Lokeans and Asatru: Still Here, Despite All Odds

[Hawk Atreides]

TeaDidikai

A position which is relevant to Judaism, but needs context, like Agape, within Christendom.

Agape means precisely d**k here. You can't just twist it to mean "Christians can do anything through the hole in the sheet agape!"

Quote:

You also have to remember that Yeshua himself allowed what was Caeser to be rendered unto him.

Since Caesar was deified, this would be a clear example of Christian tradition within scriptures as attributed to Yeshua contradicting your understanding.

Hahahaha "clear example". You're funny. Jesus was asked "Do we pay taxes?" - Jesus said "Yes". Would you care to show me even one Biblical scholar who says that this meant that it was perfectly okay for the Jews to worship Caesar as a deity?

[TeaDidikai]

Hawk Atreides

Agape means precisely d**k here.

~snerk~ I love that proof by assertion.

Quote:

You can't just twist it to mean "Christians can do anything through the hole in the sheet agape!"

Of course not. I said we needed to examine the practice within Agape. Not that agape was a blanket pass.

Care to straw man this argument as well?

Quote:

Hahahaha "clear example". You're funny. Jesus was asked "Do we pay taxes?" - Jesus said "Yes". Would you care to show me even one Biblical scholar who says that this meant that it was perfectly okay for the Jews to worship Caesar as a deity?

Who said anything about worship? I merely acknowledged the historical reason such a test was put to Yeshua in the first place.

I'll spell it out for you in more direct terms next time, that way you won't get so confused.

[Celeblin Galadeneryn]

TeaDidikai

Hawk Atreides

Pardon? Worship of any deity other than YHVH is explicitly prohibited by "no other gods before me".

A position which is relevant to Judaism, but needs context, like Agape, within Christendom.

You also have to remember that Yeshua himself allowed what was Caeser to be rendered unto him. Since Caesar was deified, this would be a clear example of Christian tradition within scriptures as attributed to Yeshua contradicting your understanding.

Um Tea? Caesar wasn't deified.

Least not the Caesar he's talking about. Julius Caesar? Sure. Augustus Caesar? You bet. Tiberius Caesar, the man reigning at the time? Not only do they not deify when alive, Tiberius wasn't deified after death. They didn't like him much during the last half of his reign. There was some societal support to throwing his body in the Tiber ffs.

I'm going to need to see why Jesus was talking bout Julius or Augustus and not Tiberius, he being the one who was alive when he said that quote.

[Hawk Atreides]

Tea, listing off fallacies in hopes that some of them will be useful is not an argument. It's intellectually lazy and academically bankrupt.

Agape does not apply to worship of other deities unless you are willing to reject all condemnation of idolatry in the New Testament. Your "context" does not exist. And if you weren't talking about worship, which is exactly what I said in the post you responded to, then why did you bother responding at all? Just so you could make some argument from "Agape" that, in the end, doesn't actually mean anything? At the absolute most, your argument is saying that Jesus said "yeah, it's okay to use the coins with blasphemy on them to pay the taxes", not that Jesus gave any license for the Jews, the followers of the Law under which "Render unto Caesar" was instructed, to follow those beliefs at all.

Also, you have a lot of gall talking about "proof by assertion" when I've seen very little from you so far that's been anything more than "I said so".

[TeaDidikai]

Celeblin Galadeneryn

TeaDidikai

Hawk Atreides

Pardon? Worship of any deity other than YHVH is explicitly prohibited by "no other gods before me".

A position which is relevant to Judaism, but needs context, like Agape, within Christendom.

You also have to remember that Yeshua himself allowed what was Caeser to be rendered unto him. Since Caesar was deified, this would be a clear example of Christian tradition within scriptures as attributed to Yeshua contradicting your understanding.

Um Tea? Caesar wasn't deified.

Least not the Caesar he's talking about. Julius Caesar? Sure. Augustus Caesar? You bet. Tiberius Caesar, the man reigning at the time? Not only do they not deify when alive, Tiberius wasn't deified after death. They didn't like him much during the last half of his reign. There was some societal support to throwing his body in the Tiber ffs.

I'm going to need to see why Jesus was talking bout Julius or Augustus and not Tiberius, he being the one who was alive when he said that quote.

The shift to an Imperial Title was made after Yeshua's death, according to the Pauly–Wissowa. (I wanna say this is repeated in Brill's updated version as well- but don't quote me)

First examine the application of the title in conjunction with the word tribute.
Then, take into account the date at which the scripture is penned in contrast to the shift from a familial name into an Imperial title. Next, note where I pointed out that the material is attributed to Yeshua (rather than saying "Yeshua Said X as a definitive word of YHVH incarnate" wink )

All of this assuming that Yeshua's Jewish followers in a remote region of the Roman Empire would have been informed of the subtle shift in political and religious views of Roman Emperors.

