How Iceland recreated a Viking-age religion(bbc.com)
bbc.com
How Iceland recreated a Viking-age religion
http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20190602-how-iceland-recreated-a-viking-age-religion
80 comments
Unfortunately a lot of the pagan and related spiritual movements are being coopted by white supremecists. I find this stuff fairly attractive as someone with Scandinavian heritage, but it seems like I've been overtaken in the space by racists and fascists.
> Unfortunately a lot of the pagan and related spiritual movements are being coopted by white supremecists.
So have other religions. Millions of people use Christianity (especially the evangelical sort) as an excuse for their white-supremacist behavior. The intersection of religious and ethnic-supremacist beliefs even exists among some Muslim and Hindu adherents. I'm sure I could find other examples, despite the fact that most religious people practice their respective faiths with peace and respect toward others.
So I'd say don't feel bad about it. The more counterexamples there are, the weaker the white-supremacists' excuse becomes. If you want to honor your own heritage without denigrating others', more power to you.
So have other religions. Millions of people use Christianity (especially the evangelical sort) as an excuse for their white-supremacist behavior. The intersection of religious and ethnic-supremacist beliefs even exists among some Muslim and Hindu adherents. I'm sure I could find other examples, despite the fact that most religious people practice their respective faiths with peace and respect toward others.
So I'd say don't feel bad about it. The more counterexamples there are, the weaker the white-supremacists' excuse becomes. If you want to honor your own heritage without denigrating others', more power to you.
My viewpoint is different: religion is a way for a group of people to make themselves feel different and special ("we're the chosen ones!"), and a natural consequence of that is racism/supremacism.
As for "most people" practicing their faiths with peace and respect toward others (meaning those not following the same faith), I'd say that most of history contradicts that claim.
As for "most people" practicing their faiths with peace and respect toward others (meaning those not following the same faith), I'd say that most of history contradicts that claim.
That would go against the teachings of at least Christianity, and as far as I know also Islam and Hinduism. In practice, this is indeed an easy trap to fall into, humans being what they are.
What teachings of Christianity? Throughout the Middle Ages, Christians were happy to burn people alive if they weren't Christian or weren't the right kind of Christian even. Are you going to try to convince me now that all these countless religious leaders throughout many centuries were wrong, and that I should instead listen to you, some random person on the internet who likely isn't even a devout Christian, on what the "correct" teachings are?
It's the same with Islam. I can easily find many Islamic religious leaders who will happily tell me that violence to promote their brand of Islam is good and right. Are you even a Muslim? No? Then why should I believe you over them about what the "correct" teachings are?
It's the same with Islam. I can easily find many Islamic religious leaders who will happily tell me that violence to promote their brand of Islam is good and right. Are you even a Muslim? No? Then why should I believe you over them about what the "correct" teachings are?
The same can be said of (pseudo-)scientific thinking of materialists in the eugenic movements. The Nazis (Godwin's Law!) didn't go after Jews for religious reasons, but for genetic reasons.
The (nominally) Christian Germans were also planning to exterminate Poles because they were of inferior Slavic lineage (not caring that they were Christian/Catholic):
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost
The (nominally) Christian Germans were also planning to exterminate Poles because they were of inferior Slavic lineage (not caring that they were Christian/Catholic):
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost
I have a hard time picturing white supremacists feeling at home in the group described in the article.
> “It’s about being honest, upright and tolerant,” Hilmarsson said. “Respect for nature is also important. You have to make sure you live in harmony with nature.”
> The association rarely wades into politics, but it has made exceptions, most notably by campaigning for same-sex marriage
> “It’s about being honest, upright and tolerant,” Hilmarsson said. “Respect for nature is also important. You have to make sure you live in harmony with nature.”
> The association rarely wades into politics, but it has made exceptions, most notably by campaigning for same-sex marriage
Whether it makes sense or not, "Norse" symbology and mythos seem attractive to neo-Nazis, I guess at least partly because of obvious 20th century reasons.
Someone else posted this link which claims it is indeed a real problem: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/11/as...
Someone else posted this link which claims it is indeed a real problem: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/11/as...
I'm not denying that, I'm just saying that groups differ and clearly some are not right-wing, so anyone interested can be selective about it.
But isn't this the case with any religion? You could say the same thing about the Westboro Baptist Church to Christianity and Radical Islamist Extremism to Islam. Every religion I can think of has instances of groups co-opting the religion for evil means. All major world religions have multiple instances of this happening throughout history. One could say that you don't have a legitimate religion if there isn't a group of crazies trying to use the religion for evil means.
Any religion can be used as an excuse for right-wing extremism and hate, but I think Norse-related religions are particularly attractive to neonazis because of the specific attention the Nazis and the SS paid to their symbology, and to their (bullshit) notion of superior Aryan and Norse "races". The Nazis were obsessed with this. That their mythology was also mostly bullshit is less relevant; it doesn't matter whether it was "authentic" Norse religion, what matters is that the Nazis and later day neonazis thought it was.
There's also the even-lower-hanging fruit: Vikings were "badass" and "hardcore" and stereotypically too busy raping and pillaging to care about silly things like "women's rights" or "minority welfare" or "climate change". They also happened to be white, unlike the similarly-stereotyped Mongols and Huns further east.
