/asatru/ - Asatru / Heathenry / Paganism

>>19709

Retard, the fact that Pythagoras proposed that the earth was round is fact enough that it was not invented by the Catholic church, and you still completely gloss over the entirety of Christianity's existence where the vast majority of their theologians and followers proposed a flat earth model and considered anything else as heresy. You absolute baboon.

>So you're just basing this off of pure speculation and no actual evidence to back it up. The only thing's that were pulled were the Sun, and the Moon, and they don't pull it in space, outer space does not exist, the Sun, and Moon are simply just luminaires, and not terra-firma objects that you land on, same goes for the Stars, they're just luminaires that are attached to the firmament/skydome that covers the Earth. The Sun , and Moon are simply pulled in the sky, above the clouds, not in "space".

Don't mistake my care for presenting evidence in a factual and honest manner as speculation, it's more grounded in reality than the junk you spouted. You make a lot of claims without any referencial basis, they are not grounded in what is actually written. And you completely miss the point I made, you aren't supposed to read the myths as literal, physical descriptions. This is further seen in your next paragraph.

>One last thing, if you claim that flat-earth isn't in Asatru, then why does the creation story involve beating Ymir's body down, and crushing it, do you think that would somehow appear round, and how about the fact that Odin, and his two brothers literally get Ymir's skull and use it as the firmament/skydome, if the Earth is just flying in space why even need a skydome?

The story doesn't envolve them pinning him down like you pin a person down to the ground. There are no literal descriptions as to how they defeated him, only that they subdue and then kill him. You then go to claim that they used his body to create "the firmament". There's no such term in the myths, they only say that they made Miðgarðr (The Central Home, Our Home) out of various parts of his body. You are trying to shove the mythPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

For all the reasons cited above, this is retarded. However, if anyone is interested in an alternative cosmology that works well with Asatru, consider the Glacial Cosmogony.

>>19110

Just to make a correction, in Icelandic we don't have "Kåre" (å doesn't exist in our language), but we have Kári (pronounced "Kauri") and he is a wind giant, son of Fornjótr. There's a saying here that if the winds are strong then Kári is angry.

>>19683

I'm pretty new to this. What would you say is a worthy thing to sacrifice?

>>19725

It depends on the god in question. Alcoholic beverages and food items were likely used traditionally, though more simplistically, money also works.

Did ancient Europeans believe that there were limits to what a person could reincarnate as?

Do heathens actually have a literal belief in their gods like how christians have a literal belief in Yahweh?

>>19718

The Myths are not descriptive, so the proper interpretation is a metaphysical one beyond existential feelings. But with that said, yes, the gods exist and influence through their physical incarnations and expressions (that is, the physical world and all within). However, they are not considered as literal anthropomorphic beings like how Christians view God, and trying to bring the Gods down to such a level would be idiotic. The Myths are told the way they are as expressions for us to better understand that which supersedes the Body, and they can only do that via symbolism related to the world we understand (see and feel). So no, the stories are not to be taken literally, not by the elite. Slaves and related lower classes (those ruled only be The Body) may take the myths literally though, and follow the examples of the gods as historical events to imitate in effort to participate in something grander than themselves (something all Traditionalists also strive to do). And most did that by just listening and following what the elite said because they knew the elite knew much more than them. So in that sense some pagans (don't use the word heathen it's dumb to do so) did indeed believe the Myths literally and therefor perceived the Gods through that lense. However, free thinking people. However, any free man, people who thought and created by themselves, they didn't take the myths as such. They undrestood that there was much more to the stories than that, that the nature is not by itself the Gods, but that they worked through nature (and therefore narture was sacred as the Bodies of Gods and Spirits). But, they couldn't understand the myths on a very deep level, and they didn't even know all the stories (mostly local folklore). And they knew that, so they followed wise elites (Jarlar, Goðar) and learned from them. Then there were the elites themselves, who truly understood the symbolism behind the ceremonies and Traditions. And they understood them intrinsically, remembered all the myths by memory, and could therefore lead society according to the Higher Principles and could see existence in ways normal men could not.

In short, slaves took the Myths literally, free men believed in the Traditions but understood that the stories are expressions of somPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Can a mexican practice Asatru?

>>19723

No.

>>19703

This is a rather faulty premise. I get what you are saying; it's dumb to claim to revere something whilst not knowing anything about it. But with that said, not every God or Godly thing was worshipped, and they were certainly not worshipped like how christians worship God. Only a handful of them were subject of great worship at high festivals, and many gods were considered derivitives of other gods; if not as their children then a derivitive role. For instance, Óðr is the husband of Freyja, however, whilst he is considered a different character from Óðinn (less important), he has a derived role from Óðinn (and arguably Freyja had a similar relation to Frigg). Most of the "Smaller" gods work that way, as either children, servants, or otherwise related characters that are derivitives of those more important and powerful Gods, and such gods were not worshipped but respected (elves fall into that category as well, as the subjects of Freyr and "small gods" of local areas). Then there's the other issue of shared role (related to the issue mention previously), or that of a God in different bodies. The seperation lines between one God to another can sometimes be quite blurred, as with Óðinn and for instance Heimdallr. Both have very similar roles and function very similarily, and it is interesting how Heimdallr (or Rígr as he was portrayed in Rígsþula) is quite an important god to royalty in Rígsþula, however, historically Óðinn or even Ingvi(Freyr) are the most important ancestral gods to Kings and clans. So it would seem that Óðinn and Heimdallr had closly linked roles, and were possibly considered synonymous by some people (even Freyr, but he has more distinct lines than Heimdallr).

