The Abrahamic Confinement Of Atheism

reply to post by Cuervo

The think about "servant and master" is that I find them to be mutually exclusive concepts. It is possible to have two servants and no masters. That is what I try to achieve; all servants with no masters.

Now there's a philosophy I can respect.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


There are actually Christian witches out there with Mary as the triple goddess, Jesus as the horned god element, and the Holy Spirit as the central divine portion.

What you see as hypocritical compromise, I see as an evolution. If Christians and Jews stuck with the old testament beliefs and laws, they would be stoning Miley Cyrus in the street right now. But they evolved and I'm thankful for it. Look at Islam. They are much newer than Christianity therefore Muslims are at an earlier stage of evolution and still take their doctrine literally. Then look at the older pagan and eastern religions who would also be doing atrocious things right along side the others if they hadn't evolved like the Christians and Jews.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

I think that I did introduce myself as not an Orthodox Christian, that I am a Christian mystic?

Christian mystic makes as much sense as a Nazi Democrat.

Even Christian mystics have been called witches. So where do I stand, a Christian or a non-Christian?

In your eyes, where do I stand?

What am I to you?

A non-Christian who tries really, really hard. In my opinion. You did ask.

'Christian mystic' says to me "I don't want to follow Christian doctrine, but I'll meet it halfway so I don't burn in hell."

Cheap. Really cheap. Maybe even a little desperate. But again, you did ask.

The reasoning here is very, very simple. Christianity doesn't allow room for mysticism. In fact, it forbids making room for mysticism because that qualifies as taking God's seat in your own life. The two are incompatible. So either you're a Christian, or you're a mystic. But you can't preach love and harmony while selling guns and grenades to the neighborhood kids. It's a rough analogy, I know, but I hope you get my point.

edit on 10-11-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Thank you for your opinion, and it is your interpretation based on stereotyping Christianity.

And who says it does not allow room for it? In fact, many Christians have been mystics. I don't think you know what mystic really means to us, it does not mean doing rituals and rites to make ourselves seem as though we are following Christian Orthodoxy, it is an inward relationship and understanding of God. So how is that not the Christian doctrine, if it has always been a part of Christianity?

Not all Christians believe in the mystical, and that does not mean magical. So thank you for assuming my inward faith is cheap.

Definition of mysticism

mysticism  
1. the beliefs, ideas, or mode of thought of mystics.
2. a doctrine of an immediate spiritual intuition of truths believed to transcend ordinary understanding, or of a direct, intimate union of the soul with God through contemplation or ecstasy.
3. obscure thought or speculation.

As I sit and contemplate God, and His transcendency and transcendent truths through direct and immediate spiritual union, then I am undoubtedly a mystic. I am not magical and you may have the two confused when it comes to my faith.

Which Christianity is as its ultimate definition allows.

Everyone is trying to have a mystical experience, but it's all about what we connect to from that other side. You stereotyped me. But that's your interpretation and you have every right to an opinion. But the definition of my faith rests in that, as above, so below, right? As I believe God is above, and His will be done above as it is done here, that's what we pray, "Thy will be done in heaven as it is on earth".

It just may be that people are not praying to the same thing.

NthOther
'


Or Hinduism, Confucianism, Jainism, Sikhism, etc. Any Dharmic religion will do. Try to convince me that Krishna never counseled Arjuna on the battlefield as recorded in the Bhagavad Gita—that someone made it all up, and you have irrefutable “scientific” evidence.

I am not atheist, but Christian, however Atheist and I agree on 99% of the religions on earth. Try to convince you Krishna never counseled Arjuna on the battlefield ok....Krishan is a God in the Hindu religion, and it claims the world rest on the back of a giant turtle we have seen our earth from afar and there is no turtle nor is atlas down their holding it up, but instead it appears to be hung on nothing.

Job 26:7
He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

ignorant_ape
reply to post by NthOther

 

the evidence for " karmic causation " is ??????????????????????

You reap what you sow.

There’s a lot to digest in the comments you’ve all provided thus far, and I thank you for that.

I must note that, as suggested in the opening post, there isn’t a whole lot of “dharma bashing” going on in here. What I see is mostly civil discussion of the topic among fairly open-minded people. This doesn’t happen when a Christian goes for the Atheist goose like I did to start this off. It usually (and rapidly) degenerates into a really ugly scene. On ATS those instances aren’t as frequent as in other places, as we do occasionally get a civil Christian-Atheist debate going.

