Polytheism is Fascism‽

Χαίρετε!

So apparently there’s been an article at Gods & Radicals “Confronting the New Right“, accusing devotional polytheists and those who employ the reconstructionist method for rebuilding polytheist traditions Christianity has stamped out, or attempted to anyway, of being almost inherently fascists. What. the fuck.

I only mentioned reconstructionism and devotional polytheism here, but the article goes on to attack several specific paths as well. Dianic/Goddess spirituality, Druidry, Heathenism/Ásatrú/Northern Tradition, and Occult/Witch/High Magic Traditions. Since I belong to neither of those traditions, I will not speak of them further. I will speak further about reconstructionism and devotional polytheism, though. First, let’s have a look at what they have to say in their article about these things.

  • Reconstructionism: One of the more significant places where the New Right intersects with Pagan beliefs. Emphasis on returning to ‘reconstructed’ traditions, older (and poorly understood) social forms and hierarchical structures, as well as an emphasis on recovering European heritage are often problematic. Further, nationalistic and racial exclusionist tendencies are often justified as being part of ‘the lore.’

You notice immediately how reconstructionism in immediately framed for being regressive and dangerous, promoting a return to older societal structures and organisation, with all their laws, institutions (think slavery and female inferiority), etc. This is a blatantly false. Reconstructionism is a method with which these interrupted (looking at you Christianity and Islām) religious traditions can be restored and revived in the modern day. The study of the ancient societies and cultures which they were part of and intimately entwined with is a necessity to properly understand the ancient worldview and practices, which in turn is a requirement to see how the religious parts related to the others, so we can find out if and how we can extrapolate those religious traditions and implement them in our modern time in a manner that is faithful to the original ancient practices without losing sight of the fact that we live in the modern day and age that we do. Reconstructionism does not promote the reinstitution of slavery, of feudal systems, of noble lords and their subjects, of female inferiority, etc.

  • Devotional Polytheism: Similar to the problems in Reconstructionism, but with an extra dimension. Because Devotional Polytheism places final authority in ‘the gods’ and emphasises hierarchical relationships (between human and god, priest and devotee), ethical questions cannot be challenged by concerned people because ‘the gods will it.’

Here devotional polytheism is accused of the same as reconstructionism, so I won’t copy-paste the same arguments again, see above if you need to re-read. However, we also see some new ways of attack, like how devotional polytheism posits a hierarchical relationship between us and the Gods. Well, la-di-friggin’-da. See, when you genuinely believe in actual Gods, with agency and existence of their own, independent of humans (aka when you are a polytheist), Gods who make up and shape the fabric of the world, and we’re the beings living inside that world, subject to its harshnesses and vicissitudes, its rapturous beauty and joy, then yeah, we’re lower on the fucking divine hierarchy. And there’s nothing we can do than to accept our lot in life, and perform the tasks proper for our place in the kosmos. Tasks necessary for our own continued survival, to procure food to nourish us and our families and communities, to justly punish criminals, to find ways of living together, to fight against those who attack us with word (like I am doing now by writing this blog post) and/or deed. Tasks that we must recognise the presence of the Gods in. Demeter teaches us to grow the grain for our bread, Dionysos taught the art of wine-making and imbibing his sacred drink is taking the God himself within us (ἐνθουσιασμός enthousiasmos), Earth bears fruits, Artemis and Apollon teach to hunt, Pan and Hermes herd goats and other livestock, Poseidon protects the sailors and fishermen, Zeus and Athena provide justice and protect the polis, Aphrodite brings the drive to bond and have children and to multiply livestock, Hephaistos and Athena are patrons of artisans and industry, and Ares has part in all wars and fights, Hera blesses marriages, Zeus and Hera cause gentle rains to nourish the soil, Poseidon ensures it seeps into the soil and replenishes the ground water that the crops need, Sun shines down upon us giving life to all, Moon controls the tides and allows us to measure time, and I could go on endlessly. To quote Thales of Miletos “Everything is full of Gods”, and once you recognise this, and the part the Gods play in every single aspect of our lives, it is only natural to honour them and recognise them for what they are and do, and try to thank them, even if there is nothing we  could ever give that truly could repay them as they are part of all things, it is only natural for us to want to do so to the best of our abilities. That is why we have sacrifice, to give back some of what they give us in thanksgiving, or to petition them for aid. That’s a different topic, however.

