How Iceland recreated a Viking-age religion
bbc.com
bbc.com
So have other religions. Millions of people use Christianity (especially the evangelical sort) as an excuse for their white-supremacist behavior. The intersection of religious and ethnic-supremacist beliefs even exists among some Muslim and Hindu adherents. I'm sure I could find other examples, despite the fact that most religious people practice their respective faiths with peace and respect toward others.
So I'd say don't feel bad about it. The more counterexamples there are, the weaker the white-supremacists' excuse becomes. If you want to honor your own heritage without denigrating others', more power to you.
As for "most people" practicing their faiths with peace and respect toward others (meaning those not following the same faith), I'd say that most of history contradicts that claim.
It's the same with Islam. I can easily find many Islamic religious leaders who will happily tell me that violence to promote their brand of Islam is good and right. Are you even a Muslim? No? Then why should I believe you over them about what the "correct" teachings are?
The (nominally) Christian Germans were also planning to exterminate Poles because they were of inferior Slavic lineage (not caring that they were Christian/Catholic):
It it attractive because it is a sleeper religion with many facets and traditions of modern life tracing their roots back to that Scandinavian heritage.
I made the case that it's the height of foolishness to cede an entire spirituality and the foolishness only increases the more severe the generalizations get.
You linked a book. Like a christian links a bible study guide when they can't formulate the words required to express their point.
Good to know personal responsibility is present in heathens at volume similar to the christians I grew up with. Do better. For the sake of your religion and Tolkien, and for the sake of the ink I got to celebrate him.
Random viking-ish armor sellers on imgur do a better job than pagans at large in defending their spirituality if this thread is anything to go by. I am not joking in the slightest either. https://i.imgur.com/AZD4njS.jpg
Weak. Very weak.
I'm not a heathen preacher. I will counter falsehoods I see, but I let people discover the religion themselves. If I were to tell other heathens how to practice their religion, I would be just as guilty as a christian for being judgmental looking down my nose.
> Random viking-ish armor sellers on imgur do a better job than pagans at large in defending their spirituality if this thread is anything to go by.
I don't use HN as a platform for"defending my spirituality". I engage when the topic comes up, but it is not my life mission to convert unbelievers.
> For the sake of your religion and Tolkien
Tolkien isn't part of my religion.
How does it feel knowing that a conservative catholic (tolkien) and ex-christian atheist southern american latino (me) care about - and wears - your aesthetic better than any nordic native or heathen in this thread so far? My convictions seem to be stronger despite this being the spiritual equivalent of how tourists use egyptian hieroglyphics.
Don't worry, I'll have flavor and force of will for your religion's (objectively speaking, very awesome) aesthetic SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO.
https://i.imgur.com/EX3fLpS.jpg
Is this a thing vikings did by the by? No wonder the confusion between what ritual survived as pagan and what became christian and vice-versa is so muddled. It's like lifting pollen from fields! Just straight up, boot-to-face subservience. Tsk tsk.
Coincidentally, when I picture the arm of someone who gets weirdly overly aggressive with random strangers online, that is the exact type of arm I see in my mind's eye!
Meh. Do what you like. However, if you feel there's a point to the topic that's lacking, feel free to look past any perceived personal slights and contribute constructively.
Come on man. At least I put my money where my mouth is and showed my real and inoffensive (albeit highly aesthetic and nerdy) attachment to these symbols and why such generalizations are pretty unfair to perpetuate.
Of course, someone immediately ignored the point and judged me by the skin. But wouldn't have posted if it were unexpected. The quality of passionate social discourse on HN remains ass, world goes on.
We scandinavians sure don't.
So in other words don't listen to inbred racists, listen to more chill inbred people who kick back with a beer and praise Odin inclusively, with whoever happens to show. Sounds about right.
Not really a viking or heatenistic attitude, when you think about it. I suppose that's why the fabled nordic hardiness is just that: fabled~
> “It’s about being honest, upright and tolerant,” Hilmarsson said. “Respect for nature is also important. You have to make sure you live in harmony with nature.”
> The association rarely wades into politics, but it has made exceptions, most notably by campaigning for same-sex marriage
Someone else posted this link which claims it is indeed a real problem: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/11/as...
Those two factors lend themselves to white supremacists wanting to model themselves on those stereotypes, never mind that reality was much more nuanced than those stereotypes (which developed specifically from the English complaining about their invaders rather than from any actual understanding of Scandinavian culture/society) or that hardly any of these white supremacists would make much of a Viking warrior (stereotypical or otherwise) anyway.
People want to keep their thing “theirs”.
There are also questions, valid or not, about co-opting and appropriation. If we use some of these metrics then aspects of other minority interest groups can be also seen in a negative light.
In all cases, racism can be an issue with a minority of the people in these groups who make the experience for outsiders (and some insiders) unpalatable to say the least.
The BBC piece explicitly mentions this - with almost no ties to politics and an open door policy for all people - but I am aware that other groups are not as open. This cannot, however, be generalized.
