Live anti-Islam metal night: Crushing the Balls of Muhammad

[Psychonaut]

I'm taking our inherited scripture as a whole, which is what good scriptural scholars do, because scripture cannot contradict itself, it must be the inspired whole of wisdom as passed from the first encounter with the Gods.

What about when it does contradict itself? Both the Eddas and the Bible clearly present multiple anthropogenies. Some Christians handle this contradiction in a literalist way that ignores the fact that the Old Testament is an assemblage of several distinct streams of Semitic myth woven together after the fact. The Poetic Edda is the same kind of "book." Snorri gathered what he could and made a great attempt to systemize everything into a harmonious whole with the Prose Edda, but there are still a number of differences in anthropogenic and cosmological accounts that seem to be irreconcilable if they're attempted to be taken as a non-contradictory, single narrative. Why would we assume that the whole of Eddic poetry is the result of a singular hierophany and not a compilation of a multiplicity of hierophanies?

[Osweo]

It's not as if it's the only book I read, but if it seems appropriate to mention it gets mentioned. You seem to have a unfounded and vehement aversion to it. Perhaps a dislike or fear of what it implies?

You CAN keep it and find value in it without getting into your peculiar brand of elitism. We shouldn't lose sight of that. It could be seen as something of 'just so story' or fable, to give some interpretation of the social structure of the day. But to turn it into some sort of political programme is going well too far.

I go further than that, and suggest that it's too confusing a text to take at face value at all. You haven't acknowledged the difficulties I raised. How do you reason around them?

Most important to me is the... hmm... autonomous nature of it. It doesn't fit in anywhere in the rest of the narrative. It's an afterthought - and its position on a loose leaf at the back of that particular book that it's found in underlines that. How do you account for that?

This is why I left Catholicism: I'm sick of people picking and choosing what scripture (or lore, have it whatever way you want) fits their personal likes and modern left-wing ideologies. If a book gets left out of the canon it should be for a well-founded, canonical reason, such as very clear Christian influence, or because it lacks scriptural value in discussing our relationship with the Gods.

Yes, and we have a LOT of work to do on this text. You don't seem interested in exploring the difficulties. Just as you suggest that MY personal proclivities are at play, I can equally cite YOURS as your grounds for waving this text about without evident consideration or caution.

It's not the Rígsþula, but the Völuspá that calls men "sons of Heimdallr", which is the only reason I challenged the assertion that Ríg is Óðinn and called for a deeper exegesis of the text. It could well be that Ríg is Óðinn, but the Völuspá calls men "sons of Heimdallr" and the only other scriptural support for that resides in the Rígsþula, or so every scholar of the Edda to date has confirmed.

Is that Voluspa bit the ONLY reference to the Rigsthula in extra-Rigsthula material? It's tenuous.........

The "Allfather' title" and "clear historical traditions like the Kingly genealogies that go back to Woden" are actually confirmed by the Rígsþula, but challenged by the Völuspá.

How so?

I'm taking our inherited scripture as a whole, which is what good scriptural scholars do, because scripture cannot contradict itself, it must be the inspired whole of wisdom as passed from the first encounter with the Gods.

As if there's no role for the human in the process??? Man can misunderstood, exaggerate, omit, you name it. We do not have as much awareness of the nature, origin and purpose of our suriviving texts as do those with unbroken traditions and more widespread literacy in ancient times. We have doubtless lost much, and are dealing for the most part with the last echoes of a tradition in the very most peripheral parts of its former range. And you deny the possibility of a few contradictions and divergences?

That is how it is had among the Jews, the Hindus, and countless other primal faiths, and that is how it is for us as well. This bits-and-pieces approach to religion is modernist idiocy that's going to sink the entire project before we can get the boat launched, just like it's caused the decline of Christianity.

I'm not doing 'bits and pieces'. But it's like a jig saw puzzle with a piece that seems to me to be of an odd shape for the hole where it ought to go.

I have not closed the 'case', but have not seen anything to put my suspicions at ease on it.

[The Ripper]

I'm starting to consider the mainstream of anti-Islamism in Europe as increasingly infantile and simplistic. There is an inability to see the forest for all the trees, and the focus is on the nature of the arrivals instead of on the mechanisms and reasons that bring them here.

[Eldritch]

I'm starting to consider the mainstream of anti-Islamism in Europe as increasingly infantile and simplistic. There is an inability to see the forest for all the trees, and the focus is on the nature of the arrivals instead of on the mechanisms and reasons that bring them here.

This whole event is about annoying the flower-hat aunties and other assorted Islam apologists, rather than Muslims themselves.

[The Ripper]

This whole event is about annoying the flower-hat aunties and other assorted Islam apologists, rather than Muslims themselves.

Perhaps, but my opinion still stands.

[Magister Eckhart]

I'm starting to consider the mainstream of anti-Islamism in Europe as increasingly infantile and simplistic. There is an inability to see the forest for all the trees, and the focus is on the nature of the arrivals instead of on the mechanisms and reasons that bring them here.

Any port in a storm as far as I'm concerned. It usually takes the infantile and simplistic to reach the broad masses, and the goal is to get the broad masses to hate the Mohammedans so we can drive them out.

This may actually come to benefit us regardless of its lack of nuance (strange coming from me, I know, but the Mohammedan crisis is something of an emergency situation in my opinion).

[Don]

Mucho martillo para tan poco cojón.




Proportionality.

[Dario Argento]

You Finns had a good Death Metal scene in the old days: Demigod, Abhorrence, Convulse, Depravity, Funebre...

Nordic countries are known by Black Metal bands and nobody remembers the old Death Metal scene.

This one is quite good as well:

[Pallantides]

Privilege of Evil
Truly... up here we have the privilege to be "evil"


African militas that anal rape kids, eat hearts and cut your dick off... now thats true evil, not a 25 year old unemployed black metal dude who lives in his parents basement.

[Dario Argento]

Privilege of Evil
Truly... up here we have the privilege to be "evil"


African militas that anal rape kids, eat hearts and cut your dick off... now thats true evil, not a 25 year old unemployed black metal dude who lives in his parents basement.

That's Death Metal actually, and its function is to remind us that despite we not like it there's inherent evil and death and gore out there.