Written by totaliteraliter on 10.03.2009 at 17:50

Written by Konrad on 09.03.2009 at 23:49
What is truly remarkable is that Pagans never fought over religion. Although there were wars etc. they never tried to force their beliefs on anyone else for personal gain.

Written by Arian Totalis on 10.03.2009 at 08:35
And yes, that is one thing that i'm proud of; pagans never killed eachother in masses over religion.

"Never" is a strong word, and as far as I know quite false. Read up on the so-called "Bacchanalia incident" of 186 BCE, where pagan Romans executed thousands of followers of the foreign cult and banned most forms of Bacchic worship. That's just the first example that comes to mind.

My comment was in reference to Germanic/Norse paganism and yes, never is a strong word. Although there were wars fought in the times that Pagan Culture dominated, I don't ever hear anything in the news today about pagans blowing each other's cars up in Ireland, pagans fighting over oil and territory in the middle east, pagans fighting over political differences, and pagans using their beliefs as technological propaghanda in order to gain support from the people as some religions do.

There were many battles fought by pagans agains other pagans, but religion was RARELY if never the primary cause. If you can prove otherwise than so be it. It's easier to prove that something does exist or did happen, than to prove that it has never happened, so...if Germanic/Norse pagans fought over religion, prove that they did...that would be much easier than for me to prove that they haven't.

Written by Dane Train on 10.03.2009 at 17:49

Written by Konrad on 09.03.2009 at 23:49

What is truly remarkable is that Pagans never fought over religion.

Really? Do you have some data to support this?

See above.

Written by Konrad on 11.03.2009 at 18:32
My comment was in reference to Germanic/Norse paganism and yes, never is a strong word.

So you shouldn't use it. Especially since our information regarding the histories of these religions is relatively limited. And don't say "pagans" if you don't mean "all pagans."

Written by Konrad on 11.03.2009 at 18:32
Although there were wars fought in the times that Pagan Culture dominated, I don't ever hear anything in the news today about pagans blowing each other's cars up in Ireland, pagans fighting over oil and territory in the middle east, pagans fighting over political differences, and pagans using their beliefs as technological propaghanda in order to gain support from the people as some religions do.

If you're going to call the conflict in Northern Ireland a religious one then it's completely reasonable to call conflicts between pagans religious. In the modern era, look up violence associated with Sinhalese Buddhist groups, Hindu nationalist groups, etc. A few quickly-found links to give a bit of an idea of what I'm talking about...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VHP#Communal_Violence
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/23/AR2008112302100_pf.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babri_Mosque#Demolition_of_Babri_Masjid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_violence#Attacks_on_Muslims
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Civil_War

Written by Konrad on 11.03.2009 at 18:32
There were many battles fought by pagans agains other pagans, but religion was RARELY if never the primary cause.

This is an anachronistic viewpoint. The idea that religion can even be separated from other causes is a very modern one. In a sense, pretty much every "pagan war" can be described as a religious war, because in the time periods we are considering religion encompassed every aspect of life. Sacrifices were made, gods were depended upon to determine outcomes. Before the Romans began a war a priest was required to perform a ritual involving throwing a spear down in enemy territory. You might argue that wars waged by pagans were less explicitly religious than the crusades, for example, but pagan warfare would generally have been much more religious than our modern wars.

Written by Konrad on 09.03.2009 at 23:49

Also, the lost tribes wandered north after Nebuchadnezzar conquered Jerusalem around 600BC. Could the people of the Northern Lands be these tribes? It is interesting that the during their northern travels, the lost tribes came across other pagan cultures...which is why God had scattered them and allowed them to be led to captivity in the first place. So, could the Norse stories in reality be a mixture of Pagan history from other Lands and Judeo/Christianity.

This stuff is tied in with Indo-European tribal expansion that took place from around 2500BCE to 500BCE. Fanning out from their proposed homeland in Central Asia and the Caspian Steppe, the Indo-European tribes took their language and their religion with them to their new homes, in Iran, India, and Europe. That's why you see fundamental similarities not only between languages, but between religions such as Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Norse paganism, the ancient Greek religion, the Roman religion and even Celtic paganism.

Of course, one can never rule out some interaction between two groups of people leading to a diffusion of beliefs, but it's highly unlikely that the fundamentals of Norse paganism would have been altered by the presence of a few wandering Jews. Besides, Jerusalem to Germany and Scandinavia is a fucking long way. The Indo-Europeans, being nomadic horseman in their homeland, were able to spread far and wide, but for some reason I doubt the Jews could have done the same thing... When it says they "wandered north," I don't think it means quite that far north!

@totaliteraliter Why aren't pagans fighting today?

@Arian Totalis What I would like to know is maybe some of the "doctrine" of Germanic/Norse Paganism. Who or where we before this life if we existed at all, to where will we go after this life (all possiblities), and how or why are we here.

