We need to remove atheist “pagans” from the pagan sphere.

hrafnblod (Ænglo-Texæn Heathen)

Because it isn’t simply my objective to express personal disapproval of atheist “pagans.” My objective is to remove them, to the best of my ability, from the pagan sphere.

I apologize for overestimating your literacy, but I am only libertarian insofar as people aren’t ruining other peoples’ spaces or things. Your insistence on staking an atheistic flag in paganism is tantamount to pissing on my rug.

Finally!  Let’s declare war on the atheist (so-called) “pagans.”  Draw a line in the sand and gods help anyone who crosses it.  That line is the word “pagan”.  Atheists shall not cross!

“If evil though knowest, then proclaim it to all as evil, and make no friendship with foes.” — Havamal

Advertisements

Paganism must be theistic, or it means nothing. Resist with militant fervor.

Do you think Paganism is “inherently theistic”?

hrafnblod (Ænglo-Texæn Heathen):

Attempts to widen the scope of paganism to include non-theistic and/or non-animistic worldviews are subversive, predatory and deeply destructive to paganism as a broader subcultural movement, almost as much so- perhaps even moreso– than the pervasive infection of shallow, appropriationalist new age behavior.

Paganism, for all the flaws of the term, is a subset of religious traditions. It is not a space for atheists to advocate their ideals or for secularist environmentalists to attempt to fuse their politics with spirituality. In the same way that movements like heathenry have outgrown some of the poorly thought out ideas of their infancy (like the hammer rite, or whathaveyou), paganism as a whole needs to outgrow the stifling, residual ties that it holds to rebellious, secularist “earth-centered” (but typically, earth-ignorant) philosophies. And it does not need to replace those things with modern atheism, or some other trifling fad that will wither the roots of our connection to the past, our ancestors and our gods.

Yes, paganism is inherently theistic and/or animistic. It must be, or it means nothing. And attempts by atheists to co-opt it- though I’m sure this position will be challenged by many- should be resisted with militant fervor. The stakes are some fifty years of progress and refinement. I’d rather not start fresh with some ruinous, fraudulent tripe all over again.

Finally, someone willing to declare war on the impious!  We are fighting for the survival of our religion here.  It is us or them.  There can be no compromises!

“If evil though knowest, then proclaim it to all as evil, and make no friendship with foes.” — Havamal

You mess with the Gods, you get the lightning bolt.

From “An Open Letter to John Halstead”:

Let me tell you, Mr. Halstead, you have picked the wrong people (and People) to fuck with. They’re quite the resourceful bunch, you know, the gods. And I’ve got my own problems. I don’t need to be worried about the gods.

You, however, do.

And that’s the friendliest warning you’ll ever get from me.

In case you didn’t get it the first time: No gods = no holiness.

From Sarenth Odinsson:

If you have no theological framework then there is no theology to explain what is or is not holy. If you have no theological framework to discern what holiness is, its qualities and characteristics, then you have no concept of holiness to draw upon. Atheism’s main characteristics are that there are no Gods, and most of the atheist lines in regards to religious thought and phenomena directly state that there is no such thing as a God, Goddess, Supreme Being, etc. Most, though certainly not all forms of atheism, reject religious cosmology.  …

You can say all you like that you believe that things are sacred or holy, but those words carry absolutely no theological or philosophical weight when you say them because you don’t actually believe in the Beings nor the cosmologies that imbue them with that weight to begin with. …

I was pointing out what I had thought was patently obvious. I find it odd that Halstead is having such an emotional response when he has flat-out stated he does not believe in Gods. It would follow that there is no existent concept of holiness, as there is no theology in which holiness may take any kind of root. …

It is not surprising to me that he misses this point, as Halstead has no conception of holiness himself …

He says he regards these things as sacred, but without any of these things being involved with, dedicated to, devoted to, or consecrated to Gods, Ancestors, or vaettir, what are these words worth? …

Indeed, how can Halstead claim to be religious whatsoever when he denies any of the requisite things for which religion itself functions …?

In case you didn’t get it the first time, folks.  If you don’t believe in gods, then nothing is sacred to you.  Without the gods, nothing is sacred.  Not the earth.  Not human life.  Nothing.  All holiness begins with the gods.  No gods = no holy.

“If evil though knowest, then proclaim it to all as evil, and make no friendship with foes.” — Havamal

The Pagan Tent belongs to polytheists.

From “An Open Letter to John Halstead”:

Ancient paganism was polytheism. There’s no way to separate “paganism” and “polytheism.” I would dare argue that even a Jungian perspective would be polytheistic, and much more on the “poly” than ever on the “theos” (since there are gods and goddesses in the imagery).  And it is perfectly normal to do whatever you want with that fact with regards to your spiritual life… but it is not okay to suddenly call for a crusade to erase what is a critical component to understanding the word “paganism” in ancient and contemporary use. And you cannot rewrite the history of words, Mr. Halstead; Galina Krasskova gave a run-down of the word “sacred” here that is probably one of the best I’ve seen. (And as a theologian-in-study, I can testify that this is also the theological definition). …

It’s not your Tent, Mr. Halstead. It’s OUR Tent, and those poles that you think hold “your” Tent up, don’t.

Yeah, so get the fuck out of my tent Halstead!

“If evil though knowest, then proclaim it to all as evil, and make no friendship with foes.” — Havamal

Halstead gets ass-ripped!

Reblogged this on Son of Hel and commented:
So I generally do not go so much for personally attacking people. Mostly, because I’m really good and vicious at it and well, “the man you are is not worth the man I would have to be to end you.” I even have a post coming out about it Sunday.

