Assuming paganism took over western countries, how would you guys deal with western churches that have artistic and architectural merit?
>>55308478
I'd keep them based on their historical value.
>>55308478
are you asking what we would do with the current churches?
also, it already did take over.
name one country that only has one religion.
We're pagans, not ISIS. Of course we'd keep the cool shit.
>>55308564
Saudi Arabia (expats don't count, every country has expats except..... what? North Korea or something?).
>>55308744
Paganism -> Catholicism -> Islam
>>55308577
Would some of it be turned back into pagan temples though, such as the Pantheon?
Also, what do you guys think of Plotinus and Neoplatonism?
>>55308800
Obviously. The Abrahamic religions have their roots in Canaanite paganism.
>>55308478
Semi-serious answer: there's no such thing as "paganism."
Serious answer: nothing. They're beautiful examples of European vision, ability and artistry.
And even if we "took over," I seriously doubt literally everyone would revert, so they'd probably still see some use.
>>55308828
>Would some of it be turned back into pagan temples though, such as the Pantheon?
That should be up to the religio Romana people, IMO.
>>55308845
Catholicism and Islam do not worship the God of Abraham.
There is really no point in demolishing them. We are not Muslims. Save them as monuments to the stupidity of Christians.
>>55308849
>Semi-serious answer: there's no such thing as "paganism."
How do you define yourself then, just in terms of mos maoirum ancestral custom, and a return to it?
I want religion to be irrelevant, but I think that churches are beautiful so I'd keep them around as utility buildings if I was in charge.
>>55309069
>I want religion to be irrelevant
Good luck with that with all the Muslims you bring over Sven, lol.
>>55308478
>assuming Paganism took over Western countries
I would fight for Christ the King
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvKRbi2ovDY
>>55309169
Wouldn't it be better to just let the pagans do their own thing?
Hasn't enough blood been shed between fellow white men over religious feuds?
>>55309020
I prefer the term heathen, as a personal thing, but my point is more that there's no religion or religious movement that be called "paganism." There are a bunch of different religions, some of them related like Abrahamic religions are related (Asatru, Romuva, Religio Romana, Hellenismos, etc...all native Indo-European religions or outgrowths thereof), and a bunch of "pagan" religions that aren't (Wicca, Goddess-worshippers, fraternal Druidry, etc.).
They're all "paganism" in that they aren't "world religions" or Abrahamic religions, but that's less useful a designation than I'd like.
I guess you could call it a pet issue, so it's not a huge deal or anything.
>>55308919
Actually, they do. And 'Allah' is just a generic Arabic word roughly meaning 'the God' (as opposed to 'a god'), hence Arab Jews and Arab Christians also use the word 'Allah'.
>>55309203
There are plenty of white Jews, and they are liars all of the same. Being white does not exempt you from justice or obligation, and therefore any man who proselytizes against Christianity in Christian countries constitutes a fifth column and should be reprimanded.
>>55309283
No, they don't.
Two different peoples use the word faggot, and they both put them in their mouth. One group's faggot kills with cancer the other group's with aids, but the faggots they speak of are two different things.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCmSBfVXEmA
Can we discuss pre-Christian European religion and philosophy:
- Polytheism.
- Platonism/Neo-Platonism.
- Epicureanism.
- Stoicism.
etc.
>>55308478
Take all the gold and precious items. Leave all buildings and stained glass windows in tact. Have insane mushroom orgy trip parties in them before making sacrifices to the gods.
>Reminder that the only reason that Novgorod Russia was Orthodox instead of Sunni Muslim, was because a king had a drinking problem.
>>55309517
My personal opinions:
>- Polytheism.
Far more likely and logical than monotheism, if one is going to believe in deities.
>- Platonism/Neo-Platonism.
Not a fan. It just doesn't do anything for me.
>- Epicureanism.
More interesting than Platonism, and not the worst practical philosophy ever put forth. Personally, I think it lacks something in the vital heroism department, but that's rather its nature.
The most annoying thing about it is how atheists like to say Epicurus was an atheist, usually because of his famous trilemma. Absolutely cringey ignorance, there.
>- Stoicism.
No interest in their metaphysics, but the philosophy is largely sound, if wholly uninspiring.
>>55310335
Thanks anon.
I'm interested in learning more about the Gods of my ancestors, if I'm being honest.
>>55308478
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44vzMNG2fZc
>>55310335
I think you're right about polytheism. The fact that the gods aren't omnipotent and omniscient makes them far more believable. Monotheists have to deal with logical inconsistencies that come about thanks to this. Not only that, they also have to explain evil, which isn't easy if you have just one eternally good god. That's not to say that I'm a polytheist, though. I'm actually somewhat agnostic.
>>55310471
No problem, Britbro. There's tons of information out there for your edification. Feel free to ask anything.
>>55310640
Agnosticism is the most logical stance, at least until you have an experience that contradicts it.
