Plants of all kinds do not limit themselves to grow within human-defined borders. They grow anywhere that conditions are suitable for them. Plants that grow in one area today may have grown somewhere else last year. Plants can cross oceans with no help from humans. To transport plant seeds long-distance is the task of birds. There is no reason to believe that a plant that would thrive in south America would not also thrive in the general vicinity of Egypt. That a plant is extinct or missing from one particular place does not imply that it has not been there at some point in time.
"The flora and fauna shown in the artwork is thought to have existed _along_ _the_ _coasts_ of African and the Arabian Peninsula. These findings show that the ancient Egyptians could complete some _longer_ _oceanic_ voyages."
Costal navigation and oceanic navigation is not the same. A voyage along some coast is not at all the same discipline as crossing an ocean.You can not conclude that because some people could sail along a coastline they could also cross an ocean.
In another myth, this article is the Bible, long lost but now found.
Does the author even have a clue as to what a myth is? He mentions that there are no ghosts in the myth about the Titans... well, guess what, the myth about Titans is a myth about Titans, not about ghosts. He further mentions that in another myth Hades is a habitable land, not of the dead... well, guess what, that myth is not about the dead but about the gods, so naturally the abode of the gods is described as habitable ...to them! Why should any myth contain irrelevant details? That is simply not how myths work.
Please! The works of so-called Homer are <strong>fiction</strong>. So are those by Mark Twain. However, the identity, dating and whereabouts of Homer disappears into thin air to researchers. Did he even exist?
Also, in one sentence Hades is a supposed country, in another Hades is "Lord of the Underworld", in a third sentence Hades is "the Greek Underworld" (so, each country or people has its own underworld? And Hades can be whatever you like, as long as "underworld" is part of the name?).
...is equalled in the lead in, to the underworld. In what, or which, particular religious context is it so? The underworld, for everyone else, has nothing to do with any type of paradise, neither lost nor found. Nothing at all. The very concept of "a paradise" is strictly confined to the three so-called "abrahamic faiths", and the concept of "paradise" does simply not exist outside of that trio. Even using the word "paradise" is a religious claim. For everybody else than adherents to Christianity, Jewdom, Islam paradise does not exist (hell neither), but the underworld does, as that is not an "abrahamic" religios concept.
"... Sheol, the Jewish variant, are very familiar in Western society"
Eh? ...no? Never heard of it before! Is the article author Jewish, American, or both? Jewish ways of speech are common in American English, but generally not outside USA. Jewish religious concepts are generally only known by jews, some non-jew americans, and those with a special interest.
I'd like to add this to my comments from yesterday:
(1) The christians of today and the christian church of today are not the christians/the church of 1,500 years ago. I used blunt statements in my comments, and these statements were directed at the church/christians of 1,500 years ago, not the church/the christians of today.
(2) It is not, and was not, my intention to hurt anybodys feelings.
(3) My pen name is not to be taken as evidence that my opinions are more important than anybody elses. It is, further, not copyright protected, but I do recall and recognize the comments posted in this thread yesterday as being mine.
.... and as for Ansgar, if Bluetooth compares to Hitler, he compares to Himmler and Göring combined. There is nothing -- nothing -- glorious about the deeds of these dictators and people-slayers. All in the name of Krist. That hogwash above makes me angry.
"King Harald Bluetooth .." might best be compared to the likes of Saddam Hussein, Bashar El-Assad, Pinochet, Chairman Mao, Josef Stalin, and similar genocidal dictators. He is no hero, and his own historians lied, which is reflected in current popular beliefs.
I'm sorry, this article reads like pure Disney. It is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Please don't tell a Dane that you know his own history and culture better than him, and that it's not like he thinks.
I can't let this pass as it's simply a reiteration of Christian history, and a very large insult to all Danes (not Dane-ish), old as well as new:
"Denmark was the most easily transformed (...) Thus there was little struggle in assimilating the two faiths, and they were able to coexist under the individual decrees of the Danish tribal leaders."
I will paste in my comment from another thread, to save me time. Here:
In Northern Europe/Scandinavia, for example, by all available evidence Vita Krist was marketed as a warrior god far more mighty than Thor and Odin combined. He was an elite god for the Kings, nobles, and Chieftains, and it was the upper echelons of society that adopted this religion, because it was crafted in such a way that it helped them control the ordinary citizens. Church bureaucracy and hierarchy helped in that respect. THe way people werehristened was by decree, the upper echelons got "an offer they couldn't refuse", from even higher echelons, aspiring to become kings of enlarged areas. Wars among nobles accompanied this "peaceful christening", and as always when nobles fight less-than-nobles are the ones who die in largest number.
