Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3456789 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 82

Thread: Can Christianity Stand Against Norse Paganism?

  1. #71
    Senior Member
    einherjarNZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Online
    Tuesday, June 23rd, 2009 @ 04:36 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    English, Germanic, Norwegion
    Country
    New Zealand New Zealand
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Law Enforcement
    Politics
    Germanic Seperatist
    Religion
    Asatru
    Posts
    62
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Throwing Astrology into the mix

    Just to throw the Great Ages into this hotly contested debate.

    When one considers astrology in context of this argument one would have to say the age of the jesus fish is nearing its end, if not already on its deathbed.

    Each Great Age is associated with a major evolutionary and cultural advancement of the species.

    Each Great Age spans approximately 2200 years.

    The Age of Gemini spanned approximately 6900BC - 4700BC.
    Gemini is an air sign and is associated with intellect and ideas.
    This era was significant in advancement in communication and the formation of the written word.

    The was followed by the Age of Taurus 4700BC - 2500BC.
    Taurus is an earth sign and is associated with control over earth and water.
    This era was significant in advancement in agriculture and the advent of walled cities.

    Next the Age of Aries 2500BC - 300BC.
    Aries is a fire sign and associated with adventurism.
    This was a time of war and conquest.

    Finally the Age of Pisces 300BC - 1900AD.
    Pisces is a water sign and associated with the subconcious.
    The beginning of the Big Religions.
    This is when Christianity, Islam and Buddhism were born.
    Interestingly Christianity is represented by the Jesus Fish.
    This has been a period where the dark side has controlled the human civilisation.
    The ancients were aware of this long period of decline which is why so much of our history has been hidden and is only now resurfacing.
    Christianity in particular with its inherent violence, hypocrisy, greed and lies has ensured an almost perpetual state of war for the last 2000 years.

    Now as the sun sets on the Age of Pisces we embrace the Age of Aquarius.
    Aquarius is also a water sign and is associated with enlightenment.
    This Age will see the revival of personal freedoms and the awakening of the ancient spiritual belief systems that have been repressed.

    It could be said this transition has been occuring the last 150 years.

    The Vatican has been avidly pursueing astrology throughout its history seeking a path in which to avoid this unavoidable of transitions.

    I can't help but think of the the Nostradamus Apocalypse theory for 21 December 2012.
    The Northern Hemisphere Winter Solstice.
    "The year of the great seventh number accomplished, it will appear at the time of the games of slaughter, not far from the age of the great millennium, when the dead will come out of their graves."
    This appears to be a metaphor of death and rebirth.
    The death of Christianity and the rebirth of the ancient religions.

  2. #72
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Online
    Monday, February 20th, 2017 @ 11:02 AM
    Ethnicity
    Dutch
    Gender
    Posts
    527
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Hrodnand View Post
    I have no doubts about the terminology of sacrilege or blasphemy. What I mean is that the term can not be applied to germanic heathens, because it wasn't a religious society such as in the case of christianity, also because the term was settled after the introduction of christianity.
    What are you talking about? I just gave you a prime example of sacrilege in the heathen world, and the kind of punishment that followed by law.

    I don't, but their nature is totally different in christianity and in heathenism.
    Sure they're different. They're different kinds of religions. But superstition is superstition. And people always have and always will shed blood and be cruel towards others because of supersitious beliefs. Medieval christians did and ancient heathens did. In fact, medieval Christianity was filled with elements of non-christian superstitions.

    You state all kinds of things about the Germanic religious situation without supplying much evidence. The fact is that we just don't know a lot of things about the religious mindset of Germanic heathens. You take the things you don't like about Christianity - in the form of a gross charicature - and present an idealised opposite.

    Again, what mostly depends is the notion of crime that was entirely different among heathens and christians. It is not only the punishment that matters but the relativity of guilt and crime too.
    Can you elaborate on this?

    No, I do not know well. What I know is that they used people's spirituality in order to establish authority such as the church. I forgot to mention but I was actually referring to priests, because they were ''agents'' of the church.
    As for christians, sure they did serve their folk, but only and after the church's interests. Unfortunately the church's interest were often cloaked with the necessities of the folk so that it could gain more on the people. Without the people and the money that christians payed as taxes the church wouldn't exist and nor would christianity as a conclusion.
    Isn't it a bit dubious that something that should offer spiritual enlightening and uprising was built on material profits and on the people turned into ''spiritual slaves''?
    So the countless priests who brought wealth to the people by being productive in agriculture, spreading literacy and education and quelling endless feuds didn't serve their folk? What's more, throughout history christians have been intensely involved in the promotion of patriotism and nationalism.

    Concerning the material profits: priests and the likes on average weren't leaches; abbeys and monasteries have always been economical hot spots, to the wellbeing of local, organic economy. The priests indeed gathered wealth, but most of them worked hard and led relatively sober lives, ploughing the land, brewing beer, helping the poor get back on their feet, etc.

    You see this is what I don't like about christians, that they think they have the right to assume ''what's best for their folk'' (even if it isn't) and act under such assumption blindly.
    This is exactly what early priests did, they were preaching that their claims are THE most truth and the native traditions are false and the work of the Devil. How could something be in the best interest of the folk when it turns the folk into coward sheep? How could their intentions be beneficial when they are bringing values and conceptions that are most alien to the folk itself. All the missionary services that christians performed throughout the world were done under the ''best interests of the respective folk'', starting with native americans and ending with the primitive tribes of africa.
    What is the reason and meaning to make the whole globe to submit under the same ''religion'' and same god if not the will to set authority?
    You see, this is why I consider them treacherous clever bastards.
    You keep implying that before Christianity the Germanic peoples generally worked as a whole, to the best interest of the folk. I'm sure many did or tried to. But again, don't idealise. Germanic society was heavily dominated by the politics of local warlords, who plundered neighbouring sibs and tribes to gain name & fame. They accumulated power and many weren't interested in the wellbeing of their folk at all. That is what always happens when people gain power and have no authority above them to answer to. Priests throughout history worked to restore the power balance. They introduced the idea of the highest authority, to which all people, powerful or not, eventually have to answer to. That includes priests themselves.



    What were the crusades if not pushovers? and the conversion with fire and steel of numerous heathen tribes throughout germanicdom, what were they if not pushovers? and let's not forget about the colonizations.
    I think there's some confusion about he meaning of the word pushover. A pushover is someone who is easily pushed over, not someone who pushes others. On many occasions have people on this board stated that christians are weaklings who don't put up much of a fight; that turning the other cheek and loving your enemies means letting yourself get hurt or killed or what not. Well they didn't, and I thank God for the Crusades.

    The colonisations were driven foremost by lust for profit, for material gain; something heathens - Vikings included - were more than familiar with. The most vocal support for the rights of indigenous populations in colonies was from christians. And in many cases there was already great injustice before Europeans came. (Inca's anyone?) So what's your point?

    And what do you care about the colonisations anyway? You've stated yourself that you're only interested in the fate of Germanics.

    That is not correct, since you don't know about other warrior classes already existing in heathendom.
    The berserkers, the jomsvikings and the Varangian Guard are just a few of the known warrior classes. Though the berserkers were not an established warrior class, many of the heathens were ''practicing'' it.
    What? How does that weaken my argument? ('Some of the best warrior orders the world has seen were explicitly christian.') I was only making the point that christians weren't pushovers, not that they were necessarily better warriors than heathens.

    To answer this question, the written sources that could be used are those few that we know, such as the notes of roman historians and the Eddaic works. The rest is conclusion.
    However what we know is that any kind of established religious authoritative power among heathen germanics would have left a mark on the notes of roman historians or in the sagas. But they didn't.
    The Romans left us far too little information to confirm or disconfirm such things. If anything, examining the Romans themselves tells us a lot about Indo-European religiosity. The Romans certainly didn't shun talking about the Gods and their deeds.

    Furthermore, the Edda's are filled with stories about godly deeds. And heathens have been tracing their lineage to Gods, making their very existence (i.e. the existence of the people) a godly deed. Also, sacrificial customs by definition imply the expectance/hope of Gods doing things or not. Finally, when looking at how early missionaries introduced Jesus and the Gospel to Germanic peoples, they presented Him as someone of great deeds. Which apparently appealed to many Germanic heathens. Which means the concept of godly deeds (and the talk thereof) was not alien to Germanic heathens at all.

    I think we can safely say that heathens certainly did talk about godly deeds.