Written by Konrad on 13.03.2009 at 19:17
@totaliteraliter Why aren't pagans fighting today?

They are, if you would consult the links in my previous post you can see some examples. But there are a number of factors to consider - this is not a simple proposition you are making.

- Most of the world is not pagan (less than 30%, according to this)
- The only parts of the world with significant pagan populations are India, China, that region.
- They do fight: conflict between Hindus and Muslims is not uncommon. See above links.
- If you're only talking about pagan vs. pagan conflict, take a look at the Sri Lankan civil war. The mainly Hindu LTTE have according to some sources been responsible for more suicide bombings than Islam, against targets like Sri Dalada Maligawa (a Buddhist temple) in 1998.

What is your personal interest in Paganism?

Written by Konrad on 13.03.2009 at 21:01

What is your personal interest in Paganism?

What do you mean?

You know a lot about it...are you pagan? Are you strongly opposed to paganism? Other reasons why you are in this specific forum?

Being a metalhead, it's probably unsurprising that I would consider myself somewhat favourably disposed to some forms of paganism. Some pagan religions interest me while others do not. I am not a pagan, but certainly not anti-pagan. I just think we ought to look at the facts instead of throwing around false claims romanticizing paganism.

Written by Konrad on 13.03.2009 at 19:17

@Arian Totalis What I would like to know is maybe some of the "doctrine" of Germanic/Norse Paganism. Who or where we before this life if we existed at all, to where will we go after this life (all possiblities), and how or why are we here.

The term Doctrine implies a set of tenants of behaviors directed by a particular belief. What you are asking is held more in regards to Theological outlooks. However, why is the word Doctrine in quotation marks? Do you believe my doctrine to be illegitimate? I'm just wondering if there's any specific reason or...

Who or where we before this life if we existed at all
In the begining there was only a great void known as Ginungagap. At one end of this void there raged a great fire, and at the other end, there was a frozen sheet of ice and fog. As time went by, one of the sparks from the fire traveled across the void and made contact with the ice. When this happened a great storm began, and this was the storm of creation. From this storm came the first two living beings. These beings were Ymir and his cow Auoumbla. Over that night, from the warmth of his Arm pit, the first of the Jotun Race were born. Ymir gained sustenence by drinking from Auoumbla's teet, and Auoumbla herself gained sustence by licking the blocks of frozen Ice and salt the came as a result of the storm. One day, a hair sprang on Auoumbla's toungue. The next day, it took the shape of a man. On the third day, it took on the full shape of a man named Buri. Buri fathered Borr, who in turn with his wife Bestla fathered Odin, Vili and Ve. A day came when the Sons of Borr slayed Ymir. The blood from his wounds caused a great flood and killed all but two of the Jotun race- Ymir's grandson and his wife. The sons of Borr then used Ymir's body to create Midgard, the earth. His blood became the lakes and rivers, his bones became the mountains, his flesh became the dirt, his hairs became the grass and trees, and Maggots on his flesh became the race of Dwarves. Then they took driftwwod trees and turned them into the race of man. The sons of Borr then built a fortress of the Brow of Ymir to protect the race of man from the Jotun. Odin then came to them and taught them Manners and gave them knowledge. Thus mankind is created. If you like Therion you should listen to their album secret of the runes. They do a pretty good job explaining the theology.

to where will we go after this life (all possiblities), and how or why are we here.
Valhalla, the hall of the Brave, is where Half of the most honerable and Righteous in Midgard go after Death. Odin gathers them there in preparation for the final and great battle with the Jotun, Ragnarock. Valhalla is in Asgard, city of the gods, atop the World Tree, Yrgdrasill. At the root of the world tree, there is Hel. Hel is ruled over by a godess of the same name, and she is the daughter of Loki. It is said that Hel is a bleak and dismal place, however this may not be the case as this may simply be a side effect brought on by the christianisation of Germanic pagan regions. In either case, Hel is where your average guy goes and lives eternity in a Medeocre fashion. We also have the Hall of Freyja, Folkvangr, where the other Half of the Brave are recieved. They too will take part in Ragnarock. Ordinarilly this is the Hall of lovers where the Slain men can take their wives. As for why we are here, well, to be Honerable people. To always try to do the right things. Be a Righteous person basically. As for how we are here, I do believe I already answered that question

Written by totaliteraliter on 13.03.2009 at 21:53

Being a metalhead, it's probably unsurprising that I would consider myself somewhat favourably disposed to some forms of paganism. Some pagan religions interest me while others do not. I am not a pagan, but certainly not anti-pagan. I just think we ought to look at the facts instead of throwing around false claims romanticizing paganism.

That's a very good and valid point. Nothing should be looked at as anything more or less than what it is.

Written by Arian Totalis on 16.03.2009 at 18:15

Written by Konrad on 13.03.2009 at 19:17

@Arian Totalis What I would like to know is maybe some of the "doctrine" of Germanic/Norse Paganism. Who or where we before this life if we existed at all, to where will we go after this life (all possiblities), and how or why are we here.