Some folks do hold the believe that people with a different heritage should follow their own culture's roots, which often results in a very similar line of thoughts an beliefs, yet differs in customs, names, rituals ..., but ultimately leads to the same guiding principles. I personally don't agree, given our modern societies, but it can be regarded as a valid thought that is not driven by racism, but merely by the guiding idea of remembering the old ways, regardless of where those might be rooted.
Jesse Byock's translation of Snorri's Edda touches on the historical aspect of this in the prologue as well as his annotations. It's a great read if you are interested.
A friend once explained this to me thus: "A person should have the religion he or she needs."
It's not even relevant to your viking nonsense. It's just LOTR. But people are being so submissive toward the peckerheads that they're just handing over entire spiritualities without a fight apparently and making it worse for people like me who aren't even in the fight.
It's honestly pathetic. Heh.
Edit: More on the point of being pathetic. Wouldn't the ancient pagans or vikings hate how pathetically submissive people are being here? Historical vikings weren't isolationist or racist from what evidence we have. By their nature they really couldn't be to grow their tribe.
What next? Are you going to settle and accept that occultism and satanism is for white supremicists too? Further play into the hands of the Christian church?
Manowar uses pagan symbology and runes in many of their songs, it's a very common thing in heavy metal. Are you going to play into the hands of the Christian church and let that be considered white supremacist too? Where does this cowardice end?
Furthermore, even though at first I found paganism and viking lore highly interested. I'm beginning to sour of it. But purely because its adherents allowed it to be labeled in this way and therefore make me feel like I did something wrong for getting something from a fictional book. This is spiritual cowardice on a level so profound it affected fiction. Pathetic. Ugly and pathetic.
just laugh at the hysteria and attempt to deprogram the people co-opted by this moral panic in your every day life.
The ADL specifically says to evaluate all things in context. Note the similarities in the caution they advise while evaluating here. The people - the cowards, the milk drinkers, the tools of the christian church and establishment - in this thread making the unwise choice of submitting their spirituality to peckerheads wholesale. Would do well to take note of that advisory:
https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/okay-h...
https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/runic-...
I'm getting sick and tired of feeling bad for loving Tolkien because these so-called heathens and vikings are such fucking cowards. I'm in this thread giving your spirituality more defense than you are and I DON'T EVEN CARE ABOUT IT.
Someone else should have done the hard work of defending the reputation, so you could enjoy their success?
Are you sure you want to be calling them cowards from that position?
I enjoy Tolkien's success. This is the point I'm trying to make. I'm a bystander here and would not even be aware of pagans beyond a superficial level had it not been specifically for the fact that their adherents have failed so badly at keeping their own tribe in check. I found out about all of this long after I got the tattoos. But I still have to feel like a party to it for no reason but superficial resemblance of runic alphabets.
And yet I'm the only one that seemed to have been interested to expand upon my position so far. There's at least 3 heathens here by my count. I guess I'm fine with the notion that I'm a bigger badass than a self-proclaimed viking in this sense. Why shouldn't I call them cowards if I'm more willing to step up for a fictional mythos than one they consider a real part of their daily lives?
P.S. I am doing part of the hard work in defending their reputation for them by making a point about context. I will not feel like a bad person for wearing Cirth runes. And they will be with me forever, and I will happily discuss the difference with anyone who asks me. And when I do explain the difference it will start with "It's not actually norse or pagan, I know what you mean but those are dying niche religions used by rednecks and slavic meth heads, it sucks but you can't judge a writing system by it".
Are you? You might not be interested in the culture war, but the culture war is interested in you.
>adherents have failed so badly at keeping their own tribe in check
Keeping their "tribe in check" is a misnomer. They were annexed as the latest proxy battle in the larger cultural war. Why should the people deeper in the subculture have to take more ownership of that outcome than you do?
It's not about the thing anymore, it's about branding the thing Team Edward or Team Jacob, and anyone who wants to go back to Team Not Getting Involved is run out on suspicion of vampirism/werewolfism.
Your example of branding is appropriate because at this stage I can't see paganism as anything more than a satire religion in the vein of bob or FSM or hell even the Twilight fanbase while we're at it. The edginess is all equally adorable.
They have half-remembered christianity-mingled rituals and holy men, probably. Just like how the Church of the Subgenius has a preacher and gospel and we're all adherents of Bob or the FSM when praying that our code runs. Only difference is that they pretend that it has age and significance that - for all they know - could be the result of christian priests wiping their butt with old norse practices as any correct ritualistic lineage.
I wish they would be honest about the fact that they are satirical. Things already readily not taken seriously are anathema to the fascist. So it wouldn't even be an issue if they were honest. No one is trying to appropriate Bob's face to be an edgy viking. Maybe they should get their branding together so people like me don't have to clarify it being for entertainment value only.
I don't get it, you let the people you detest tell you what (not) to do?
Prominent Nazi party leadership was very fond of dogs, gardens, ice cream, roads, and a lot of the other nice things about being alive after the industrial revolution; you're just going to let them have all that stuff?
Chances are that for 99% of the things you like, there exists a contingent of racists who like it just as much.