Those two factors lend themselves to white supremacists wanting to model themselves on those stereotypes, never mind that reality was much more nuanced than those stereotypes (which developed specifically from the English complaining about their invaders rather than from any actual understanding of Scandinavian culture/society) or that hardly any of these white supremacists would make much of a Viking warrior (stereotypical or otherwise) anyway.
Those two factors lend themselves to white supremacists wanting to model themselves on those stereotypes, never mind that reality was much more nuanced than those stereotypes (which developed specifically from the English complaining about their invaders rather than from any actual understanding of Scandinavian culture/society) or that hardly any of these white supremacists would make much of a Viking warrior (stereotypical or otherwise) anyway.
This kind of thinking is why I have to dread the day someone calls me a white supremacist because of my Cirth tattoos.
It's not even relevant to your viking nonsense. It's just LOTR. But people are being so submissive toward the peckerheads that they're just handing over entire spiritualities without a fight apparently and making it worse for people like me who aren't even in the fight.
It's honestly pathetic. Heh.
Edit: More on the point of being pathetic. Wouldn't the ancient pagans or vikings hate how pathetically submissive people are being here? Historical vikings weren't isolationist or racist from what evidence we have. By their nature they really couldn't be to grow their tribe.
What next? Are you going to settle and accept that occultism and satanism is for white supremicists too? Further play into the hands of the Christian church?
Manowar uses pagan symbology and runes in many of their songs, it's a very common thing in heavy metal. Are you going to play into the hands of the Christian church and let that be considered white supremacist too? Where does this cowardice end?
Furthermore, even though at first I found paganism and viking lore highly interested. I'm beginning to sour of it. But purely because its adherents allowed it to be labeled in this way and therefore make me feel like I did something wrong for getting something from a fictional book. This is spiritual cowardice on a level so profound it affected fiction. Pathetic. Ugly and pathetic.
It's not even relevant to your viking nonsense. It's just LOTR. But people are being so submissive toward the peckerheads that they're just handing over entire spiritualities without a fight apparently and making it worse for people like me who aren't even in the fight.
It's honestly pathetic. Heh.
Edit: More on the point of being pathetic. Wouldn't the ancient pagans or vikings hate how pathetically submissive people are being here? Historical vikings weren't isolationist or racist from what evidence we have. By their nature they really couldn't be to grow their tribe.
What next? Are you going to settle and accept that occultism and satanism is for white supremicists too? Further play into the hands of the Christian church?
Manowar uses pagan symbology and runes in many of their songs, it's a very common thing in heavy metal. Are you going to play into the hands of the Christian church and let that be considered white supremacist too? Where does this cowardice end?
Furthermore, even though at first I found paganism and viking lore highly interested. I'm beginning to sour of it. But purely because its adherents allowed it to be labeled in this way and therefore make me feel like I did something wrong for getting something from a fictional book. This is spiritual cowardice on a level so profound it affected fiction. Pathetic. Ugly and pathetic.
In a world where the media will gladly take the bait to claim the "OK sign" is a white supremacy symbol there's literally nothing you can do to avoid the absurd redefinition of symbols and words years down the road.
just laugh at the hysteria and attempt to deprogram the people co-opted by this moral panic in your every day life.
just laugh at the hysteria and attempt to deprogram the people co-opted by this moral panic in your every day life.
Regardless of whether or not the poster above was bringing up that tired comparison in good faith. The point must still be made.
The ADL specifically says to evaluate all things in context. Note the similarities in the caution they advise while evaluating here. The people - the cowards, the milk drinkers, the tools of the christian church and establishment - in this thread making the unwise choice of submitting their spirituality to peckerheads wholesale. Would do well to take note of that advisory:
https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/okay-h...
https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/runic-...
I'm getting sick and tired of feeling bad for loving Tolkien because these so-called heathens and vikings are such fucking cowards. I'm in this thread giving your spirituality more defense than you are and I DON'T EVEN CARE ABOUT IT.
The ADL specifically says to evaluate all things in context. Note the similarities in the caution they advise while evaluating here. The people - the cowards, the milk drinkers, the tools of the christian church and establishment - in this thread making the unwise choice of submitting their spirituality to peckerheads wholesale. Would do well to take note of that advisory:
https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/okay-h...
https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/runic-...
I'm getting sick and tired of feeling bad for loving Tolkien because these so-called heathens and vikings are such fucking cowards. I'm in this thread giving your spirituality more defense than you are and I DON'T EVEN CARE ABOUT IT.
Don't let your adversaries dictate the rules for what is acceptable unopposed.
>its adherents allowed it to be labeled in this way and therefore make me feel like I did something wrong for getting something from a fictional book. This is spiritual cowardice on a level so profound it affected fiction. Pathetic. Ugly and pathetic.
Someone else should have done the hard work of defending the reputation, so you could enjoy their success?
Are you sure you want to be calling them cowards from that position?
Someone else should have done the hard work of defending the reputation, so you could enjoy their success?
Are you sure you want to be calling them cowards from that position?
(Foreward: I get the point you're trying to make, so please don't interpret as argumentative at you, forgottenpass)
I enjoy Tolkien's success. This is the point I'm trying to make. I'm a bystander here and would not even be aware of pagans beyond a superficial level had it not been specifically for the fact that their adherents have failed so badly at keeping their own tribe in check. I found out about all of this long after I got the tattoos. But I still have to feel like a party to it for no reason but superficial resemblance of runic alphabets.
