PDA

View Full Version : An Odinist View of Original Sin



Sigurd
Thursday, January 26th, 2006, 10:04 PM
An Odinist view of Original Sin

Odinism is an optimistic and life-asserting religion which, because it is a natural religion, believes that man through his own endeavours can lead a life which is noble, virtuous and good.
Such an eminently reasonable view, a view with which most people would agree, is in sharp contrast to the morose Christian doctrine of original sin, which teaches that man is born in sin, essentially depraved and inevitably prone to evil.

Masochists may derive some pleasure from convincing themselves and others that they are devoid of natural goodness or incapable of achieving worthiness on their own account. However, for normal people such attitudes may lead to undermined self-confidence and smack of an inferiority complex.

Christianity's morbid emphasis on man's sinful nature and on the fall from grace not only leads to the cults of confession, penance and self-mortification, which seem so antiquated and perverse to naturally minded people nowadays; it also encourages a sense of utter dependence, both moral and spiritual, on a god. This sense of dependence is not encouraged in Odinism, where men and gods are held to be cosmologically interdependent or mutual projections and reflections of each other.

The sway that Christianity has had over millions of souls can be explained to a large extent by the neurotic complex induced through belief in man's original and unavoidable sinfulness. The train of thought goes something like this - God is perfect. I am not perfect. Compared to god I am a miserable worm. Therefore I am eternally doomed. But god still loves me and will save me if I utterly humiliate myself before him and obey his every word. So I am saved. Hallelujah!

It would be easy to dismiss this sort of reasoning, which Christians call repentance or conversion, as a psychological confidence trick. Were one to be cynical one might point out that this sense of dependence on a god as the only one who can save us from our own utter depravity leads straightforwardly to a spiritual and moral dependence on the churches and has helped them accrue power and benefactions. A more charitable view would be to admit that the propagators of this doctrine were themselves enmeshed in the same delusions and neuroses.

The psychological havoc the concept of original sin has wreaked is something that cannot be measured. One only has to think of some of the hysterical or neurotic disorders that have convulsed Christianity through the ages, such as the excesses of Puritanism and monasticism, to understand the danger of unnatural thinking. This unnatural theology is not, as is sometimes argued by revisionist Christians, the fifth century CE product of Augustine of Hippo, although he did more than anyone to promote and expound the doctrine of original sin. It is, in fact, a logical derivative of monotheism or at least of the belief in one perfect god.

If only Christians could admit to a few minor peccadilloes in their god, then perhaps they would not need to spend so long on their knees and in their confessionals. If their god were more human then perhaps the Christians would start to appear a little more human too. All the Christian saints have admitted to finding difficulty in loving god as they should. But who would find it easier to love someone looks down on you as an utter wretch? This is the doctrine of original sin and the logical conclusion of monotheism. Why else do Christians talk of loving god, but never of liking him? Without meaning any irreverence, an Odinist can say, 'I like Thor' or 'Freya is really nice'. There is no comparable expression in Christianity.

The reason that there is no concept of original sin in Odin- ism is that our gods are not perfect, but ideal. Besides providing positive assistance they function as examples to inspire us. Their faults and weaknesses, which admittedly have been overemphasised by Christian chroniclers of the ancient myths, render their examples more attainable, their inspiration more meaningful. To strive after attainable betterment is realistic, but to strive after perfection is foolhardy and self-defeating.

Odinism has a commonsense view that good and bad exist everywhere in nature, in man and in the gods too. Perfection can be nowhere observed. That, however, does not prevent one from thinking of oneself or of the gods as being on the side of good against evil.

What replaces original sin in Odinism? The Odinist might answer in these terms: I am a free man. My choices are my own. But I freely opt for what is wholesome, decent and natural. If I make mistakes I shall learn from them. But it is down to me to face what my Wyrd will bring and make the best of it. This is the noble way and thus I know the gods are on my side.

Poor Christians. Poor fellow countrymen. It is time they got up off their knees and sought a positive religious impulse in the faith of their forefathers.


