PDA

View Full Version : Deity and Humanity in Modern Heathenism



Hrodnand
Tuesday, March 31st, 2009, 07:54 PM
This is an essay I recommend for those who are seriously interested in heathenism. It is a long article, but I also recommend you the patience to read it carefully because it contains a lot of good points that I'm sure many of you will consider valuable and worthy to think about:




Deity and Humanity in Modern Heathenism


Deity and Humanity: Nature of Deities

Heathens are polytheists. We believe that there are many deities, and these are not simply ways of looking at a single transcendent deity. They have individual traits and individual relationships. Odin is not Thor, and it's not reasonable to expect them to have exactly the same goals and ideals, the identical style of action or relationship, or the same relationships. At the same time, they are all deities, and have some common traits, just as all human beings share common traits. Moreover, the particular group of deities we honour form a kind of family or community, with shared values and corporate relationships. Within that group, we can expect general agreement on goals and ideals, though with some differences in the details.

Thus, there are things I can expect of Odin because he's a deity; other things I can expect because he's one of the Aesir; and others that I can expect because he is Odin. This is much the same as with human beings; there are things you can expect of me because I'm human; things you can expect because I'm a middle aged Canadian living in the early 21st century; and things you can expect because I'm Arlie, and you know me as an individual.

We do not fully understand the nature of deities. This is partly because modern heathenism is a new or newly revived religion, still in the process of discovery. However, it seems likely that there are aspects of their nature which are either completely unknowable by humans or merely unexplainable, possible to be experienced by mystics but never explained to someone without that experience.

Deities are people, or at least individuals, not symbols or personifications of natural forces. They are not Neoplatonic ideals. They are not Jungian archetypes. As people, they are capable of thought, of feeling, of learning and changing with experience. They compromise. They change their minds, and adapt to new situations. They may be perfect, in the sense of being exactly right for their current situation, though I doubt it, but they aren't static, and would probably laugh at the idea that perfection implies that any possible change must be for the worse.

They are not, however, people in quite the same sense as human people. In particular, they don't have many of the ordinary concerns of human beings, nor the limitations that give rise to those concerns. That's not all that's different about them. They appear to be incorporeal, and capable of interacting with individuals in many locations at the same time.

Deities are relational and consultative. They form relationships with each other. They form relationships with human beings, both individually and collectively. They interact. They also consult. In crisis, our stories show them calling councils, discussing their options. They sometimes simply make unilateral decisions, but even then these decisions are subject to later revision.

Deities have a natural inclination to make things work better, in both short and long term. They enjoy seeing people learn. They like seeing societies function well, and families prosper. They enjoy every kind of creative endeavour, whether cooking or calligraphy, and whether amateur or advanced. They like art, and athletics, and simply being a good farmer. They like to see things done well, and they like to see things improving. If something is broken, they want it fixed; if something could be better, they want it improved. While individual deities may have particular areas they pay most attention to, it appears they all share this general trait. (Some seem to have it stronger than others; Odin appears to be particularly insistent on continuous improvement, and will accept rather steep risks compared to the apparent potential gains.)

Deities are favourably inclined towards human beings. Deities don't just want humans to function well; they want humans to thrive and be happy. They like to help humans, to form relationships with them, to enhance human potential. They enjoy seeing human prosperity, and comfort, success, and achievement. They are also inclined to help and care for other beings, both individually and as groups. They want humans and animals, plants and spirits all to thrive, and will put effort into facilitating this. This particularly applies to those with whom they have formed relationships, individually or in groups, such as heathens and their families. (With others, the interest is more casual, and perhaps mostly based on their general desire for things to function well.)

Deities are powerful, but not omnipotent. They can do things no human could possibly do. But there's plenty they can't do, and they seem, like humans, to have to choose where to allocate their efforts, rather than doing everything they'd like to do.

Deities and humans are both subject to Wyrd. Wyrd is a concept both fundamental to heathenry and exceedingly hard to explain or to grasp. Many people don't get it, just as many Christians don't get the Trinity. Basically, Wyrd is the idea that actions have consequences, and that people, including deities, fall into patterns which can be quite difficult for them to get themselves out of. In every situation, your choices are limited, as a result of a combination of past events and simple chance. Thus, if I am looking for work, but have no skills, the offers I get are likely to be low paying, unpleasant, and few. If I take whichever of them seems likely to build good skills and good references, and pursue skills development in other ways, I'm likely to have better options next time. But I might get lucky this time, and unlucky next time. Or my personal efforts might be swamped by greater trends; I might get better offers in a time of prosperity than in a recession, regardless of my improving skills. This is Wyrd in action, on a small and comprehensible scale.

Every time a deity or human being acts, they change the world a little bit. These changes feed back on themselves, and can be built into huge changes, for good or ill. Go too far down one path, and you rule out other possibilities. Deities do this on a large scale. Humans operate on a smaller scale. (I don't rule out overlap here; some human actions clearly have huge effects, and some divine actions may well be trivial.) Wyrd affects both actions and results. The job hunter above will be more or less diligent, and more or less capable of learning, based in part on habits, built from past behaviour. One can change that behaviour, but radical change is difficult, and even more difficult to sustain. Wyrd is not determinism, but neither is it classic free will. One's options are shaped and limited; some things which seem theoretically possible pretty much can't be done in practice, in spite of willpower; other things which could theoretically be avoided seem inevitable in practice. Sometimes one has what seems like a wide open field, with infinite possibilities, and no one able to predict the result. Sometimes it seems as if one is fated; only one outcome is possible. Most situations, however, fall into the middle area where there are a few plausible options, some that are unlikely, but do happen, and others that are so unlikely that we treat them as impossible.

Deities are extremely long lived, far beyond the lifespan of any human being. Our stories specifically say that they are not immortal; one poem (Baldrs Draumar) is devoted to the death of the god Baldr (Poetic Edda, p.195-200). Another story says that even their immunity to aging is artificially maintained (Sturluson p.60). It's possible that these stories are the result of excessive anthropomorphism, expressing spiritual and emotional truths in mythic form, and deities really are immortal. On the other hand, it makes sense to me that beings which can change and grow can also cease to exist. In any case, whether they are immortal or merely extremely long lived, their long life span gives deities a maturity and knowledge base far beyond that of any human. Deities are not omniscient, at least as this term is normally used. There are stories suggesting that some of them (Odin, Heimdall) possess the ability to observe anything they wish, or even in one case know all things (Frigga). However, this doesn't seem to mean that they are automatically aware of all things; stories show Odin fooled more than once, and one story shows even Frigga making what appears to be a bad decision that could have been prevented given knowledge of events which had already occurred.

Even if they did have the ability to know everything that had already occurred, or was presently occurring, they still would not know the future. The future is never knowable with certainty; that's one important implication of the nature of Wyrd. The future is always changeable, even when things seem completely certain. Moreover, most of the time there are at least a couple of plausible options, and quite likely many more. Someone who observes the patterns of Wyrd can make very good educated guesses about likely outcome(s), often far in advance. Humans do it all the time, sometimes to the great aggravation of friends who'd been insisting that "this time will be different". Deities, being long lived, have had the opportunity to develop extensive experience of the patterns of Wyrd. They've generally seen everything before, often several times, so have a good idea of what to expect and how to deal with it. They also have information sources which mortals lack. This frequently allows them to accurately predict many things that leave humans baffled, producing effects that are easily taken for omniscience.

Deities did not create the universe. It appears most likely to have arisen on its own. What deities have done is organized and improved an already existing universe, or parts of that universe. The Prose Edda gives a detailed story both of how the universe came into being, and how the earliest deities acted to organize it. The details are generally regarded as metaphorical, involving a cosmic cow named Audhumla, who arose from dripping rime and licked the ice around her, gradually revealing Buri, the ancestor of our deities (Sturluson p. 9-13). The principle, however, is clear; deities arose and became active at the same time as the rest of the universe, not before.

Deities are not human. It's very easy to conceptualize relationships with individual gods and goddesses as being like relationships with individual human beings. However, they don't react as we do, and this gets more and more obvious the deeper a relationship one develops. There are human viewpoints they just don't share. For example, a human lifespan is an eye blink of time to them. They know we'd prefer to live long lives, but nonetheless tend to see 80 and 20 years as much the same, and judge a human life based on its flavour, not its length. Deities are awe inspiring. They can appear as gentle, comforting beings, as fully personal and personified people with their power and charisma masked. But this is a mask, or a temporary reduction of a large blaze to a tiny coal. Get close to them, and you will generally encounter them as awe inspiring too.


The Nature of Humans:


Humans evolved as social animals. This evolution may have been nudged along by various deities, seeking either to improve the overall world, to make the human species happier and more successful, or simply seeking to form relationships with humans and proto-humans, and then to assist those beings and groups with whom they had formed connections. Rig, in particular, is said to have assisted human development, both by manipulating conceptions and teaching one particularly promising human child.

Human beings are intelligent, capable of thinking before acting, working out long term consequences, and creating and transmitting culture. Some would call this rationality, though that word is now often used to refer strictly to logical calculation, bereft of emotion or intuition. This is a trait we share with deities.

Humans generally have spiritual cravings of some kind. We are inclined to respond to overtures from deities, to seek them out, to try to connect with them directly, and to include them in our social communities. We seek meaning, and purpose, and to understand what comes before and after mortal life. This is part of our innate wiring, though some have it more strongly than others.

As social beings, humans are always embedded in a social context. We understand ourselves in part through roles and relationships. We are neither happy nor healthy when isolated from other humans, and we try to make up for our isolation by emphasizing what relationships we have, both with distant or remembered humans and with other beings (pets, deities, etc.). To change people's behaviour, the social context must be changed, not just the opinions of individuals. We understand things as "true" or "false" in part based on the reaction of those around us. No matter what interests we may have, we seek to share them with others, get feedback, and even build communities around them.

Because we evolved to live in small bands, we have a kind of built in inconsistency in the way we approach other beings, particularly other humans. On the one hand, it is natural for us to love our fellows, starting with family and spiraling out into our community and beyond. When we see a human in trouble, we want to help them, to share with them, to risk our lives to save theirs. But on the other hand, we also want to compete with them, dominate them, gain a higher status in our band and better access to food and mates. Moreover, both these traits are strongest with those who are closest, socially. Those far away can be seen as little more than part of the environment, to be ignored as if not really human, or feared as dangerous potential rivals.

We are also limited, and to a far greater extent than the gods. We must make generalizations simply to function, rather than look at each situation individually; this leads to prejudice and other problems. We cannot help everyone who needs it. We cannot even pay attention to everyone. We have to ignore some things, and some people. We have to leave some people without assistance, even when we do not see them as dangerous, or rivals.

Corporeal existence has other consequences. Our cognitions are affected by our biochemistry, which is strongly affected by our environment. These reactions are sometimes helpful, when we feel sympathy and kindness, or even justified anger, but sometimes they are very much unhelpful, when we become overwhelmed with unjustified anger, or stress, or depression. We also know ourselves short-lived, and begin losing capacities before we even reach full emotional maturity. We are vulnerable to many things, which we cannot always prevent however hard we try. Thus, we have a tendency to experience our lives as a process of weakening and loss. Yet at the same time, we tend to accumulate good things with age, like knowledge, friends, property, and status, and so can also look on our lives as a process of development and gain. However we look at it, though, we cannot escape the effect of being embodied, however much some have tried.

