Why be an Ásatrúar?

[Toxikmynd]

Some people are so ignorant on topics, they really should look into a religion deeply before condemning.

 

[Sees]

There were temples, sacred groves, even whole forests and sacred islands...that's how we roll

Temples could be double duty feast halls. Some of the oldest ruins people are finding in Europe fit this. I think 6,000 plus years old. Don't expect lots of widespread publicity.

 

[Nietzsche]

I've been trying to read about ancient Paganism for a long time and have mostly been baited along by hints from imaginative minds. Northern European paganism was largely an oral tradition, and that tradition was to my mind, put to an end even before Christianity, by Roman legions killing the last druid who needed 20 years of study at Anglesey, by their armies destroying the sacred grove of Tanfana in Germany.

Whatever refractions of the faith that followed that great destruction in the 1st century couldn't have been as whole or complete as it once was. However if you really did want to go back to that faith, hints are left of what that might involve. 1st century North Europeans did not actually build temples, they cultivated extremely old trees. By Roman accounts they may have went about by and large wearing very little clothing. Their judicial system may have included the use of a giant wicker man.

I'm sorry, but this is just so full of errors that it'd be easier for me to just point out what you got right. But that won't help educate anyone, so here goes'


1. Celts & Druids are not Norse, even the Continental Germanics were not Norse.
2. Some of it was indeed oral tradition, but we have many a Runestone. And in regards to the Norse faith, many of the oral traditions have survived in the more isolated portions of Scandinavia.
3. It was the Continental Germanics that tended to hold their gatherings outdoors. The Norse did have temples, albeit they were more multi-purpose. The Althing was both a governmental organ and a religious one, though obviously they held their Blots outside.
4. There is precisely zero evidence the Norse ever used a "Wickerman".
5. Roman accounts are sparse, and while some likely did only go around in furs or what have you, that's not representative of the whole.

Arguably, everything has changed since then. Here we have the internet, machines, books, new ideas, international dialogue, individualism, homogenization, science, world crisis, mathematical theories, rock guitars, and much more.

One world. Skalds.

What tale can be weaved, what legend can possibly be wedded upon all of that? Does your version of the Old Faith also for example, make room for secularists?

The Northmen were nothing if not a cosmopolitan society. There's a Viking saying I am particularly fond of;

Respect your kinsman & the name of your house, for it was given to you to bear by your ancestors, and if you so deign honour the Aesir & Vanir. But for your faith, that is only for steel.

Or is this going to be just has unsharing of the social mind sphere as a medieval Christianity might be? You have to explain how you are bringing whatever ethics you are prepared to dole out into a modern age which appears to have some of kind of forward momentum, or is that something you want to put an end to, or is it somehow a non-issue?

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Some people are so ignorant on topics, they really should look into a religion deeply before condemning.

To be perfectly frank, you're not exactly a beacon of insight onto this topic either. He has misconceptions, that is all.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

How on earth did that affect all the Germanic peoples?

It was a very special sacred location to all the Germanic tribes. Most likely it was already a very ancient sacred grove by the time it was burned down. Something built can be built in a few years, a sacred grove must be cultivated and grown and takes much longer, destroying that would have been a spirit breaker.

They were certainly building temples later: we have descriptions of them. Archeology shows us what clothing they wore: not much different to that of the Middle Ages. As for the wicker man, I think you watch the wrong sort of films!

Again, I don't know if the really old traditions actually built temples, their view on the spirit was that it could not really be housed. Hence outdoor stuff like sacred groves or stone henge. The really old histories describe them as naked. The wicker man, you may not be aware, is actually mentioned in history by Julius Caesar.

I'd love to learn the religious significance of the rock guitar!

For example, I've heard that Paganism has become somehow associated with the metal genre. Take 'death metal' for example. Now that's probably not been around 40 years, but there already is a strict orthodoxy on how it should be done - are they channeling the growling vocals and sounds described in ancient history, or is it a newer tradition that the progressives should cultivate?