The term Doctrine implies a set of tenants of behaviors directed by a particular belief. What you are asking is held more in regards to Theological outlooks. However, why is the word Doctrine in quotation marks? Do you believe my doctrine to be illegitimate? I'm just wondering if there's any specific reason or...

The reason I placed Doctrine in quotation marks is because I was not sure it was the right word to use. I trust you the information you give me and appreciate it greatly. My next question would be as follows: Do spirit and body united make up our soul. Did we exist as spirits before we received bodies of flesh and blood (mortal bodies). Will there be a resurrection(s)...if so, who will take part in this resurrection. Do we receive our reward after we are resurrected or is it just where our spirits go? I think I saw in the footnotes to the latest Finntroll album that it said something about a resurrection...sadly I couldn't understand the Finnish...oh, and thanks for the time by the way.

Written by Konrad on 17.03.2009 at 00:16

Written by Arian Totalis on 16.03.2009 at 18:15

Written by Konrad on 13.03.2009 at 19:17

@Arian Totalis What I would like to know is maybe some of the "doctrine" of Germanic/Norse Paganism. Who or where we before this life if we existed at all, to where will we go after this life (all possiblities), and how or why are we here.

The term Doctrine implies a set of tenants of behaviors directed by a particular belief. What you are asking is held more in regards to Theological outlooks. However, why is the word Doctrine in quotation marks? Do you believe my doctrine to be illegitimate? I'm just wondering if there's any specific reason or...

The reason I placed Doctrine in quotation marks is because I was not sure it was the right word to use. I trust you the information you give me and appreciate it greatly. My next question would be as follows: Do spirit and body united make up our soul. Did we exist as spirits before we received bodies of flesh and blood (mortal bodies). Will there be a resurrection(s)...if so, who will take part in this resurrection. Do we receive our reward after we are resurrected or is it just where our spirits go? I think I saw in the footnotes to the latest Finntroll album that it said something about a resurrection...sadly I couldn't understand the Finnish...oh, and thanks for the time by the way.

Do spirit and body united make up our soul.
It is less so thought of as the spirit and Body making up the soul and more so the concept that the Mind, Body, and Spirit, make up the individual here in midgard. The body, however, is merely an article of clothing which gorws ragged and sheds itself. That is when we ascend into our spiritual form. The spirit and the mind go on to another plane of existence (IE Valhalla or Folkvangr). The term "Soul" and "Spirit" essentially translate into the same thing: the essence of our etherial form.

Did we exist as spirits before we received bodies of flesh and blood (mortal bodies).
That's a hard question to answer. It comes down to the individual with that sort of thing. Nowhere does it say in the Eddas (that I know of at least) that we were spiritual beings before our souls were placed into bodies, but then again, it never says anything against that either. Because of my own unique system of beliefs, I think that there are both old and new souls. The spirits of some may be ancient, here since the begining of the earths creation as a micro-organism, being reborn untill this very point in time. Others are new, being born and created to bring new life to the universe. There are others though, who would say that we're all new, and there are also those who would claim that we're all old.

Will there be a resurrection(s)...if so, who will take part in this resurrection. Do we receive our reward after we are resurrected or is it just where our spirits go?
I'm afraid I don't fully understand this question. Do you mean will the dead be brought back to life at some point as some kind of reward? You'll have to elaborate for me.

And hey, no problem for the time. It's always worth it to leave someone educated about this subject

For my last question I was asking if the dead would be brought back to life, receiving immortal bodies and then a reward...or we just die and our spirits go on never to aquire a body again. Or is that also unclear (up to the individual).

Also, where can I read the Eddas or The Edda or whatever the purest form of paganism is...i.e. the Bible or Koran for this religion.

In fact after death human bodie become 21 gram less heavier than it was before death.Is that the weight of a soul?Pure energy wasted for ethernety?The answers are all beyond "that" side of a grave ......

Written by ANGEL REAPER on 23.03.2009 at 22:47

In fact after death human bodie become 21 gram less heavier than it was before death.Is that the weight of a soul?Pure energy wasted for ethernety?The answers are all beyond "that" side of a grave ......

What? I don't understand what you mean. Was that supposed to be a scientific apporach to spiritualism?....Or was that like a mocking question. I don't mean to seem rude, it's just that, who would even try to measure the weight of a spirit, or even try to equate it back to the weight of a physical body, for that matter...

Written by Konrad on 20.03.2009 at 21:56

For my last question I was asking if the dead would be brought back to life, receiving immortal bodies and then a reward...or we just die and our spirits go on never to aquire a body again. Or is that also unclear (up to the individual).

Also, where can I read the Eddas or The Edda or whatever the purest form of paganism is...i.e. the Bible or Koran for this religion.

