Any way to successfully combine european paganism and christianism...

Any way to successfully combine european paganism and christianism? It seems impossible and stupid since one is polytheist and the other monotheist but still, I wanted to know what you have to say about this idea.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=GGU1P6lBW6Q
twitter.com/AnonBabble

LARP as a recent convert to Christianity like Clovis or the Normans that built Mont St Michel.

Take the good and remove the bad parts of both.

That's exactly what the early Christians did.

Don't worry we already did it
>kikes commercialize religion for the unwashed masses
>literally start selling icons and items as holy artifacts which bring you luck
>saints have basically replaced the Olympians
>every island has its own version of Mary
It's horrible

Christianity isn't, strictly speaking, monotheist.

The Father, the Son and the Spirit are the One God.

Jesus Voltron, if you will.

no

Yeah... It's pretty simple, since all of the gods (including God) are Annunaki and the various European peoples are their magical offspring, and the power is in the blood. From demigods such as Moses came divine right to rule. Kikes tried to steal a part of that history (Hebrew Israelite) but are reptilian Khazars with a different origin entirely, such base creatures are they.

Oh my gawd...

For 1500 years, Christianity was warmed over paganism. All the Roman minor gods were replaced with "saints", they renamed their solstice and equinox celebrations with Christian names (but kept the trees, eggs, etc)

Then that Martin Luther guy actually read the God damned bible and ruined it all. "Hey! This isn't what it says!"

Christianity was great for the slave owning Romans: "Slaves obey your masters" and the whole theme of suffer and die and get your rewards in heaven story suited their society perfectly.

But, we're moving from Chinese and Mexican slave labor to a robotic one. Time to update the theology IMHO.

You are literally asking how to make the Catholic church. Stop this.
This. And then we got Martin Luther talking about Jews and we ignored him. IGNORED. That's where we started fucking up.

>It seems impossible and stupid
Exactly.

All religions started as different gameplans or strategies from the Annunaki brothers. They are all rather harmonious and preach empowerment and life, guidelines for how to manage Earth and beyond. It's only corruption of the blood, indulgence in degeneracy, and the resulting loss of spiritual insight that has crossed the paths and muddled the waters.

Christianity is already the combination of Euro/Middle Eastern Paganism with Judaism.

Let not the 2 legged beasts and psychopath mundanes steer you away from the straight and narrow path back towards your creator. Plenty of (((people))) act like they be on one but don't know shit. They with froward mouths are fated to die.

Yes, just don't talk about it. There are bigger things at stake right now than worrying about the intricacies of faith. Just let men be faithful because our society hasn't progressed past point where faith becomes unnecessary. People need faith in this ugly world to hold them up in times of struggle. So long as those faiths are not opposed to our progress as a people, it doesn't really matter.

Every time a Christian thread or a Pagan thread it frustrates me because (apart from the obvious shills and shitposters) there are people who could be valuable allies getting caught up over who's sky father is better. There are larger, more important battles that need to be fought first.

Yeah sure, its all made up anyway. Who's to say the Bible isn't full of Viking allegories?

thread pops up*

Yeah that's why you are lower caste while I'm a Brahman. One of The Elect. And I'm out.

Speak not of that which you know nothing of, filthy mundane.

yeah. It's called Christianity

Yeah, it's called Christmas.

Catholicism you dumb retard

Yeah it's called the Catholic Church. Stop being a NEET, read some metaphysics, realize there's a God, read some GK Chesterton, realize the Catholic Church is based on the ENTIRE gospel not just a cherrypicked sentence like the Protestant denominations are, then convert and feel the power.

It's literally called Catholicism.

Nope, no crowned, impregnated serpents here, guys.

Guys?

Arianism? It worked for the goths

This is heresy & you fucking know it

>literally ignoring that Christianity was a creation to spread Roman values and civilization through Europe, which even benefited the kingdoms that came after the fall of Rome

But hey our whole civilization ins't build on Roman values. It's just a cult with a jew on a stick like the same way that MsDos was never changed and is still a property of IBM after Bill Gates changed it and made it famous.

