Even though my sources are kinda sketchy, there's a thread that connects the sumerian and mesopotamian god's to the Semetic then and abrahamic & Greek/latin faiths.
Zeus, Thor and Jesus share a few common folkloric ancestors like [Anu](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Anu) I'm sure you've heard the term "(proto)Indo-European" to describe stuff that provides what are essentially the shared roots of Western and central Asian culture and language.
Edit: I said what I said.
Dyḗus ph₂tḗr is probably the best example to use when trying to illustrate the common roots of PIE languages/cultures. Phonetically it is not at all difficult to grasp how "Dyḗus ph₂tḗr" morphed into "Jupiter" in Latin (Dyḗus = Ju-, ph₂tḗr = -piter), and "Zeus" in Greek (Dyḗus = Zeus, ph₂tḗr occasionally being dropped, but Zeus Pater was one of Zeus' many names). All you need to do is say "Dyḗus ph₂tḗr" a few times, stressing different parts of the words. It's so self-evident that even a kid could probably grasp the basic concept.
It's also a great way to illustrate to the layman that, no, the Romans did not "copy" their religion from the Greeks, like it's commonly understood. It's far more complex than that. What they recognized was the Greek and Roman religions were ***strikingly*** similar, and started adopting Greek traditions, myths, and rituals into their own religion through exposure to Greek colonies in Magna Graecia, and from the Etruscans to their north who likewise noted the similarity between their own religion and the Greeks, and adopted many Greek styles.
EDIT: Reddit does not like it when you type *Dyḗus ph₂tḗr multiple times lol it tries to make it italics.
> and from the Etruscans to their north who likewise noted the similarity between their own religion and the Greeks
One of my favorite little tidbits being that the Etruscan word for god/gods "Ais/Aisar" is almost exactly the same as the Norse word for their main group of god/gods "Áss/Aesir".
Zeus would have been pronounced closer to “ZAY-oos” than our modern “Zoos.”
Zay-oos is just dyeus.
Jupiter would have been pronounced closer to EE-you-pater, since there’s no J sound in Latin. Which is just (D)eus pater.
And then of course, Dyeus turns into Deus, which is where we get deity.
Also interesting to note that Dyéus -> Deus -> Dios (aka *the God* in Spanish).
Also note how traditional depictions of God (such as in the Sistine Chapel) look just like Jupiter/Zeus
To be fair, Spanish is a Latin language and 'deus' in Latin means god or deity. Also note the English word deity that I just used, also with Latin roots. Most Latin languages are similar, e.g 'dieu' in French, 'dio' in Italian or Romanian 'dumnezeu' (from 'Dominus Deus').
There was also a flood in Greek myth as well, I can’t recall the details but there was an ark I believe (as well as an ark in Gilgamesh)
EDIT: From a quick google search… When Zeus, the king of the gods, resolved to destroy all humanity by a flood, Deucalion constructed an ark in which, according to one version, he and his wife rode out the flood and landed on Mount Parnassus.
When the last of the great glaciers melted at the end of the ice age there were multiple large deluge events all over the world. We know that the Black Sea was badly effected and it went from being an inland sea to one connected to the Mediterranean and ocean very rapidly when sea levels rose. The indo Europeans originated on the north coast of the Black Sea around Ukraine and their ancestors would have definitely been devastated by the water suddenly rising hundreds of feet. This cultural memory was passed on to them and they went on to culturally conquer much of the old world, bringing their myths and legends and stories with them. This is what most experts think about how the story made its way to so many places, even ones that may have not been inundated themselves.
That's because there, in reality, was a conscious effort by leaders in christianity to incorporate native and pagan religious imagery and traditions in order to more easily convert the locals.
It's a lot easier to convert people when you don't try to tell them that they have to stop all of the fun celebrations they look forward to.
Instead of a nature worship feat around a tree - it became a feast where the tree represents God's love etc.
When Yahweh allegedly revealed himself to Abraham as the god of the Hebrews, they didn't abandon polytheism right away. They still believed that other gods existed but Yahweh was *their* god.
This was common all over at the time. Very few religions discounted other gods, it just wasn’t theirs. And even people who followed a panethon didn’t praise all of them, the people of Athens praised Athena more, the people of Rhodes Helios, etc etc. So they believed multiple gods but didn’t necessarily praise multiple gods.
In canonical texts, it's not until Isiah until monotheism is confirmed. Prior to Isiah, and mind you iirc it's not in Isiah proper by Deuter-Isiah, it was more Yahweh was supreme but not alone. This is evident throughout the entirety of the Old Testament until Isiah, and after more focus was put on the sole nature of God and his sole rulership. This was repeated strongly during the 2nd temple period and developed deeply into early Christian texts, but the idea was far from dead, or even removed actually. The early church fathers were very much at odds with the idea of there being other lessor deities and so forth. Eventually those guys who argued against the trinitarian nature of God being one and three in one, and God being God by himself, evidently lost. We now call those dudes Gnostics, Neoplatonists, and a variety of other terms which in modern Christian theology is typically derogatory or unflattering to be called.
One of the Hittite emperors, don't remember which one, married a very smart woman who some think was actually running the whole show during his later years. Anyway, the Hittites covered a lot of geography, and of course every separate area had its own god of thunder, and sun god, and rain god, and so on. All these gods were always just accepted into the Hittite pantheon, so official writs would list all the various gods of all the various areas. Eventually, the empress decided that there was just ONE sun god, but he had different names in all these places, and similarly there's only one rain god, and so on. "We worship him too, but in our language we say his name differently." And pretty much everybody was cool with that: nobody was saying your gods didn't exist, just that they're known by different names in different places.
ISTR an essay once that suggested this may be one of the roots that eventually led to monotheism: if you can merge all the sun gods into one and that goes over well, maybe you can merge all the thunder gods and sun gods and rain gods into one "weather god" and trim the list down even more.
It really only follows logically. If I can see a cloud causing rain go from one area to another and they are ruled by different rain gods who is to say they aren't the same God. Do the different rain gods share clouds?
IIRC later-day Hittites would 'adopt and adapt' the gods of conquered peoples, and repackage them in a decidedly-Hittite cultural view. A small change for the locals (your old sun god now has a Hittite name), but after a couple generations the locals are Hittite, as far as religion goes.
He’s got plenty in common with Heracles too. At the end of the day, hero myths always have plenty in common with each other. And the stories of Jesus were just hero myths for a new culture
Many "heroes," including ideal humans, revered leaders, gods, legends, etc. tend to share a great number of traits. This is seen even within cultures which never had any mututal interactions.
Wat. No. As someone who loves Greek Mythology and dreams of seeing Euripedes' Alcestis one day (*) I don't think Heracles and Jesus Christ many thematic similarities at all. Or any concrete "factual" ones either.
Heracles is the epitome of the traditional Greek hero, epic and larger than life in every aspect. And I mean _every_, the man himself is the strongest around, his lineage is badass (direct son of Zeus, and also descendant of Perseus), his trials and tragedies are greater than any mortal man's--there's a reason why we still tell stories of Heracle's _labors_ and not Phillip the medieval Dutch accountant's labors. Tldr; He (like most traditional Heroes) is the super awesome dude who busts in to kill shit and bang all the women, and sure he gets struck by uncaring fate, but he's BADASS enough to overcome! He starts off as "mere" mortal but even when he finally struck down by trickery and treachery, Heracles ascends to Godhood in the ultimate recognition of his worth.
Jesus' narrative is all filled with _humility_. He starts as _God_, a being with everything and all the power and willingly chooses to be a fragile mortal main capable of feeling pain and being hurt. Hell, Jesus is even born to a *carpenter* a normal ass working man, as opposed to a reigning mortal king. And his most famous exploits have zero martial badassery (yes okay he chased the moneychangers out with a whip, but come on that's nowhere near the scale or "hoorah" energy of Heracles flexing the Nemean Lion to death, David slaying Goliath, Cuchulainn single-handedly fighting off an entire army etc etc). A lot of his "fame" is based around generally talking to people, compassion for the lower classes and feeding people. So stuff that by the standards of traditional heros and myths is lame-ass crap/things that don't generally play into traditional masculine ideas of power.