Kvenland, now known as Finland, was populated by Kvens and Samí before the christian invasion. The Kvens are a nation (a people) that is now almost extinct, the last remains are living in Norway now, afaik.
Re: "But by the 10th century, Christianity had brought an end to their polytheistic worship"
Then how would you explain that we are now past the 10th century? Actually a full millenia past it. The "worship" (as you call it - your term, not mine) continues to this day.
I have read only the lead-in to this article, and already spotted several issues calling for a comment. It does not seem like it was written by a Norse, and I seriously doubt that the contents further down will be accurate. If the rest of the article is as misleading as the first part, I think I will refrain from commenting, to save a bit of my own time. Please, the Norse is not what television makes of it (of us) - I'm getting inceasingly "fed up" with all kinds of non-norse people trying to take over our culture and tell us what it "really" is like.
...oh, and these were not "deities", these were gods. Real gods, ie. "gods" in the original Old Norse sense of this word, which is a significant point. You may think it is the same as some current, say eg. Christian definition, but these are not synonyms. Even the concept of "a god" is not always the same across cultures. I know it's not simple, which is why you should not speak in exact terms without exact knowledge.
I shouldn't have read this... it's so misleading it begs for comments in almost any direction. Let's just review this statement:
"The new religion was full of promises about the equal rights of the people and of a good God who would protect them. "
I think you will find, as you start to study history, that this version of christianity, "the nice one" is (a) not the only version, and (b) a relatively modern version.
In Northern Europe/Scandinavia, for example, by all available evidence Vita Krist was marketed as a warrior god far more mighty than Thor and Odin combined. He was an elite god for the Kings, nobles, and Chieftains, and it was the upper echelons of society that adopted this religion, because it was crafted in such a way that it helped them control the ordinary citizens. Church bureaucracy and hierarchy helped in that respect. THe way people werehristened was by decree, the upper echelons got "an offer they couldn't refuse", from even higher echelons, aspiring to become kings of enlarged areas. Wars among nobles accompanied this "peaceful christening", and as always when nobles fight less-than-nobles are the ones who die in largest number.
Re: "European cultural roots are called ''the Christian ones''."
By whom? Are there others than the article author using that definition? It is so blatantly wrong that even the term "misnomer" is being far too nice. This is the first time I hear that, and I've been studying history for some time.
I'm sorry, this is nonsense. It must be a weird form of typo:
From image caption above: "... and secret Christian communities existed in the Pagan Rus' "
Either you are pagan or you are Christian, or neither. There is no "both" and there is no middle way. Christian religion is a dogma featuring only one god, and that religion does not have room for other gods, hence it is exclusive. Also, the very Christian idea about what "a god" is may be very far from pagan ideas - these two broad groups may not even agree on what constitutes a god and what does not..
One thing to take away from this aricle is this alleged quote:
"‘Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all.’ "
So, the reading was not entirely in vain. The quote is essentially about the concept of Philosophy (so-called "free thought"), which is characterised by the words "to think".
This is opposed to the concept of Religion (so-called "dogma"), which is characterised by "belief", roughly analogous to "not to think at all".
I think this way of contemplating the alleged quote is more fruitful for an understanding of why such innocent-sounding words may once have been perceived as a threat to The Main Religious Institution (known as "the church" in western societies).
Today it seems that at least some Religios Institutions (eg. "churches") have understood that one thought does not block another, hence philosophy is mostly an accepted activity, even to the degree that there exists so-called "christian philosophy", and analogous for many other religions (even though by nature religions are dogma, not thought).
I, for one, welcome the free exchange of thoughts, even when these are clearly nonsensical. It does, however, put an added burden on the people of this age; namely the burden of distinguishing the important and true from the senseless and irrelevant. This is not always easy.
Correction: "it could even mean "the US/European western world". "
That should be " the US/European/middle-eastern western wold"
The middle eastern countries with their competing versions of Christianity/Islam/Jewdom are part of the fabric of the current western world, hence part of the methaphorical concept of "current Rome". There would be no western world without middle eastern oil, and there would be no christianity/jewdom or islam in Europe or US if it all had stayed at home, at its origin.
Here you can navigate quickly through all comments made in any article sorted by date/time.
Plants of all kinds do not limit themselves to grow within human-defined borders. They grow anywhere that conditions are suitable for them. Plants that grow in one area today may have grown somewhere else last year. Plants can cross oceans with no help from humans. To transport plant seeds long-distance is the task of birds. There is no reason to believe that a plant that would thrive in south America would not also thrive in the general vicinity of Egypt. That a plant is extinct or missing from one particular place does not imply that it has not been there at some point in time.
