/asatru/ - Asatru / Heathenry / Paganism

Could you describe the feelings and sensations a bit more?

You said they felt uncomfortable, but did you feel, say, charged?

How would you describe your emotions when it happened? Did things feel ominous or joyful? Did you feel fear, or did you feel moved with passion?

>>11163

>Was it a sign that I was being observed, or that my blog was rejected?

It sounds like you were having some sort of chemical reaction in your brain from a religious high

>>11164

Yeah, I felt sort of 'charged' and exhilarated during it, but normal after the ~ second it took.

>>11165

How does that work? Like I said I'm not really religious, I just felt like doing a blot

>>11173

>Yeah, I felt sort of 'charged' and exhilarated during it, but normal after the ~ second it took.

Well, that sounds like a good sign then.

What does Asatru offer in they way of comfort? What are we meant to do when we feel lost and in need of help from a higher power? Christianity appeals in that it claims to have a God who cares for everyone and that will help if called upon. The Gods are said to be largely indifferent to our suffering, so it's hard sometimes not to want to pray to the Christ-God.

>>11222

The High gods and goddesses are responsible for the well-being of tribes, the people as a whole, as well as kings and heroes and the like.

If you want some help on something or comfort, you either go to family, or the tribe, the local spirits.

But otherwise Heathenry is a folkway that encourages relying on family, folk, and your own strength to get through most of your problems, and to not over rely on a big daddy in the sky every time you fall and scrap your knee.

If that concept bothers you, you might want to look deep within yourself and see about resolving any issues you have in terms of confidence in your own abilities to handle what may come in your life.

Christianity is a wolf that feeds on weakness and insecurity; Heathenry is a wolf the feeds on strength and self-belief. Which wolf will you feed?

>>11222

What does the Christ god really offer, though? If you pray and things work out, then that's one thing. But if you pray and he doesn't provide, they'll just say he knows best or is opening another door or some other post-hoc excuse for your lack of success. The end result is the same as having not prayed to anybody.

I hate to contribute to the Celtic shitposting problem, but should I really buy that we're able to achieve enlightenment through Asatru the same as Nords like the sticky suggests? I believe all people the world over should worship their own ancestors, and being 75% Celtic, 25% mix of Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian, I don't really know if I'm ready to go down this path. I know that I reject Christianity and it's unavoidable globalist path, but there doesn't seem to be enough ancient Celtic history left for me to learn from.

>>11230

http://asatru-religion.blogspot.com/2010/10/germanic-and-celtic-religions.html?m=1

This should help settle your qualms. The European people as a whole belong to the same Gods, and considering the fact that all White men the world over need each other now more than ever, I wouldn't be worried in the slightest over towing strict national lines in regards to specific ancient ancestry and prayer methods. We all respect one another, and we as Europeans should unify as much as possible in our aspirations to achieve enlightenment through Asatru, despite minor differences in interpretation and language barriers (which have largely been overcome by the fact that everyone speaks English now, anyways).

>>11223

Thanks for the reply, some really good advice. I'll have to continue examining myself.

>>11226

Perhaps nothing, perhaps something. At the very least he offers the hope that a higher power is actively involved in my life and cares about me.

>>11163

>Questions can be about pretty much anything Asatru related.

Real question. How do you guys deal with the other shithead asatru people? Look around on Facebook, Reddit, and even some posters here and it seems to be a solid 70% of horrific cringe.

How do you cope?

If the happening does crop up, I would hope to god that I wouldn't have to deal with any of you, let alone meet you in normal society…

I think Collin Cleary wrote about something similar actually. How he found really good stuff in asatru, but how the people seemed to be nothing but cringey larpers.

>>11255

Your criticisms are vague and nebulous. Could you be more specific so that we can better address your concerns?

>>11259

It's a two part question really:

1. How do you deal with SJWs and degenerates infiltrating Asatru / Heathenry? For example, one of the more subtle co-opts that can and does occur is by hedonists. They may seem good at first but then you realize they are scumbags and bring a bad name to asatru.

Afterall, there's no official body to rebuke these people.

2. How do you deal with people that are generally cringey. There's no denying that Asatru / Heathenry tends to attract some social outcast weirdos (as does any subculture). But how do you drown their voices out with normal / reasonable people like Bil Linzie for example?

I guess both of these questions deal with the lack of a uniform organization. One "kindred" can be cringey, another can be hedonist / wiccan, and another can be a bunch of cool / normal people. But often times the most vocal groups are the worst ones.

>>11255

It's horrible online honestly. We're stuck between idiots who get their ideas from comic book movies, neo-nazis who are so sub-human that Hitler would've castrated them, and fucking cowards cucked into sjw bullshit. It's honestly easier to find kindred by walking around town.

>>11264

I think the main focus should always be IRL, who really cares about online people? Focus on family and friends and live honorably. You don't really need an online community for this, although it is useful (wouldn't be here otherwise).

>>11260

>>11263

Honestly, I think the solution boils down to the fact that the age of the mircro-tribe is over. At least in terms of operating independent of a larger more centralized organization.

Our opposition are pushing their agenda with large orgs like The Troth and Heathens Against Hate. Thus, logically we need to counter by pushing our own Folkish orgs like the AFA and The Odinic Rite. With a degree of centralization (for example a confederacy that still respects individual kindreds) we can have the presence and size to push our own agenda and thus Folkish-ize Heathenry as a whole, which also begets standards that straightens out or kicks out the cringies.

If I were you, I'd either keep looking for kindreds that are Folkish, or join up with an established organization that has it's shit together like the AFA or Odinic Rite.

Micro-tribes can still exist, but mark my words: the culture wars are going to be waged and determined by large and powerful centralized organizations.

Did our ancient forebears believe that Odin breathed life into all of human kind? Is there evidence of what they believed one way or the other?

If they believed that Odin and his brothers brought up all of man, then surely they would have thought that only their gods were the true gods, right?

>>11314

Well let's look at linguistics.