And yet I'm the only one that seemed to have been interested to expand upon my position so far. There's at least 3 heathens here by my count. I guess I'm fine with the notion that I'm a bigger badass than a self-proclaimed viking in this sense. Why shouldn't I call them cowards if I'm more willing to step up for a fictional mythos than one they consider a real part of their daily lives?
P.S. I am doing part of the hard work in defending their reputation for them by making a point about context. I will not feel like a bad person for wearing Cirth runes. And they will be with me forever, and I will happily discuss the difference with anyone who asks me. And when I do explain the difference it will start with "It's not actually norse or pagan, I know what you mean but those are dying niche religions used by rednecks and slavic meth heads, it sucks but you can't judge a writing system by it".
I enjoy Tolkien's success. This is the point I'm trying to make. I'm a bystander here and would not even be aware of pagans beyond a superficial level had it not been specifically for the fact that their adherents have failed so badly at keeping their own tribe in check. I found out about all of this long after I got the tattoos. But I still have to feel like a party to it for no reason but superficial resemblance of runic alphabets.
And yet I'm the only one that seemed to have been interested to expand upon my position so far. There's at least 3 heathens here by my count. I guess I'm fine with the notion that I'm a bigger badass than a self-proclaimed viking in this sense. Why shouldn't I call them cowards if I'm more willing to step up for a fictional mythos than one they consider a real part of their daily lives?
P.S. I am doing part of the hard work in defending their reputation for them by making a point about context. I will not feel like a bad person for wearing Cirth runes. And they will be with me forever, and I will happily discuss the difference with anyone who asks me. And when I do explain the difference it will start with "It's not actually norse or pagan, I know what you mean but those are dying niche religions used by rednecks and slavic meth heads, it sucks but you can't judge a writing system by it".
>I'm a bystander here
Are you? You might not be interested in the culture war, but the culture war is interested in you.
>adherents have failed so badly at keeping their own tribe in check
Keeping their "tribe in check" is a misnomer. They were annexed as the latest proxy battle in the larger cultural war. Why should the people deeper in the subculture have to take more ownership of that outcome than you do?
It's not about the thing anymore, it's about branding the thing Team Edward or Team Jacob, and anyone who wants to go back to Team Not Getting Involved is run out on suspicion of vampirism/werewolfism.
Are you? You might not be interested in the culture war, but the culture war is interested in you.
>adherents have failed so badly at keeping their own tribe in check
Keeping their "tribe in check" is a misnomer. They were annexed as the latest proxy battle in the larger cultural war. Why should the people deeper in the subculture have to take more ownership of that outcome than you do?
It's not about the thing anymore, it's about branding the thing Team Edward or Team Jacob, and anyone who wants to go back to Team Not Getting Involved is run out on suspicion of vampirism/werewolfism.
You know, that's a good point. And I can't deny that now I'm probably locked into it by loose (/very/ loose) association. But yes I poorly chose my words, I'm sorry.
Your example of branding is appropriate because at this stage I can't see paganism as anything more than a satire religion in the vein of bob or FSM or hell even the Twilight fanbase while we're at it. The edginess is all equally adorable.
They have half-remembered christianity-mingled rituals and holy men, probably. Just like how the Church of the Subgenius has a preacher and gospel and we're all adherents of Bob or the FSM when praying that our code runs. Only difference is that they pretend that it has age and significance that - for all they know - could be the result of christian priests wiping their butt with old norse practices as any correct ritualistic lineage.
I wish they would be honest about the fact that they are satirical. Things already readily not taken seriously are anathema to the fascist. So it wouldn't even be an issue if they were honest. No one is trying to appropriate Bob's face to be an edgy viking. Maybe they should get their branding together so people like me don't have to clarify it being for entertainment value only.
Your example of branding is appropriate because at this stage I can't see paganism as anything more than a satire religion in the vein of bob or FSM or hell even the Twilight fanbase while we're at it. The edginess is all equally adorable.
They have half-remembered christianity-mingled rituals and holy men, probably. Just like how the Church of the Subgenius has a preacher and gospel and we're all adherents of Bob or the FSM when praying that our code runs. Only difference is that they pretend that it has age and significance that - for all they know - could be the result of christian priests wiping their butt with old norse practices as any correct ritualistic lineage.
I wish they would be honest about the fact that they are satirical. Things already readily not taken seriously are anathema to the fascist. So it wouldn't even be an issue if they were honest. No one is trying to appropriate Bob's face to be an edgy viking. Maybe they should get their branding together so people like me don't have to clarify it being for entertainment value only.
Fortunately, you do not have to be a white supremacist to be a heathen. Asatru is not a proselytizing religion and doesn't require that you "fellowship" with other worshipers.
It it attractive because it is a sleeper religion with many facets and traditions of modern life tracing their roots back to that Scandinavian heritage.
It it attractive because it is a sleeper religion with many facets and traditions of modern life tracing their roots back to that Scandinavian heritage.
You are a heathen, yes? I want you to compare this excuse of a response - devoid of passion, identity or character to show people why being a heathen is wonderful - to my argument above in this thread. An argument made by a simple LOTR fanboy who has to deal with Cirth being inspired by writing systems related to paganism in only an auxilary way.
I made the case that it's the height of foolishness to cede an entire spirituality and the foolishness only increases the more severe the generalizations get.
You linked a book. Like a christian links a bible study guide when they can't formulate the words required to express their point.
Good to know personal responsibility is present in heathens at volume similar to the christians I grew up with. Do better. For the sake of your religion and Tolkien, and for the sake of the ink I got to celebrate him.