But that’s pretty much every religious debate on here. I understand we live in a predominantly Christian society, so naturally there’s going to be more attention on it than Jainism. Again, the problem here is with the overarching generalizations made on all religion based on critical examination of (in many cases) only one.

I don’t have any religion other than my own (using the term “my” for communicative convenience). If I had to describe it, it would be Buddhism marinated in Taoism with a generous side of Hinduism, lightly seasoned with Christianity and garnished with Panentheism. But I’m by no means an expert on any of them, nor am I by any stretch of the imagination a “model practitioner” of them. That’s just where my path has taken me, and I don’t question it because I know I’m becoming a better person as a result. But no one or nothing is forcing me. It’s just the way it is. And I don’t know how else to explain it.

There has been what seems to be a concerted effort to redefine these religions (excepting Christianity) as “non-religions”, or the oxymoronic “atheistic religion”. And that offends me, because with those words they’re stripping the divinity out of the experiences we have. It’s not accurate at all to equate Buddhism with Atheism. That’s nonsense, although I’m sure you can find a Pop Buddhist monk out there who’ll tell you otherwise for good PR.

Of course, when you look at a dictionary it will imply that because Buddhism has no deity it is an Atheistic religion. And we all know that’s ridiculous, because Atheism (capital “A”, hardcore Atheism), is more than a black/white, god/no god debate. It is complete with its own worldview.

Someone wrote early in the thread that the burden of proof is on the believer. No it isn’t. You guys are the scientists. The burden of proof is on you. That’s your whole philosophy. Proof and disproof. I don’t need the material proof you do. There’s a different kind.

reply to post by FlyersFan

I'm not sold on Karma ... sometimes I think it could be there and other times I don't think so.

Wise folk judge action by results. They call an action right if it has good results and wrong if it has bad ones. Since most actions affect the actors themselves, a right action results in something good happening to the actor and a wrong one makes bad things happen. In this simplistic model, karma certainly exists; it's built into the definition of right and wrong action.

When we try to apply the model to real life, the results are mixed. Few deeds have only one result, or affect only the doer; consequences ripple outwards from the original action, affecting others and resulting in further action whose results may be reflected back on the original actor. Now it gets complicated; some people benefit from the deed while others suffer loss or harm as an outcome of it. Chance enters the picture and adds to the confusion. The simple thread of cause and effect becomes a messy, tangled skein, and karma doesn't seem to work the way it's supposed to any longer.

Believers in the principle of karma assert that it works all the same, regardless of how complicated the relations of cause and effect; all beings get their just deserts in the end, if not in this life then maybe in the next, or the one after that. But this is something we cannot possibly prove or even observe. It is only an article of faith. And — if you discount rebirth, another belief for which no evidence can possibly be adduced — it can be shown quite easily, by example, that karma does not work.

The concept has moral truth in it, however: behave unselfishly and thoughtfully towards others, and they are more likely to be kind and helpful to you in their turn. Live simply and frugally and your chances of enjoying the fruits of long life in pleasant surroundings are greatly increased. Behave selfishly and boldly enough, with no care for the effect of your actions on your fellows and the environment that sustains you, and you will soon discover the error of your ways. All this is well and good; yet to conclude from it that there exists some great moral law of nature that ensures we all get what we deserve is to take the leap from philosophy to faith. There can be no great universal principle of karma, for the same reason that there cannot be a moral God: fairness is not an inherent property of the universe.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Christian mystic makes as much sense as a Nazi Democrat.

Try these:

Origen

Hildegarde of Bingen

St. Francis of Assisi

St. Teresa of Avila

St. John of the Cross

Plenty more here.

Here's a famous poem by St. John of the Cross:

EN UNA NOCHE OSCURA

En una noche oscura,
con ansias, en amores inflamada,
¡oh dichosa ventura!,
salí sin ser notada,
estando ya mi casa sosegada;

a escuras y segura
por la secreta escala, disfrazada,
¡oh dichosa ventura!,
a escuras y encelada,
estando ya mi casa sosegada;

en la noche dichosa,
en secreto, que naide me veía
ni yo miraba cisa,
sin otra luz y guía
sino la que en el corazón ardía.

Aquesta me guiaba
más cierto que la luz del mediodía
adonde me esperaba
quien yo bien me sabía
en parte donde naide parecía.

¡Oh noche que guiaste!
¡oh noche amable más que la alborada!;
¡oh noche que juntaste,
Amado con amada,
amada en el Amado transformada!

