If someone is pagan because they attribute prayer and ritual towards a being who oversees a particular region of being, then the whole of Christendom has been pagan for its entire existence since St. Martin was cut down at Poitiers. I don't see what young women having sex at college has to do with a "ritualistic association with Aphrodite". They didn't start doing this in the Renaissance, either, that's certain. This isn't something particular to paganism or Christianity, or any of the historical eras in between. It's just how divinity is understood, particularly in Europe.
There are specific things about the modern world that are decidedly un-pagan that you neglect to analyze. It still possesses a fundamental need for soteriology, escape/transcendence of a flawed and broken world, and a universalist ethos that packages all of mankind under the same reality, needs, and potential. If anything, we are closer to the Early Christian Church than paganism, just as Engels had intended, and just as his followers carry that torch today. Either way, what does the Renaissance have to do with this? Did the most brutal, fanatical period of Christendom not immediately follow it in the Wars of Religion? I would be extremely hard pressed to call Charles V or Cromwell "more pagan" than Clovis or William.
You misunderstand the difference between a universalist and tribalist conception of a deity. The varying ecology of varying peoples/cultures interprets the same phenomenon differently, of course, but this isn't a novel concept or an invention of the modern world (or Renaissance). In virtually every written account of pagan religion this is what's seen, from Heraclitus to Julian. This is not at all mutually exclusive to the idea of adherence to a particular pantheon. The pantheon is *your* interpretation of a "universal" phenomenon. Love may be a universal thing, but it is different to an Englishman and a Greek. Not to mention the relationships, traditions, and rituals that are tied to that specific deity/pantheon.
Plenty more to write about. You're only barely scratching the surface on a lot of these concepts. If this were Christian apologetics, you're on the level of asking if there were dinosaurs on the Ark and why God was mean to the Canaanites.
As James O'Meara so succinctly put it, 'paganism' is what White people do when they are no longer under the yoke of 'christianity' (or, more preferably 'Abrahamo-Platonism'. Consequently, it's not surprising that 'christians' don't like 'pagans'. Any criticism of 'pagan' by 'christian' is entirely in bad faith because under no circumstance can a 'christian' admit that 'pagan' has instrinsic value.
In the long run, 'christianity' for White people is the simply a suicide pact with the rising tide of color, the only people 'christianity' actually cares about.
The barbarians converted to Christ. When considered by the Romans and the Greeks, they were any that spoke any language other than those and had any other nation other than the Roman tribes or the Greek cities.
It's a play on words and thoughts. I say things that a lot of people don't like hearing, and have opinions far outside mainstream consensus, trying to get the current world to convert back to Christ, and not really caring what it thinks about what I say in the process.
Because the barbarians were the ones the rebuilt the Empire after it fell, into what became medieval Europe - the height of humanity's spiritual and moral growth. I have a great love for them, and what they accomplished in art, word, military deed, philosophy; everything.
You flatter yourself. The reason people don't like hearing what you have to say is because it's the same 'christian' apologetics that 'christians' have been regurgitating since forever.
Pagan is better than 'christian' for White people because 'christianity' is an alien religion of an alien race who worship an alien god who hates White people who stand up for themselves.
Your 'love' for 'barbarians' is purely instrumental.
You don’t know the depth of my love. We owe everything we have today to them. Every. Single. Thing.
All that is beautiful, good, and true comes from them building atop the ruins of empires as they rose and fell. Of not giving into despair. Of fighting the moors and singing songs of joy to our Lord and Savior.
They built schools and universities. They fought crusades for marriage and the unborn. They were the ones holding the line when no one else even bothered showing up, in battles physical and spiritual.
No, my love for them is wide and deep. I don’t give them enough, and I know it - but I only have so much time a day.
Strange article, and not in a good way.
If someone is pagan because they attribute prayer and ritual towards a being who oversees a particular region of being, then the whole of Christendom has been pagan for its entire existence since St. Martin was cut down at Poitiers. I don't see what young women having sex at college has to do with a "ritualistic association with Aphrodite". They didn't start doing this in the Renaissance, either, that's certain. This isn't something particular to paganism or Christianity, or any of the historical eras in between. It's just how divinity is understood, particularly in Europe.
