Are Neo-Pagans so poor that they can't even build a small shrine?

>muh survival of the fittest
>gets assfucked by a stupid desert religion

Attached: 1503396029227.jpg (2544x4000, 732K)

HAIL ELAGABALUS!

Attached: 01.jpg (287x356, 78K)

Attached: 41.jpg (287x233, 40K)

I live 10-15 minutes from Björn Järnsidas (Ironside) burial mound if that counts. We did have big pagan temples like in Uppsala but Christianity destroyed it all.

Attached: Björn Järnsida barrow.jpg (912x684, 172K)

lmaooo

Attached: 1492077158225.jpg (350x350, 15K)

>not just seizing a cathedral and repurposing it as a pagan temple

Replace paintings and stained glass images of saints with the pantheon of gods, and melt down golden Christian relics to make statuettes of the gods.

Attached: 189803-004-A52EA45E.jpg (550x421, 36K)

Christianity fucked you to though. Literally nothing from the Finnish old religions remain.

That actually would make sense in Nordic countries because we don't know what thier temples looked like

Neo-Pagan =/= Pagan.

I don't give a shit. It was Swedes who fucked us.
The only thing I'm grateful to you for is based Christianity.

Attached: 1535294302078.png (499x499, 63K)

The Uppsala temple stood until the 1100's though so some idea of it's appearance exists.
Pic related seems to be the best depiction from 1555 but earlier examples exist in similar fashion.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_at_Uppsala

Attached: 012s93ecwqUU.jpg (1200x729, 701K)

Just build Stonehenges everywhere.

Temples in Indo-European religion weren't like churches, mosques, or synagogues. The purpose of an Abrahamic house of worship is to act as a place for laity and clergy to meet so clergymen can lecture the laity on the proper way to live. This necessitates having a big open space, which means you have to have a big building.

Indo-European religious buildings however acted primarily as sanctuaries to a deity. These sanctuaries were a sacred space owned by the god or goddess and contained votive goods, statues, treasures, and often large amounts of money (many temples acted as treasuries and banks). Only priests would enter the sanctuary to perform holy rituals. This wasn't because it was necessarily off limits for laity to enter, rather because laity just had no reason to. The primary religious functions laity would be involved in would be open air sacrifices, festivals, holidays, and feasts which would be held outside of the temple at an altar. Sometimes these altars were really big and REALLY ornate, sometimes they were just stone slabs that had a few carvings on them, sometimes they were just a big rock that had been smoothed. The most elaborate one is the Ara Pacis, which was actually an enclosed altar. The entire thing is very ornately carved.

Germanics did build enclosed religious buildings. Archaeological work has shown, from the foundations, that these buildings were as large, if not occasionally larger, than the churches that would often be built over them or nearby them. Whether they were just stave churches without crosses on them or only single story buildings is uncertain, however. The best attested Germanic religious ceremonies are all, similar to the Greco-Roman case, outdoor activities. There's a quote in Tacitus about the Germanics laughing at the Roman folly in believing a god could be contained in doors or that the gods could only own a small patch of land.

That's 100% fanfic.

No it is not.
I have my self worked at the archaeological digs around old Uppsala. The old wooden structures have been located and documented.
We can't say how the exterior looked but the size and shape of the buildings foundations is known.

"Pagan": Originally "country-dweller" (like redneck) but essentially a blanket term for 'someone who hasn't become Christian yet'

"Neo-Pagan": Mashup of some token scraps of pagan beliefs (ie the story of Hercules, Zodiac, what have you) + Pre-Modern Folk Christianity (ie christmas tree-->yule tree) + Occultism (muh tarot cards) + New Age (muh crystals) + Badly Misappropriated Third World Cultures (muh karma)

Then 2 major flavors
+ Nazism (for edgelord 'pagan')
+Environmentalism (for hippie 'pagan')

2 have almost nothing to do with each other.

>The purpose of an Abrahamic house of worship is to act as a place for laity and clergy to meet so clergymen can lecture the laity on the proper way to live.
Um no. The primary purpose of a Christian house of worship is to perform the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, no laity needed. Homilies are also performed there, and sometimes involve 'proper way to live' (sometimes involve jack all to do with anything), but those aren't the purposes of Abrahamic houses of worship.