Random viking-ish armor sellers on imgur do a better job than pagans at large in defending their spirituality if this thread is anything to go by. I am not joking in the slightest either. https://i.imgur.com/AZD4njS.jpg
Weak. Very weak.
I made the case that it's the height of foolishness to cede an entire spirituality and the foolishness only increases the more severe the generalizations get.
You linked a book. Like a christian links a bible study guide when they can't formulate the words required to express their point.
Good to know personal responsibility is present in heathens at volume similar to the christians I grew up with. Do better. For the sake of your religion and Tolkien, and for the sake of the ink I got to celebrate him.
Random viking-ish armor sellers on imgur do a better job than pagans at large in defending their spirituality if this thread is anything to go by. I am not joking in the slightest either. https://i.imgur.com/AZD4njS.jpg
Weak. Very weak.
> Weak. Very weak.
I'm not a heathen preacher. I will counter falsehoods I see, but I let people discover the religion themselves. If I were to tell other heathens how to practice their religion, I would be just as guilty as a christian for being judgmental looking down my nose.
> Random viking-ish armor sellers on imgur do a better job than pagans at large in defending their spirituality if this thread is anything to go by.
I don't use HN as a platform for"defending my spirituality". I engage when the topic comes up, but it is not my life mission to convert unbelievers.
> For the sake of your religion and Tolkien
Tolkien isn't part of my religion.
I'm not a heathen preacher. I will counter falsehoods I see, but I let people discover the religion themselves. If I were to tell other heathens how to practice their religion, I would be just as guilty as a christian for being judgmental looking down my nose.
> Random viking-ish armor sellers on imgur do a better job than pagans at large in defending their spirituality if this thread is anything to go by.
I don't use HN as a platform for"defending my spirituality". I engage when the topic comes up, but it is not my life mission to convert unbelievers.
> For the sake of your religion and Tolkien
Tolkien isn't part of my religion.
Such expert casting aside of personal responsibility and character that - I would assume - defines the self-sufficient individual who can dance and play hard that defines a heathen.
How does it feel knowing that a conservative catholic (tolkien) and ex-christian atheist southern american latino (me) care about - and wears - your aesthetic better than any nordic native or heathen in this thread so far? My convictions seem to be stronger despite this being the spiritual equivalent of how tourists use egyptian hieroglyphics.
Don't worry, I'll have flavor and force of will for your religion's (objectively speaking, very awesome) aesthetic SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO.
https://i.imgur.com/EX3fLpS.jpg
Is this a thing vikings did by the by? No wonder the confusion between what ritual survived as pagan and what became christian and vice-versa is so muddled. It's like lifting pollen from fields! Just straight up, boot-to-face subservience. Tsk tsk.
How does it feel knowing that a conservative catholic (tolkien) and ex-christian atheist southern american latino (me) care about - and wears - your aesthetic better than any nordic native or heathen in this thread so far? My convictions seem to be stronger despite this being the spiritual equivalent of how tourists use egyptian hieroglyphics.
Don't worry, I'll have flavor and force of will for your religion's (objectively speaking, very awesome) aesthetic SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO.
https://i.imgur.com/EX3fLpS.jpg
Is this a thing vikings did by the by? No wonder the confusion between what ritual survived as pagan and what became christian and vice-versa is so muddled. It's like lifting pollen from fields! Just straight up, boot-to-face subservience. Tsk tsk.
> https://i.imgur.com/EX3fLpS.jpg
Coincidentally, when I picture the arm of someone who gets weirdly overly aggressive with random strangers online, that is the exact type of arm I see in my mind's eye!
Coincidentally, when I picture the arm of someone who gets weirdly overly aggressive with random strangers online, that is the exact type of arm I see in my mind's eye!
A videogame and book reference with crocs and PJs on? Yeah, seems even more foolish that I feel more identity with that look than real practitioners of its inspiration apparently do. :o
> How does it feel knowing that a conservative catholic (tolkien) and ex-christian atheist southern american latino (me) care about - and wears - your aesthetic better
Meh. Do what you like. However, if you feel there's a point to the topic that's lacking, feel free to look past any perceived personal slights and contribute constructively.
Meh. Do what you like. However, if you feel there's a point to the topic that's lacking, feel free to look past any perceived personal slights and contribute constructively.
Perceived? You don't see why I would find someone responding to a bad faith link with another link to a $15 pamphlet about their religion offensive? Why should I treat that as anything else like how I'd treat a mormon operating in such a way.
Come on man. At least I put my money where my mouth is and showed my real and inoffensive (albeit highly aesthetic and nerdy) attachment to these symbols and why such generalizations are pretty unfair to perpetuate.
Of course, someone immediately ignored the point and judged me by the skin. But wouldn't have posted if it were unexpected. The quality of passionate social discourse on HN remains ass, world goes on.
Come on man. At least I put my money where my mouth is and showed my real and inoffensive (albeit highly aesthetic and nerdy) attachment to these symbols and why such generalizations are pretty unfair to perpetuate.
Of course, someone immediately ignored the point and judged me by the skin. But wouldn't have posted if it were unexpected. The quality of passionate social discourse on HN remains ass, world goes on.
Came here to say this.
