/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17625154]

What are some books that can introduce me to paganism?

[Anonymous No.17625170]

Campbell's Masks of God series. Read Primitive Mythology and Creative Mythology if you don't want to read all 4.

[Anonymous No.17625180]

Tradpaganism is possibly the only thing that could surpass fedora atheism and tradcathcuckism in terms of being obnoxious

[Anonymous No.17625182]

[Anonymous No.17625290]

>>17625154
Animefags shouldn't be pagans, go read the bible

[Anonymous No.17625324]

>>17625290
That's not anime though, retard.

[Anonymous No.17625369]

>>17625180
This. New Atheism (aka Enlightenment belief system) and Christianity are two religions with living tradition uninterrupted since conception.
Paganism simply does not exist anymore. You cannot possibly be a pagan in this day and age. You can only LARP.

[Anonymous No.17625376]

>>17625324
Why do you even know the difference, retard
>>17625369
This has to be bait lmao

[Anonymous No.17625384]

>>17625369
>with living tradition uninterrupted since conception
Only larpers think this matters. Truth is not deoendent on whether you can pretend to be a crusader with it. Also countless pagan religions have an unbroken lineage.

[Anonymous No.17625388]

>>17625154
the reason people call pagans larpers is because a lot of so-called "pagans" are self-admitted atheist. I think that philosophical neopagans i.e. nietzscheans are fine, as are sincere neopagans.

[Anonymous No.17625398]

>>17625154
pagan practices only exist because they were recorded by christians lole and probably not even accuractly

[Anonymous No.17625406]

>>17625398
>and probably not even accuractly
Don't you think they'd know what their grandparents believed?

[Anonymous No.17625419]

>>17625388
This
>>17625384
Aso this
>>17625398
>who was Homer

[Anonymous No.17625425]

>>17625406
It was propaganda, dummy

[Anonymous No.17625436]

>>17625154
>>17625419
What branch of paganism? Check out Plethon if you're into pagan revivalism.

[Anonymous No.17625443]

>>17625425
In that case the NT is too because it wasn't written much later than Jesus' actual life

[Anonymous No.17625445]

Why is the enbie meme so much hotter than the tradwife meme?

[Anonymous No.17625450]

>>17625425
In that case the NT is too because it was written much later than Jesus' actual life

[Anonymous No.17625455]

>>17625445
booba

[Anonymous No.17625470]

>>17625369
Modern druidry is over 200 years old now. Even Wicca is like 70 years old.

[Anonymous No.17625471]

>>17625450
Yes

[Anonymous No.17625483]

>>17625398
Not really. The Greeks and Romans wrote down plenty, and we can compare it to the Zoroastrian and Vedic texts and see a lot in common.

>>17625445
Booba plus the blush on the face.

[Anonymous No.17625725]

>>17625425
>It was propaganda,
where's the proof of this theory?

[Anonymous No.17625735]

>>17625725
You don't think theologians are liars?

[Anonymous No.17625743]

>>17625154
For scholarly interest, Foustel De Coulange’s the Ancient City, any of George Dumezil. For philosophical explorations, Julius Evola, Charles Maurras. For religious “conversion”, nothing, maybe the DSM.

[Anonymous No.17625766]

>>17625743
>dsm
Abbrevations only make sense when people know what you are referring to.

[Anonymous No.17625771]

>>17625406
No, actually. I can dig up scholarly documents that tell me what sort of rituals my pagan ancestors did but I can’t actually conceptualize or intuit, let alone accept the metaphysical basis for what they did and why. It’s actually very difficult to even consider yourself a “pagan” today without actually being a scientist first. There are two people who I’m aware of who tried to escape that and those are Julius Evola and Charles Maurras, both of whom often have very confused readings regarding their alleged “paganism” since it’s largely fantasy impressed upon their writings.

[Anonymous No.17625774]

>>17625735
Not everyone is like you, anon.

[Anonymous No.17625777]

>>17625170
I actually have his books on Occidental and Oriental gods and myths. Havent looked at them yet, but i'll happily skim them if they're quality. I picked up a ton of books my college was throwing out and apparently theres a bunch gems mixed in with all the shit

[Anonymous No.17625778]

>>17625766
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders

[Anonymous No.17625787]

>>17625369
A pagan is simply someone who believes in their own personal sovereignty and does not believe in absolute, all-powerful sovereignty. You can certainly be a pagan today, and many, many people are (pretty much all of the rich are, for example).