Devotional polytheism is also attacked because apparently ethics are unquestioned and unquestionable. What do you think we are? Abrahamic monotheists? Speaking from my own tradition, Hellenic polytheism, the Gods don’t really go about handing out tablets with immutable Commands. The only ethical requirement that truly exists in Hellenismos is “keep your oaths”, which is pretty fucking simple and clear-cut, and why the Delphic maxims warn against taking oaths, because keeping oaths can be fucking hard and you need to be sure about your formulations and whether you can actually fulfill your part. Other then that, most ethics are strong recommendations, but not Commands you must follow unerringly. To give one example: “Honour your parents” is a pretty big deal, and rightfully so. But what if your parents or one of them, at least, is un-honourable? What if they abused you and/or your other parent? What if they simply neglected you, or if they left you and your other parent to your fate? This is where we get into the gray area of ethics, a gray area that polytheism allows for. It is something where we have to make out for ourselves if and how we would perform this ethical ideal. And then there’s the allowance for discussions on ethics, exchanging of different ideas, etc. Our Gods do not force these upon us except in select cases like oath-breaking (Zeus Horkios).

Throughout the article, the author, who was apparently too cowardly to put his/her name under the article, accuses polytheism of being inherently intertwined with far right ideologies of misogyny, ableism, racism/supremacism, nationalism, etc. These things are genuine threats to us, yes, but in my experience, they are mostly external ones. I have not yet met a single, genuine polytheist who holds such opinions as part of their religion. Indeed, in my experience, it is mostly (ultra-)nationalists, (neo-)nazi’s, racial supremacists, etc., who try to co-opt our sacred traditions for their own political goals, but often do not truly believe in the reality of the Gods and are thus not polytheists. They seek to co-opt our religious traditions as cultural heritage. But simultaneously they usually align themselves religiously with Christianity, typically with Roman-Catholicism or Eastern-Orthodoxy here in Europe. I don’t know if and how it may be occurring in Scandinavia and the Baltic. Again, these things are genuine threats, but mostly one external to polytheism. To accuse us of these things is a grave and heinous misrepresentation, which I can’t help but feel is a deliberate attempt to attack and undermine us polytheists, our validity, and our reputation, in a vicious and insidious attempt to insinuate we polytheists are the “bad” polytheists, and the writer of the article and their ilk  are the “good” polytheists, when in truth they are rarely polytheists but archetypalists, monists, monotheists, atheists, etc., trying to co-opt polytheism for their own purposes, just like fascists and (neo-)nazi’s and (ultra-)nationalists try to do.

From other reactions to that blog post by Gods&Radicals, it seems we, having started to call them out on their bullshit, have now been accused of being “too emotional,” of “over-reacting,” and that we “need to cool off.” Is it just me, or is this the same kind of demeaning and paternalistic rhetoric used to shut up women when they protest against being treated unfairly because they are women and calling people out on that bullshit? This is a blatant attempt to shut us up and shut down any opposition, which is exactly something fascists would do, you know, the kind of fascists these people are accusing polytheists of being. Oh, sweet irony.

I would now like to make a little excursion outside the Western-centric debate this has mostly been. Have you ever heard of Hinduism? You know, the third largest religion on the planet? Here you go insulting a whole bunch of them who are polytheists with devotional relationships to certain Gods. Śaiva, Śāktaṃ, Vaiṣṇava, Smṛti, etc., Hindus are also implicated of being inherently fascists. So are practitioners of Vodou, Candomblé, Yoruba polytheism, Zulu polytheism, Shinto, Taoism, and countless other indigenous traditions that had the good luck of not having been stamped out by Christianity or Islām yet. All of them are accused by you of being fascists when very often it is exactly they who are constantly under attack from missionaries or terror groups and have to defend themselves.

As a final note I would like to say this: Gods&Radicals and supporters if you pick a fight with us, you can be damn sure we’ll be taking you up on the challenge. You come to attack us and conquer us and colonise us, and we’ll be standing our ground and defending it against you invaders. And you might want to remember then that we have actual Gods we can petition to back us up and stand with us, and Ancestors who will stand by us; while you have mere archetypes (who only exist in your mind), faces of a single Godhead (who in terms of theology is so far beyond us that it can’t possibly care about our petty squabbles and just is there somewhere), or even no Gods at all (and somehow you want to be called polytheists? LOL). So if you pick a battle with us, be sure you consider who’ll be standing against you, mortal and immortal alike, from countless traditions within polytheism.