    Mainly because the term religion as we know it today was uncommon and alien to them, their ideals and the spiritual aspects of their culture were incorporated into their everyday life and customs.
    They didn't care what gods others worshiped as long as they were worthy and honorable in their deeds and thoughts. That is why they have let christian priests to settle in their community.
    Since they weren't demanding from the people around what god they honor - it was a question of private matter.
    Sure they had no problem with the fact that others had their own Gods. However, it was certainly not entirely a question of private matter. For instance: a sacred grove was a sacred grove. That means that even if you didn't believe it was a sacred grove, you would get into a lot of trouble if you didn't treat it as a sacred grove.

    Neither would I, exactly, it works itself on its own way.
    However, that is not what most christians think and consider and it is not that certain at all as you claim it.
    If nature's ''cruelty'' is so widely accepted by christians, then why is it that various animals have been associated with the devil? such as the wolf or the goat? If they accept and honor its ways why did christians hunt in tremendous numbers wolfs in the past throughout Europe?
    As Germanic lands became increasingly densely populated and great forests diminished, confrontation with wolves became more and more inevitable. And wolves were greatly feared, because they killed precious livestock. In times of hardship, the loss of a sheep might have dire consequences. It was no wonder that people started getting superstitious about the wolf. In this case it was superstition from a folk-christian perspective. Don't forget that all kinds of beasts in Europe went extinct long before Christianity came. You can be sure many - if not most - of these instances were due to humans. In those cases heathen humans.

    So you do admit that Christians were cruel to heathens?
    However, nice try but if heathen germanics wouldn't have been able to handle cruelty none of us would be alive today. They bowed their heads to christianity out of wisdom (to avoid their own genocide) and because they had no other option.
    I've never denied there was much cruelty from christians towards heathens. Just like there was much cruelty from heathens towards christians.

    And I never said heathens couldn't handle cruelty.

    Also, as I have repeatedly said in this thread, much (if not most) of the conversion process was a matter of individuals voluntarily become christians, and/or a matter of heathens slowly become more christian, generation by generation. The instances where Germanic heathens were forced to convert at the point of the sword are not that numerous, and more a matter of Realpolitik than any supposed evil flowing naturally from Christianity. Also, in many cases priests objected to this kind of conversion. (Which I gave examples of earlier in this thread.)

    You are speculating again because you can't tell the consequences if things would have turned out differently and Islam would have arrived to Europe before christianity.
    Actually, you are mistaking religious intolerance with the simple defending of the homeland against invaders. Heathen germanics didn't care what religion the enemy had, if it endangered their own land.
    I don't want Islam out of Europe because I am religiously intolerant but because it endangers my land, my folk and my culture.
    Of course I'm speculating! But the fact remains that Christianity prevailed in the Germanic world and that Islam was and is far more aggressive than Christianity. You do the math.

    I never said Germanic heathens were religiously intolerant. I said that their supposed religious tolerance is a modern myth.

    Again, you are mistaking common sense with obligatory actions. It was not obligatory to act in the interest of their family's honour but it was praiseworthy, it was not obligatory to take up a life-or-death challenge but it was praiseworthy, etc and that is an entirely different perspective.
    Their goal was not to punish and to enslave people for the sake of authority but to serve individual improvement.

    No, I would not have to fight, but I would fight! Not because it is obligatory, but because common sense dictates me that way.
    You seem continuously to confuse actions done under authoritarian pressure, such as obligatory things, and actions done by common sense - out of free will.
    Honour was extremely important in the Germanic world. Don't tell me it was "praiseworthy" to take up a challenge. People back then hardly had any choice. It wasn't legally obligatory, but it was sure necessary to fight if you wanted to keep functioning as a person of any esteem. And of course those with much to lose would not want to fight, or be hesitant about it at best.

    Ok then let's all convert to Islam and who knows? maybe we can germanise it, right? Following your logic it would work. Also for variety and who knows maybe we can create another great ''germanised culture'', that would prosper and flourish for another 1500 years.
    I already told you about the germanisation of christianity, you can not root something here if that thing has no roots here.
    No, you've been missing my point. I'm defending Christianity here, not Islam. I don't think Islam is flexible the way Christianity it. Islam is a totally different religion. Islam is about submission, whereas Christianity is about love. Islam is about arabisation. Arab muslims still look down on non-Arab muslims. Christianity doesn't have that ethnic component. There is the Jewish factor, but the relationship between Jews and the Church has always been one of conflict. And Jews aren't christians to begin with.

    I don't care and I don't want a supreme being that has no native roots here. The supreme being of the christian is not the same of the heathen.
    And finally, I don't care about the well being of whole Mankind, but of my folk. Everyone should take care of its own kind and folk.
    So you only reject the concept of a Supreme Being because it was spread from somewhere abroad? What if Germanic religion had evolved into a monotheism the way other Indo-European religions did? A Supreme Being by definition has no "roots".

    Germanic ''religion'' thrives without me wanting others to believe or to convert. Those interested will find their way back to our roots and ways without propaganda.
    Most of those ''higher classes'' that you talk of are either leftist, either jews, either multicultist, why should I want to speak about the values of our roots in front of such people?
    Germanic religion isn't thriving at all. What are you talking about?

    Concerning the higher classes: if you don't reach the higher classes (i.e. those in power), then you won't accomplish anything.

    Definitely.
    Howso? On what basis do you maintain that heathens are better at being conscious of what they do and taking responsibility for future consequences?

    Actually velvet and I had talked about matters like these and as far as I can see we share similar views more or less. I'm sure she understands well what I'm writing here.
    Well apparently your views aren't that similiar, since she's an atheist who thinks the existence of God (or any God) must be proven. She doesn't accept the concept of the supernatural, yet you do. Without the existence of the supernatural, free will cannot exist, for then all is bound by material cause & effect. In other words, she says she believes in free will, but her other beliefs exclude the possibility of free will.

    So like I said, if you want to make Germanic heathenry successful again, you need to pay heed to such topics. You can't afford to have such contradictions in your belief system. So Velvet and you have some discussing to do.

    Thanks for the proposal, I will read it as soon as I have the time.


    No, that is speculation.
    Yes, it's speculation. As much as thinking Valhǫll wasn't in part inspired by Christianity.

    And how do we know that?
    Wikipedia:

    Mjöllnir amulets were most widely discovered in areas with a strong Christian influence including southern Norway, south-eastern Sweden, and Denmark.[4] Due to the similarity of equal-armed, square crosses featuring figures of Christ on them at around the same time, the wearing of Thor's hammers as pendants may have come into fashion in defiance of the square amulets worn by newly converted Christians in the regions.[5]

    4. Turville-Petre, E.O.G. Myth and Religion of the North: The Religion of Ancient Scandinavia. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1964. p83
    5. Ellis Davidson, H.R. Gods And Myths Of Northern Europe, page 81, (1965) ISBN 0140136274

    (Source)

    Sure, but they didn't conquer or enslave nations like the romans did or europeans after christianity. And that again changes the whole perspective.
    Sure they did. The heathen Danes & Norwegians for instance did just that, and they've already been discussed at length in this thread.



    Again, you are thinking that you are more right about your claimed deity and that your conceptions are THE one and THE right.
    Nonsense. I was confronting you with the fact that Velvet ridicules belief in the supernatural, which you seem to ignore systematically. Which gives the impression you are driven more by dislike/hatred of Christianity than by love of Germanic heathenry. Otherwise you would have faced her challenge.

    You totally misunderstood me, I said they didn't have a moral authority because they were not needing it. Because the heathen germanic spirit is that of self control and self governance. (except in times of need, when they all unite for a common cause, but not of obligation!)
    I didn't misunderstand you. Tribes didn't need it as long as they weren't being conquered. But the Vikings did (try to) conquer the Anglo-Saxons. If the Vikings (in broader terms: the Danes & Norwegians) had acknowledged a higher moral authority, much Germanic blood would not have been shed. The Vikings didn't need the higher moral authority, but the Anglo-Saxons did.

    Once again, germanic heathens don't need the ''Supreme Being of all Mankind'' but their own folk and the folks native beliefs.
    So the tribes & sibs can fight among themselves some more? So the warlords can continue with their perpetual plunderings? So the endless blood feuds can go on? Sure.



    reasons, arguments and truth - perhaps for yourself, but not for germanic heathens.
    You're right, who needs rational thought and contemplation anyway?

    The supreme being that you talk about is not necessarily the supreme spirit of all for germanic heathens. Interpretation is very important and the way african natives experience the spiritual is not the same at all as we experience it, and this is where cultural and ethnical importance comes in.
    Yes, there are cultural & ethnical differences when it comes to religiosity. But a Supreme Being is a Supreme Being. Rejecting the concept of a Supreme Being purely because it came from abroad is childish and petty. For all we know our Indo-European polytheism was a corruption & degeneration of an even older monotheism.