[Anonymous No.17625791]

>>17625743
I guess I should also add Ancient Philosophers and the Early Christian Church fathers here for philosophy. I’m sure there are Hindu, Shinto, etc. philosophers which are also technically pagans but I’m not aware of them.

[Anonymous No.17625794]

>>17625470
Modern druidism and wicca were contrived pseudo spiritualites. At best, they're shallow syncretisms and at worst they're literally made up

[Anonymous No.17625795]

>>17625384
>Truth is not deoendent on whether you can pretend to be a crusader with it.
western Pagans aren't looking for truth, and if they were they wouldn't have this dumb relativistic matrix where they think that every pagan faith has an equally valid earth god and ocean god etc it makes no fucking sense to tolerate countless different creation myths and to think you're pursuing the truth at the same time

[Anonymous No.17625800]

>>17625771
The metaphysics are actually really easy to get, they're well documented. I recommend Archaic Roman Religion and Indo-European Poetry and Myth. The "why" is pretty simple, as is the "how". What you're actually getting at is that you feel silly engaging with religion as you're a Liberal Modern, and as such lack a conception of the spiritual and the sacred. The closest you have is consumption of Product and certain ritualized political actions, such as voting, so something like attaining glory, writing poetry, performing sacrifice, or having a family, all deeply spiritual and sacred actions under the various Indo-European religions (which, lets face it, is what we all mean by "Paganism"), can only ever be understood in material, or at best, economic, terms.

[Anonymous No.17625803]

>>17625787
Do you believe ancient pagans felt a overwhelming sense of personal sovereignty?

[Anonymous No.17625807]

>>17625445
because the tradwife meme is a white skinned wojak, it's a cartoon of an ugly boy with long hair pasted on top

[Anonymous No.17625809]

>>17625771
Evola is decent enough, you could add a few more like Eliade as well. It's not fantasy, they're both very well read regarding pagan texts and Eliade also compares it with modern remnants. Is it 100% accurate? No, but that doesn't matter since it was never a static thing, and no religion/worldview is.

[Anonymous No.17625811]

>>17625794
In as much as both draw from the Hermetic tradition, which is a legitimate ancient magical tradition, they're absolutely not made up. Is the whole Ditheism thing of Wicca just Gardner's concoction? Yes.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.17625812]

This?

[Anonymous No.17625814]

>>17625795
Unless the pagan is a perennialist, which is the only respectable form of neo paganism. Polytheism is just cringe

[Anonymous No.17625816]

>>17625787
No, this is a satanist or at best a humanist wicca type.

[Anonymous No.17625822]

>>17625800
>The metaphysics are actually really easy to get, they're well documented.
They’re objectively not. There is quite literally no philosophically metaphysical basis for modern “pagan” beliefs which are even incoherent outside of, ironically, the Christian church. You cannot even understand what your pagan ancestors did without conducting a scientific study first but I suppose you believe your pagan ancestors were empiricists or something.

[Anonymous No.17625831]

>>17625743
Is there a particular reason why Zone/MIT won't reprint Dumezil in English? Those books are expensive.

[Anonymous No.17625832]

>>17625822
Did most ancient polytheists even have a metaphysics?

[Anonymous No.17625849]

>>17625809
Eliade is a comparative researcher. Evola and Maurras are the only names which I’m aware of which attempted to deal with it from a first principles basis in regard to philosophy and metaphysics. If you don’t don’t do that, you have nothing but a scientific (profane) project. Moreover, both of them failed totally in their project. People who read a “paganism” into Evola, despite his mixed messages, are just not getting a good reading.

[Anonymous No.17625856]

>>17625831
I don’t know. My university library has them and they will rent out to non-students so check your local college.

>>17625832
Yes. That should really go without saying.

[Anonymous No.17625857]

>>17625822
Are you the "only Abrahamic religion has metaphysics" guy? The one who translated the pyramid texts in a dream?

[Anonymous No.17625871]

>>17625803
Yes.

>>17625816
>satanist
Same thing, that's the pagan, and always has been. Many people in ancient times weren't pagan either, but simply pre-monotheist living in a pagan-built society due to geographical circumstances.

[Anonymous No.17625872]

>>17625822
I cited my sources and you... have done no reading on this subject at all. If you would like more books on this topic, I can provide them. Until you do some reading on this, however, I'm going to have to ask you to keep your mouth shut.

