[Dont Tread On Me]

(Original post by Norton1)
Except these "religions" were basically made up in the sixties.

When my Grandad is older than the belief I tend to lend it little credence. I'd draw no distinction between this nonsense and scientology.

So what if they were revived in the sixties? A religions gotta start sometime.

[Norton1]

(Original post by Dont Tread On Me)
So what if they were revived in the sixties? A religions gotta start sometime.

(Original post by Hylean)
Well, given Ásatrú is based off beliefs from at least the 13th century, I think you can give them a little more leeway than your grandpa, Scientology or the wombles.

Fresh crap and old crap are still crap.

People believed it in the 13th century and then ... basically no one believed in it ... and then some people with too much time on their hands reinvented it.

Have you never examined the close textual similarities between the wombles and Ἄϊδος???

[Hylean]

(Original post by Norton1)
Fresh crap and old crap are still crap.

People believed it in the 13th century and then ... basically no one believed in it ... and then some people with too much time on their hands reinvented it.

Have you never examined the close textual similarities between the wombles and Ἄϊδος???

Well, I do believe a rather few over-zealous Christians with swords had a hand in that.

[Norton1]

(Original post by Hylean)
Well, I do believe a rather few over-zealous Christians with swords had a hand in that.

So what? A load of made up gubbins replaced another load of made up gubbins.

[Hylean]

(Original post by Norton1)
So what? A load of made up gubbins replaced another load of made up gubbins.

If you're not going to debate properly, please take it elsewhere.

[Norton1]

(Original post by Hylean)
If you're not going to debate properly, please take it elsewhere.

I don't take your point at all.

All this running about woods pretending to have some connection with nature is a sixties reinterpretation of something that was nonsense when people believed it 800 years ago.

No one now can possibly believe in Thor or Odin, you'd need to be actually mental. There's no debate to be had! It's not like you can point out anything Thor is meant to have done recently. It's like arguing about what Wolverine did in the latest issue of X-Men.

[JCC-MGS]

(Original post by Hylean)
Yes, it's a reconstruction based on Norse mythology.




I know full well what "ásatrú" means. As you can see from my signature, I have a degree in Icelandic and study in Iceland.

There is no such thing as a "European people".

The various tribes in Europe had a huge range of beliefs, of which the Norse mythology is but a very small part. Unless you wish to suggest the Celts worshipped the same gods; the tribes that later became the Finns, the Sami, the Greeks and the Romans. None of those groups worshipped the Germanic gods. So to suggest that Ásatrú reconnects "the European people to their ancient belief systems" is a flat out lie.

True, religions do evolve over time. Ásatrú isn't an evolution, it's a flat out reconstruction that at times takes rather huge liberties with the source material. It's generally accepted by scholars in that field that the mythology found in the Prose Edda and Poetic Edda bear little relation to the beliefs of the Scandinavians pre-Christianity; Prose Edda especially. There's the question of Christian influence, misremembering, deliberate change of facts, etc. Suggesting that Ásatrú bears more than a passing resemblance to what was probably a mixture of belief systems that Snorri and others condensed into one system is rather misleading.

As an example of a liberty taken, I know that certain Ásatrú sects believe that if one dies with a sword in their hand, they will go to Valhöll. Now, please explain why Óðinn or Freyja would wish to receive someone who has never fought a battle in their life purely because they died with a sword in their hand? Makes very little sense.

DENIED

[odin_is_rite]

(Original post by Hylean)
As much as anyone can be "European". There's no "hostility" towards them, I'm just pointing out the various flaws in your arguments. So, now we've done trying to divert attention away from them, care to respond to my points?

so you are not a european?

yes, i would love to carry on talking. i just wanted to see what you motivations were for being so hostile. i now know they are based on ill will.

such are the similarities of the ancient european belief systems ( roman and greek pantheons included) that there is obviously some sort of source religion.....of course, this source religion was an indo-european source - the indo european peoples sharing their pre history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-I...opean_religion


asatru focuses on norse mythology. it could easily have focused on any of the pantheons and it would not have made any difference. the fundamental essence of the religion is european ( indo european if you want to get technical: the vedas seem to be the expression of the 'indo' part of the 'indo european' peoples )


asatru is a religion for the peoples of europe. it gives them a chance to reconnect with their ancient beliefs and ancestry -- this reconnection is essential for the europeans and not so much for the 'indos' because the 'indos' have retained much of this source religion through the vedic texts.