No. In fact, the word mankind means kin of mannaz. So, no, the other people are not part of mankind by definition.

I've been hearing that "asatru" is a ghetto. And based on everything that I've seen, it seems very true.

Is everyone moving towards a smaller-scoped heathenry? More focused on ancestor worship and not worship of the aesir?

Are the Gods and Goddesses actual physical beings? Or rather a metaphysical guide (i don't know if i'm using the term correctly here) to being human and the world that surrounds us. If it's the latter then why would you pray, make sacrifice, etc. If it's all just symbolic anyway.

Hope this makes sense.

>>11371

They're real beings / divine powers.

Most of us in the first world are quite disconnected from the spiritual, so we aren't very sensitive to other beings one way or the other. But I think many tribal people across the world today would have no doubt whatsoever that the divine exists.

>>11373

What do i do if it's impossible for me to comprehend the idea of actual divine powers? I wish to connect with my ancestral spirituality, and i feel it calling out to something deep inside of me. Something that has been repressed for a long long time.

I have worn the fedora of atheism for too long. It has crippled my spirituality.

>>11376

Colin Cleary had some ideas in his book Summoning the Gods. I think some advice was:

- Spend time outside in nature and away from all electronics

- Do primal things like work out, have sex, etc.

- Seek out the other planes of existence. Reach out to dead loved ones / relatives, meditate, do yoga, lucid dream

One place you could start is actually reading about Hinduism, Anon. There's more literature on Hindu spirituality and it's surprisingly similar. http://www.himalayanacademy.com/media/books/what-is-hinduism/web/intro.html

>>11377

I've seen that book being mentioned before. Guess i really should give it a read, thanks man.

Does anyone have any good nationalist related books you'd recommend? I don't know if this question is related to this thread.

>>11416

*relevant to this thread, rather.

So I'm assuming this is a religion only for strong, blonde, blue eyed, heterosexual people, if one has any defect they are disqualified?

>>11430

>strong, blonde, blue eyed, heterosexual people

This isn't a meme. If you have strong Nordic heritage and are not a mutt than you are welcome. But you must always focus on bettering yourself and being disciplined, which means not being a fat sack of Cheeto dusted shit. Everyone on this board has opinions, but gays aren't generally viewed favorably. But personally I think as ling as you don''t act "gay" and think that being a fag is part of your personal character than you're tolerable. As for defects, what do you mean? Ivar the boneless was thought to have been lame, or had "brittle bone disease." If you are able to overcome your defects than good for you.

The greater the struggle, the more glorious the triumph.

>>11432

Dank as fuck, anon. Thanks!

Are the only gods the Germanic ones (ie: Thor, Odin, Tyr, ect.) or are there many gods? If there are only the Germanic Gods then it would make no sense for only Nordic peoples to be able to worship the only gods. But if there are more gods then who's to say that the Christian God isn't real too? And would every peoples having their own god(s) not therefore make all gods less significant/powerful if they're a "dime-a-dozen"? Or do I have this all wrong, and there are only a few gods but they are viewed as different entities by different cultures/peoples, and therefore the Nordic perspective of the gods can only be used by those who are Nordic? Such as Odin compared to Zeus, or Thor to Ares?

>>12211

Romans would make composite gods and even accept new gods into their culture. They probably understood that all these gods are the same as theirs.

But it is whatever floats your boat if you want to worship Zeus instead of Thor go for it. If you feel more kinship to the Greco-Roman pantheon than go for it. (They are just names and a few different stories here and there but the culture and high festivals have the same function).

Just dont mix and match like "I want to believe in Thor and Perun and Zeus and Odin and Lugh and Venus and Aphrodite and Freya" because this is just full retard.

>>12211

First off, some real pedantry here but I think it's useful for people to be able to be precise with their language:

Germanic is an ethno-linguistic term, I'd say you're right to say "Germanic gods", that's cool.

Nordic has had some different connotations, but strictly it refers to a geographical grouping of countries. Finns and Saami people are Nordic, but are not Germanic. Englishmen and Germans are Germanic but are not Nordic. I'm sure everyone gets what you're saying, I just think it's good practice to stay pedantic when discussing things like this to prevent slipping up with terms when it might matter.

On which note, while I mention the term "nordic", the term "nordid" is used to refer to a group of phenotypes in human taxonomy (widely regarded as pseudo-science but honestly it is what it is; to draw certain conclusions from its practice might be pseudo-scientific but simply identifying "looks" of people is just that, neither scientific nor not, in and of itself). The term "nordish" is used by people interested in human taxonomy to refer to all the phenotypes which occur in northern Europe and are to some degree "in solution" with each other (i.e., children might not exhibit quite the same phenotypes as parents, which is nothing weird as long as the different phenotypes are both found in solution of a certain population; two parents who might be classified as Halstatt Nordid having a child who might be better classified as Troender should raise no eyebrows, but two Nordid parents having a Negroid child certainly should).

Now, while I'm mentioning this, it's worth dispelling a bit of people trying to match phenotypes/sub-racial types to ethno-linguistic or cultural designations. As I said, different phenotypes can be found within solution of each other in populations. Within different, Celtic nations, whether people speak a Celtic or Germanic language or both (or a Romance language, even!), you'll find people of Keltic Nordid, Atlantid, Atlanto-Nordid, Halstatt Nordid, Bruenn, etc. types. Within different Germanic nations you'll find people of Keltic Nordid, Halstatt Nordid, Boerreby, various Nordo-Cromagnid, Atlanto-Nordid, etc. types. Within Slavic and Baltic language speaking countries, you'll find Baltid, East Nordid, Alpinoid, etc. types. You'll find people displaying Nordid and sub-Nordid phenotypes in Romance-speaking France, and the far from stereotypically Germanic Tydal type in Norway. Some Swedes who display perfectly textbook Hallstatt Nordid types as far as overall shape is concerned have dark hair, and some distinctly Mediterranean looking Spaniards have blue eyes. Some Indians have blue eyes. Language, historical cultural background, overall genetic composition, and expressed phenotype do not always fit over each other perfectly, shit is complicated. The tl;dr of this is that there's no single Germanic type and that some people with stereotypical Germanic looks are not culturally Germanic at all. My rule of thumb for being "allowed to be Asatru" is broadly displaying any Nordish type and having at least some claim to Germanic culture; a Hallstatt Nordid Swede is obviously good; an Atlantid Irishman living in Dublin, a city founded by Norse settlers, is good in my books though I'd recommend that he at least check out Gaelic paganism and see how it strikes him; an Anglo-Saxon type Englishman is good; looser things like a Baltid type Pole I'd say should enjoy Slavic paganism but I wouldn't tell them to fuck off if they wanted to join me in a Germanic heathen group, especially if they were married to someone who is culturally Germanic. Just my two cents.