There are many smaller chapels or shrines.

I meant the woodcut picture.

Good post

Well of course, it's a guessed pic drawn in 1555. It's not gonna be accurate.

A guessed pic from 400+ years later? Thats total 100% fanfic. I was wondering why it looked identical to a Roman Catholic church its because it is.

>Neo-pagans
larpers without true faith

In Italy and Greece, most temples were actually quite small. By all accounts the vast majority of Temples were really just stone sheds in villages. A folk practice handed down from pagan times that's still practiced in Slavic and Baltic lands is making small altars EVERYWHERE across the countryside. Most of the enormous temples were done after a a significant military or political victory, or were donations by the very wealthy. The Acropolis of Athens, or the Altar of Victory and the Ara Pacis, are two examples of these types of buildings. In the case of the Acropolis most of the actual site is temples and sanctuaries, with only a handful of altars and the nearby theaters actually being public religious buildings.

As far as Greco-Roman paganism goes, that building in OP's pic is pretty much accurate for what 99% of temples would have looked like. The Temple of Hercules Victor is only about twice the area of that, and that was a building built on government money, not on what was almost certainly private donations.

Yes, that is. That is the fundamental purpose of an Abrahamic house of worship. That's the entire reason churches (and Synagogues, and Mosques) were created, as a public means of relaying information from the priests to the laity. The actual religious rituals can be done anywhere, and in the earliest days weren't even done in a specifically holy building, they were just done in peoples' houses or in crypts and underground sites to avoid Roman authorities.

This is the fundamental difference between Abrahamic and Indo-European religion: The Abrahamic house of worship serves an organizational and social function (the relaying of information from priests to laity), whereas in Indo-European religion the temple is a place for the priests to perform rituals to the god. The actual organizational and social functions are part of the government and social structure of the society and government itself.

probably because most of them barely know anything about the actual shit but also because there's so extremely few of them, retard

>That is the fundamental purpose of an Abrahamic house of worship.
No its not. The fundamental purpose of a Christian house of worship (not even sure why bother to say "Abrahamic" as if everyone worships at a single site), is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and as a home for the Blessed Sacrament. You can easily have a shrine or a chapel the size of a garden shed.

> a public means of relaying information from the priests to the laity. The actual religious rituals can be done anywhere, and in the earliest days weren't even done in a specifically holy building, they were just done in peoples' houses or in crypts and underground sites to avoid Roman authorities.
And "information" can be relayed anywhere. IN FACT, there are far less restrictions on "relaying information" than there are on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which normally does require a tabernacle and an altar and a thurible. This is why today for example, people get far more "information" relayed outside a church than they do inside the church, because that is not church's primary purpose. The PRIMARY and FUNDAMENTAL purpose of the Church is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Hell, for the first 1000+ years of Christianity, attendance at church for laypeople was not required at all. It wasn't until 1215 that Laypeople were required to go to church, once a year....to receive the Eucharist. Not for special instructions, which can be given out most anywhere.

>Christianity weren't a freemasonryesque gravedigger society established in 16 century.

Yeah sure.
Lions. Colosseum. Crucifixions.

we have an idea based on the stave churches. just kick out the christians from there and you're set

>most of them barely know anything about the actual shit
Nobody knows anything about the "actual shit", Neopaganism is very much its own thing with its own set of practices and beliefs

Attached: 6982caaa389526e4322b9fe38e68ad44.jpg (570x446, 55K)

Medieval Europe was the peak of human civilization.

Religion isn't about faith, it's about practice and worldview

The picture is completely fabricated. However, archaeological evidence has shown that there were several structures at Gamma Uppsala (where the Temple was supposedly before it was destroyed and a church built over it). These structures are, by all accounts, actually a number of buildings across a spectrum of time instead of one singular building. I wouldn't rule out Adam of Bremen having actually seen some kind of temple because his description is far too spot on with the rest of Indo-European religion as a whole to have just been some guy making shit up.

Antiquity was the peak of human civilization.

Attached: п.jpg (559x720, 189K)

The stave church is a uniquely Scandinavian piece of architecture, it wasn't imported with Christianity. While the stave churches' height is certainly a Christian import, the actual building structure itself entirely native. Christianization brought an importation of Roman clergymen from the south, but these men knew nothing of building with anything except stone. At its inception the stave church was realistically just a really tall temple with a cross on top.