    If you find the quest for truth un-Germanic then why are we even having this discussion? If Germanic heathens have no use for reasons, arguments and truth, then why do you even bother arguing?

  3. #73
    Senior Member
    velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    Sunday, March 8th, 2020 @ 03:10 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    47
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    5,000
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,295
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,502
    Thanked in
    692 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef
    No, you've been missing my point. I'm defending Christianity here, not Islam. I don't think Islam is flexible the way Christianity it. Islam is a totally different religion. Islam is about submission, whereas Christianity is about love. Islam is about arabisation. Arab muslims still look down on non-Arab muslims. Christianity doesn't have that ethnic component. There is the Jewish factor, but the relationship between Jews and the Church has always been one of conflict. And Jews aren't christians to begin with.
    You dont get it, do you? These three religions are one and the same, Yahwe, God and Allah are one and the same, the religions are based in the very same stories and prophets. There is absolutely no difference. And for the last time, christianity is not about love. The bible is full of hate, so stop that bs, please

    And Hrodnand is absolutely right. Where is the difference to import god or allah? Likewise alien, likewise with the aim of total paradise, likewise the god for all people. No difference whatsoever.


    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef
    Well apparently your views aren't that similiar, since she's an atheist who thinks the existence of God (or any God) must be proven. She doesn't accept the concept of the supernatural, yet you do. Without the existence of the supernatural, free will cannot exist, for then all is bound by material cause & effect. In other words, she says she believes in free will, but her other beliefs exclude the possibility of free will.
    Always love that when people think to estimate my 'belief' and conclude how I'm supposed to be, based in the wrong estimation. Really love it...

    Actually I told you that I dont exclude spirituality (that indeed includes the supernatural) but not your supreme being, as this 'beyond natural' is neither he nor she, it is an it. It has no will, does not demand service. It is neutral.

    And I never said I believe in free will. But you seem unable to devide some fundamental terms here.


    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef
    So like I said, if you want to make Germanic heathenry successful again, you need to pay heed to such topics. You can't afford to have such contradictions in your belief system. So Velvet and you have some discussing to do.
    I dont think we have. As Hrodnand said already, we both have our views on that, the point is that I'd never question his belief, and I certainly dont run around and want to convert people to atheists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef
    Nonsense. I was confronting you with the fact that Velvet ridicules belief in the supernatural, which you seem to ignore systematically. Which gives the impression you are driven more by dislike/hatred of Christianity than by love of Germanic heathenry. Otherwise you would have faced her challenge.
    You didnt get the point. I 'ridicule' your superstition (your god is superstition at its best), not Hrodnands. There is no challenge he have to face.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef
    I didn't misunderstand you. Tribes didn't need it as long as they weren't being conquered. But the Vikings did (try to) conquer the Anglo-Saxons. If the Vikings (in broader terms: the Danes & Norwegians) had acknowledged a higher moral authority, much Germanic blood would not have been shed. The Vikings didn't need the higher moral authority, but the Anglo-Saxons did.
    First: the Danes and the Norwegians were not one tribe, they were many, of which one (of many) were the Vikings.
    Second, the Danish tribes united against the unrightful invasion of their lands by christians.

    Now these same christians put themselves on the posititon to claim a moral authority, that they with their attack didnt have anymore. This is ridiculous. And although the Danes fought brave and pushed them back, the christian 'moral authority' demanded to attack them until they surrendered. There is really no moral ground on which you can stand.



    And in general. NOT A SINGLE christian monastery brought education or helped starving people, unless they bought in for the education (no normal human could effort that though) or they mortgaged their future life and wealth to christianity, then they maybe got some dry bread and it saved them from death for another week or two.

    You pick out at will characteristics and place them on the side of christianity when it is certainly not a christian value, while you put all the bads on the side of heathens. Your last three posts are full of this. Your basic error is that you take the exception from the rule to substantiate your claim (Tomas von Aquin f.e.), while entire history prooves otherwise, what you consequently ignore.


    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef
    For all we know our Indo-European polytheism was a corruption & degeneration of an even older monotheism.
    You couldnt be more wrong.
    Christian interpretation of heathen texts should be verboten, really. The oldest complete indogermanic religion is hinduism, and it is clearly polytheistic. Monotheism came into existence only when the jews (strange enough, judaism is a pagan religion too) stole the idea of the egypt 'monotheism'. It actually wasnt monotheism, but the hierarchy of their gods were much more strict than any other religion (which might be very well due to the lack of intelligence among the african slaves there, misinterpreted out of that a form of monotheism). This jewish monotheism was installed the same time when christianity was started (by jews) and it was just a move to prevent their vanishing in the already existing 'hope for the messiah'. The only thing that parts you from being jewish is your belief in the messiah, nothing else, even your old testament is the talmud. The jews just still wait on the messiah, while 'christians' believe that a guy, who actually would be brought to a mental hospital when he would claim he could heal retards today, was their messiah.
    More superstition is really not possible.
    Last edited by velvet; Saturday, May 30th, 2009 at 07:58 PM. Reason: addition
    Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
    Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
    und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
    Gefürchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit

    my signature

  4. #74
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Online
    Monday, February 20th, 2017 @ 11:02 AM
    Ethnicity
    Dutch
    Gender
    Posts
    527
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    I guess it is a matter of time, back then human sacrifice and cruel deaths were also commonplace in judaism. Ever read the bible? It's full of murder, cruelty and sacrificing.
    Judaism? Judaism and Christianity are two different religions. And yes, I know there's a lot of violence in the Bible. What of it? It's violence in historical context. Does Jesus command killing?

    You see, the problem lies in the structure of christianity. You cant devide between 'religion', 'mythology' and 'sagas', for you there is no difference. In christianity the religion part is the most dominant, with an attempt to replace the other two. As Hrodnand already explained, the religious part in heathenism was not dominant, it was just, like the other two, part of their daily life. Religion unfolded around the seasons of the year (that is harvest, grow periods, times of more light or more darkness with their direct influence on how life actually is like to that time).
    I certainly do distinguish between religion, mythology and sagas. I'm no stranger to heathenry.

    The question about religion, well, since I'm not only atheist, but also anti-religion (in that institutionised version) and do part between spirituality and the religion-term, this question just doesnt occure to me while reading the myths and sagas. The question I ask is more 'how was the structure of society which brought forth this or that form of rituals, sagas, myths and images of their gods. For me it is first of all a question about the thinking world, the psychological mindset.
    This is a search still, not an 'enlightenment' in any form. From the point of fully realising I'm far away. Maybe that is not even the point at all, but how, if, it can be of use for us as a people. And about one thing I am sure so far, that heathenism is just the way our folk was, and to a certain point still is. For a complete folkway and spirituality it is essential that we embrace our roots.
    The problem remains: we know very little about the religious mindset of our heathen ancestors, and we're not going to know much more.

    Well, yes. You see, when this god exists (let's entertain this subject for a moment), but never spoke to humans, not even leaves signs of its existence, then I wonder how it can 'demand' worship and church service. How would we even know about it? Since we 'know' about it, there must have been some sort of communication. After some more chains we come to the question, when it never speaks to me, never does anything for me, doesnt answer and in general is quite 'passive', why the hel should I serve it, and why should I believe in its existence in the very first place?
    This is actually superstition at its best.
    No communication? Jesus was the communicator. And there have been prophets, people with religious experiences, claiming to have communicated with God. Just like there were heathen prophets, seers and such.

    Also, the matter of His existence has much to do with rationality and vital questions, questions about existence itself. People ask themselves, what theological/philosophical model makes most sense of the world we perceive? In that regard a strong case can be made for a Supreme Being. Remember that among the heathen Greeks many already subscribed to such a being, before the advent of Christianity.

    Disgusting arrogance. This is exactly why I care. The gods are not only gods, but also my ancestors, I dont like it to have my ancestors offended. The only demon here is that evil little desert wanna-be god.
    I beg your pardon? Arrogance? The Supreme Being by definition has the highest moral authority.

    And what do you mean, "your Gods"? You've clearly stated you're an atheist. You've stated in the very message I'm responding to that you don't believe in anything that hasn't proven it's/his/her existence to you. Which means you don't believe in the supernatural, since the supernatural cannot be "proven". What it's gonna be? Are you an atheist, or do you believe in the Gods and demons?

    If you're an atheist, then you have no reason to be offended.