>>12219

Now, that aside, precisely what you believe there is up to you. You could believe that there is one ultimate source of divinity, and different gods are different ways of achieving an understanding of or closeness to it. You could believe in primordial Indo-European gods, and that, for example, Thor and Perun are each simply a facet of [Primorial Aryan Thunder-Warrior God], and the different between them is simply in whether you're trying to access divinity through a Germanic or Slavic cultural lens. You might believe that each god is entirely its own thing, that Thor and Perun are distinct entities who simply both like hitting things hard and thunder. I personally learn towards the second camp, but honestly I think none of these beliefs are invalid.

Also for consideration: Wights are an important part of Germanic belief, and are surely things to be found everywhere rather than simply in Germanic lands; as such, an American heathen might find validity in honouring local native American figures if he thinks they are land wights best kept friendly. Similarly, a heathen travelling in Japan might do well to leave offerings at shrines even if they're not of his gods; they are, after all, the spirits of the land he's in at the time. On that note, if you think the distinction between "god" and "spirit" may be blurry, then yes, there almost certainly are many gods other than the Germanic ones, and on THAT note, if you believe that the distinction between "god", "spirit", and "honoured and praised ancestral figure" are blurry, then this is definitely the case; there may even be the case for "new gods", if we find certain historical figures particularly heroic and worthy of being the focus of rites or prayers. Catholics pray to saints, historical people declared holy, which is one of the least Abrahamic and most pagan elements of the religion.

Why the FUCK can't i create any new threads on here anymore since a couple days? It's working on all the other boards but here on asatru it's perpetually stuck at "Posting (100%)" now

>>11226

>>11234

>>11222

>What does the Christ God really offer?

Christ offers life and union with God from whom we have separated ourselves via our rebellion. The Christianity you appear to be acquainted with is the false 'murican protestant version which is only a bit over 200 years old.

This guy has the right idea: >>11223

Christ isn't a genie in a bottle there to fulfill your every demand. It's not about what God (or gods for you) can do for you, and if that's the wavelength you run on you've already lost.

>Christianity is a wolf that feeds on weakness and insecurity; Heathenry is a wolf the feeds on strength and self-belief.

Is that so? Try telling that to your ancestors :)

>>13084

>Christ offers life and union with God from whom we have separated ourselves via our rebellion.

So basically a whiney nanny that never leaves me alone. That explains the autistic behavior of christfags themselves, I guess

>>13088

Do what you like, roman (helennic) gods are just germanic gods with different names and slightly different ranges of purpose.

If you can, though, find out if it's a genuinely europan god (ie athena) or an imported mudrace god (ie dionysus)

Read Alfred Rosenberg Myth of the 20th Century if you're unfamiliar with that dichotomy

>>13091

It's blood. Even if an aryan follows a semitic religion, their blood dictates their afterlife, whatever that is.

If you're racemixed then you're thoroughly spiritually fucked and cut off from the gods.

>>13090

you don't have to love foreign "family"

I have jewish cousins. I do not talk to them.

>>13090

George W. Bush is that you?

>>13085

>whiny nanny

It's unfortunate you see it that way. Would you say the same about your parents? Like the child is subordinate to the parent, man is subordinate to God. I though the pagans were all about honour and respect for elders… No offence, but should learn your place.

>>13113

No, because my parents are actually aware that both they and I can make mistakes, something your god doesn't seem to be able to, despite fucking up constantly in the Bible. This complete lack of humility and self awareness was apparently inherited by his followers, because they also constantly fuck up (for instance, I can make a very safe bet that the way you're trying to persuade people here of the truth of your religion won't be effective at all) and also never seem to be aware of all the mistakes they make.

That's also one of the maon reasons why I will always prefer polytheism over monotheism. The gods are always represented as fallible, which in an odd way makes them much more ideal than a being that we're told is 'perfect', yet never shows any signs of perfection and is in many ways completely inferior to the gods he's supposed to replace.

>>13121

>No, because my parents are actually aware that both they and I can make mistakes

So your parents never offered correction and guidance? I'm sorry, but I think even your kin would disagree with you. Society can't function if the elders don't correct the fumblings of the youth.

>something your god doesn't seem to be able to

Of course He knows we make mistakes. That's why he sent Christ.

>despite fucking up constantly in the Bible

Example?

>This complete lack of humility and self awareness was apparently inherited by his followers, because they also constantly fuck up

God's lack of humility? The story of Christ is completely that of humility, taking on the form of man, and being humiliated on the cross to save us from our "fucking up" he knows we always seem to do.

And yes, I know I fuck up. God knows too. This isn't news to me, and Christians don't (at least shouldn't) act like they don't know. Strawman.

>That's also one of the maon reasons why I will always prefer polytheism

Well I don't operate on what I "prefer" and "feel". I operate on what is true.

>yet never shows any signs of perfection and is in many ways completely inferior to the gods he's supposed to replace.

Well the his perfection is self evident. In order for God to be the unmoved mover… he must be eternal, immaterial, perfect, timeless, etc. I'm sure you've heard of Aquinas' philosophy, that's the sort of thing I'm talking about.

And again, it's not about what you feel is "ideal", because if your ideal is false your beliefs are vain.

Also, how are your gods "superior" to my God exactly?