Obviously there's no room for atheists in any faith. But so long as they keep their big mouths shut, I wouldn't actually suggest stoning or burning them. On second thoughts, I might make an exception for Stephen Fry — I think slug pellets would be suitable in that case.

I don't really know much about him, but what's your gripe with his view?

 

[Toxikmynd]

@Nietzsche Yeah I know, I understand I'm not, but I'm at least learning more about it before I go around trying to claim things as fact.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

@ideogenous_mover If you live by what have been gleaned from the texts and distilled down to the Nine Noble Truths you would be pretty much living Asatru. The two main, if not only rituals, the blôt and symbel are really nothing more than shows of hospitality to the Gods, spirits, ancestors, and kith and kin.

Yeah, but about the ancestry and kinship thing. I just end up feeling real bad, because I'm an Angle. I feel like we trod on the land and stole from our brothers the Celts. We ravaged the Pagan Amerindians. The Aborigines. There is no honor in any of that for me, I think we should retract back to where we belong, and that perhaps the glory is in our diversity.

 

[Sees]

Yeah, but about the ancestry and kinship thing. I just end up feeling real bad, because I'm an Angle. I feel like we trod on the land and stole from our brothers the Celts. We ravaged the Pagan Amerindians. The Aborigines. There is no honor in any of that for me, I think we should retract back to where we belong, and that perhaps the glory is in our diversity.

Just like we hope for our children to be better men and women then us, with guidance and foundation from us/in us, we can hope our philosophical and religious aspects, and political views, everything - is a more evolved form of what our ancestors had, that we make better choices than they did - at times. Without getting lost in the idea new is always better.

There is no good in having lots of remorse for what they did, just understanding and dealing with its effect on the current and focusing on how we deal with things nowadays.

Also, in some ways, we are our very ancestors evolving and making changes today.

Celts spent less time in the British isles than we tend to think. Pre Indo-Euro folks fell to and blended in with Celts, Germanics, Slavs, etc.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

1. Celts & Druids are not Norse, even the Continental Germanics were not Norse.

Whoever they were, these northmen seemed to probably have some kind of association with the fading tribal unit, and wanted to carry the torch of paganism if they could. Faced with the dark ages society, the pre-industrial enslavement and parceling of land, it is a small wonder some would have wished to try and remain aloof and adventurous?

2. Some of it was indeed oral tradition, but we have many a Runestone. And in regards to the Norse faith, many of the oral traditions have survived in the more isolated portions of Scandinavia.

Can they actually be read?

3. It was the Continental Germanics that tended to hold their gatherings outdoors. The Norse did have temples, albeit they were more multi-purpose. The Althing was both a governmental organ and a religious one, though obviously they held their Blots outside.

Yeah, I know I've read they've found many ancient post-holes. Nothing left standing though, it was all made of wood.

4. There is precisely zero evidence the Norse ever used a "Wickerman".

No there isn't, and they may not have, I was just giving an example of what some of the ancient northerners may have actually did. However, they may have shared ancient sacrificial/execution systems like the 'three-fold death' and the sacrifices of iron weapons and tools in large sacred refuse piles in swamps or bogs. So it shouldn't be surprising.

5. Roman accounts are sparse, and while some likely did only go around in furs or what have you, that's not representative of the whole.

Even by the middle ages around the fall of the Roman Empire Northern European land was by and large vast and wooded. Being a woodsman was probably a common occupation, you could spent every winter of your life collecting furs and trading and selling them when you got back to a Roman city.

The Northmen were nothing if not a cosmopolitan society. There's a Viking saying I am particularly fond of;

Respect your kinsman & the name of your house, for it was given to you to bear by your ancestors, and if you so deign honour the Aesir & Vanir. But for your faith, that is only for steel.

I bet the pagans used to be made to memorize long genealogies, they all knew exactly where they came from. I guess I'm feeling quite cut off from any of that.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Pre Indo-Euro folks fell to and blended in with Celts, Germanics, Slavs, etc.