Technically, the spirit is the immortal body. They are not physical, but it's still the true form of who you are, inside of that shell that we all think of as our bodies. Once you die, what good is a body? You are already immortal, as a spirit residing in one of the many planes of the afterlife (extending beyond Norse theology) but even inside of Norse theology, it applies the same way. Most pagan religions are like this.
The body is but a shell. When the shell is outgrown, what use is a body?

The eddas orgionally were manuscripts discovered and translated as stories of the Norse religion and also interpretations of the doctrine and theological practice of followers. There are two of them. The first is called the Poettic Edda, which is the elder, and the younger is the Prose Edda. Both of which are done in the form of poems. Thus, the eddas are thought of as Epic, poetic stories. The stories are conveyed by many peoples inside of different books. Everything from children's books to more sophisticated reading which can be used on an acedemic level or simply for independent practice. Here's a few examples
http://www.amazon.com/Norse-Mythology-Great-Stories-Eddas/dp/0486420825

http://www.amazon.com/Rites-Odin-Llewellyns-Teutonic-Magick/dp/0875422241/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237864231&sr=1-1

http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/08/c0/320253a09da044cc193a4110.L._AA240_.jpg

The last one is a children's book. One I read quite frequently in the fifth grade
s far as more info on the Eddas, here's a link;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddas

Any other comments, questions, or concerns?

You guys should make a distinction between national religions (note: national, not state), applicable to a specific cultural or ethnic group (Finnish deities, Germanic paganism, Aztec beliefs, Juche, in a less strict sense Judaism...) and universal ones like Christianity or Zoroastrianism, which tend to lure all humans disregarding their national background, instead of distinguishing between Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic ones.

I find it quite hard to believe in a national religion like BornOfWilderness in a globalized world. Sumerian gods were fine for Sumerian society, Finno-Ugric deities were fine for ancient Finns, but it's not easy to understand universal spirituality and mystic forces ruling the world if you concentrate on deities concerning a specific ethnic group. As he said, how would a native South American expect anything from a god with a Germanic name, a Germanic background, and best suited for North Europeans and people from North European descent (which South America is plenty of, for the record)?

Universal, sometimes imperialistic religions like Islam and Christianity, believe in the concept of Perfection, best described by Christian scholar Thomas Aquinas. On the contrary, many pagan gods have imperfections, vices and emotions. For example, Greek gods were anything but perfect, like immortal and extremely strong humans, but totally human in their behaviour. They were cruel and disloyal towards each other and their subdued humans, they lied, they hated and cheated on each other. The Abrahamic god, as understood by Christians and Muslims (and I'm positive about Ahura Mazda and other universal gods), is infinitely powerful and merciful - as long as you follow what the leaders of these organized religions tell you, of course. What I mean is that pagan gods as in the Inca and Greek belief systems are not designed as a role model for humanity. I'm not talking about Confucianism, North American animism, Jainism or Buddhism of course, which are indeed universal religions interested in keeping a healthy relationship between self, spirit and nature, and thus meant for all mankind.

As for me, I am agnostic, although I've been an active Roman Catholic, the most popular religion in my country, until I was 16-17ish and started to wonder about organized monotheism like Christianity or Islam: let's suppose we are worshipping an all-powerful God. If he is all-powerful, why the heck would he need anybody to worship him? If you worship an all-powerful Creator, that's your choice but it's wrong to tell others -not even forcing them, just telling them is already wrong in my book- to do so as well; besides, why would he care whether you go to bed with a member of your same sex, or whether you have read the Bible or not, and so on? Furthermore, what kind of a God would care for what happens near an uninteresting star in some insignificant spot of a galaxy somewhere inside the Virgo Cluster? I'm sure a God-Creator would have better stuff to do.

The main reason why I was religious many years ago -a Christian Marxist to be precise- was because: a) I could not find an answer for the creation of the Universe before the Planck time after the Big Bang; b) Catholic Christian theses about equality of all human beings were on par with my left-wing ideology; but I'm planning to get my grade as a physicist in less than a year and I've already been told in Cosmology lectures that the Big Bang theory is being abandoned in favour of new models of the birth of the Universe. That's why I am agnostic: I have no reason to believe in a God-Creator, much less in one who cares about me - but I find it foolish for humans to deny categorically the existence of superior forces, still being so primitive that we never left the solar system.

@Arian...would you consider Hindus to be Pagans? I have spoken with Hindu monks and they all have told me the religion actually is monotheistic, but they believe God can have many forms and attributes and they also accept all non-monotheistic religions to have truth in them. They also said so many Indians misunderstand the religion the monks find it is more peaceful to just let them think that the mainstream beliefs of the religion are actually what should be practiced. Without that being said I still would call it a stretch to say that infighting between Hindus and Muslims is a pagan conflict.