[Hylean]

(Original post by odin_is_rite)
so you are not a european?

Did I say that? No, I said I am as much European as anyone can be. Given there is no such thing as a "European", ultimately. It's a political construct which has little validity in real life. I live in Europe and was raised and born there.

(Original post by odin_is_rite)
yes, i would love to carry on talking. i just wanted to see what you motivations were for being so hostile. i know know they are based on ill will.

I'm not being hostile, not really. I'm just highlighting some serious flaws in your presentation that you seem unwilling to discuss.

Also, I have no ill-will towards Europeans or anyone else, so stop trying to distract from the debate. It won't work and it's a weak technique.

I myself am a pagan, I just find everything you said to have little basis in fact and takes a lot of theories and tries to spin them as truth.

(Original post by odin_is_rite)
such are the similarities of the ancient european belief systems ( roman and greek pantheons included) that there is obviously a some sort of religion.....of course, this source was an indo-european source - the indo european peoples sharing a pre history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-I...opean_religion

That religion is a hypothesis and nothing more. To argue that it somehow forms the basis of Ásatrú is, yet again, misleading in the extreme.

Yes, there are similarities, but there are also similarities in religions not descended from Indo-Europeans. Carl Jung even has a term for such motifs: "archetypes". Folklorists even have a theory about motifs which spring up in societies without any discernable connection. Thus, it's quite possible for multiple societies to share motifs without them being related to each other.

Sometimes it's not just as easy to trace similarities as it is with the Greeks and Romans. This means it's simply not accurate to state that Ásatrú somehow contains this pan-European "essence", to use your term, as if the Europeans of that time actually conceived of themselves in such a way.

Talk about modern constructs...

(Original post by odin_is_rite)
asatru focuses on norse mythology. it could easily have focused on any of the pantheons and it would not have made any difference. the fundamental essence of the religion is european ( indo european if you want to get technical: the vedas seem to be the expression of the 'indo' part of the 'indo european' peoples' )

Clearly it would have made a difference, otherwise other pantheons would've been used. To suggest the choice of the Norse mythology was arbitrary is naïve at best and a lie at worst. I prefer to believe the former. Whilst certainly not racial supremecists, the AFA does stress race in its discourse, and it's not surprise that Norse mythology is the one most often used in racist discourse. More so than Celtic mythology, Roman or Greek.

The fundamental "essence" of the religion is Scandinavian, not European. Specifically, it is most likely to be Icelandic at the turn of the 13th century more than anywhere else.

[big-bang-theory]

(Original post by Hylean)
The various tribes in Europe had a huge range of beliefs, of which the Norse mythology is but a very small part. Unless you wish to suggest the Celts worshipped the same gods; the tribes that later became the Finns, the Sami, the Greeks and the Romans. None of those groups worshipped the Germanic gods. So to suggest that Ásatrú reconnects "the European people to their ancient belief systems" is a flat out lie.

This is mildly tangental but it's a bit of a grey area what exactly they believed about the Gods one another worshipped. Mainly because we have to assume Roman and Greek beliefs on other Gods are typical of religious polytheism in general (which particularly in Europe we have very good reasons to suppose they may have been quite different indeed given other huge differences) but also because it's an incredibly difficult statement to say what the Greek or Roman belief was. For instance if we find a Roman dedication to Vagdavercustis does he (as a Roman) have in mind the actual Roman god (after all the altar I'm referring to cotains only Roman iconography plus the German name) or a Roman counter-part such as the equation of Minerva with Sulis in Britain or a hybreed new God altogether (as indeed Minerva-Sulis could be interpreted as well).

Chances are it was dependant on the individual and noone really cared what other individuals thought so long as Gods got sacrifices and operated on good terms with humans.

Clearly most Western tribes were pretty willing to accept the Roman Gods as being worthy of paying respect to, we get Germans, and Gauls and Britons making sacrifices and dedications to them (or indeed the quasi-mix Gods) but did this represent lip service or actual belief in their existence and contemporary dominance?

This all of course raises interesting questions for the belief in one another's mythological background as well but it's something I've never particularly looked into. All very complicated really.


In any case your basic point that they believed different things and felt no mutual obligation to worship all identical deities (whether or not they thought other nations deities existed) remains true.