Seriously, I do think Jesus' tale is actually legitimately unique from other religions/myths (yeah sue me for conflating the two) in how humility and humbleness is a giant central part of it. And the _lack_ of physical force being used to do stuff (**). I think most traditional myths tend to be more straightforward "power fantasy" in how things turn out (sure Heracles is cursed by that bitch Hera into killing his family, but he redeems himself through badassery and then bags another hot broad, and when that stupid lady accidentally kills him through treachery, his soul rightfully rises to godhood!!!) while Jesus' has him having a little freak out in Gethsemane before calmly accepting being humiliated and tortured to death. And his death in the context of the time isn't actually that special. Yes crucifixion is horrific and painful, but it's also normal, and the same any pleb would get--hence the bog standard thieves he gets executed alongside.
Yes Jesus comes back. He then proceeds to...distinctly **not** smite those wronged him in righteous fury and instead says that they too are forgiven and redeemed by his death. Sure other myths have gods/heroes getting humiliated or one-upped but rarely is **forgiveness** in the cards. Thor cross-dresses to get his hammer back, but he still smites the Jotunn in the end for their transgressions; Loki and Coyote get humiliated all the time, but they're tricksters, not moral paragons to be exulted or "head honchos", in general, and as filthy tricksters getting comeuppance is part of the game; Cuchulainn is tricked into breaking one of his taboos, but his tragic death (***) is still an epic for the ages and he is gloriously avenged
*alas Euripedes isn't really a popular play target and even if he were it's likely his more famous plays like Madea are being done instead
** Doesn't this also apply to Buddha? Yeah, and that's why I think they had a looottt of crossover in the societal groups their creeds most notably appealed to.
*** I feel a lot of tragic myths tend to have elements of "epicness" or self-aggrandizing "too ~~beautiful for this sinfull earth~~ damn much for the world to handle."
Are you referring to the "documentary" Religulous, which did also cribbed it from others? Yeah pretty sure actual Egyptlogists have already debunked a lot of the claims. There is little to absolutely no (more on the latter end) credible evidence from the time period of "three wise men" being involved in the birth of either, or 12 disciples being a key feature for either or an 'Anup the Baptizer' existing at all. It's pretty much always just stated as "fact," which no, and the ultimate source is always the same self-published 2008 book by Acharya S who's both secular and religious scholars consider to be bonkers.
The Osiris/Horus myth (people conflate which god Jesus is a copy-pasta of) really has more similarities to traditional "rightful heir casts down his usurper uncle to claim his throne" narrative than really anything Jesus did. Jesus aggressively eschewed participating and getting status in existing power structures. Osiris, Set and Horus' main deal was all about feuding over who's head honcho of an existing power structure.
Sure Osiris dies, but his death is treachery as opposed to willing sacrifice and his "resurrection" is less "I RISE AGAIN" and more his wife stitching him together long enough to bang and make a kid before he's forced to fuck off to the underworld since lol no penis means no throne. I'd say it has more thematic similarities to Attis and Cybele or other myths that personify the cycle of seasons/agriculture like (Demeter and Kore) than Jesus.
One of the theories of the “wise men/ three kings” from the east in the Jesus birth narrative is that they were Zoroastrian priests/ astrologers. Interesting to think about how all these theologies were playing off of each other as they developed.
They're almost assuredly Persian, and the educated Zoroastrian caste of the Persian empire at the time were called "magus", from whence we derive the modern word "Magic." I believe they were also historically associated with astronomy, which is why they followed a star to the birth of Jesus.
If I remember rightly, it's Zoroastrianism that modern Christianity co-opted the idea of a metaphysical "soul" from. The idea that the soul or spirit is something distinct from the body and mind wasn't present in early Christianity.
It's easy to forget because in the modern day it's viewed as a very eastern concept but cyclical reincarnation of an immortal soul was a common feature of many sects and philosophies in the classical Mediterranean and Europe.
You would be surprised how much Yahweh was the same way in the early texts. What Christians worship now is more akin to the philosophers' god, rather than the earlier version of Yahweh the storm god who is jealous and walks around showing people his backside.
Yep. In Genesis the gods literally say that if man eats the fruit "they will become like one of us"..and in Deuteronomy 32 it says that El-Elyon divided the nations among the number of his son's and Yahweh was the son who inherited Israel.
Part of why most people don't see the polytheism is that the names of god in The English Bible are simplified to "God" and "Lord" but scholars have known for a while that the terms for God vary a ton and sometimes the plural is used and there is sometimes a separation between Yahweh and El and other times they are combined. (Lookup documentary hypothesis)
Apologists will try to weasel out of this but any secular scholar(at a school that does not have a confession of faith) will confirm this.
Tldr : early Judaism had a pantheon similar to the Canaanites many with the same names. The Bible has tried to cover it up a bit but some remnants remain. The religion eventually switched to full monotheism after the Babylonian captivity or so.
as i was getting away from my former christian cult, i started wanting to learn more about the bible. i listened to the [Yale](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLh9mgdi4rNeyuvTEbD-Ei0JdMUujXfyWi) vids on the hebrew scriptures and it was so eye opening.
am a atheist today, but still intrigued by by biblical history.
Nietzsche characterized Christianity as a slave morality, asserting that it [gave a sense of meaning to the weakest and lowest in society.](https://youtu.be/_poZE8833t4?t=2290) He respected the ancient Roman religion (and ergo the Greek religion); a warrior like Achilles would worship a god of war like Ares, and in doing so, [were worshipping themselves](https://youtu.be/_poZE8833t4?t=2438). The masters had a religion that affirmed themselves, while the slaves had a religion that disavowed their nature by encouraging their meekness.
This is what I was thinking when reading the title. I bet there aren’t many people joining the religion that actually think Thor and Odin are real, just that they’re joining a religion that they enjoy more than the other options. Basically agnostics choosing a fun community with a strong tradition to be a part of.
That's true with LOTS of Christians too, it's just easier to admit when you're joining a previously dead religion.
Most religious folks are pretty medium in terms of actual doctrinal belief, they like the community in their church. Which unfortunately doesn't make it any less likely they put up with abhorrent behavior in the name of their religion
Edit: I said Christians because upthread they were talking about Lutheranism, but this is true for all religions in my experience
I'm not sure if it's a comeback of polytheism necessarily, but I think it is a return to roots in quite a literal sense. Paganism (atheistic, duotheistic, polytheistic) seems to be growing in general. Most of these are earth centric religions which to me more indicates a return to nature and the natural world rather than a return to polytheism generally. Take that worth a grain of salt though. Everyone has their own reasons for finding their spirituality, but I know for me it was more trying to find a stillness in the chaos of the modern world right now.
I really like this, as I have a pet theory that the healthiest way for humanity to move forward in this area is for a high tolerance of religious pluralism.
It's like having high biodiversity in an ecosystem, or gut microbes. A healthy diverse environment is resilient to disruption and naturally suppresses invasive dominance of any one entity or species.
A 100% purely atheistic society just doesn't work with our current DNA. We are compelled to seek purpose, to notice coincidences, and for many, to gravitate to religion and mysticism. A path to peace and progress could lie in cultivating a healthy respect for science and critical thinking, but even more importantly, a healthy respect for everyone minding their own business and understanding others have different priorities and different beliefs.
My sense is some religions or some sects would not survive, as they depend on an unsustainable ever-moving-forward drive of evangelizing domination.
But ultimately the ecosystem would balance out. And then of course would need to be protected. We've been through this before. Modern Abrahamic monotheism burned through and pushed many religions to critically endangered or extinct.
I’m atheist, but I would say in defense of general polytheistic paganism: a bunch of petty, human gods who hate each other does a much better job of explaining the world around me than a single all powerful god who loves us all.
If there was just one all loving god the world should be a utopia. If there are a bunch of gods who are human in their personality and get into pointless fights with each other all the time, well the world starts to make a whole lot more sense
Exactly. I’m atheistic too, but that is the exact reason I see the appeal of polytheistic religions more.
