/asatru/ - Asatru / Heathenry / Paganism

I'll check it out!

But hey, we're the third most active religious board only behind /christian/ and /christ/ but are in the middle of your mirror list behind several completely absolutely dead boards..? Why?

Also, not to be picky but we're heathens, or asatruars if you want to be specific to the board, not "pagans". If you want to wordfilter "christian(s)" to "hillbilly(ies)" then by all means, otherwise it's the same basic meaning applied towards us as a christian killword of disdain; implying only the "paganus", the rural simple people of the villages (pagus) are still not christian like the proper civilised people. Idiot wiccans who embrace the word are, as idiot wiccans often are, simply uninformed posers following a wishy-washy leftist universalism.

>>10178

changed it

>>10180

>>10180

that kind of thinking is why paganism was wiped out

>>10187

Being multi-cult-ural, to coin a word meaning to accept other cults, was part of the success of pre-christianity. The biggest flaw was that they didn't anticipate that eventually cults would come to the table that were bent on world domination… There was no immunal mechanism to outlaw or purge a diseased cult, no antibodies against foul and profane cults. So the roman empire had no anti-bodies for judaism or judaism 2: slave morality boogaloo.

>>10193

>pre-christian

>How in Hrafnáss name did you come to that conclusion?

Oh I dunno, the entire body of history, mostly. I was mostly addressing Rome, which was the highest expression of the pre-christian concept. Had those cults not taken rome, they would have never taken any where else meaningful. Though there are certainly similarities in norse society to the path of infection that was made in Rome. Unless you think christians just materialised out of the aether in norse culture…

I'm not really sure how you can argue this unless asatru is the only pre-christian faith you know. Everything I said was perfectly factual.

>While we for now may have to work together with people who call themselves Christians (although they are not), in the long run the Abrahamic religions are all globalist and must not be accepted.

Perhaps, perhaps not. But that was my entire point. Had pre-christian societies been shaped different they could still have had a system to deal with infectious cults like christendom.

>>10196

Wasn't that all I said?

That we used to deal with Christians?

That's not "coexisting", that is dealing with a plague on our peoples minds.

>>10197

True, but all I was saying back was that letting in christianity was a flaw because of what was otherwise a strength. In rome, druidism still continued, woden was still venerated, there was just also the imperial cult and the roman gods honoured as extensions of the might of the conqueror.

That there was no context or language for banning an entire cult so there was no concept of excluding christians. That is the main take-away, that you need to understand there was no conscious signing-off on christianity, but rather no conception of even having the authority to ban it. Should we succeed that is the primary thing we should take away from the last millennium, that the allowances of other faiths and cults can only extend to those cults willing to play by the same rules. Things like only henotheism being the maximum extent of exclusive practice, those who don't pay homage to other gods being expressly banned as subversive elements, etc.

So you can still have druids, asatruars, the cultus deorum, etc. working together, because we are still tolerant of other cults… within a framework that also allows for the banning and warfare against other cults like islam and judaism and so on.

A bit like the economic lesson we've learned about semitic usury, there was no conceptual vocabulary to not allow it because loans were always assumed to be fairly safe and the thought of toxic loans with an agenda was alien. We're wiser now.

>>10198

Addendum: I would say this flaw was one of never encountering non-aryans before. That rome had expanded into a landmine that it had no system to defend against. Mithraism was a product of the aryan persians, any coptism that existed was the product of centuries of ptolemaic filtration and practiced by greeks. That you could assume honourability and loyalty of the justly defeated in exchange for fair treatment and allowing them to continue their customs was true of fellow aryans, but not of semites.

If for some reason the druids became the predominant religious force in the world by some happenstance and allowed us all of our ways except instating a governor and requesting a yearly sacrifice to the dagda as a show of goodwill and loyalty I'm not sure any of us would mind, for instance. Not so of the abrahamic "doesn't play well with others" club.

>>10182

Sort of? We're still the third largest religious board but behind /islam/(lol) and /kjv/(lololol) on your list. Unless you're ranking it by real life followers in which case I'll just focus on spreading it irl…

>>10219

I was keeping the Abrahamics together

>>10223

Why? They don't even like each other… Plus it kind of comes off as giving islam way more credit than it is due around here.

hey, BO would you add /rel/ to the announcement bar? I did the same on /rel/.