And I'm not trying to convert anybody, just trying to show you Christianity isn't what you've been led to believe.

>>13122

>muh Aquinas

Unfalsifiable, suffers from special pleading, doesn't show why the unmoved mover needs to be the christian god, never explains why infinite regress is impossible, why causal loops shouldn't be considered, and is exactly the type of nonsense from Scholasticism that was completely ripped apart by David Hume.

Aquinas is exactly the type of poor thinker I would expect to find in Christianity: someone who comes up with a conclusion first and then adapts his entire thinking to fit a conclusion that he has already decided in advance is true.

Also, the unmoved mover came from Aristotle, who believed in Zeus and thought that the concept was a contradiction in terms.

Anyway, your namedropping of Aquinas to try and impress me shows exactly what's wrong with your religion and why someone who accepts his own fallibility is vastly superior to someone like you who doesn't. The fact that I accept that I can make mistakes means that I can learn from them. I can actually look at something I did horribly wrong, and try to prevent it in the future. This way of trail and error is how I live my life, and it's also something I want to be present in my self reflection (which, by the way, is what religion ultimately is, I don't know why you insist that your beliefs have anything to do with truths, you don't seem to believe this when confronted with the idiocy of creationism, when your beliefs suddenly become metaphors).

Anyway, that's the way I see my life. Now let's compare it to your way of life. Your way of life insists on its complete infallibility, and goes so far as saying that anyone who even slightly agrees with should burn forever. Now, aside from the fact that this completely debunks your nonsense about humility, I also consider it to be a fatal weakness. I'm going to use your wager of Pascal for this. You believe to be infallible, I believe to be fallible. Now, consider a case in which we're both wrong. If I'm wrong about being wrong, I lose nothing, I might even gain something. If on the other hand you're wrong about being right, you at best won't gain anything and at worst stand to lose everything. This effect is compounded by the fact that you call your beliefs perfect, which means that if I find even one mistake, such as the fact that most of the stuff about jewsus comes from Paul (who never met jewsus), or that fact that your god is supposed to be omniscience and omnibenevolent, and then gets angry about Adam and Eve disobeying him, despite that he knew that this would happen in advance (which either makes him incompetent or evil), your entire religion falls apart. I don't have this problem, because I never promise perfection. I promise that my beliefs allow for human self reflection, nothing more.

>>13123

An aside, some Greek philosophers believed in an "unmoved mover" or sorts, but it wasn't Zeus. They used genderless pronouns to describe it, as it was more like the Dao than a conscious being.

An omnipotent, omniscient being who thinks and talks and has emotions is such a ridiculous concept, only Yahweh would have the chutzpah to make that claim.

>>13123

>doesn't show why the unmoved mover needs to be the Christian God

Yes I know, you're right. My point was simply to lay out why I don't think an infallible god can really be god.

>never explains why infinite regress is impossible, why causal loops shouldn't be considered,

Sure it does, the "why" is inherent in his argument. Briefly,the way I think of it is: consider pouring glass from an infinite height. If its origin can not be reached, how can the cup be filled? Likewise, if the universe's causes are infinite, then how can the present be reached? So, that's why I believe infinite regress isn't feasible.

The same with causal loops. Either the loops have an origin from which it loops, or the loop is infinite.

I also want to point out, we can not prove any of these scientifically, but we can reason which can be argued to be the most reasonable explanation. And that's up to you to decide.

>Also, the unmoved mover came from Aristotle

Yes, I know that, but this does not discredit Aquinas. Also,

> Aristotle argues, in Book 8 of the Physics and Book 12 of the Metaphysics, "that there must be an immortal, unchanging being, ultimately responsible for all wholeness and orderliness in the sensible world". http://www.iep.utm.edu/aris-met/#H9

>your namedropping of Aquinas to try and impress me

No. No more than your name dropping of David Hume is trying to impress me. I'm using examples people can relate to to have a discussion.

>The fact that I accept that I can make mistakes means that I can learn from them. I can actually look at something I did horribly wrong, and try to prevent it in the future. This way of trail and error is how I live my life, and it's also something I want to be present in my self reflection

Well you have just beautifully described the life of a Christian. Acknowledging our faults (sin), struggling through them and over coming them to become more like God (see Theosis) I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here.

>the idiocy of creationism

You're religion has a creation myth as well. Do you believe literally in the primordial cow Authumbla? Certainly not. Did your ancestors? Probably.

And the case of literal vs. allegorical Genesis isn't as uniform as you think. You can find Church Fathers as early as the 3rd century proposing allegory (and not saying literalists didn't exist).

>Your way of life insists on its complete infallibility, and goes so far as saying that anyone who even slightly agrees with should burn forever.

And how on earth do you know that? You don't know me. I'm not God, I have no place to make that judgement. I am just as bad if not worse than everyone else. It is by grace we are saved. But we have a choice to accept God's grace or reject it. He won't force us to be with Him if we don't want it.

>this completely debunks your nonsense about humility

Again, God won't force salvation upon anyone who doesn't want it. Would God forcing people to be in His presence be more humble?

>Paul (who never met *jewsus)

Classy. We believed he was visited by Christ.

>your god is supposed to be omniscience and omnibenevolent, and then gets angry about Adam and Eve disobeying him, despite that he knew that this would happen in advance

Epicurus, nice! In regards to Adam and Eve God had the choice of:

a) Programming us against our will to be obedient and love Him

or

b) Grant us freedom, which he knew we would use to defy Him.

Unillful love is not love at all. He gave us the freedom to love Him. However, knowing we would bring evil and death into the world with our sin. He had a plan to send Christ to redeem us, live the life we ought to have lived, to be crucified, die, and be buried only to rise again destroying death by death (Nicene Creed) so that we can live.

That doesn't sound evil to me.

>>13123

>>13122

>An omnipotent, omniscient being who thinks and talks and has emotions is such a ridiculous concept

Who wrote the Scriptures? God or man? Christians are not Muslims who literally believe the Bible was dropped from the heaven by an angel. The Scriptures were written using the language of men (so we may understand), then discussed, debated, and compiled by men for the benefit of the Church.

