New Gods

[Psychonaut]

The following is a excerpt from Nietzsche's The Anti-Christ:


19. That the strong races of northern Europe have not repudiated the Christian God certainly reflects no credit on their talent for religion--not to speak of their taste. They ought to have felt compelled to have done with such a sickly and decrepit product of decadence. But there lies a curse on them for not having had done with it: they have taken up sickness, old age, contradiction into all their instincts--since then they have failed to create a God! Almost two millennia and not a single new God! But still, and as if existing by right, like an ultimate and maximum of the God-creating force, of the creator spiritus in man, this pitiable God of Christian monotono-theism! This hybrid of the void, conceptualism and contradiction, this picture of decay, in which all decadence instincts, all cowardliness and weariness of soul have their sanction!

Springing off from this paragraph, why have we polytheists who have been freed from our Christian shackles created no new Gods? Are we still plagued by a Christian influenced aversion to it? Or have we refrained due to our folkish zeal for preservation? What are your thoughts?

[YggsVinr]

Well, the reason for it is likely that we no longer live in the situation in which we would be able to. There were some "neo-pagan" types I used to train with occasionally back in high school and they often brought up these ideas of Odin driving an eight-wheeled car, or creating a god of computers or tvs or other shit like that. That might suit some, but for me that just really misses the point. New gods arose for various reasons, but they did not simply arise because somebody felt it might be cool to have a new god hanging around.

I think the problem is that a real community or like-minded society is lacking. I think perhaps such a god might arise within a modern battalion (provided you have a polytheist majority), or out of a small (polytheist) rural community that has a majority of members possessing the heritage or traditions of such a lifestyle. But simply among friends, online contacts or whatnot, it does not seem very realistic. The environment is not there, so to speak, and we, as a people, are extremely detached from the environment in which such changes occurred. We would have to reestablish ourselves into a community of sorts in which such changes would occur out of necessity rather than out of a desire for new gods.

I suppose one could build on the Ragnarok myth, but that would be lending belief to the notion that Balder would arise to begin the new world, which may very well in itself be Christian inspired. So then we have the issue of authenticity. I honestly think that time would be better spent in trying to reconstruct what once was before we are capable and knowledgeable enough to take up such an endeavour. There is still so much we do not know, then again I suppose it depends on one's approach to heathenism. However, for myself (taking it from a reconstructionist perspective) I can't see myself endeavouring to do such a thing while there is so much of the past to be uncovered and interpreted.

Out of curiosity, did you have any ideas in mind?

[Psychonaut]

I think the problem is that a real community or like-minded society is lacking. I think perhaps such a god might arise within a modern battalion (provided you have a polytheist majority), or out of a small (polytheist) rural community that has a majority of members possessing the heritage or traditions of such a lifestyle. But simply among friends, online contacts or whatnot, it does not seem very realistic.


Out of curiosity, did you have any ideas in mind?

I think your analysis is probably correct. The only instance of what I think to be true Gods arising recently is within the Thelemic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thelema) religion. I was an adherent of this faith for some time prior to my transition into Heathenry and do think that the Thelemic Gods are quite real. While their triumvirate of Gods (Nuit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuit), Hadit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadit), and Horus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heru-ra-ha)) are very loosely based on Egyptian deities, I think it's fair to say that they are distinct Godforms. Although there are only several thousand Thelemites around, I think that in their case it was the fact that they're all practicing magicians that expedited the creation of their Gods.

[Jägerstaffel]

I've always liked the idea of a community not necessarily coming up with new gods, but having a patron god, guardian elf, vörðr, or warden tree. I think that may have lead to the creation of other gods in some circumstances.

The other gods were appreciated and respected but certain gods were held in higher favour due to their connection to a clan or family. Seemed like a more personal face-to-face relationship, because the Alfather has more important things to do than help your little household - but the houseelf might have no problem assisting you.

[YggsVinr]

I think your analysis is probably correct. The only instance of what I think to be true Gods arising recently is within the Thelemic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thelema) religion. I was an adherent of this faith for some time prior to my transition into Heathenry and do think that the Thelemic Gods are quite real. While their triumvirate of Gods (Nuit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuit), Hadit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadit), and Horus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heru-ra-ha)) are very loosely based on Egyptian deities, I think it's fair to say that they are distinct Godforms. Although there are only several thousand Thelemites around, I think that in their case it was the fact that they're all practicing magicians that expedited the creation of their Gods.

Very interesting, though I've read of the Thelemic religion I've never read much on its gods, just on the Hellfire Club and such. Interesting though, and the fact that it has its direct roots in the 18th century makes me wonder a little. I can imagine it is probable that your thoughts are correct, that because they were practicing magicians they possessed the knowledge and the ability to fathom knew gods. Do you think that perhaps it is also because this religion developed before the turn of the 20th century? It seems to me that it is the post-modern era that poses the biggest problem as it becomes increasingly difficult for like-minded individuals to congregate in physical groups in an environment that would cultivate unfettered intellectual and spiritual development.

I think I'd like to read more about this, though. Any specific texts you would recommend?

[Psychonaut]

I've always liked the idea of a community not necessarily coming up with new gods, but having a patron god, guardian elf, vörðr, or warden tree. I think that may have lead to the creation of other gods in some circumstances.

Me too, but, unfortunately this hasn't happened in a while. For example, I can think of no better "Guardian of the West" than Charles Martel, but we've yet to see altars erected in his honor.


Do you think that perhaps it is also because this religion developed before the turn of the 20th century?

I think that might have had something to do with the time period, but has more to do with the dedication of the core followers of the religion. The only other examples I can think of in the modern era were all perpetrated by either a cohesive group of magicians or devout cultists.


I think I'd like to read more about this, though. Any specific texts you would recommend?

The whole Thelemic mythos has it's roots in the, allegedly, revealed text Liber AL vel Legis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liber_AL_vel_Legis), the Book of the Law (I've attached a PDF).

[Ajaxhan]

I think part of it may be that we already have so much about different gods and religion already available to us because of how accessable information has become, unlike in the past, when many groups throughout Europe were fairly isolated from one another and had to largely create their own beliefs and gods to explain the world around them (despite having a common indo-european base of many archetypes and the like.)

We have so much to information at our disposal to dig through and ponder that most probably wouldn't think to create their own gods. Besides that, you probably aren't going to find many people to consider a god that you just made up. Already existing gods have a historical and traditional base that I think seems to solidify them in people's minds.

[Gooding]

Maybe right at this moment we as Asatruar need to deepen our knowledge of the gods who have called us, and to preserve the troth we've been called to? I do agree that Charles Martel would be a worthy god, as would Hrolf, the Nordic chief who founded Normandy.Wouldn't they fall into the order of Disir, rather than Aesir or Vanir?

[Psychonaut]

Wouldn't they fall into the order of Disir, rather than Aesir or Vanir?

I suppose they'd be like the Disir, but since that label only applies to female ancestral spirits, I don't think the Norse had a specific word for what they might be.

[Oski]

The following is a excerpt from Nietzsche's The Anti-Christ:why have we polytheists who have been freed from our Christian shackles created no new Gods?

http://i492.photobucket.com/albums/rr290/neon_godzilla/mara/hitler03.jpg

Some have tried.

[Psychonaut]

http://i492.photobucket.com/albums/rr290/neon_godzilla/mara/hitler03.jpg

Some have tried.

Are you talking about the Esoteric Hitlerism of Savitri Devi?

[SuuT]

From the preface of Nietzsche's The Will to Power...