En mi pecho florido,
que entero para él solo se guardaba,
allí quedó dormido,
y yo le regalaba,
y el ventalle de cedros aire daba.

El aire del almena,
cuando yo sus cabellos esparcía,
con su mano serena
en mi cuello hería,
y todos mis sentidos suspendía.

Quedéme y olvidéme,
el rostro recliné sobre el Amado;
cesó todo y dejéme,
dejando mi cuidado
entre las azucenas olvidado.

Translation

By the way, the Nazis came to power in Germany through a democratic election.

reply to post by NthOther

Someone wrote early in the thread that the burden of proof is on the believer. No it isn’t. You guys are the scientists. The burden of proof is on you. That’s your whole philosophy. Proof and disproof. I don’t need the material proof you do. There’s a different kind.

Yet Theravada Buddhists insist their faith is rational and its tenets deducible by logic, while Hindus have used up more ink than anyone else, except possibly Christians, in attempting to 'prove' the truth of this or that profession of faith, or — in Milton's famous phrase — to justify God's ways to Man. There is no religion under the sun whose practitioners have not sought to prove its tenets by evidence or logic. It is only the mystical traditions (present in all major religions and standing in contradistinction to every one of them) that dispense with reason and proof. And you are clearly no mystic; they are easy to identify, and you do not carry the mark.

In my country, I am surrounded by the living traditions of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and a plethora of folk beliefs. The kind of intellectual syncretism you profess is not uncommon among the wealthier and better-educated classes; I dabbled in it myself as a young man. However, it is utterly sterile, bearing absolutely no relationship to the reality of faith as practised by real Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, etc., and offering none of the insight and peace of mind of atheism. It is merely a way-station along the two-way street that runs between genuine, devout religious faith and honest atheism. Its invalidity and unviability will ultimately drive you on — in one direction or the other.

Astyanax
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

Thank you Astyanax, and for those who did not read the link for the Spanish poem it is Dark Night Of The Soul

While I may not agree to some of those people who failed because of their anti-Semitism and led to persecution of Jews as well as others, I have to say that Christian mystics have been around for a very long time.

There are mystics in other religions, I don't know, I think Buddha may have been one, but probably most Eastern religions are mystical in nature. Even Taoism is probably mystical as well. Islam has the Sufis, who are persecuted as well. Judaism has the Kabbhala. But I don't know how to read the Sephirot, if you have to make a chart to designate certain things and then have to spend years learning what each means, some people might not learn about it in their lifetime, but I think mysticism is a life investment.

I heard two different Christian pastors say these "This is not a mystical religion"...they don't know what mysticism is, they think it is magical. And the other said this "When my Holy Ghost tells me something, and your Holy Ghost tells you something different, I am going to believe my Holy Ghost"

Christian mystics have to then discern where and who we are getting messages from, because it might be from anywhere, so we have that responsibility as well. And if it goes against our primary document, the Bible, then we can reject it. That's why I said that the Jews do not say the laws are absolute, as in stoning, but in being kosher, which Reform Jews are not all kosher and do not read Torah in Hebrew, but in the language of where the congregation are.

Maybe it is evolution as Cuervo points out, and Christianity is evolved, I can agree with that one. And that's why I am able to say that some things are man-made traditions, including the nature of God. Look at that like the different schools of Buddhism and Taoism, there are many. But it is all an attempt to understand the great spiritual that is transcendent of our own limited humanity.

Last night I came across a youtube video from a yogi trying to explain the concept of the human ego, he said "The ocean has control of the waves", I commented to it, with my understanding and said "the waves are the ocean, so the ocean would be controlling itself". I never introduced my faith system, but he replied that the waves are the human ego attempting to separate itself from the great ocean. I had seen the ocean as the yogi did, yet I am not Hindu.

There are things relatable to me from those other systems, I might not be Taoist, but we seem to be using the same type of methods to reach our conclusions. I hope that helps people understand more about what some of us Christians are really like and what we really believe.

reply to post by Astyanax


A long list of cheap spiritualists and an historical incident of profound idiocy. What else is new? I stand by what I said before.

reply to post by WarminIndy

belief characterized by self-delusion or dreamy confusion of thought, esp. when based on the assumption of occult qualities or mysterious agencies.

That's the definition I've gone by. More loosely rephrased as Christian New Ageism.