Sin brings evil. How we see this evil is dependent on us, and in the Scriptures, it is described as the "wrath" (some add "of God" in some translations) i.e. separation from God. God being the definition of good means separation means the lack of good i.e. evil.

>>13127

>consider pouring glass from an infinite height. If its origin can not be reached, how can the cup be filled? Likewise, if the universe's causes are infinite, then how can the present be reached? So, that's why I believe infinite regress isn't feasible.

That only demonstrates that our brains can't properly conceptualize the concept of infinity

>I also want to point out, we can not prove any of these scientifically, but we can reason which can be argued to be the most reasonable explanation

Which is meaningless, since you're only demonstrating that the concept works in your head, not in reality. You insisted on truth, not me.

>No more than your name dropping of David Hume is trying to impress me.

When I namedropped Hume, I did it with a purpose though. It was to point out the fallible nature of human knowledge, which is what you seem to base your beliefs on. By the way, can you tell me how the unmoved mover avoids this problem of fallibility?

>Well you have just beautifully described the life of a Christian. Acknowledging our faults (sin), struggling through them and over coming them to become more like God (see Theosis) I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here

That's not how a Christian views life at all. A Christian sees life as irreversably flawed, and humans as inherently evil. There's no such thing as 'overcoming your sins' in your religion, only a god that created you wicked, then commands you to be good and then punishes you when you act according to your own nature. What you describe has absolutely nothing to do with anything in the Bible. Don't pretend like it does.

>But we have a choice to accept God's grace or reject it.

And here you again debunk your own horseshit about humility and fallibility. This statement contains a certainty that only someone who believes that his ideas are infallible would have. Only someone like that would have such a simplistic, black or white view of the world. Tell me something, can you think of a third option beyond these two? Also, how do you know that your religion isn't wrong? What guarantees do you have that your beliefs will remain correct forever?

>God won't force salvation upon anyone who doesn't want it.

And the rest of your post involves sophistry revolving this. Tell me why this is the case. Isn't your god supposed to be omnibenevolent? Doesn't this refute everything concerning the free will excuse (and yes, Epicurus made this clear, I don't know how that solves the problem though, it's more namedropping without any purpose).

If your god was the most good, he would do anything to keep even single soul out of hell. He would completely give up on free will, since it's directly responsible for people getting eternally tortured (which is also complete bullshit, to have an infinite punishment for finite crimes). Also, he knew about all of this in advance. Why he wouldn't look at a horrible situation where his own bumbling forces him to torture his own creations forever, instead of simply taking preventive measures and never planting a tree of knowledge in the first place, you never explain. Instead we get some sophistry about love and free will, which doesn't resolve any of this. If I were a god and my foolish actions caused me to have to torture the very creations I made, I would not be very happy with myself. More importantly, I would also not promote myself as flawless and perfect, since it's demonstrably wrong.

>Who wrote the Scriptures? God or man?

>Sin brings evil.

I love how you imply in the former that your scriptures are fallible, yet in the latter statement instantly drop all of this and make it as if it's completely infallible. So which one is it? Are the scriptures fallible or infallible?

>>13131

>When I namedropped Hume, I did it with a purpose though

And I didn't? Let's be fair here.

>By the way, can you tell me how the unmoved mover avoids this problem of fallibility?

About how our knowledge is fallible? Well certainly, we are fallible creatures, so obviously I can't claim to be God and know everything. However, I believe truth exists and I seek to find it, and I hope you do too. Either that or its the post-modern school of thought where there is no truth, from which arises the absurdities of today's society (LGBT, transgenderism…)

In regards to Hume, as far as I understand (correct me if I'm wrong) he proposes we haven't considered the possibility of uncaused causes. We're back to square one again… is the universe infinite or finite? I've presented my case already.

>That's not how a Christian views life at all.

Says who? You? Again, I haven't dared claim to know how you live your life. So please do the same for me.

>A Christian sees life as irreversably flawed,

Flawed? Yes. Irreversibly? No:

>by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. (2 Peter 1:4)

On Earth, yes, we can not escape sin

>for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23)

And overcoming sins is what the entire Christ narrative is about. We can't do it through our own power (sorry, I should have made that clearer, but I want to be concise), but the defeat of sin and death is accomplished through the death and resurrection of Christ.

>For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. (Hebrews 10:14)

>only a god that created you wicked, then commands you to be good and then punishes you when you act according to your own nature.

We were not created wicked:

>God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. (Genesis 1:31)

We had a choice to obey God, or to obey our own passions. This is going back to my point on the parent and child. If your child does something horribly wrong you can't claim that "well mom and dad made me like that". Our choice to sin brings consequences

>For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:23)

You can't blame the city if you get in a car crash when the city warned you to only drive 50 and you were driving 80.

>Don't pretend like it does.

I don't have to

>This statement contains a certainty that only someone who believes that his ideas are infallible would have.

No. I just actually believe what I believe. If I don't why believe anything in the first place?

>Tell me something, can you think of a third option beyond these two?

Nope. You can't be half accept grace lol. But that's not what you're getting at…

>Also, how do you know that your religion isn't wrong? What guarantees do you have that your beliefs will remain correct forever?

So I guess this is the third option. But again, I believe in truth, I'm not going to wishy washy my beliefs. Yes, I could be wrong, but as far as I have been convinced, Christ is God. I won't pretend otherwise.

>Isn't your god supposed to be omnibenevolent?

Yes.

>Doesn't this refute everything concerning the free will excuse?

No, not really.

>If your god was the most good, he would do anything to keep even single soul out of hell.

He did, He sent Christ to die and resurrect so we can escape Hell.

>to have an infinite punishment for finite crimes

Sinning against a rock is not a crime. Sinning against flawed, finite man, is a finite crime. Sinning against an infinite, Holy, all-good, being, Creator of the Universe, is infinitely abhorrent.