    I call that nature. No need to invent a supreme being, nature is alive enough.
    Yes, there is need, since as far as I'm concerned there has to be a First Cause, a Prime Mover. Nature can't be it's own cause. The Big Bang couldn't have happened out of the blue. Something caused it. Something independent of time & matter, since time & matter began with the Big Bang (i.e. they're properties of nature). And a Thing that is independent of time & matter is by definition a timeless (i.e. eternal) Thing. Also, since I believe spirit is partially independent of matter, and can't be explained as an ontological quality of matter, spirit itself must have come directly from that Thing. Which means that that Thing is by definition a Spiritual Being.

    So there we have it, a Spiritual Being as a the Source of All. That is the Supreme Being.

    No, the landlords of them defended their homelands.
    The danes united to defend the roman-christian invasion, and the first time they won. This actually prooves that tribes surely united to defend a bigger enemy. A decision to do so it one based in common sense and really has nothing to do with christianity.
    Who do you think filled the ranks of the landlord? Right, the vassals. Who were christian, coincidentally. Also, large sections of Northwestern Europe never had a feudal system. In those areas the (christian) farmers united to defend their lands together.

    And when was Danish territory invaded by "Roman-christians"?

    Like christians put people on the stake. You know, you really cant condemn practices on a moral ground, when there actually is none to stand on. Christianity has proven to have no moral, this practice only ended when secular laws prohibited it. It's not that christianity itself would have seen that it is morally wrong.
    I just sometimes wonder if heathenism would have come much earlier to the conclusion that real human sacrifices and death penalties might have downpoints. Considering the level of common sense that were present I would argue, yes, very likely. 1500 years are a long time, you know
    I've never denied that christians have done horrible things. My point was that heathens have just as much done horrible things out of religious motives.

    And the level of common sense that was present? How do you know what that level was?

    Well, it's not that easy, people who researched that subject come to numbers between 40-60.000 and about 3 Mio. Which one is right I dont know, but actually even a single human being would be to much for the reason of promoting a pure superstitial based 'god'.
    3 Mio would outnumber the deaths of the black plaque and the wars though.
    Three million?

    No, seriously, next time you casually claim millions of people were killed in inquisitions and witch hunts I'd like to see some evidence. I don't deny that many people were killed during the inquisitions and witch burnings, but the real number is probably in the tens of thousands. Still inexusable, but nothing as wild as you claim. Also, keep in mind that there were some real crazy sects active during the Middle Ages, that foremost threatened political stability. A situation comparable with the rise of communism.

    I fail to see any relevance in the connection of 'religous tolerant' and 'what best served their needs'. But, did you ever heard of heathens organising a 'holy crusade'? Did you ever heard of heathens travelling around missionising? No? Yet history is full of christians doing this.
    There is no connection. That was my whole point. Germanic heathens weren't religiously tolerant.

    Crusades and missionising? What of them? If there hadn't been missionising, there wouldn't have been crusades. And if there hadn't been crusades, people in these lands would probably be speaking Turkish or Arabic right now. And few people would've known what in the world "Germanic" means.

    I thought that was the mean of christianity? To make people to lambs, in a happy florishing garden eden where rabbits and lions play peacefully together? You see, I find it quite double moraled to preach 'peace' while actually starting one war after another for the purpose to promote this 'peacefully religion'. Not to expand land, not to defend attackers, just because some people, oh sorry, god wants them baptized.
    Jesus told people to be tough in this life.

    And you fail to distinguish between the essential message of Jesus and the Realpolitik that surrounded the spread of Christianity. Plus the fact that many of the prominent priests and clerics were deeply troubled by the violent ways in wich warlords (of Germanic extraction & demeanor!) like Charlemagne subjugated and converted heathens. Charlemagne was foremost an empire builder, after the example of the Romans. And the Romans, as you know, were Indo-European heathens during most of the time in which they were busy romanising, subjugating and rooting out other heathen tribes left & right. The advent of Christianity didn't mean these ancient imperialistic demeanors would diminish right away. No, it takes time for the message of Christ to be properly ingrained in the hearts of men. Including the hearts of those who claim to be good christians.

    Should I care about any 'prominent/professional' atheist (wtf?)? Honestly, what have I to do with them? They all follow a 'school' of this or that or another theory. No interest in that, I can think for myself, thanks.
    Another desease nowadays, everything has to fit into a drawer
    And no, I dont think that 'God' gave me the free will. Does it in any way matter at all? Why, how, who? Actually, no, because I think that our brain is just the result of evolution. We are still part of nature, we are living beings with predefined, by our biology, needs. The free will is not an absolute, like the monotheist view claims. I dont care about the drawers, I can accept my nature as well as there are areas in which I am free to decide. This is not an oxymoron, it is just common sense. How ever hard I would try, there is no way to overcome that nature. It would be better to accept it than to deny it.
    Of course you should care! Our schools & universities are teeming with free will denying atheists. They have real power. Those in favour of Germanic preservation don't gain anything by ignoring this socio-political situation nor by engaging in anti-intellectualism.

    I imagine that when you are present in some poor african villages, give them food and medicine, teach them reading and writing and stuff, it is a really efficient way of missionising.
    What's your point?

    I really dont know if I should laugh or cry. What a hollow demand.
    Hollow? Care to explain?

    Yeah, I hope so that it prevends me from ending in that ...hmm, hell. Why should I want to come there in the first place? I have no interest in ending in the 'heaven' of a desert god from the middle east.

    First, IF there are these two places (not that I would agree), in any case I really would prefer the desert god's hell than his heaven. The chance to find there likeminded people would be much higher, wouldnt it? I mean, you must think about it, eternity is a long time, really, it really is of interest with whom to spend that.
    Many (prominent) christians throughout the ages believe(d) that hell doesn't exist. That souls of those who are not interested in the company of God die along with their bodies. In any case, God lets you decide whether you want to be with Him in Heaven after death. If you don't want to, you won't. He'll respect your choice and let your soul die with your body.

    The whole set of virtues is: Courage, Truth, Fidelity, Hospitality, Discipline, Self-Reliancce, Honour, Hospitality, Perseverance.
    And might was only in roman-christian time right. That is a concept this megalomanic structure brought. Although it may sound 'cruel' to you, in heathen times leaders were killed when they demanded to much right and might. So even if it wasnt written somewhere, there was a moral codex, even if may have looked quite different from the roman/christian ones and there would certainly room to argue about the validity today. Although, the prospect of a death penalty would have some advantages in hindsight of today's corrupt 'politicians'

    The vikings. When you read the article that lately was posted here about that vikings did NOT rape that much than was thought before, you would maybe start to ponder the idea that the bad image of them should be corrected. And even if they were the 'evil devils', they are just one tribe of many. The vikings are in no way representative for all heathen tribes. And no other is representative either. They were all seperate tribes, with some similarities, but also many differences. The argue on the base of the evil vikings against heathens as such, well, you get the point.

    Oh, and btw, the holy crusade was full of rape and pillaging. Again, christianity does not have that moral high ground it pretends to have.
    I've read the article. The author didn't give any evidence for his claim.

    In any case, the Vikings were a prime example of might is right. Your claim that might is right is a roman-christian concept is preposterous. Ever heard of the concept of Just War?

    You want other examples of tribes? Germanic history was all about expansion. If someone else lived there already, then tough luck for them. Germanic tribes have driven out a lot of Celtic and other tribes, from the Rhine Valley to Gaul to the British Islands, and so forth. You can bet that didn't go smoothly.

    And yes, the crusades were accompanied by pillaging and rape. But this was always despite the vocal opposition of many christians, who referred to the teachings of Jesus. Heathens (Germanic or not) had no such restraints when dealing with those outside their tribes (or related tribes).

    Why not remove the cover of christianity from the heathen backbone? The traditions are heathen, our fairy-tales are heathen (that is, our mythology, something christianity does not have). Become complete. Might be that the reconstructions reek of artificiality, but that is because too less people live it right now. If it is lived, it would loose its artificiality within a generation. Noone says we have to live it the same way like 1500 years back. It would have developed with that time. We can only guess what could have been, but it actually is not the question, the question is what can we make today of the virtues that wise men left us? They are not wrong today, they are the basic, the backbone, the details were subject to the time and age. A much more progressive, more open and common sense based view.
    Christianity couldnt remove our mythology, it is an important part of being complete. Spirituality, belief if you will, mythology, sagas, tradition, all form the culture. You cant replace one part with something else, that is, put christianity in the place of the gods and expect the rest to stay intact. Why do you think religions all look so different to the different folks? Because it is connected with the roots of their folk, we cant devide our natural spiritual world into several pieces at will and replace it. To defend the muslim invasion, we must be complete, our culture dies because our spirit dies. And our spirit is connected with our roots, our gods, our myths, our sagas, our spirituality. Only our gods can be our gods.
    Good luck!