Asatru is 1 of 2 type of people:
- Racial purity hate group types
- Reconstructionist pagans (that often have only loose genealogical ties to the peoples they claim their religion is based on)
Asatru is 1 of 2 type of people:
- Racial purity hate group types
- Reconstructionist pagans (that often have only loose genealogical ties to the peoples they claim their religion is based on)
What both groups have in common is an unfulfilled need for a group identity and sense of belonging. One group just deals with it in a healthier way than the other.
>unfulfilled need for a group identity and sense of belonging.
To some extent perhaps, the non-hate group types are very very guarded and closed to outsiders in my experience, they are generally private to those outside of kin (blood relation) and kindred (like a coven, church, clan, group) which are often pretty small groups of people.
For those remotely interested just go randomly browse /r/asatru and /r/heathenry for the non-racist types and make your own observation.
Personally I find them to be an interesting lot, there are quite a few that still do blood sacrifices and from their self-reports on ritual it seems to largely just be a lot of getting together, getting drunk, and dancing around in a field/woods/someone's yard with the occasional mention of some practice or ritual that may or may not have a basis in historical reality, usually based largely off of a modern book or a combination of archaeological discoveries and surviving myth/poetry.
To some extent perhaps, the non-hate group types are very very guarded and closed to outsiders in my experience, they are generally private to those outside of kin (blood relation) and kindred (like a coven, church, clan, group) which are often pretty small groups of people.
For those remotely interested just go randomly browse /r/asatru and /r/heathenry for the non-racist types and make your own observation.
Personally I find them to be an interesting lot, there are quite a few that still do blood sacrifices and from their self-reports on ritual it seems to largely just be a lot of getting together, getting drunk, and dancing around in a field/woods/someone's yard with the occasional mention of some practice or ritual that may or may not have a basis in historical reality, usually based largely off of a modern book or a combination of archaeological discoveries and surviving myth/poetry.
> ... from their self-reports on ritual it seems to largely just be a lot of ...
I think most religions boil down to this, when applying enough reduction. Doesn't mean that they don't touch people and give them experiences in things that modern society is perhaps lacking in. I think those things can perhaps be difficult to comprehensively be described with words.
I think most religions boil down to this, when applying enough reduction. Doesn't mean that they don't touch people and give them experiences in things that modern society is perhaps lacking in. I think those things can perhaps be difficult to comprehensively be described with words.
In my experience of trying to learn more about invidiauls that follow/are Asatru though it's more of "that's nice you are interested we don't know you and you aren't our kindred, go bother someone else, there's a few book titles published a few years ago, leave me alone"
Whereas, take the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints:
"Hi I'm interested in learning more"
Awesome! Here are some pamphlets, here's one of our scriptural texts, when can you meet with some of our missionaries to talk? Do you have any questions right now? Here's some useful articles, some great talks, there's also these YouTube channels, I know I know it's a lot of info but we'll cover the basics and then you can consume as little or as much as you want!
Similarly Catholicism has RCIA, Buddhism has some 'centers' where you can go like here in Indy the Indiana Buddhist Center, Islam you can drop by most masjids and people are super friendly and will answer questions or there are places like the Islamic Society of North America here in Indiana in Plainfield, some sects of Judaism are very open to investigators/conversion (although some make it next to impossible and actively try and drive you away), etc.
I suppose though, that probably makes Asatru in fact very similar to the peoples it claims to base its beliefs around. People in the ancient world weren't too terribly receptive to outsiders with the exception of trade.
Whereas, take the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints:
"Hi I'm interested in learning more"
Awesome! Here are some pamphlets, here's one of our scriptural texts, when can you meet with some of our missionaries to talk? Do you have any questions right now? Here's some useful articles, some great talks, there's also these YouTube channels, I know I know it's a lot of info but we'll cover the basics and then you can consume as little or as much as you want!
Similarly Catholicism has RCIA, Buddhism has some 'centers' where you can go like here in Indy the Indiana Buddhist Center, Islam you can drop by most masjids and people are super friendly and will answer questions or there are places like the Islamic Society of North America here in Indiana in Plainfield, some sects of Judaism are very open to investigators/conversion (although some make it next to impossible and actively try and drive you away), etc.
I suppose though, that probably makes Asatru in fact very similar to the peoples it claims to base its beliefs around. People in the ancient world weren't too terribly receptive to outsiders with the exception of trade.
You shouldn't really be bothered by the tiny minority of inbred racists and fascists using anything related to paganism.
We scandinavians sure don't.
We scandinavians sure don't.
No offense or judgment meant at all, but isn't Iceland due to its geographical isolation a relatively homogeneous gene pool? As in, famously the topic of studies.
So in other words don't listen to inbred racists, listen to more chill inbred people who kick back with a beer and praise Odin inclusively, with whoever happens to show. Sounds about right.
So in other words don't listen to inbred racists, listen to more chill inbred people who kick back with a beer and praise Odin inclusively, with whoever happens to show. Sounds about right.
I mean, at least Islanders try not to be inbred (IIRC genetic testing and such is a huge deal over there specifically to keep that from being a problem).
Oh yes you guys have made it abundantly clear you're not bothered. So much so that I understand now how that appropriation happened so swiftly that it leaked over into sides of the fence only tenuously related to paganism. Resulting in groups dedicated to damage control stemming from how not bothered you were about the problem initially. You just let anyone walk all over you passively and respond in ways similar to Christians - but less organized and somehow less spirited. Ironic given what the Christians did in my historical recollection.