Humans are not really all that smart, or foresighted. We're good at handling familiar situations, or situations our species or culture has encountered frequently in the past. We are not so good at dealing with new things, or things where a short term good is likely to be followed by a long term loss. We put a lot of effort into teaching our children things like delayed gratification, and avoiding trading short term pleasure for long term distress, but we don't do all that good a job of it, as can be seen by looking at the messes, large and small, that most people manage to make in their lives.

We are also inherently selfish, in the sense that we're pretty much hard wired to take care of ourselves and our close relations first, except in exceptional circumstances.

At the same time, we are inclined to want to be less selfish, less shortsighted, more loving, and more effective. We try to improve ourselves morally, intellectually and materially, and we respect those who do a good job of living, showing foresight, self restraint, kindness, and wisdom. Moreover, it is natural for us to try to think about consequences, to learn, and to plan.

We are thus midway between devils and angels, having traits of both, in a paradoxical synthesis which is also a never ending tug of war.

There was no fall, and no golden age. Humans have always been this way, with details changing as our environment and culture changes. We probably had many of these traits even before we were human, except that there would have been less cultural transmission, without words, and a far more limited capacity for conscious thought.

The principle of Wyrd, discussed above in the context of deities, applies even more obviously to humans. Acts have consequences. This, combined with human nature, is the source of most of what is wrong with the world, but also of most of what is right. Our actions and choices today follow from what we have done in the past. But the choices we make today will shape the choices we can make in future.

This applies at both an individual and a group level, and even at the level of whole cultures. At a cultural level, for example, it's easier to modify an existing political system than to adopt a completely new one. Adding a few elected councils is likely to work better than going direct from absolute monarchy to representative democracy. It takes time for people to get used to debate and even voting. If you do go direct to an all new system, generally because of a revolution, it generally takes a few tries to finally get it right; meanwhile, there tends to be a succession of revolutions or coups.

Fortunately, when people get something right, it tends to be self perpetuating, at least until conditions change. A solution that works is imitated, and taught to children, and perhaps tinkered with about the edges. It isn't replaced with something new and different, unless it ceases to work. Thus, for example, Europeans and their derivative cultures have mostly figured out how to avoid having wars about religion, after far too many examples of why such wars were good for no one.

Unfortunately, it frequently takes us quite a while to get things right, and we often wind up in pretty bad circumstances while trying to solve a new problem. This results from a combination of shortsightedness and Wyrd. In unfamiliar circumstances, our shortsightedness leads to us fumbling around, trying things that aren't likely to work. These mistakes have consequences, which affect our future options. If we waste resources, or alienate friends, they are gone; we don't get to reload our saved game and try again until we figure things out.

We also frequently improve one thing at the expense of another, which then needs its own cycle of improvement. Thus a workaholic might address his job stress by switching to a less demanding job, only to find he doesn't know what to do with free time. He might then take up a hobby, such as learning to play the trombone, only to find that his enthusiastic practice sessions irritate his neighbours. Meanwhile, his reduced income makes his life difficult in other ways, so he decides to solve both problems by moving to a less expensive home with less demanding neighbours. The only problem is that the new house needs some work, which he must learn to do himself, so as to stay within his budget. Because conditions change frequently, we pretty much never reach a stable state of perfect adaptation to our situation, neither individually nor as cultural groups.


Human-Deity Interaction


To show the interaction of concepts of deity and concepts of humanity, it is useful to examine the ways in which deities and humans interact. This may seem too obvious for words, but in fact monotheistic religions, particularly law oriented monotheistic religions, are drawing on a somewhat different paradigm, placing their emphasis in different places, excluding some of what we care about, and including a whole area that we see very differently.

Deities and humans are drawn to form relationships with each other, both individually and in groups. We use several models to try to understand these relationships. These are only models, not to be taken too literally.

The first model is that of friendship. A "god friend" is someone particularly devoted to a specific deity, with whom the deity has a special relationship. This tends to imply a kind of special affinity to deities, a virtue that has at least as much to do with wisdom, honour and achievement as with anything directly spiritual, and the ability to help others with the sort of situation where they might want to involve the deities.

The second model is that of kin. We see our deities as our elder kin. We can thus relate to them as we would to great grandparents, or parents, clan leaders or wise old cousins. One element of this model is, of course, a continuing love almost regardless of behaviour. The third common model is to relate to deities as leaders, whether immediate chiefs or exalted monarchs. (Not too exalted, however; we're not too keen, culturally, on monarchs that get too far from their people, not even divine monarchs.) Thus some heathens describe their relationship with Odin as having elements of a relationship with a manager, someone they work for, by mutual choice. Others see themselves as having less choice, with the deity more like monarch than manager.

Deities provide assistance to human beings, both individually and collectively. This assistance includes practical assistance with tangible things, like food and shelter, employment and health, as well as emotional support and the promotion of psychological integration and spiritual growth.

Such assistance takes various forms. Sometimes, they simply arrange something we want or need, like recovering from some illness, or finding a better job. The mechanism often seems perfectly ordinary; e.g. your doctor reads about a new treatment that proves to work for you. Occasionally, things happen that seem to have no plausible mundane explanation. It's more common for them to simply provide opportunities for us to act upon, such as happening to hear about the perfect job, just in time to apply for it.

They also provide less tangible things. They may make suggestions, either by talking to those of us with the talent for "hearing" them, or by subtly reminding us of things we already know, so that the right idea just pops into our minds, perhaps in a new context. They often provide emotional support: comfort, relaxation, a sense of purpose; intangible things that are nonetheless very important. They may encourage us when things feel hopeless.

Sometimes, too, what they provide is a kind of generic luck. Someone favoured by a deity tends to prosper. They tend to be in the right place at the right time. The flu passes them by, and their car breaks down the day that something terrible happens at their workplace.

This appears, of course, to be an unrealistic theology. Science seems to have left no room for deities to change the future, or individuals to have sustained patterns of luck, except to a statistically insignificant degree. Thus a faith that accepts science is often reduced to claiming that all a deity can or will do is provide encouragement, emotional support, and ideas, working entirely through human minds and human agents. Heathens generally insist that our deities in fact do more than this, though normally staying within what's obviously possible. They specialize in adjusting the timing, or the odds, just a little, so things come together in ways they probably wouldn't have done without that nudge. I can't prove this, and I'm very aware that anecdotal evidence is not proof. Yet I observe it happening, and regularly encounter coreligionists who observe the same thing; in fact, a common reason given for conversion to heathenry is the convert's experience that our deities answered their prayers, whereas those of their previous religion had not.

Deities almost never do things for us without requiring our active co- operation. They may cause our resume to get noticed, but we still have to present ourselves well at the interview. They may comfort us for our failings and help us to improve, but we still have to make amends to those we've wronged, and consciously work at improving. It also seems to be important to them that we ask for their help; while they'll to some extent look out for people who are strongly devoted to them, providing luck and general prosperity, they mostly don't help unless we ask. They almost never do take over and do everything we want or need; and when they do things for us we could have done for ourselves, it's generally trivial things, done in an attempt to get our attention.

Deities also act as role models and inspiration for us. That's one reason there are so very many anthropomorphic stories about them. The stories may not be literally true, but it can be easier to deal with stories than a list of concepts. Stories allow us to form an intuitive impression of their personalities and attitudes, complete with ways in which they balance competing claims. Lists of attributes tend to leave us trying to decide which virtue is more important, as if such a decision could ever be made in abstract. Stories allow us to better answer questions like "What would Odin do" when faced with a decision in our daily life.

It's important to ask not just what deities bring to humans, but what humans bring to deities. Heathens, too, need to ask "What are human beings that you are mindful of them, mortals that you care for them?", though our answers are a little different from the normal Christian or Jewish answers. To heathens, relationships should be mutually beneficial, not flowing only one way, and that includes relationships with deities. Our deities are not so much greater than us that mutuality is unimaginable. On the other hand, they don't need much of what we have, and could easily get it if they wanted to.

The most obvious thing we bring to our deities is relationships. They want to form connections and interact with us. That's part of their nature, and a fortunate thing for us, since the overall effects of involvement with deities tend to be good for human beings. We also bring them gifts, including praise, which they seem to appreciate, artwork, and offerings. The idea of offerings needs some discussion, perhaps, in a paper addressed to people used to Christianity, where people seem to give gifts to the Church, and not directly to their God. The most common ritual in heathenry is the blt, which is the more or less formal giving of gift(s) to one or more deities.

Why would a deity care about being given tangible offerings, like food and drink? They don't turn up physically and eat with us, so what are they getting out of this? What are we doing, when we share our meals with them, particularly on holy days? One theory is that they do somehow consume and use some kind of essence from the food offered, even if it's physically eaten by the local wildlife. Another is that the gift is the effort of preparing the food, or the sacrifice of not consuming it ourselves.

All I'm sure of is that these rituals matter, and the giving of offerings to deities is common in just about every polytheistic or shamanistic religion. It's only members of monotheistic religions that don't generally give gifts directly to their deity, and even then, they often put significant time and money into decorating their churches, synagogues, etc. the better to glorify their deity.

Humans also provide assistance with divine plans. It seems as if deities work through humans, most of the time, to accomplish anything. They seem far better at putting ideas into human minds, or making small adjustments to the odds of possible events, than acting tangibly and visibly in the physical world. (Alternatively, they've some reason for not acting too blatantly.) Either way, we wind up acting on their behalf. This tends, in general, to be good for human communities, but not always good for the individual. It's quite possible to follow one's god or goddess into considerable sacrifice of time, money, comfort, or even life. Some things are, in their eyes, and hopefully also in our eyes, more important than our own personal desires.

Finally, I believe we provide them with change and ideas. My theory is that deities grow and change along with humans, with each group acting as a catalyst to the other. Moreover, there are things we can see better, from a short lived and limited perspective, than they can see from a too broad vantage point. Perhaps life simply tastes sweeter, to a short lived mortal, and they enjoy that taste through their relationship with us.


Deity and Humanity: Implications


Our deities are comparatively limited, and our humans reasonably capable. The relationship isn't one of parity, but it's a lot closer than is normal among monotheists. This means we can reasonably attempt to pull our weight in our relationships with deities. There are real effects of human efforts, even effects on deities. We can be true contributors. Moreover, we can refuse a relationship offered by a deity, or negotiate better terms. But this also forces more responsibility upon us. We don't get to bewail our total helplessness and expect our deities to put everything right.

We have no fall, no total depravity. We also have no perfection, either for humans or deities. Both deities and humans participate in a constant cycle of striving for improvement, and need help and companions in this endeavour. Both humans and deities do better if those companions include both humans and deities, because each has skills and viewpoints the other lacks. Besides, we're both by nature interested in relationships, each with the other.

Our multiplicity of deities gives us relationality for free, without the somewhat confusing mystery of the Trinity. It also gives us alternatives. Some people get along better than others; humans and deities can find relationships particularly to their liking, rather than trying to make one size fit all. At the same time, though, it gives conflict, or potential conflict. Deities don't always agree with each other. They can disagree on means, or even on ends, just as humans can, even while all are well meaning and reasonably well informed.