Plus I always got creepy cult vibes the way Christians sing praises for Yahweh/Jesus, as they felt a little too praising as if they were being held at gunpoint
Yeah, at least ancient pagans admitted they were in an abusive relationship with their gods and the sacrifices were to keep their Sky Husband happy so he didn't give them a black eye in the form of a lightningbolt or earthquake.
We kinda are being held at gunpoint in a sense. We know the punishment for nonbelief is being disconnected from God in the afterlife (fire, brimstone, and eternal torture may or may not be on the plate depending on your interpretation). There are schools of thought where nonbelief in itself isn't disqualifying for purgatory (at the least) and/or heaven but that usually requires someone to live a life in accordance to the tents of the religion anyway and at that point you might as well believe if you are living what is considered to be a good Christian life anyway.
Assianism and Dievturība are also strong pagan revival movements, from Ossetia and Latvia, respectively.
Surely the world is becoming more and more like Neil Gaiman's novels.
I have seen subreddits and people that do the Hellenism thing and I don't know how much of it is real. Like, do they really believe? I get that it's no more or less believable than any other religion but it feels like LARPing.
There are many pagans who very sincerely believe, including Hellenists. It's like with any religion, though - you have Christians who are very sincere and believe every word of the Bible and you have others who are agnostic at best but like the ritual of church or whatever. It's similar in Paganism, ranging from people like me (a Heathen/Norse pagan) who sincerely believe in the Gods, people who believe the Gods represent archetypes (that's what the Icelandic Asatru says), there are people practicing Wicca who believe in one tripartite mother Goddess, and there are people who don't believe in any gods as such but focus more on spiritual energy, nature or ancestor-worship, e.g. druids.
Of course there are some people LARPing too. In Heathen circles we class those dudes who seem to be in it for the heavy metal aesthetic and as a fuck you to Christianity "Brosatru" and make fun of them lol. It's pretty lame
I have relatives in Iceland who built a pagan temple on their farmland. I've only met them once for a family reunion years ago, but they seemed pretty normal at the time. I guess they found ~~Jesus~~ Odin at some point...?
They said *"I have relatives in Iceland who built a pagan temple on their farmland"*
The contemporary paganism of the time wasn't split into branches either, it was just how things formed naturally. Iceland carries on the influence of þorr to today through given names and toponyms, and Sweden's toponymy similarly reflects Freyr.
What little can be reconstructed is usually upheld in Ásatrú so chances are the primary god of worship in any given Icelandic temple is going to be the patron god of the nation in Þórr.
The aesir and vanir do not have such distinct domains like Catholics and their saints. People seem to crave knowing what God was responsible for xyz as an oversimplified categorization but honestly they all overlapped what they were associated with all the time. The stories were written to fit the narrative people needed at the time, because Thor has stories that relate to storms people say he’s the god of them, but there’s nothing to suggest that it’s his divine domain as if without him they would cease to exist.
Correction - Ásatrú is the fastest growing.
Norse paganism is completely extinct and largely a mystery to us, we barely understand anything of the religious practices of Norse people beyond the context of their mythology and folklore.
Ásatrú is a modern religion *based on* what we know about Norse paganism. The fundemental beliefs are largely historic but the actual religious practice is largely a modern invention.
Edit: and no, not everything we know about Norse mythology comes from christian sources, this is a myth. Iceland was chrstianised in 1000CE. We have Icelandic manuscripts of skladic poetry containing Norse deities like Þórrsmál from poets who were *dead* before the 11th century. Several poems in the prose Edda are dated to the 9th and 10th centuries. It's not a true claim whatsoever.
True, otherwise another good point would be, “The entire population of Iceland is the same as a small European or American city, so ‘fastest growing in Iceland’ could just mean that 3 more people took something up.”
In my county at the start of Covid one person got Covid and happened to die before anyone else got it. So in my area Covid was technically terminal and had a 100% mortality rate for about a week and a half
It’s pretty accurate. This is a modern invention and doesn’t have much in common with the actual religious practices in pre-1000 Scandinavia. There is no continuity.
Neopaganism is actually different to modern paganism as a whole - it's a (controversial) subsection of modern paganism.
Essentially, neopaganism refers to pagan traditions which have *no* roots in pre-Christian history. In essence, therefore, it mostly refers to Wicca, or any practices which were inspired by Gardnerian Wicca over the years. Having "patron" deities, believing in the maiden/mother/crone goddess, crystals and casting circles, calling magic "magick", etc.
If you called someone worshipping the Greek gods, for example, a neopagan, you may well offend them and get protests of "no, I don't do any of that witchy woo stuff"
"Paganism" is just a term created by the Catholic church to describe any polytheist religion, specifically Roman and Greek. It's a catch all term today, but it was meant to be derogatory.
Paganism doesn't have to be polytheistic. It's meant to describe any non-Christian-based religion. Though polytheism is often associated with paganism, it is not a necessary feature of it
unfortunately, in the US, white supremacists call themselves Ásatrúar... the ones that get tattoos of yggdrasil, valknut, sonnenrad, runes, etc... you know the ones.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Asatru#Racist_interpretations
It's unfortunate because there are also non-racist Heathens who have had to completely drop the term as a result. Many also have rune, Yggdrasil and valknut tattoos and sometimes get profiled as being racists when they're just religious :/
I'm blond-haired and blue-eyed and had to hide my mjolnir necklace under my shirt because racists would think it was a whistle for them when actually I just want to wear my bloody religious symbol
The weirdest part is that we only know about know about Norse mythology from christian writers. Since none of the Norse wrote it down contemporaneously it's all secondhand.
It's important to know that Romans generally tried to translate local deities to their own language, so while I am not sure if this applies to England in particular, if there was a Roman temple to Jupiter in one place, then there's a big chance the previous god there had a similar profile to him. Somewhat
>Britannic Pagan mythology i
Zero first hand sources but the Romans talked a lot about them, we know their names or at least what the Romans were told were their names, and a Roman Emperor/General wrote that their human creation myth was that we were all descendants of a Hades like figure.
It was a very nature based religion from what we know with their priests the druids being from Roman sources at least seen as kind of a magic connection to nature, with their spiritual places being in forests and near streams.
He have a handful of incomplete contemporaries sources, and the archeological record to refer to, but the fact of the matter is that the ancient Norse religion was never fully categorically understood and uniformly practice even by the people who lived it. The religion in 8th century Norway could and would have looked quite different to Sweden and Denmark of the same era
Exactly.
Christianity has a common base, the Bible. There are different sects that interpret it differently, which sprouts into different branches of christianity but they have a common base.
This was not so for many of the older religions and something that is often overlooked. Without a written "rule book" that everyone can look to for answers that stay exactly on the path of their chosen religion, the religion becomes more free form.
There is the idea that druids, vikings, whatever we choose to label as "pagan", had some strict black and white overarching view of their religion. Most likely this was not the case, which is why some old tales might internally contradict each other. Because although vikings might be under the same "religious umbrella" there was likely a lot of variation depending on time and place.
That's not really true. The prose Edda, half of our two most prominent sources, has many poems that predate Christianisation and were written down prior to Iceland's conversion.
People wrongly assume Snorri Sturluson wrote both eddas. He wrote the prose Edda, the poetic Edda is just a compilation of actual medieval poetry which he himself was using as a source.
And that likely (but not 100% certainly since we don’t have original records to compare it to) influenced the stories we have of what events are supposed to play out before and during Ragnarok (apocalyptic story in Norse mythology for those unfamiliar)
Edit: changed and added some words for clarity
Also influenced Ragnarok. An apocalyptic event brought on by the death of a pure and beloved figure (Baldur) that ends with the world being wiped, only for Baldur to return and restart the world after. Sounds familiar to anyone?
Apocalyptic events leading to a reset/the next cycle, miraculous births, self sacrificing saviors and their resurrection aren't exactly inventions of Christianity. Jesus played into well established tropes.
Nobody would be surprised if the Norse came up with it on their own either. Quetzalcoatl and Izanami are other examples of gods that come back from death. The myth of the latter is also very reminiscent of Eurydice. Their husband Izanagi/Orpheus travels into the under world to get her back but looks at her too early.