  5. #75
    Senior Member
    velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    Sunday, March 8th, 2020 @ 03:10 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    47
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    5,000
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,295
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,502
    Thanked in
    692 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef
    Judaism? Judaism and Christianity are two different religions. And yes, I know there's a lot of violence in the Bible. What of it? It's violence in historical context.
    Ah, right, to spread the lies violence is absolutely acceptable.
    Christianity, Judaism and Islamism is one and the same, the 'differencies' come from HUMAN (mis)interpretation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef
    The problem remains: we know very little about the religious mindset of our heathen ancestors, and we're not going to know much more.
    I dont think there was a 'religious mindset' in the sense that you expect, Hrodnand mentioned this already.
    Yet thousands of people live their heathen belief, today, maybe we should ask them instead of christians trying to interprete something that they will not understand?

    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef
    No communication? Jesus was the communicator. And there have been prophets, people with religious experiences, claiming to have communicated with God. Just like there were heathen prophets, seers and such.
    You mix two complete different things together and try to compare them, which doesnt work. The heathen 'seers' (that are dead people) communicated with humans, telling them a little piece of their place in Wyrd on a very personal level, while christian prophets claimed to have communicated with a none-existing deity and preached their interpretion, as if this would be valid to everyone, to other humans. The devil lies in the detail, 'religious experienced' people (that is, they are sort of mad) claim (a claim can entirely base in fantasy), that they communicated (how? proof?) with a back then new deity (as monotheism was unknown until then; again, based in what 'experience'?).
    This construct is a snake that bites its own tale. Only the assumption (belief) that this newly invented deity exists makes the rest possible.

    And as I said already elsewhere, this blind believing in this assumption changes your (ie the believer's) perception of reality, when you're willing to trust OTHER's words and not only trust them, but build your entire worldview on this words.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef
    Also, the matter of His existence has much to do with rationality and vital questions, questions about existence itself. People ask themselves, what theological/philosophical model makes most sense of the world we perceive? In that regard a strong case can be made for a Supreme Being. Remember that among the heathen Greeks many already subscribed to such a being, before the advent of Christianity.
    But this supreme being is not a being, it is an it. It has no will, it does not demand service, it doesnt communicate. Most likely it is not even aware of our existence, that is, if it is able to perceive awareness at all.
    This misconception of monotheism, to raise this it to a 'he' (btw a translation problem, in the old texts it is an it) with a will and all, makes all your surrounding theology and philosophy invalid. Furthermore, this it is of no relevance for life or the world we perceive, as it does not influence it other than with nature. Nature might be the manifestation of this it in our world, so a valid philosophy around it must include nature. Monotheism denies nature, it says: make yourself the world a subject.
    This world, resulting from the monotheist denial of nature, is the most evil heresy humanity has ever faced.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef
    I beg your pardon? Arrogance? The Supreme Being by definition has the highest moral authority.
    Supposed one accepts it as existent, I dont, so I dont agree that you, as a christian, are in the position to speak for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef
    And what do you mean, "your Gods"? You've clearly stated you're an atheist. You've stated in the very message I'm responding to that you don't believe in anything that hasn't proven it's/his/her existence to you. Which means you don't believe in the supernatural, since the supernatural cannot be "proven". What it's gonna be? Are you an atheist, or do you believe in the Gods and demons?
    Reread the paragraph and you will see. I said, I dont like it to have my ancestors offended, what you clearly did.
    And please dont mix the supernatural with your funny supreme being, that are two entire different things. And once again, my ancestors are no demons.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef
    If you're an atheist, then you have no reason to be offended.
    So I should let you offend others, just because I'm not part of them? I take offence in your arrogance above them, independend of whether I am an atheist or not, because I think that a christian is not entitled to offend other beliefs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef
    Yes, there is need, since as far as I'm concerned there has to be a First Cause, a Prime Mover. Nature can't be it's own cause. The Big Bang couldn't have happened out of the blue. Something caused it. Something independent of time & matter, since time & matter began with the Big Bang (i.e. they're properties of nature). And a Thing that is independent of time & matter is by definition a timeless (i.e. eternal) Thing. Also, since I believe spirit is partially independent of matter, and can't be explained as an ontological quality of matter, spirit itself must have come directly from that Thing. Which means that that Thing is by definition a Spiritual Being.

    So there we have it, a Spiritual Being as a the Source of All. That is the Supreme Being.
    So, now you come with the Big Bang, where your bible teaches you that god made you from clay and put you, along with all other animals, on a diskworld with a cloth above it, on which HE painted the sun and the moon and the stars? C'mon...


    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef
    Who do you think filled the ranks of the landlord? Right, the vassals. Who were christian, coincidentally. Also, large sections of Northwestern Europe never had a feudal system. In those areas the (christian) farmers united to defend their lands together.

    And when was Danish territory invaded by "Roman-christians"?
    "He [king Angantyr] built up the Danish fleet, of which most was stationed near Ribe, a large trading Capital of most of Europe, so trading ships could get there without any pirate problems. He was also the one who kicked the Italian bishops out of Denmark when they first attempted to christianize Denmark in the late 700's."

    Angantyr is also said to be the inventor of the fylking, a battle formation, that was necessary to stand against the roman legions.
    He was the first official king of Denmark, united the several tribes.

    So obviously it is a lie that there was no feudal system before christianity came.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef
    I've never denied that christians have done horrible things. My point was that heathens have just as much done horrible things out of religious motives.
    Proof that any heathen tribe ever waged a war for religious motives? You wont find one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef
    And the level of common sense that was present? How do you know what that level was?
    We have the virtues, that require a certain level of common sense.
    Unlike your ten commandments though they do not exist in a vacuum, each for itself, they are connected to each other, weave a web if you want, and they each have several levels of meaning, a hidden value, a 'requirement' for a certain characteristic.
    You're always riding on the honor virtue, that it is about to earn some cups or something. It is not, it accounts for every of your deeds, from caring for your fields and lifestock to being brave in battle and everything inbetween. Being honest is the required characteristic.
    A bit more honesty and honor would do a lot good in this world.


    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef
    Three million?

    No, seriously, next time you casually claim millions of people were killed in inquisitions and witch hunts I'd like to see some evidence. I don't deny that many people were killed during the inquisitions and witch burnings, but the real number is probably in the tens of thousands. Still inexusable, but nothing as wild as you claim. Also, keep in mind that there were some real crazy sects active during the Middle Ages, that foremost threatened political stability. A situation comparable with the rise of communism.
    As I said, I dont know which number is true, I found also claims of more than 9mio killed, which I indeed consider nonsense. Not every trial (and nine millions is about the number of trials throughout the middle ages) ended with death. But as you said, there have been a lot of mad people, so honestly I cant completely rule out 3mio.
    And that systems such as christianity and communism kill people on the misleaded belief they would do their followers a favor is no secret.


    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef
    Crusades and missionising? What of them? If there hadn't been missionising, there wouldn't have been crusades.
    True

    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef
    And if there hadn't been crusades, people in these lands would probably be speaking Turkish or Arabic right now. And few people would've known what in the world "Germanic" means.
    Assumptions based solely on your conviction that the Germanics wouldnt be able to defend their homelands. Invalid.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef
    And you fail to distinguish between the essential message of Jesus and the Realpolitik that surrounded the spread of Christianity.
    There is nothing to distinguish, the realpolitik was a direct result of christianity and the message of Jesus.