"The flora and fauna shown in the artwork is thought to have existed _along_ _the_ _coasts_ of African and the Arabian Peninsula. These findings show that the ancient Egyptians could complete some _longer_ _oceanic_ voyages."
Costal navigation and oceanic navigation is not the same. A voyage along some coast is not at all the same discipline as crossing an ocean.You can not conclude that because some people could sail along a coastline they could also cross an ocean.
In another myth, this article is the Bible, long lost but now found.
Does the author even have a clue as to what a myth is? He mentions that there are no ghosts in the myth about the Titans... well, guess what, the myth about Titans is a myth about Titans, not about ghosts. He further mentions that in another myth Hades is a habitable land, not of the dead... well, guess what, that myth is not about the dead but about the gods, so naturally the abode of the gods is described as habitable ...to them! Why should any myth contain irrelevant details? That is simply not how myths work.
Please! The works of so-called Homer are <strong>fiction</strong>. So are those by Mark Twain. However, the identity, dating and whereabouts of Homer disappears into thin air to researchers. Did he even exist?
Also, in one sentence Hades is a supposed country, in another Hades is "Lord of the Underworld", in a third sentence Hades is "the Greek Underworld" (so, each country or people has its own underworld? And Hades can be whatever you like, as long as "underworld" is part of the name?).
"...the universal myth of the lost paradise..."
...is equalled in the lead in, to the underworld. In what, or which, particular religious context is it so? The underworld, for everyone else, has nothing to do with any type of paradise, neither lost nor found. Nothing at all. The very concept of "a paradise" is strictly confined to the three so-called "abrahamic faiths", and the concept of "paradise" does simply not exist outside of that trio. Even using the word "paradise" is a religious claim. For everybody else than adherents to Christianity, Jewdom, Islam paradise does not exist (hell neither), but the underworld does, as that is not an "abrahamic" religios concept.
"... Sheol, the Jewish variant, are very familiar in Western society"
Eh? ...no? Never heard of it before! Is the article author Jewish, American, or both? Jewish ways of speech are common in American English, but generally not outside USA. Jewish religious concepts are generally only known by jews, some non-jew americans, and those with a special interest.
I'd like to add this to my comments from yesterday:
(1) The christians of today and the christian church of today are not the christians/the church of 1,500 years ago. I used blunt statements in my comments, and these statements were directed at the church/christians of 1,500 years ago, not the church/the christians of today.
(2) It is not, and was not, my intention to hurt anybodys feelings.
(3) My pen name is not to be taken as evidence that my opinions are more important than anybody elses. It is, further, not copyright protected, but I do recall and recognize the comments posted in this thread yesterday as being mine.
.... and as for Ansgar, if Bluetooth compares to Hitler, he compares to Himmler and Göring combined. There is nothing -- nothing -- glorious about the deeds of these dictators and people-slayers. All in the name of Krist. That hogwash above makes me angry.
"King Harald Bluetooth .." might best be compared to the likes of Saddam Hussein, Bashar El-Assad, Pinochet, Chairman Mao, Josef Stalin, and similar genocidal dictators. He is no hero, and his own historians lied, which is reflected in current popular beliefs.
I'm sorry, this article reads like pure Disney. It is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Please don't tell a Dane that you know his own history and culture better than him, and that it's not like he thinks.
I can't let this pass as it's simply a reiteration of Christian history, and a very large insult to all Danes (not Dane-ish), old as well as new:
"Denmark was the most easily transformed (...) Thus there was little struggle in assimilating the two faiths, and they were able to coexist under the individual decrees of the Danish tribal leaders."
I will paste in my comment from another thread, to save me time. Here:
In Northern Europe/Scandinavia, for example, by all available evidence Vita Krist was marketed as a warrior god far more mighty than Thor and Odin combined. He was an elite god for the Kings, nobles, and Chieftains, and it was the upper echelons of society that adopted this religion, because it was crafted in such a way that it helped them control the ordinary citizens. Church bureaucracy and hierarchy helped in that respect. THe way people werehristened was by decree, the upper echelons got "an offer they couldn't refuse", from even higher echelons, aspiring to become kings of enlarged areas. Wars among nobles accompanied this "peaceful christening", and as always when nobles fight less-than-nobles are the ones who die in largest number.
Enough, I've had it with this article.
Kvenland, now known as Finland, was populated by Kvens and Samí before the christian invasion. The Kvens are a nation (a people) that is now almost extinct, the last remains are living in Norway now, afaik.