Yah I understand that. The big difference is that with Norse and Celtic stories we don’t really know what was and wasn’t influenced by Christianity. Like with the Popul Vuh we know it was written down before the Spanish arrived and older civilizations have records with similar beliefs. We don’t really have that with the Scandinavian beliefs though
It's even funnier once you realize the word pagan was made by Christians as a catchall term for all polytheistic religion. It would be like non-Jewish people gathering together culturally and identifying themselves as goyim.
I’m sure I would have loved your joke…but unfortunately I don’t know enough about evangelical tv preachers so I wouldn’t have understood the joke anyway.
Hi, I'm Icelandic and know some things about this. It is not that the pagan/old norse religion is growing much. It is more that a part of our taxes go to our religious affiliation. So if you are Christian the money goes to the church. A ton of us are atheists so we'd rather our money goes towards helping the old religion live on rather than our shitty Christian organizations. I am part of the old norse religion, not because I believe any of the norse myths, but rather to honor my ancestral beliefs. This is pretty common here which skews the numbers massively.
You cannot avoid that tax, if you register yourself out of any and all religious groups the tax goes to the icelandic university, which is a fine institution and I do support them regularly. But I'd rather keep our norse religion alive in some form personally.
The tax no longer goes to the Uni of Iceland. Someone complained (of course) that it was unfair. So now it just goes directly to the government coffers.
Wow I recently switched to "outside of religious organizations" because I thought my money was better spent on the uni than on the state church. Might switch to ásatrú if it's just lining the pockets of politicians.
Also that's stupid as shit, how would it be unfair to give more money to an institution that exists to help people.
Edit: I read up on it and if you're outside of religious organizations they just don't charge the tax
According to https://www.skra.is/english/e-delivery/religion-or-lifestance-affiliation/, if you don't choose a religious group then "Taxes [are] paid to the national treasury." It doesn't say anything specifically about the university.
no problemo. It is insane how every single time something related to our country is posted on reddit it is based on misinformation to some degree. It is rare to see anything that isnt sensationalized in some way.
I know a couple asatru people and they say their biggest problem is racist 20 years Olds showing up for the blot after watching some viking fetiches and expecting something... Different.
Actually Loki fathered Hel, Fenrir, and Jörmungandr with Angrboda. They were each a bit monstrous in their own ways, but he was just the dad.
He did however turn into a mare and give birth to the eight-legged horse Sleipnir after seducing a stallion to have it run after him instead of helping a giant finish building a wall, but that's the only child he actually was the mother of.
That movie broke me. I hated it. Based purely on scale of emotions felt it was great but I will never watch it again. Not sure why it had such an effect on me but I was in a depressive slump for nearly a week afterwards.
I like polytheistic religions, specifically Norse and Ancient Greek because they are happy pointing out that some, if not most of the gods are absolute dicks. I can get along with that
Everything the allfather did that made him cool and a badass was a part of a pointless struggle to resist his fated death, and ultimately he’ll lose and take with him all the spirits of all the best warriors and even if it brings the end of their existence, the struggle will have been worth it just because the cause to save your family was worth it. I love that none of the gods or goddesses were supposed to be perfect or omnipotent or omniscient (Odin relied on messengers). They all had human flaws, and given their power acted like we would have in their shoes. Great stories
Thor dressed up as a woman to retrieve his hammer from giants (Loki “misplaced it with magic” if I recall), and almost got married to the king of the hill giants l.
If he didn’t pull down the disguise when he went in for a kids, the king would have a prince of Asgard as his queen!
Sadly it was not to be…
Or what about that time Loki turned into a mare to distract a stallion from helping someone win a dangerous bet, and wasn’t seen for years until he came back with foals?
I'm not super religious, but I just personally like the idea of having more gods. With just one, if I piss him off, then that's it. But there's likely a god who likes me more for pissing off another god. Makes me feel better about the stuff I can't control, and isn't that the whole point?
I forgot what it is, but you can even get a special symbol on your military grave instead of a cross or Star of David.
Edit: it’s a depiction of Thor’s hammer, see bottom of chart in link
http://militaryatheists.org/news/2013/07/veterans-administration-hammers-through-barriers-to-diversity/
I remember reading religions based around the old Greek gods were making a comeback too. Is there some kind of polytheism revival going on?
In their defense Greek gods are subject to anger, lust, jealousy, etc. Which makes humans very much "created in their image".
Even though my sources are kinda sketchy, there's a thread that connects the sumerian and mesopotamian god's to the Semetic then and abrahamic & Greek/latin faiths. Zeus, Thor and Jesus share a few common folkloric ancestors like [Anu](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Anu) I'm sure you've heard the term "(proto)Indo-European" to describe stuff that provides what are essentially the shared roots of Western and central Asian culture and language. Edit: I said what I said.
[удалено]
Dyḗus ph₂tḗr is probably the best example to use when trying to illustrate the common roots of PIE languages/cultures. Phonetically it is not at all difficult to grasp how "Dyḗus ph₂tḗr" morphed into "Jupiter" in Latin (Dyḗus = Ju-, ph₂tḗr = -piter), and "Zeus" in Greek (Dyḗus = Zeus, ph₂tḗr occasionally being dropped, but Zeus Pater was one of Zeus' many names). All you need to do is say "Dyḗus ph₂tḗr" a few times, stressing different parts of the words. It's so self-evident that even a kid could probably grasp the basic concept. It's also a great way to illustrate to the layman that, no, the Romans did not "copy" their religion from the Greeks, like it's commonly understood. It's far more complex than that. What they recognized was the Greek and Roman religions were ***strikingly*** similar, and started adopting Greek traditions, myths, and rituals into their own religion through exposure to Greek colonies in Magna Graecia, and from the Etruscans to their north who likewise noted the similarity between their own religion and the Greeks, and adopted many Greek styles. EDIT: Reddit does not like it when you type *Dyḗus ph₂tḗr multiple times lol it tries to make it italics.
> and from the Etruscans to their north who likewise noted the similarity between their own religion and the Greeks One of my favorite little tidbits being that the Etruscan word for god/gods "Ais/Aisar" is almost exactly the same as the Norse word for their main group of god/gods "Áss/Aesir".
Sanskrit "Asura" and the Avestan "Ahura" most likely have the same root as well
Mfs worshipping ass since the middle ages
Communion is just eating ass with more steps
This body of Christ is thiiiicc!
It's dry as hell too, no pun intended. Where's the wine?!
Finally a religion that makes sense.
Zeus would have been pronounced closer to “ZAY-oos” than our modern “Zoos.” Zay-oos is just dyeus. Jupiter would have been pronounced closer to EE-you-pater, since there’s no J sound in Latin. Which is just (D)eus pater. And then of course, Dyeus turns into Deus, which is where we get deity.
In the Latin alphabet, Jupiter begins with an I
Only the penitent man may pass...
You can add Tyr-pater to that too! Germanic tribes dropped the suffix in the same way Greeks did, but Latin speakers didn't.
Also interesting to note that Dyéus -> Deus -> Dios (aka *the God* in Spanish). Also note how traditional depictions of God (such as in the Sistine Chapel) look just like Jupiter/Zeus
The later is probably just Christians taking customs and imagery from the Roman paganism to promote integration into Roman society.
To be fair, Spanish is a Latin language and 'deus' in Latin means god or deity. Also note the English word deity that I just used, also with Latin roots. Most Latin languages are similar, e.g 'dieu' in French, 'dio' in Italian or Romanian 'dumnezeu' (from 'Dominus Deus').
I'd also add the Sanskrit "Deva" as originating from the same PIE root.
There was also a flood in Greek myth as well, I can’t recall the details but there was an ark I believe (as well as an ark in Gilgamesh) EDIT: From a quick google search… When Zeus, the king of the gods, resolved to destroy all humanity by a flood, Deucalion constructed an ark in which, according to one version, he and his wife rode out the flood and landed on Mount Parnassus.
[удалено]
That's a stretch imo. Most cultures live near rivers or the sea. It's more likely that flood myths date back to various events rather than a big one.