It has, of course, grown significantly. The earliest stave churches are puny compared to the enormous churches made in later years. But then, the earliest Christian meeting places were houses and crypts, and later buildings that consisted of
>Dude, let's take a Roman building
>but build it so it's shaped LIKE A CROSS!

If you're ignoring all of the historical records and archaeological evidence, yeah, I guess you seem retarded enough to think that, but then you seem like the type to think Wicca has a historical basis.

This is actually part of the problem, Abrahamic religions are ENTIRELY about faith. An Abrahamic has to have faith that he's been a good enough person to get into whatever afterlife Yahweh is supposed to give them. This is not the case with Indo-European religions, or any other religious system for that matter. If you asked a Greek pagan back in 500BC if he "had faith" in Athena he'd look at you like you were a moron. Why would he need faith in Athena? Athena is Athena and Athena is going to do what Athena will, and it's up to the pagan to act based on that.

Attached: CebPFyx.jpg (1242x1290, 64K)

>, Abrahamic religions are ENTIRELY about faith.
No they aren't.

>Abrahamic has to have faith that he's been a good enough person to get into whatever afterlife Yahweh is supposed to give them.
No, he doesn't.

An """"""Abrahamic""""""""" has to have right conduct, but has no way of knowing if they will go to Heaven or Hell at all. You have faith confused with hope, though I wouldn't say """Abrahamic religions"" are "all about hope" either. I can tell you are the same retard who tried to claim """Abrahamic buildings""" were primarily institutions of learning as well.

"Faith" isn't a concept at all in Judaism, and the Greek concept of Faith imported to Christianity (the idea of faithfulness and trust in God) is completely distinct from the Arabic concept of Faith in Islam (submission to the will of God). Fucking.......read a book, dumbass.

Attached: baxgpmcxxq6y.png (3048x2500, 3.15M)

>Abrahamic religions aren't based on faith
>Except for the fact that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are entirely based around faith
Are you retarded, user?

>but has no way of knowing if they will go to Heaven or Hell at all
Right, which is why he has to have faith. This is a point made by the Church Fathers, and Aquinas.

>I can tell you are the same retard who tried to claim """Abrahamic buildings""" were primarily institutions of learning as well.
Of course you can, I'm the guy whose been effortposting.

>"Faith" isn't a concept at all in Judaism,
Yes, it is. You clearly don't know anything about Islam or Judaism, so I don't know why you're bringing these up.

> Greek concept of Faith imported to Christianity
No, it didn't. I outlined why the concept of Faith is pointless in anything but an Abrahamic religion. Nowhere in any Greco-Roman text is anything close to Abrahamic faith even approximated. What's far more important in an Indo-European religion is the goodwill of a god, which has very clear indications, there's no faith required.

> he has to have faith.
No, he has hope that he might be saved. Hope =/= Faith. They are 2 distinct theological virtues. Faith is faithfulness or steadfastness or trust, which is ONE important part of Christianity, but is not the entire thing, nor is it remotely interchangeable with Hope. To assume that God WILL send you to Heaven with any certainty of faith is presumption, a sin against the Holy Spirit.

No "Church Father" will tell you that you, as an individual, should have faith that you, as an individual, are going to Heaven. Ever. You are thinking of Hope, and saying "Abrahamics are based around Hope!" is also wrong too because that is ONE part of Christianity.

> I outlined why the concept of Faith is pointless in anything but an Abrahamic religion.
No you didn't. You said "Athena will do what Athena will" (and Allah won't? What? Ever heard of phrases like 'God willing' or 'mashallah'?)

> anything close to Abrahamic faith even approximated.
There is no single concept of "Abrahamic faith" and you are mashing together multiple concepts, some of which are translatable into the English word 'faith' and some of which aren't.

Oh, you're a Fundamentalist. Well, I feel silly now, I was assuming you knew anything about Christianity, I apologize for overestimating you.