...What I relate is the history of the next two centuries. I describe what is coming, what can no longer come differently: the advent of nihilism. This history can be related even now; for necessity itself is at work here. This future speaks even now in a hundred signs, this destiny announces itself everywhere; for this music of the future all ears are cocked even now. For some time now, our whole European culture has been moving as toward a catastrophe, with a tortured tension that is growing from decade to decade: restlessly, violently, headlong, like a river that wants to reach the end, that no longer reflects, that is afraid to reflect.

He that speaks here, conversely, has done nothing so far but reflect: a philosopher and solitary by instinct, who has found his advantage in standing aside and outside, in patience, in procrastination, in staying behind; as a spirit of daring and experiment that has already lost its way once in every labyrinth of the future; as a soothsayer-bird spirit who looks back when relating what will come; as the first perfect nihilist of Europe who, however, has even now lived through the whole of nihilism, to the end, leaving it behind, outside himself.

For one should make no mistake about the meaning of the title that this gospel of the future wants to bear. "The Will to Power: Attempt at a Revaluation of All Values"--in this formulation a countermovement finds expression, regarding both principle and task; a movement that in some future will take the place of this perfect nihilism--but presupposes it, logically and psychologically, and certainly can come only after and out of it. For why has the advent of nihilism become necessary? Because the values we have had hitherto thus draw their final consequence; because nihilism represents the ultimate logical conclusion of our great values and ideals--because we must experience nihilism before we can find out what value these "values" really had...

The advent of new gods requires the need of them. Via the deification of Science (an essentially secular 'cult of personality'), Man believes himself to have progressed in so far as 'rational explanation' has toppled the monuments of mystery. In so doing, Science (as the afore mentioned cult) has actually been a spiritually retrogressive force; and turns its aim towards all that remains of the mysterious. Currently, the value that Man places on Science as an explanatory device is rife with the presuppositions that spring from "the footnotes to Plato". - the value we have placed on Philosophy, too, refects the internal workings of the type of Philosophy that has come to predominate. And this valued Science, and this valued philosophical type are, through and through - Nihilistic: the West, in general, has yet to even enter the gates of the void - there are new gods forming; but are, and must, remain nameless until Western Man has lived through the whole of Nihilism (as Nietzsche claims to have done).

Psychonaut, you are also on to something with respect to your referencing Christianity. Man not only has 2000 years of linear-thinking (alphas and omegas and births and judgements, etc.) that has affected, and contributed to, the 'logical' outcome of spiritual nihilism; but, Man has also had 2000 years of this memetic to affect, and effect, the direction of breeding that European Man has faithfully followed. In short, and to paraphrase Nietzsche, Man has retrogressed both physically and psychically.


Here's the good news:): there is not much that grows better, bigger, stronger, more beautiful - than that which has sprung from a pile of manure.


Both the old, and the new gods, are sprouting from its surface, in the name of Power - for both good, and evil.

[GUSTAVUS ADOLPHUS]

Our ancestors "created" new gods as they went along. Or, rather, they believed some phenomenons to be so supernatural that they believed that some god must be responsible for it.

When they heard thunder, they assumed that something so powerful must be the doings of a mighty god. When they saw that food and vegetables grew from what appeared to be nothing, they knew someone that was supernatural made this happen.

What we have run out of, is things we cannot explain. The Catholics have attributed some power to patrons, which could be argued have assumed the roles of minor gods, whenever they saw a need for it. We might not need new gods, but more modern needs could be stowed upon old gods, Oden and Tor for example have many responsibilities.

So where does that leave us? Do we need gods that are responsible for more stuff than they do already? And, if so, which god is the god of modern inventions such as electric? Which god is responsible for computer, motors, air planes, space travel?

[Pino]

Are you talking about the Esoteric Hitlerism of Savitri Devi?

I thought Oski ment more along the lines of Hitler was Wotan in Human form on the earth, seems very Christian like however the literal belief a mortal was God in human form.

[Psychonaut]

In so doing, Science (as the afore mentioned cult) has actually been a spiritually retrogressive force; and turns its aim towards all that remains of the mysterious.

Yes, you've hit the nail on the head there. Science has certainly been pushing our spirituality backwards while pushing our rationality forwards; but I have to wonder: are the two really mutually exclusive, or are we currently in the midst of a false dichotomy rooted in the Platonic/Cartesian/Christian split between the mind and body?


Currently, the value that Man places on Science as an explanatory device is rife with the presuppositions that spring from "the footnotes to Plato". - the value we have placed on Philosophy, too, refects the internal workings of the type of Philosophy that has come to predominate.

Since our recent preoccupation with Absolutist philosophies has so far hindered us, do you think that the "Heathen" philosophies of Nietzsche, Heidegger, Whitehead, et al. will do their part in paving the way for the birth of the new Gods?


there are new gods forming; but are, and must, remain nameless until Western Man has lived through the whole of Nihilism (as Nietzsche claims to have done).

The idea of as of yet nameless deities in a state of formation is fascinating. I suppose the spiritual gasses are still massing in the collective unconscious so that the new Solar giants can be born.


Psychonaut, you are also on to something with respect to your referencing Christianity. Man not only has 2000 years of linear-thinking (alphas and omegas and births and judgements, etc.) that has affected, and contributed to, the 'logical' outcome of spiritual nihilism; but, Man has also had 2000 years of this memetic to affect, and effect, the direction of breeding that European Man has faithfully followed. In short, and to paraphrase Nietzsche, Man has retrogressed both physically and psychically.

We have regressed so far that many of us have completely lost our instinct for preservation. I can only hope that before the Sun turns black and the old Gods die that Western Man awakens from his Semitic induced slumber. Perhaps the mountain kings of old (Barbarossa, Arthur, Charlemagne, etc.) will finally be awakened in the soul of the West to aid us in our hour of need. I agree that the time is not yet right, but when it comes, I hope there are enough of us left for it to matter.

[Aemma]

The following is a excerpt from Nietzsche's The Anti-Christ:



Springing off from this paragraph, why have we polytheists who have been freed from our Christian shackles created no new Gods? Are we still plagued by a Christian influenced aversion to it? Or have we refrained due to our folkish zeal for preservation? What are your thoughts?

Great thought-provoking question Psychonaut! :thumb001:

Well I twice attempted to give an answer to this question last night and both times I lost my information among other things...one of those nights, I guess. And I admit to not having read any of the other posts for fear of losing my own train of thought. So with apologies, I will go at this one 'fresh', so to speak...

Why have we not created any new Gods? Quite aside from the fact that I have a goodly number of traditionalist/literalist Heathen friends who would cringe at such a question, the idea here being that they would object to the mere whiff of a sentiment that it is we who create our gods, I think that this type of question is very refreshing and does need due consideration. I guess my immediate response to this question would be: who says we haven't already or are not in the process of doing so?

I take the approach of Heathenry being a reconstructed religion as opposed to one that is experiencing a revival. I have a very difficult time conceptualising Heathenry as a revival since the statute of limitations in terms of any actual 'resurrection' was long past when our Germanic spirit chose to reawaken imho. ;) We are now dealing with the reality of the exhumation of a well-decayed and for the most part well-identifiable body, but the ravages of time have taken their toll to be sure. Forgive the odd and dark analogy but I think it makes the point: we are in fairly new territory when it comes to modern Heathenry per se and in the early stages of development yet.