That being said, Holy Shit you have to read this post. It is a Grade A+ ass kicking and damn, I don’t think I could have done better myself. I have neither the expletives, nor the ability to hit the like button, enough. What I have done to Halstead’s arguments, Ossia has done to Halstead himself in what has to be the most beautiful ass rippings I have ever seen. I really wish this could stay on my front page for a long time.

In the words of Russel Peters: “It is beautiful (cries)! Take it and go!”

Liked by 4 people

This is hilarious!

“If evil though knowest, then proclaim it to all as evil, and make no friendship with foes.” — Havamal

If you do not believe in the Gods, then you cannot claim to hold anything sacred.

From Galina Krasskova:

if you do not believe in Gods, then fundamentally you cannot be said to hold anything “sacred.” It’s simple linguistics.

The word ‘sacred’, from the Latin ‘sacer’ specifically means ‘belonging to the Gods.’ No Gods; nothing sacred. It’s bad enough he wants to remove the Gods from Paganism, but now from vocabulary words too? Atheist, please.

In case Latin is too high brow for him (though he claims to be an attorney, so I would think this type of linguistic analysis would not be above his pay grade), Collins English Dictionary defines it as exclusively devoted to a deity or to some religious ceremony or use; holy; consecrated.

https://krasskova.wordpress.com/2015/10/29/dastardly-divisive-doublespeak/

I honestly cannot get why this is so hard for people to understand.  Pick up a dictionary.  Words have meaning.  When you start changing meanings willy-nilly, civilization starts to collapse.  We are the defenders of civilization — polytheist civilization!

“If evil though knowest, then proclaim it to all as evil, and make no friendship with foes.” — Havamal

Paganism cannot be divorced from theism.

By The Veiled Witch:

Those who uphold the idea of pagan atheism should be viewed in askance. Paganism is defined as the belief in deities that are outside of the Abrahamic model and not part of other major established faith practices such as Buddhism or Hinduism. …

Paganism can not be divorced from theism in any of its many manifestations. Belief in deities is a defining characteristic of paganism. It is nonsensical to argue that one can be pagan and an atheist at the same time. The cognitive dissonance that comes from combining the two systems of thought renders application of this supposed belief system null. At best, you have someone who is an agnostic with heavy leanings towards humanistic belief systems. At worst, you have someone who is hostile to paganism in any of its manifestations. …

The pagan atheist community is actively working to undermine the defining traits of the pagan community whilst attempting to seek shelter in that larger community.

Yes!  When atheist Pagans or Pagan atheists or whathaveyou call themselves “Pagan” there are undermining the core meaning of Paganism.  It is an attack on us and everything we stand for.

“If evil though knowest, then proclaim it to all as evil, and make no friendship with foes.” — Havamal

Polytheists and Native Americans have something in common.

From Amanda:

You know, maybe a few weeks ago, I read some post of his about why he identifies as a Pagan. Something like “I use God-talk in my rituals” was what he said. It took a while for it to sink in why that phrase bothered me, but it suddenly dawned on me when I was reading about this local Native American Pow Wow coming up in my town. “Oh, so that’s what cultural appropriation feels like!”

I thought of that before I saw any posts from you or any other polytheists online, so I just want you to know that you’re not the only one who made that connection. I try to be nice and respectful of other cultures and try to avoid cultural appropriation, but being a white person, I always assumed I would never experience it myself and therefore could never fully understand what it’s like.

But I think this is as close as it might get for me. I take the gods seriously, and this Halstead fellow, as you say, doesn’t believe in the gods, he just uses them. He thinks speaking their names in ritual spices it up, but he doesn’t believe they actually exist or anything. It’s like people who slap sacred Native American symbols onto keychains and t-shirts because they think it looks nice, but they either have no idea what it means, or they don’t care if some people think it has a deeper meaning.

I guess one thing I can be grateful for is that hopefully that bit of insight will help me have more empathy towards indigenous people who complain about their cultures being appropriated. Now I might understand how that feels a little bit better than I did before.

https://krasskova.wordpress.com/2015/10/11/this-is-what-its-all-about-people/

This is what it is about!  We are an oppressed people.  Only Native Americans have only been oppressed for centuries.  Polytheists have been oppressed for millennia.  And you wonder why we’re angry?!

“If evil though knowest, then proclaim it to all as evil, and make no friendship with foes.” — Havamal

Without the Gods, nothing is sacred.

From Sarenth Odinsson:

In order to have a sense of what is holy, one must have ideas and concepts related to holiness.  In order for these ideas and concepts to be related to holiness, it must have roots in a religion, a theological framework, in which holiness as a concept is able to take root.  If one’s religious framework has no Gods, there is nothing to consecrate.  If there is no God or Goddess, no Holy Power to consecrate, then there is no holiness just as there is no profanity or things lacking in that consecration.

The very notion that an atheist can declare or recognize an image as holy is illogical on its face.  An atheist framework is one in which there is no God or Goddess, and thus, no sacred.  One may hold things reverently, that is, with deep respect, but without a religious framework that very concept that one may hold anything as holy has no basis.  An atheist claiming to hold something as holy is a person claiming something to which one has no right by either religious framework or the result of one’s own philosophy. …

Atheism cannot be invested in this understanding as it has no basis for holiness and the sacred, as atheism denies both on their face by its very outlook.  Atheism denies that Gods exist, and in so doing, denies the cosmology They are rooted within.  The notion of holiness within an atheist context, therefore, cannot exist.

This is just simple logic.  Only the gods are holy or sacred.  Atheists don’t believe in gods.  Atheists have no concept of sacredness or holiness.  Simple.  Logic.

“If evil though knowest, then proclaim it to all as evil, and make no friendship with foes.” — Havamal