Not really a viking or heatenistic attitude, when you think about it. I suppose that's why the fabled nordic hardiness is just that: fabled~
Not really a viking or heatenistic attitude, when you think about it. I suppose that's why the fabled nordic hardiness is just that: fabled~
It is, to a degree. However, given the intentionally lose definition of it, the interpretation of this topic is up to the individual and the group.
The BBC piece explicitly mentions this - with almost no ties to politics and an open door policy for all people - but I am aware that other groups are not as open. This cannot, however, be generalized.
Some folks do hold the believe that people with a different heritage should follow their own culture's roots, which often results in a very similar line of thoughts an beliefs, yet differs in customs, names, rituals ..., but ultimately leads to the same guiding principles. I personally don't agree, given our modern societies, but it can be regarded as a valid thought that is not driven by racism, but merely by the guiding idea of remembering the old ways, regardless of where those might be rooted.
Jesse Byock's translation of Snorri's Edda touches on the historical aspect of this in the prologue as well as his annotations. It's a great read if you are interested.
The BBC piece explicitly mentions this - with almost no ties to politics and an open door policy for all people - but I am aware that other groups are not as open. This cannot, however, be generalized.
Some folks do hold the believe that people with a different heritage should follow their own culture's roots, which often results in a very similar line of thoughts an beliefs, yet differs in customs, names, rituals ..., but ultimately leads to the same guiding principles. I personally don't agree, given our modern societies, but it can be regarded as a valid thought that is not driven by racism, but merely by the guiding idea of remembering the old ways, regardless of where those might be rooted.
Jesse Byock's translation of Snorri's Edda touches on the historical aspect of this in the prologue as well as his annotations. It's a great read if you are interested.
> I personally don't agree, given our modern societies, but it can be regarded as a valid thought that is not driven by racism, but merely by the guiding idea of remembering the old ways, regardless of where those might be rooted.
A friend once explained this to me thus: "A person should have the religion he or she needs."
A friend once explained this to me thus: "A person should have the religion he or she needs."
If you read some old posts on textfiles.com or google groups you'll find this problem extends back at least twenty years.
I think its much more common with the ethnic based reconstruction movements in general-so alas, Germanic neopaganism/Heathenry isn't alone in that, though for obvious reasons it's the most notorious.
ycgeu(1)
I think there can be an aspect of racism, but I don’t think it’s the main driver.
People want to keep their thing “theirs”.
There are also questions, valid or not, about co-opting and appropriation. If we use some of these metrics then aspects of other minority interest groups can be also seen in a negative light.
In all cases, racism can be an issue with a minority of the people in these groups who make the experience for outsiders (and some insiders) unpalatable to say the least.
People want to keep their thing “theirs”.
There are also questions, valid or not, about co-opting and appropriation. If we use some of these metrics then aspects of other minority interest groups can be also seen in a negative light.
In all cases, racism can be an issue with a minority of the people in these groups who make the experience for outsiders (and some insiders) unpalatable to say the least.
> Unfortunately a lot of the pagan and related spiritual movements are being coopted by white supremecists. I find this stuff fairly attractive as someone with Scandinavian heritage, but it seems like I've been overtaken in the space by racists and fascists.
I don't get it, you let the people you detest tell you what (not) to do?
Prominent Nazi party leadership was very fond of dogs, gardens, ice cream, roads, and a lot of the other nice things about being alive after the industrial revolution; you're just going to let them have all that stuff?
Chances are that for 99% of the things you like, there exists a contingent of racists who like it just as much.
I don't get it, you let the people you detest tell you what (not) to do?
Prominent Nazi party leadership was very fond of dogs, gardens, ice cream, roads, and a lot of the other nice things about being alive after the industrial revolution; you're just going to let them have all that stuff?
Chances are that for 99% of the things you like, there exists a contingent of racists who like it just as much.
While that's true, there's elements that always stick more - try to claim you're just taking little mustaches or the swastika back.
> try to claim you're just taking little mustaches or the swastika back.
In what universe is Paganism as iconically linked to Naziism as simplified swastikas and almost-square moustaches?
In what universe is Paganism as iconically linked to Naziism as simplified swastikas and almost-square moustaches?
>Prominent Nazi party leadership was very fond of dogs, gardens, ice cream, roads, and a lot of the other nice things about being alive after the industrial revolution; you're just going to let them have all that stuff?
Actually, I'd be happy to let them have the dogs. Dogs smell bad and are just a big pain in the ass if you live in an urban environment. They just aren't good indoor pets, and I have no idea why every single woman these days has to have one.
As for roads, we'd be better off with fewer roads and more railroads and trains. But Hitler was famous for getting the trains running on time...
Actually, I'd be happy to let them have the dogs. Dogs smell bad and are just a big pain in the ass if you live in an urban environment. They just aren't good indoor pets, and I have no idea why every single woman these days has to have one.
As for roads, we'd be better off with fewer roads and more railroads and trains. But Hitler was famous for getting the trains running on time...
That was Mussolini with the trains.
>The Ásatrú faith also celebrates Old Norse mythology and its pantheon of morally ambiguous deities – gods such as Odin, Thor and Loki – that came to Iceland during the Viking Age, when the island was settled by Norwegian famers looking for new pastures. These deities were worshipped across this ‘land of fire and ice’ until the year 1000, when, under pressure from the influential Norwegian crown, the country abandoned heathenry and adopted Christianity.