Inasmuch as we are in the early processes of rediscovering and subsequently retooling our organic indigenous religion, I think we have to consider that not all works and energies that are being expended by the Heathen community in the present moment can be recognised for what they are becoming. Only the luxury of time and the gift of hindsight may offer the more non-esoterically-inclined Heathen perhaps the concrete proof that Gods and Goddesses are indeed "in the making". If we take for instance the likes of an Else Christiansen and what she means to some long-time heathens, especially those who have known her--she is considered the Folk Mother at the OR afterall--we can recognise that truly Gods and Goddesses are indeed becoming.

Just a few thoughts for now...Cheers!...Aemma

[YggsVinr]

Bien dit, Aemma :)

There are a few points that I think might be raised to those that have been brought up thus far.

The first is our current mentality juxtaposed with that of our ancestors. We spoke earlier of that mentality with concerns to the issue of the organic vs. mechanic as well as the issue of necessity.

One thing we might consider is not what we believe or what we consider ourselves to be within the heathen spiritual tradition but how we believe. We are currently incapable of treating heathen spirituality as our ancestors would. We have been raised in a scientific age where it would be highly unusual for a person not to doubt the notion of deities at some point in their lives. Not only that, but others of us view deities as symbols rather than physical realities. We are no longer intimidated by inexplicable occurrences because we have made then explicable. Our goals in partaking in, in reconstructing, in studying, or believing in the Germanic gods are entirely different than those of our ancestors. For many today it is an occupation, or a hobby, or an interest, or a goal (to make it one's life), but for how many of us is it life itself; a physical reality? We are not driven to it out of an immediate fear for our lives, for want of victory or death, for fear of famine, for fear of the elements. How we believe does not make it physically, immediately necessary to create a relationship with a deity or deities, to placate, to sacrifice that which is most dear to us so that what is equally dear will survive.

I think the term spiritual is important here, because spirituality is quite different from religion, and I think that most of us view heathenism on the spiritual level, as a spiritual (preservationalist and so on) rather than physical need.

However, I do believe that returning to such an existence is possible (perhaps already present) and so I bring forth my second point: the rural environment. There are likely a few of us here who grew up in a rural family or among family members who still believed in and told us a good many folk tales. In my family la chasse galeriel, les loups-garous (werewolves), les feu follets (akin to the will o' the wisp) and numerous other phenomena were not just silly tales of the past, but things that happened to acquaintances. My grandparents would tell a story and it wasn't of some happening long ago, but of someone the family knew; strange lights in the woods, instructions on how to turn a werewolf back into a man, that wintery ride through the night sky at Christmas and so on. I honestly think that it is bringing up children in this setting, living in this setting, working in this setting and knowing that setting is what gives hope that we might one day return to the ancestral mindset.

Which brings us to the issue of heathenism and urbanism. Looking at the history of various polytheist religions, it seems that it is the growth of urban areas (of empires shall we say) that slowly brings about the death of polytheism in its purest form. When the Germanic peoples were converted to Christianity, it wasn't largely due to the presence of Roman missionaries but of Celtic or Germanic missionaries. Celtic Christianity was absolutely enamoured with monasticisms, and its monasticisms was taken to an extreme. Irish monks would willingly expose themselves to the elements (having learned of the lives of the "desert fathers"), and live utterly exposed to these elements because they believed that god manifested himself to them through his creation. God was in the nature all around, whether it be in the wind, the rain, the sea and so on. This was quite different from that which was practiced in Rome (in fact, discouraged in Rome and eventually obliterated at the Synod of Whitby), and its possibly why the Celts had more success in converting the unconverted Germanic peoples than Roman bishops or missionaries had, and likely for similar reasons why the Germanic people saw more in Arianism or the later 9th century Heliand. The Celtic missionaries were not obese Roman bishops accustomed to urban life and disconnected from the natural world, but bore a similar rustic lifestyle and world view.

I honestly think that a more rustic lifestyle is needed in order to return to an environment in which a new god can be created. Germanic heathenism is not suited to urbanism nor the modern, excessively materialist world. We are far too lazy and comfortable compared to our ancestors, but, in our modern world, those who wish to learn more of the religion of their ancestors must live, at least for a time, in urban centres in order to gain the necessary education and knowledge. That is inevitable and those are the conditions of our time, and only after a time may a person, in good conscience, retreat to the rural setting wherein a reconstruction may truly begin and perhaps, in time, wherein new gods may be born. I really cannot stress the importance of ruralism enough.

But on that note, we should always recall that there is nothing stopping one from honouring one's immediate ancestors, which may be the more "realistic" path at this point. In some ways, I find that my grandparents have entered a similar place of honour in my life. I wear my grandmother's ring around my neck and it can be said that I am far more bound to her and my grandfather (their memory, to all they taught me, to all they represented) than the deities of my pre-Christian ancestors. New gods (not unlike Ing) born? Perhaps within a few generations.

[Ajaxhan]

Our ancestors "created" new gods as they went along. Or, rather, they believed some phenomenons to be so supernatural that they believed that some god must be responsible for it.

When they heard thunder, they assumed that something so powerful must be the doings of a mighty god. When they saw that food and vegetables grew from what appeared to be nothing, they knew someone that was supernatural made this happen.

What we have run out of, is things we cannot explain. The Catholics have attributed some power to patrons, which could be argued have assumed the roles of minor gods, whenever they saw a need for it. We might not need new gods, but more modern needs could be stowed upon old gods, Oden and Tor for example have many responsibilities.

So where does that leave us? Do we need gods that are responsible for more stuff than they do already? And, if so, which god is the god of modern inventions such as electric? Which god is responsible for computer, motors, air planes, space travel?

Yeah, the advent of the Enlightenment was really a turning point in this. In contrast to more primitive times, when explaining most phenomena around us was impossible, this is when such things could actually begin to be grasped by means other than fabrication.

I would not say we have run out of things to explain though. There is still a vast number of questions yet to be answered. "What happens after you die?" is a big one, and is one that is very central to many religions. Many athiests and agnostics might think the logical answer to this is obvious, and even though I think it probably should have even been to primative man, it is and has continued to be believed that an afterlife does or may exist. That's because it's something we don't want to assume the apparent answer for as long as there is any room for doubt, since we don't like the idea of our existences ending. I think that those are the kinds of questions we still rely on religion for.

[Sigurd]

Springing off from this paragraph, why have we polytheists who have been freed from our Christian shackles created no new Gods? Are we still plagued by a Christian influenced aversion to it? Or have we refrained due to our folkish zeal for preservation? What are your thoughts?

I agree with the general sentiment: That a faith which is Folkish in nature must be dynamic and organic at all times and grow along with its Folk, lest it wishes to become an anachronism and obsolete. This involves adopting new practices in Blot and outwith it: Just because your ancestors rode to Blot doesn't mean you can't take the car --- and just because something isn't in the Lore doesn't mean you can't do it if it works.

Hengest OR, in a recent article for ORB entitled "Odinism - A Defining Moment", outlined this very well:


I know that despite the fact that our rituals [Sigurd's note: The OR's rituals from the "Book of Blotar"] are emulated by many around the world, there are many in the Asatru "community" who pour scorn on them for not being "historically accurate" or for there being no evidence for them in "the lore". Well so what? The first time our ancestors did anything there would have been no historical precedent for it but it did not stop them doing it.

Can you imagine the scenario if our ancestors had refused to do anything that was not enshrined in lore?

"Oh no Grettir, you can't possibly wear a hammer, there is no evidence for it in the lore!"
"Oh OK then, let's forget about the hammer amulet idea, it would never have caught on anyway."