Ἔρσσωσο.

FURTHER READING

Advertisements

36 comments on “Polytheism is Fascism‽

  1. dharma19881988 says:

    Haha.. It’s funny because American indologists (Sheldon Pollock) are treating Sanskrit, the language in which Hindu scriptures were written and was the liturgical language of Hindus to have helped Nazi’s popularize thier ideology!

    That’s how ridiculous it goes. Forget about the people responsible for committing such heinous crimes, you blame a foreign country and a foreign religion for the Nazi atrocities!

    Like

    • J_Agathokles says:

      Really? How would that work? Was the German population of the 1930’s and early 1940’s fluent in Sanskrit or something? Because otherwise I don’t see how they could justify such a preposterous hypothesis.

      Liked by 1 person

      • dharma19881988 says:

        Yes. In modern Europe during colonization days, Sanskrit was a mandatory subject in almost all linguistic studies.

        More detailed response,
        http://beingdifferentforum.blogspot.ch/2014/08/the-strange-case-of-re-de-re-colonized.html

        Like

      • J_Agathokles says:

        Interesting article. I’ll make a point of reading it more attentively later.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Janus says:

        Agathokle,

        I don’t know you, but what I just seen reading that article is something I’ve been following for a while. What you just encountered in that article is the regressive left. You would be well advised to look them up and discover their MO.

        What they do is infiltrate a group and then tear it apart from the inside by calling everything and everyone who disagrees problematic, racist, and sexist, and fascist. You being a nice person will inevitably try to debate their points as if they are logical, rational people.

        They aren’t. They will smear you as a closet fascist/racist/sexist and attempt to drive a wedge into your movement, purging those who they disagree with by labeling them with whatever they think will stick. They will go to great lengths to publicly shame you.

        They did it with video games, they did it with open source software communities, they did it with atheism, they did it with science fiction authors, and now they have come for you.

        Don’t engage these people – they pretend to actually want to discuss and debate but their true intent is to purge. They are thoroughly fanatical and completely insane.

        Good luck. I only hope your community stands firm against these sociopaths.

        Like

  2. gilbride says:

    This article is nothing but one lie and strawman attack after another. I write for Gods and Radicals. I worship multiple gods, who I believe to actually exist. So where does that leave you?

    Liked by 1 person

    • J_Agathokles says:

      Ah, a G&R writer, welcome. I do believe you are not the only writer on that blog? Yeah, thought so.

      Let me break it down for you, if there are polytheists – actual polytheists – writing for G&R, then how does it feel to work together with the person who wrote the particular article to which I am responding (as are many others)? I also know that John Halstead is writing for G&R now, a notorious atheist who does NOT actually believe the Gods exist, yet still wants to be part of polytheism somehow? How does that mesh with your own polytheism?

      The fact of the matter is that article pretty much equates polytheism (it says devotional polytheism, but “devotional polytheism” and “polytheism” are the exact same thing) with fascism and such political ideologies. Which is false.

      If you are a polytheist, then perhaps you need to rethink who you associate yourself with.

      Liked by 5 people

      • gilbride says:

        I didn’t take the article as referring to all people involved in those practices, so I have no problem working with the person who wrote it. At the same time, I’m not going to tell someone else how to feel or how to react to that article as I have no right to do that. So if another person has an issue with that article they have the right to say so. As for Halstead, I don’t agree with his theology but I did like his article on G and R. And I do have an issue with you painting all G and R writers as pseudo-polytheists out to destroy your religion. I want to destroy capitalism (if only I had the power to do so) but I have no quarrel with how you worship the gods.

        Liked by 2 people

      • J_Agathokles says:

        And therein lies the problem I think. You’re writing not about the Gods and polytheism, but about political and/or economic things. That isn’t polytheism. That’s politics and economics. And whenever one tries to mix politics/economics and religion, shit will hit the fan. Just like with the particular article my blog post is in response to. And when you include political and/or economical ideas into your site as well as polytheism, it kind of opens the door for people like Halstead (and apparently Rhyd, who wrote that piece, as he said elsewhere) to try and infiltrate polytheism. Which is dangerous.

        It is best to just keep religion and politics/economics separate, because if you mix the two it’ll automatically become exclusivist and hinder the growth of polytheism.

        Liked by 3 people

      • gilbride says:

        No, I’m writing about both, on a site that is about both.