Written by Taktsekte on 24.03.2009 at 14:31

You guys should make a distinction between national religions (note: national, not state), applicable to a specific cultural or ethnic group (Finnish deities, Germanic paganism, Aztec beliefs, Juche, in a less strict sense Judaism...) and universal ones like Christianity or Zoroastrianism, which tend to lure all humans disregarding their national background, instead of distinguishing between Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic ones.

I find it quite hard to believe in a national religion like BornOfWilderness in a globalized world. Sumerian gods were fine for Sumerian society, Finno-Ugric deities were fine for ancient Finns, but it's not easy to understand universal spirituality and mystic forces ruling the world if you concentrate on deities concerning a specific ethnic group. As he said, how would a native South American expect anything from a god with a Germanic name, a Germanic background, and best suited for North Europeans and people from North European descent (which South America is plenty of, for the record)?

Universal, sometimes imperialistic religions like Islam and Christianity, believe in the concept of Perfection, best described by Christian scholar Thomas Aquinas. On the contrary, many pagan gods have imperfections, vices and emotions. For example, Greek gods were anything but perfect, like immortal and extremely strong humans, but totally human in their behaviour. They were cruel and disloyal towards each other and their subdued humans, they lied, they hated and cheated on each other. The Abrahamic god, as understood by Christians and Muslims (and I'm positive about Ahura Mazda and other universal gods), is infinitely powerful and merciful - as long as you follow what the leaders of these organized religions tell you, of course. What I mean is that pagan gods as in the Inca and Greek belief systems are not designed as a role model for humanity. I'm not talking about Confucianism, North American animism, Jainism or Buddhism of course, which are indeed universal religions interested in keeping a healthy relationship between self, spirit and nature, and thus meant for all mankind.

As for me, I am agnostic, although I've been an active Roman Catholic, the most popular religion in my country, until I was 16-17ish and started to wonder about organized monotheism like Christianity or Islam: let's suppose we are worshipping an all-powerful God. If he is all-powerful, why the heck would he need anybody to worship him? If you worship an all-powerful Creator, that's your choice but it's wrong to tell others -not even forcing them, just telling them is already wrong in my book- to do so as well; besides, why would he care whether you go to bed with a member of your same sex, or whether you have read the Bible or not, and so on? Furthermore, what kind of a God would care for what happens near an uninteresting star in some insignificant spot of a galaxy somewhere inside the Virgo Cluster? I'm sure a God-Creator would have better stuff to do.

The main reason why I was religious many years ago -a Christian Marxist to be precise- was because: a) I could not find an answer for the creation of the Universe before the Planck time after the Big Bang; b) Catholic Christian theses about equality of all human beings were on par with my left-wing ideology; but I'm planning to get my grade as a physicist in less than a year and I've already been told in Cosmology lectures that the Big Bang theory is being abandoned in favour of new models of the birth of the Universe. That's why I am agnostic: I have no reason to believe in a God-Creator, much less in one who cares about me - but I find it foolish for humans to deny categorically the existence of superior forces, still being so primitive that we never left the solar system.

When it comes right down to it, religion is something which is personal, and is not restricted to one's own race, nationality, ethnicity, or time frame. Simply because a pantheon may have a begining in a certain region of the world, does not mean those ideologies can't be shared or adhered to. The base philosophy of many religions such as Norse, North American, South American, Greek, and even Native Japanese religions, can be applied to many different aspects of every day life. Thus, in the society that one resides in, they have found a way to make what they feel is right for them work. Truly, anyone can belong to almost any religion, it just depends on how you adapt it to the world that you live in.

As for the concept of perfection inside of Abrahamic religions as opposed to fallability inside of pagan religions, that doesn't do anything to prove paganism as being less legitimate in the contemporary world. Pagan deities may be fallable, but at least we can accept the imperfections of our gods, and on top of that, learn from them. Different gods have different faults because those faults are part of the nature embued in the representation of the god. Aeries may have been hot headed and quick to fight, but he was a god of Chaos and war, so that was in his nature. Thus we learn both the positive and the negative from his example. Now, what about this concept of perfection inside of Abrahamic religions? I find it comical, because while the Abrahamic god claims himself to be perfect, he is just riddled with imperfections. He's supposed to have an unending capacity for love mercy, and yet he drowned the fucking planet because a couple of cities were partying too hard. He's supposed to be benevolent, yet simply to prove a point he made a bet with Satan that resulted in basically raping one of his followers of everything he loved. And yet, dispite this analysis, he's perfect? He's just as fallable as any pagan Deity, and all this concept of perfection does is hurt those who follow it, because it sends crosswired messages
to the followers, leading to many contradictions between the actual practice and the doctrine, and has done nothing but weakened it in spirit, regardless of how strong it may be politically/socially.

The fact is that both Pagan gods and the Abrahamic god are fallable. We are equals. Some people, though, seem to think that because we're older that we're "outdated." Well, all I can say is that I know what's right for me and that this idea of inferiority is irrealevent.