In what universe is Paganism as iconically linked to Naziism as simplified swastikas and almost-square moustaches?
Actually, I'd be happy to let them have the dogs. Dogs smell bad and are just a big pain in the ass if you live in an urban environment. They just aren't good indoor pets, and I have no idea why every single woman these days has to have one.
As for roads, we'd be better off with fewer roads and more railroads and trains. But Hitler was famous for getting the trains running on time...
Asatru is 1 of 2 type of people:
- Racial purity hate group types
- Reconstructionist pagans (that often have only loose genealogical ties to the peoples they claim their religion is based on)
To some extent perhaps, the non-hate group types are very very guarded and closed to outsiders in my experience, they are generally private to those outside of kin (blood relation) and kindred (like a coven, church, clan, group) which are often pretty small groups of people.
For those remotely interested just go randomly browse /r/asatru and /r/heathenry for the non-racist types and make your own observation.
Personally I find them to be an interesting lot, there are quite a few that still do blood sacrifices and from their self-reports on ritual it seems to largely just be a lot of getting together, getting drunk, and dancing around in a field/woods/someone's yard with the occasional mention of some practice or ritual that may or may not have a basis in historical reality, usually based largely off of a modern book or a combination of archaeological discoveries and surviving myth/poetry.
The subtext from the BBC is interesting, the Viking gods are 'morally ambiguous deities', the arrival of christianity is summarised by 'the country abandoned heathenry'. Is worth noting that heathenry is still a synonym in english for 'uncivilised'. This is presumably to stand in contrast with some notion of the supposed moral certainty and civilisation of the Abrahamic god. The BBC should really be above playing team sports with religions, but I guess they just can't help themselves.
And "Heathenry" is a term used by practitioners of this faith. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathenry_(new_religious_movem... If it's got a negative connotation, well, that's the limits of working in a colonizer language.
Does it? I seem to remember a part in the Old Testament where the Abrahamic god orders his followers to commit genocide against some other tribe. How is that "doing good"?
Norse religions, on the other hand, make no such claims about their gods. Within the context of Norse beliefs and religious moraloty, Odin has done evil things, Loki has done evil things, etc. That is why, within their own system of beliefs, the gods are morally ambiguous.
Presumably you believe you are an accidental combination of chemicals, here because other chemical mixtures were the "fittest" -- often, the most ruthless.
On what basis does a fittest chemical blob say "you ought to..."? You need an objective moral standard for that and you won't find it in your chemistry set.
* https://brandonvogt.com/did-god-command-genocide/ * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtXAQzqVv5s
This news article is reporting on the beliefs of a Viking-age religion. It is not attempting to say that the actual gods of that religion are actually morally ambiguous.
* https://brandonvogt.com/did-god-command-genocide/ * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtXAQzqVv5s
This idea that the OT God was evil dates back millennia, to the point that some early Christians thought that the OT deity was a completely different one than the NT deity:
The Norse gods are about family. They do whatever is needed to protect and help kith and kin. Lumping Odhinn and Thor with Loki as examples of moral ambiguity shows a total misunderstanding of the roles of each of the gods in Asatru.
And, implying the three Christian gods are paragons of virtue is laughable. There are examples of genocide and infanticide scattered throughout the Bible - it is a veritable bloodfest of violence. To say otherwise would be misleading people about the subject...
The canon of christianity includes the torah, and it is certainly filled with tales of a terrible god. But the gospel is much more generally virtuous. I'd say the inclusion of the torah provides a great context for the contemporary religion around the time of Christ's life but not a very good model for religion at all.
Are we talking about the same god? The god that orders his most observant follower to sacrifice his own child then changes his mind when he attempts to obey, the god that apologises with rainbows after committing genocide, the god that has to incarnate as a member of his own creation and then be sacrificed by others before he truly gets what it is like to be mortal? That god?
If you read the bible as a story about this deity called Jehova or whatever, it does not read as everything-I-do-is-right, but more about a flawed character that slowly goes through a process of personal discovery, who hasn't really benefitted very much by having a load of hangers-on worshipping him. Was one of the things that convinced me as a child that the bible probably wasn't all that reliable as a guide to cosmology. God as portrayed in that book, is actually far too human to have created the universe, at least that was my rough opinion at the age of 11 and it hasn't really changed that much since.
That's the sense in which he's the everything-I-do-is-right God of Abraham. The same is not true for the Nordic gods or the Greco-Roman gods. The Book of Job probably makes this point the most powerfully and clearly.
As an aside, it doesn't really make sense to judge historical moral norms by modern 21st century ones. Morality is an anthropological/sociological phenomenon, not some kind of measuring stick we can sensibly apply to other cultures and times.
I'm not missing the point, I am making the point that this is just what his followers say and if you read the bible as a story about this character god, then you can get a very different impression.
Depends what you mean. I described this take on the bible many years ago to my local minister, who was also the minister attached to my primary school and so would have been the person to give me my first bible, and he admitted that he was agnostic, but felt he did a lot of good in the community and if he went around telling people that he wasn't sure if God existed then they would probably stop listening to him.