It is very naive and highly insulting to think that, if unhampered by Christianity, our ancestor's faith would have suddenly stagnated from the Viking age to the present day. Had our faith been allowed to evolve unhindered to the present day we can be sure that we would not be looking back to emulate our ancestors from 1000 years ago any more than those ancestors attempted to emulate those from the previous thousand years.

And so indeed - there is technically nothing which should stop us from creating new gods. Our ancestors did that over time - otherwise we would not have evolved from Earth Mother and Sky Father to the complex faith we later had.

I do however have to say that such new gods would equally dynamically and naturally have to develop out of our folk's continued practice of our faith, out of the need for such. Being at such an early stage in the re-awakening however, I believe that it is probably too early for such new additions to our mythology to develop. Rituals yes - new entities not yet.

So, they would have to immediately come from the Folk Soul --- leave the artificial invention of gods without any root in said Folk Soul to the Wiccans and other New Agers however! :wink

[Vargtand]

It is very naive and highly insulting to think that, if unhampered by Christianity, our ancestor's faith would have suddenly stagnated from the Viking age to the present day. Had our faith been allowed to evolve unhindered to the present day we can be sure that we would not be looking back to emulate our ancestors from 1000 years ago any more than those ancestors attempted to emulate those from the previous thousand years.


Well I think, certainly our ancestors did not recreate the practices done a thousand years before them, well of course we have no way to be certain but apply logic and it seems unlikely

How ever the key difference was that between those two times it had been a natural evolution of the religion. what has happened between us and them is that we have had an artificial creation in-between... thus I think the most logical would to first get back to the roots then after a few generations when those living then bares no memories of the silliness of Christianity... then let them evolve the religion and it's practices, we owe our grandchildren this I think..

So basically I would think what would be the wisest move in this time and age would be not to adopt modern values and traditions to our forefathers religion but instead bend and shape societies values and traditions so that the evolution can progress in say 80 years.

But that is just my own reflection.

[Psychonaut]

However, I do believe that returning to such an existence is possible (perhaps already present) and so I bring forth my second point: the rural environment.


Which brings us to the issue of heathenism and urbanism. Looking at the history of various polytheist religions, it seems that it is the growth of urban areas (of empires shall we say) that slowly brings about the death of polytheism in its purest form.


I honestly think that a more rustic lifestyle is needed in order to return to an environment in which a new god can be created.

I too think that ruralism and the yeoman ideal are integral to the Heathen revival, but I've got one further question for you. As SuuT and I both agreed, the decline of Paganism went hand and hand with scientific advances. However, does living a Heathen lifestyle necessitate a degree of Luddism?


I do however have to say that such new gods would equally dynamically and naturally have to develop out of our folk's continued practice of our faith, out of the need for such. Being at such an early stage in the re-awakening however, I believe that it is probably too early for such new additions to our mythology to develop. Rituals yes - new entities not yet.

Fair enough. However, I've got a followup question for you. While we may have to wait a few generations before the time is right for any new Gods, what about new cosmologies? I ask because, in my personal faith, many of the cosmic deities have been redefined by my adaption of the Heathen Gods to our current cosmological models. For example, I no longer see Night as coming and going with a big black blanket, but rather as the omnipresent infinity in whom's bosom we rest. So, do you think that our cosmologies and cosmogonies must also wait to evolve or should we be actively working to reconcile the new with the old?

[Gooding]

According to " Essential Asatru", by Diana Paxon, the name for the male ancestral spirits would be Alfar.I personally think it odd, because I thought alfar were nature spirits, but maybe there's a nuance or differing pronounciation I know nothing about...

[Skandi]

According to " Essential Asatru", by Diana Paxon, the name for the male ancestral spirits would be Alfar.I personally think it odd, because I thought alfar were nature spirits, but maybe there's a nuance or differing pronounciation I know nothing about...

Yes I thought that was a Norse name for elves and other natural spirits alfar being plural and Alf singular ie. Alfheim

[SwordoftheVistula]

Me too, but, unfortunately this hasn't happened in a while. For example, I can think of no better "Guardian of the West" than Charles Martel, but we've yet to see altars erected in his honor.

The Catholic church might, they have many altars dedicated to 'saints' which are historical figures who have been elevated to some level of 'god' status.

We also have many 'folk heroes' who have basically become treated like heathen gods were, such as George Washington and Martin Luther King. Some American Hindus/Buddhists even use icons of George Washington.

Hitler was mentioned, he held a sort of god-like status and still does for a few, in most of the west he has taken on the position of 'satan', sometimes even being referred to as the 'anti-christ'.

[Psychonaut]

According to " Essential Asatru", by Diana Paxon, the name for the male ancestral spirits would be Alfar.I personally think it odd, because I thought alfar were nature spirits, but maybe there's a nuance or differing pronounciation I know nothing about...

I'd be wary of some of the things Paxon says. There is some evidence to indicate that álfar, and more so the dvergar, were once humans who somehow transitioned into a different state. However, there are just as many sources that indicate their origins as nature spirits, demigods, etc. Pinning them down to one thing is difficult unless lots of historical information is ignored. Also, if the álfar are just male versions of the dísir, why are there female álfar?


The Catholic church might, they have many altars dedicated to 'saints' which are historical figures who have been elevated to some level of 'god' status.

I've actually been looking for a statuette of Charles Martel for a long time so I can set up a similar altar in my home. ;)

[Gooding]

Good point.I'm starting to understand why Asatru is referred to as a "religion with homework".

[Lyfing]

Springing off from this paragraph, why have we polytheists who have been freed from our Christian shackles created no new Gods? Are we still plagued by a Christian influenced aversion to it? Or have we refrained due to our folkish zeal for preservation? What are your thoughts?

I think we have in a poetic way already created new gods. It happened as soon as God died when Superman was born.


God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of*atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?

When a charm was chanted..


That fourth I know, if foemen have
Fettered me hand and foot: I chant a charm the chains to break,
So the fetters will fly off my feet,
And off my hands the halter.

Havamal 149, Hollander trans.

This is the same thing as Joseph Campbell’s Hero Journey..


A third position, closer than Gawain's to that of the Buddha, yet loyal still to the values of life on this earth, is that of Nietzsche, in Thus Spake Zarathustra. In a kind of parable, Nietzsche describes what he calls the three transformations of the spirit. The first is that of the camel, of childhood and youth. The camel gets down on his knees and says, "Put a load on me." This is the season for obedience, receiving instruction and the information your society requires of you in order to live a responsible life.

But when the camel is well loaded, it struggles to its feet and runs out into the desert, where it is transformed into a lion -- the heavier the load that had been carried, the stronger the lion will be. Now, the task of the lion is to kill a dragon, and the name of the dragon is "Thou shalt." On every scale of this scaly beast, a "thou shalt" is imprinted: some from four thousand years ago; others from this morning's headlines. Whereas the camel, the child, had to submit to the "thou shalts," the lion, the youth, is to throw them off and come to his own realization.

And so, when the dragon is thoroughly dead, with all its "thou shalts" overcome, the lion is transformed into a child moving out of its own nature, like a wheel impelled from its own hub. No more rules to obey. No more rules derived from the historical needs and tasks of the local society, but the pure impulse to living of a life in flower.

The Power of Myth

Also, I think what you call a “folkish zeal for preservation” can be looked at through Joseph Campbell Goggles. He went on and on about Adolf Bastain’s notion of “elementary” and “ethnic” ideas. Of which he says ..