[Anonymous No.17625875]

>>17625154
The only way to avoid pseudoanthropology and the weird layer of post-enlightenment occultism and new age bull shit is to read primary sources. I highly recommend learning a source language and chugging the texts of whatever culture you're interested in. But keep in mind, as other anon said, almost all texts that didn't come from the near east or antiquity were written down by chritsian scholastics and ethnographers. I really enjoy algonquin and taino ethnography, but also focus a lot on PIE studies and things like the nibelungenlied, eddas, and sagas. If you don't want to learn a language (or draw from the interpretations of abrahamists) then you're just going to fall into the trap laid by weird 19th century aristocrats who just wanted to wear masks and have orgies. At its core shamanistic and "old-belief" systems are really cool from a research standpoint, but neopaganism is incredibly laughable.
>>17625794
this

[Anonymous No.17625902]

>>17625811
>both draw from the Hermetic tradition,
I thought they were just both built off of Crowleyism

[Anonymous No.17625920]

>>17625795
>it makes no fucking sense to tolerate countless different creation myths and to think you're pursuing the truth at the same time
Except that's literally how classical paganism worked. If gods were not interchangeable with other nations it would be impossible to interact with each other. How could you take their oaths seriously? By what signs would they swear? How could regimes change? Gods having different names and similar myths was never a problem for the people who believed in them. It was a problem for the monotheists who created our present worldview, which is why paganism seems so counterfactual. But from the other perspective, having a one named jealous god makes no sense.

[Anonymous No.17625925]

>>17625902
Crowleyism is just Hermeticism and 19th century Christian Progressivism mixed with Crowley's personal sigils and the like, which as any practitioner of Hermeticism could tell you are completely arbitrary anyways (or, rather, only have meaning within a framework that is itself arbitrary).

Crowley is cited as a "creator" of magical traditions by later Christian Progressives who want to distance themselves from him, but there's incredibly little that he actually innovated (he was actually quite open about this). Most of Crowley's influence is because he managed to rub his stink on so many things that you HAVE to engage with him. This was his entire gimmick of course.

[Anonymous No.17625926]

>>17625849
You're going to need both though. That he was a comparative researcher doesn't mean he didn't understand the Weltanschauung better than most.
>People who read a “paganism” into Evola, despite his mixed messages, are just not getting a good reading.
Evola wasn't a pagan (just as much as he wasn't a catholic) but his framework is still very applicable and is definitely something that can be built further from.
>>17625871
You're just playing word games. Not saying you're necessarily wrong, but it's not what's understood as pagan.

[Anonymous No.17625936]

>>17625795
You're wrong. The ancients regularly reinterpreted the creation myths all the time. It's not revealed dogma like the bible.

[Anonymous No.17625949]

>>17625857
No. In fact, I just said above that the pagans did have metaphysical beliefs. Aristotle wrote The Metaphysics.

>>17625871
>Yes.
Well, you’re almost certainly wrong. Ancient pagans suffered precisely because they felt themselves play things, completely subject to the gods. You can even read Homer if you want an example. Helen is sorry for the loss of life caused by her actions but she’s never sorry for being open to Aphrodite because she had no choice. The gods were viewed as animators of men and you had no say in the matter. That’s not sovereignty.

>>17625872
I’m pretty sure I’m the only person who’s recommend books so far. I’ve read all of them too. Go ahead and give your recommendations if you want though.

>>17625832
>>17625856
I take this back actually. When you’re asking what is or isn’t metaphysics, you’re actually asking very deep philosophical questions that aren’t as simple as answering “yes” or “no”. You might be interested in Heidegger and how he contrasts with Evola. For Evola, he was very concerned with the recovery and restoration of metaphysics. For him, you can see the fall was from metaphysics. In Heidegger, the fall was into metaphysics. To what degree can one be aligned with “paganism” I don’t think anyone can really say but the basic idea here is there most certainly were supernatural first principles for why pagans did what they did. If you’re not dealing with things from a metaphysical perspective, you’re not even close to actually scratching the paradigm.

[Anonymous No.17625953]

>>17625949
Start with the two I recommended in my first post >>17625800

[Anonymous No.17625960]

>>17625795
There's more to truth than creation myths. In fact thinking of them as literally true gets you further from the truth than any relativism

[Anonymous No.17625962]

Might as well ask here: I' ve been looking into gnosticism and while I'm not a gnostic I agree that Yhwh is the evil one and the lightbringer/serpent the loving god. So any recommendations for satanism that isn't just atheism plus aesthetics?