>Why he wouldn't look at a horrible situation where his own bumbling forces him to torture his own creations forever

He isn't forced to do anything. We choose to reject Him.

>instead of simply taking preventive measures and never planting a tree of knowledge in the first place

Again, Genesis is not a history book. Under the guise that is is, God put it there to give us a choice. The fruit isn't inherently evil, it was the fact God told them not to eat of it, but they did. The tree itself didn't bring death, man's choice to defy God and sin did.

>So which one is it? Are the scriptures fallible or infallible?

Scriptures are fallible. That doesn't mean they have no value. The Bible is the Word of God, written with the word of man.

>>13127

>infinite loops

Doesn't seem like a single creator deity would solve this problem.

For an infinite amount of time, Yahweh sat in wherever doing nothing. Then suddenly one day he gets the idea that he's going to create the universe!

Why? Why would Yahweh go an infinite amount of time without creating the universe and then one day (out of an infinity of days) he gets the idea (from where, exactly?) to create a universe. What changed in the unmoving mover that would cause him to create a universe on this particular day and not an infinity of other options? How exactly would he even know what day (or unit of time) to begin his creation if an infinity of days has already passed before then and an infinity of days stretched out afterwards?

>>11264

>>11265

how do i find other Asatru ppl IRL? I just moved to this town and I need to make some friends. Everyone I meet is a weirdo christcuck

>>13137

>>13138

pls halp

>>13139

Go into town with your axe wearing a newly killed bear as a trophie and do battle with the jarl.

After winning proceed to convert the entire town to asatru.

Do we bog bisexuals too or just homosexuals?

>>13142

where did the bog meme originate? i see it everywhere but i can't find the original documents. didn't it come from some old legend or something?

>>13138

You don't find asatruar IRL. You make them.

Forge your body into something legendary. Make your mind equally legendary. Make friends. Show them the way. Check in here and other non-pozzed internet sources often.

This goes for waifus, too.

>>13143

Tacitus, backed up by hanged bog mummies in women's clothes. There's an entire thread on it. Lurk more.

>>13137

I don't think it solves the problem, I think it's self evident.

>For an infinite amount of time, Yahweh sat in wherever doing nothing. Then suddenly one day he gets the idea that he's going to create the universe!

We believe God is spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. So framing God in such a way is just vain, and in my opinion, not relevant.

I've brought up Aquinas and our friend from earlier brought up Aristotle who posited that if the universe did not always exists, then there had to be something not bound by the universe to create it.

>Why?

I don't know when, why, or how he decided to create the universe. It doesn't really matter (even though I'd like to know too) to the debate as to whether not he did.

Why did the gods create man in the manner and time they did? Either way it has nothing to do with the fact that they may have.

Why is this such a problem anyway? Pretty much all religions have an infinite, primordial god. It seems that you trying undermining this principle hurts your case as much as it does mine.

>>13163

>spaceless, timeless, and immaterial

Then this discussion is over. You're trying to use the logic of our universe to prove that something entirely unbound by our universe exists, and further more describe this thing's nature. What a waste of time.

>>13156

Lmfao

>>13156

I too would like help with this

>>13156

Your view of the gods is misaligned. Do you fantasize about your mom's tits, too? How about your sister's? if you answered yes, kill yourself post haste

Is there any way you can tell if the gods have rejected your offering?

>>13163

You seem fairly willing to discuss these things rationally and I want to ask you a few questions.

1.in genesis it's mentioned that Adam and Eve were both sinless until they both had partaken of the forbidden fruit. In heaven will humans exist in a similar manner or a manner exactly like that?

2.as god is all powerful why was Jesus necessary? By this I mean the manner in which he was sacrificed for humankind, was there not another way to offer redemption to humanity?

3.what of those souls who were born and died before Christ, or before Christians could reach them? Are they all in hell?

4.why does the god of the Old Testament and New Testament seem so different from each other? In the old there are countless acts of genocide, mass murder, and the sanctification of wars and violence, yet in the New Testament there seems to be a complete 180 done. How do you explain this?

>>13224

>>13227

Why are you guys even bothering? Christians have their own pilpul, always an escape hatch and they always forget whatever you said the next day.

Aquinas and his ilk are perfect examples of this. They want to wear the hat of Greek rationalism but don't actually want to play by the rules. They want people to think they're smart and rational, so they use a mutated form where they apply it to whatever conclusions they've already reached. In the true Socratic spirit, you have to abandon everything while you walk the path, and then you are forced to embrace whatever conclusions you find after doing this.

Aquinas lived in a convent in a time when heretics were executed. He wasn't risking anything, he just wanted to parrot the status quo of his day and make it seem like he wasn't a braindead robot for having done so. It's an exercise in psychology and little else.

>>13231

Because i desire to hear his reasoning in the matter

>>13232

>idolaters got blown the fuck out of every region of the earth

That's because they were subverted. The rationale comes after the subversion/displacement, not before. You seem to think that people sit down, have an argument, then reach a conclusion and the best mind wins. That's never been how it works between enemies. The "argument" is just to justify the victor, not establish one.

Funny enough, most modern Christians make the same mistake our ancestors made dealing with them, when they deal with the modern left and Jews. They assume the above is true when they meet an advisory. The left already won, the arguments are just window dressing. This is why their (the left's) arguments are particularly nonsensical.

An advisory wants your domination and displacement and nothing more. If he knows you like playing chess, he will challenge you to a chess game. If he wins, his terms stand (you are dominated). If he loses, he knocks over the board, declares himself winner, and threatens to kill your family until you submit to his terms. The chess game was just an avenue used to subdue you, not a gentlemanly battle of minds you thought it was. You gambled something and they gambled nothing.

That's the only lesson you can learn about the logic of Christians and Jews (and Muslims as well, if they were into debate).

Nevermind, I actually found the book for sale on amazon, so I might do a scan at some point myself. Vikings by Bernhard Kummer

>>13232

Pagans should simply move beyond the idea of deities as forces of nature, and rather embrace the idea that gods are part of nature (as we are) and that nature itself is divine.