You also would have to read the scripture in context as well and note the sections like Mar 12:15, where he addresses the people's hypocrisy. Though exegesis it would seem clear that the hypocrisy would be contextual- especially when we take into account how Yeshua turned over the tables of the Money Changers and why the Money Changers where there to begin with. There was a prohibition against using Greek and Roman coins at the Temple after all.

[TeaDidikai]

Hawk Atreides

Tea, listing off fallacies in hopes that some of them will be useful is not an argument. It's intellectually lazy and academically bankrupt.

I figured you would understand that it was a call for you to support your mental masturbation and actually engage in extended discussion.

Perhaps I was overly generous.

Quote:

Agape does not apply to worship of other deities unless you are willing to reject all condemnation of idolatry in the New Testament.

Another lovely strawman. Show me where either I, or the poster you quoted said anything about worshiping other gods being okay within Christendom. I'll wait. If you want the link to the other poster, it's here.

I'll wait while you prove that "pagan beliefs" are synonymous with "worshiping other gods".

Quote:

Your "context" does not exist. And if you weren't talking about worship, which is exactly what I said in the post you responded to, then why did you bother responding at all?

Because calling you out on an intellectually sloppy assertion was a way to kill the time while the dryer was finishing.

Quote:

Just so you could make some argument from "Agape" that, in the end, doesn't actually mean anything?

It means something. I means that instead of relying on the letters and words of the Law of the Old Testament, there is a shift. After all, Christendom is a theology of principle, not of Laws as we see them in other Abrahamic traditions.

Quote:

At the absolute most, your argument is saying that Jesus said "yeah, it's okay to use the coins with blasphemy on them to pay the taxes", not that Jesus gave any license for the Jews, the followers of the Law under which "Render unto Caesar" was instructed, to follow those beliefs at all.

Closer to saying "keeping some pagan traditions as part of the culture when it doesn't violate the love of the Lord is permissible, and heavily dependent on your ability to act, and less on the words of hypocrites".

Quote:

Also, you have a lot of gall talking about "proof by assertion" when I've seen very little from you so far that's been anything more than "I said so".

I do have a fair bit of gall, yes. I'm also ready, willing and able to provide citation upon request.

[Celeblin Galadeneryn]

TeaDidikai

Celeblin Galadeneryn

TeaDidikai

Hawk Atreides

Pardon? Worship of any deity other than YHVH is explicitly prohibited by "no other gods before me".

A position which is relevant to Judaism, but needs context, like Agape, within Christendom.

You also have to remember that Yeshua himself allowed what was Caeser to be rendered unto him. Since Caesar was deified, this would be a clear example of Christian tradition within scriptures as attributed to Yeshua contradicting your understanding.

Um Tea? Caesar wasn't deified.

Least not the Caesar he's talking about. Julius Caesar? Sure. Augustus Caesar? You bet. Tiberius Caesar, the man reigning at the time? Not only do they not deify when alive, Tiberius wasn't deified after death. They didn't like him much during the last half of his reign. There was some societal support to throwing his body in the Tiber ffs.

I'm going to need to see why Jesus was talking bout Julius or Augustus and not Tiberius, he being the one who was alive when he said that quote.

The shift to an Imperial Title was made after Yeshua's death, according to the Pauly–Wissowa. (I wanna say this is repeated in Brill's updated version as well- but don't quote me)

That totally neglects the fact that Tiberius' name was in fact Caesar because he was adopted by Augustus.

Quote:

First examine the application of the title in conjunction with the word tribute.
Then, take into account the date at which the scripture is penned in contrast to the shift from a familial name into an Imperial title. Next, note where I pointed out that the material is attributed to Yeshua (rather than saying "Yeshua Said X as a definitive word of YHVH incarnate" wink )

The shift is unimportant. Caesar was Tiberius' familial name before he ever became emperor. We don't even need to worry about it becoming a title until we leave the Claudians. They still all have it through adoption.

Quote:

All of this assuming that Yeshua's Jewish followers in a remote region of the Roman Empire would have been informed of the subtle shift in political and religious views of Roman Emperors.

We don't have to assume anything except that they knew the emperor's name. His name being Tiberius Julius Caesar since at least 13 BC if not earlier. Understanding the deification process doesn't matter either. Tiberius was still called Caesar, because of his adoption.

[TeaDidikai]

Celeblin Galadeneryn

That totally neglects the fact that Tiberius' name was in fact Caesar because he was adopted by Augustus.

I wasn't neglecting that fact. I was illustrating so it made sense when I mentioned it later.

Quote:

The shift is unimportant.