[Anonymous No.17625968]

>>17625871
>pre-monotheist living in a pagan-built society due to geographical circumstances
Yeah ok and all your Christians are pre-atheists since that's what came after on the basis of Christian metaphysics

[Anonymous No.17625970]

>>17625766
Dick Sucking Manual

[Anonymous No.17625977]

>>17625962
read ireneus against the heretics, he goes in depth into gnostic philosophies of the 2nd century

[Anonymous No.17625978]

>>17625926
>That he was a comparative researcher doesn't mean he didn't understand the Weltanschauung better than most.
It doesn’t matter. Consider what I’m doing if I undertake a comparative study of mythology based on preserved texts and on that basis alone. My findings are inherently naturalistic, scientific. If I don’t at least start from first principles, I can’t even actually scratch at what was genuinely the pagan paradigm. This is one of the many reasons why attempts to be a pagan in modern day almost always fail.
>Evola wasn't a pagan (just as much as he wasn't a catholic) but his framework is still very applicable and is definitely something that can be built further from.
I agree but the fact remains his project failed and he chose to remain ignorant of where his thinking naturally led out of hubris.

[Anonymous No.17625982]

>>17625962
It is completely transparent that you want a boutique religion downstream of your political opinions.

[Anonymous No.17625989]

>>17625953
Those aren’t metaphysical texts.

[Anonymous No.17625993]

>>17625982
No but nice projection. Any recs?

[Anonymous No.17625999]

>>17625949
The Greeks weren't really pagans. The actual pagans of ancient times were the "barbarians" they spoke of. Like >>17625926 pointed out, I'm using a sense of the term "pagan" in an uncommon (but still correct, imo) fashion.

[Anonymous No.17626010]

>>17625989
Wow, you read them that fast? That's pretty impressive! I'm not sure how you missed the parts where Dumezil and M. L. West literally talk about Indo-European metaphysics, though.

[Anonymous No.17626020]

>>17625999
The Greeks ("Hellenes") are, by definition, Pagans, as they were what was referred to by the term "Paganus", meaning the uneducated rural folk in the hills (literally, "Paganus" means "ruralite"). The term "Pagan" was created to refer to them. They were just as barbaric and heinous as the Scythians or the Celts or any other non-Christian people.

[Anonymous No.17626022]

>>17625999
>The Greeks weren't really pagans. The actual pagans of ancient times were the "barbarians" they spoke of.
This has to be a new low for christlarpers.

[Anonymous No.17626028]

>>17625949
I specifically asked if polytheists had metaphysics. Certainly the likes of Plato and Aristotle were pagans in a broad use of the term. And yet they would regard polytheists who believe in a sky mother and earth mother and moon goddess as plebian. Did polytheists have well established doctrines regarding such subjects as being and becoming, universals and particulars, etc? Or does the summation of their metaphysics conclude that chaos preceded order?

[Anonymous No.17626032]

>>17625978
>It doesn’t matter. Consider what I’m doing if I undertake a comparative study of mythology based on preserved texts and on that basis alone. My findings are inherently naturalistic, scientific.
But that's not just what he did, he compared those to modern living primitve remnants. I don't always agree with him but that doesn't make it any less useful.
>If I don’t at least start from first principles, I can’t even actually scratch at what was genuinely the pagan paradigm. This is one of the many reasons why attempts to be a pagan in modern day almost always fail.
Correct, and that is why the work of someone like Evola is so important, even if he ultimately failed. We shouldn't be waiting for a prophet to give us the answer.
>I agree but the fact remains his project failed and he chose to remain ignorant of where his thinking naturally led out of hubris.
Also correct, but the same goes as what I said above. We shouldn't expect him to be a prophet but a building block.

[Anonymous No.17626033]

>>17625871
> pagans and satanists are the same thing
How do you guys arrive at these ideas?

>>17625962
I don’t have a rec and I’m not going to harass you but I just want to point out that one of the bigger problems with gnostics and satanists is they are usually not interested in reading or hearing critiques, which almost necessarily have to come from the Christian worldview, because it comes from Christians. Pagan, Christian, Muslim, Gnostic, whatever what you are gambling with here is your soul so I would encourage you to have the courage to actually consider all perspectives before you go down a slope that leads somewhere you don’t want to be.

[Anonymous No.17626036]

>>17625962
Against the Gnostics by Plotinus

[Anonymous No.17626037]

>>17626020
>The Greeks ("Hellenes") are, by definition, Pagans
Not the definition I am using, though, and not the definition that plenty of other pagans use either. Your definition is a non-pagan one, constructed by people who aren't pagans. I'm using the pagan's definition of the word pagan. The Greeks were not actually pagan, as pagans understand it. They were inspired by pagans and sought to imitate them, making them pre-monotheist.