        You cannot actually keep your religion separate from the rest of your life, to attempt to do so is to say that your religion is intended to have no effect on the world. If your religion is not sealed off from the rest of your life, it must have implications for your politics.

        Those who claim to practice an apolitical polytheism can only be doing one of two things: either they seal their religion off in a box where it can affect nothing, or they are not apolitical. If horrible things are going on and your attitude to them is “apolitical,” you are supporting and facilitating those horrible things. In practice, apolitical equals conservative.

        The call to keep polytheism apolitical is often made by people who hold openly right wing political views. Their views are their own business, I’m not saying they can’t be polytheists if they’re right wing, but they aren’t really apolitical at all. In fact, they are simply advocating for their own politics under the guise of demanding that we remain apolitical.

        My religious life and my political life are not two hermetically sealed compartments. They are simply two aspects of one life – my life. They both reflect my core beliefs and values, as they should. I am not ashamed of fighting for those beliefs and values, especially when the world around me is facing so many serious crises.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Helio says:

        It’s a matter of starting point: is one left/right wing because he/she’s a polytheist or do one’s particular religious devotions add a layer of motivation and meaning to one’s political views? Because if it’s the former, then it’s an issue of “the Gods told me to”, which is problematic in two ways: it equates a political/economic ideology with a religious movement, what’s more one that often lacks an orthodoxy and has a myriad of agendas depending on the particular deity, thereby creating a false equation between two different spheres; and it can easily lead to a slippery slope where being of a particular political flavor is correct, because it has divine support, while having a different political or economic stance is a form of deviation because it’s going against what the Gods told or demand. Essentially, no different from what Christians do when they’re against something or someone because it goes against what the Bible says.

        If it simply adds another layer, then one should be able to discuss politics and economy *without* going into religious arguments, because one’s primary motivation is not religious. You can say that on a personal level there’s also this and that, but to use religious motives when discussing economics or politics is really no different from Christians who use their theology to address issues like climate change, evolution or gun control. Topics have their own context, their own logic and dynamics, and if you fail to see that, then you start losing a sense of reality.

        Both cases are problematic for Gods and Radicals, because they don’t seem to have a good grasp of the distinction between religious and politics or economics, which can certainly intersect, but are not one and the same. Not to mention that the realization that polytheism is diverse, that different gods have different agendas and may call their worshipers to do different things, requires one to be comfortable with the notion of devotional polytheism. Which, judging from the post that started this debate, is also problematic for people in Gods and Radicals.

        Liked by 3 people

      • gilbride says:

        I don’t claim that the gods dictate my political activities. I do claim that my religious values and my political values are both part of my worldview as a whole, which is always the case for everyone. In this situation, people who actually hold right wing views are disingenuously claiming to be apolitical so they can stoke outrage against Gods and Radicals for having political values they don’t agree with.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Helio says:

        If you can’t make a distinction between the different parts of your worldview and are unable to discuss them on their own separate merits, then you should also be advocating people speak your language, adopt your clothing fashion and eat what you eat. That’s how ridiculous it can get once you start discussing everything at the same time and without any form of thematic distinction on the basis that they’re all part of your worldview. No different from a Christian who can’t separate his strongly held beliefs from his opinion on evolution.

        Liked by 2 people

      • gilbride says:

        Who said I couldn’t discuss them separately? Of course I can. Gods and Radicals is a place where I can discuss the intersections between the two. It’s not that complicated!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Helio says:

        If you use politics, economics and religion interchangeably, then you’re not intersecting – you’re equating! Like someone who argues in favour or against evolution using scientific and biblical arguments at the same time as if they were on the same level.

        Liked by 2 people

      • gilbride says:

        You can tell yourself your polytheism is apolitical, but it never will be. All our actions and decisions in life have political ramifications. Gods and Radicals is honest enough not to hide behind a facade of being apolitical, and that makes some people angry. So be it.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Helio says:

        You can tell yourself that science is non-religious, but it never will be. All scientific theories have religious ramifications. Intelligent Design is honest enough not to hide behind a facade of religious neutrality and that makes some people angry. So be it.

        See what happens when you fail to make a basic distinction between religious and scientific discourse or religious and political/economic speech?

        Liked by 1 person

      • gilbride says:

        No, I see a ridiculous strawman argument.