The principle of Wyrd is a kind of natural law, applying to both humans and deities. It cannot be violated. This provides a partial answer to the problem of evil. Much evil isn't willed, but a result of mistakes and trade offs. It is not possible for anyone to start over with a completely clean slate; much as we would sometimes like to do so. We (humans and deities both) have to play the hand we have, with the results of past decisions and past happenstance. We are also all interconnected, so each of us is affected by far more than our own choices.

Heathenism is inherently pluralist. We expect there to be more deities than just the ones with whom we have formed relationships, and for those deities to share the same general traits of all deities. In particular, we expect them to be basically well meaning, seeking good things for everyone, but particularly those humans with whom they have formed relationships. We also expect them to disagree to some extent with our deities about how to go about creating and enhancing these good things, and to preferentially form relationships with human beings compatible with their ideas. We do not expect our deities and our religious customs to be the best for everyone, and would much rather see those who do not suit our deities stay with those deities and religions they do suit.

Deities and human beings have a lot of common traits. In some ways, deities are very much like humans with more information, longer lifetimes, and without some of the limitations inherent in corporeal existence. We cannot explain this by resorting to ideas of humans being somehow created in the divine image, unless we want to import ideas direct from Christianity. What we can support from our lore, and other historical and archaeological material, is the idea of human beings as being literally kin to the gods. Kings routinely claimed descent from Woden (Odin) even well into the Christian period (e.g. Bede, p.63). Odin is also said to have been the father of Sigi, the ancestor of the Volsungs (Byock 1990, p. 35). Rig's manipulation of human conception in Rigsthula (Poetic Edda p. 201-216) can easily be understood as Rig simply impregnating three human women. (In each case, he is said to get into the same bed with the woman and her husband, and lie between them.) Yet modern people find the idea of a deity siring human children rather hard to accept, given that deities do not seem to manifest with physical bodies. (We have modern heathen claims of many things that modern paradigms would consider either miraculous or delusional, even to the point of subjective experiences of deities as present in ordinary reality. I cannot however, recall any claims of them being as physical as this would require.) Some heathens therefore conclude that we really are partly descended from our deities; others disagree, asking questions about such things as the compatibility of divine and human DNA, and generally ridiculing the suggestion of our kinship with our deities being more than metaphor or adoption.

Heathens cannot plausibly base moral/ethical behaviour on divine commandments. Instead, we behave well because both humans and deities desire general well being, both for individuals and in terms of well functioning societies. An unethical or evil human being is an ill- functioning human, as well as a creator of ill-functioning in his or her community.

This makes our idea of ethics at least somewhat relative, rather than absolute. Some things are simply a matter of what does or does not work to promote wholeness, prosperity, happiness, etc. in a particular situation. One could, I suppose, theorize that there was some particular set of ethical rules which would always work better than any other set, but observation suggests otherwise. And actual effects are what matters here, not theory, because it's the goal that's wanted, not the means of getting there. (This is not to say that any means will do, because everything is interconnected. If I create my prosperity at the expense of all my neighbours, the net result is not a gain.)

Any equivalent to liberation theology falls in the same general category as ethics. We can derive it, but not as a direct commandment or a primary attribute of the nature of deities. It's easy to imagine our deities, seeking general good functioning, being unhappy with societies where a few prosper at the expense of the many, and highly motivated to help the many redress imbalances. They could easily focus most of their efforts wherever they found the greatest need. They could certainly encourage their friends to refrain from treating others unjustly. But I can't see it becoming their one and only focus, unless for some reason an individual deity had a particular relationship to a particular oppressed group. They aren't Jesus, and don't have his specific association with the poor and marginalized. Some individual deities do have associations with particular occupations and social classes, such as Thor's affinity for ordinary folks, and Odin's affinity for poets. I could imagine a liberation Thor, if he had a strong connection with the people of some place where ordinary folks (farmers, labourers, etc) were as badly treated as they seem to be in much of Latin America. But as far as I know the issue has never come up. Things were very different, in the old days, before Christianity. Now the majority of those consciously involved with these deities are in North America, Europe, and perhaps Australia. None of these are known for being particularly oppressive, except to some extent the United States, where the heathen revival has so far been of no interest to most of the usual targets of oppression, except to some extent to relatively privileged women.




Deity and Humanity: Conclusion


In this paper, I have described a heathen view of deities, human beings, and their interrelationship, providing a window into an alternative answer to common human experience. While heathenry is still small, it is my hope that our answers may be of use to others, who doubtless won't accept them in their entirety (which would imply conversion), but may adopt some of them, or even strengthen their own self understanding in arguing against our positions.

What I want to do next is tie in more areas, starting with concepts of authority. Heathens have a somewhat confused attitude to lore and experience, accepting our lore as informative but not entirely authoritative, yet often treating it as giving the final word, at least when we agree with it. As for experience, we have the beginnings of a consensus explanation of how to handle it, but don't seem to in fact follow these methods in practice. I'd also like to go a lot deeper into the area of "ecclesiology" (a term heathens would not use), which is presently the subject of much heated argument.


source: http://www.manygods.org.uk/articles/essays/deity/deities.shtml

You should also post your thoughts or opinions about after reading it.

rainman
Tuesday, March 31st, 2009, 08:42 PM
Deities are people. Real beings huh? Is there any shred of evidence of the physical existence of a living being, alive today known as Odin or Thor?

How do we even know of Odin and Thor? From fragmented myth. Do you also believe that the sun is pulled by a chariot or a six legged goat as the myth also says? Where is the evidence of this? We know that the sun is not moving around the earth as the myth says and can prove it.

Do these deities live in people's heads where only they can see and hear them? None of this makes any sense.

Good luck in adhering to ignorance.

Hrodnand
Tuesday, March 31st, 2009, 09:15 PM
Deities are people.

You seem to misinterpret what he means. It's not to be taken literally.


Deities are people, or at least individuals

...

They are not, however, people in quite the same sense as human people.

...

They appear to be incorporeal, and capable of interacting with individuals in many locations at the same time.






Real beings huh?

As long as they exist in one way or another I consider them real. The definition of "real" shouldn't be restrained exclusively to physical/material existence. A thought or inspiration can not be proved entirely through a physical evidence yet they both are real.




Is there any shred of evidence of the physical existence of a living being, alive today known as Odin or Thor?

No, but who said anything that they would be physically shaped living beings?




How do we even know of Odin and Thor? From fragmented myth.

From myths, folk tales and the manifestation these had upon folk culture in general, especially in the nordic countries, where more or less they survived.




Do you also believe that the sun is pulled by a chariot or a six legged goat as the myth also says?

I don't, that's a metaphor for easier understanding that our ancestors considered helpful.



Where is the evidence of this? We know that the sun is not moving around the earth as the myth says and can prove it.

True, but the Sun has the same natural impact upon life and Nature in general as it had 2000years ago.
Knowing that the Earth moves around the Sun and not vice-versa doesn't make it different that there is a cyclical change in Nature, like it was before, quite influenced by the Sun, that seasons change one after another along with the change of Night after Day, regarding also the consequences these have on people's life.



Do these deities live in people's heads where only they can see and hear them?

What would you expect? That a god in physical shape with a huge hammer descends from the skies in a chariot?



Good luck in adhering to ignorance.

I'm not being ignorant, I just look things from a different perspective and also rely upon my own observations, studies and experiences I had in Nature.

velvet
Wednesday, April 1st, 2009, 12:16 AM
That is a very interesting article, thanks for posting it!

Although I'm atheist, this is very much like the thoughts I had in general about this, the relations and interacting. Also the picture of society is quite near to my own imagination about it.


Rainman: when you take those myths literally, they've failed their mission. They are much more like frames in which a 'general truth' plays a roll. And this you can take literally, it is like a theatre play with a payoff, which is supposed to support you in your ways through 'wyrd'. They are allegories of the general truth, which manifest in the nine virtues, in our traditions, in our culture.

And remember, heathen gods do not claim absolutism, they rather proclaim progress. It was quite common in older times to believe the sun runs around the earth (despite a quite anvanced knowledge about astronomy), in contrast to christian belief though this was not cemented, it was, like every other thing, at every time questionable.
As Hrodnand says, the fact, that there is no chariot, no goats, no wolfes that eat the moon each morning, does not affect the general truth that is wrapped into the allegory.

PendaMercia
Wednesday, April 1st, 2009, 02:16 AM
Deities are people. Real beings huh? Is there any shred of evidence of the physical existence of a living being, alive today known as Odin or Thor?

How do we even know of Odin and Thor? From fragmented myth. Do you also believe that the sun is pulled by a chariot or a six legged goat as the myth also says? Where is the evidence of this? We know that the sun is not moving around the earth as the myth says and can prove it.

Do these deities live in people's heads where only they can see and hear them? None of this makes any sense.

Good luck in adhering to ignorance.

The ignorance is in thinking that contemporary quasi-Germanic perception, experience and definition of reality is ANYTHING like what that reality was when 'Asatru' was mainstream. Even more ignorant is believing that contemporary, bastardized, highly reduced criteria of reality is the only 'correct' or even possible reality.

There is no way to start in any kind of explanation. Study the evolution of epistemology in the culture, study the ancient languages, learn how they evolved to what we have now, and read the lore in the language it was written, in the sense it was written. Then a person may begin to understand how Aesir and Asynjur are very much real beings.

Empirical Science originally intended as a tool has been elevated to role of deity its self, lept from the tool-box and now makes tools of us. As reductionism, this diety continues to reduce reality to such narrow confines that soon even human sentience will be considered a thing of myth. It is the zeitgeist that the pious have allowed to emerge. Let us put the tool back into its categorical box and embrace our most sacred ancestors (Aesir) once again.

One only need explore parallel predicates such as phenomenology/phenomenalism to see that empirical science really is only a tool we use to shape our reality, should not be something that uses us as tools to shape its reality.

In our greed to craft forms, we have entirely neglected the development of any intent to define the forms we craft. The intent goes down the toilet with the Aesir and human sentience and the crafting-tool is what decides the form and shape of reality. The result is a race of mindless consumer/producer drones that can't cope effectively with any reality outside of the little fabricated boxes they live in and work in and play in.

sorry for the rant and no offense intended to you personally, but we need to break away from what is killing us.

rainman
Wednesday, April 1st, 2009, 02:36 AM
No if you read the article it says the gods are not psychic forces (that is spiritual- energy). That they are not archtypes or aspects of a universal being. It says bluntly they are alive like humans. So if I feel the spiritual presense of the gods according to that article that isn't the gods. The gods are real. Or if I take spinozia's logical philosophy of the unity of all things being in its entirity god this also is not acceptable as the gods are not one.

It is very clear in what it says. Which seems highly illogical to me. I've talked to people who have told me that a Norse god came down from the sky and talked to them and then left but I really don't believe it.

I can't really have a product conversation with anybody that doesn't believe in logic or science. In which case you can be open to believe anything. 2+2=8 if you think its so. I just don't operate that way.