[Anonymous No.17626044]

>>17626022
He’s obviously not even Christian you moron.

[Anonymous No.17626047]

>>17626028
>Did polytheists have well established doctrines regarding such subjects as being and becoming, universals and particulars, etc?
Yes.

[Anonymous No.17626056]

>>17626010
I’ve read Dumezil and are you really not aware that you can’t talk about metaphysics without doing metaphysics?

[Anonymous No.17626065]

>>17626033
>I would encourage you to have the courage to actually consider all perspectives before you go down a slope that leads somewhere you don’t want to be.
Right back at you. Once you stop trying to fit inside the christian box you see how evil yhwh's claims are.

[Anonymous No.17626073]

>>17625920
>If gods were not interchangeable with other nations it would be impossible to interact with each other. How could you take their oaths seriously? By what signs would they swear?
That's not what I'm talking about. Two statesmen can recognize the authentic loyalty of the other to their country and to their country's divine, but that's not at all the same as thinking that Paganism is the pursuit of Truth, capital-T Truth.

Paganism can be cool and based and shit, but it's really not the same thing as a pursuit of truth and I think people might pretend it is just as an opposition to the existing organized religions.

[Anonymous No.17626076]

>>17626036
Did you pic two words out of my post at random and just filled in the blanks? I wasn't asking for a refutation of gnostics.
If you think Plotinus a satanist please elaborate.

[Anonymous No.17626082]

>>17626056
>it's not metaphysics unless you sit down and say you're going to write down metaphysics in scholarly articles!
By your definition nobody did metaphysics until the 19th century. You're putting things in neat little boxes that have no meaning outside of academia.

[Anonymous No.17626084]

>>17626073
The same Truth can have multiple different expressions.

[Anonymous No.17626095]

>>17625993
No I don't have any "recs" for satanism. Like most of the neo-gnostic pseuds on /lit/ you don't even understand what you're attacking. In Platonic terms the demiurge is craftsman of the world, shaping matter based on Idea. Assigning satan or evil to this is nonsense. What would actually be evil in this system is what is most deprived of the Idea. The Demiurge participates in the good and comes from the One rather than being some dualistic illusion worker.

[Anonymous No.17626097]

>>17626028
>Certainly the likes of Plato and Aristotle were pagans in a broad use of the term. And yet they would regard polytheists who believe in a sky mother and earth mother and moon goddess as plebian.
Would they though?
Again, you’re asking a question that’s very difficult to answer in a way that’s satiating to you. Yes, they did but consider that Aristotle is the one who wrote the Metaphysics. While pre-Aristotle polytheist may have been accepting a metaphysical paradigm, they weren’t writing about it or calling it as such. This is why I recommended Heidegger. The man wrote about being, time, mataphysics. These are the biggest questions in all of philosophy. He can explain ideas well. I cannot, at least not to an anon on 4chan. The simplest answer is yes, they did even if that’s not 100% accurate.

>>17626032
>But that's not just what he did, he compared those to modern living primitve remnants. I don't always agree with him but that doesn't make it any less useful.
But my point is he’s not actually coming to things from a supernatural point of view first, which is what needs to be done.
> Correct, and that is why the work of someone like Evola is so important, even if he ultimately failed. We shouldn't be waiting for a prophet to give us the answer.
It’s funny you say that because in a lot of ways, Evola’s experiment was to try to give us a mew Buddha, Christ, Mohammed. I think it was him actually that wrote that after the 20th century, philosophy is simply obsolete.

[Anonymous No.17626099]

>>17626073
That's retarded and based solely on your emotional opposition to paganism.
Read Mirandolla.

[Anonymous No.17626110]

>>17626082
Aristotle wrote a book called “The Metaphysics” in 350 BC.

[Anonymous No.17626111]

>>17626095
You're actually retarded. I didn't claim to be a gnostic you inbred nor did I say anything about the demiurge. Stop trying so hard to look educated.

[Anonymous No.17626120]

>>17626065
I have. I’ve gone through some of these phases myself and my views are still evolving. I’m just trying to helpful.

[Anonymous No.17626129]

>>17626073
How would you use creation myths to validate Truth anyway? I don't see where you are going with this. Do you think that monotheism gets its creation myth "right" and therefore it is true? All the other religions have one so how did you decide that? Obviously other criteria must be in play than just having a dramatization of "god did it."