Re: "But by the 10th century, Christianity had brought an end to their polytheistic worship"
Then how would you explain that we are now past the 10th century? Actually a full millenia past it. The "worship" (as you call it - your term, not mine) continues to this day.
I have read only the lead-in to this article, and already spotted several issues calling for a comment. It does not seem like it was written by a Norse, and I seriously doubt that the contents further down will be accurate. If the rest of the article is as misleading as the first part, I think I will refrain from commenting, to save a bit of my own time. Please, the Norse is not what television makes of it (of us) - I'm getting inceasingly "fed up" with all kinds of non-norse people trying to take over our culture and tell us what it "really" is like.
Thanks for the effort, but no thanks.
...oh, and these were not "deities", these were gods. Real gods, ie. "gods" in the original Old Norse sense of this word, which is a significant point. You may think it is the same as some current, say eg. Christian definition, but these are not synonyms. Even the concept of "a god" is not always the same across cultures. I know it's not simple, which is why you should not speak in exact terms without exact knowledge.
Re: "... an amalgamation of deities ..."
This is known as a Pantheon, not "an amalgamation" - the latter expression may well be considered derogative, and even insulting.
The word Pantheon comes from the Greek word "Pantheon", describing, well, the Greek Pantheon.
I shouldn't have read this... it's so misleading it begs for comments in almost any direction. Let's just review this statement:
"The new religion was full of promises about the equal rights of the people and of a good God who would protect them. "
I think you will find, as you start to study history, that this version of christianity, "the nice one" is (a) not the only version, and (b) a relatively modern version.
In Northern Europe/Scandinavia, for example, by all available evidence Vita Krist was marketed as a warrior god far more mighty than Thor and Odin combined. He was an elite god for the Kings, nobles, and Chieftains, and it was the upper echelons of society that adopted this religion, because it was crafted in such a way that it helped them control the ordinary citizens. Church bureaucracy and hierarchy helped in that respect. THe way people werehristened was by decree, the upper echelons got "an offer they couldn't refuse", from even higher echelons, aspiring to become kings of enlarged areas. Wars among nobles accompanied this "peaceful christening", and as always when nobles fight less-than-nobles are the ones who die in largest number.
Enough, I've had it with this article.
Re: " With the growing power of the Christian priests, many priests of pagan beliefs joined the new church."
Ehrm.... *cough* ...where do you find these horrible suggestions? This is very close to being a serious insult.
In modern terms: Evidence, or it does not exist!
Re: "European cultural roots are called ''the Christian ones''."
By whom? Are there others than the article author using that definition? It is so blatantly wrong that even the term "misnomer" is being far too nice. This is the first time I hear that, and I've been studying history for some time.
I'm sorry, this is nonsense. It must be a weird form of typo:
From image caption above: "... and secret Christian communities existed in the Pagan Rus' "
Either you are pagan or you are Christian, or neither. There is no "both" and there is no middle way. Christian religion is a dogma featuring only one god, and that religion does not have room for other gods, hence it is exclusive. Also, the very Christian idea about what "a god" is may be very far from pagan ideas - these two broad groups may not even agree on what constitutes a god and what does not..
One thing to take away from this aricle is this alleged quote:
"‘Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all.’ "
So, the reading was not entirely in vain. The quote is essentially about the concept of Philosophy (so-called "free thought"), which is characterised by the words "to think".
This is opposed to the concept of Religion (so-called "dogma"), which is characterised by "belief", roughly analogous to "not to think at all".
I think this way of contemplating the alleged quote is more fruitful for an understanding of why such innocent-sounding words may once have been perceived as a threat to The Main Religious Institution (known as "the church" in western societies).
Today it seems that at least some Religios Institutions (eg. "churches") have understood that one thought does not block another, hence philosophy is mostly an accepted activity, even to the degree that there exists so-called "christian philosophy", and analogous for many other religions (even though by nature religions are dogma, not thought).
I, for one, welcome the free exchange of thoughts, even when these are clearly nonsensical. It does, however, put an added burden on the people of this age; namely the burden of distinguishing the important and true from the senseless and irrelevant. This is not always easy.
Correction: "it could even mean "the US/European western world". "
That should be " the US/European/middle-eastern western wold"
The middle eastern countries with their competing versions of Christianity/Islam/Jewdom are part of the fabric of the current western world, hence part of the methaphorical concept of "current Rome". There would be no western world without middle eastern oil, and there would be no christianity/jewdom or islam in Europe or US if it all had stayed at home, at its origin.
Pages