    I say though: if this belief would be true in itself, then it wouldnt need a violent method to be spread. Since it needs it, it cant be true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef
    Plus the fact that many of the prominent priests and clerics were deeply troubled by the violent ways in wich warlords (of Germanic extraction & demeanor!) like Charlemagne subjugated and converted heathens. Charlemagne was foremost an empire builder, after the example of the Romans.
    What do you want to reach with your notion that he was of 'germanic extraction and demeanor'? HE WAS A CHRISTIAN. Period.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef
    And the Romans, as you know, were Indo-European heathens during most of the time in which they were busy romanising, subjugating and rooting out other heathen tribes left & right.
    Ah, that is why you find in Egypt so many roman shrines, yes?
    Other than christianity the realpolitik of Romans was indeed something completely different. The romans didnt care about the religion of the folks they subjugated (no discussion here, but the romans are not directly my kin neither), they just enlarged their imperium in terms of land and people, not religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef
    The advent of Christianity didn't mean these ancient imperialistic demeanors would diminish right away. No, it takes time for the message of Christ to be properly ingrained in the hearts of men. Including the hearts of those who claim to be good christians.
    And if you dont follow the message of christ, you will burn in hell, and before that, burn on the stake or gets otherwise killed. Because the message of christ is so 'peaceful', yes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef
    Of course you should care! Our schools & universities are teeming with free will denying atheists. They have real power. Those in favour of Germanic preservation don't gain anything by ignoring this socio-political situation nor by engaging in anti-intellectualism.
    So you equate intellectualism coercily with your funny belief?
    Actually that is the biggest pile of bull's sh*** I've ever heard. You are about to say that someone who does not believe in your funny god cant think.
    And as far as I am aware of the situation, the universities are full of misleaded leftists and liberals, who work hard to destroy our folks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef
    Hollow? Care to explain?
    Being baptised means nothing. I got baptised myself, against my will, like the most people today short after birth. It is as hollow as a soap bubble, and when you touch it, it bursts the same way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef
    Many (prominent) christians throughout the ages believe(d) that hell doesn't exist. That souls of those who are not interested in the company of God die along with their bodies. In any case, God lets you decide whether you want to be with Him in Heaven after death. If you don't want to, you won't. He'll respect your choice and let your soul die with your body.
    So, you deny the dualism that is obvious for everyone who opens his eyes?
    Believing in a heaven without the counterpart, hell, is ridiculous. And your prominent christians might very well be one of the mad sects you were talking about above. And you should never forget, that the christian implied fear of the devil kept your belief alive. Without its counterpart it would be completely superfluous.
    And then, maybe the most important part. You can either believe in an eternal soul (like the one you described above in the big bang part), then it wont vanish with death, or not. You cant pick out what you like, either you take the whole thing or nothing.

    Btw, there have been a hereafter in every belief. The celts call it Anderswelt, in germanic paganism it is Hel, where the souls go to, in greek paganism Charon brought you to the underworld.

    The word underworld though is no implication for good or evil, Hel is also the 'underworld', but this is due to the structure of Yggdrasil and contains no valuation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef
    In any case, the Vikings were a prime example of might is right. Your claim that might is right is a roman-christian concept is preposterous. Ever heard of the concept of Just War?
    Just War is an oxymoron.
    Despite that, you condemn the Vikings for being unjust, while you claim the christian wars were just.
    But you miss the point. Christianity invaded our lands, as the romans, likewise unjust, did before. You're going to be ridiculous when you say that the defendence of our lands is unjust.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef
    You want other examples of tribes? Germanic history was all about expansion. If someone else lived there already, then tough luck for them. Germanic tribes have driven out a lot of Celtic and other tribes, from the Rhine Valley to Gaul to the British Islands, and so forth. You can bet that didn't go smoothly.
    True, but I account that to simple historic fact, ie demographics. More people require more land, period. As I said in the other thread already, the war times would have come to a halt anyway, with or without christianity, as soon as certain positions are consolidated. You can either battle the resistance for ever, or you make at a certain point a contract. This is how nations came to be.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef
    And yes, the crusades were accompanied by pillaging and rape. But this was always despite the vocal opposition of many christians, who referred to the teachings of Jesus. Heathens (Germanic or not) had no such restraints when dealing with those outside their tribes (or related tribes).
    They had restraints, most likely more than christian warmongers ever had.

    What reminds me on the purpose of the crusades. They were made to free the holy land, id est ISRAEL. The holy crusades were not about defending OUR homelands from the muslim invasion, but Israel, the holy land of the bible - and the jews.

    Obviously Israel/the Jews managed it throughout history that other folks, that actually have NOTHING to do with judaism (and even deny any conncetion, like you), fought Israel's wars. And we (that is the nations and folks that surrendered to christianity) still do today.
    Last edited by Sigurd; Tuesday, June 2nd, 2009 at 01:25 AM. Reason: Fixed minor error on user request.
    Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
    Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
    und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
    Gefürchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit

    my signature

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to velvet For This Useful Post:


  7. #76
    Senior Member
    Hrodnand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Online
    Sunday, December 2nd, 2018 @ 06:06 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Transylvanian Saxon
    Ancestry
    Austria/GermanBohemia
    State
    Transylvania Transylvania
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Zodiac Sign
    Scorpio
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Project management consultant
    Politics
    Far Centre
    Religion
    Heathen
    Posts
    1,161
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    18
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    27
    Thanked in
    12 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef View Post
    What are you talking about? I just gave you a prime example of sacrilege in the heathen world, and the kind of punishment that followed by law.
    You mean in the christian world that was applied by christian priests upon heathens.


    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef View Post
    Sure they're different. They're different kinds of religions. But superstition is superstition. And people always have and always will shed blood and be cruel towards others because of supersitious beliefs. Medieval christians did and ancient heathens did. In fact, medieval Christianity was filled with elements of non-christian superstitions.
    No, there is a difference between the attitude towards superstition between heathens and christians. A christian will never accept something other than his/her own strict beliefs, while between heathens it was a common thing to find differences between different tribes regarding heathen practices.
    The heathen saxons didn't slay or enslave the rest of the tribes just because they didn't consider Irminsul as much important as them. But the christians did destroy Irminsul because it was not "compatible" with christian beliefs.


    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef View Post
    You state all kinds of things about the Germanic religious situation without supplying much evidence. The fact is that we just don't know a lot of things about the religious mindset of Germanic heathens. You take the things you don't like about Christianity - in the form of a gross charicature - and present an idealised opposite.
    I can't give you too much written evidence because there are few. But you complain about the lack of evidence where you yourself claim some funny things about your (apparently personal) "supreme being". It seems to me that your claims so far try to sustain some sort of "neo-christian-intellectualism" but you know it yourself that the reality of christianity and christian practices and beliefs is much different.
    Sure, we don't know too much about the heathen practices of ancient germanics, but we can conclude a lot from the sagas, and from those few written sources that remained. Those who truly seek the old path will find it and will understand its meaning. We have no need of "over-cunning and clever" priests who rather argue about written sources and dogmas instead of focusing on the meaning and then take actions for them. While you christian intellectuals argue about terminology in this alien belief system and about whats THE truth, or about what Jesus really wanted or thought , etc. we have a life to live, a self to improve, a path to walk (that is our own) and a war to fight for our folk's preservation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef View Post
    Can you elaborate on this?
    Punishment is relative because it emerges from different perspectives, such in the case of christianity and heathenism. Christianity's main goal was to force "just" authority upon the free will of germanics, in this case they punished everything and anything that potentially endangered this authoritative system called christianity.
    While heathen germanics on the other side punished everything and anything that endangered their own folk's survival. You seem to forget that free will is influenced by common sense and common sense is a phenomena that emerges from the folk, naturally. Germanic heathenism IS built on the common sense of the germanic folk, where christianity is most offensive towards it, and that is why there was so much struggle in accepting christianity.
    Of course we can all lay back today after 1500 years and say that it is natural and OK to live with christian common sense, but I believe that any germanic person with a good common sense will sooner or later realize that there is something wrong and fishy about christianity, and that very feeling comes from no authority, no alien semitic religion, not even from heathenism, but from the inner self of every individual - and that is just a first step to leave christianity.


    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef View Post
    So the countless priests who brought wealth to the people by being productive in agriculture, spreading literacy and education and quelling endless feuds didn't serve their folk? What's more, throughout history christians have been intensely involved in the promotion of patriotism and nationalism.
    What nationalism and patriotism if they serve(d) the god of all mankind and of all nations? What patriotism when after the conversion of the franks and after the establishment of the Frankish empire countless romans moved there to find a living there?
    I'm sure they did improve agriculture more or less, also literacy but I already told you about it, that was just one side of the same coin. It's easy to claim "grand" things when the people around you are nothing more than sheep peasants, under control.



    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef View Post
    Concerning the material profits: priests and the likes on average weren't leaches; abbeys and monasteries have always been economical hot spots, to the wellbeing of local, organic economy. The priests indeed gathered wealth, but most of them worked hard and led relatively sober lives, ploughing the land, brewing beer, helping the poor get back on their feet, etc.
    They lived an unnatural way of life, a life buried under religious fanaticism. Most of them were cunning men under the cloak of a humble sheep to gain their profits on the people around.
    Or do you consider celibacy or the dedication of one's life to a semitic god as sober, normal and natural?