[Anonymous No.17626144]

>>17626097
>But my point is he’s not actually coming to things from a supernatural point of view first, which is what needs to be done.
And my point was that those are not mutually exclusive.
>It’s funny you say that because in a lot of ways, Evola’s experiment was to try to give us a mew Buddha, Christ, Mohammed.
No, that's a very short-sighted interpretation of what he was trying to do.
>I think it was him actually that wrote that after the 20th century, philosophy is simply obsolete.
Sure, but he meant rational philosophy.

[Anonymous No.17626153]

>>17626111
>while I'm not a gnostic I agree that Yhwh is the evil one and the lightbringer/serpent the loving god.
Sure and I'm not a Christian but I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

[Anonymous No.17626155]

>>17626144
>And my point was that those are not mutually exclusive.
I know lol. Therein lies the problem. We actually agree here.
>No, that's a very short-sighted interpretation of what he was trying to do.
Care to elaborate?
>Sure, but he meant rational philosophy.
I don’t think he did but why do you say so?

[Anonymous No.17626168]

>>17626153
You really don't though

[Anonymous No.17626185]

>>17626168
What I believe isn't the point. You said you believed there was an evil deceiver shaping the material world. That is a gnostic belief.

[Anonymous No.17626244]

>>17626155
>I know lol. Therein lies the problem. We actually agree here.
Why are we arguing then? Lol.
>Care to elaborate?
I think he had no definite end goal. I think what you described he could very well have foreseen as a possible goal, but not exclusively. There was a reason he was more drawn to the non-prophetic traditions. I think he would have welcomed the result of the formulation of such principles from the ground up and the accession of the heavenly emperor naturally from that process just as well for example. But maybe I'm splitting hairs.
>I don’t think he did but why do you say so?
Maybe I put it wrong but he meant the purely rationalistic philosophy of late classical and post-medieval times, which had both run their course and brought us to their logical conclusions. What he anticipated as the answer was traditional metaphysics. But I'm happy to hear your interpretation.

[Anonymous No.17626272]

>>17626110
I know, so I'm not quite sure why people try to argue that nobody did any almond-activating until modern academia laid these classifications down to siphon money out of students. Anatomically modern man has been around for 200,000 years and no one thought to start asking questions until recently? Give me a fucking break.

[Anonymous No.17626280]

>>17626185
>there was an evil deceiver shaping the material world.
I did not. I said I came to satanism via gnostic criticism

[Anonymous No.17626281]

>>17626095
This, if anon really wanted to stop worshiping desert demons he'd start with that luciferian post-enlightenment crock. I will never understand how people can adopt the abrahamic cosmology and then call themselves satanists.

[Anonymous No.17626298]

>>17626280
Then you are schizoposting your way to a new religion.

[Anonymous No.17626695]

>>17626281
Lucifer was a roman god anon. And it's not abrahamic cosmology it's the cosmology of which abrahamic religion is a perversion off.

[Anonymous No.17627804]

>>17625154
Homeric Gods

[Anonymous No.17627869]

>>17625875
Why would not learning a language be that detrimental? I'm not OP or pagan, just interested in the culture.

[Anonymous No.17627966]

>tfw Irish Catholic
>tfw know most of Catholicism is just pagan fan fiction written by bored monks with cats in the 4th Century equivalent of 4chan
Um, either the Bible, or something with a well and a cow.

[Anonymous No.17628029]

>>17627869
Just because so much of "pagan" culture hinges on primary sources written in other languages. I study PIE linguistics and culture, and am thinking of learning old norse so I can read the sagas/skaldic poetry. They're just so interesting that learning the language should be apart of the process (and this was the case for almost all famous ethnographers like grimm and the post-structuralists). Just gives you a greater appreciation. If you're interested in PIE or old norse I can rec some good resources.
t. christian who just likes reading this shit

[Anonymous No.17628096]

>>17626129
>>17626099
>>17626084
I'm not making the essence of my point clear, sorry. A divine belief system that is hyper-localized and necessarily tolerant of other divine belief systems is not pursuing the truth the same way that a historical fiction novelist is not a historian. At some point the pagans go "yeah whatever if that didn't happen, I like to think it happened, and who cares if that guy likes to think something else happened".
Truth is arrived at through collaboration, but also through refutation and debate. If all you pagans can shake hands and "agree to disagree" about the afterlife, about the existence of an immortal soul, about what makes good or evil, about the existence of spirits, the powers of those spirits, the origins of the universe, despite countless contradictions then you're no different from fanfiction authors commending each other's work and giving each other writing tips. It can definitely be beautiful, don't get me wrong, but I can't consider a belief system which doesn't assert the invalidity of other belief systems a "pursuit of Truth". That's all I'm challenging, that pagans become pagans because they want to know what's really out there or what actually happened in our pasts. If they did they'd more likely join one of the organized religions that tries to assert positive facts about the origins of the universe or the fate of mankind.