Not to say that you are of that opinion, however, I was merely trying to clearify that National religions don't have to be looked at as national, and merely because Abrahamic religions don't normally have single points culturally, doesn't mean that it holds any more legitimacy that other pagan beliefs.

Written by Konrad on 24.03.2009 at 20:14

@Arian...would you consider Hindus to be Pagans? I have spoken with Hindu monks and they all have told me the religion actually is monotheistic, but they believe God can have many forms and attributes and they also accept all non-monotheistic religions to have truth in them. They also said so many Indians misunderstand the religion the monks find it is more peaceful to just let them think that the mainstream beliefs of the religion are actually what should be practiced. Without that being said I still would call it a stretch to say that infighting between Hindus and Muslims is a pagan conflict.

I don't know what you mean about Hindus and Muslums, buuuut.....

Yes, I would consider Hinduism to be pagan. Although at the root of it, it is a monotheistic practice, most people don't realize that Hinduism has both a Pantheon of gods as well as a single God (Brahma) that makes up those gods, as well as the entire universe. In the end, the only reason why it is a Monotheistic religion, is because fundumentally hindus believe that all reality is, all the gods are, and all the universe is, is part of a Great dream that Brahma is having. When he wakes from his dream, then time ends untill he goes back to sleep. From then on, it all starts over. However, because they DO have many gods, all of which serve a different function, and they are in no way Abrahamic, then yes, I suppose that I would consider them pagans.

Written by Arian Totalis on 24.03.2009 at 21:54

Written by Konrad on 24.03.2009 at 20:14

@Arian...would you consider Hindus to be Pagans? I have spoken with Hindu monks and they all have told me the religion actually is monotheistic, but they believe God can have many forms and attributes and they also accept all non-monotheistic religions to have truth in them. They also said so many Indians misunderstand the religion the monks find it is more peaceful to just let them think that the mainstream beliefs of the religion are actually what should be practiced. Without that being said I still would call it a stretch to say that infighting between Hindus and Muslims is a pagan conflict.

I don't know what you mean about Hindus and Muslums, buuuut.....

Yes, I would consider Hinduism to be pagan. Although at the root of it, it is a monotheistic practice, most people don't realize that Hinduism has both a Pantheon of gods as well as a single God (Brahma) that makes up those gods, as well as the entire universe. In the end, the only reason why it is a Monotheistic religion, is because fundumentally hindus believe that all reality is, all the gods are, and all the universe is, is part of a Great dream that Brahma is having. When he wakes from his dream, then time ends untill he goes back to sleep. From then on, it all starts over. However, because they DO have many gods, all of which serve a different function, and they are in no way Abrahamic, then yes, I suppose that I would consider them pagans.

Not Brahma, but Brahman. It's a bit confusing, you have to differentiate between Brahma, Brahman and Brahmin. Brahman is I guess is what Hindus believe to be the almighty, which is at once an overarching entity and a microcosm found within the self. Brahma is part of Hinduism's version of the holy trinity. The three fundamental aspects of Brahman are manifest through Brahma the creator, Vishnu the preserver, and Shiva the destroyer. And Brahmin is the name of the highest caste. Confusing, I know...

The whole monotheism debate is always interesting. Various schools of Hindu philosophy teach things differently. The school I've been brought up with, Advaita Vedanta, states that there is only one supreme being (Brahman), but we worship its manifestations in different ways and forms (i.e. the pantheon). It also says that rather than looking for some overarching all-powerful entity, you have to find the almighty within yourself by seeing through the illusions of the world and attaining the universal truth (progression to what we call 'moksha').

Instead of writing a shitload of long paragraphs I will just say a few things:

1. Paganism>science
2. Paganism is closely related to nature unlike christianity

Written by Judas on 01.04.2009 at 16:35

Written by Arian Totalis on 24.03.2009 at 21:54

Written by Konrad on 24.03.2009 at 20:14

@Arian...would you consider Hindus to be Pagans? I have spoken with Hindu monks and they all have told me the religion actually is monotheistic, but they believe God can have many forms and attributes and they also accept all non-monotheistic religions to have truth in them. They also said so many Indians misunderstand the religion the monks find it is more peaceful to just let them think that the mainstream beliefs of the religion are actually what should be practiced. Without that being said I still would call it a stretch to say that infighting between Hindus and Muslims is a pagan conflict.

I don't know what you mean about Hindus and Muslums, buuuut.....

Yes, I would consider Hinduism to be pagan. Although at the root of it, it is a monotheistic practice, most people don't realize that Hinduism has both a Pantheon of gods as well as a single God (Brahma) that makes up those gods, as well as the entire universe. In the end, the only reason why it is a Monotheistic religion, is because fundumentally hindus believe that all reality is, all the gods are, and all the universe is, is part of a Great dream that Brahma is having. When he wakes from his dream, then time ends untill he goes back to sleep. From then on, it all starts over. However, because they DO have many gods, all of which serve a different function, and they are in no way Abrahamic, then yes, I suppose that I would consider them pagans.