The subtext from the BBC is interesting, the Viking gods are 'morally ambiguous deities', the arrival of christianity is summarised by 'the country abandoned heathenry'. Is worth noting that heathenry is still a synonym in english for 'uncivilised'. This is presumably to stand in contrast with some notion of the supposed moral certainty and civilisation of the Abrahamic god. The BBC should really be above playing team sports with religions, but I guess they just can't help themselves.
The subtext from the BBC is interesting, the Viking gods are 'morally ambiguous deities', the arrival of christianity is summarised by 'the country abandoned heathenry'. Is worth noting that heathenry is still a synonym in english for 'uncivilised'. This is presumably to stand in contrast with some notion of the supposed moral certainty and civilisation of the Abrahamic god. The BBC should really be above playing team sports with religions, but I guess they just can't help themselves.
But those gods are morally ambiguous: they're not everything-I-do-is-right like the God of Abraham (in any of the religions that worship him). It's an accurate part of the news and implying that Loki is a paragon of virtue would be misleading people about the subject.
And "Heathenry" is a term used by practitioners of this faith. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathenry_(new_religious_movem... If it's got a negative connotation, well, that's the limits of working in a colonizer language.
And "Heathenry" is a term used by practitioners of this faith. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathenry_(new_religious_movem... If it's got a negative connotation, well, that's the limits of working in a colonizer language.
The god of the old testament is morally ambiguous too. The christians defined the evil aspects away and made humanity responsible for all evil in the world.
The God of the Old Testament is not morally ambiguous in the point of view of Christians. That was my claim.
This news article is reporting on the beliefs of a Viking-age religion. It is not attempting to say that the actual gods of that religion are actually morally ambiguous.
This news article is reporting on the beliefs of a Viking-age religion. It is not attempting to say that the actual gods of that religion are actually morally ambiguous.
You are making the same mistake as Bible literalists:
* https://brandonvogt.com/did-god-command-genocide/ * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtXAQzqVv5s
This idea that the OT God was evil dates back millennia, to the point that some early Christians thought that the OT deity was a completely different one than the NT deity:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism
* https://brandonvogt.com/did-god-command-genocide/ * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtXAQzqVv5s
This idea that the OT God was evil dates back millennia, to the point that some early Christians thought that the OT deity was a completely different one than the NT deity:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism
The religion itself presents God as doing good; pagan religions don't have such framing, thus the classification "morally ambiguous."
And good for the Christian god means anything that benefits that god. Murdering children at the passover. Murdering people at the flood. Ad nauseam...
>The religion itself presents God as doing good
Does it? I seem to remember a part in the Old Testament where the Abrahamic god orders his followers to commit genocide against some other tribe. How is that "doing good"?
Does it? I seem to remember a part in the Old Testament where the Abrahamic god orders his followers to commit genocide against some other tribe. How is that "doing good"?
The point is that those events, in the context of Christian thought, are seen as good - their god is telling his people to clear some unbelievers. Christian dogma maintains that their god and his commandments are fundamentally moral, that they are the very base for objective morality. In Christian thought, by definition, anything that their god wanted to happen is good.
Norse religions, on the other hand, make no such claims about their gods. Within the context of Norse beliefs and religious moraloty, Odin has done evil things, Loki has done evil things, etc. That is why, within their own system of beliefs, the gods are morally ambiguous.
Norse religions, on the other hand, make no such claims about their gods. Within the context of Norse beliefs and religious moraloty, Odin has done evil things, Loki has done evil things, etc. That is why, within their own system of beliefs, the gods are morally ambiguous.
According to what standard?
Presumably you believe you are an accidental combination of chemicals, here because other chemical mixtures were the "fittest" -- often, the most ruthless.
On what basis does a fittest chemical blob say "you ought to..."? You need an objective moral standard for that and you won't find it in your chemistry set.
Presumably you believe you are an accidental combination of chemicals, here because other chemical mixtures were the "fittest" -- often, the most ruthless.
On what basis does a fittest chemical blob say "you ought to..."? You need an objective moral standard for that and you won't find it in your chemistry set.
God is good, by definition. It's just built into the Christian belief system. Men can do evil, but God can't. The question of how evil can exist at the same time as an all-benevolent God is such a hard problem that it even has a nifty name.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy
You are making the same mistake as Bible literalists:
* https://brandonvogt.com/did-god-command-genocide/ * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtXAQzqVv5s
* https://brandonvogt.com/did-god-command-genocide/ * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtXAQzqVv5s
Heathenry is a term that comes from the "heath" or what we would call the hearth - the central part of the ancient home that provided heat and cooked food and light. It was the gathering place of family and guests, where songs would be sung and stories told and games played and hospitality offered and accepted. The family shrine would typically be nearby.
The Norse gods are about family. They do whatever is needed to protect and help kith and kin. Lumping Odhinn and Thor with Loki as examples of moral ambiguity shows a total misunderstanding of the roles of each of the gods in Asatru.
And, implying the three Christian gods are paragons of virtue is laughable. There are examples of genocide and infanticide scattered throughout the Bible - it is a veritable bloodfest of violence. To say otherwise would be misleading people about the subject...
The Norse gods are about family. They do whatever is needed to protect and help kith and kin. Lumping Odhinn and Thor with Loki as examples of moral ambiguity shows a total misunderstanding of the roles of each of the gods in Asatru.
And, implying the three Christian gods are paragons of virtue is laughable. There are examples of genocide and infanticide scattered throughout the Bible - it is a veritable bloodfest of violence. To say otherwise would be misleading people about the subject...