Well that's not good either, also a sin I think. All that pre-Indo-European ancient stone-work, and tombs, all that belonged to someone else as well. If those places were sacred to peoples or cultures preceding them, then are they forgiven? If the last Lakota dies with the last cultural wisdom in their mind passed down from hundreds of years, is that forgivable? If the last Greek meets his end, is the torch and great weight of all Greek history sent to the wind? Or is this the way of the ragnarok, all things demolished and rebuilt, foundations swept clean and foundations disintegrated?

 

[Sees]

Well that's not good eithit's also a sin I think. All that pre-Indo-European ancient stone-work, and tombs, all that belonged to someone else as well. If those places were sacred to peoples or cultures preceding them, then are they forgiven? If the last Lakota dies with the last cultural wisdom in their mind passed down from hundreds of years, is that forgivable? If the last Greek meets his end, is the torch and great weight of all Greek history sent to the wind? Or is this the way of the ragnarok, all things demolished and rebuilt, foundations swept clean and foundations disintegrated?

The way things are connected and cyclical don't work that like in my opinion... it's not all a move towards death, destruction, etc. What was old can become new and vice versa. Only thing we can do is strive for honoring and valuing diversity and freedom of others, denounce and fight imperialism and exclusivism - today. Try to cherish the more positive things we almost lost and see if we can use them today. Things being overcome and dying is definitely part of the world and worldview but it's not a primary focus or supreme.

 

[Nietzsche]

Whoever they were, these northmen seemed to probably have some kind of association with the fading tribal unit, and wanted to carry the torch of paganism if they could. Faced with the dark ages society, the pre-industrial enslavement and parceling of land, it is a small wonder some would have wished to try and remain aloof and adventurous?

That's...not true at all either. The Norse went a'Viking because they had a population boom. That forced younger sons & daughters to seek their fortunes elsewhere. They weren't interested in proselytizing. And they honestly weren't very tribal. General Nordic society is best described as a mixture between Spartan & Republican Roman, but with much more acceptance of upward mobility of the lower classes and just generally meritocratic.

Can they actually be read?

Very much so. I can read them. I actually know how to read Elder & Younger Futhark.

Yeah, I know I've read they've found many ancient post-holes. Nothing left standing though, it was all made of wood.

More or less.

No there isn't, and they may not have, I was just giving an example of what some of the ancient northerners may have actually did. However, they may have shared ancient sacrificial/execution systems like the 'three-fold death' and the sacrifices of iron weapons and tools in large sacred refuse piles in swamps or bogs. So it shouldn't be surprising.

We actually know a large amount on Norse ritual. Funeral pyres mostly, but for execution there was the Blood Eagle, decapitation, and ceremonial hanging.

Even by the middle ages around the fall of the Roman Empire Northern European land was by and large vast and wooded. Being a woodsman was probably a common occupation, you could spent every winter of your life collecting furs and trading and selling them when you got back to a Roman city.

Not really for the Norse. They were more interested in maritime activity. The best shipwrights on the planet during their day. They were some of the first genuine merchants, ferrying goods from one place to another in return for gold, silver and other things. And when they lacked for things, they would take it.

I bet the pagans used to be made to memorize long genealogies, they all knew exactly where they came from. I guess I'm feeling quite cut off from any of that.

Look up Icelandic naming tradition.

 

[Goblin]

im still only on page two of this discussion but i read this on norse-mythology.org

"Nowadays, the Norse gods and goddesses are often described as being “the god of this or that,” but this easily leads to the misinterpretation that the gods exist outside of these things and merely control them from a distance. A more accurate way of speaking about them would be to say that, for example, Thor is not “the god of thunder,” but rather the god thunder. This is not merely symbolism, nor is it an attempt to “explain natural phenomena” in a “pre-scientific” idiom. It’s an account of the direct experience of the storm as a personal and divine force."

it may be a good point to bring up

 

[Sees]

im still only on page two of this discussion but i read this on norse-mythology.org