Time to rev up those stakes again...

I really hate it. When LARPing faggots. Like you. Type like this.

You're just a disinfo agent trying to mislead the cattle. You've been fed lies all your life and then when somebody had the audacity to tell you another lie wrapped up in some convincing ''''evidence'''' that shattered your worldview, you just ate it right up. Now you think you're all enlightened, and you lord this false sense of superiority over others in hope that they'll validate the world you've created for yourself.
I can accept that seemingly disparate faiths are just different means to the same end, but having the audacity to claim that there's some secret war on between the descendants of aliens and lizard people? Give me a break.

Look at that, I took your bait and spent all this time replying to you when I could have been peacefully honouring the divine, and spreading the word that we need to work together if we're going to win this thing.

You could be so useful if only you took a minute to get your head out of your ass.

Already a thing, having a christmas tree is a pagan tradition, Christianity assimilated thousands of pagan gods as legendary heroes so such and so forth, etc.

I can't go to Catholic Church while the anti pope lives

>Odin is an inspiration to my spirit

ITT: People who think they have the authority to tell me what the Bible is about.
Who are these stone casting false prophets?
The salt of the earth are the remains of the lighting of Zeus

Be unironically Christian and larp as pagan like Sturluson, Wagner, Hitler, and Tolkein, and most of Sup Forums.

youtube.com/watch?v=GGU1P6lBW6Q

Unless the Hebrews were really European and Odin and Yahweh are the same God and the Bible took place in europe then I don't think so.

>It seems impossible

Read some Carl Jung.

They're ALL related because ALL gods are projections/extensions of archetypes that fundamentally live within our shared unconscious.

Paganism is fractured gods of everything, which still exists today in the form of Hinduism and Shintoism, and Christianity/Judaism is taking that rainbow and recondensing it to white light - instead of saying there's a god of thunder, and a god of sun-rises, and a god of rivers, and a god of volcanoes, you just say all of these phenomena are fundamentally part of 'the universe' and 'god' (the single god) IS that universe.
The anthropomorphization of the universe.

No I don't want to tell you what to think about it. I just want to remind you that it was written by one of the biggest influential empires that have ever been. Thus everybody should crave for it's wisdom that it has to offer.

Not saying Odin was the only pagan God but definitely a big one to us now and regionally on the continent the different gods and goddesses reflect very similar archetypes and match up with Greek Egyptian and semetic groups reforms to monotheism. Maybe (((they))) bullshit us highly on what was practiced in Europe and for how long

It's called Manichaeism it was around during the Roman Empire and was later carried on in the east. It is hard to find non modernized text. Most of the new shit has been adapted for a hippie audience, but the old stuff is good.

They aren't the same god, but they come from similar places in the human psyche.

All pagan religions, regardless of if they've met one another have similar gods - key archetypal figures.

Mischief makers, father-types, mother-types, chaos-bringers, 'hero/son' types (that are almost always half human or in some way weakened forms of true gods).

Not because of a grand conspiracy, but because what it is that inspires people to invent these gods is a very real and highly identifiable/compelling part of our inner psyche.

They excite a voiceless part of our minds.

>(((Old testament))) is written
>Jesus (yeshua) comes as the human form of God to correct the weird stuff and warping of God's ways for evil
>Dies for our sins
>Comes back
>His message is destroyed as time passes and warped again
Feelsbadman.jpg

wow incredible insight. are you the first to notice this?

>not following Vedism, the oldest Aryan religion recorded
Fucking cucks, the whole lot of you.

Roman Catholicism, and other Christian faiths to a lesser extent, are already a synthesis of Europagan beliefs and primordial Christianity. It just takes more from one than the other. If you want it to be more Europagan just go back to the early Middle Ages, I guess, where everyone was working to square away Greek philosophers' works with Scripture and where syncretic beliefs were tolerated to some extent and they just played the long game teaching people's kids progressively purer forms.