>You clearly don't know anything about Islam or Judaism
You don't know anything about Judaism if you think it has to do with faith. God doesn't really give a shit if Jews or anyone else believes in him or not according to Judaism, as long as the Jews or gentiles follow the appropriate laws. Judaism is about. There are 3 B's in religion-
Belief
Behavior
Belonging

Judaism is about behavior and belonging (ie a community with a common culture), not belief

t. had a religious Jewish gf for 4 years

Yes there were just like hindu temples or shinto shrines eat shit jew

>you're a Fundamentalist.
No I'm not. Do you think 'presumption' is a ""Fundamentalist"" concept? Its not, it has a whole question devoted to it in Thomas Aquinas who you were just trying to appeal to as "faith means you believe you are going to heaven when you die!!"

Do you KNOW what "fundamentalism" is? Orthodox =/= fundamentalism. Lack of presumption =/= Fundamentalism, if anything fundamentalism as a modern movement tends to err into presumption at times.

> I was assuming you knew anything about Christianity,
You fucking moron, as if you could ever judge, mr. "Abraham buildings (a real thing!) were built to teach people about Abrahamismism!"

Any nazi ~astaru~ shit who talks about "Abrahamics" as if it is a singular group (or talks about "pagans" for that matter as if they were a single group), is an absolute dumbass.

The nordic temples were made of gold, Christians looted them.

The Greco.Romans had complete piety and faith in their religion, desecrating or insulting the Gods was a death sentence many died Christians were executed for their heresy.

Attached: Screenshot_2018-09-08-19-15-03.png (720x1280, 489K)

Attached: Screenshot_2018-09-08-19-13-03.png (720x1280, 295K)

I've had this discussion with an Orthodox Jew about this before and he's disagreed about your statement that faith isn't important. In his opinion he certainly felt it wasn't as big of a deal as in Christianity and Islam but he agreed with my assessment that Judaism did have a component of faith above reason or rational in certain instances (he cited Job as an instance of this). I fully admit I'm not as learned in Judaism as I am in other subjects, however.

Hindu temples, yes. The difference in holy place that I've discussed (sanctuary for ritual vs site of spiritual guidance) is one that remains in Hinduism, where many Hindu temples are based around a central sanctuary. Shinto, in practice, does something similar, although the theory behind it is very much different and instead is related to Shinto's idea of place rather than certain things or areas belonging to a god.

Jew shit, fuck off we know what what "pagans" did, build and honor and habe a centralized organized clergy, tempmes, laws, and such.

>Hindu temples are based around a central sanctuary
And literally so are Christian churches have you ever been in a Church, you moron? Are you still on about that """site of spiritual guidance""" nonsense?

Attached: Byzantine_church.png (468x524, 7K)

Sounds like you need to calm down bud, you're getting pretty heated about this.

Worship should be centered around the hearth. See the book by "La maison et ses génies: Croyances d'hier et d'aujourd'hui" by Professor Claude Lecouteux

Muh muh larping neo pagans!

Attached: Screenshot_2018-09-08-19-33-36.png (720x1280, 426K)

2 different posters are angry at you because you are worse than a retard, but an -effortposting- retard who knows nothing about Christianity (""Abrahamics""") or about paganism.

The word "sanctuary" is literally a Christian term, used to describe the area around the tabernacle which stores the Body/Blood/Soul/Divinity of Christ in its entirety. This is the most absolute basics of Christianity and the most fundamental thing about a Church.

Attached: flrpln.jpg (296x432, 33K)

You dont believe in your.religion... Only the jew religion is authentic!!

Attached: Screenshot_2018-09-08-19-35-23.png (720x1280, 311K)

But I can almost guarantee you have no idea what an altar is or a tabernacle is or what a sanctuary, but have some kind of vague recollection of grandma taking you to sunday school so thats what church is traditionally like, right?? The altar is like a really big teacher desk right? And faith is like....when mama told you that grandma is in heaven and that you will go see her too, that is faith, right?? Anyone who says grandma might be in purgatory or worse and you should pray for her soul and perform indulgences is probably a fundamentalist, those guys are mean.

Holy moly.

Attached: TLM-1-1500x926.jpg (1500x926, 231K)

I wish paganism made a comeback just so we can destroy it all over again.

Attached: sdfgsdfg.png (1600x890, 2.13M)

Ancient gods were a personification of some aspects of life/nature/affects/places. Romans did have god who escorts children to/from school. It's not something like a "god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob"/god of covenant(s).