Then there's the issue of Gods having multiple names and appearing with different names, but that's an easier issue to solve as it's usually mentioned who he really is (and I assume you don't mean this). So to go back on to the main issue with your framing, knowing the names of all the gods is fine, but worshipping them all equally is not. There's a distinct hierarchy of the Gods, there's a hierarchy among Ásar and Vanar, and among Jötnar (and finally Hrímþursa but you definetly don't worship them).

>>19705

cont.

So, I'll try to answer that question with that in mind. I will first mention the most important regin among each branch (the ones you sacrifice to during high festivals and in temples), but not in order of importance.

Ásar (and Vanir as well, since their roles and importance were intertwined):

Óðinn (Lóðr, Hænir, Vilji, Vé, and then possibly Heimdallr as well, were all arguably aspects of Óðinn and therefor not revered seperatly from him, unless the occasion called to when they needed the special properties and symbolism behind the name)

Ingvi(Freyr)

Freyja

Frigg (possibly she and Freyja were somewhat synonymous, although, Frigg might have been a more Higher Mother figure, in the same vain as Óðinn is to Óðr)

Týr (a remnant of perhaps a more singular god of Óðinn, Heimdallr, Ingvi, and all other male primarily Father like gods)

Baldr (he was probably worshipped in a similar manner to Dagr, Sól and Sunna were, but more specifically as Brilliant Light in a more general sense, beyond just the sun and the seasons, but the beginning of the winter season is heavily linked to his death)

Þórr

Njörðr

Then there are the gods which likely weren't really temple gods, but were all deeply respected and revered in homes and individually (and according to the occasion), and would be sacrificed to during home blóts:

Iðunn

Eir

Lóðr (likely an aspect of Óðinn, and revered as such according to context)

Hænir (also likely an aspect or epithet of Óðinn, and revered as such according to context)

Vilji (also likely an aspect or epithet of Óðinn, and revered as such according to context)

Vé (also likely an aspect or epithet of Óðinn, and revered as such according to context)

>>19706

Then there's Loki and his kin (Fenrir and Miðgarðsormr) who will be the eventual enemies of the Gods. Loki is his own category, as he is both a Ás and a Jötn, and he definitly wasn't a figure that was revered in a very positive light, and definitly not his children (except for maybe Hel, who is more neutral than anything eles). So, he and his children belong to no strict category, other than that they will become the enemies of the Gods.

>>19707

cont.

Then there's Jötnar. Some also belong in the enemy category, however, since mythologically at least half ar neutral or even friendly, then I put them all in the same category as was done before. Some of them were indeed worshipped, so I will mention them first:

Búri

Bor

Bestla

Gunnlöð

Mímir

Bölþorn

Hel

Ýmir

Auðumbla (Auðumbla is generally not considered a Jötun, as she is a cow: however, I still catagorise her as related as these primordeal Jötuns such as Ymir are much less "humanoid" in their state, as they are primordeal and powerful. But If you disagree with my placement of her here then that's understandable)

Þorri

Góa

Then revered but unworshipped in festivals or temples (you also get into the territory of trolls, in which case they are even more numerous than dwarves):

Grýla

Fornjót

Kári

Logi

Hlér

Angurboða

Surtr (and all his children)

Any of the Dwarves

Any of the Trolls (Grýla is one of the principle trolls, but like with elves, most are nameless since they are local to their area)

So this was my counting of divine beings in Mordic Myth. Obviously here are more, I know, and I won't claim to know every single one there were. But one must also consider their hierarchy, and knowing every single one is not as important as knowing their role.

>>19515

Why would a 'powerful spiritual being' need to assume a physical form? And what exactly is a 'spiritual being' anyway?

>>19533

>Why would a 'powerful spiritual being' need to assume a physical form?

Does it need a reason to if it is capable of doing so?

>And what exactly is a 'spiritual being' anyway?

A being that does not have a material form. Would you expect the gods to made up of actual physical matter like you and me? Obviously not

>>19533

Giants have never needed a reason. That's why they must be hammered back into place. Be weary, for Giants come in many forms like in Grottasongr, always inquire into their race, unlike Frodi.