I believe that originally, at least until the time of Sumerians and pre-historic Egyptians anyway, people used to call flesh and blood persons "gods". To them, the gods were simply another race of beings, superior to us.

The gods were the bringers of civilisation, and the first kings were said to have been gods. This is found in many cultures around the world, and it wouldn't make sense if the gods had been spirits.

I believe spiritualism came later, as a degeneration of the original truth. At some point the gods stepped down as rulers and left their kingdoms to the demigods (human-god hybrids), and eventually to men. After many centuries people still worshipped the gods, but they couldn't see them any more, so they began to imagine them as magical beings, or symbols.

I don't think the gods ever really left, they're probably still here but they prefer to remain hidden for some reason. They might live underground or underwater. Anyway, my point is that pagans should leave theology to the monotheists. Unlike christians, we don't have to worry about contradictions between religion and science because our religion is not based on faith in a magical sky wizard.

>>13252

1. But were Adam and Eve as children in genesis?i do recall it being said as they did not even have a concept of nakedness yet were sinless at this point. When they ate of the fruit then they realized they were nude and rushed to clothe themselves. Does this mean in heaven that those there will become as children in order to become sinless. Or become something other than human? Wouldn't humans, being flawed beings incapable of purity and perfection, be unable to remain so unless they became something other than human?even if Christ was the one who brought about this change would there not be some intrinsic change to the individual?

As to them being offered the same opportunities as we are today. How can this be so when the religion was only open to the Israelites/Jews who had been chosen by God. If they all had the same opportunity how could they have even known about it when 1.it was only open to the Jews. And 2. If it was never spread far beyond Israel how would those souls even become aware of this opportunity? By this I mean they would have not only their own religions encouraging them to stay within their own faith, but also social pressures and such that even if there were missionaries at this time period they may not have been able to be saved simply as a side affect of the nature of their birth.

This isn't a question so much as a statement. I don't like the term "Christcuck" because its origins are shady, maybe even tinged with Leftism.

So instead, I came up with the term "Cuckstain" or "Cuck Stain". It sounds better to me but I would like to hear what you folks think.

How do you guys feel about using the words god and jesus christ as swears? By which I mean things like

>Jesus Christ!

Because despite having converted to Asatru I still find these terms slipping out every now and then

Is it "ayy-sah-true" or "ah-sah-true"?

>>13270

They both sound stupid to be honest. Insults are childish and make you look immature. Just call them christians, that word alone already has a negative meaning for us.

>>13277

I try to avoid saying/thinking it but sometimes it's funny the way people say it, like when Bill Burr is reading someone's e-mail and he goes "Oh Jeezus…" There are pagan alternatives in my language but they sound a bit forced.

>>13278

Ah-sah-true. (I think.)

>>13277

Christian baroque artists and poets saw no problem to speak, write or rhime about the gods and the christians even at their most zealous periods did not replace the names of the planets.

Language is something organic, if you force your stuff in it, it sounds weird and it will be equally weird to bite your tongue everytime you use a "bad" word.

Dont be like the 15 year old atheists who used to rant over themselves accidentally using "oh god" and stuff like this when the fedorag memes were still fresh.

>>13280

OW-SAH-TRU also works, the pronunciation differs according to the Scandinavian country

>>13270

They all work if you're shitposting and the bantz are flowing back and forth. Using them IRL would be pretty cringey, and using them in a serious discussion would be dumb.

>>13277

It's deeply ingrained and probably won't go away any time soon. Any alternatives will sound force and gay, like >>13280 said. Don't be that guy.

As an aside, some friends and I almost hit another friend's laptop with a baseball, and he screamed "BY ODIN'S BEARD" in a genuinely pissed off way, like it was the first thing that entered his head. We all had a good laugh.

>>13278

Embed related. I've also heard it pronounced "ah-SAH-tru," with a slight emphasis on the 2nd syllable. Sounds like that except easier for an English speaker.

>>13280

>They both sound stupid to be honest. Insults are childish and make you look immature. Just call them christians, that word alone already has a negative meaning for us.

This, this and this damn it.

>>13280

>>13281

>>13304

Thanks, I'll still stop trying to use them if only because I want to make a clean break from Christianity and using those words seems insincere. I have no intention of being a sperg about it though, there still plenty of other words to use and I'm not going to beat myself up about it if I accidentally use them

>>13277

"God" -singular- was already used by the Greeks and Romans even though they were polytheists, so you can use it without feeling guilty.

What is best in life?

>>13334

Crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before you, and hearing the lamentations of the women

>>13334

A heroic passage through it.

Anyone have arguments against this?

>>13410

Since YouTube is refusing to play videos past a certain point for me I only got halfway through it. However I can help with part of it.

His initial point is technically correct. doing things pagans did does not make them evil, and an easy way to avoid this argument is to simply say "I'm not against Christmas, I just think we should give credit where credit is due."

I find his next point that all pagan symbols are to be "reclaimed" for Christ or were all originally "made by god for good" to be both ridiculous and dangerous. Many of these symbols,including the swastika, predate Christianity and Judaism by thousands of years. But this does help us understand the Christian mind. All must be subservient to their god, anything that is not must either be destroyed or brought to heel

Him claiming that pagan holidays were moved to Christmas rather than the other way around is ridiculous considering many scholars put the birth of Christ earlier in the yearcloser to the summertime I believe meaning that if any dates were moved or changed it would be the birth of Christ to Yuletide and not the other way around.

That's all I can help you with, sorry.

>>13088

Nehalennia and the Three mothers are likely leftover remnants of paleo-European pantheons

>>13413

Christmas was moved to December so it could conform to Saturnalia, Hákon "The Goodgoy" moved Yule back by a few day so it could conform to Christmas.