Source (http://www.odinic-rite.org/original%20sin.html)

Gorm the Old
Friday, January 27th, 2006, 03:02 AM
I wasa discussing this very issue with a Hindu a couple of years ago and discovered that, not only does Hinduism have no concept of original sin, it also has no concept which corresponds to the Jewish idea of sin, i.e. misbehaviour as a personal affront to God. Hinduism enjoins a code of conduct which is pleasing to the gods, but does not enforce it by threats. A person's mideeds give him bad karma and as cause and effect, automatically require expiation either in this life or another if he is to attain liberation from the cycle of death and rebirth. The enforcement of commandments by threats attains its highest development in Islam. I have often, and not frivolously, referred to the Qur'an as The Book of Threats. If one opens the Qur'an randomly at any page, there is a very good chance of finding a threat of some kind against someone. The Jews and Muslim patterned their concept of God after the most familiar authority figure, the Oriental despot. There is nothing human or humane about either Jahweh or Al'lah or (Ar-Rahman) , though the latter is referred to as "the merciful , the compassionate" (TO WHOM ?) I defy anyone to find any examples of real mercy or compassion in the Qur'an. Though the Greek and Roman gods showed numerous human foibles, they were not humane. Often, they were revoltingly cruel to those whom they considered to be guilty of hubris, the one real sin in their religions. The Ęsir and the Vanir rarely, if ever, punish individual wrongdoers for their "sins". The coward and the oathbreaker have to live with themselves, after all. This is sufficient punishment in most cases. We don't find them making a big fuss about impiety or blasphemy. These are Judaeo-Christian concepts, part of the burden of guilt which Christianity has foisted upon us. I am NOT inclined to be charitable to the churchmen who have sought and obtained power and wealth by moral dictatorship. What shall we say of men who preach poverty, humility, and meekness, yet array themselves in silks, gold, and jewels ? What else can we attribute to them than HYPOCRISY ?

BeornWulfWer
Sunday, August 17th, 2008, 02:06 PM
Finally got a bit of peace and quiet to respond to this thread. :)

As a child I was always at odds with the Christian faith. I remember reading the stories of the Bible and the lessons of how one should lead their lives accordingly. I would say with some certainty that I still do borrow heavily from the New Testament in my valuations of the world around me.

The problem I did have with Christianity was its dominance to make one feel as if you are a servant serving under a tyrant God who cares little for you unless being good or professing a love for said God.

This was my first questioning of the whole faith of Christianity and was the long road to finally being free of the whole Christian ethos.



I am a free man. My choices are my own. But I freely opt for what is wholesome, decent and natural. If I make mistakes I shall learn from them. But it is down to me to face what my Wyrd will bring and make the best of it. This is the noble way and thus I know the gods are on my side.

That statement is as good a summation of my beliefs as any.

You are born free and equal in the eyes of the spiritual world. If you choose to lower yourself to depths of evil and not learn or correct your wrongdoings, then you will ultimately be judged in the realm of the afterlife, whatever that may truly be.

I make mistakes. I have made evil decisions, but I have learnt and corrected those decisions.

I therefore do not need to ask redemption for my soul from anyone.

Morning Angel
Thursday, October 30th, 2008, 07:19 PM
It would be easy to dismiss this sort of reasoning, which Christians call repentance or conversion, as a psychological confidence trick. Were one to be cynical one might point out that this sense of dependence on a god as the only one who can save us from our own utter depravity leads straightforwardly to a spiritual and moral dependence on the churches and has helped them accrue power and benefactions. A more charitable view would be to admit that the propagators of this doctrine were themselves enmeshed in the same delusions and neuroses.

Probably both.

odinsson
Tuesday, November 4th, 2008, 02:55 AM
I remember before converted I read the bible at least weekly I went to church every Sunday memorized the ten commandments but always found myself doing unchristian things which inevitably lead me to feel like a hypocrite and developed conflict with the church it wasn't until later that I found out that the way I did things flowed relatively smoothly with heathen/Asatru ethics this immediately lifted a large weight off my shoulders I finally felt free for the first time in my life I was happy I was enjoying life more I was at one with nature I came to be who I am today which wouldn't have been possible under the yoke of Christendom.

And it was because of an article I read that stated something like the first step is to shrug off the idea of sin so I quit tallying my sins.

Sorry about the punctuation I don't use it often.

Sigurd
Wednesday, November 5th, 2008, 08:30 AM
Sorry about the punctuation I don't use it often.

: Want : The : Runes : Back : Mate : Because : They : Do : Not : Punctuate : Eh : ? :D

odinsson
Wednesday, November 5th, 2008, 02:01 PM
I often do write in the anglo-saxon futhork when i'm writing for it's not only the original alphabet of the english language but THERE'S NO PUNCTUATION

and to answer your questions honestly

YES, SAVE ME AND TAKE THIS ROMAN SCRIPT AWAY

.....^ =punctuation :thumbup