/asatru/ - Asatru / Heathenry / Paganism

>>2921

This. Changing your name is disrespectful to your parents.

Besides that, languages and naming conventions change over time, so naming your children Haimiric because it sounds older is dumb.

>tfw literal Jew name

What would be a Germanic equivalent to Isaiah?

>>9974

I tend to agree with other anons that naming yourself wouldn't be right.

At least let your folk assembly grant you a new name (preferably close to your first name's meaning).

>>9974

This. Where a lot of christians miss the boat on being "traditional" is they conflate "(grand)parents" with "ancestors".

You seek the honor your ancestors while recognising somewhere along the line there's a divide past which some of them were engaging in a mistake and dishonoring their ancestors by doing so. What divides us from most of the "traditional christians" is that our loyalty is to ultimate tradition and ancestry… the most prominent, longest running and socially successful brand that can be found amongst the most of those who came before. Like modernists they cling to simply the newest tradition, and shriek and cry in its defense should their (last) millennial fad be tugged at. They love their two thousand years, but forget rome existed about that long, those gods at least two thousand years before that, and then the mycene gods at least another thousand before THAT if not also two. In other words, from what we can find the gods that came before christ are at least as old in general form (if not in detail) as the christians claim the entire world is and one can find the beginnings of the archetypes in the types of symbols used in neolithic ukraine/caucasia. In other words, you have gods about 6-10 thousand years old on a "6 thousand year old" earth. :^)

Their claims to tradition and being owed elder respect are then completely laughable. "Think of your last 15-20 ancestors and toss out the 1500-2000 before them in their favour! They're the most recent so they obviously have to be better! It's CURRENT YEAR, A.D.!" cries the adherent to the first form of hipster leftism. One has to picture an american who knows nothing of culture but (((blue jeans))) and (((television))) and nothing of his ancestors beyond his last 3-6 generations saying that, christian tradition being the only one he or she knows. No disrespect to any american heathens, but I'm you know what I mean by "that kind".

>>9993

This - Christians say "hurr your ancestors were Christian!" but only a small fraction were ever Christian in the grand scheme of things. Vastly more were Germanic polytheists, and vastly more still practised the traditions which Germanic polytheism organically evolved from.

Anyway, I think that we should aim to have Germanic names, but equally dropping names from your parents is kind of sad. I think the compromise I've settled upon being likely to enact at some point is simply taking extra names, dropping none; going from [first name] [middle name] [surname] to [first name] [three middle names] [surname], following >>9978's suggestion of preferably being named by people close to you rather than yourself, as long as they understand the need for a specific origin for the name. Keeping the closest meaning possible, too, is preferable.

An idea I had regarding shunting a surname forward to be a middle name while taking a new surname is that this is perhaps most appropriately done upon marriage, my idea being that you and your wife together settle on a new identity for your "new family line", as you're likely to be raising your children differently to how you were raised yourself.

>>10006

>An idea I had regarding shunting a surname forward to be a middle name while taking a new surname is that this is perhaps most appropriately done upon marriage, my idea being that you and your wife together settle on a new identity for your "new family line", as you're likely to be raising your children differently to how you were raised yourself.

That seems a bit unnecessary, doesn't it? Unless there's some historical account of christian converts changing their names I'm not sure what is particularly semitic about "hubert" or "armstrong" or "andersson" or "diehl" or "porter" or whathaveyou. It would seem names like that are as old as the civilisation regardless of christ. I guess it would have to go on a family by family basis but if your family was known as "bjornsson/bjornsdottr" since the bronze age regardless of intermediary conversions it'd be a real shame to change it.

>>10020

That's true, but you're right that it depends on the family name in question. There are names like Johnson which, while Germanic in form (-son), are clearly the result of a surname being "formed" by a Christian after the name John had found popularity in England. There are also names which while themselves are pre-Christian, must, again, have been taken/formed by some ancestor after Christianisation/Romanisation. There are Brits and Frenchmen with Latin-derived surnames who might consider themselves to "rightly" hold a Brythonic-, Anglo-Saxon-, Frankish- or Gallic-derived surname instead as part of their returning to their roots. To me, it echoes the sentiment above in leaving the religion of your more recent ancestors being worth it, as while it may be seen as disrespectful to them, it's honouring the greater part of your ancestry.

I have a Germanic first name, my middle name refers to where my ancestors lived, and my last name is a tree. I fucking love my parents