This probably has been asked a million times, but could you guys recommend me any books to learn more about Asatruism? I always was interested in learning about it and becoming one, but I never knew where to start. At least when I was a Christian there was the bible, not that I ever read it, as I was never devout. I consider myself an agnostic theist/deist as I dont know if there are Gods let alone a single God, but I believe there's too many things pointing to the existence of a deity/deities than the absence.

>>13420

The Poetic Eddas are always a good place to start

>>13426

I'm a Burger on the East Coast and I'm 50% Germanic with the rest being Celtic and whatever Lithuanians are (Baltic? Slavic?), but I'm not actually sure where in Germany my ancestors hailed from.

What I'm looking for in Asatruism is inner strength and a sense of community. When I was a Christian I never really felt like I belonged, even when I actually involved myself in a group or bible study.

So if I'm getting what you're saying I should read up on Asatruism and dip my toes in, before I go into the deep end?

>>13429

Exactly.

If you "go deep" from the first moment on you wont go deep you just end up LARPIng like westeners who think bhuddism is always a peaceful cannabisreligion.

You need to think about what that "deep" actually means.

At the very basic what we crave for is ethnic spirit worship like people did and do all over the world. Then after that come the deeper insights, maybe, if we are lucky. Before that we have to figure out not only the how but also the why and if its only an exercise of self evaluation (hurr im so important im not just a lowly taxidriver im in touch with the spirit of taxidriving, hail taxidrius!) or if it truly inspires good deeds and living, and is a probably way things work in general.

Not only read up, look into a very personal apect of your life that feels as if it is important enough to connect to the worship of… something.

Some german peasants in the 19th century believed in pagan leftovers, like that every rest you didnt eat from your milkbowl /plate went to an invisible "mosswomen" which could occupie your house and life in it and was also tied to a tree in the woods. Just an example on how people saw their daily lifes connected to spirits.

At the very base stands the desire to see living beings asociated to the many processes that dominate our life from nuclear fusion to the embodiment of flaxfarming at that one designated field a family tended to and lived from since generations.

On top of that, the belief that these embodiments either know better then us or are in some way connected to the sucess of these processes and endavours we depend on and we define ourselves by.

Im drunk currewntly, so I might be rambing, but its so hard to come up with the reasons you wanna worship what hasnt been worshipped since a long time and all this stuff in general, we arent saints man, im seeking too and didnt find something yet : /

>>13088

>Hercules Magusalis

Most of the stones were found in the lower regions of the rhine+netherlands with mostly germanic names as listed dedicators/sponsors of the stones. Albeit there was also a temple build in a celtic style in which centre such a stone was found, but in the same region.

Some other stray ones have been sighted in italy, one in romania and one in scotland. It was normal for roman legionarys (which also means protodutch/germanic people from that area) to bring their cults with them and practise them in their outposts in foreign lands, so they did not have to mingle with the local population for divine rites.

http://edh-www.adw.uni-heidelberg.de/inschrift/suche?hd_nr=&provinz=&land=&fo_antik=&fo_modern=&literatur=&dat_jahr_a=&dat_jahr_e=&atext1=Magusa&bool=AND&atext2=&sort=hd_nr&anzahl=20

Magusalis got the Hercules byname as an interpretatio romania sign which means that the romans always tried to equate foreign gods to their own when there where similarities to make it easier for themselves and make a cultural brifge to the populations they wanted to civilise. The god is not importet, the way the romanized culture tended to and portrayed him can be called imported though , if you dont like that call him Magusalis and not Hercules I guess.

So Magusalis being most probably your local god and apparently having heroic characteristics which reminded of hercules, with the etymology either hinting at "Maguz/s-na-the powerful/strenght giver" or something related to the batavians main settlement.

>not well known

Well, you have a big bunch of archeological support to give you hints: http://www.tempelvanempel.nl/de-tempel

much more then there is for some beings from the scandinavian storys, albeit the story is lacking to describe Magu ofc.

In the end there was a reason people liked him and devoted offerings back then, so the "should" doesnt seem so much of a question, in faceof the how and your motivation to do so.

Wikiarticles in numerous languages seem to claim that it could also be the local name for thunar without giving greater sources, if thats true it would make things easier.

>>13818

Just because a religion has morality doesn't mean Christianity put it there. Loki was a fucking asshole and a scumbag, you would gain absolutely nothing from giving him worship; assuming there was a physical entity representing "Loki", he would probably fuck with you just for shits and giggles. As for Jotunn, the best metaphor I have is the "refugee crisis" in Europe. The Jotunn are like Muslims; they hate humans/Europeans, and are singly focused on destroying us and our way of life. To worship them is like giving Muslims your house and wife; you will be fucked over for it.

If you're looking to worship more "primal" and wild forces of chaos and le destrugdion, I don't have the solution for you, but I'll turn the question to the other anons on this board.

>>13818

>hurrrr christianity came up with moralism muh nietzche

>what is hubris

>what is Iscarus

*find a GENIUS loci

sry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutelary_deity

(yep germanics had em too, see offerings alps/elves)

i had heard that there are european equivalents to meditation and similar spiritual disciplines. does anyone here know more or know of any reading i can do on this?

>>13831

>meditation

Closest thing there is, is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesychasm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_meditation#History

of the eastern churches.

While the article references older roots to Platonists, the idea of meditation seems to be eastern and european equivalents are not less european but more hellenist-levantine, spanning a somewhat equal part of what is modern east and west.

>>14702

You are not muslim you dont need to convert her. Up until the 12th century people syncretised the shit out of both faiths on the countryside without much conflict but the one dictated by rome.

Its important from what countries you are to see how hard it will be to at least get some mutual acceptance going.

>>14702

Embody your beliefs and be a strong man that she wants to be with, she'll come around.

Hey guys, I'm very new to all this, and I have a hypothetical question.

Let's say someone did some degenerate shit the gods frown on, and a lightning storm moves right over them.

How badly did they fuck up and how do they remedy their transgression?

>>15046

>Let's say someone did some degenerate shit the gods frown on, and a lightning storm moves right over them.

The Gods usually punish people by using the runes to change their destiny. So, not much chance of a thunderstorm.