        Liked by 1 person

      • J_Agathokles says:

        Gillbride, you are correct that people’s minds are formed of (ir)religious views, political views, social views, cultural views, etc. But what you, and G&R in general seem to be doing, is to confuse polytheism and politics (and economics as well, given the anti-capitalist orientation of G&R), and treating them as well-nigh synonymous. This is not the case. I just updated my post with a new link at the bottom “Politics and Polytheism” on Polytheist.com, by Tess Dawson. I highly suggest you read it.

        This equating of polytheism and politics is damaging and needlessly disruptive to polytheism. Likely, this inability to separate different concepts such as polytheism and politics is also at the basis of the most annoying and false idea that reconstructionism means not just reconstructing an ancient religion, but also an ancient society whole. You need to stop treating these different concepts as if they are one and the same, because it needlessly antagonises people.

        If we follow the ideas of “Confronting the New Right” on G&R, you’ll by default consider (other) polytheists with suspicion before you even had a chance to get to know them. This will lead to them disliking, even if they might actually have similar political, economical, and social views. See how this inability to think about these different concepts separately as different concepts can have real-life negative repercussions on something that could have been very constructive for everyone involved?

        Liked by 1 person

    • Janus says:

      Gilbride – you’re just another fanatic peddling a divisive agenda. You tote your religion like a wedge to be used to drive people apart instead of bringing them together. People like you give religion a bad name – and are solely to blame for religion’s decline in western society. You brand whole swaths of people as evil from your lofty ivory tower, and use your faith as a shield. Pitiful.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “You can tell yourself your polytheism is apolitical, but it never will be.”
      How so? Can you expand on this hypothesis?

      Like

      • gilbride says:

        I’m willing to debate only when there is intellectual integrity and a basic attitude of goodwill between the parties involved. I’m not seeing any of that on this page, and see no reason to keep wasting my time or energy.

        Like

      • “I’m willing to debate only when there is intellectual integrity and a basic attitude of goodwill between the parties involved. I’m not seeing any of that on this page, and see no reason to keep wasting my time or energy.”
        Fair enough. Can’t say that blame you. Being a veteran of online discourses, it really does become a pointless endeavor. Cheers and Good Tidings in any event.

        Like

    • ” I do claim that my religious values and my political values are both part of my worldview as a whole, which is always the case for everyone.”
      But people are individuals with different thought patterns, so what is the case for you isn’t necessarily the case for everyone else. I’ve been all over the board when it came to politics from a hardcore communist to a right of center shift and now I just simply don’t abide by any political ideology except what I feel is right. While trying to find my ideal political beliefs always remained steadfastly a pagan. The Gods never came to me in the middle of the night and say for me to be either Left or Right. My politics are my politics and are a product of this material world and nothing more. Like I do with my scientific studies, keep my religion and my politics separate.

      Like

    • Unfortunately, gilbride, my interpretation of the Gods and Radicals article was that IT (or actually its author) was conjuring up straw men, conflating things that don’t really associate with each other except sometimes by chance.

      Liked by 1 person

      • gilbride says:

        You came into this a bit late, but I withdrew from the conversation when it descended to ridiculous personal insults. Engaging in a dialogue with people who act that way is a lose-lose situation.

        Like

  3. sentiafigula says:

    Great response! I particularly like this line in your post “in my experience, it is mostly (ultra-) nationalists, (neo-)nazi’s, racial supremacists, etc., who try to co-opt our sacred traditions for their own political goals, but often do not truly believe in the reality of the Gods and are thus not polytheists. They seek to co-opt our religious traditions as cultural heritage. But simultaneously they usually align themselves religiously with Christianity”.

    I am often amazed at how little some people know about the polytheism they claim to adhere to and yet how quickly the same people get into political arguments on social media – this goes for people who are left wing and right wing. Many of these kinds of polytheists are still stuck with a Christian mentality (in particular an obsession with black and white thinking and a good versus evil world view) and I seriously wonder how often they make offerings to the Gods or if they maintain a shrine.

    Speaking strictly for myself here (I know many will disagree with the following statement) – generally speaking I don’t care about the political persuasion of my fellow polytheists (unless their politics advocates terrorism), what I care about is the sincerity of their religious actions and beliefs. Polytheism is not a political movement for me, it is a religious one. My personal interpretation of the polytheistic world view is that it is open minded and can handle a diversity of beliefs just as it embraces a diversity of Gods.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I don’t consider myself Left Wing or Right Wing. I believe such labels further divide us on invisible lines that are easily blurred. For example, using myself as such, believe in Universal Healthcare and Gay Marriage, but I also believe in limited capitalism and individualism. I’ve been called a leftist by the Right and I’ve been a right winger by Leftists. Now, with that out of the way, lets begin.