More to the point, if you are not Orthodox Christian, you are effectively taking liberties with Christianity. Kinda like the government with the constitution. Just enough deviation to make a difference to those who consider the Bible to be the absolute truth.

reply to post by Cuervo


Please show me scripture saying Christianity is supposed to evolve to the point that it embraces elements it was formerly opposed to? Because either that means Christianity was flawed before, or it's flawed now. Need I say more? I'm sure you know what lies down that road...

reply to post by AfterInfinity


The more important thing is this..do YOU think the Bible is absolute truth?

And in law, there is the concept of the spirit of the law as opposed to the letter of the law. The Bible says "the letter killeth, but the Spirit brings life". What you are confusing is the letter of the law for Christians, and the Spirit of the law.

Are you counting on the Bible being absolute truth so you can justify continued dismissiveness by implying the Bible is letter of the law, so you can continually charge Christians for violating the letter of the law?

When Christians say the letter kills and there is something greater going on, you still charge us. Then when Christians don't follow the letter of the law, by stoning people, then you are upset that we don't. So it makes me wonder, are you enforcing the letter of the law to Christians and are going to stone us for not following the letter of the law? That kind of makes you a Pharisee yourself.

And since the same concept applies within governmental laws, then why can you not make the distinction? Are you a Pharisee demanding strict following of the law for Christians, and yet complain if we do? You complain if we do and you complain when we don't. And if you aren't Christian, then why are you attempting yourself to define what Christianity should be?

Here is one from a non-Christian source.

Letter of the Law Vs. Spirit of the Law

It's really interesting that you, as a non-Christian, would want to enforce onto Christians the strict observance of the letter, then are upset when it seems if we do and then try to fix us.

You are simply introducing a Hegelian Dialectic...

You say "the problem with Christians is that they follow the letter of the law" and when we don't, then to make your Hegelian Dialectic work, you then say "Let me make it seem like Christians are breaking their law", then you provoke with pushing a letter, all in the attempt to try to end your theory with "See, I told you so".

Hegel's Encyclopedia

Merriam-Webster: "Dialectic ....the Hegelian process of change in which a concept or its realization passes over into and is preserved and fulfilled by its opposite... development through the stages of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis in accordance with the laws of dialectical materialism ....any systematic reasoning, exposition, or argument that juxtaposes opposed or contradictory ideas and usually seeks to resolve their conflict ... ....the dialectical tension or opposition between two interacting forces or elements."

Since you are trying so hard to expose Christianity, you have to introduce a Dialectic to resolve your conflict with Christianity, and by doing so, your antithesis of Christian virtue and morality based on the letter of the law is then juxtaposed against the Spirit of the law of which Christian virtue and morality are held onto.

Your argument is a contradictory thesis, one which you must then synthesize the letter of the law, enforcing the letter of the law to Christian virtue and morality. It is you, that has a conflict with the letter of the law but at the same time, use the letter of the law. When Christians believe the spirit of the law overrides the letter of the law, then your thesis no longer holds weight, so in order to fix it, you then have to resort back to the same letter of the law, that you opposed in the beginning.

The Hegelian dialectical formula: A (thesis) versus B (anti-thesis) equals C (synthesis).

Thesis "Christians follow the letter of the law"

Antithesis "Christians follow the spirit of the law"

Synthesis "use the letter of the law to make Christians follow the letter of the law".

Do you see what you have done? All you have done is an Hegelian Dialectic.

reply to post by WarminIndy

The more important thing is this..do YOU think the Bible is absolute truth?

I'm not the one claiming to be a Christian.

And in law, there is the concept of the spirit of the law as opposed to the letter of the law. The Bible says "the letter killeth, but the Spirit brings life". What you are confusing is the letter of the law for Christians, and the Spirit of the law.

The letter of the law should reflect the spirit of the law. If the two are so disjointed, then there is a problem. Either the law was written in anticipation of circumventing the spirit, or the spirit was not in the law.

Are you counting on the Bible being absolute truth so you can justify continued dismissiveness by implying the Bible is letter of the law, so you can continually charge Christians for violating the letter of the law?

I frequently encounter Christians who consider the Bible to be the paragon of law. Considering that this belief is scripturally in accordance with the Bible, I can't argue with their belief. If you're going to be a Christian, you have your instructions. Your only choice is to obey or disobey.

If there is scripture which allows Christians to rewrite any portion of the Bible or employ interpretive means of circumnavigating its directives, please point it out.