I believe in that which is beyond human measurement. A spiritual view of the world that holds the mysteries of existance and life in high regard. I believe in feeling and communing with the divine and psychic forces of the universe, and being connected to the gods and ancestors as well as future descendants through the web of wyrd. Do I believe the gods are physical living entities- no. Spiritual entities- yes. Psychic forces if you want to label it that way- yes.

PendaMercia
Wednesday, April 1st, 2009, 03:10 AM
No if you read the article it says the gods are not psychic forces (that is spiritual- energy). That they are not archtypes or aspects of a universal being. It says bluntly they are alive like humans. So if I feel the spiritual presense of the gods according to that article that isn't the gods. The gods are real. Or if I take spinozia's logical philosophy of the unity of all things being in its entirity god this also is not acceptable as the gods are not one.

I didn't read the entire article. I responded to your statements at face value.



It is very clear in what it says. Which seems highly illogical to me. I've talked to people who have told me that a Norse god came down from the sky and talked to them and then left but I really don't believe it.

I can't really have a product conversation with anybody that doesn't believe in logic or science. In which case you can be open to believe anything. 2+2=8 if you think its so. I just don't operate that way.

lol...I see where you stand. I have known such people. Interesting as pathologies but that is about it.



I believe in that which is beyond human measurement. A spiritual view of the world that holds the mysteries of existence and life in high regard. I believe in feeling and communing with the divine and psychic forces of the universe, and being connected to the gods and ancestors as well as future descendants through the web of wyrd. Do I believe the gods are physical living entities- no. Spiritual entities- yes. Psychic forces if you want to label it that way- yes.

Well the central thrust of my rant was simply to advocate being open the Aesir as our ancestors. We are the living manifestation of our ancestors, the Aesir included. I do not think primates are our ancestors. At some biological point between primate and homo sapien there is ask and embala, simple purely organic beings with no sentience.

There is more to science than the emperical science modern people have made into religion. Check phenomenology, emergence, etc. empirical science has us still at the 'ask and embala' stage. This really is about an overpersute of techne at the expense of epistime. More later perhaps, but know that there is sound logical basis for the physical existence of gods. Its just not what is obvious, expected or empirically reductive.

rainman
Wednesday, April 1st, 2009, 04:54 AM
Elves= "white" ancestors. Aeisir & Vanir= ancestors. I can agree with that.

PendaMercia
Wednesday, April 1st, 2009, 06:57 AM
One last note concerning phenomenological science vs empirical science: Nietzsche's Will to Power was meant by him as not only a psychological concept but a more correct theory of evolution, and not only a theory of evolution but a physics. The work of Boscovich, Ngeli, Dumont, Rolph, (and others) culminated with Nietzsche but never reached that point of 'critical mass' in emergence as an actual science. As it were, this science in utero, was a science predicated on phenomenology/ism rather than what would become reductive empiricism.

Science is predicated on philosophy of science, which in turn is predicated on
epistemology. Unlike other elements of our Germanic civilization, contemporary science has developed in linear fashion directly from a single element within epistemology, and then philosophy of science. This molar, uni-polar growth is an aberration. This becomes more and more evident as we are finding that reductive Empirical Science is unfalsifiable as a method.

Enough of that. I just wanted to point out a contrast between empirical science (our view of reality now) and other equally (if not more so) logical forms that science has and can take. :)

Response to the actual article (apologies to Hrodnand for semi-derailment):

It appears to me to be a well-intended but short-sighted piece. Missing is any exploration of apotheosis, which was very much alive and well throughout the 'Heathen' era. Any discussion of gods and men should include the ways that men become gods. Unless we are talking about a religion in which there is an invincible barrier between divinity and humanity. There is no reason to think that such a barrier existed between the ancient theod and their gods. To the contrary, the path of a leader was divine in both origin and destination. Not a named god, but of the gods.

Interesting article, thank you for posting it.

Hrodnand
Wednesday, April 1st, 2009, 11:05 AM
No if you read the article it says the gods are not psychic forces (that is spiritual- energy).

So if I feel the spiritual presense of the gods according to that article that isn't the gods. The gods are real. Or if I take spinozia's logical philosophy of the unity of all things being in its entirity god this also is not acceptable as the gods are not one.

I can't recall any statement in the text where this is stated.
You mention psychic force or spiritual energy. Now, I'm asking the question: Isn't a strong thought or a feeling of inspiration considered as spiritual energy? I respect scientific analogies and terms that are more than just speculations, but I definitely hate it when things are being complicated because we keep backing up to scientific explanations, instead of understanding the way how our ancestors interpreted the deities and their impact, let alone their relation with them.
This should be the first task, to understand how our ancestors thought about and considered the gods and try to imagine a mindset where there weren't any former scientists whom to quote. They mostly relied upon simple observation and understanding of their own internal and external. The experiences they had, were incorporated into their own folk culture, art and philosophy in a way that most people would call today "primitive", but it was more about easier understanding. It was pretty much a world of "simplicity" compared to the one we have today.

(I've put simplicity in quotes because what I mean is that though it was a world harsher than ours it was more simple to understand.)

So when dealing with heathenism "psychic force" or the gods should not be necessarily understood as terms explained by various scientists or philosophers. The essence of things is usually in simplicity and I suppose this is why our own heathen ancestors understood and interpreted the gods in a simple way, because that was a way that worked for them and helped them to reach the goal of heathenism.



That they are not archtypes or aspects of a universal being. It says bluntly they are alive like humans. So if I feel the spiritual presense of the gods according to that article that isn't the gods.

I think it is to be understood that the traits of the gods are more likely to be associated with archetypes than the gods themselves.

Such in Nature, that a thunderstorm doesn't represents Donar(Thor) itself but rather the thundering nature of him.

I would go even more further. A thought or inspiration motivates a human person for action that manifests itself in physical or material reality as a change.
Analyzing and observing the nature of that manifestation we will conclude who caused it and how the nature of the causer is. Now, a thunderstorm can be a similar physical manifestation that was formerly caused by the deity. While observing the nature of a natural phenomena (which is a physical manifestation) we can conclude who "caused it"(a thunderstorm relates to Donar(Thor) while a silent rain to Frey).
In both cases (humans and gods) we realize that there is a link between the one who causes the change and the manifestation of the change itself, yet they are not the same.



It is very clear in what it says. Which seems highly illogical to me.
I've talked to people who have told me that a Norse god came down from the sky and talked to them and then left but I really don't believe it.

Did that person mean it literally, that a god in physical shape came down to him?




I can't really have a product conversation with anybody that doesn't believe in logic or science. In which case you can be open to believe anything. 2+2=8 if you think its so. I just don't operate that way.


Logic and science are good tools for better understanding in some cases. But when dealing with the gods it might be useless in other cases, because we need a lot more to learn and understand.


We do not fully understand the nature of deities. This is partly because modern heathenism is a new or newly revived religion, still in the process of discovery. However, it seems likely that there are aspects of their nature which are either completely unknowable by humans or merely unexplainable, possible to be experienced by mystics but never explained to someone without that experience.

velvet
Wednesday, April 1st, 2009, 12:50 PM
It is very clear in what it says. Which seems highly illogical to me. I've talked to people who have told me that a Norse god came down from the sky and talked to them and then left but I really don't believe it.

I can't really have a product conversation with anybody that doesn't believe in logic or science. In which case you can be open to believe anything. 2+2=8 if you think its so. I just don't operate that way.

Science and logic is not the end of the road. Some hundred years ago people 'knew' the world is flat and the sun walks around it as well as the moon. That was a scientifical fact. In the beginning of 20th century the smallest imaginable particles have been molecules, it was a scientifical fact that there cant be anything smaller. It was proven wrong when Curie splittet the atom.

I tell you that to make you think that science and 'logic' do not hold the final truth. And in special, our today's view onto logic is a closed-minded view onto the world. Logic and rationalism has seperated us from nature (I dont even say gods), because we unlearned to listen to our emotions, to our spirituality, to the whispers of nature.

It is good to work with logic and rationalism where it is appropiate, but there are, especially when it comes to the human mind, areas where logic and rationalism just prevents you from seeing the big picture. People are not always logic and rational. And that is not bad at all, it makes us human.

exit
Wednesday, April 1st, 2009, 02:55 PM
We believe that there are many deities, and these are not simply ways of looking at a single transcendent deity.

You can believe that but you're wrong. The gods are to put it simply different states of consciousness. Whereas the gods are spiritual the giants are psychic. Anything short of this and the myths lose their meaning and rites and their goals become superficial. Why practice any sort of tradition if not to transcend in the proper sense of this word? There is no answer that justifies it from my perspective.


Deities are people, or at least individuals, not symbols or personifications of natural forces.

I'm sorry but that is just absurd. Your basing this conclusion on what exactly? Sounds like neospiritism...


We do not fully understand the nature of deities.

You're starting from an error, how could you come to an understanding based on that?

Try this: Man is a giant who doesn't know that he is a god. The question then is how does man realize his god-nature?

Hrodnand
Wednesday, April 1st, 2009, 03:25 PM
You can believe that but you're wrong. The gods are to put it simply different states of consciousness.

And that would be like?



Whereas the gods are spiritual the giants are psychic.

Define the difference between the two. What is spiritual to you in everyday life and what is psychical?



Why practice any sort of tradition if not to transcend in the proper sense of this word? There is no answer that justifies it from my perspective.

I don't see any barrier that would prevent us from "transcending" while adapting some of the ideas mentioned in the essay.




I'm sorry but that is just absurd. Your basing this conclusion on what exactly? Sounds like neospiritism...

Neospiritism, huh? You should consider it as an option for better understanding instead of labeling it.



They are not, however, people in quite the same sense as human people.

...

They appear to be incorporeal, and capable of interacting with individuals in many locations at the same time.





You're starting from an error, how could you come to an understanding based on that?

And what would be that error?




Try this: Man is a giant who doesn't know that he is a god.

Now this is absurd to me.
The fact that humans can have both god-like and jtun (giant) traits doesn't make them gods neither jtuns.




The question then is how does man realize his god-nature?

The similarities between the gods and humans have been well elaborated in the essay.

exit
Wednesday, April 1st, 2009, 03:33 PM
I don't see any barrier that would prevent us from "transcending".


One doesn't transcend by "consulting a deity". The problem here is that this philosophy doesn't go beyond the extra-corporeal, which including seeing the deities as individual "persons", is very much like spiritism, all that's missing is reincarnationism and I know that many heathens believe in that too.

I've already discussed the spiritual and psychic in other threads and see no point in repeating it here.

Grimsteinr
Wednesday, April 1st, 2009, 03:46 PM
I agree with very much of it, most of it.....(surprise, surprise, for those who know me)..........But.....

I realize that many Folks deny the existence of the Gods, Our Gods, any Gods.
If they are Our Folk, we regard them as "the Folk Without", those who have not completely come Home to the Folkways of Our Ancestors. There are some Folk in the Community who simply can not concieve of Deity/Divinity.

And I realize that among the "Folk Within", those of Our Folk who have come back to the Folkways Our Ancestors walked, in varying degrees of completeness, there are Various Perceptions and Levels of Perception, of
Our Ancestral Gods, that we each have. And so, there are varying Ways that we Interact with the Gods.