The norms of myth, understood in the way rather of the "elementary ideas" than of the "ethnic", recognized, as in the Domitilla Ceiling (Figure 1), through an intelligent "making use" not of one mythology only but of all the dead and set-fast symbologies of the past, will enable the individual to anticipate and activate in himself the centers of his own creative imagination, out of which his own myth and life-building "Yes because" may then unfold. But in the end, as in the case of Parzival, the guide within will be his own noble heart alone, and the guide without, the image of beauty, the radiance of divinity, that wakes in his heart*amor:*the deepest, inmost seed of his nature, consubstantial with the process of the All, "thus come." And in this life-creative adventure the criterion of achievement will be, as in every one of the tales here reviewed, the courage to let go the past, with its truths, its goals, its dogmas of "meaning," and its gifts: to die to the world and to come to birth from within.

Creative Mythology, pages 677-678

Its seems to me that when we go on an exploration of our ethnic ideas we heroically journey through and actively touch upon and are touched upon by the elementary centers of our being…this being akin to Jung’s notion of archetypes running along old channels. So really we can’t help but do it. But what is next..after all the old channels are flowing full again I’d think they’d branch out…with us..


In the context of a traditional mythology, the symbols are presented in socially maintained rites, through which the individual is required to experience, or will pretend to have experienced, certain insights, sentiments, and commitments. In what I am calling “creative” mythology, on the other hand, this order is reversed: the individual has had an experience of his own--of order, horror, beauty, or even mere exhilaration--which he seeks to communicate through signs: and if his realization has been of a certain depth and import, his communication will have the value and force of living myth--for those, that is to say, who receive and respond to it of themselves, with recognition, in coerced.

Creative Mythology, Page 4

Poetry is Odin’s Mead, and with it are created new gods..


A distinction must be drawn, through all our studies of mythology, between the attitudes toward divinities represented on one hand by the priest and his flock, and on the other by the creative poet, artist, or philosopher. The former tends to what I would call a positivistic reading of the imagery of his cult. Such a reading is fostered by the attitude of prayer, since in prayer it is extremely difficult to retain the balance between belief and disbelief that is proper to the contemplation of an image or idea of God. The poet, artist, and philosopher, on the other hand, being themselves fashioners of images and coiners of ideas, realize that all representation--whether in the visible matter of stone or in the mental matter of the word--is necessarily conditioned by the fallibility of the human organs. Overwhelmed by his own muse, a bad poet may imagine his visions to be supernatural facts and so fall into the posture of a prophet--whose utterances I would define as “poetry overdone,” over-interpreted; wherefore he becomes the founder of a cult and a generator of priests. But so also a gifted priest may find his supernatural beings losing body, deepening into void, changing form, even dissolving: whereupon he will possibly become either a prophet or, if more greatly favored, a creative poet.

Occidental Mythology, Page 518

…

Thus in the Eddas, no less than in the Celtic hero tales, we have, as it were, the serpent-lions of The Book of Kells without the Gospel text: the setting ( one of faith might say) without the jewel of price. However, to those who had learned the reading of the runes--for which Othin gave himself in gage--nature itself revealed the omnipresent jewel.

Occidental Mythology, Page 490

I read some stuff ( there has been a lot said in this thread ) about science and cosmology so I want to throw these quotes in..


The second function of mythology is to render a cosmology, an image of the universe that will support and be supported by this sense of awe before the mystery of a presence and the presence of a mystery. The cosmology has to correspond, however, to the actual experience, knowledge, and mentality of the culture folk involved. So we note that when the priestly watchers of the skies in ancient Sumer, c. 3500 B.C., learned of the order of the planets, the entire mythic system of the nuclear Near East stepped away from the simple primitive themes of the hunting and planting tribes. The grandiose vision of a mathematically impersonal temporal and spatial order came into being, of which the world vision of the Middle Ages--no less than that of ancient India, that of China, and that of Yucatan--was but a late variant. Today that vision has dissolved. And here we touch upon a crucial problem of the religions of our time; for the clergies, generally, still are preaching themes from the first to fourth millenniums B.C.

No one of adult mind today would turn to the Book of Genesis to learn of the origins of the earth, the plants, the beasts, and man. There was no flood, no tower of Babel, no first couple in paradise, and between the first known appearance of men on earth and the first buildings of cities, not one generation ( Adam to Cain ) but a good two million must have come into this world and passed along. Today we turn to science for out imagery of the past and of the structure of the world, and what the spinning demons of the atom and the galaxies of the telescope’s eye reveal is a wonder that makes the babel of the Bible seem a toyland dream of the dear childhood of our brain.

Occidental Mythology, Pages 521-522


These days the emphasis of science has become focused on mankind. In so doing, we have embarked upon The Hero’s Journey.


With this we come to the final hint of what the specific orientation
of the modern hero-task must be, and discover the real
cause for the disintegration of all of our inherited religious formulae.
The center of gravity, that is to say, of the realm of mystery and
danger has definitely shifted- Kor the primitive hunting peoples of
those remotest human millenniums when the sabertooth tiger,
the mammoth, and the lesser presences of the animal kingdom
were the primary manifestations of what was alien—the source
at once of danger, and of sustenance—the great human problem
was to become linked psychologically to the task of sharing the
wilderness with these beings. An unconscious identification took
place, and this was finally rendered conscious in the half-human,
half-animal, figures of the mythological totem-ancestors. The animals
became the tutors of humanity. Through acts of literal imitation—
such as today appear only on the children's playground
(or in the madhouse) —an effective annihilation of the human
ego was accomplished and society achieved a cohesive organization.
Similarly, the tribes supporting themselves on plant-food
became cathected to the plant; the life-rituals of planting and
reaping were identified with those of human procreation, birth,
and progress to maturity. Both the plant and the animal worlds,
however, were in the end brought under social control. Whereupon
the great field of instructive wonder shifted—to the skies—
and mankind enacted the great pantomime of the sacred moonking,
the sacred sun-king, the hieratic, planetary state, and the
symbolic festivals of the world-regulating spheres.

Today all of these mysteries have lost their force; their symbols
no longer interest our psyche. The notion of a cosmic law,
which all existence serves and to which man himself must bend,
has long since passed through the preliminary mystical stages
represented in the old astrology, and is now simply accepted
in mechanical terms as a matter of course. The descent of the Occidental
sciences from the heavens to the earth (from seventeenthcentury
astronomy to nineteenth-century biology), and their concentration
today, at last, on man himself (in twentieth-century
anthropology and psychology), mark the path of a prodigious
transfer of the focal point of human wonder. Not the animal
world, not the plant world, not the miracle of the spheres, but
man himself is now the crucial mystery

The Hero with a Thousand Faces, Pages 360-361

Anyhow..

Later,
-Lyfing

[YggsVinr]

I too think that ruralism and the yeoman ideal are integral to the Heathen revival, but I've got one further question for you. As SuuT and I both agreed, the decline of Paganism went hand and hand with scientific advances. However, does living a Heathen lifestyle necessitate a degree of Luddism?