[Anonymous No.17628181]

>>17627966
Irish catholicsm is a special kind of Catholicism

[Anonymous No.17628377]

>>17625445
Because the enby feels more attainable, because you know what you deserve.

[Anonymous No.17628380]

>>17625445
Boobs and blush. Next Question

[Anonymous No.17628414]

>>17628096
Nigga who cares your beliefs are all wrong too

[Anonymous No.17628669]

>>17625154
Depends, if it's for study or interest then, I'd recommend you read primary sources of chroniclers and ethnologists, for the European religions and others that is, for existing religions you can search some books about Shintoism or Taoism both very interesting, or early accounts from monks for American religions. I'd also suggest you read some mesoamerican codexes like the Popol Vu or the chilam Balam. For the more obscure dead paganism (And live ones), you should search for credible books by historians, I am not a man that always trusts academia but I recommend you search for actually credited scholars rather than pop-sci
If you want to reconstruct them or reconnect or whatever, just make your own religion, you just want to extrapolate your own beliefs into some random system of spirituality supplemented by 19th-century anglo occultists, this is most neo-paganism, no doubt there are some reconstructionist movements here and there but most of it is just a badly disguised political movement with vague tinges of spirituality and pagan beliefs dead set on pushing whatever agenda they were founded on. And that's just annoying, and completely disconnected from the ancestors they pretend to worship, that's my take on why they are called LARPers

[Anonymous No.17628864]

>>17628096
>no different from fanfiction authors commending each other's work and giving each other writing tips. It can definitely be beautiful, don't get me wrong, but I can't consider a belief system which doesn't assert the invalidity of other belief systems a "pursuit of Truth".
Monotheism is polytheism with a miraculous leader and an army. Obviously no one else is allowed to keep their gods since that's a potential point of sedition—what if they declare themselves the son or prophet of whoever and challenge your authority? The organized religions are being rejected precisely for their absolute claims. It required a lot of power to enforce those claims, and power is no longer invested in monotheism.

[Anonymous No.17629028]

There are many knowledgeable pagans in our server
discord dot gg h59NCjD2

[Anonymous No.17629817]

>>17625962
>I' ve been looking into gnosticism and while I'm not a gnostic I agree that Yhwh is the evil one and the lightbringer/serpent the loving god.
Shut the fuck up gnostic fool, just completely inane gibberish out of your fucking mouth.

[Anonymous No.17630094]

>>17625787
That is nothing like the "paganism" someone two thousand years ago would have felt.

[Anonymous No.17630115]

>>17630094
same can be applied to Christianity

[Anonymous No.17630122]

>>17625154
It should say, "Hey Christoid idiots, ..."

[Anonymous No.17630214]

>>17628029
>If you're interested in PIE or old norse I can rec some good resources.
Not him, but please do.

[Anonymous No.17630249]

>>17628414
We're agreed then, you do it not because you are some truth-seeking planewalker, but bc you want to be based but hate going to sunday school. Noice.

>>17628864
Polytheism and paganism are not replacing the organized religions, if that's what you're implying. Religion as a whole is being replaced with commitment to the political realm. I could be wrong though.

[Anonymous No.17630281]

Paganism is a state that predates the concept of "religion" as a distinct and separable part of culture. Vedic paganism became Hinduism through encounter with the concept of religion. You literally cannot be a pagan because of the paradigm that is required to not be functionally insane in any modern society because it is compatible with the now-ubiquitous category "religion".

Therefore, anyone claiming to be a pagan is creating an ersatz religion to pantomime the practices of dead pre-religious cultures and is LARPing.

[Anonymous No.17630293]

>>17628864
That was kind of a vacuous response, sorry.
I don't think the differences between mono and polytheism are that simple. There's clearly some kind of element to organized religion that has a stronger capacity to personally compel people, and there's some sociological experimentation that suggests the abandonment of paganism assists transition to a complexified, larger society. The kinds of societies that can't be policed by the chief and the medicine man, the kinds that can rule continents. I'm reminded of a snippet from a podcast I listened to a while back, I'm sure if you dig you can find some book where this experiment is recounted in detail.