Aye bt what both of yo gentlmen are oerlooking,is that this 'triplification' of the divinity was an act of syncretism-

that is, the Nicean council presented the god-form as a three parter on order to sell the concept to the 3rd century pagan of Evropa, who already worshiped many triple faced deities.

unironically interesting insight. I'll have to look into further

The old testament is a valid attempt at teaching people how to build civilizations.

It's just a constant repeating story of 'look at X kingdom's failures and how they came about, try to avoid this when also making a society'.

The New Testament is an analysis of this that then asks the question 'can this general idea of observing past failures and known bad-ideas to chisel out a better society also be aimed towards the individual, and if so what would a 'perfect' (or at least very good) individual who almost never fucks up look like?

The old testament is an attempt to go 'look guys, there's this big unstoppable thing called nature and you have to know what it's like or it's going to DESTROY you without mercy. But this huge all-encompassing nature is fundamentally us as well; we're a tiny part of it but a part nevertheless, so the whole thing is kind of like a very harsh demanding father who ultimately wants to chisel you into the best thing you can be, and it's your job to not be so brittle you crack or so soft you become warped."

And the new testament is a greater refinement of that which focuses more on the fact that human society itself is a mini-nature/mini-god (son) all on its own that needs to be paid great attention to and navigated just as the old testament had us navigate the big bad world that throws storms and floods and plagues your way.

What seems impossible about it? Because one is polytheistic and the other monotheistic they describe different domains. The point with being against idols is that no man made creation or local spirit like Óðin can represent the one true God. When Moses returned to find everyone praying to the old spirits for food and fertility instead of obeying the Word it demonstrated how they were missing the point with the whole monotheism thing and universal law. The simple and kind of lazy way to avoid the problem is to simply ban representations of the old spirits. The better way is to acknowledge what they represent and understand that it's not God.

No argument with that. To me the important question of it all isn't if there's a God but what is it in us that craves the source of our existence putting it bluntly. Why do we look for it? Obviously man can dedicate himself to any mental idol he can imagine but what's the real place for it. What does it change if found objectively or subjectively and why? How much of it is human measurements projection? If there is an origin source in it's actuality it might be inclusive to our subsector of the cosmos but not exclusive to us. Like it'd be the source of all anthropomorphic projection and in that right the images are all true but in the scope of it's entirety is utterly beyond those bounds of our utilitarian images. If it exists its allowed what's not allowed doesn't exist. The images not the actuality of source

I thought romans fed Christians to lions because they were pretty much the mormons of their time

It's called gnosticism. It's the most popular form of fake Christianity made up by homosexuals so you should enjoy it. If not, there is "European paganism" cosplay and most of them are gay too

Read the book of Enoch, which isn't in the Bible but some Christian churches include it and it was also discovered in the Red Sea scrolls
There are some historians and researchers who believe that the "gods" of paganism/polytheistic religions are actually the "fallen angels" that god sent down to earth before the great flood. These "fallen angels" were sent to help the humans but instead gave forbidden knowledge and lusted the humans and betraying god. Many of the pagan "gods" have a lot of similarities of the "fallen angels". What I have described isn't a fraction of what the book of Enoch, allegedly written by Noah first, is about. But it is very interesting

God=Goden=Adonai=Odin

/thread

>the actuality of source
The "actuality" of everyday things like a chair or even the color blue is not very clear. The reason we have a concept for blue instead of some other specific wavelength of light is because the concept is useful and suits how we are built, not because it's a more true representation than any other like ignoring blue entirely and focusing on some other range of wavelengths. The actuality of the concept of God is more clearly true than any concept except "self". The self is not omnipotent however, that it exists with limitations mean it's a subset of something greater. That I have faith in the logic I use to derive the claim "I think therefore I am" however you word it implies something greater. It can't be said in a vacuum.

Good post