When Christians say the letter kills and there is something greater going on, you still charge us. Then when Christians don't follow the letter of the law, by stoning people, then you are upset that we don't. So it makes me wonder, are you enforcing the letter of the law to Christians and are going to stone us for not following the letter of the law? That kind of makes you a Pharisee yourself.

I am outlining the hypocrisy of so-called "Christians" in this day and age. Either you embrace the Bible in its entirety, or you don't embrace it at all. Sort of like a police officer. Either you embrace the law to its fullest extent, or you are not worthy of being an officer.

It's really interesting that you, as a non-Christian, would want to enforce onto Christians the strict observance of the letter, then are upset when it seems if we do and then try to fix us.

You seem to be arguing that as an atheist, I should support your hypocritical tendencies to cherry pick a book that disavows cherry picking.

You say "the problem with Christians is that they follow the letter of the law" and when we don't, then to make your Hegelian Dialectic work, you then say "Let me make it seem like Christians are breaking their law", then you provoke with pushing a letter, all in the attempt to try to end your theory with "See, I told you so".

You don't seem to be grasping what I'm saying here. If you are going to be a fox, then be a fox. Don't just be the stuff you like best about foxes and what they do. Otherwise, you're not a fox, you're something neither human nor fox. So don't bother calling yourself a fox. Call yourself a neko or whatever it is a half-human half-fox is called.

Since you are trying so hard to expose Christianity, you have to introduce a Dialectic to resolve your conflict with Christianity, and by doing so, your antithesis of Christian virtue and morality based on the letter of the law is then juxtaposed against the Spirit of the law of which Christian virtue and morality are held onto.

I'm not trying at all. I'm just talking about what's right there. If you choose to ignore it, that might make it look like I'm trying, but that's only because so many others are doing their damnedest to ignore me and others like me.

I've already explained the spirit and letter stuff. I'm not going into it again. Honestly, explaining 2+2 is getting a little boring, so with or without your blessing, I'll move on to your next point.

Thesis "Christians follow the letter of the law"

Antithesis "Christians follow the spirit of the law"

Oh, goodie. We're back here again. Let me make it as simple as I can.

If the letter and the spirit are not one and the same, then one must change to reflect the other. But in doing so, it must be admitted that the material is not infallible nor pure, which is going against God himself.

In short, I am arguing that you must either admit you're not following the exact word of God, or you must follow the Bible to the letter. If you're not following the Bible to the letter, then you're not a Christian in my book. You're just trying to be. Unless you can prove that the Bible is consistently held by overwhelming papal authority and consensus to not be the infallible word of God. In which case, I will stand corrected.

Am I clear now?

AfterInfinity
reply to post by Cuervo

 

Please show me scripture saying Christianity is supposed to evolve to the point that it embraces elements it was formerly opposed to? Because either that means Christianity was flawed before, or it's flawed now. Need I say more? I'm sure you know what lies down that road...

edit on 11-11-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Oh, it was definitely flawed before when compared to today's societal standards. But, when you and I say "flawed", a Christian will say it "was written for a specific time and culture" therefore some of it is not to be taken literally, like the whole stoning kids in the street who talk back to you thing.

Let's say that we found an old Asatru scripture that demanded we "Ask for Odin's wisdom once a year by travelling to the end of the Earth"... would that mean the scripture is flawed and all of its followers are dumb or does it just mean that we've evolved beyond that understanding. And, just like a Christian would, that Asatru follower would say something to the effect of "By 'end of the world', what he really meant was ________".

Religious people who have adapted to contemporary times have done so for the survival of their religion. If Judaism and Christianity never evolved, they would not exist today as they would have been wiped out in an ultimatum that many theocratic Muslim cultures will soon face.

So, no... you won't find scripture from their bible that says to abandon ship and join the Romans but you do have many more Christians making the words of their Jesus priority over any of the barbaric rules and stories from the old god in the prologue of their bible.

reply to post by Cuervo


I don't accept that excuse. Sorry, but I don't. I stand by my previous posts. Christian authenticity is just two steps shy of an oxymoron, in my opinion.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by Cuervo

 

I don't accept that excuse. Sorry, but I don't. I stand by my previous posts. Christian authenticity is just two steps shy of an oxymoron, in my opinion.

edit on 11-11-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

I don't give it as an excuse; it's simply the answer to your question. You asked if there were anywhere in scripture that allowed them to dismiss parts of scripture and, if not, doesn't that mean the religion is or has been flawed?

I answered that no, there is not supporting scripture to that and, yes, many Christians do feel the old testament is flawed (outdated, specified to a culture, etc).