> And, implying the three Christian gods are paragons of virtue is laughable. There are examples of genocide and infanticide scattered throughout the Bible - it is a veritable bloodfest of violence. To say otherwise would be misleading people about the subject...
The canon of christianity includes the torah, and it is certainly filled with tales of a terrible god. But the gospel is much more generally virtuous. I'd say the inclusion of the torah provides a great context for the contemporary religion around the time of Christ's life but not a very good model for religion at all.
The canon of christianity includes the torah, and it is certainly filled with tales of a terrible god. But the gospel is much more generally virtuous. I'd say the inclusion of the torah provides a great context for the contemporary religion around the time of Christ's life but not a very good model for religion at all.
IMHO, Christianity is a schizophrenic religion with its split deity (vengeful/jealous/unforgiving/domineering vs. loving/peaceful/tolerant/submissive). I see these split personality traits daily in the behaviors of people who follow that religion.
>everything-I-do-is-right like the God of Abraham
Are we talking about the same god? The god that orders his most observant follower to sacrifice his own child then changes his mind when he attempts to obey, the god that apologises with rainbows after committing genocide, the god that has to incarnate as a member of his own creation and then be sacrificed by others before he truly gets what it is like to be mortal? That god?
If you read the bible as a story about this deity called Jehova or whatever, it does not read as everything-I-do-is-right, but more about a flawed character that slowly goes through a process of personal discovery, who hasn't really benefitted very much by having a load of hangers-on worshipping him. Was one of the things that convinced me as a child that the bible probably wasn't all that reliable as a guide to cosmology. God as portrayed in that book, is actually far too human to have created the universe, at least that was my rough opinion at the age of 11 and it hasn't really changed that much since.
Are we talking about the same god? The god that orders his most observant follower to sacrifice his own child then changes his mind when he attempts to obey, the god that apologises with rainbows after committing genocide, the god that has to incarnate as a member of his own creation and then be sacrificed by others before he truly gets what it is like to be mortal? That god?
If you read the bible as a story about this deity called Jehova or whatever, it does not read as everything-I-do-is-right, but more about a flawed character that slowly goes through a process of personal discovery, who hasn't really benefitted very much by having a load of hangers-on worshipping him. Was one of the things that convinced me as a child that the bible probably wasn't all that reliable as a guide to cosmology. God as portrayed in that book, is actually far too human to have created the universe, at least that was my rough opinion at the age of 11 and it hasn't really changed that much since.
That's a perfectly reasonable opinion to have! But it is not the opinion or mainstream theology of the religions themselves, which is my point.
>it is not the opinion or mainstream theology of the religions themselves, which is my point.
Depends what you mean. I described this take on the bible many years ago to my local minister, who was also the minister attached to my primary school and so would have been the person to give me my first bible, and he admitted that he was agnostic, but felt he did a lot of good in the community and if he went around telling people that he wasn't sure if God existed then they would probably stop listening to him.
Depends what you mean. I described this take on the bible many years ago to my local minister, who was also the minister attached to my primary school and so would have been the person to give me my first bible, and he admitted that he was agnostic, but felt he did a lot of good in the community and if he went around telling people that he wasn't sure if God existed then they would probably stop listening to him.
You misunderstand the point. 'Rightness' in Abrahamic theology is what God does and what he commands you to do, period. Everything he does is by definition right. This is very convenient as far as moral philosophy goes, since it provides an absolute and objective foundation.
That's the sense in which he's the everything-I-do-is-right God of Abraham. The same is not true for the Nordic gods or the Greco-Roman gods. The Book of Job probably makes this point the most powerfully and clearly.
As an aside, it doesn't really make sense to judge historical moral norms by modern 21st century ones. Morality is an anthropological/sociological phenomenon, not some kind of measuring stick we can sensibly apply to other cultures and times.
That's the sense in which he's the everything-I-do-is-right God of Abraham. The same is not true for the Nordic gods or the Greco-Roman gods. The Book of Job probably makes this point the most powerfully and clearly.
As an aside, it doesn't really make sense to judge historical moral norms by modern 21st century ones. Morality is an anthropological/sociological phenomenon, not some kind of measuring stick we can sensibly apply to other cultures and times.
>You misunderstand the point. 'Rightness' in Abrahamic theology is what God does and what he commands you to do, period. Everything he does is by definition right.
I'm not missing the point, I am making the point that this is just what his followers say and if you read the bible as a story about this character god, then you can get a very different impression.
I'm not missing the point, I am making the point that this is just what his followers say and if you read the bible as a story about this character god, then you can get a very different impression.
I understand what you're saying but one of the things I found attractive about the Norse gods was that they're not perfect. They are uncivilised at times! For me at least, I found I could relate to them better because of their faults.
The Greek and the Roman gods were like that, too. And maybe had more influence on the European culture, than Nordic gods.
Exactly! And they are living gods. I never knew until well into my adulthood that Odhinn and Thor had been calling to me all my life.
I like archetypal deities, to me they kind of represent the standing waves in causality that occur once you get to biological levels of complexity, in much the same way that fundamental particles emerge when looking at simpler levels of detail.
Well, apparently it's not passed down, it's being reconstructed (started in the 70s unsurprisingly).
Sounds like fun (pageantry, costumes, songs, ceremonies)! Similar to the SCA or Renaissance Faire. But maybe not a serious religion?
[deleted]