"Nowadays, the Norse gods and goddesses are often described as being “the god of this or that,” but this easily leads to the misinterpretation that the gods exist outside of these things and merely control them from a distance. A more accurate way of speaking about them would be to say that, for example, Thor is not “the god of thunder,” but rather the god thunder. This is not merely symbolism, nor is it an attempt to “explain natural phenomena” in a “pre-scientific” idiom. It’s an account of the direct experience of the storm as a personal and divine force."

it may be a good point to bring up

Theology is a less talked about thing in Ásatrú than most theistic religious traditions. Part of the reason is people look at it with a this or that dualistic lens from other worldviews. I like to first work on overall perception changes then go onto theology. It's a whole new world so to speak, that takes some foundation for the pluralistic concepts to make some sense.

 

[Jainarayan]

Yeah, but about the ancestry and kinship thing. I just end up feeling real bad, because I'm an Angle. I feel like we trod on the land and stole from our brothers the Celts. We ravaged the Pagan Amerindians. The Aborigines. There is no honor in any of that for me, I think we should retract back to where we belong, and that perhaps the glory is in our diversity.

Sadly, I think that's the nature of our species... expand and dispossess other indigenous peoples. None of that makes it right, though. The genie is out of the bottle and I don't think he's going back in. I think the situation in Europe between ancient Celts, Germanics and other tribes was different than when Europeans came to the Americas, Australia and Asia. The Celts and Germanics may have fought and displaced each other, but from what I can see, it was an ebb and flow, plus the mixing of cultures. That didn't happen when the Spaniards, Portuguese and British conquered the Americas, Africa, Asia and Australia. They decimated whole civilizations. We don't realize how much of our modern culture is a reflection of those Celtic-Germanic interactions.

 

[Jainarayan]

im still only on page two of this discussion but i read this on norse-mythology.org

"Nowadays, the Norse gods and goddesses are often described as being “the god of this or that,” but this easily leads to the misinterpretation that the gods exist outside of these things and merely control them from a distance. A more accurate way of speaking about them would be to say that, for example, Thor is not “the god of thunder,” but rather the god thunder. This is not merely symbolism, nor is it an attempt to “explain natural phenomena” in a “pre-scientific” idiom. It’s an account of the direct experience of the storm as a personal and divine force."

it may be a good point to bring up

I reference that site a lot.

 

[Nietzsche]

Yeah, but about the ancestry and kinship thing. I just end up feeling real bad, because I'm an Angle. I feel like we trod on the land and stole from our brothers the Celts. We ravaged the Pagan Amerindians. The Aborigines. There is no honor in any of that for me, I think we should retract back to where we belong, and that perhaps the glory is in our diversity.

In fairness to the Norse, they were perfectly happy to have foreign wives or husbands. It was only after the introduction of Christianity that you saw the "these are lesser peoples until they accept Jebus" type of thing.

 

[Nietzsche]

The Celts and Germanics may have fought and displaced each other, but from what I can see, it was an ebb and flow, plus the mixing of cultures.

Basically. Their wars were more large-scale bouts of personal combat than a genuine war we think of today. People would come in, they would come out, come in again, so on and so forth. There were no attempts to eradicate peoples or to enforce culture on one another, simply because they didn't care to. You can see this with Rome as well. When they took a chunk of land, after they set up a Military Protector/Imperator and decided on the tax rate, they no longer cared how they governed themselves. The Imperator was there to ensure the taxes were paid, that unrest was quelled, and that foreign powers left the areas alone.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Basically. Their wars were more large-scale bouts of personal combat than a genuine war we think of today. People would come in, they would come out, come in again, so on and so forth. There were no attempts to eradicate peoples or to enforce culture on one another, simply because they didn't care to.

I guess one might find it curious that Brennus, after the Celts held Rome in the 4rth century BC, did not actually eradicate the Romans, but instead just demanded more gold. I guess that 'act of mercy' might be a good example of what you're talking about, but those wars must certainly still have had a vicious element no doubt.