Good question, and really something I've struggled with a lot over the last few years. I think it is quite naive to believe that one can ever bring about a true reversion, and, as convenient as it might be, I find myself unable to make myself believe that that would be for the best. For me its a case of conflicting ideals and interests, even when bringing lifestyle down to the personal level. I am a person who is constantly thirsting for knowledge, to improve my ability to analyze and interpret; the use of reason rather than irrational preference is very high on my priority list. I think that the ideal would be to find a balance of some sorts, but that, then, begs the question of whether a new deity might be created (on a community scale) within such circumstances. Ultimately, its difficult to say whether a heathen lifestyle goes hand in hand with Luddism since that would be willed ignorance, which is not a fate to which I could ever condemn myself. No matter our sentimental attachments to an ideology, belief or ideal, we should never have to deny ourselves the facts nor reality, for the ultimate goal of the individual should be self-betterment through the search of knowledge and the exercising of one's cognitive abilities.

I think in this matter each individual will need to find the method that sits best with them. For example, I find myself living my life in two stages: the first is to exercise the cognitive abilities to "master" the art of questioning (I often find myself believing that the question and the process of discovery is of greater importance than the answer itself) and of learning. The second stage will be to retreat once more into the natural or rural world, though perhaps not as a part of a specific community, but to try my hand at constructing my ideal life through blending an organic life with an intellectual life. At that stage, evidently I wouldn't be living in a technological wonderland (in a way a sort of rejection), but I cannot see myself condemning the rest of the world for that reason. I don't think that such a life would be for everyone, and I don't think we can ever expect the world to return to such a form nor should it be forced to. I think either a solitary life in nature or the founding of a community made up of like-minded individuals living such a life would be "ideal". When it comes to farming technologies and such, while modern machinery is most convenient, I think the community as a whole would feel much closer to the land were they to take up more "archaic" methods; perhaps like a Mennonite community for heathens. In that sense a certain degree of Luddism would be necessary, though I think such a community should gain as much from the outside world (intellectually speaking) before retreating into such a life. Then you get the issue of raising children in such an environment and I begin to wonder whether it would be fair to deprive children the experience of the outside world, though I think if education within such a community was conducted properly such a deprivation need not occur.

It comes down to avoiding the case of a rejection of the modern world without understanding why the rejection occurred; the individuals involved should not be ignorant of the reasoning behind the rejection, and must come to such a conclusion through their own faculties of reason rather than the typical case of "follow the shepherd".

[Ulf]

Springing off from this paragraph, why have we polytheists who have been freed from our Christian shackles created no new Gods? Are we still plagued by a Christian influenced aversion to it? Or have we refrained due to our folkish zeal for preservation? What are your thoughts?

Our gods were born of a cohesive folk soul. I think we are still very far off from having that at this point. As a whole we are all still rebuilding. Many of us are first generation Heathens. We need to pick up the pieces of the past and truly understand them before we move on to creating something new. Our great-grandchildren will have a deeper and better understanding of this as they will hopefully grow up with the lifestyle and worldview of Heathen values and ethics.

[Loddfafner]

There should be a god of parking places. I am not sure how sacrificing would work, though. Mead would risk DWI tickets. I can't practically keep a few goats in my trunk for every time I need to park. Maybe the god will settle for a pedestrian.

[Aemma]

What we have run out of, is things we cannot explain.

Although I understand what you are saying here Gustavus, I often wonder if that is so much the problem as an actual one with how we have permitted ourselves to lose our sense of enchantment with the natural world. I can well see that we can easily make such a statement as "we no longer create gods because science can explain these phenomena for us now". But utilising the scientific worlview as an overlay to a heathen one doesn't work in my opinion and nor will it ever. The deeper meaning of Life and our search for answers must come from a spiritual basis and not a scientific one--the human being is a spiritual entity (albeit residing in a human animal's body as a vessel) first and foremost imho. It is in fact Science that has killed our willingness--our need, even-- to go beyond the formulaic pat answers (as complex as they may be presented) to Life's questions. It has killed our willingness to still press on beyond the superficial answers and still have the courage to ask the eternally important question: Why? Instead today we are satisfied with seemingly complex answers to seemingly complex questions which imo only serve to obfuscate that most meaningful of questions, again, why? We have been handed an answer, simply and patly delivered and made to be accepted. Science has said so, therefore it must be true. To be quite blunt about it, Science has done to Spirituality what McDonald's has done to Haute Cuisine. ;)

Whatever happened to our own sense of independent enquiry, while gazing up at the stars, or craddling one's babe in one's arms, or picking the fruits of Jorth's generously offered bounty, and coming up with our own ways, 'crude' or not, for explaining Life and its gifts? This is the purview of mythology, not so much man-made but more so home-grown...seeds of Thought in relation to Human Experience and Deeds performed in this world and our Interactions with other entities, consciousnesses, energies, and beings in the multiverse. It is from this Great Well of Being from which the Creation of New Gods is to come.

Cheers for now!...Aemma

[Psychonaut]

There should be a god of parking places. I am not sure how sacrificing would work, though. Mead would risk DWI tickets. I can't practically keep a few goats in my trunk for every time I need to park. Maybe the god will settle for a pedestrian.

My wife insists that she has a patron parking faerie. No matter when or where we go, if she's driving, we get a great spot right up front. Apparently though, it doesn't work when I'm driving. ;)


Instead today we are satisfied with seemingly complex answers to seemingly complex questions which imo only serve to obfuscate that most meaningful of questions, again, why? We have been handed an answer, simply and patly delivered and made to be accepted. Science has said so, therefore it must be true.

I agree that science has had a negative influence on our spirituality, BUT, do you think that we should be following in step with the Christian fundamentalists and denying the truth of scientific discoveries? I may have misunderstood your post, but I'm quite curious as to where you'd draw the line cosmologically. I agree with YggsVinr that a thirst for knowledge cannot be a bad thing. It is the way we apply this knowledge to our lives that affects whether this new knowledge impacts us positively or negatively.

[Aemma]

I agree that science has had a negative influence on our spirituality, BUT, do you think that we should be following in step with the Christian fundamentalists and denying the truth of scientific discoveries? I may have misunderstood your post, but I'm quite curious as to where you'd draw the line cosmologically. I agree with YggsVinr that a thirst for knowledge cannot be a bad thing. It is the way we apply this knowledge to our lives that affects whether this new knowledge impacts us positively or negatively.

Oh dear Gods no Psychonaut (:eek:), sorry my post might not have been too clear. But no, not ever should we follow that line of thought and deny the basic truth of scientific discoveries (but note it is 'truth' with a lower case 'T'). Science is there and has been beneficial at the concrete, tangible levels. There's no getting away from that and nor should we. The development and use of scientific thought is as much part of our own legacy of European thought as anything else. But what I meant to say is that often Science makes us, the common man, too complacent to continue to ask Why? I often find that Science is too easily given what we call in French 'un passe-droit'. Because it is Science, the common man accepts the jargon, which is not readily understood at all, as 'gospel truth'. Instead of being in awe of the phenomenon itself, man has been guided into being in awe of the process of scientific enquiry in its stead. In doing so, we have empowered Science to do that which naturally comes to man, to seek answers from within and from without. But worse, we have empowered Science to strip away that which was, once upon a time, magical, other-worldly, intuitive, even sensational (in the truest sense of the word) from our daily experiences. We need to reclaim some of that power in my opinion and reacquaint ourselves with other more organic ways of seeing the world for the modern heathen to survive as indeed that, a heathen, in this world.

My own personal belief is that without some form of re-evaluating the importance of the process of Scientific Enquiry and Thought (and in so doing bringing it down a few notches from its own self-ascribed level of supreme importance), Heathenry doesn't have much of a chance at long term survival. It is not Scientific Man that will create new gods but Spiritual Man that will.