>many died Christians
Christians claim that a crucifixion were very popular method of punishment and they crucified a whole army of Spartacus. If so do you have an image of any mosaic which contains a depiction of any crucifixion?
Many "Christians" did hanging out in catacombs bc they were gravediggers and did that job bc that was dirty for Romans and not for "Christian" foreigners.
Cult of Emperor were established after Caracalla, when he gave citizenship to everyone and some guys with bones in the noses don't can't even comprehend a "democratic process".

Attached: 612.jpg (768x510, 46K)

I never heard that "Christians" were slaughtered bc they didn't bow to Jupiter or whatever, but bc they didn't bow to EMPEROR.
Before Severan dynasty Roman emperor was a just a Supreme Priest.
Since Severans Emperor got a literal deity status.
Julian of Norwich established a Pagan Church which was appropriated by Christians (16 century)
After that they create history what they wanted.

Attached: 50.png (1000x2133, 915K)

>Abrahamic religions are ENTIRELY about faith
The argument of Catholicism (the largest "abrahmic" sect int the world) against protestants is that you need faith and works, not just faith.

Yes, you are.

Are you trying to say that Suleiman was Justinian?

>I have never seen a proper pagan temple

you've never seen a forest? or a mountain? or water?

Attached: thulean perspective.jpg (530x297, 42K)

We do not know for sure what was happening before inventing of mass book/newspaper printing. Most historical facts based on one/few sources without original text/paper, just a re-writings.
Here's the big guy (~8'3"). First emperor of the Crisis of the Third Century.

Last Byzantine emperor were the vassals of Ottomans and did have dynastic relationship with them.
Many Latin duchies/cities in Greece were there after 1453 for centuries.
Very likely that Renaissance was Antic and Pagan. Christ were added on painting later. After Christianity was established (Society of Jesus). "Reformation" and "Counter-Reformation" were the establishing. Not after Constantine the Great but in 16 century.

If that were the case then why would the progressive movement attack Christianity so much?

Attached: 61.jpg (1241x496, 189K)

Nah that's only Christianity.

Faith doesn't automatically take you to a good afterlife in Islam and Judaism.

Look at most "progressive'. "social-dem" etc politician. That's not a coincidence that they aren't big brain guys.
Socialism was established in London. Look at S-D logo and go try to squeeze a rose yourself. That's kinda an another """"religion"""".

France helped to get an independence to USA.
UK helped to a success of French Revolution.
Is that coincidence that there are only two major masonic organisations? One in London and another in Paris.
We have only 3 real countries in the world.
That's England, France and USA. England has Commonwealth, Nordics; France has their ex-colonies and EU; USA has something and big guns.
Others are neo-colonies or crypto-colonies (like Japan).

It's just unclear who is behind Roman Catholic Church. Well since Pope is a King, may be England. But France at least somewhat of catholic. Unclear.

>Judaism
Doesn't even have Hell. Or Purgatory.

It seems more likely that there are questionable organizations that have allowed the current state of the world to unfold.

Modern people stole a halo from Roman mosaics. A cargo cult.
Modern people thought that gladiators were slaughtered every event. But they were artists like wrestlers. There were sport arenas everywhere in Empire.
Modern people trying a new cargo cult from Antiquity — homosexuality and pedophile (not about infants/ after puberty). But Ancient ones didn't make a show or pride out of their relationships.

Attached: 85.jpg (740x920, 380K)

literally every religion and culture had halos

Attached: Buddha(350x444).jpg (350x444, 108K)

The Poles are apparently building their first pagan temple.

I wonder how long until a Muslim allahu akbars it

Attached: z21178809V,Tak-ma-wygladac-swiatynia-poganska-we-Wroclawiu.jpg (640x390, 27K)

Well... may be that other religions and governments made up by Europeans.

If you remember, Many Popes from the "Middle Ages" and may be even the "Renaissance" were just a Kings, sometimes the led their armies. But they were in charged of all Catholics. and there are many kingdoms, duchies, cities. all of them Catholic.

Rome did have unions and treaties with many kingdoms and cities back than too. Roman Emperors (and rulers before Empire) did have title of greatest priest (Pontifex maximus).

Attached: 4199.jpg (600x800, 206K)