There are also some of Our Folk who have had "UPG's", that is Unusual Personal Gnosis, experiences. Or, Unsubstantiated Personal Gnosis, experiences.
These are Unsubstantiated Personal Gnosis that is Knowledge or Experiences of or with the Gods. I'm not sure which of many things might trigger these.
But, Im sure that they happen to some Folks. And, They are frequently Profound.

Many people deny the possibility of a "UPG". Many people also deny the possiblity or the existance of "the occult". These Folks can probably never understand the Belief in Gods as Individual Entities or maybe even a human soul, that lives on after Death.
We all have different Levels of Perception, within ourselves, according to the Experiences we have had, and the Knowledge we have gained of the World, the Universe, Seen and Unseen.

It's something that you cannot Prove, or Disprove. The Believers simply Believe. They accept things that are Beyond Logic, because of their experiences. I'm a Believer.
The Skeptics, the cynics simpy Can Not Believe. Logic will not allow them to.
And, "Never the Twain shall Meet".

Hrodnand
Wednesday, April 1st, 2009, 03:48 PM
One doesn't transcend by "consulting a deity".

"Consulting a deity" is not to be taken literally as it was already mentioned in former posts. Sitting down and thinking about a solution for a problem while thinking also on a particular deity can be a form of "consulting"too.




The problem here is that this philosophy doesn't go beyond the extra-corporeal, which including seeing the deities as individual "persons",

Already wrote about that. Also don't forget that this essay is a starting point, an idea, not a precise overall conclusion about heathenism or about how heathenism should be practiced. It's a point that was written in a certain context for better understanding. But of course ,those who can't see the forest for a tree will never get the point.




is very much like spiritism, all that's missing is reincarnationism and I know that many heathens believe in that too.


"Very much like it" is not the same as "it's neospiritism".
I didn't meet any true heathen who would have claimed any belief in the original eastern views of reincarnation.



I've already discussed the spiritual and psychic in other threads and see no point in repeating it here.

Well, fell free to elaborate it here, I discuss my ideas whenever they are needed.

velvet
Wednesday, April 1st, 2009, 04:26 PM
I'm sorry but that is just absurd. Your basing this conclusion on what exactly? Sounds like neospiritism...

I've noticed your hostility against anything 'neo' before (in the Varg thread, where you stated that he is only a neopaganist), here you conclude that someone is, because you interprete it as such, neospiritual.

You miss or ignore consciously, that people simply can be spiritual, simply can be heathen, far beyond anything that would qualify them as 'neopagans' in the sense of the new age movement.

Now I'd like to ask you: what are you? What belief do you have, do you see yourself as pagan/heathen, and if, in which way?

Hyperboreanar
Wednesday, April 1st, 2009, 04:30 PM
How do we even know of Odin and Thor? From fragmented myth. Do you also believe that the sun is pulled by a chariot or a six legged goat as the myth also says? Where is the evidence of this? We know that the sun is not moving around the earth as the myth says and can prove it.

Ancient and Medieval historical writings relate certain pagan figures to real progenitors of European linages.

Woden for example is detailed in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as the first ancestor of all Anglo-Saxons.

Myths have thus been verified by historical writings.


Good luck in adhering to ignorance.

You don't understand what mythology is. Seriously.

And whoever wrote this (i think it was exit):


I'm sorry but that is just absurd. Your basing this conclusion on what exactly? Sounds like neospiritism...

See what i stated above. Gods and other figures of myth are stated as progenitors in old historical writings.

Gods appear as real people in historical writings not just mythological texts.

Hrodnand
Wednesday, April 1st, 2009, 04:56 PM
I would like to make a statement here just to avoid any further complications:
I don't want to see here the post of members who only "pass by" on this thread and they post only because they are "in the mood" for it. I've made this thread with serious intentions to debate with members, but only with those who have read the entire essay. Arguing about superficial aspects of the essay will not lead us anywhere.
So please, if you are interested take the time and read it from the top to the bottom before you post your ideas. This post was not directed to anyone personally.

exit
Wednesday, April 1st, 2009, 06:08 PM
I realize that many Folks deny the existence of the Gods, Our Gods, any Gods.

Rejecting the modern heretical belief that gods are individual beings is not denying their existence but rather adhering to the truth.


It's something that you cannot Prove, or Disprove. The Believers simply Believe.

There is no such thing as a "personal gnosis". Gnosis meaning knowledge is universal and does not change from person to person. To say otherwise is to deny the laws of the universe. Proof, therefore, requires a knowledge in the person.


"Consulting a deity" is not to be taken literally as it was already mentioned in former posts. Sitting down and thinking about a solution for a problem while thinking also on a particular deity can be a form of "consulting"too.


Thought does not transcend. Furthermore, how can anyone claim to have the "spiritual influence" which is required for all rites and transcendence when they haven't even had a valid initiation?


I didn't meet any true heathen who would have claimed any belief in the original eastern views of reincarnation.

Reincarnation is a modern heretical view and has nothing to do with any orthodox doctrine eastern or western.



See what i stated above. Gods and other figures of myth are stated as progenitors in old historical writings.

Gods appear as real people in historical writings not just mythological texts.

Anthropromorphic symbolism shouldn't be taken literally.

Hrodnand
Wednesday, April 1st, 2009, 06:38 PM
Thought does not transcend. Furthermore, how can anyone claim to have the "spiritual influence" which is required for all rites and transcendence when they haven't even had a valid initiation?


How can anyone claim that one person is wrong about it or has not a valid initiation, without actually knowing that person?
I believe that rites actually were not performed so often in the old times as we would imagine it today. They were performed on important events, like birth, wedding, death, or at the major feasts of the year, but it wasn't like going to the church every Sunday. In other occasions people did practice a certain rite on their own, but don't imagine it like a mass in the church. A few minutes of well thought and profound consideration before setting off for a task, can also be considered as a rite, though smaller but no less important than the great ones.




Reincarnation is a modern heretical view and has nothing to do with any orthodox doctrine eastern or western.

Not exactly.



Reincarnation

Belief in reincarnation has ancient roots. This doctrine is a central tenet within the majority of Indian religious traditions, such as Hinduism (including Yoga, Vaishnavism, and Shaivism), Jainism. The idea was also entertained by some ancient Greek philosophers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation




There is no such thing as a "personal gnosis". Gnosis meaning knowledge is universal and does not change from person to person. To say otherwise is to deny the laws of the universe. Proof, therefore, requires a knowledge in the person.

It does change, because not everyone experiences the universe in the same way. That's why cultures and religions differ on the globe. Experience can be collective but also individual and both are essential for improvement, gnosis(knowledge) is also based on experience (or it should be based on it) and it is what embraces and "collects" the individuals from a particular culture.

exit
Wednesday, April 1st, 2009, 06:52 PM
How can anyone claim that one person is wrong about it or has not a valid initiation, without actually knowing that person?

When the person obviously displays heretical views... And I read other papers on that site, which claimed to base reconstructed religion on books and archeology, and mentioned neopaganism, spiritism, the Golden Dawn, etc., not one valid initiatic chain, nor even a mention of initiatic rites.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation

Wikipedia? I've already debunked the reincarnation myth. Reincarnation is not the same thing as transmigration.


It does change, because not everyone experiences the universe in the same way.

If it changes then it isn't gnosis. Gnosis is something very defined, not a mere figure of speech. Metaphysics is the absolutely real.

Hrodnand
Wednesday, April 1st, 2009, 07:12 PM
When the person obviously displays heretical views... And I read other papers on that site.

I was actually pointing it towards you, hoping that you would get it.

What about the other papers anyway?




Wikipedia? I've already debunked the reincarnation myth. Reincarnation is not the same thing as transmigration.

Then you would please be kind and provide us the explanation that you consider worthy and right for reincarnation.




If it changes then it isn't gnosis. Gnosis is something very defined, not a mere figure of speech.


But the figure of speech not necessarily influences the gnosis behind it, especially in heathenism. Gnosis is that the Sun rises on the East and goes down on the West, that days are shorter in wintertime than they are in summertime, also that by getting out in a blizzard can get you frozen.
The figure of speech was different 2000 years ago, but it didn't change the core wisdom of these observations, but it helped for a better understanding.
For example when I see an icicle I remember the Isa rune, because they both share the same shape, had I looked different doesn't change the fact that an icicle is a mark of frost. Observing this I can easier understand the role of Isa as a rune, also it provides me wisdom.
The fact that you can measure temperature on a degree level and know that there are minus 10 degrees Celsius instead of minus 11 doesn't make it different that you can die in both circumstances if you're not well prepared and trained for it.

velvet
Wednesday, April 1st, 2009, 07:16 PM
Rejecting the modern heretical belief that gods are individual beings is not denying their existence but rather adhering to the truth.

And that would be what? What is the truth?



Thought does not transcend. Furthermore, how can anyone claim to have the "spiritual influence" which is required for all rites and transcendence when they haven't even had a valid initiation?

So you think one needs a valid initiation, like baptism, circumcision or another of man's perversion to be allowed to be spiritual?
No one talked about 'spiritual influence' but about personal experiences.
Heathens are not priests who preach the allmighty wisdom like christian priests. And that so-called 'allmighty wisdom' is what keeps humans from transcending. Thought is the source of progress, without thought there wouldnt be any inventions, no transcending. Thought and the forming of will out of the thought gives us the spark to transcend in the very first place.

The old traditions had as only rule 'to become more', through thinking, through experience, through learning, through studying, through working, but no one said there must be rules how to do this.
This is a very close-minded (monotheistic) view to first demand for rules and a frame in which people are allowed to think, given by and forced unto the individual with the initiation. That this has nothing to do with becoming more or better has shown the middle ages very clearly, it was not progress but rather regress culminating in today's degenerated masses of thoughtless people.

exit
Wednesday, April 1st, 2009, 07:26 PM
Gnosis is that the Sun rises on the East and goes down on the West, that days are shorter in wintertime than they are in summertime, also that by getting out in a blizzard can get you frozen.


That is not gnosis. Gnosis is metaphysics which I also explained in another thread. Metaphysics is supra-formal, whereas what you described is physics.


And that would be what? What is the truth?


Not "heathen atheism"!

Hrodnand
Wednesday, April 1st, 2009, 07:35 PM
That is not gnosis. Gnosis is metaphysics which I also explained in another thread. Metaphysics is supra-formal, whereas what you described is physics.


You've said that gnosis is knowledge:


Gnosis meaning knowledge is universal and does not change from person to person.


So if gnosis is methaphysics then also explain what is very defined in methaphysics, as you've also said that methaphysics is something very defined.




And I read other papers on that site, which claimed to base reconstructed religion on books and archeology, and mentioned neopaganism, spiritism, the Golden Dawn, etc., not one valid initiatic chain, nor even a mention of initiatic rites.


Don't forget that each paper has different author and the person who wrote this is not the author of the other papers.

velvet
Wednesday, April 1st, 2009, 07:44 PM
Not "heathen atheism"!

That doesnt answer the question. What is the truth? You claim you own the final and undisputable truth, so please share it.

Gnosis btw is not metaphysics, gnosis is 'the knowledge ONE gains through life's experiences', gnosis refers to research, which is a constant and ever ongoing process.

exit
Thursday, April 2nd, 2009, 02:38 PM
Gnosis btw is not metaphysics, gnosis is 'the knowledge ONE gains through life's experiences', gnosis refers to research, which is a constant and ever ongoing process.