There are specific things about the modern world that are decidedly un-pagan that you neglect to analyze. It still possesses a fundamental need for soteriology, escape/transcendence of a flawed and broken world, and a universalist ethos that packages all of mankind under the same reality, needs, and potential. If anything, we are closer to the Early Christian Church than paganism, just as Engels had intended, and just as his followers carry that torch today. Either way, what does the Renaissance have to do with this? Did the most brutal, fanatical period of Christendom not immediately follow it in the Wars of Religion? I would be extremely hard pressed to call Charles V or Cromwell "more pagan" than Clovis or William.
You misunderstand the difference between a universalist and tribalist conception of a deity. The varying ecology of varying peoples/cultures interprets the same phenomenon differently, of course, but this isn't a novel concept or an invention of the modern world (or Renaissance). In virtually every written account of pagan religion this is what's seen, from Heraclitus to Julian. This is not at all mutually exclusive to the idea of adherence to a particular pantheon. The pantheon is *your* interpretation of a "universal" phenomenon. Love may be a universal thing, but it is different to an Englishman and a Greek. Not to mention the relationships, traditions, and rituals that are tied to that specific deity/pantheon.
Plenty more to write about. You're only barely scratching the surface on a lot of these concepts. If this were Christian apologetics, you're on the level of asking if there were dinosaurs on the Ark and why God was mean to the Canaanites.
As James O'Meara so succinctly put it, 'paganism' is what White people do when they are no longer under the yoke of 'christianity' (or, more preferably 'Abrahamo-Platonism'. Consequently, it's not surprising that 'christians' don't like 'pagans'. Any criticism of 'pagan' by 'christian' is entirely in bad faith because under no circumstance can a 'christian' admit that 'pagan' has instrinsic value.
In the long run, 'christianity' for White people is the simply a suicide pact with the rising tide of color, the only people 'christianity' actually cares about.
You should not call yourself a barbarian. Its far too tongue in cheek now that your views on the barbarians is laid bare.
The barbarians converted to Christ. When considered by the Romans and the Greeks, they were any that spoke any language other than those and had any other nation other than the Roman tribes or the Greek cities.
It's a play on words and thoughts. I say things that a lot of people don't like hearing, and have opinions far outside mainstream consensus, trying to get the current world to convert back to Christ, and not really caring what it thinks about what I say in the process.
Because the barbarians were the ones the rebuilt the Empire after it fell, into what became medieval Europe - the height of humanity's spiritual and moral growth. I have a great love for them, and what they accomplished in art, word, military deed, philosophy; everything.
So, deal with it.
You flatter yourself. The reason people don't like hearing what you have to say is because it's the same 'christian' apologetics that 'christians' have been regurgitating since forever.
Pagan is better than 'christian' for White people because 'christianity' is an alien religion of an alien race who worship an alien god who hates White people who stand up for themselves.
Your 'love' for 'barbarians' is purely instrumental.
lol.
You don’t have any idea what you’re talking about.
Your love for them is shallow. You should read W.E. Hearns
Haha.
You don’t know the depth of my love. We owe everything we have today to them. Every. Single. Thing.
All that is beautiful, good, and true comes from them building atop the ruins of empires as they rose and fell. Of not giving into despair. Of fighting the moors and singing songs of joy to our Lord and Savior.
They built schools and universities. They fought crusades for marriage and the unborn. They were the ones holding the line when no one else even bothered showing up, in battles physical and spiritual.
No, my love for them is wide and deep. I don’t give them enough, and I know it - but I only have so much time a day.
Your love of pre-Christians is shallow. It is clear and evident in your views on them.
My view of the paganism depicted in Nibelungenlied and its role there in my latest post https://open.substack.com/pub/robertwhitley/p/the-lay-of-the-nibelungen-divination?r=2mwz1j&utm_medium=ios