose.

Odin, such as he was, was a teacher, a man-God if you like/shaman-King, who serves to teach the principle of enlightenment, that is salvation, not someone who gives you a nice place to go when you die because you follow rules written down thousands of years ago, that’s not salvation as I see it, salvation for me is the understanding of purpose and place, that’s what Odin teaches, that you have that ability to develop, but not all do. For me Christian doctrine seems to be self centred, all about “rewards” and “punishment” rarely about growth and understanding for there own merit.

I will die a man, a man who perhaps may never arise again on any plane of existence, but to die as a man who has seen and who has understood is infinitely more preferable than an eternity as a self centred entity afraid of shadows.

That, to me, is “faith” that’s all the religion I need.

[Lutiferre]

One must understand, Catholicism itself is a mystery cult. A member is instructed through catechism and when all requirements are fulfilled they are initiated into the Eucharist. Through the sacraments of the Catholic church, they (or so the story goes) attain salvation. Now the popes claim their origin in St. Peter, but the title Pontifex Maximus was a title held by the leader of the pagan colleges in Rome. The name means "the greatest bridge (between god(s) and men.) Julius Caesar once held the title Pontifex Maximus in ancient times.
Just like the title "Lord" was used for pagan gods before it was used for Christ, the universal Greek Kyrie Eleison.

These are the words we use to express, but we express different things about different things, and more importantly, different beliefs about which Lord we are talking about.

Christians are humans; humans use language. That the language was once used by pagan doesn't make Christians pagan anymore than it makes Christians pagan that we are made of flesh and blood. Your whole analysis is built on this false premise that Christians were supposed to invent some kind of artificial new world with an artificial language, and maybe even rip our hearts out so we are not at all like pagans, "just to avoid being associated with pagans". No, we are still human, and by virtue of being so we have the potential to become much more than merely animal.


Catholicism blended Christianity with pagan customs, and converted gods into local saints.
Wow! That's not a blending of Christianity with paganism. That's a Christianisation of pagan peoples and customs! Rather than making Christianity pagan, this makes pagan peoples Christian. Pagan beliefs were there; and then Christianity came and changed it into a Christian expression.


It is understandable that there was a blending of pagan themes in Christianity. Jesus' hebrew name was Yahushua which was Hellenized to Iesous. This made the transition easier, and people who convert to a new faith often bring elements of their old religion to the new one. Pagan holidays were made Christian. Many of the early churches dedicated to Mary were located in Ephesus where the goddess Artemis was worshipped. Mary shrines were built above many goddess shrines. The image of Jesus was syncretized with dying and resurrecting gods.
It was not a blending. It was a manner in which to Christianise pagan peoples by giving them a clear "bridge" of characters that seemed like their old gods and customs in a Christian theological form. After all, most pagans did not worship gods for explicit and transcendental metaphysical divinity. They worshipped them as representations of something divine, for the characters, for the spirit in it. This made transition into the higher theological framework of Christian metaphysics of divinity very easy, because the pagans could still see the characters and the spirit of their old gods in the saints, in the God of Christianity and in his divine manifestations in the world and the graces he bestows upon human beings.


I was once Catholic, but I realized Catholicism was a blending of Christianity with mediterranean paganism and I thought: "I am drawn to the pagan elements, but the original biblical teachings have no appeal to me whatsoever." So I became pagan. I do not care about some hijacked Jewish carpenter and his dusty old desert religion. The pagans were doing just fine before the stifling ideology of Christianity came along.
The biblical teachings are themselves representative of truth which is universal, imperfect manifestations of which can be scarcely seen in various forms in pagan beliefs. Sure, you won't find anything exactly like it, because it's unique and yet it is universal (hence biblical teachings are the most widespread today). You cannot reject it's truth without simultaneously rejecting the truth of the mythical framework of the entire humanity. The more you exaggerate the similarity between the biblical and the pagan, the more this is true. The key to the balance is seeing the special uniqueness and the universality of this unique expression of truth. But beyond all of this fancy exposition, I am sure your only real reason for rejecting biblical teachings is their ethnic origin (e.g. "some stupid Jewish carpenter"). How low, how very low.


I have always been interested in the cult (I use the word in its antique sense) of the Blessed Virgin Mary. To me, she is a composite figure of various mediterranean goddesses, and she embodies the feminine principle (which if you notice is non-existent in dusty old Protestantism.) I find it interesting that one of the epithets of the BVM is Porta Caeli "Gate of Heaven", and she is depicted pointing toward her son, as she shows the way. There is an old medieval Portuguese song which goes "Santa Maria maestra nos do dia" (Holy Mary show us the way to God.)
Because without Mary, we wouldn't have Jesus. This doesn't make Mary a goddess, but it does make her the most central human person in the history of the world except Jesus Christ. It makes her the human being through which we have access to the person of Jesus; through which we have access to the union of God and Man in Jesus that allows us to partake in the divine nature and be deified in communing with God. She gave Christ his humanity; she is the link between Him and us. She gave him the body; so in a sense, she is the Body of Christ, and the Body of Christ is the Church. Mary is, in a sense therefore, the Church. That's why we refer to the Church as femine, as "she".


If not for her, I would have absolutely no interest scholarly or otherwise in Christianity. The feminine is dynamic, and without Mary, where would the church be? Mary is a vessel not only of the Divine, but as a way for people to be lifted upwards. Goethe said "The Eternal Feminine drives us ever heavenward." This is true, which is why the Church has so effectively used the figure of Mary to gain converts, and to advance political ends. Indeed, as it has been said "Mary is the Church." People are most attracted to a maternal archetype and they are willing to fight and die in the cause of the feminine, and of their Mother. To this day, even though I am not Catholic, I study her as through her, much can be learned about our ancient past.
You can't separate any element out of Christianity like that. Christianity is a unified whole, an organic system of belief and faith, and if you take Mary out of it, everything else falls apart.

[Lutiferre]

All of this is very important in one's reconstruction of Heathenry. Only when one kills the dragon called “thou shalt” of the modern multi-cultural Christian crock of crap, or in other words does away with the set of sentiments that hold said society together, does one have the ability to move out of their own nature. And, with that, and only then, comes the potential to re-create the world-view of one's ancestors.
As if "thou shalt", or the subordination to something higher and more supreme than yourself, is something uniquely Christian or Abrahamic. Far from it. As I pointed out, the Greek "kyrie eleison" (LORD HAVE MERCY) far predates Christianity and was used by many pagans to address their Lord. The same applies both to the gods and to humans of a higher position in pagan society. If you want to reconstruct heathenry, KYRIE ELEISON and THOU SHALT will be part of it.

But the point of the "thou shalt" of the Mosaic Law was never that we cannot simply disregard that command. After all, we were given free will, and we all have our right to death and our right to hell. The free will given to us by the Abrahamic God is far more anarchic than even what a pagan fatalist could dream of.

The point with it was that the supreme being is the highest thing of all, and therefore mandates the highest worship and devotion, unlike being obedient to the ideas of other men, like your obedience to Nietzsche, some German weakling and evolutionary dead-end who never achieved anything in his life except the softness of his pathetic little brain.

[arcticwolf]

Religion without faith?

There already is one, it's called Buddhism. It's over 2500 years old.

[kabeiros]

The point with it was that the supreme being is the highest thing of all, and therefore mandates the highest worship and devotion, unlike being obedient to the ideas of other men, like your obedience to Nietzsche, some German weakling and evolutionary dead-end who never achieved anything in his life except the softness of his pathetic little brain.

You are being obedient to the ideas of other men, too. Do you think that the Supreme Being wrote the Bible? Pathetic...

[Kale]

In my experience those who are genuinely pagan have all realized that any attempt at explaining their beliefs to others is completely pointless, it is not possible, it is a journey one takes by themselves. Granted I havn't met a whole lot of people claiming to be pagan that aren't obviously just trying to make a quick buck off palm readings.

[sql]

They just practice cultural traditions just for fun

[Neon Knight]

Neo-paganism is inspired by ancient paganism. It tries to capture the essence of it and combine that with metaphysical ideas, especially neo-platonism. I would agree that atheists doing religious rituals makes little sense.

[Gooding]

Neo-paganism is inspired by ancient paganism. It tries to capture the essence of it and combine that with metaphysical ideas, especially neo-platonism. I would agree that atheists doing religious rituals makes little sense.

Do you think maybe the rituals themselves might provide these guys with a sense of meaning?

[Neon Knight]

Do you think maybe the rituals themselves might provide these guys with a sense of meaning?

Good point. Yes, just as everyday rituals in normal life provide meaning to people on a psychological level. Occultists would say that performing rituals itself brings about spiritual transformation.

[Gooding]

Good point. Yes, just as everyday rituals in normal life provide meaning to people on a psychological level. Occultists would say that performing rituals itself brings about spiritual transformation.

Always provided that there's a spirit to transform, but that's heading into some pretty murky and unprovable stuff, so I'll leave that one alone. It provides their lives with a sense of structure and continuity with what they believe to be the values of their ancient ancestors.