How would an atheist which is to say agnostic know what gnosis is if you don't even believe in it in the first place? And why do certain heathens insist on stripping everything supernatural and metaphysical from traditions and replacing it with common experiences?

Hrodnand
Thursday, April 2nd, 2009, 06:34 PM
And why do certain heathens insist on stripping everything supernatural and metaphysical from traditions and replacing it with common experiences?

Because the seeds of the"supernatural" and the "metaphysical" are in experiences that you call "common". Because a "common" experience teaches and offers a lot more wisdom to a heathen individual than distant terms that sometimes seem rather to over complicate everything instead of helping for a better understanding.

velvet
Thursday, April 2nd, 2009, 06:37 PM
How would an atheist which is to say agnostic know what gnosis is if you don't even believe in it in the first place? And why do certain heathens insist on stripping everything supernatural and metaphysical from traditions and replacing it with common experiences?

I asked you before what you are, in what you believe. You didnt answer. I asked you what your so-called truth is, you dont answer but hide behind 'common places', a bunch of prejudices and aggressivity.
If you would have read my posts concerning the statement 'heathen atheist' (which is something different from atheism), you would know that I dont exclude spirituality. Instead you think you can attack me just because you believe that I dont believe in nothing and, like any other christian superhero believer thinks he's 'chosen' to decide that, thus are not worthy to talk to.

One last time: what do you believe in and what is your so-called truth? Maybe an answer without attacking me? By the way, also Hrodnand asked you the same questions, but it seems, you think you're the only chosen one here and thus can tell anyone that they are only neopagans. Maybe you want to remember, that if that is so, then you are also only a neopagan.

triedandtru
Thursday, April 2nd, 2009, 06:40 PM
Because the seeds of the"supernatural" and the "metaphysical" are in experiences that you call "common".

"Mundane" and overlooked aspects of life are a problem I have with a lot of Judeo-Christian religions. The religion and spirituality of followers are not often times a part of how they live their lives, but sometimes an entirely separate entity altogether. They have to find the divine outside of themselves (and ignore the beauty around them) in some far off being that has this great power over them an enables them not to have to accept responsibility for anything they do or anything that happens to them.

rainman
Thursday, April 2nd, 2009, 07:06 PM
There are so many different (and contradicting) opinions of what Asatru believes or is.

As I take it Asatru has two parts: one part deals with the community. This is mainly culture, customs, rituals, morals, some philosophy about how a society should run etc. The second part: is personal spirituality and is more personal.

In my version of Asatru for example we have "suggested" beliefs regarding deity and supranatural but you can still be Asatruar even if you don't accept those. It doesn't matter to me much personally how you view our gods, just that you respect them as an aspect of our culture and that you live by certain principles within the community. I think what is personal is personal and what pertains to the community is the business of the community.

exit
Thursday, April 2nd, 2009, 07:10 PM
Because the seeds of the"supernatural" and the "metaphysical" are in experiences that you call "common". .

I couldn't disagree more.


Because a "common" experience teaches and offers a lot more wisdom to a heathen individual than distant terms that sometimes seem rather to over complicate everything instead of helping for a better understanding

Sounds like an inversion. I already told you that gnosis and other terminology are not mere "figures of speech" yet you continue to treat them as such? Gnosis must be experienced but it is not simply any experience nor can it be reduced to an experience. I don't see how a common experience teaches anything about spiritual knowledge unless you completely change the definition of spiritual like others have gnosis.

Hrodnand
Thursday, April 2nd, 2009, 08:08 PM
I already told you that gnosis and other terminology are not mere "figures of speech" yet you continue to treat them as such? Gnosis must be experienced but it is not simply any experience nor can it be reduced to an experience.

I didn't say that experience is the one and only that matters when one deals with the deities. But experience is the basement of everything. After the experience occurred then comes folk culture, mythology, the sagas, the works of several authors who instead of quoting scientific terms and putting on them as labels, focus on the core wisdom of the old.
Sooner or later with serious thinking and consideration upon these one might understand the meaning.




I don't see how a common experience teaches anything about spiritual knowledge unless you completely change the definition of spiritual like others have gnosis.

Why? can't there be anything "spiritual" while experiencing the might of a thunderstorm?
To give you an example I was always fascinated by thunderstorms since my earliest days as a child.
However, there was a strange thing that occurred to me every time I saw a thunderstorm coming with its strength. Whenever I gazed into the heavy rain and saw the lightnings intensely striking down while hearing the heavy blasts of the thunder my tears started to run in my amazement. I've noticed this happening in my youth for the first time and told my mother, who then let me know that this already occurred to me since my early childhood such as it occurs to me these days as well.
Though I didn't know anything about Donar(Thor) back then, yet I definitely call it as a "spiritual experience".
So I don't see why couldn't similar like this happen with anyone who has the capability or the will to look at "common things" a bit differently than "common".

triedandtru
Thursday, April 2nd, 2009, 09:11 PM
Why? can't there be anything "spiritual" while experiencing the might of a thunderstorm?
To give you an example I was always fascinated by thunderstorms since my earliest days as a child.
However, there was a strange thing that occurred to me every time I saw a thunderstorm coming with its strength. Whenever I gazed into the heavy rain and saw the lightnings intensely striking down while hearing the heavy blasts of the thunder my tears started to run in my amazement. I've noticed this happening in my youth for the first time and told my mother, who then let me know that this occurred to me since my early childhood such as it occurs to me these days as well.
Though I didn't know anything about Donar(Thor) back then, yet I definitely call it as a "spiritual experience".
So I don't see why couldn't similar like this happen with anyone who has the capability or the will to look at "common things" a bit differently than "common".

There is most definitely something spiritual and magnificent about a thunderstorm. A blot to Thor during a storm, I have to say, is a most intense experience.

exit
Friday, April 3rd, 2009, 12:16 AM
Though I didn't know anything about Donar(Thor) back then, yet I definitely call it as a "spiritual experience".


Spiritual is not what I would call it, maybe sentimental. But more to the point, Thor isn't thunder, but rather a symbol for a certain intellectual/spiritual/metaphysical principle. Again, the starting point that the gods are not metaphysical symbols is an error. I would agree that they are not personifications of nature, but then you obviously disagree with the article too since it seems that you are claiming thunder as an experience of Thor??? Whatever the case, this sort of individualistic mysticism which is common to heathenism doesn't go very far and is not a substitute for a proper initiation.

Hrodnand
Friday, April 3rd, 2009, 12:52 AM
Spiritual is not what I would call it, maybe sentimental.

Ah yes, we are once again loosing ourselves in the details also you seem to know it better what and how I've experienced. :oanieyes




But more to the point, Thor isn't thunder, but rather a symbol for a certain intellectual/spiritual/metaphysical principle. Again, the starting point that the gods are not metaphysical symbols is an error. I would agree that they are not personifications of nature, but then you obviously disagree with the article too since it seems that you are claiming thunder as an experience of Thor???


I can't recall where I've written that Donar(Thor) would be thunder itself.

Re read my former posts in this thread, I've written it clearly that natural phenomena and their manifestation are not the deities themselves but they rather reflect the nature of the deities. I'm not going to re quote myself just because you are ignorant on what I've posted earlier.




Whatever the case, this sort of individualistic mysticism which is common to heathenism doesn't go very far and is not a substitute for a proper initiation.

And what "proper" initiation would you require?

As long as certain ideas work for me while they help me to understand and to improve I consider them "proper".



Again, the starting point that the gods are not metaphysical symbols is an error.

And where is stated that they are apart from anything metaphysical?

triedandtru
Friday, April 3rd, 2009, 01:15 AM
Spiritual is not what I would call it, maybe sentimental. But more to the point, Thor isn't thunder, but rather a symbol for a certain intellectual/spiritual/metaphysical principle. Again, the starting point that the gods are not metaphysical symbols is an error. I would agree that they are not personifications of nature, but then you obviously disagree with the article too since it seems that you are claiming thunder as an experience of Thor??? Whatever the case, this sort of individualistic mysticism which is common to heathenism doesn't go very far and is not a substitute for a proper initiation.

Sentimental? Are you meaning to under-mind someone else's experience because YOU have not yourself felt the same?

Also, how someone else's perceives the Gods has to do with their personal spirituality. Do you have some sort of definitive hold upon heathenism that gives you the gaul to judge another's ideas about how they connect with the Gods? And indeed what sort of "initiation" would YOU find suitable?

Furthermore, I am failing to see where there was any statement that Thor is thunder by anyone other than yourself.

exit
Friday, April 3rd, 2009, 01:29 AM
Ah yes, we are once again loosing ourselves in the details

Do I have a right to disagree with you?



I can't recall where I've written that Donar(Thor) would be thunder itself

Yet I wrote: "it seems that you are claiming thunder as an experience of Thor???"


Re read my former posts in this thread, I've written it clearly that natural phenomena and their manifestation are not the deities themselves but they rather reflect the nature of the deities.

That's splitting hairs.



And where is stated that they are apart from anything metaphysical

There is nothing metaphysical in this article, which is in fact anti-metaphysical...

Hrodnand
Friday, April 3rd, 2009, 08:58 AM
Do I have a right to disagree with you?

Well disagree, that won't change the fact of what I've experienced.



That's splitting hairs.

No, actually that's being precise about what I've said.




There is nothing metaphysical in this article, which is in fact anti-metaphysical...

That is because you consider "metaphysical" as something like a religious doctrine, a term that is strictly determined. It's the worst thing one could do while being a heathen or commenting upon heathenism.

velvet
Friday, April 3rd, 2009, 01:06 PM
I consider it utterly waste of time to discuss any further with exit, after I've read this thread (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=109861&page=2) and in particular this comment:


It's impossible to discuss these matters with heathens since their sources of information and methods of interpretation are all completely wrong.

exit
Friday, April 3rd, 2009, 03:32 PM
No, actually that's being precise about what I've said.


I understood you just fine, however I disagree with what you wrote.


That is because you consider "metaphysical" as something like a religious doctrine, a term that is strictly determined.

No, religious doctrine involves theology which is a narrow limitation on metaphysics. However, metaphysics is a sacred science which has its own set of rules just as any other science does.


It's the worst thing one could do while being a heathen or commenting upon heathenism

Intellectual anarchy resulting from free inquiry is the worst thing because it recognizes no standards. You asked for my opinion and I gave it. Safeguarding definitions and truth is the most positive thing anyone can do regarding spirituality.

Now, what sort of objective proof do you have that gods are individual beings? You haven't offered any but your own feelings which is the last thing that I'd consider objective.

velvet
Friday, April 3rd, 2009, 04:13 PM
Intellectual anarchy resulting from free inquiry is the worst thing because it recognizes no standards. You asked for my opinion and I gave it. Safeguarding definitions and truth is the most positive thing anyone can do regarding spirituality.

Now, what sort of objective proof do you have that gods are individual beings? You haven't offered any but your own feelings which is the last thing that I'd consider objective.

