Cornelius

Leo could you explain perhaps who Hestia is in myth and to you? Why exactly do you connect with Hestia and offer devotion daily etc..?

What exactly is evil?

I heartily second that! You mean you don't Dance naked at night in reverence of hekate?

Often, those who sit in a hall do not know The true caliber of the stranger- No man is so perfect that he may be flawless, Nor any completely worthless. All men hold both fair and foul within them. ~ The High One

Hugin and Munin fly each day over the spacious earth. I fear for Hugin, that he come not back, yet more anxious am I for Munin

Full of what exactly?

I will miss you Dan. I have always enjoyed our discussions/arguments. I am sure we both felt like we were talking to a wall I have always admired your conviction and the strength as well as depth of your faith. I believe I have told you this many times. I am sure casual observers have at times thought we were at each others throats but I have never felt this way. You always argued your point and the issue and never tried to make it about you or I. You also shrugged off and didn't take things personally. I have always defended you to people and talked admirably of you. Especially how in addition to your strong views you at least had the knowledge to back them up. If I have ever given you the impression that I was upset with your presence on the forum I apologize. That has never been the case. Not once have I everfelt that way. Not only is it one this forum needs and is not well represented but it will be sorely missed. You have surprised me often on here and said things that I would never have believed a fundie would. You my good sir are an example to be held up to others imo. I don't expect to change your mind and I don't think I ever have anyway but I would really like for it to change in this instance. If not I wish you well and I hope you realize that you will be missed by myself and apparently others.

Why common law?

Good questions. Hopefully they get addressed. Would not influence be covered by "in any sense?" What is the scope of this inlfuence? Can you point to where this influence can be seen?

I agree many of the founding fathers (although not many of the most influential or well known ones) were influenced by their faith. However, the government is secular and the constitution is a secular document. I would agree with your assertion fully if they had not seen fit to add "in any sense" to the statement.

On the contrary... As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion.............. Treaty of tripoli

As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion.............. Treaty of tripoli Here, then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it. If it ever was adopted, therefore, into the common law, it must have been between the introduction of Christianity and the date of the Magna Charta. But of the laws of this period we have a tolerable collection by Lambard and Wilkins, probably not perfect, but neither very defective; and if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. ~Jefferson

Newly discovered Mayan calendar goes way past 2012 http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/story/2012-05-08/maya-apocalypse-calendar-2012/54879760/1

Soph!!

You know I'm rooting for you stormy. Glad it went ok.

I read multiple translations including thorpe, chisholm, bellows, etc. Sigurd and Seigfried are the same. They both are culturalvariations of pan germanic legends. For a brief overview of this I suggest checking the wiki as reading the lieds and lays to compare and contrast would probably take too long and wiki does cover it nicely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigurd Notice the characters Seigfried (Sigurd) Gunther (Gunnar), Kriemhild (Grimhild), Brunhild (Brynhild). It is thought that seigfried may be based upon the historical figure of Arminius who defeated the romans at the battle of tuetoberg forest in scale armor around 9 ad and kept germany free.There are many such figures that seem to be pan germanic and extend back into pre christian times. There are also not only the common germanic beliefs but the ones that extend even farther back to the indo european roots. The Norse did after all start out in Northern germany and eventually moved up into southern scandinavia around 4,000 years ago. Displacing the Sami and eventually taking over all of scandinavia. The connection remained and so did contact. Especially since denmark is in jutland above northern germany. One such character that is pan germanic is Volundr to the norse, Wieland to the Germans, and Wayland to the anglo saxons. The Saxons in Northern germany had Irminsul instead of Yggdrasil. It was a world pillar insterad of tree. It of course was the pillar of the God Irmin a biname of Wodan (Odin) who's cognate can be found in the norse biname for Odin, Jormun. Charlemagne I think it was chopped down the Irminsul in suppression of the heathens. In germany it seemed a world pillar was a popular motif and in Central Germany the Chatti tribe had Donar's (Thor) Oak. A massive ancient oak tree in a forest of them that reportedly touched the sky and grew taller then the others. People came from all over the continent to visit and worship at it. Until of course St. Boniface cut it down to prove the Christian God was more powerful than Thor. There are however differences between continental germanics and the norse. Such asthe absence of the vanir, whome simek belieeves may actually be an invention of snorri including the vanir war, Freyr might be the god Ing on the continent. Freyja seems to have been the same goddess as Frigg who's name was Frija among others, originally on the continent. The two later being worshipped separately. Balder who was also known as Phol was present. There is of course Nerthus (earth) who's name is the female version of Njord. Some think maybne this was his sister/wife they talk about in the eddas. It's all very confusing at times and takes a lot of research. I would be happy to discuss with you some of the theories and connections through email at a later time. As always your input is more than welcome and as the norse beliefs are the most well documented they are valuable. I'm not sure I understand your question. The Germans had the Elder Futhark. Edred is also very into the Goths. I'm not sure why focusing on continental germanic beliefs precludes one from Rune study. Tacitus was recording use of the runes for divination in Germany after all. Another thing going back to what you previously said. The Germans it is obvious did not tell tacitus the meanings of rituals. He merely observed them and recorded what happened. They did not tell him why they did things or what they represented. Take for example his writings of rune use.10. Augury and divina http://www.heathengo...itus/g01010.htmNotice how they don't tell him what the symbols being used are or what they mean, how they ascertain the meaning, etc.. Instead he just observes what they are doing and records it. If someone tells him of a particular ritual by a certain tribe they do not tell him the meanings behind it or what the priests know and do. Only what goes on during the ritual. Such as with Nerthus, who rides around in a cart visiting towns. He records that when the diety is thought to be in the cart and this is determined by the priest, the procession begins. He does not know how the priest knows this. I've always enjoyed the tangents in conversations on this forum. Topics change as they are discussed between people and many times things have been taught or learned on here because of the tangents.