[Anonymous No.17630445]

>>17630214
PIE theory (linguistics and archaeology)
>campbell's historical linguistics (this is just all around necessary for any and all things if you're interested in historical linguistics)
>in search of the proto indo europeans by mallory
>archaeology and language 1 by spriggs
>the living goddess by gimbutas
>archaeology and language by renfrew (I don't agree with him but he gives an alternate point of view which is useful)
this stuff will give you a nice archaeology and linguistics combo
old norse
>firstly the penguin edition of the sagas is great if you just want the history and not the language
>an introduction to old norse by gordon is a classic

[Anonymous No.17630507]

>>17628181
>church says some saints didn't exist, many of the irish
>Ireland: were you there? No, I thought not.
>50 years later Ireland is planning to make imaginary saints days into bank holidays

[Anonymous No.17630742]

>>17630214
>>17625154
you also might be interested in the algonquin ethnography done by charles leland, who compiled their mythology
if you read the norse eddas and sagas there are weird similarities, and this makes sense as they had contact with one another, which makes for some cool anthropology

[Anonymous No.17631062]

>>17630281
>Paganism is a state that predates the concept of "religion" as a distinct and separable part of culture. Vedic paganism became Hinduism through encounter with the concept of religion.
elaborate for the curious?

[Anonymous No.17631406]

>>17627966
For me it's the monks trying in the origin story of the irish to the bible

[Anonymous No.17631415]

>>17631406
I like how they managed to do it with both the Jews and the Trojan War.

[Anonymous No.17631432]

>>17627966
>well and a cow
I think it's the big fire on the hill to protest motorways next to be fair. Wells were the start of this month. It swings back to the cows in May.

[Anonymous No.17631453]

paganism is a broad label for like a million different religions mate, youre going to have to be more specific than that

[Anonymous No.17631491]

>>17631432
>big fire on the hill
You mean the celebration of our conversion to Christianity on Easter in 433, the mandatory feast day which has magically ever since that Easter meant that we have to get piss drunk in the middle of Lent, and, has somehow, by grace of God, never fallen outside a fast period ever again? That celebration is as Christian as the day is long on St John's Eve. Saint Patrick only adopted the traditions of the pagan high kings to piss them off with cultural appropriation. It says so in the books we wrote about it.

[Anonymous No.17631514]

>>17631491
>St John's Eve
>Bonfire night is meant to be a saint's day
lol didn't see that coming.

[Anonymous No.17631518]

>>17631453
this. it's basically just folklore that isn't denigrated and trivial, but relevant for how you see and understand the world.

[Anonymous No.17632356]

>>17631518
>it's basically just folklore that isn't denigrated and trivial, but relevant for how you see and understand the world.
It's any religion outside of the Abrahamic umbrella.

[Anonymous No.17633223]

>>17625154
Paganism is for hippie /x/ schizos who are busy snorting Big Mommy earth's vegan pussy while ''mediatating''

[Anonymous No.17633372]

>>17625154
>paganism
Not a religion, fuck off retard.

[Anonymous No.17633405]

>>17625807
We must reject twitter zoomed wojaks and return to the original authentic interpretation of the tradwife handed to us from our ancestors.

[Anonymous No.17634632]

bump

[Anonymous No.17634643]

>>17633405
We really need more schizo edits of christchan. Like one of her holding a mahayana sutra and saying there are a million billion trillion buddhas in a single atom

[Anonymous No.17634936]

>>17625154
Against the Galileaens - Julian the Apostate.
Philosophy as a Rite of Rebirth: From Ancient Egypt to Neoplatonism - Algis Uzdavinys
The Roots of Hinduism: The Early Aryans and the Indus Civilization - Asko Parpola

[Anonymous No.17635049]

>>17625787
>in their own personal sovereignty
No. That just proves it is neo-hippy bullshit. Old Paganism was community; It was the thing that bound peoples and families together over their shared consciousness of past events.

[Anonymous No.17635060]

>>17625871
>the old pagans were not true pagans

[Anonymous No.17635182]

>>17625154
I really liked John Michael Greer's A World Full of Gods.

[Anonymous No.17635246]

>>17634643
I would unironically pay money to see that. Not a lot, but I'd still pay.

[Anonymous No.17636325]

>>17625962
>>17626076

So the loving God tricks us into working for food?

genesis 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.