8. "Thou wast not, Frodi for thyself over-wise,

or a friend of men, when thralls thou boughtest;

for strength thou chosest them, and for their looks,

but of their race didst not inquire." -Grottasongr

>>19681

Me on the left

>Someone who honors their ancestors and upholds traditions

Or

>Some dude with a personality disorder and stupid mustach who thinks he's some guy from 80 years ago because he has no personality or identity of his own

What about it do you find interesting?

Christian cathedrals were all built based on the works of famous Roman architects, such as Vitruvius' De Architetura. Of course, the style then evolved and grew to become the gothic style we know.

Christian cathedrals aren't a merit of christianity, but yet another adoption of other Pagan achievements.

>>13688

>the human race is an extension of natural forces, and our architecture should reflect that.

Our architecture can do nothing but reflect us. All we do is a reflection of us. Our buildings need not be literal caves or trees in order for them to be natural, don't be reductive and insulting to our advanced intelligence. Nice dubs though.

>>13324

It's literally described in Eyrbyggja Saga. I don't understand the confusion or ignorance in regards to nordic temples. Just read the stories ffs.

>>13331

This is very true. Although, in Iceland it doesn't center so much about trees, but around sacred stones. These stones or stone groves are considered to be the "homes and cities of elves and other nature spirits". Even in the capital (but it is much more common in rural areas of course), you will see some places were there are big rocks untouched, and in many of those cases it is due to this old pagan belief. In the country side, this is even more apparent, and often it is not rocks but mounds (or mound looking things).

It is common superstition that misfortune will fall upon any who disturb them, and so even if a road is being made it will have to go around it. Not many people actually belive this literally, but they still feel deeply attached to these places.

Not too many years ago, there was a road being made that would go over a elven home. Dozens of people that lived there, and even some who didn't live there but had ancestors who did, went there to stop them. And so they did, the roadwork was forced elsewhere.

It is things like this that makes me think that our ways will never truly die and can be reborn, and the only way to truly destroy them would be to completely replace us.

One of the public videos he made on folkish vs universalist.

>>19663

>>19662

Thank you.

He does some truly sacred work in preserving things like this video here for more to see. And for that I will always praise his channel.

>>19420

He is a clown. He is only "pagan" purely because he believes those were the gods his ancestors worshipped and anybody who watches his stuff is still a manchild pleb at best, who is incapable of doing academic and folk research themselves and only wants to know about pagan European religions because of the same reason as his: Gods of my ancestors. Which, in its raw nature, is an absolutely right thing to do but because these sort of people have very little interest in the actual sacred teachings themselves, these people often don't get the essence of these sacred knowledge and end up being huge idiot larpers such as this guy and Vikernes. Which is also why he is obsessed with genes and prehistoric cultures and hunter gatherers etc. He is a plebian, lying, whining insecure manchild who makes ridiculous presumptions a lot and then provides very little, "proof" while never talking about the null results. Connecting dots is an essential part of these works but half of his presumptions are baseless and have only been presented to confirm his bias. And quite frankly I believe his works have done far more damage to the community than good.

>>19673

You use a lot of words but say very little.

>>19687

Are people that don't have the qualities in the pic non white/less white than those that do?

>>19687

also lmaoe at the dirty brown marks in london, paris and berlin

>>19437

And the first Christians were converted from their pagan ways by wandering Jews

>>19493

>He hasn't seen Assyrian DNA

>>19497

Not Arab =/= Not Semitic

>>19143

Only in the nominative

>>18226

No, because you can't assume words in two very different languages (latin and old norse/old northern germanic) are derived from each other just because they may sound similar.

Also, Loki is not evil. He is the personification of chaos in the universe, because the struggle of change is necessary for the growth to avoid stagnation. It's no coincidence he's the one responsible for getting the gods most of their best tools, including Freyr's ship, Odin's horse Sleipnir, and the Walls of Asgard.

>>19609

This is all true. He is like the personification of a catalyst. Loki's role in the stories is very important.

>>18226

No, and this is why you should look at the language it actually comes from, rather than mostly unrelated ones (in this context). Loki literally means "the one who sets an end/change in motion" (að loka = to end, and the added "i" is to personify the concept). He's the force which sets the events leading towards the end of the cycle in motion, the change necessary to drive the story forward. The two replies above (>>19609 and >>19611) sum it quite well.

This is the wrong board for this, Egyptian religion has very little in common with Nordic polytheism.

>>19642

/pagan/ did not return.

>>19642

>>19631

Egyptian and Nordic lore actually share quite a few similarities and even share some of the same mythic stories.

montalk.net has more on this

Varg's books draw parallels between Nordic Religion and Egyptian

>>19649

Most of the Pagan revivalist movement are Odinist. Mediterraneans are more satisfied with Catholicism because Catholicism still contains many aspects of the old Hellenist faith.

There's an old myth about an late Roman emperor who wanted to turn back the clock on Christianity so he went to the Oracle of Delphi to inquire as to whether there was any possibility for Hellenism to make a comeback from Christianity. She told him no and that the old Greco-Roman gods were dead. I feel like this legend is a firm nail in the coffin for Greek Paganism.