    “Our Decadent Society: New Right theorists criticise modern civilization as being in a state of ‘decay.’ They tend to be heavily anti-Modern and sometimes anti-civilisationist, believing that society needs to return to a more noble, healthy, and ‘natural’ order.”
    Modern civilization is in a state of decay and if anyone inside and outside of polytheism can’t see that then they are willfully blind. Our society has become more separated by class, race, gender, sexual orientation and religion more than ever. We have social media, but we’re less social these days. I’m sure you need an abacus in order to count the cellphone zombies you encounter daily. Now, do I believe we should do away with modern society? Gods no, that’s romanticism at its greatest height. We will never return to such conditions ever. However, if an individual or group of individuals wish to live like their ancestors then I believe they should be given the opportunity to do so and with respect to everyone else with everyone else giving them respect in return. That’s easier sad than done though. Human beings aren’t courteous creatures. We think we know better than others.

    “And while we don’t believe that every Pagan needs to believe the same way we do (that’d be really fascist of us!), we think there are some important values that any resistance to Fascism (Pagan or otherwise) should consider embracing.”
    You have to give them credit for at least having being aware of what they say. No one can disagree with the fact that fascism from Left and Right needs to be confronted no matter what your ideology is. Haven’t we learned from history that discriminating against one group has a dominoe effect that leads to discrimination of others whether it’s religion, race, gender, sexual orientation, class, political ideology…etc.?

    “Often times, people espousing their ideas remain unclear about their ultimate motives, often hiding their political goals behind claims that they are ‘apolitical.’ ”
    This is a bully tactic by stating that people who are apolitical are often hiding political goals. How fascistic.

    “what’s the hierarchy of a forest?”
    Ok, this question is relatively easy to answer: First there is the Sun that provides plant life the means of energy production which leads to higher organisms such as insects and animals to feast on it which are in turn eaten by other much higher lifeforms such as humans. The higher life form dies and is composted into the dirt by a plethora of microorganisms and broken down into key nutrients which is then taken up by plants. This presents an hierarchy split into two categories: producers and consumers. Which then have their own hierarchies in the form of the various branches of the animal kingdom. Another example is the establishment of the Alpha and Omega castes within wolf packs. And there are plenty of other examples out there that show that nature does indeed impose hierarchies. However, I will concede that these hierarchies are developed for survival purposes rather than for the means of exploitation and profit mongering by greedy human beings, but to say that the natural world has no hierarchy is a misleading idea when a class in Biology shows otherwise.

    Liked by 1 person

    • In addendum, these only mere observations that I reserve the right to state may be incorrect, so I leave it up to anyone else to correct me in a civil and polite manner. I don’t deal with vulgarities, disrespect or otherwise mannerisms that are on par with the Donald Trumps of the world.

      Like

  5. […] upon a blog entry that made me do a double take: Polytheism is Fascism?! At first, my blood boiled at such an insinuation that anyone who is a polytheist is a fascist, […]

    Like

  6. There might be plenty of people among polytheists and especially H-P who belong to the right wing. I don’t care. The Spartans were not democratic. That did not make them any less a part of the Greek Religion than the Atheneans and these new-new-left pseudo-intellectuals who’s idea of politics is more or less to drop tumblr buzzwords ending in -isms and feign indignation have no business playing the inquisitor and creating modern categories of heretics. Whoever lets his mortal politics influence his theology has by definition a non-metaphysical framework which makes the word theology meaningless. Sentient, independently existing Gods cannot be modified or “corrected” according to mortal prerogatives of any kind. This is nothing more and nothing less than a debate of pagans versus atheists in sheep’s clothing.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. […] It looks like the G&R crowd are starting to get rattled and letting their true colors shine through. C. Thompson, whose friends hold some very offensive views of ATRs which he’s apparently okay with as long as it “gets er dun” (“er” being shutting down those people who hold political views contrary to his own) has now set his sights on two of the most vocal critics of the Marxification of paganism. Mind you, this is nothing new. Look at how he hounded people over at J. Agathokles’ blog. […]

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s