Hmm not sure that this explains it any better mind you. Sorry...might have to have a fresh go of it tomorrow morning. :)

Cheers for now!...Aemma

[Psychonaut]

Oh dear Gods no Psychonaut (:eek:)

:thumb001:


But what I meant to say is that often Science makes us, the common man, too complacent to continue to ask Why?

Ok, I think I get what you're saying, and if so, I agree. I don't think that science is at all capable of answering questions relating to meaning and Truth, as these are questions that are entirely outside the domain of objectivity. This wholesale rejection of objective definitions of meaning are exactly what Nietzsche meant when he uttered "God is dead." The key, I think, is in tooling our religion so as to address the "why" and not the "how" of existence.

Sure, our ancestors, being bereft of science, thought that their religion addressed both questions with an equal degree of veracity. But now we know better. While our religion is, to a degree, a reconstructed faith, I don't think it would be beneficial for us to try and reconstruct all parts of the views of our ancestors, particularly those beliefs that have been refuted by science by the virtue of existing outside the domain of what we now understand to be religious or mythic. We should seek to understand our religion in a way that does not necessitate any refutations of science, but seeks to address those questions that science is not, nor will be, capable of answering; those questions that spring from the depths of human existence and ask not how things came to be, but why.

[Aemma]

The key, I think, is in tooling our religion so as to address the "why" and not the "how" of existence.

Bang on, however I would add one caveat: we should not discount the "how" or more accurately the manner in which the 'how' is presented or expressed inasmuch as there is great beauty, wisdom and expression of our culture in not only the language, symbolism, imagery and what-have-you but also in the meta-language itself as helping us to further determine the 'why'.

Cheers for now!...Aemma

[SuuT]

Yes, you've hit the nail on the head there. Science has certainly been pushing our spirituality backwards while pushing our rationality forwards; but I have to wonder: are the two really mutually exclusive, or are we currently in the midst of a false dichotomy rooted in the Platonic/Cartesian/Christian split between the mind and body?

I think that dichotomy is true in the Aristotelian/Boolean sense of Logic: it makes for nice and neat heuristic devices and deductions and inductions and such. I think that "Truth Value", however, is false when applied falsely. For example, an 'unmoved mover'. I don't care whose they are, or where they came from: all premises are built atop axiomatic assumptions - things assumed to be true such that the logical ends justify the logical means. It is that which underlies the axioms that one will find quite 'inexplicable'...At some point, we enter Metaphysics - which still requires logic; and, for the Heathen, some manner of Deontological inquiry. Fast-forwarding, we reach the Ontologically incommunicable. Enter the Divine: enter The Free.

:DHowever, my Lokian self wishes, here, to point out (or perhaps 'mention' is the better term...) that asserting something as False is, in-itself, False.

Even a round-square has some manner of existence.


Since our recent preoccupation with Absolutist philosophies has so far hindered us, do you think that the "Heathen" philosophies of Nietzsche, Heidegger, Whitehead, et al. will do their part in paving the way for the birth of the new Gods?

I think it really depends. There is a term in psychology called the "Expectancy Effect". I think that for a lot of people it depends on what they were exposed to first. For example, it's just true prima facie that someone raised from the cradle as a Christian, from a long line of Christians, who is surrounded by nothing but Christians, will likely have trouble with Philosophy in general, let alone viewing Also sprach Zarathustra through Heathen 'eyes'. But then again, Nietzsche, himself, came from a line of Luthern ministers. But he also came from a longer line of butchers.;)

So, I think that it will be (as it always is) the fortunate exceptions to the rule that will utilise the likes of Nietzsche, Heidegger, Whitehead, et al., in a manner conducive to Heathen understanding.




[...] What we have run out of, is things we cannot explain. [...]

On the contrary, what we have run out of is things that we can.


So where does that leave us? Do we need gods that are responsible for more stuff than they do already? And, if so, which god is the god of modern inventions such as electric? Which god is responsible for computer, motors, air planes, space travel?

This is not a Heathen perception of Divinity. Indeed, it is completely alien to it:


Was Man God's most profound mistake, or, was God Man's... - Nietzsche

[woody]

I suppose one could build on the Ragnarok myth, but that would be lending belief to the notion that Balder would arise to begin the new world


There is a local old Heathen that I've talked to. His theory is that Ragnarok has already happened. Ragnarok is more-or-less a "spiritual" war, in that it isn't necessarily on the Midgard realm. In a sense, the Norse Gods HAVE died, for 1000 years. It is now that Asatru and the variants of the religion are being "reborn". Maybe it is a time that Balder is rising to take control.

It makes sense, though debatable. It's always good to have differing views and theories, and be able to discuss them with intellect, rather than arguing. There is always someone with another point of view that makes discussions interesting. We used to sit around and discuss issues like this at a local Caribou Coffee :coffee: ...that sounds like a great idea for today, since it snowed!

[Psychonaut]

Fast-forwarding, we reach the Ontologically incommunicable. Enter the Divine: enter The Free.

You bring up a great point here. The fact that the foci of religion are ontologically primary entities is something that cannot be stressed enough. Although we don't encounter the same kinds of analytical problems with them as we do with Dasein (thanks to its self-reflective nature), we are dealing with phenomena that are, by virtue of their very nature, outside the purview of any language (natural or artificial). Thus, even though a hierophantic experience may be very ontically close to us, it will remain ontologically distant.

[HawkR]

There is a local old Heathen that I've talked to. His theory is that Ragnarok has already happened. Ragnarok is more-or-less a "spiritual" war, in that it isn't necessarily on the Midgard realm. In a sense, the Norse Gods HAVE died, for 1000 years. It is now that Asatru and the variants of the religion are being "reborn". Maybe it is a time that Balder is rising to take control.

It makes sense, though debatable. It's always good to have differing views and theories, and be able to discuss them with intellect, rather than arguing.

Even though I refuse to believe this, I' willing to discuss it.

Now, if Ragnarok has happened, I would rather believe that Heimdallr is the new god, in other terms; God, the christian god. But then again, as Christianity is a branch of jewishsm, it doesn't seem logic enough.

[woody]

Even though I refuse to believe this, I' willing to discuss it.

Now, if Ragnarok has happened, I would rather believe that Heimdallr is the new god, in other terms; God, the christian god. But then again, as Christianity is a branch of jewishsm, it doesn't seem logic enough.

Oh, I refuse to believe it, too. But, it makes for great discussion. The thing about christianity/jewishity is that the jews are right, and the christlings say they are saved, but the jewishites are the chosen ones, so they are excempt from getting on their knees for geezus, so they get a Get-out-of-Hell Free card. If that were the case, we should all convert to jewishity and trump geezus. It's also funny how christlings are quick to throw rules like tattoos and such at us, but when you come back at them with the kosher food laws and laws regarding sexual activity, they get all confused. Most christlings don't even know where to find the law against markings on the body. (Mom, I love you, but you are funny). Follow all the laws, or none. Don't pick and choose.

[HawkR]

Christianity is all about pick and choose, and has allways been.

And did you know; God, in old hebrew, is actually Jiwha(or something) and means, no, not God, but "I am", so in other terms, when you pray to this socalled "God", you should be praying to yourself, so I ask this; Why has this been changed?

[Beorn]

Christianity is all about pick and choose, and has allways been.

And did you know; God, in old hebrew, is actually Jiwha(or something) and means, no, not God, but "I am", so in other terms, when you pray to this socalled "God", you should be praying to yourself, so I ask this; Why has this been changed?