Not Brahma, but Brahman. It's a bit confusing, you have to differentiate between Brahma, Brahman and Brahmin. Brahman is I guess is what Hindus believe to be the almighty, which is at once an overarching entity and a microcosm found within the self. Brahma is part of Hinduism's version of the holy trinity. The three fundamental aspects of Brahman are manifest through Brahma the creator, Vishnu the preserver, and Shiva the destroyer. And Brahmin is the name of the highest caste. Confusing, I know...

The whole monotheism debate is always interesting. Various schools of Hindu philosophy teach things differently. The school I've been brought up with, Advaita Vedanta, states that there is only one supreme being (Brahman), but we worship its manifestations in different ways and forms (i.e. the pantheon). It also says that rather than looking for some overarching all-powerful entity, you have to find the almighty within yourself by seeing through the illusions of the world and attaining the universal truth (progression to what we call 'moksha').

It took me a while to comprehend this...you're right, it's confusing

There is an indian girl I work with and I asked her about this, and she too, was confused. She didn't understand what I was getting at. What she said was that Brahman and Brahmin are merely different translations of the all-mighty from sandskrit. But I think I understand, as that would be easy to confuse. Okay, so, Brahman is the almighty, Brahma are the three aspects that make up the allmighty, and Brahmin are the highest (priestly) caste?

Written by Metalhead2 on 04.04.2009 at 00:24

Instead of writing a shitload of long paragraphs I will just say a few things:

1. Paganism>science
2. Paganism is closely related to nature unlike christianity

You don't have to write paragraphs, but could you please elaborate on this post?

Written by Arian Totalis on 07.04.2009 at 23:09

Written by Judas on 01.04.2009 at 16:35

Written by Arian Totalis on 24.03.2009 at 21:54

Written by Konrad on 24.03.2009 at 20:14

@Arian...would you consider Hindus to be Pagans? I have spoken with Hindu monks and they all have told me the religion actually is monotheistic, but they believe God can have many forms and attributes and they also accept all non-monotheistic religions to have truth in them. They also said so many Indians misunderstand the religion the monks find it is more peaceful to just let them think that the mainstream beliefs of the religion are actually what should be practiced. Without that being said I still would call it a stretch to say that infighting between Hindus and Muslims is a pagan conflict.

I don't know what you mean about Hindus and Muslums, buuuut.....

Yes, I would consider Hinduism to be pagan. Although at the root of it, it is a monotheistic practice, most people don't realize that Hinduism has both a Pantheon of gods as well as a single God (Brahma) that makes up those gods, as well as the entire universe. In the end, the only reason why it is a Monotheistic religion, is because fundumentally hindus believe that all reality is, all the gods are, and all the universe is, is part of a Great dream that Brahma is having. When he wakes from his dream, then time ends untill he goes back to sleep. From then on, it all starts over. However, because they DO have many gods, all of which serve a different function, and they are in no way Abrahamic, then yes, I suppose that I would consider them pagans.

Not Brahma, but Brahman. It's a bit confusing, you have to differentiate between Brahma, Brahman and Brahmin. Brahman is I guess is what Hindus believe to be the almighty, which is at once an overarching entity and a microcosm found within the self. Brahma is part of Hinduism's version of the holy trinity. The three fundamental aspects of Brahman are manifest through Brahma the creator, Vishnu the preserver, and Shiva the destroyer. And Brahmin is the name of the highest caste. Confusing, I know...

The whole monotheism debate is always interesting. Various schools of Hindu philosophy teach things differently. The school I've been brought up with, Advaita Vedanta, states that there is only one supreme being (Brahman), but we worship its manifestations in different ways and forms (i.e. the pantheon). It also says that rather than looking for some overarching all-powerful entity, you have to find the almighty within yourself by seeing through the illusions of the world and attaining the universal truth (progression to what we call 'moksha').

It took me a while to comprehend this...you're right, it's confusing

There is an indian girl I work with and I asked her about this, and she too, was confused. She didn't understand what I was getting at. What she said was that Brahman and Brahmin are merely different translations of the all-mighty from sandskrit. But I think I understand, as that would be easy to confuse. Okay, so, Brahman is the almighty, Brahma are the three aspects that make up the allmighty, and Brahmin are the highest (priestly) caste?

Brahman is the almighty (as an abstract concept), Brahma is the creator god (one of the trinity that makes up the almighty), and Brahmin is the priestly caste at the top of the caste system. The three most fundamental aspects of Brahman are creation, preservation/observation, and destruction, so that's why we have the three chief gods: Brahma the creator, Vishnu the preserver and Shiva the destroyer. People don't generally worship Brahma (there's an interesting mythological story behind this but I don't have time to tell it here), so that's why the various manifestations of Vishnu and Shiva are the most widely worshipped deities in Hinduism.