You weren't talking about Sigurd Fafnicide from the poetic edda?

I disagree. Tacitus it is also postulated might have been a celt. As he was the son of a freed slave and also his sympathetic writings of the barbarians which was uncommon at the time. Yes some of the accounts he wrote about were told to him and some he witnessed. He gave a rather nuetral account in most cases and even wrote admirably about the germanics. Germania was not under roman rule and were not captives. He wrote about free men practicing their beliefs. His is an excellent source of information imo. I read germania frequently as my research focuses on pre christian german beliefs and not norse. The eddas are secondary to me as they are written 1100 years later by christians in post conversion iceland. They are an excellent backdrop and help immensely.I'm not sure how sigurd figures in. I also am not aware of him having written anything. Especially since he seems to be largley a legendary figure. In germany he was known as Seigfried the dragon slayer and star of the nibelungelied. He is roylaty in Germany as well being the crown prince of Xanten Germany and travels to the court of the burgundians and helps them defeat invading saxons. Interestingly enough he also travels to a legendary city in iceland in the story so his loves brother can woo the queen. Perhaps we can contrast and compare more privately in the future vitki as we have not had one of our conversations lately

When tacitus wrote such things as Germania it was of the people outside of Roman rule. He walked among those who were not in captivity and wrote about them. I would think you would like Tacitus as his gives one of the best accounts of divination and most likely runic divination among germanic people. Something which many asatruar like to deny to your frustration.

What captivity?

Genetics and Linguistics disagree with this. http://en.wikipedia....sy_over_origins . http://esbalogh.typepad.com/hungarianspectrum/2009/11/genetic-markers-in-the-hungarian-population-then-and-now.html

Wishful thinking not fact. The hungarians are a finno-ugric people. Genetics have shown that the majoiry of hungarians are of european descent and not middle eastern. Yes they had an ancient religion. That it was monotheistic is not a fact. It was polytheistic as was the other related finno-ugric peoples..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_mythology for a brief overview. Just because the taltos are real does not make the other claims real. Bulldonkey and not fact. The sumerian language became extinct around 4,000 years ago as it was slowly replaced by akkadian (a semetic language). It was only used ceremonially for another couple of thousand years. It became completely dead and mostly lost until the 1800's. Hungarian is a finno-ugric language. This is a fact. The sumerians and akkadians were polytheists as well. This is also a fact. Notice this directly at the beginning. It is admitting right here that this is not fact. A hypotheses is something that is untested and unproven. It is what people generally use the word theory mistakenly for. As a theory is tested, established, and can even be fact.This article also talks about the Huns as being synonymous with hungarian. The Huns were a confederation of many peoples and tribes. Including germanics. They were present in hungary as it was part of their empire. However, they were not synonymous with hungarians. They consisted of many peoples who spoke different languages and had different religious beliefs. the huns used Gothic as their lingua franca which is a Germanic language and originated in northern europe. Ugric as in Finno=Ugric and not sumerian. They are also from the Ural mountains in western Russia and not mesopotamia. A white supremacist forum.From the original article you posted. They are Finno-Ugrians Once again the Huns were a confederation of many tribes and peoples with many different religious beliefs. They are not synonymous with hungarians. They spoke a germanic language as their lingua franca. Tosome this would have been a first language to most it was a second language. There were germanics in the Huns. Atilla is in german and scandinavian legends under the name Etzil andAtli I believe among others. There are german legends about Dietrich von Bern serving with him in the Huns. Ibn Fadlan did not write this about the Rus. I have read his account of the Rus. The Rus were also not hungarian. They were Viking traders/merchants from Sweden also known as Varangians. They were polytheists and worshipped germanic gods. Ibn Fadlan talks about how they made sacrifices to their main merchant god (Most likely Odin) for favorable prices and when that didn't work they went back to the altar and made sacrifices to the other gods which had smaller figurines. If that didn't work They went back and made another sacrifice etc...If there is this much wrong in the first couple of paragraphs then the rest is not worth reading. It is either a complete fabrication or not very well researched. Either way it should not be relied upon as being accurate or fact.

I do not trust the article's accuracy.

I don't think that some who would die for their ideals could be considered cowards....