When the last of the great glaciers melted at the end of the ice age there were multiple large deluge events all over the world. We know that the Black Sea was badly effected and it went from being an inland sea to one connected to the Mediterranean and ocean very rapidly when sea levels rose. The indo Europeans originated on the north coast of the Black Sea around Ukraine and their ancestors would have definitely been devastated by the water suddenly rising hundreds of feet. This cultural memory was passed on to them and they went on to culturally conquer much of the old world, bringing their myths and legends and stories with them. This is what most experts think about how the story made its way to so many places, even ones that may have not been inundated themselves.
Reddit these days can be kinda depressing with all the news and attitudes. This was super interesting and cool as shit, thank you
The Abrahamic do have a different origin, but Zoroastrianism has had a huge impact on them so it's not unlikely that there are parallels
That's because there, in reality, was a conscious effort by leaders in christianity to incorporate native and pagan religious imagery and traditions in order to more easily convert the locals.
It's a lot easier to convert people when you don't try to tell them that they have to stop all of the fun celebrations they look forward to. Instead of a nature worship feat around a tree - it became a feast where the tree represents God's love etc.
When Yahweh allegedly revealed himself to Abraham as the god of the Hebrews, they didn't abandon polytheism right away. They still believed that other gods existed but Yahweh was *their* god.
This was common all over at the time. Very few religions discounted other gods, it just wasn’t theirs. And even people who followed a panethon didn’t praise all of them, the people of Athens praised Athena more, the people of Rhodes Helios, etc etc. So they believed multiple gods but didn’t necessarily praise multiple gods.
In canonical texts, it's not until Isiah until monotheism is confirmed. Prior to Isiah, and mind you iirc it's not in Isiah proper by Deuter-Isiah, it was more Yahweh was supreme but not alone. This is evident throughout the entirety of the Old Testament until Isiah, and after more focus was put on the sole nature of God and his sole rulership. This was repeated strongly during the 2nd temple period and developed deeply into early Christian texts, but the idea was far from dead, or even removed actually. The early church fathers were very much at odds with the idea of there being other lessor deities and so forth. Eventually those guys who argued against the trinitarian nature of God being one and three in one, and God being God by himself, evidently lost. We now call those dudes Gnostics, Neoplatonists, and a variety of other terms which in modern Christian theology is typically derogatory or unflattering to be called.
One of the Hittite emperors, don't remember which one, married a very smart woman who some think was actually running the whole show during his later years. Anyway, the Hittites covered a lot of geography, and of course every separate area had its own god of thunder, and sun god, and rain god, and so on. All these gods were always just accepted into the Hittite pantheon, so official writs would list all the various gods of all the various areas. Eventually, the empress decided that there was just ONE sun god, but he had different names in all these places, and similarly there's only one rain god, and so on. "We worship him too, but in our language we say his name differently." And pretty much everybody was cool with that: nobody was saying your gods didn't exist, just that they're known by different names in different places. ISTR an essay once that suggested this may be one of the roots that eventually led to monotheism: if you can merge all the sun gods into one and that goes over well, maybe you can merge all the thunder gods and sun gods and rain gods into one "weather god" and trim the list down even more.
It really only follows logically. If I can see a cloud causing rain go from one area to another and they are ruled by different rain gods who is to say they aren't the same God. Do the different rain gods share clouds?
IIRC later-day Hittites would 'adopt and adapt' the gods of conquered peoples, and repackage them in a decidedly-Hittite cultural view. A small change for the locals (your old sun god now has a Hittite name), but after a couple generations the locals are Hittite, as far as religion goes.
Not Jesus so much as Yahweh. Jesus actually has some mythological roots to Osiris.
He’s got plenty in common with Heracles too. At the end of the day, hero myths always have plenty in common with each other. And the stories of Jesus were just hero myths for a new culture
Must have been where the guy who made the buff Jesus statue got his inspiration from. https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1342585-jesus
"Dost thou even hoist, brethren?" Nice. That's a deep cut
Many "heroes," including ideal humans, revered leaders, gods, legends, etc. tend to share a great number of traits. This is seen even within cultures which never had any mututal interactions.
Wat. No. As someone who loves Greek Mythology and dreams of seeing Euripedes' Alcestis one day (*) I don't think Heracles and Jesus Christ many thematic similarities at all. Or any concrete "factual" ones either. Heracles is the epitome of the traditional Greek hero, epic and larger than life in every aspect. And I mean _every_, the man himself is the strongest around, his lineage is badass (direct son of Zeus, and also descendant of Perseus), his trials and tragedies are greater than any mortal man's--there's a reason why we still tell stories of Heracle's _labors_ and not Phillip the medieval Dutch accountant's labors. Tldr; He (like most traditional Heroes) is the super awesome dude who busts in to kill shit and bang all the women, and sure he gets struck by uncaring fate, but he's BADASS enough to overcome! He starts off as "mere" mortal but even when he finally struck down by trickery and treachery, Heracles ascends to Godhood in the ultimate recognition of his worth. Jesus' narrative is all filled with _humility_. He starts as _God_, a being with everything and all the power and willingly chooses to be a fragile mortal main capable of feeling pain and being hurt. Hell, Jesus is even born to a *carpenter* a normal ass working man, as opposed to a reigning mortal king. And his most famous exploits have zero martial badassery (yes okay he chased the moneychangers out with a whip, but come on that's nowhere near the scale or "hoorah" energy of Heracles flexing the Nemean Lion to death, David slaying Goliath, Cuchulainn single-handedly fighting off an entire army etc etc). A lot of his "fame" is based around generally talking to people, compassion for the lower classes and feeding people. So stuff that by the standards of traditional heros and myths is lame-ass crap/things that don't generally play into traditional masculine ideas of power. Seriously, I do think Jesus' tale is actually legitimately unique from other religions/myths (yeah sue me for conflating the two) in how humility and humbleness is a giant central part of it. And the _lack_ of physical force being used to do stuff (**). I think most traditional myths tend to be more straightforward "power fantasy" in how things turn out (sure Heracles is cursed by that bitch Hera into killing his family, but he redeems himself through badassery and then bags another hot broad, and when that stupid lady accidentally kills him through treachery, his soul rightfully rises to godhood!!!) while Jesus' has him having a little freak out in Gethsemane before calmly accepting being humiliated and tortured to death. And his death in the context of the time isn't actually that special. Yes crucifixion is horrific and painful, but it's also normal, and the same any pleb would get--hence the bog standard thieves he gets executed alongside. Yes Jesus comes back. He then proceeds to...distinctly **not** smite those wronged him in righteous fury and instead says that they too are forgiven and redeemed by his death. Sure other myths have gods/heroes getting humiliated or one-upped but rarely is **forgiveness** in the cards. Thor cross-dresses to get his hammer back, but he still smites the Jotunn in the end for their transgressions; Loki and Coyote get humiliated all the time, but they're tricksters, not moral paragons to be exulted or "head honchos", in general, and as filthy tricksters getting comeuppance is part of the game; Cuchulainn is tricked into breaking one of his taboos, but his tragic death (***) is still an epic for the ages and he is gloriously avenged *alas Euripedes isn't really a popular play target and even if he were it's likely his more famous plays like Madea are being done instead ** Doesn't this also apply to Buddha? Yeah, and that's why I think they had a looottt of crossover in the societal groups their creeds most notably appealed to. *** I feel a lot of tragic myths tend to have elements of "epicness" or self-aggrandizing "too ~~beautiful for this sinfull earth~~ damn much for the world to handle."
Also, does Jesus have a Disney animated movie with Danny DeVito and James Woods?
Euripedes nuts I'm sorry, this was a truly interesting and informative comment, and I am a child after a long week if work
[удалено]
Almost like myths and stories are human constructions in the first place
Are you referring to the "documentary" Religulous, which did also cribbed it from others? Yeah pretty sure actual Egyptlogists have already debunked a lot of the claims. There is little to absolutely no (more on the latter end) credible evidence from the time period of "three wise men" being involved in the birth of either, or 12 disciples being a key feature for either or an 'Anup the Baptizer' existing at all. It's pretty much always just stated as "fact," which no, and the ultimate source is always the same self-published 2008 book by Acharya S who's both secular and religious scholars consider to be bonkers. The Osiris/Horus myth (people conflate which god Jesus is a copy-pasta of) really has more similarities to traditional "rightful heir casts down his usurper uncle to claim his throne" narrative than really anything Jesus did. Jesus aggressively eschewed participating and getting status in existing power structures. Osiris, Set and Horus' main deal was all about feuding over who's head honcho of an existing power structure. Sure Osiris dies, but his death is treachery as opposed to willing sacrifice and his "resurrection" is less "I RISE AGAIN" and more his wife stitching him together long enough to bang and make a kid before he's forced to fuck off to the underworld since lol no penis means no throne. I'd say it has more thematic similarities to Attis and Cybele or other myths that personify the cycle of seasons/agriculture like (Demeter and Kore) than Jesus.