It is 'Yahweh', or 'YHVH' meaning "I AM THAT I AM".


In appearance, YHWH is the third person singular imperfect of the verb "to be", meaning, therefore, "He is". This explanation agrees with the meaning of the name given in Exodus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus) 3:14, where God is represented as speaking, and hence as using the first person — "I am". It stems from the Hebrew conception of monotheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism) that God exists by himself for himself, and is the uncreated Creator who is independent of any concept, force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force), or entity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity); therefore "I am that I am".

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism#The_Tetragrammaton)

[woody]

It is 'Yahweh', or 'YHVH' meaning "I AM THAT I AM".



Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism#The_Tetragrammaton)

You mean, Popeye is God? Oh wait, that was "I yam what I yam". Sorry for the mix-up. :D

[SuuT]

You mean, Popeye is God? Oh wait, that was "I yam what I yam". Sorry for the mix-up. :D



Popeye is too busy gettin' tats to be God.

And by the way, I'll gladly pay you tuesday for salvation today.

[woody]

Popeye is too busy gettin' tats to be God.

And by the way, I'll gladly pay you tuesday for salvation today.

That's what I will be doing when my taxes come back...after SCUBA gear, I'm getting my whole back inked. It's one of my favorite rules to break from Leviticus! :thumb001:

[YggsVinr]

Me too, but, unfortunately this hasn't happened in a while. For example, I can think of no better "Guardian of the West" than Charles Martel, but we've yet to see altars erected in his honor.


I have been thinking back to this statement of yours about Charles Martel, Psychonaut, and have been thinking of it in connection with known tribe-specific deities like Seaxnet as well as the evolution of more Franco-Norman specific spirituality. It also made me think back to one's connection with certain figures who might be considered folk heroes, like Charles Martel, Roland, Hrolf/Rollo. I used to be quite a fan of Jean Mabire's books as a teenager and while I was recently considering all this I thought back to an account I'd read in one of his histories of Normandy where he tells of the battle at Val-ès-Dunes and claims that in response to William's battle cry Diex Aïe the rebels responded with Thor Aïe. How true this is, one might never know, though it does symbolically mark the fusion that became the essence of the Norman.

Referring now to the topic recently created on the subject of the practice of Asatru among non-Scandinavians there were a few comments made on how modern heathens should not be as Scandinavian-centric and learn something of the traditions of their own ancestry. As mentioned a few times in thread, there are not many scathing differences throughout Germanic spirituality, however, in the case of the Norman/Frankish issue the situation seems to be a little difference. To be a modern Norman means to essentially be descended from both Scandinavian invaders as well as the occupying Franks, and though both likely shared a great deal of their traditions in pre-Christian times, should we adapt our own spirituality to accommodate those two primary heritages? I'm not really talking about a kind of dual spirituality in the same way that is being discussed in the threads on the Celtic/Germanic question, but more an adaptation of spirituality in the same tradition as the Saxon Seaxnet. Should men like Hrolf and Martel come to take on a similar role in Norman/Franco-Norman spirituality?

Of course, the issue is entirely personal in many respects, but I think it would make sense, though I don't think that this should be overdone. However, a figure like Hrolf would be a folk guardian in the sense that it was he who began the Franco-Norman tradition, while Martel secured the land that would become our homeland despite our ancestors both being invaders and from other lands.

Taking it further, to what extent can one separate heroic figures of the Christian era? And what of Franco-Normans of the new world? What role does French Canadian sovereignty (in this respect I came to wonder about any connection that might be established between French Canada and the Norman unification movement in Normandy) play in all this, and can it be detached from the Roman Catholic tradition? Should we modernise to this extent, or are we better left to the past? As we are trying to preserve our Frankish/Norman past what are we doing for the preservation of the modern heirs of that unique integration of Franks and Norsemen that were united to form another folk altogether?

[Psychonaut]

Should men like Hrolf and Martel come to take on a similar role in Norman/Franco-Norman spirituality?

Absolutely! :thumb001:

The world would be a much better place if more Europeans hailed Charles the Hammer.


Taking it further, to what extent can one separate heroic figures of the Christian era? And what of Franco-Normans of the new world?

This is one area where I differ tremendously with the rest of the AFA. Where many of them will honor the deeds of great Icelanders simply because they were Heathens and did great things, I'm much more inclined to honor great ancestors of my tribe.

[YggsVinr]

This is one area where I differ tremendously with the rest of the AFA. Where many of them will honor the deeds of great Icelanders simply because they were Heathens and did great things, I'm much more inclined to honor great ancestors of my tribe.

Agreed. Myself, I object to days such as Leif Eriksson Day in the US. I can understand perfectly why Icelandic or Norwegian Americans would commemorate Leif, but I find more than a few things wrong with the concept of a Leif Eriksson day.

The question is really how one might incorporate the commemoration of a newly acknowledged folk hero into one's tradition. With the Germanic gods, the major times of commemoration and celebration coincide with seasonal/cyclical changes and the role of the gods in connection to those changes. If we hold, for a moment, that Frey was, in fact, once initially a historical king one might question how he came to be deified and how he was allotted his role. Evidently one might concede that it was the ability to provide for the people that would transform him into a fertility god, so what of Martel or Hrolf? Were heathen spirituality to evolve as it did prior to conversion, I suppose we would have a new guardian, as you say, in the case of Martel. But can we interpret him as a guardian of the west as you suggest, or the Franks? In retrospect he would undoubtedly be a guardian of the west as a whole, but at the time it was largely to defend his land. So would we consider the effect or the initial intent? Perhaps both to some degree. In Hrolf one might find a new combination of patron of war and "friend" to the Norman folk. It also makes one wonder how names evolve over time as well.

One problem I have with many heathen organizations is their attempt to follow the example set by the Leif Eriksson Day issue, and so allot certain days as Einherjar day and so on. There is something "Hallmark"-esque about the designation of such days, and I think that if an individual were to incorporate such folk heroes into their beliefs it should be in a fashion that would make more sense, in the cyclical/natural sense, than simply picking a date and treating it like another Columbus Day. It cheapens the intent, in my opinion.

[Psychonaut]

The question is really how one might incorporate the commemoration of a newly acknowledged folk hero into one's tradition.

It is a tricky point nowadays how to implement something like that without, as you noted, making it seem like a forced Hallmark moment. For Martel, I think that gathering the family around the ancestral shrine on October 10 and recounting the Battle of Tours would be quite fitting. However, for more ambiguous figures like Merovech it's a lot more difficult to decide since we'd have to be making it up.


so what of Martel or Hrolf? Were heathen spirituality to evolve as it did prior to conversion, I suppose we would have a new guardian, as you say, in the case of Martel. But can we interpret him as a guardian of the west as you suggest, or the Franks?

Yes, I think that Martel would function in much the same way as Thor. Hell, he's Charles the Hammer. :D

Others, like Merovech already have semi-mythological origins which, in his case, tie the origins of the Franks to the Gods. I would find both him and Charlemagne to be progenitors of the Folk.


In retrospect he would undoubtedly be a guardian of the west as a whole, but at the time it was largely to defend his land. So would we consider the effect or the initial intent?

Ah, intent vs. impact. I think that would have to be judged on a case by case basis. For Martel, although his intent was only the security of Francia, all of Europe owes him a tremendous debt. However with someone like Charlemagne, although his impact was also felt by the whole of the West, I can understand why some Germans would keep him at arms length, since his intent was quite anti-Saxon.