Split: Christian vs. Pagan heroism

[Wyn]

"lord of Hosts" comes directly from Germanic heathenry; "lord of Hosts" is one of the names of Odin.

The concept of the Lord of Hosts certainly doesn't come from Germanic paganism, heavenly armies are of course found in the Bible. As for the phrase itself, I recognise it from certain English Psalm translations, so I don't know what Hebrew phrase it translates from and if said Hebrew phrase literally translates as Lord of Hosts, but the Vulgate uses the phrase Domini exercituum (Lord of armies) in a number of places.

[Osweo]

The concept of the Lord of Hosts certainly doesn't come from Germanic paganism, heavenly armies are of course found in the Bible. As for the phrase itself, I recognise it from certain English Psalm translations, so I don't know what Hebrew phrase it translates from and if said Hebrew phrase literally translates as Lord of Hosts, but the Vulgate uses the phrase Domini exercituum (Lord of armies) in a number of places.

It's Latin, as seen in Castilian hueste;

"multitude" mid-13c., from O.Fr. host "army" (10c.), from M.L. hostis "army, war-like expedition," from L. hostis "enemy, stranger," from the same root as host (1). Replaced O.E. here, and has in turn been largely superseded by army. The generalized meaning of "large number" is first attested 1610s.

As for the Hebrew, Luther referenced it in his Ein fester Burg hymn with his "Der Herr Sebaoth" - the Lord of Hosts.

Wiki has this;

YHWH Tzevaot
YHWH Tzevaot

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Problems listening to this file? See media help.

The name YHWH and the title Elohim frequently occur with the word tzevaot or sabaoth ("hosts" or "armies", Hebrew: צבאות) as YHWH Elohe Tzevaot ("YHWH God of Hosts"), Elohe Tzevaot ("God of Hosts"), Adonai YHWH Tzevaot ("Lord YHWH of Hosts") and, most frequently, YHWH Tzevaot ("YHWH of Hosts").

This compound name occurs chiefly in the prophetic literature and does not appear at all in the Torah, Joshua or Judges. The original meaning of tzevaot may be found in 1 Samuel 17:45, where it is interpreted as denoting "the God of the armies of Israel". The word, in this special use is used to designate the heavenly host, while otherwise it always means armies or hosts of men, as, for example, in Exodus 6:26, 7:4, 12:41.

The Latin spelling Sabaoth combined with the golden vines over the door on the Herodian Temple (built by the Idumean Herod the Great) led to false-identification by Romans with the god Sabazius.

[Curtis24]

Chrisitian heroism usually involves stoic suffering. LOTR is definitely Christian heroism, read the Letters of JRR Tolkien if you need more proof(he explicitly talks about Frodo's faith in God etc.)

Paganistic heroism is different, the pagans see stoics as fools. Paganism heroism is more about fighting to live as you wish.

I see value in both, as sometimes you have to fight for what you want, other times you do have to grit your teeth and bear it.

[Osweo]

Chrisitian heroism usually involves stoic suffering. LOTR is definitely Christian heroism, read the Letters of JRR Tolkien if you need more proof(he explicitly talks about Frodo's faith in God etc.)

Paganistic heroism is different, the pagans see stoics as fools. Paganism heroism is more about fighting to live as you wish.

I can only conclude you're read none of our ancient hero tales.

[Curtis24]

No, I'm only familiar with (some) of the reinvented versions of paganism, where the emphasis seems to be on individuality and bucking social norms. Oh well, I guess I"m making shit up again

[Aemma]

No, I'm only familiar with (some) of the reinvented versions of paganism, where the emphasis seems to be on individuality and bucking social norms. Oh well, I guess I"m making shit up again

Which 'versions'? We're all a tad different you know.

[Magister Eckhart]

I can only conclude you're read none of our ancient hero tales.

Indeed. Unless he means contemporary "pagans", because they would certainly fight for something as shallow and material as "living how you wish". Also the Thelemic "do as thou wilt" neo-paganism has absolutely nothing to do with Germanic heathenry: neo-pagans and Wiccans are greater enemies of Asatru than Christians, in fact, for we can learn from the latter, but the former are nothing but self-interested curs.

Our ancestors fought for many reasons, but a selfish desire for personal freedom was not among them. Fealty to your liege-lord, desire for honour for yourself and your family, these are defining features of Germanic heroism.

[Psychonaut]

What pre-Indo-European ancestors? We have none! The Indo-European peoples established complete dominance over the continent and its peoples, and even if the natives were bred into the Indo-European culture, they were utterly assimilated, as any anthropologist will be happy to tell you.

:mmmm:

I thought it was pretty well established that the majority of Western European genetic stock was pre-IE. The aR1ans didn't physically replace or outbreed the BaR1barians; the further from the urheimat you get, the more a case of linguistic/cultural diffusion it is.

[Magister Eckhart]

:mmmm:

I thought it was pretty well established that the majority of Western European genetic stock was pre-IE. The aR1ans didn't physically replace or outbreed the BaR1barians; the further from the urheimat you get, the more a case of linguistic/cultural diffusion it is.