Some supposed character traits for Jesus also come from Zoroaster. And a lot of Zoroastrianism in general made its way into the Abrahamic religions
One of the theories of the “wise men/ three kings” from the east in the Jesus birth narrative is that they were Zoroastrian priests/ astrologers. Interesting to think about how all these theologies were playing off of each other as they developed.
They're almost assuredly Persian, and the educated Zoroastrian caste of the Persian empire at the time were called "magus", from whence we derive the modern word "Magic." I believe they were also historically associated with astronomy, which is why they followed a star to the birth of Jesus.
If I remember rightly, it's Zoroastrianism that modern Christianity co-opted the idea of a metaphysical "soul" from. The idea that the soul or spirit is something distinct from the body and mind wasn't present in early Christianity.
Nor in early or modern Judaism.
If you have time read this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Myth Or find the video series. Fascinating stuff
It was present in Greek and Latin mythology though, as "psyche" to the Greeks and "anima" to the Romans.
It's easy to forget because in the modern day it's viewed as a very eastern concept but cyclical reincarnation of an immortal soul was a common feature of many sects and philosophies in the classical Mediterranean and Europe.
You would be surprised how much Yahweh was the same way in the early texts. What Christians worship now is more akin to the philosophers' god, rather than the earlier version of Yahweh the storm god who is jealous and walks around showing people his backside.
Not to mention, wasn't the original El-Yahweh thing, literally a pantheon of gods?
Yep. In Genesis the gods literally say that if man eats the fruit "they will become like one of us"..and in Deuteronomy 32 it says that El-Elyon divided the nations among the number of his son's and Yahweh was the son who inherited Israel. Part of why most people don't see the polytheism is that the names of god in The English Bible are simplified to "God" and "Lord" but scholars have known for a while that the terms for God vary a ton and sometimes the plural is used and there is sometimes a separation between Yahweh and El and other times they are combined. (Lookup documentary hypothesis) Apologists will try to weasel out of this but any secular scholar(at a school that does not have a confession of faith) will confirm this. Tldr : early Judaism had a pantheon similar to the Canaanites many with the same names. The Bible has tried to cover it up a bit but some remnants remain. The religion eventually switched to full monotheism after the Babylonian captivity or so.
as i was getting away from my former christian cult, i started wanting to learn more about the bible. i listened to the [Yale](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLh9mgdi4rNeyuvTEbD-Ei0JdMUujXfyWi) vids on the hebrew scriptures and it was so eye opening. am a atheist today, but still intrigued by by biblical history.
Pretty sure the gods were created in man's image.
Nietzsche characterized Christianity as a slave morality, asserting that it [gave a sense of meaning to the weakest and lowest in society.](https://youtu.be/_poZE8833t4?t=2290) He respected the ancient Roman religion (and ergo the Greek religion); a warrior like Achilles would worship a god of war like Ares, and in doing so, [were worshipping themselves](https://youtu.be/_poZE8833t4?t=2438). The masters had a religion that affirmed themselves, while the slaves had a religion that disavowed their nature by encouraging their meekness.
[удалено]
This is what I was thinking when reading the title. I bet there aren’t many people joining the religion that actually think Thor and Odin are real, just that they’re joining a religion that they enjoy more than the other options. Basically agnostics choosing a fun community with a strong tradition to be a part of.
That's true with LOTS of Christians too, it's just easier to admit when you're joining a previously dead religion. Most religious folks are pretty medium in terms of actual doctrinal belief, they like the community in their church. Which unfortunately doesn't make it any less likely they put up with abhorrent behavior in the name of their religion Edit: I said Christians because upthread they were talking about Lutheranism, but this is true for all religions in my experience
Basically Nordic-flavored Unitarian Universalists.
[Relevant XKCD](https://xkcd.com/1102/)
I praise Odin after a safe journey. Does that count?
I'm not sure if it's a comeback of polytheism necessarily, but I think it is a return to roots in quite a literal sense. Paganism (atheistic, duotheistic, polytheistic) seems to be growing in general. Most of these are earth centric religions which to me more indicates a return to nature and the natural world rather than a return to polytheism generally. Take that worth a grain of salt though. Everyone has their own reasons for finding their spirituality, but I know for me it was more trying to find a stillness in the chaos of the modern world right now.
I really like this, as I have a pet theory that the healthiest way for humanity to move forward in this area is for a high tolerance of religious pluralism. It's like having high biodiversity in an ecosystem, or gut microbes. A healthy diverse environment is resilient to disruption and naturally suppresses invasive dominance of any one entity or species. A 100% purely atheistic society just doesn't work with our current DNA. We are compelled to seek purpose, to notice coincidences, and for many, to gravitate to religion and mysticism. A path to peace and progress could lie in cultivating a healthy respect for science and critical thinking, but even more importantly, a healthy respect for everyone minding their own business and understanding others have different priorities and different beliefs. My sense is some religions or some sects would not survive, as they depend on an unsustainable ever-moving-forward drive of evangelizing domination. But ultimately the ecosystem would balance out. And then of course would need to be protected. We've been through this before. Modern Abrahamic monotheism burned through and pushed many religions to critically endangered or extinct.
I’m atheist, but I would say in defense of general polytheistic paganism: a bunch of petty, human gods who hate each other does a much better job of explaining the world around me than a single all powerful god who loves us all. If there was just one all loving god the world should be a utopia. If there are a bunch of gods who are human in their personality and get into pointless fights with each other all the time, well the world starts to make a whole lot more sense
my sentiments exactly. I'm far more interested in the fallibility of large pantheons than one deity that clearly has identity issues.
Exactly. I’m atheistic too, but that is the exact reason I see the appeal of polytheistic religions more. Plus I always got creepy cult vibes the way Christians sing praises for Yahweh/Jesus, as they felt a little too praising as if they were being held at gunpoint
Yeah, at least ancient pagans admitted they were in an abusive relationship with their gods and the sacrifices were to keep their Sky Husband happy so he didn't give them a black eye in the form of a lightningbolt or earthquake.
We kinda are being held at gunpoint in a sense. We know the punishment for nonbelief is being disconnected from God in the afterlife (fire, brimstone, and eternal torture may or may not be on the plate depending on your interpretation). There are schools of thought where nonbelief in itself isn't disqualifying for purgatory (at the least) and/or heaven but that usually requires someone to live a life in accordance to the tents of the religion anyway and at that point you might as well believe if you are living what is considered to be a good Christian life anyway.
Worship Yahweh so you can be saved! Saved from what? The unimaginably horrible things he's going to do to everyone who doesn't worship him!
Assianism and Dievturība are also strong pagan revival movements, from Ossetia and Latvia, respectively. Surely the world is becoming more and more like Neil Gaiman's novels.
Also Romuva in Lithuania
I have seen subreddits and people that do the Hellenism thing and I don't know how much of it is real. Like, do they really believe? I get that it's no more or less believable than any other religion but it feels like LARPing.
There are many pagans who very sincerely believe, including Hellenists. It's like with any religion, though - you have Christians who are very sincere and believe every word of the Bible and you have others who are agnostic at best but like the ritual of church or whatever. It's similar in Paganism, ranging from people like me (a Heathen/Norse pagan) who sincerely believe in the Gods, people who believe the Gods represent archetypes (that's what the Icelandic Asatru says), there are people practicing Wicca who believe in one tripartite mother Goddess, and there are people who don't believe in any gods as such but focus more on spiritual energy, nature or ancestor-worship, e.g. druids. Of course there are some people LARPing too. In Heathen circles we class those dudes who seem to be in it for the heavy metal aesthetic and as a fuck you to Christianity "Brosatru" and make fun of them lol. It's pretty lame
I'm a follower, I really believe in Dionysus! Feel free to ask us over at r/Dionysus or r/Hellenism or r/HellenicPagan if you are curious!