    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef View Post
    You keep implying that before Christianity the Germanic peoples generally worked as a whole, to the best interest of the folk. I'm sure many did or tried to. But again, don't idealise. Germanic society was heavily dominated by the politics of local warlords, who plundered neighbouring sibs and tribes to gain name & fame. They accumulated power and many weren't interested in the wellbeing of their folk at all. That is what always happens when people gain power and have no authority above them to answer to.
    No, as long as a warlord was considered with a good common sense, and that meant to be compatible with the folk's interest - he was followed, but if not he was either killed, or exiled.
    And no, that is what happens to people who act out of free will in the common sense of their own folk. A warlord couldn't get his own fame by claiming authority upon the folk (he would have been killed instantly), only by grand deeds and actions, and further he could do no campaign, let alone gather warriors, if he was not supported by the folk. And I'm sure the folk didn't support a man who acted against common sense.


    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef View Post
    Priests throughout history worked to restore the power balance. They introduced the idea of the highest authority, to which all people, powerful or not, eventually have to answer to. That includes priests themselves.

    Sure, you call that balance when the weak and unworthy rule and where free will (folkish common sense) suffers?
    What they did is turn people to become cowards as I did mention earlier. The only reason why heathens answered to christian authority was because they were killed if they refused to.
    Christians in every denomination have always been like slaves, they served and showed respect out of fear and not by free will or acknowledged worthiness. The respect of the fanatic-christian-slave is nothing comparable to the honor and respect of the heathen.




    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef View Post
    The colonisations were driven foremost by lust for profit, for material gain; something heathens - Vikings included - were more than familiar with. The most vocal support for the rights of indigenous populations in colonies was from christians.
    You don't seem to get it - that there is a difference between colonization and colonization, from the perspective of goal.
    Its not the same when a christian wages war over a native tribe to submit the respective tribe to his own religious claims (destroying the culture and enslaving the people), and the other case what the vikings did. The vikings conquered and managed to conquer because they were stronger and superior in power (perhaps because they were heathens - which implies a totally different attitude than that of christians, like the Anglo Saxons at that time). But the vikings didn't conquer to convert(!), from religious motives, nor did they care too much about enslavement, like the christians did.


    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef View Post
    And in many cases there was already great injustice before Europeans came. (Inca's anyone?) So what's your point
    Oh yes. The all-knowing wise christians who thought they had "just" right to judge upon other nations' own business.



    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef View Post
    And what do you care about the colonisations anyway? You've stated yourself that you're only interested in the fate of Germanics.
    I don't, but don't come to me and preach about the similarity between germanic-heathen colonization and the christian one, because they were in totally different in nature.



    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef View Post
    Finally, when looking at how early missionaries introduced Jesus and the Gospel to Germanic peoples, they presented Him as someone of great deeds. Which apparently appealed to many Germanic heathens. Which means the concept of godly deeds (and the talk thereof) was not alien to Germanic heathens at all.

    They presented him with cunning lies, a "him" that was foreign to most germanics.
    Heathen Germanics were not a folk who could be easily fooled with some hokus-pokus about someone who was alien to them. So don't think that they simply embraced Jesus just because some priests invented lies about him.
    You seem to misunderstand me, I meant that heathen germanics didn't talk or had debates about their gods and deeds in a way as christians did.


    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef View Post
    Sure they had no problem with the fact that others had their own Gods. However, it was certainly not entirely a question of private matter. For instance: a sacred grove was a sacred grove. That means that even if you didn't believe it was a sacred grove, you would get into a lot of trouble if you didn't treat it as a sacred grove.
    Nonsense. The question of not paying respect to a sacred grove doesn't even need to be put here. A sacred grove was a sacred grove, considered by common sense (that of the folk or tribe).
    The only one questioning their sacredness were christian priests.


    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef View Post
    Don't forget that all kinds of beasts in Europe went extinct long before Christianity came.
    What are you talking about? What beasts?
    One example, the auroch (or wild oxen), honored greatly for its strength by heathen germanics, which represents the rune Uruz, was extinct in the 16th - 17th century. I'm sure no heathen contributed to its extinction.


    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef View Post
    You can be sure many - if not most - of these instances were due to humans. In those cases heathen humans.
    I see, so now you are speculating that heathen germanics, who honored nature above all, contributed to the extinction of various animal species.



    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef View Post
    I've never denied there was much cruelty from christians towards heathens. Just like there was much cruelty from heathens towards christians.
    That's not the same. The motivation is also important.



    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef View Post
    Of course I'm speculating! But the fact remains that Christianity prevailed in the Germanic world and that Islam was and is far more aggressive than Christianity. You do the math.
    That doesn't change the fact that both are equally alien, equally semitic, and all they serve for is to set authority upon everyone who challenges them.


    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef View Post
    I never said Germanic heathens were religiously intolerant. I said that their supposed religious tolerance is a modern myth.
    So they were not religiously intolerant but their tolerance is questionable?



    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef View Post
    Honour was extremely important in the Germanic world. Don't tell me it was "praiseworthy" to take up a challenge. People back then hardly had any choice. It wasn't legally obligatory, but it was sure necessary to fight if you wanted to keep functioning as a person of any esteem. And of course those with much to lose would not want to fight, or be hesitant about it at best.
    Honor is based on praiseworthy deeds and actions. They fought back out of common sense. Of course this is hard to be understood by the weak and cowards.
    A duel was fought by two men as in the case of holmgang (which was forbidden later by christian priests) and there were many times when the weaker was able to defeat the stronger.
    People were not that helpless and weak as you would imagine, one had to be ready for combat all the time, both physically and mentally, there was no "just" authority who was above all, no Police to call, the only authority you could gain was that with your own physical strength and the wits you've got for your own. And even so they lived happily, they flourished as a culture, they were family founders, etc. - I can only admire them.


    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef View Post
    No, you've been missing my point. I'm defending Christianity here, not Islam. I don't think Islam is flexible the way Christianity it. Islam is a totally different religion. Islam is about submission, whereas Christianity is about love. Islam is about arabisation. Arab muslims still look down on non-Arab muslims. Christianity doesn't have that ethnic component. There is the Jewish factor, but the relationship between Jews and the Church has always been one of conflict. And Jews aren't christians to begin with.
    At least Islam states openly that it wants submission to anyone who's not a muslim, while christianity does that in a more "peaceful" way.
    If christianity is about love then why was there needed so much bloodshed and cruelty in the name of Jesus? If Christianity is about love then why does your god treat everyone as slaves and servants?


    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef View Post
    So you only reject the concept of a Supreme Being because it was spread from somewhere abroad? What if Germanic religion had evolved into a monotheism the way other Indo-European religions did? A Supreme Being by definition has no "roots".

    Of course I will reject it! For ex. if a native-african spiritual leader comes to me(from abroad) and starts to preach about the "Supreme-Being", be sure I'm going to reject it.
    It's not my folk, not my folk's common sense, not my path, not my goals, not my gods, not my "supreme being", period.
    Foreign things or people "from somewhere abroad" should remain there - abroad.


    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef View Post
    Germanic religion isn't thriving at all. What are you talking about
    It is not a religion and it is thriving. Want a list of various organizations based on the heathen beliefs of our ancestors?


    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef View Post
    Howso? On what basis do you maintain that heathens are better at being conscious of what they do and taking responsibility for future consequences?
    By simple experience, Ive met several heathens and several christians. Nothing more to add here.



    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef View Post
    Well apparently your views aren't that similiar, since she's an atheist who thinks the existence of God (or any God) must be proven. She doesn't accept the concept of the supernatural, yet you do. Without the existence of the supernatural, free will cannot exist, for then all is bound by material cause & effect. In other words, she says she believes in free will, but her other beliefs exclude the possibility of free will.
    Are you trying to set us against each-other?
    Nor would I ever question her views or beliefs because I think I understand them quite well, I don't need an explanation from her like you do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef View Post
    So like I said, if you want to make Germanic heathenry successful again, you need to pay heed to such topics. You can't afford to have such contradictions in your belief system. So Velvet and you have some discussing to do.
    No, we have nothing to discuss, I understand her and her beliefs from what she writes, while you are confused in deciding and explaining terminologies.



    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef View Post
    Yes, it's speculation. As much as thinking Valhǫll wasn't in part inspired by Christianity.
    Ah, ok so following your logic let's assume that everything in heathenism was "in part" inspired from christianity.