DNA isn't culture, it's just a bunch of chemicals that give a person his appearance. It is spiritually and culturally meaningless. Europe is Indo-European because our reality is Indo-European. We have no connexion whatever with the architects of Stonehenge, and any belief otherwise is pure Wiccan fantasy.

Spiritually and Culturally, the Indo-Europeans completely out-bred the aboriginal "Europeans" (since that word has no meaning until the coming of our ancestors). Our languages preserve nothing of the reality of a pre-Indo-European world, and nor does our spirituality. We are inextricably bound up in our own Indo-Europeanness.

I suppose the argument could be made that since the Indo-Europeans inevitably enslaved the aboriginals in Europe the way they did in India, creating the forth, and lowest caste, that there has been some survival, but if there has it's still negligible for our purposes because the Indo-Europeans reduced these dirt-eating moon-worshippers to their proper place.

[Osweo]

DNA isn't culture, it's just a bunch of chemicals that give a person his appearance. It is spiritually and culturally meaningless.

Wait a minute... Didn't you cite your Great Grandparents' use of Gaelic as part of the justification for you to call yourself an Irishman??? Interesting double standards!

Some bugger in ancient Ireland spoke Celtic as his mother tongue. His Grandmother, however, was one of the few left in his region who remembered the Old Language (Para-Vasconic or whatever). She used it when gossiping about scandalous matters with other old women at the well, say. She looked after her grandson when he was a kid, and taught him a lot of crafts and charms and superstitions and the like. He passed the same to his grandkids, and they to theirs. Eventually (notwithstanding passing Norse raids and the like) something of this heritage got passed down to a feller who calls himself 'The Wagnerian'... That Old Granny (she probably figures dozens of times in your personal pedigree, as do hundreds like her) is NOT very impressed with his lack of filial piety!

I don't know NW Ulster very well, but I can say that down in my Gran's Munster, a LOT of pre-Celtic religion survived. Much of it long outlived memory of Celtic equivalents. Look into the Hag of Beare, for example, Ani, Dovinia ... AH, Ulster DOES have its Macha to take into account.
Gods, an Sean Bhean Bhocht herself might even be of significance in this context! Eriu, Banba and Fotla... These Ladies weren't known down by the Danube, when Celtic first learnt to drop their initial PIE P-s, you know.

Europe is Indo-European because our reality is Indo-European. We have no connexion whatever with the architects of Stonehenge, and any belief otherwise is pure Wiccan fantasy.

I can't believe what I'm reading! You would tell the men of Meath that Newgrange and Tara mean piss all to them? Anyone drawing ancestry from Tirconnell, whose forebears fought under Conall and his clan for the High Kingship so many times, ought to not talk so lightly of the Goddess of Sovereignty - someone intimately associated with the remains of the Boyne Valley.

The Gaels of old always stressed their link with the megalithic past. You may have heard of Newgrange's neighbour Knowth - well Cnocba had an Ui Neill dynasty build their royal seat upon it, and named their whole kingdom after it! The Northern Ui Neill from whose lands your family came had their very Inaugurations held on top of ancient barrows!

Nor is this sort of pattern unknown in the Germanic world.

Spiritually and Culturally, the Indo-Europeans completely out-bred the aboriginal "Europeans" (since that word has no meaning until the coming of our ancestors).

When the notion of 'Europe' first came along is highly debatable, many opinions dating it far later than the first stages of IE domination of the continent.

Our languages preserve nothing of the reality of a pre-Indo-European world,

That's simply WRONG. The substrate influence of older linguistic layers on the Insular Celtic tongues ought surely to be common knowledge by now?!?

I believe they are most felt in syntax. Study just the first few chapters of a Welsh primer and you'll see what is meant here. Some linguists have supposed that the substrate in question has much in common with Semitic of all things.

and nor does our spirituality. We are inextricably bound up in our own Indo-Europeanness.

It's fiendish hard to untangle the introduced from the aboriginal in these matters. And these matters are best dealt with if you put on your 'ojective observer' hat, really. I can best rely on common sense and analogy to argue this one, rather than start pulling the lore apart piece by piece; We can see how much survived the conversion to Christianity. Christianity was enforced by an organisation that was probably well ahead of its early predecessor in its capability to formulate, perpetuate and defend an orthodoxy. And yet SO much survived. How can this not have been the case when a hypotheitical proto-Druidry was the best parallel for the Church in the time in question?

I suppose the argument could be made that since the Indo-Europeans inevitably enslaved the aboriginals in Europe the way they did in India, creating the forth, and lowest caste,

Early historical Ireland provides the best way of looking at how this worked in the West. Defeated peoples were relegated to Vassal Tribe status, but often (or usually?) retained native kings, institutions and various rights. With time, many emerged from this position to reach the very top of the hierarchy. Have a look at the background of Brian Boruimha's dynasty. Find out what Deisi actually means...

that there has been some survival, but if there has it's still negligible for our purposes because the Indo-Europeans reduced these dirt-eating moon-worshippers to their proper place.

I'm quite disappointed in you for saying such a thing, I really am. Sounds like an even more tasteless reworking of March of the Titans...