But you believe your monotheistic and screechingly jewish/christian way of interpretation is objective?
What you call intellectual anarchy results directly from polytheism, which you deny that it exists at all. Please stick to your hermetic religion, but please do not try to reconstruct and pervert the polytheistic worldview of heathens that it fits into you hermetical closed belief, or whatever you consider it is.
You even claim that it is wrong to use the original literature for interpretion in your pamphlet.

I'm utterly shocked about such a level of ignorance.

Hrodnand
Friday, April 3rd, 2009, 11:03 PM
I understood you just fine, however I disagree with what you wrote.

No, religious doctrine involves theology which is a narrow limitation on metaphysics. However, metaphysics is a sacred science which has its own set of rules just as any other science does.

Now, what sort of objective proof do you have that gods are individual beings? You haven't offered any but your own feelings which is the last thing that I'd consider objective.


Heathenism is not science nor mathematics where one creates objective rules just because one fails to understand its meaning and considers that it would be easier to "cage" it.

I don't want to prove anything about my beliefs, since I am not the type of person who goes and tries to prove to the masses what's right or wrong. What I've done so far is arguing that the essay quoted in the beginning of the thread is actually a wisely composed idea that, in my view, would help germanic individuals who are seriously interested in heathenism.
Those who understand the meaning of the essay and the arguments I've brought up will agree anyway, without me "preaching" to them.

rainman
Friday, April 3rd, 2009, 11:13 PM
I agree with exit on the fact that practically all ancient sources for heathenry are corrupted, incomplete etc.

Even metaphysics stands within the realm of what is logical or observable to some degree. If you really start getting into deep philosophical discussions. One may be able to disagree with it but its a far cry from saying "the gods are real physical entities- I have no logical proof of it just believe me" that sounds more Christian than anything else I've heard.

Hrodnand
Friday, April 3rd, 2009, 11:24 PM
I agree with exit on the fact that practically all ancient sources for heathenry are corrupted, incomplete etc.

How can one claim that they are corrupted or incomplete when you don't know their complete or uncorrupted form?



One may be able to disagree with it but its a far cry from saying "the gods are real physical entities- I have no logical proof of it just believe me" that sounds more Christian than anything else I've heard.

Nope, you just fail to understand the meaning of it because it's "too simple" for you. Also you seem to be ignorant to the lines where it is stated quite well that the deities are are incorporeal. To me incorporeal is not physical.
The role of logic in heathenism was also elaborated in velvet's and my posts.

velvet
Friday, April 3rd, 2009, 11:38 PM
Even metaphysics stands within the realm of what is logical or observable to some degree.

He's not talking about physics, but about meta-physics, he's a gnostic (and with that already twists the original meaning of the greek word gnosis, which means recognition/realization (a word that reflects a process) and is bound to the physic environment), he talks about initiation, which refers to some jewish/christian and even pre-christian 'traditions' of sacred/secret wisdom for only hand-chosen ones - chosen by humans!

A gnostic refers to the body (physic) as a burden which he has to overcome (->meta-physic) through strict rules of self-castigation, mortifying (this word is related to mors (latin: death) and mortal), ceremonies and praying to the only real one: the meta-physic entity.

As Anfang said in the linked thread, it is a monolithic death cult and in complete opposition to heathenism. Actually, when those gnostics would be consequent with their life-denying belief, they'd commit suicide, because this is the only way to get rid off the burdening body and to become part of the meta- (or supra) physical realm of non-existence, which they consider 'God'.

rainman
Saturday, April 4th, 2009, 12:08 AM
I know they are incomplete because of history. We know Tacticus who wrote Germania was wrong on several points because we can cross reference them with other incomplete sources. We also know that he was biased on an outsider looking in. Thus we can assume that much of his original information is also corrupted. Similar with Snorri's Eddas. He claims to be a Christian himself and influenced by Greek and Roman tales and seems to have indulged his stories a bit- seeing them as little more than entertainment and some preservation of his heritage.

If we take the sources themselves the mythology contradicts itself therefore at best can only be seen as symbolic. There isn't much literature from the past discussing actual literal philosophy or every day customs.

An incorporeal living thinking being... how are we to prove that this exists? Personal experience? Having faith in what others say? How is that much different than a psychic force or force of nature? The definition of alive is something capable of interacting with the environment (among other things). If it is only capable of interacting with people's minds then it is not alive, and therefore fits the definition of a psychic force. If it is incorporeal but can lift up a rock or make it rain then maybe it could be considered alive, but I don't see any proof of this. I guess that's why the whole article is confusing me and throwing me off.

I view the gods as psychic forces. More like electricity, or things like that but that have more of a personality and mind to them. That interact with human minds and are made complete by uniting with the human form and living through them (the unity of diety and human- god head). Similar to an incorporeal being.

Hrodnand
Saturday, April 4th, 2009, 12:47 AM
I know they are incomplete because of history.

If you mention history you should also mention real facts and proofs for this.



We know Tacticus who wrote Germania was wrong on several points because we can cross reference them with other incomplete sources.

This is a weak argument for sustaining that Tacitus was wrong.

What we can presume is that since Tacitus was a roman he didn't have the same ability of empathy and contemplation with the germanics, as that would have occurred in the case of a germanic historian. Yet his observations and notes are quite detailed, considering the fact that he was a roman and he treated the germanics as outsiders and as a people with values that are far alien to roman values.




Similar with Snorri's Eddas.

influenced by Greek and Roman tales and seems to have indulged his stories a bit- seeing them as little more than entertainment and some preservation of his heritage.

Proofs?




There isn't much literature from the past discussing actual literal philosophy or every day customs.

There isn't but one should never expect something like an actual literal philosophy while dealing with such an old and "unpopular" culture.




An incorporeal living thinking being...how are we to prove that this exists? Personal experience?




Why should we prove anything? There is the path that had been set(not by strict doctrines and rules, as you would expect), and it's an individual's own task to strive for that path. Success is not guaranteed at all. The "strong" and worthy ones will reach up and understand while the others wont, it's that simple.




The definition of alive is something capable of interacting with the environment (among other things).
If it is only capable of interacting with people's minds then it is not alive, and therefore fits the definition of a psychic force.

Nor was there any statement in the text that the gods would be alive as physical living beings.

velvet
Saturday, April 4th, 2009, 01:38 AM
Similar with Snorri's Eddas. He claims to be a Christian himself and influenced by Greek and Roman tales and seems to have indulged his stories a bit- seeing them as little more than entertainment and some preservation of his heritage.

Snorri was educated in a benedictine monastery, true. This shows, that his family was not poor and could effort the fees required to be accepted.
An important thing to know about the benedictines though, who mostly were sent to far away countries by the church, is they were not hard-liner christians who missionised with the sword, but rather were quite polite, and also quite open to the host traditions and beliefs.
The Book of Kells, which is almost the only written source of the celtic culture, was also written by a benedictine monk. He showed a deep understanding of and also respect for the host culture in its entirety, there is no evidence which would allow to judge otherwise in Snorri's case, and he wasnt a monk. Quite the opposite, the arrival of christianity on Iceland occured much later and with even less urging effort (maybe due to much less people there).
It is very likely that Snorri was raised in his youth completely based on the culture and tradition and belief of his ancestors and that he came to know christianity from the inside first when he entered the monastery to study scripture. And chances are good that he did so because he felt it necessary to write them down before the traces of it, in the slowly already changing christian society, would vanish.
There is also evidence within his writings, that parts of it were added much later to his original writings (the last paragraph of Vluspa for example). The younger edda book contains lore that dates to the 8th/9th century, more than 300 years before one christian set a foot onto Iceland, and there is evidence that some of the stories, also when changed over times, even date back to the sixth century.

The christian influences, when present already in Snorri's writing, are easily recognisable, they differ in speech as well as in form and meaning, indeed contradicting parts of unchanged lore and songs. But the decision is easy made which one is to take into consideration when interpreting culture, tradition and belief. And even if we dont have much writing, we have some really valuable writings and lots of splitters, which can serve, along with the indeed living culture and traditions of northern today's society, as a guide to this, dead-said, culture, which is still present beneath the surfaces. And that is to say, in scandinavia, there is really much of it present and the surface is very very thin.

exit
Saturday, April 4th, 2009, 02:49 PM
Heathenism is not science nor mathematics where one creates objective rules just because one fails to understand its meaning and considers that it would be easier to "cage" it.

I don't want to prove anything about my beliefs, since I am not the type of person who goes and tries to prove to the masses what's right or wrong. What I've done so far is arguing that the essay quoted in the beginning of the thread is actually a wisely composed idea that, in my view, would help germanic individuals who are seriously interested in heathenism.
Those who understand the meaning of the essay and the arguments I've brought up will agree anyway, without me "preaching" to them.

It must not be wisely composed if it is irrational and offers no objective proof first to oneself which is then obvious to others. Without this all you have is blind faith which doesn't help anyone but only revives old superstitions.


I agree with exit on the fact that practically all ancient sources for heathenry are corrupted, incomplete etc.

That's not exactly what I wrote. I wrote that the ancient sources are misread or misinterpreted and many heathens rely on erroneous occultist or academic views. Everything written is going to be incomplete because not everything can be formed by language. But as for corrupted, it is the moderns who have corrupted them.


To me incorporeal is not physical.

Ancient physics includes the extra-corporeal or subtle realm as well.


He's not talking about physics, but about meta-physics, he's a gnostic (and with that already twists the original meaning of the greek word gnosis, which means recognition/realization (a word that reflects a process) and is bound to the physic environment), he talks about initiation, which refers to some jewish/christian and even pre-christian 'traditions' of sacred/secret wisdom for only hand-chosen ones - chosen by humans!

A gnostic refers to the body (physic) as a burden which he has to overcome (->meta-physic) through strict rules of self-castigation, mortifying (this word is related to mors (latin: death) and mortal), ceremonies and praying to the only real one: the meta-physic entity.

As Anfang said in the linked thread, it is a monolithic death cult and in complete opposition to heathenism. Actually, when those gnostics would be consequent with their life-denying belief, they'd commit suicide, because this is the only way to get rid off the burdening body and to become part of the meta- (or supra) physical realm of non-existence, which they consider 'God'.

Stop spreading lies about me; there are no 'gnostics' alive today. And don't speak about things which you clearly are misinformed on, such as gnosis, metaphysics, sacrifice, and initiation. In fact, don't reply to my posts at all, as you might have noticed, I have been ignoring you and your constant attack against me which is obviously personal. The above might be what you believe such and such is but it is not what I believe it is, and what I believe is no one's business but my own.

Hrodnand
Saturday, April 4th, 2009, 03:33 PM
It must not be wisely composed if it is irrational and offers no objective proof first to oneself which is then obvious to others. Without this all you have is blind faith which doesn't help anyone but only revives old superstitions.

Like the spiritual paths in heathenism would be built upon "rational laws". :oanieyes

"doesn't help anyone"? well, it doesn't seem like that to me.




That's not exactly what I wrote. I wrote that the ancient sources are misread or misinterpreted and many heathens rely on erroneous occultist or academic views. Everything written is going to be incomplete because not everything can be formed by language. But as for corrupted, it is the moderns who have corrupted them.

All you have done so far is blaming that sources are misread, misinterpreted, incomplete and that heathens are relying on erroneous views, but you didn't provide with any constructive idea that would be more than just quoting doctrines and scientific terms written by others.