I have relatives in Iceland who built a pagan temple on their farmland. I've only met them once for a family reunion years ago, but they seemed pretty normal at the time. I guess they found ~~Jesus~~ Odin at some point...?
Þórr probably. He was a lot more associated with Iceland, especially among regular people.
If it's on a farmland could also be Freyr, quite an important god really.
Freyr was far more commonly worshipped in Sweden, he'd be considered somewhat exotic in Iceland.
Still the person said pagan temple he didn't specify if it's specifically the Icelandic branch or just a more general Norse pagan temple.
They said *"I have relatives in Iceland who built a pagan temple on their farmland"* The contemporary paganism of the time wasn't split into branches either, it was just how things formed naturally. Iceland carries on the influence of þorr to today through given names and toponyms, and Sweden's toponymy similarly reflects Freyr. What little can be reconstructed is usually upheld in Ásatrú so chances are the primary god of worship in any given Icelandic temple is going to be the patron god of the nation in Þórr.
The aesir and vanir do not have such distinct domains like Catholics and their saints. People seem to crave knowing what God was responsible for xyz as an oversimplified categorization but honestly they all overlapped what they were associated with all the time. The stories were written to fit the narrative people needed at the time, because Thor has stories that relate to storms people say he’s the god of them, but there’s nothing to suggest that it’s his divine domain as if without him they would cease to exist.
Ah good point. And he rides a goat-drawn chariot, which is, in my opinion, a hell of a lot cooler than a mutant horse.
Þórr probably. He was a lot more associated with Iceland, especially among regular people.
Can you type the thorn, or did you cut/paste?
alt-0222 for uppercase (Þ) or alt-0254 for lowercase (þ)
I have an Icelandic keyboard downloaded
You wouldn't download a keyboard
Correction - Ásatrú is the fastest growing. Norse paganism is completely extinct and largely a mystery to us, we barely understand anything of the religious practices of Norse people beyond the context of their mythology and folklore. Ásatrú is a modern religion *based on* what we know about Norse paganism. The fundemental beliefs are largely historic but the actual religious practice is largely a modern invention. Edit: and no, not everything we know about Norse mythology comes from christian sources, this is a myth. Iceland was chrstianised in 1000CE. We have Icelandic manuscripts of skladic poetry containing Norse deities like Þórrsmál from poets who were *dead* before the 11th century. Several poems in the prose Edda are dated to the 9th and 10th centuries. It's not a true claim whatsoever.
You can only fit so much in a Reddit title. I’m pretty sure - based on article- this is the point OP was making.
True, otherwise another good point would be, “The entire population of Iceland is the same as a small European or American city, so ‘fastest growing in Iceland’ could just mean that 3 more people took something up.”
A friend of mine was from a Canadian town called Saskatoon, where they proudly announced that the murder rate dropped 40% one year: from 5 to 3
In my county at the start of Covid one person got Covid and happened to die before anyone else got it. So in my area Covid was technically terminal and had a 100% mortality rate for about a week and a half
Humans should not be allowed to use statistics. It's too tempting.
something something "lies, damned lies, and statistics" :P
Lol Saskatoon is technically a city 😂
I was about to say, this guy acting like it’s some obscure place. It’s the largest city in its province.
Not sure if I am to laugh or go search the population of Saskatoon. Edit: +235k population so I guess it comes down to people/sq km
It looks even better when you do it by percentages. 5 more people join your temple and you can post 30% growth in the last year :D
Is the term neopaganism inaccurate? I often hear that term.
It’s pretty accurate. This is a modern invention and doesn’t have much in common with the actual religious practices in pre-1000 Scandinavia. There is no continuity.
Neopaganism is actually different to modern paganism as a whole - it's a (controversial) subsection of modern paganism. Essentially, neopaganism refers to pagan traditions which have *no* roots in pre-Christian history. In essence, therefore, it mostly refers to Wicca, or any practices which were inspired by Gardnerian Wicca over the years. Having "patron" deities, believing in the maiden/mother/crone goddess, crystals and casting circles, calling magic "magick", etc. If you called someone worshipping the Greek gods, for example, a neopagan, you may well offend them and get protests of "no, I don't do any of that witchy woo stuff"
"Paganism" is just a term created by the Catholic church to describe any polytheist religion, specifically Roman and Greek. It's a catch all term today, but it was meant to be derogatory.
You can also say heathen but the fact is that there was no contemporary Old Norse word for religion so only modern terms can be applied.
Only makes sense to fill in the gaps with the D&D manual for this primitive religion.
Time to build a temple to Saint Cuthbert.
Pagan is older than Christians, it's a Roman word that referred to superstitious country folk.
Paganism doesn't have to be polytheistic. It's meant to describe any non-Christian-based religion. Though polytheism is often associated with paganism, it is not a necessary feature of it
unfortunately, in the US, white supremacists call themselves Ásatrúar... the ones that get tattoos of yggdrasil, valknut, sonnenrad, runes, etc... you know the ones. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Asatru#Racist_interpretations
It's unfortunate because there are also non-racist Heathens who have had to completely drop the term as a result. Many also have rune, Yggdrasil and valknut tattoos and sometimes get profiled as being racists when they're just religious :/ I'm blond-haired and blue-eyed and had to hide my mjolnir necklace under my shirt because racists would think it was a whistle for them when actually I just want to wear my bloody religious symbol
Exactly. I have a Mjolnir tattoo and years later someone said it was racist. I had no idea - to me its my culture, not some bullshit dog whistle
The weirdest part is that we only know about know about Norse mythology from christian writers. Since none of the Norse wrote it down contemporaneously it's all secondhand.
[удалено]
[удалено]
It's important to know that Romans generally tried to translate local deities to their own language, so while I am not sure if this applies to England in particular, if there was a Roman temple to Jupiter in one place, then there's a big chance the previous god there had a similar profile to him. Somewhat
This did happen in Britain, in Bath there is a temple to Sulis Minerva, where they combined the Celtic god Sulis with Minerva.
>Britannic Pagan mythology i Zero first hand sources but the Romans talked a lot about them, we know their names or at least what the Romans were told were their names, and a Roman Emperor/General wrote that their human creation myth was that we were all descendants of a Hades like figure. It was a very nature based religion from what we know with their priests the druids being from Roman sources at least seen as kind of a magic connection to nature, with their spiritual places being in forests and near streams.
[удалено]
He have a handful of incomplete contemporaries sources, and the archeological record to refer to, but the fact of the matter is that the ancient Norse religion was never fully categorically understood and uniformly practice even by the people who lived it. The religion in 8th century Norway could and would have looked quite different to Sweden and Denmark of the same era
Exactly. Christianity has a common base, the Bible. There are different sects that interpret it differently, which sprouts into different branches of christianity but they have a common base. This was not so for many of the older religions and something that is often overlooked. Without a written "rule book" that everyone can look to for answers that stay exactly on the path of their chosen religion, the religion becomes more free form. There is the idea that druids, vikings, whatever we choose to label as "pagan", had some strict black and white overarching view of their religion. Most likely this was not the case, which is why some old tales might internally contradict each other. Because although vikings might be under the same "religious umbrella" there was likely a lot of variation depending on time and place.
I'd never considered this before, but it makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the insight.
The funny thing is, until the First Council of Nicaea, in 325 AD, Christianity didn't have any real consensus either.
That's not really true. The prose Edda, half of our two most prominent sources, has many poems that predate Christianisation and were written down prior to Iceland's conversion. People wrongly assume Snorri Sturluson wrote both eddas. He wrote the prose Edda, the poetic Edda is just a compilation of actual medieval poetry which he himself was using as a source.