I don't know how to more directly answer your question. What I said doesn't even let anybody off the hook; it just answers the question.

Don't forget that every Christian will tell you that they are a sinner. They know they can't live by the standards set forth in their bible. They are "forgiven" by their lord and therefore know there are certain unavoidable sins they can just let slide. I think that extends, on a psychological level, to not feeling guilty about dismissing portions of the bible that are simply dangerous or evil to follow.

reply to post by Cuervo

I don't give it as an excuse; it's simply the answer to your question. You asked if there were anywhere in scripture that allowed them to dismiss parts of scripture and, if not, doesn't that mean the religion is or has been flawed?

I answered that no, there is not supporting scripture to that and, yes, many Christians do feel the old testament is flawed (outdated, specified to a culture, etc).

I don't know how to more directly answer your question. What I said doesn't even let anybody off the hook; it just answers the question.

Okay then.

Don't forget that every Christian will tell you that they are a sinner. They know they can't live by the standards set forth in their bible. They are "forgiven" by their lord and therefore know there are certain unavoidable sins they can just let slide. I think that extends, on a psychological level, to not feeling guilty about dismissing portions of the bible that are simply dangerous or evil to follow.

*sigh* There's so many things in that which I want to point out, question, examine, and end up junking...but I know full well that it's a pointless exercise. Maybe this thread in itself was a pointless endeavor. Did anyone really not know how it would end?

Cuervo

AfterInfinity
reply to post by Cuervo

 

Please show me scripture saying Christianity is supposed to evolve to the point that it embraces elements it was formerly opposed to? Because either that means Christianity was flawed before, or it's flawed now. Need I say more? I'm sure you know what lies down that road...

edit on 11-11-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Oh, it was definitely flawed before when compared to today's societal standards. But, when you and I say "flawed", a Christian will say it "was written for a specific time and culture" therefore some of it is not to be taken literally, like the whole stoning kids in the street who talk back to you thing.

Let's say that we found an old Asatru scripture that demanded we "Ask for Odin's wisdom once a year by travelling to the end of the Earth"... would that mean the scripture is flawed and all of its followers are dumb or does it just mean that we've evolved beyond that understanding. And, just like a Christian would, that Asatru follower would say something to the effect of "By 'end of the world', what he really meant was ________".

Religious people who have adapted to contemporary times have done so for the survival of their religion. If Judaism and Christianity never evolved, they would not exist today as they would have been wiped out in an ultimatum that many theocratic Muslim cultures will soon face.

So, no... you won't find scripture from their bible that says to abandon ship and join the Romans but you do have many more Christians making the words of their Jesus priority over any of the barbaric rules and stories from the old god in the prologue of their bible.

Thank you Cuervo.

The words of Jesus take priority for us, yes, they absolutely should. And that's the point maybe AfterInfinity does not understand.

As you are a follower of Asatru, then whatever lies in those words that you hold sacred, then they take priority over what someone else might come along and say, as you have indicated. I am sure not all Vikings went to Valhalla, as some of them did not die in battle, but from sickness and old age. But if one were a good warrior and did attempt to give all, then Valhalla was still held a place for them.

But if we went by strict legalism, then one can only go to Valhalla if they died in battle. But should we then say all people who follow this then must go out and raid, pillage and plunder just so they can go to Valhalla? Well, that's what Islam says, that to go to Djenna as a martyr, one must kill everyone else and themselves to get there in a jihad. And if that strict legalism still applied to the Japanese Shinto, then they should all still be Kamikazi pilots or committing Hari Kari, all for their emperor.

But not all Muslims are willing to blow people up, no Asatru follower is raiding, pillaging and plundering, no Shinto is flying into ships. And if we don't expect them to follow their previous legalism (neither do we want them to), then that does not mean they are not Muslim, Asatru or Shinto.

Cuervo, I found this video that I find very funny. I showed it to my brother that is Celtic Pagan, he laughed at it, he thought it was hilarious. Ik Bin Vulgaris Magistralis...(I'm The BIg Boss Man...loosely translated).



Heidevolk, I think, are followers of Asatru. But Heidevolk is only slaying my speakers, and so they would still qualify for Valhalla. They really are shredding those notes on their axes. Now if I, as a Christian, can derive a moment of happiness from these guys expressing their religion in a lighthearted manner, then I see no harm or danger from them. I don't have to agree with the theology, but I can listen along and enjoy it.