Theistically to the Romans it is, culturally to the Jews it isn't. There was no sudden lift on the moratorium against the use of Roman or Greek coins within the Temple.

Quote:

All of this assuming that Yeshua's Jewish followers in a remote region of the Roman Empire would have been informed of the subtle shift in political and religious views of Roman Emperors.

We don't have to assume anything except that they knew the emperor's name. His name being Tiberius Julius Caesar since at least 13 BC if not earlier. Understanding the deification process doesn't matter either. Tiberius was still called Caesar, because of his adoption.You're kinda missing the point. The understanding of the Jewish people of the role of the Emperors amongst the Romans is the issue at hand.

Given that there were still prohibitions against Roman and Greek coins being used in the Temple, and the reason those prohibitions were established, and the direct comment on the "hypocrisy" of the people making the challenge, it demonstrates that the religious reasons to avoid using the money within the Temple were not theisticially unified against the practices outside of the temple and the "pagan beliefs" that some of the Jews had to put up with under Roman rule.

[Celeblin Galadeneryn]

Tea you keep shifting a small point to a bigger one. Unless he's talking about Augustus or Julius, Caesar is not deified, and if Caesar is not deified, Hawk's understanding is not contradictory to scripture. Once we clarify who's being talked about then we can start talking about Roman traditions regarding emperor worship. In fact, since it isn't a title at this point this make the reference all the more personal. So why is he not talking about Tiberius? We really can't get into what the Jews think the Emperor is supposed to be until we decide who's being talked about either, because in the early years of the Empire, what the Emperor was wasn't even all that laid out for the Romans themselves. It's far more clear under Tiberius than Augustus, but the point still remains you have to determine who they mean until you get into anything else you're talking about.

[TeaDidikai]

Celeblin Galadeneryn

Tea you keep shifting a small point to a bigger one. Unless he's talking about Augustus or Julius, Caesar is not deified, and if Caesar is not deified, Hawk's understanding is not contradictory to scripture.

This is only accurate if the Jews know that while some Caesars are deified, others aren't.

Quote:

but the point still remains you have to determine who they mean until you get into anything else you're talking about.

No, what I have to show is that the Jews made an assumption about the role the Roman's attributed to their Emperors. To do that, all I have to show is that there was a prohibitions against the use of the coins within the Temple and illustrate the mention of the iconography upon them.

Hawk made "pagan beliefs" synonymous with "worship". They jumped the gun.
I'm merely showing that some pagan beliefs were tolerated, in so much that Yeshua allowed the tributes to continue, instead suggesting that the element which profaned the money wasn't relevant in Jewish culture outside of the Temple.

[Ulfrikr inn Hrafn]

Violet Song jat Shariff

Since I'm making a stop in the M&R today...

A friend and I were discussing earlier this morning if one could consider themselves an Asatruar while still having some non-Asatru practices.

I am of the position that yes, a person could still consider themselves Asatru so long as they are not blending their other practices with Asatru and/or calling the outside practices Asatru. For example, say someone is called to commit themselves to the Nordic pantheon, but had previously made a pact with Apollo, I don't think the previous pact should exclude said person from taking on the title of Asatruar so long as they are not blending the different ritual formats or similar. And I consider that I would hate to give up calling myself an Asatruar if I were to suddenly be called by Hecate to honor her.

Is this stance common? Or am I erring on the side of being too liberal in definitions?

Heilsan,

The question is, how does one define Asatru? Technically if one is true to the gods and goddesses of the Germanic Folk, then one is Asatru. How does one define true? Well, how long is a piece of string?

In essence, Asatru is a religious pheonmenon, rather than a cultural one. It is Icelandic based, and is a produce of the revival of the 19th and early 20th centuries, before becoming organised within its present context in the 1970's.

If one is associating with different gods and goddesses from various cultural folkways, then that's fine as long as one is able to identify that certain practices and processes are integral to the understanding of certain belief systems and cultures and that as such, mixing of these is likely to end up being to the detriment of ones understanding and progress in one. It is better to come from a place of understanding of one practice, to have integrated it into ones worldview, prior to undertaking comparative study.

Naturally, there are those whom disagree with my take on the issue and I have stated my position a number of times within the confines of Gaia and without, and I continue to stand by it, given that in my experience it tends to work better for the majority of people that I have come across over the years. The number of persons whom can comfortably work within a couple or number of different worldviews, and keep them separate enough to develop a significant level of understanding without admixture, is, from my experience limited.

If one gives worship (i.e. one assigns worth) to an entity, then that is ones own choosing, likewise, it is ones own choosing whether or not one mixes ideas, concepts, etc from different worldviews and still calls it Asatru. I think the defining situation is whether or not others will also consider what you are doing Asatru, or any other definition, and indeed, whilst I am loathe to agree to the fact, but in essence, no matter how much factual evidence can be provided to the contrary, invariably most belief systems are a popularity contest, and hence why the simple and 'fluffy' forms predominate, given that they are easy, and tell people what they want to hear, and are self-empowering to a degree. Naturally when people start scratching the gilt surface and find dross underneath, they either start looking elsewhere or drift back to other, less contentious belief systems, because they are familiar and easy. It takes a certain level of fortitude to be able to look at what one believes and to challenge it, and then to move forward into a field of further learning and investigation, for such things take commitment and discipline.

As I have intimated, there are people whom can operate within varying levels of cultural paradigm and find the commitment and discipline to work consistently to ensure they are working to the best of their knowledge and understanding within those contexts, however, as I have also stated, I find them to be few and far between. It is better to work on one level in my personal opinion than become scattered, unless one is adept at working at that level.

So, at the end of the day, is a person whom honours other gods and goddesses, still Asatru? For me, the answer is, possibly, depending on the circumstances and the individual concerned. But I'd have to make the observation based on a firm understanding of that person, and that requires extensive contact to be able to make an informed opinion.

Ver thu heil

[Ulfrikr inn Hrafn]

invaladuser

It depends on how your see it and to what extent. Some groups want you to swear a right of exclusion, where you foresake all other gods for that of the Aesir and Vanir. Others don't. Also Christians can have pagan beliefs as long as they don't put any other creature above their "true" god.

Heilsan,

That all depends on definition really. Specifically of the first commandment, and yes, I know there are multiple versions of it:

Wikipedia entry on Ten Commandments

Yes, yes, I know, Wiki isn't considered the best resource, but from my reading of this particular entry, it's pretty spot on.

So, according to all that... no, you can't be Christian and have Pagan beliefs.

Besides, I, personally, believe that one cannot be Christian and Asatru at the same time.

Ver thu heil

[Ulfrikr inn Hrafn]

Neko Wyndy Wytch

invaladuser

Well wyndy most of the sagas were kept orally. Never having any locked book that says how everything should be. So retelling a story of the gods, a bolt in their honor, what ever would seem appropriate.

True. I guess I'm just thinking that prayer as communication with deity should be written in a specific form. For some reason I'm not exactly comfortable with free form prayer.

Heilsan Neko,

If you're after some good stuff, there's a bit out there that gives more formulaic processes.

The AET website has links to blot books as well as our own Ritual practices, some of which I am in the process of rewriting.

So take a look there.

I do think however, that it's best to use established practice before one makes it up as one goes. These days, I don't use any scripts, but then I've been conducting Blotar for many years now.

Ver thu heil

[Ulfrikr inn Hrafn]

TeaDidikai

Hawk Atreides

Pardon? Worship of any deity other than YHVH is explicitly prohibited by "no other gods before me".

A position which is relevant to Judaism, but needs context, like Agape, within Christendom.

You also have to remember that Yeshua himself allowed what was Caeser to be rendered unto him. Since Caesar was deified, this would be a clear example of Christian tradition within scriptures as attributed to Yeshua contradicting your understanding.

Heilsan,

Naturally this relies upon the presupposition that Yeshua as referred to in the Bible actually existed razz twisted ninja

[Hawk Atreides]

TeaDidikai

Another lovely strawman.

You just can't stop speed-reading fallacies like a high-school debate captain, can you? It would be nice if your claims of fallacy were accurate, though. Lesson for you. You see, a straw man argument is where you make a specific and false claim about your opponent's position in order to invalidate that perceived position. I made a specific claim about the Christian worship of non-Christian deities being prohibited by the Law as a counterargument to a post that by context was otherwise entirely about worship, an argument to which you responded by claiming that somehow Agape and "render unto Caesar" invalidated my understanding (again, explicitly stated to be regarding worship). My argument was not a "straw man"; at absolute worst it was an honest misunderstanding, and I still argue that with the full context of that post worship was being referred to.

Quote:

Show me where either I, or the poster you quoted said anything about worshiping other gods being okay within Christendom. I'll wait. If you want the link to the other poster, it's here.

Context. The entire remainder of that post was about which religions allow the worship of which deities, and the sentence itself referred directly to putting another creature "above" YHVH. For you to claim that this in no way could have been referring to worship is myopically disingenuous. But you'll look for any flaw, real or imagined, and hold it high, won't you? You also backpedaled by going from responding to my specific point about worship to now claiming that you were "just" referring to my erroneously-alleged equation of "pagan beliefs" with "worshiping other deities". If you weren't responding to a claim about worship, you should have been clear instead of being disingenuous with the intent of trying to lure me into a "gotcha" scenario. On some forums, that would be called trolling - and I'm willing to call a spade a spade here.