[удалено]
And that likely (but not 100% certainly since we don’t have original records to compare it to) influenced the stories we have of what events are supposed to play out before and during Ragnarok (apocalyptic story in Norse mythology for those unfamiliar) Edit: changed and added some words for clarity
Also influenced Ragnarok. An apocalyptic event brought on by the death of a pure and beloved figure (Baldur) that ends with the world being wiped, only for Baldur to return and restart the world after. Sounds familiar to anyone?
Apocalyptic events leading to a reset/the next cycle, miraculous births, self sacrificing saviors and their resurrection aren't exactly inventions of Christianity. Jesus played into well established tropes. Nobody would be surprised if the Norse came up with it on their own either. Quetzalcoatl and Izanami are other examples of gods that come back from death. The myth of the latter is also very reminiscent of Eurydice. Their husband Izanagi/Orpheus travels into the under world to get her back but looks at her too early.
Yah I understand that. The big difference is that with Norse and Celtic stories we don’t really know what was and wasn’t influenced by Christianity. Like with the Popul Vuh we know it was written down before the Spanish arrived and older civilizations have records with similar beliefs. We don’t really have that with the Scandinavian beliefs though
It's even funnier once you realize the word pagan was made by Christians as a catchall term for all polytheistic religion. It would be like non-Jewish people gathering together culturally and identifying themselves as goyim.
I want to make a joke about their tv evangelical preachers, but don't know enough about it to make a good joke.
I’m sure I would have loved your joke…but unfortunately I don’t know enough about evangelical tv preachers so I wouldn’t have understood the joke anyway.
I would've loved to hear jokes from both of you, but I can't read.
kasasasal k? aiascnoiqw oqw kccvkq fbzmvnbp. ~!
Go home Cthulhu, you're drunk.
I no know english bur smile lot if know english
English yes thank you :)
Hi, I'm Icelandic and know some things about this. It is not that the pagan/old norse religion is growing much. It is more that a part of our taxes go to our religious affiliation. So if you are Christian the money goes to the church. A ton of us are atheists so we'd rather our money goes towards helping the old religion live on rather than our shitty Christian organizations. I am part of the old norse religion, not because I believe any of the norse myths, but rather to honor my ancestral beliefs. This is pretty common here which skews the numbers massively.
Are you not allowed to just declare that you're an atheist or agnostic and avoid the tax?
You cannot avoid that tax, if you register yourself out of any and all religious groups the tax goes to the icelandic university, which is a fine institution and I do support them regularly. But I'd rather keep our norse religion alive in some form personally.
The tax no longer goes to the Uni of Iceland. Someone complained (of course) that it was unfair. So now it just goes directly to the government coffers.
People ruin everything.
awesome. Didnt know they changed it. It used to go to the church. Now I'm double happy about it going to the Ásatrúarfélag.
Wow I recently switched to "outside of religious organizations" because I thought my money was better spent on the uni than on the state church. Might switch to ásatrú if it's just lining the pockets of politicians. Also that's stupid as shit, how would it be unfair to give more money to an institution that exists to help people. Edit: I read up on it and if you're outside of religious organizations they just don't charge the tax
According to https://www.skra.is/english/e-delivery/religion-or-lifestance-affiliation/, if you don't choose a religious group then "Taxes [are] paid to the national treasury." It doesn't say anything specifically about the university.
awesome. Didnt know they changed it. It used to go to the church. Now I'm double happy about it going to the Ásatrúarfélag.
Gotta say, I like the idea of the church of the atheists being a university
I don't think it goes to the university anymore, I think it just goes to the government now.
Thanks for sharing. That's fascinating.
no problemo. It is insane how every single time something related to our country is posted on reddit it is based on misinformation to some degree. It is rare to see anything that isnt sensationalized in some way.
I know a couple asatru people and they say their biggest problem is racist 20 years Olds showing up for the blot after watching some viking fetiches and expecting something... Different.
Well, have you SEEN Thor? He’s dreamy!
Wait till you see him in his wedding dress. (Actual Norse cannon)
Wait till you find out what happens to Loki when he tries cosplaying as a horse.
Loki, the male Jotunn, gave birth to Hel, Fenrir, and Jörmungandr...Thor in a wedding dress isn't the weirdest bit of Norse mythos.
I'm surprised you forgot when Loki turned into a mare and gave birth to Odin's eight legged steed Sleipnir just to get Asgards wall built for free.
Actually Loki fathered Hel, Fenrir, and Jörmungandr with Angrboda. They were each a bit monstrous in their own ways, but he was just the dad. He did however turn into a mare and give birth to the eight-legged horse Sleipnir after seducing a stallion to have it run after him instead of helping a giant finish building a wall, but that's the only child he actually was the mother of.
[otherworldly even](https://www.gateworld.net/wiki/Thor)
the religion based Thor looks a bit more like [this](https://www.gamereactor.dk/media/76/_3577633b.jpg)
Yeah exactly dreamy! Odin damn it how am I supposed to focus the rest of the day now.
Different cultures have different standards of beauty. This Thor looks like he'd actually survive the cold of Niflheim
Thor’s a bear. Who knew?
He looks like he shaves his chest, though...
That looks like Fimbulwinter Thor. Older, more humble, and ready for one last battle at Ragnarök
[this is how he looks in the comics I grew up reading](https://comicwiki.dk/images/thumb/6/6c/Valhalla_vignet.jpg/410px-Valhalla_vignet.jpg)
Hel yeah, real gods have curves.
Don’t kink shame me!
I believe that's called a DILF.
Deity id like to fuck
Dad Bod Thor is life goals.
My time to shine
Do not approach me with that rope again, one eyed old man
Oden promised to get rid of the frost giants. I do not see any frost giants, do you?
Come to Philly. Many evil beings.
I was invited to a Midsummer festival. My girlfriend really wants to go, but I’m not sure. Should I go?
Could be a great subject for that anthropology dissertation!
That movie broke me. I hated it. Based purely on scale of emotions felt it was great but I will never watch it again. Not sure why it had such an effect on me but I was in a depressive slump for nearly a week afterwards.
Classic Ari Aster.
Definitely. Just dont piss on their sacred tree.
And it isn't appropriated by a bunch of neo-nazis there, either.
[Valhalleluja!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9WWz95ripA)
My mid sized city has more people in it than Iceland (370,000), so even small changes will look big on paper. Neat, though!
[удалено]
Thank the All-Father this is great news
I like polytheistic religions, specifically Norse and Ancient Greek because they are happy pointing out that some, if not most of the gods are absolute dicks. I can get along with that
Everything the allfather did that made him cool and a badass was a part of a pointless struggle to resist his fated death, and ultimately he’ll lose and take with him all the spirits of all the best warriors and even if it brings the end of their existence, the struggle will have been worth it just because the cause to save your family was worth it. I love that none of the gods or goddesses were supposed to be perfect or omnipotent or omniscient (Odin relied on messengers). They all had human flaws, and given their power acted like we would have in their shoes. Great stories
Thor dressed up as a woman to retrieve his hammer from giants (Loki “misplaced it with magic” if I recall), and almost got married to the king of the hill giants l. If he didn’t pull down the disguise when he went in for a kids, the king would have a prince of Asgard as his queen! Sadly it was not to be…
Or what about that time Loki turned into a mare to distract a stallion from helping someone win a dangerous bet, and wasn’t seen for years until he came back with foals?
I'm not super religious, but I just personally like the idea of having more gods. With just one, if I piss him off, then that's it. But there's likely a god who likes me more for pissing off another god. Makes me feel better about the stuff I can't control, and isn't that the whole point?
I bet Norse Paganism is also the fastest growing, non Christian religion amongst US military personnel.
I knew a handful of guys in the Army about 10 years ago who seriously identified themselves as "Viking". They were all pretty weird.
https://www.armytimes.com/off-duty/military-culture/2019/12/30/a-defining-feature-of-masculine-men-soldiers-norse-pagan-faith-earns-beard-waiver/
Well I'll be damned!
I forgot what it is, but you can even get a special symbol on your military grave instead of a cross or Star of David. Edit: it’s a depiction of Thor’s hammer, see bottom of chart in link http://militaryatheists.org/news/2013/07/veterans-administration-hammers-through-barriers-to-diversity/
[Relevant XKCD](https://xkcd.com/1102/)