The distinction between Brahman, Brahma and Brahmin is pretty obvious when the words are written in any Indian script, because phonetically they're different.

Wiki offers a pretty decent explanation of our trinity concept. Trimurti.

Namaste everyone, after a long time I'm writing a post here

I felt like typing something on reading the opinions related to hinduism above, and I'll write in a very few words.

The core of hinduism in fact leads one, or better say points the way beyond the sphere of words. Words indeed serve as a signpost and nothing more. Is Brahma(n) or parabrahma understood just on reading something about it? Not. One must still one's mind, and realize the absolute consciousness right in this birth. It is not a religious promise of something posthumous. Thus have the wise taught in the texts of hinduism.
I'd like to end this post saying that we should not come to conclusions hastily, and should not make opinions and judgements and conclusions based on superficial study. In this context (I'm talking about Hinduism now), there will be no confusion if you read the hindu texts.
For those interested, I'd like to recommend followng material for further study: the upanishads (at least the first 11 ones), the gita (Srimadbhagavata, Avadut, astabakra), advaita bodh deepika, writings of various masters like sankaracharya, vidyaranya, sri aurobindo (the secret of the veda, the life divine, the philosophy of the gita), swami sivananda, swami krishnanda (The study and practice of yoga volumes I and II) etc.
You can easily find these materials in the internet.

Hmm i usually describe myself as 'almost pagan' lol i'm not really a pagan ill explain,

Humans should not exsist, all humans tend to do is destroy nature. At the moment we are anoying nature so much nature is stiking back (hance all the natural disaters happening recently, we humans have pissed natur off too much by building and destroying nature)

However as we are here we should try and live in harmony with nature as much as we can. I do this by planting umerous plants in my garden, feeding birds etc. aslo it can be done through majick, using majick to heal 'bad energies' in places, to bring calmness and happiness where there isn't any.

I also belive that while we are here we should use majick to our benefit and clenses ourselves of bad energies and use majick to empower ourselves in situations.

Now majick is the power of nature, it is neither good or bad but can be used for either and be used to empower and induvidual.

Our souls come from nature, the power which is majick, and are like a battery for the body. when we die our souls are taken back into the power, however some souls are strong enough to keep consious though and can even manipulate the power. (these become ghosts and poultergiests etc)

(i use the word majick instead of magic to distance it away from rabbits in hats, that is illusionism and isnt even a religeon, it's entertainment and has nothing to do with my belives)


hmm, 1st time i've written that down.

hope you had fun reading!

Written by totaliteraliter on 11.03.2009 at 20:50

Written by Konrad on 11.03.2009 at 18:32
My comment was in reference to Germanic/Norse paganism and yes, never is a strong word.

So you shouldn't use it. Especially since our information regarding the histories of these religions is relatively limited. And don't say "pagans" if you don't mean "all pagans."

Written by Konrad on 11.03.2009 at 18:32
Although there were wars fought in the times that Pagan Culture dominated, I don't ever hear anything in the news today about pagans blowing each other's cars up in Ireland, pagans fighting over oil and territory in the middle east, pagans fighting over political differences, and pagans using their beliefs as technological propaghanda in order to gain support from the people as some religions do.

If you're going to call the conflict in Northern Ireland a religious one then it's completely reasonable to call conflicts between pagans religious. In the modern era, look up violence associated with Sinhalese Buddhist groups, Hindu nationalist groups, etc. A few quickly-found links to give a bit of an idea of what I'm talking about...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VHP#Communal_Violence
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/23/AR2008112302100_pf.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babri_Mosque#Demolition_of_Babri_Masjid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_violence#Attacks_on_Muslims
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Civil_War

Written by Konrad on 11.03.2009 at 18:32
There were many battles fought by pagans agains other pagans, but religion was RARELY if never the primary cause.

This is an anachronistic viewpoint. The idea that religion can even be separated from other causes is a very modern one. In a sense, pretty much every "pagan war" can be described as a religious war, because in the time periods we are considering religion encompassed every aspect of life. Sacrifices were made, gods were depended upon to determine outcomes. Before the Romans began a war a priest was required to perform a ritual involving throwing a spear down in enemy territory. You might argue that wars waged by pagans were less explicitly religious than the crusades, for example, but pagan warfare would generally have been much more religious than our modern wars.

hmm hey may mean 'pagans ighting religous pagan wars' as opposed to fighting a war but using you're belifes to help you.

E.G christian crusades as bieng an obvious religous war

Wars of the roses a war where they were fighting over power for the throne of england in which both sides called on god for help.

I personally belive paganism is too personal for large groups to fight over really. In modern times at least.

Also The war in iraq was a holy war, bush called on god to help the american army.

lol sorry for rambling, i just reacetd to what i read in the posts before this one, so if i have written about something you wern't talking about sorry.

just my two pennies worth.