    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef View Post
    Wikipedia:

    Mjöllnir amulets were most widely discovered in areas with a strong Christian influence including southern Norway, south-eastern Sweden, and Denmark.[4] Due to the similarity of equal-armed, square crosses featuring figures of Christ on them at around the same time, the wearing of Thor's hammers as pendants may have come into fashion in defiance of the square amulets worn by newly converted Christians in the regions.[5]

    4. Turville-Petre, E.O.G. Myth and Religion of the North: The Religion of Ancient Scandinavia. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1964. p83
    5. Ellis Davidson, H.R. Gods And Myths Of Northern Europe, page 81, (1965) ISBN 0140136274

    (Source)

    "may have come into fashion". Notice the "may"? that's not a valid proof, to me it's equal with cheap christian propaganda.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef View Post
    Sure they did. The heathen Danes & Norwegians for instance did just that, and they've already been discussed at length in this thread.
    But not from religious motives or for the purpose of converting other nations to an alien belief.


    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef View Post
    Nonsense. I was confronting you with the fact that Velvet ridicules belief in the supernatural, which you seem to ignore systematically. Which gives the impression you are driven more by dislike/hatred of Christianity than by love of Germanic heathenry. Otherwise you would have faced her challenge.
    There was no challenge to face for me, unless the one you "invented".



    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef View Post
    I didn't misunderstand you. Tribes didn't need it as long as they weren't being conquered. But the Vikings did (try to) conquer the Anglo-Saxons. If the Vikings (in broader terms: the Danes & Norwegians) had acknowledged a higher moral authority, much Germanic blood would not have been shed.
    The germanic blood shed by the vikings is really not an issue here. Don't make attempts and try to portray the vikings as if they would have endangered germanics towards extinction.


    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef View Post
    The Vikings didn't need the higher moral authority, but the Anglo-Saxons did.
    The vikings were heathens where the Anglo-Saxons christians. I'm sure things would have been different if the Anglo-Saxons remained heathens by their roots.



    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef View Post
    So the tribes & sibs can fight among themselves some more? So the warlords can continue with their perpetual plunderings? So the endless blood feuds can go on? Sure.
    This is not about that. We have to regain our native common sense and yes, that also includes natural struggle for life.


    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef View Post
    You're right, who needs rational thought and contemplation anyway?
    Well, you apparently don't, since you neglect any facts and truth about what christianity really(was)is, while you talk some funny things about the nature of your supreme being.


    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef View Post
    Yes, there are cultural & ethnical differences when it comes to religiosity. But a Supreme Being is a Supreme Being. Rejecting the concept of a Supreme Being purely because it came from abroad is childish and petty. For all we know our Indo-European polytheism was a corruption & degeneration of an even older monotheism.

    I told you already, the "supreme being" that you talk about is an IT, as velvet mentioned already very well, it has no nature and we don't know anything about it.
    Your claim about Indo-European polytheism being a corruption is as much ridiculous as your statement that we should all embrace your (personal?) "Supreme Being".


    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef View Post
    If you find the quest for truth un-Germanic then why are we even having this discussion? If Germanic heathens have no use for reasons, arguments and truth, then why do you even bother arguing?
    The truth is not outside as you think, but inside in our own selves, in our own folk, in our own history, in our own common sense, etc. Instead of looking outside towards some alien terms and "supreme beings" we should look towards our own roots for there is no such thing as THE truth in a religious or spiritual term that could be applied on the whole globe.
    The truth for every individual lies at the very roots of his/her own nation, folk or tribe.
    :Überschöpfung:



  8. #77
    Active Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    Norman Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Canadian
    Ancestry
    Anglo-Norman & German
    Country
    Canada Canada
    Gender
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Religion
    Heathen
    Posts
    265
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    137
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    229
    Thanked in
    96 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Rozenstorm View Post
    Your Germanic identity is Christian and so is the European identity.
    The Germanic identity can only be a Heathen identity, because it is the indigenous religion of our ancestors, created by Germanics, for Germanics. Christianity was created by Semites, for Semites.

    Not even your grandparents grandparents grandparents were pagan.
    So what? Europe could have been Islamic now instead of Christian, if some battles had been lost. Would you have held us the same rhetoric speech then? Wait, with the Muslims invading Europe now, maybe the scenario comes true by 2050 or later.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Norman Pride For This Useful Post:


  10. #78
    Senior Member
    Neophyte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Online
    14 Hours Ago @ 10:54 PM
    Ethnicity
    Scandinavian
    Subrace
    Nordic + some Atlantid
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    Gender
    Age
    48
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Posts
    2,053
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    189
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    196
    Thanked in
    130 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by TheGreatest View Post
    Paganism is not going to replace Christianity. Paganism died because it was folk religion that never approached universalism, and consequently when all the pagan druids were wiped out, so did the knowledge of the religion.
    So you believe that the formation of the Germanic religion was a "once in an aeon" event? That it could not be done again? I do not agree. As I understand it Germanic religion was a dynamic, ever changing system of beliefs. What we know as Norse religion etc. today is just the codified (ossified?) practices current about 1 000 years ago.

    As it once formed, developed and grew, so it can do again. I believe that we all, together, has what it takes inside us.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Neophyte For This Useful Post:


  12. #79
    Account Inactive
    Galather's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Online
    Wednesday, November 23rd, 2011 @ 04:26 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    North Rhine-Westphalia (Paderborn)
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    California California
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Gender
    Age
    30
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Socialist
    Religion
    Asatruar
    Posts
    2
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Rozenstorm View Post
    Paganism is long dead and all it's important characteristics have been adopted in Christianity. Your Germanic identity is Christian and so is the European identity. Not even your grandparents grandparents grandparents were pagan so cut the act.

    Anyway, this is getting off topic.

    I find it funny though that you find Varg peaceloving. Considering the past.
    Hehe long dead....

    How could you even know his Grandparents or any of his late ancestors did not believe in the Northern Gods? There has been many kindreds in the past that worship the Northern Gods in secret. So I would insist that you would stop being general about his or anyone's ancestry because I hate to break it to you but your not all knowledgeable.

  13. #80
    Senior Member
    Henry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Online
    Wednesday, January 12th, 2011 @ 01:00 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Bavarian and a bit of English
    Country
    United States United States
    Gender
    Posts
    54
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Excluding issues regarding the origin of Christianity or it's modern liberalism, it has stood against paganism, specifically Norse paganism and won. At the risk of alienating myself from half of this forum, the reality is that all that remains of Norse paganism are a handful of texts having been translated by Christian monks. There are certainly cultural traditions that have been passed down, but very few of these amount to spirituality. Old Germanic paganism, as much as we might want to identify with it, doesn't actually exist anymore. Does the existing literature provide heroic role-models and kernels of wisdom? Absolutely, so does a lot of literature.

    Unfortunately, with so little remaining, Norse paganism simply cannot answer the kinds of profound and introspective questions that greater religions can. Simply put, the Havamal alone cannot be expected to answer the whole of life's terrible mysteries.

    So the question becomes, "Can Christianity stand against Neo-Paganism". As much as I appreciate the deep yearning to try and breathe life into a lost faith, there are so few building blocks that the end result is either fabricated out of whole cloth or bridging to another religion entirely. Again at the risk of offending, it's really no different than those fellows who genuinely believe they are Jedi Knights and by using Star Wars literature patch together some kind of faith...it's very real to them, they'd die for it some of them. But can it really be compared to a traditional religion?

    Historically speaking, Christianity not only stood, it stood well and with teeth. It was far more racially intolerant and violent than Norse paganism ever was. It wasn't always so limp-wristed, the Crusades alone and the various massacres of Jews are testimony to that...and so it provides a great deal of historical and spiritual heroism, the results of which can be seen and touched today.

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3456789 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Christianity, Paganism and Values
    By Fafne in forum Germanic Heathenry
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: Thursday, August 5th, 2021, 01:52 AM
  2. How 'Pagan' Was Norse Paganism?
    By Taras Bulba in forum Germanic Heathenry
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: Thursday, July 22nd, 2021, 06:46 PM
  3. Christianity Vs Paganism in Russia
    By Old Winter in forum Comparative Religion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Saturday, May 1st, 2010, 05:39 PM
  4. Sheeps and goats in Norse paganism
    By Frans_Jozef in forum Cosmology & Mythology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Tuesday, November 14th, 2006, 11:40 AM
  5. The Struggle Between Paganism and Christianity
    By Blutwölfin in forum Germanic Heathenry
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Monday, October 17th, 2005, 12:42 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •