Will heathendom (pagandom) bring freedom back to us?

If the majority of the human beings is not heathen - and currently the majority of the human beings is not heathen -, then it would be a disadvantage to be heathen, wouldn’t it?

Since most of the population of India, and a pretty high proportion of the population of China, plus Japan, other parts of Asia, large areas of Africa etc. are Pagans of one sort or another (e.g. Hindus, Taoists, Shintoists, Animists and so on), I think it’s probably fair to say that the majority of humans are Pagans.

I don’t think that the question, whether there is a majority of humans or not, doesn’t depend on fairness, but on knowledge. However, it is probably difficult to say because of the lack of certain knowledge in this case. The non-heathen religions are known in the whole world, and so the heathen religions are influenced by them. Nevertheless, I would say that the heathendom is coming back, but I don’t know whether it represents a majority again.

Maia, do you remember what I firstly asked you?

I would appreciate a response.

I wouldn’t call Hindua pagans, though some of them would be. They may be pagan in the sense of NOT christian, but beyond that they are quite different from most paganisms.

Are nowadays pagans really still pagans? I mean: they are so much influenced by non-pagan issues, so that they are no more able to behave, to speak, to think, and especially to believe like pagans, aren’t they?

There was a timewatch special on the bbc, in which archeologists showed that stonehenge was built for healing purposes, and was not a satanic temple et al! Indeed, I dont see the need to demonise our spirituality at all, we pagans dont have the devil nor demons, all our deities are like us, having many sides ~ but are not in a black and white dichotomy.

for that reason It seams that Abrahamic religions made the world a worse place to be in spiritually.

they also made it better in some ways, or people wouldn’t have gone for it in the first place. However I do feel there is a need for reconciliation, to learn from one another.
Most people here in britain are not religious because both have let them down perhaps?

Anyways, lies and hypocrisy don’t achieve much imho [e.g. all pagans are the baddies], so its time people took a second look at their ancestral spiritual birthrights.

And why?

Lies and hypocrisy are what power is made of.

Because there are spiritual connections to objects which are then called demonic, e.g. in films on such subjects we are led to believe that there are demonic forces at work, when in fact there are simply unresolved issues ~ to entities/souls which have long since past yet left a ‘presence’ respectively. Hence things are made worse by attributing a demonic element as with poltergeists, where the reality of such things is far more benign.

Sure, power is composed of lies and hypocrisy, hence the need to front them up with the reality.

What are non-pagan issues? Pretty much any system of belief is under assault, all the time. Hell, distraction and stress are creating signal to noise problems for any beliefs. Beyond that humans are now bombarded by a mixed, internally-contradictory mish mash of beliefs and paradigms. Anyone has to work to hold this off, unless one is a kind of cork on the waves, which a lot of people choose or are. But there is no reason, that I can think of why pagans are worse off in this mess.

Religion is certainly both a collective and a personal issue, but the collective side is more powerful and retroacts to each person, so that one doesn’t really know, whether one is religious because of personal or because of collective decisions, interests, motives and so on. I think most people don’t believe what they want to believe personally, but some do. Most people believe what the rulers want them to believe, and merely some people believe what they want themselves to believe.

So for the most part religion is political. De jure and de facto religious freedom is merely those people guaranteed who live in states with a judical and collective guarantee of religious freedom, protection of minorities. So if you want to be a heathen (again), you have to know whether your state, if you have one, does guarantee you your heathendom, your heathenish life. If you live in a Western state, then your heathendom, your heathenish life is guaranteed. If you live in a Non-Western state, then your heathendom, your heathenish life is not guaranteed.

Is there still (or again?) any heathenish state in the world like it was in ancient times, for example in the polities of the ancient Greece, the ancient Rome, the ancient Carthage and so on?

the only current ‘pagan’ state I can think of is the hindus of india. …but they wont use that term even though it simply refers to a belief in many gods, which they clearly have. on the other hand, it depends on what we classify as a state, there are over 80,000 druids worldwide [at least, ~ that’s just those who are part of an order]]. its a small state but I don’t see the difference, a state is pretty meaningless as culture transcends race and vice-versa.

India is also an example for the fact that the whole globe is influenced by the Western culture.

It struck me that this term ‘Western Culture’ has a real hodgedpodge of stuff stuffed into it.

Today the biggest impact is corporate culture. Corporations as they are today did come mainly out of the West. But it is hardly culture.

There are a lots of other things spreading from the West. VArious media products and services - which then you could argue are affecting the ids of the world.

Then there are the wonderful products of culture - which do occasionally crop up in those media. Great novels, music and so on. No need for these to replace other cultures’ arts/etc.

The word „culture“ has different meanings, and unfortunately the history of the English language elimintated some of this different meanings. Nowadays the word „culture“ merely means „education“ and the state allocation of „literature“ „music“, „theatre“, „science“ and so on, but not „literature“, „music“, „theatre“, „science“ on their own (by themselves!), and also not religion. In the German language the word „Kultur“ is used in both ways, so when I used the word „culture“ in my last post, I meant both (a) „education“ and the state allocation of „literature“ „music“, „theatre“, „science“ a.s.o., and (b) „literature“, „music“, „theatre“, „science“ on their own (by themselves!) and religion.

“Technoculture”.

Culture doesn’t just mean education. And it is not necessarily tied to the state. It also includes or at least can religion. But perhaps I am missing something you are saying above. Interestingly neither of the above definitions quite gets the way I hear Western Culture used. To me this tend to mean things like break down of sexual roles, capitalism, centrality of media and Entertainment -w ith a lot of sex and violence - gadgets,. the breakdown of the extended and even nuclear family, individualism, technological fixes, and then things like human rights, democracy and so on. (note I am neither dismissing or approving this way of categorising or even this way conceiving of Western Culture.)

But if you ask someone about the Culture of a country they visited, suddenly we are talking about food, dances, clothing, Music, language foibles and then sociological patterns including religion.

According to the definition of culture I prefer culture doesn’t have to be merely a national one, but it is a phenomenon that usually or mostly includes many nations / countries. For example the Western culture includes not all, but the most European nations. The borders between cultures are nearly always congruent with those of religions or confessions of religions.

Europe with its very old tradition is about to disappear because of the immigration (capture, the immigrants say!) of people who belong to foreign cultures (especially to the islamic culture). The Western culture will disappear because it has never been islamic (the islamic exceptions in the south-east of Europe have never been a part of the Western culture).

How do a heathen live his life?

How has he to live his life?

Cp. thou shalt or thou shalt not.

I don’t think Islam will in the long term withstand ‘Western’ Culture, just as Christianity and every other religion is falling to modernism, physicalism, capitalism, consumerism, ‘I am my surface’-ism, modularism, and then transhumanism which is the fart at the end of this indigestion. Not that I am rooting for Islam. In general we are supposed to choose between bullies with poor and damaging Weltanschauungen.

And what about the religion? Do we need a religion, and, if yes, which one in order to prevent that choice? Can heathendom help us thereby? Or is just the reverse true?

My two questions again:

How do a heathen live his life?

How has he to live his life?