Ancient physics includes the extra-corporeal or subtle realm as well.

The "Ancient physics" as a term you mention it is not a topic related to the context of heathenism.

velvet
Saturday, April 4th, 2009, 04:30 PM
Stop spreading lies about me; there are no 'gnostics' alive today. And don't speak about things which you clearly are misinformed on, such as gnosis, metaphysics, sacrifice, and initiation. In fact, don't reply to my posts at all, as you might have noticed, I have been ignoring you and your constant attack against me which is obviously personal. The above might be what you believe such and such is but it is not what I believe it is, and what I believe is no one's business but my own.

Maybe you also want to keep it to yourself then? That would at least be consequent, instead you keep telling everyone that they are wrong and you are right. But you failed so far to give even a little piece of substance to your claims.

Soso, inquiry is personal? I just asked you to add some substance to your empty claims. When you cant handle it, what are you doing on a discussionboard then?


When it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are, it is a duck.

exit
Saturday, April 4th, 2009, 05:13 PM
Like the spiritual paths in heathenism would be built upon "rational laws".

They weren't built upon the irrational. Moreover, heathen is a negative term and refers to a degeneration of the old traditions--a blind faith in superstitions if you will--as you refuse to provide any objective evidence. So in this sense you are right, however, if we are talking about the old traditions before their degeneration then I am right.


The "Ancient physics" as a term you mention it is not a topic related to the context of heathenism.

That's your opinion which is convenient for you because it means not having to provide any objective evidence for your claims.

Hrodnand
Saturday, April 4th, 2009, 05:32 PM
They weren't built upon the irrational.

But built upon what? I guess you are referring that they were rational.

If we take runecraft for example, what's the logical reason for one cutting him/herself to stain the runes with blood? it's a damage that you make to your own self if we look at it rationally.


Also the rational consequence of a blot, a sacrifice, written mathematically should be like a number minus another number equals with a number that is smaller than the original number since you are sacrificing something from your own (ex 8-5=3), but instead you get a number greater than the original one (ex 8-5=9) if you understand the true reason and meaning of a blot.

So what's rational/logical about these? I guess nothing. Yet they still work well in heathenism.




Moreover, heathen is a negative term and refers to a degeneration of the old traditions--a blind faith in superstitions if you will--as you refuse to provide any objective evidence.



How can you claim that since you don't know anything about heathen traditions before they were "degenerated"?




So in this sense you are right, however, if we are talking about the old traditions before their degeneration then I am right.

You are right for yourself maybe. :oanieyes



That's your opinion which is convenient for you because it means not having to provide any objective evidence for your claims.

Check my former posts, I already told why I have nothing to prove over this matter.

Hyperboreanar
Saturday, April 4th, 2009, 06:14 PM
It's hard to understand all this:|

would be better if exit could just state his beliefs on the topic, yet all his posts have been based on what he disagrees with rather then what he agrees/believes.

Anfang
Saturday, April 4th, 2009, 06:38 PM
Maybe you also want to keep it to yourself then? That would at least be consequent, instead you keep telling everyone that they are wrong and you are right. But you failed so far to give even a little piece of substance to your claims.

Soso, inquiry is personal? I just asked you to add some substance to your empty claims. When you cant handle it, what are you doing on a discussionboard then?


When it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are, it is a duck.


"Jep, du hast ihn genau" - I think this is probably the first case of "Philisophy Trolling" I have ever seen.

Bringing theorems from other non germanic Diciplines, insisting on solipsistic interpretations of terms, and constant attacking without puting forth a vision of an alternative, sure looks like trolling to me.

exit
Saturday, April 4th, 2009, 07:11 PM
would be better if exit could just state his beliefs on the topic, yet all his posts have been based on what he disagrees with rather then what he agrees/believes.

False. I've already written the alternative in this thread and in hundreds of other posts. This thread is not about what I believe and any call for this is just a distraction by those who cannot and refuse to back up what they have claimed in this thread!!! To suggest that any tradition would base itself on the irrational is quite frankly absurd. This claim must stand or fall on its own merit or lack thereof.



Also the rational consequence of a blot,

I didn't ask for your views on blot. I asked for objective evidence that the gods exist as independent individual beings.


So what's rational/logical about these? I guess nothing. Yet they still work well in heathenism.

You are making your views standard here?



You are right for yourself maybe. :oanieyes

Are you more right?


Check my former posts, I already told why I have nothing to prove over this matter

Again, that is blind faith.

Next, time don't ask for opinions when you really want a pat on the back from a bunch of yes men.

Hrodnand
Saturday, April 4th, 2009, 07:20 PM
This thread is not about what I believe

True, but since all that you have done is disagreeing I'm expecting you to provide with your beliefs. All I saw so far was quoting terms and statements that have nothing to do with germanic heathenism.




To suggest that any tradition would base itself on the irrational is quite frankly absurd.

I've also given you two examples for traditions and their "irrational" consequences along with the fact that despite their "irrational" form they still work well.



I didn't ask for your views on blot. I asked for objective evidence that the gods exist as independent individual beings.

Nope, actually it was originally mentioned in the context of spiritual paths.

Since you disregard anything that isn't objective or rational there are no objective rules or proofs that would show you that the deities really exist, let alone to prove anything spiritual in heathenism. In this case objectivity and "rationality" is put aside.

Heathenism is not a math lecture that you learn from a book, you have to seek and experience in order to understand these things.



You are making your views standard here?

No, I was talking about my experience with other heathens who think alike.



Are you more right?

I didn't say that, you did. :oanieyes



Next, time don't ask for opinions when you really want a pat on the back from a bunch of yes men.

Next time when I'll ask for opinions about heathenism I hope that people will provide me with something more than "rational" laws and provide their own thoughts not just quoting ideas that are not their own especially if those ideas are alien to germanic heathenism.

exit
Saturday, April 4th, 2009, 07:26 PM
This whole discussion is pointless and revolves around people's egos rather than a serious search for the truth. I think I'm going to end it here. But I will say that all too often on forums and in discussions anyone who displays a different opinion which is unpopular is attacked only because it goes against the grain and this attitude does not promote free exchange of ideas or discussions of any sort. But I think it is important first and foremost to be ethical and not to resort to a mob mentality. And this would do well to avoid the same old boring arguments which help no one.

Hyperboreanar
Saturday, April 4th, 2009, 07:44 PM
This whole discussion is pointless and revolves around people's egos rather than a serious search for the truth. I think I'm going to end it here. But I will say that all too often on forums and in discussions anyone who displays a different opinion which is unpopular is attacked only because it goes against the grain and this attitude does not promote free exchange of ideas or discussions of any sort.

Except you never in this thread stated your beliefs, all you have done is disgreed with others beliefs (fair enough) but not actually stated what your own are on the topic. You then try and play ''victim'' by claiming you were attacked first:|Look over the last pages, when all you have done is state the opposite of what someone else wrote:|

Hrodnand
Saturday, April 4th, 2009, 07:53 PM
This whole discussion is pointless and revolves around people's egos rather than a serious search for the truth.

When one deals with heathenism and studies it profoundly, the "truth" that you talk about is not to be found over articles about methapysics or rationality.

It's not about my ego, it's about the fact that I hold on to something that I've experienced on my own more than to some alien theories.




But I will say that all too often on forums and in discussions anyone who displays a different opinion which is unpopular is attacked only because it goes against the grain and this attitude does not promote free exchange of ideas or discussions of any sort.

Exactly, only because it goes against the grain don't expect your idea to be accepted from my part.

exit
Saturday, April 4th, 2009, 08:07 PM
Exactly, only because it goes against the grain don't expect your idea to be accepted from my part.

Actually, symbolism and the gods as symbols/archetypes is accepted by most pagans and traditionalists, but not by most on this thread. I just wanted to clear that up and to say that I don't want my idea to be accepted by anyone especially by those who don't fully understand it, or those who refuse to do the work to understand it. You asked for an opinion and you got it. It is absurd to ask what I believe when you refuse to read all my other posts. If I were to go into details I would be here for years typing my beliefs which would not even be appreciated, nor am I going to offer my ideas to anyone who refuses to answer my questions. Finally for you to say that the truth is not to be found in metaphysics or logic is just absurd that it doesn't warrant further discussion. You are placing feelings over logic and truth which is a very common Nietzschean trait but sadly is an inversion. Just because someone is racially German does not make his ideas non-foreign. And just because something is in writing does not make it less true!

Anfang
Saturday, April 4th, 2009, 08:43 PM
This whole discussion is pointless and revolves around people's egos rather than a serious search for the truth. I think I'm going to end it here. But I will say that all too often on forums and in discussions anyone who displays a different opinion which is unpopular is attacked only because it goes against the grain and this attitude does not promote free exchange of ideas or discussions of any sort. But I think it is important first and foremost to be ethical and not to resort to a mob mentality. And this would do well to avoid the same old boring arguments which help no one.

In other words, you, whatever it is that *you* is, have no ontological basis for your beliefs, so you resort to a hermetic solipsism, which worked for wagner but it does not work for you.Hermetic art (not solipsism)worked for wagner because he had a deep desire to contribute to the Volk and he made an etempt to interlace that with his artistic vision. He had a natural basis in his perception of ontological meaning.
You on the other hand are Hermetically sealed in your lack of connection to nature, perhaps your lack of ability to percieve the states of being that ultimately return us to the complex and sublime understandings through simultaeneous self-becomming as both individuals and a people. Because we as creative volk are both *separate* from one another yeat *together* with one another.When we are free of monolythic falsely concieved hierarchies (as you try to foist), the Universe itself ("The Gods"), guides us so that we become part of the vibration of the creation of existance.This conciousness i believe, is expanded by the interconnectedness of our Volk.Thus your statement to Hrodnand that he is surrounded by yesman shows the paucity of you understanding.

Hrodnand
Saturday, April 4th, 2009, 09:01 PM
Actually, symbolism and the gods as symbols/archetypes is accepted by most pagans and traditionalists, but not by most on this thread.

Just because something is accepted by a wider audience doesn't make it to be "truer" than something that is cultivated by fewer people. It's not the quantity but the quality that matters.



I just wanted to clear that up and to say that I don't want my idea to be accepted by anyone especially by those who don't fully understand it, or those who refuse to do the work to understand it.

So far so good, that's what I think too.




nor am I going to offer my ideas to anyone who refuses to answer my questions.

I gave you my answer to most of the questions you have asked, however your problem seems to be that it's not the answer that you have been expecting to.



Finally for you to say that the truth is not to be found in metaphysics or logic is just absurd that it doesn't warrant further discussion. You are placing feelings over logic and truth which is a very common Nietzschean trait but sadly is an inversion.

False. Everything has it's place in life and what I actually meant was that logic, the idea of "truth" and rationality are not to be the most important when dealing profoundly with the spiritual aspects of such an old culture, like germanic heathenism.

Just to make it clear for you, I consider feelings equally important with logic, both used in their own "fields".

Since you mention so much the term "truth" perhaps you could also tell what's the truth.




Just because someone is racially German does not make his ideas non-foreign. And just because something is in writing does not make it less true!

Nor did I say anything that someone who is germanic would have true ideas by all means.
What I said is that the idea of pure logic and rationality, brought up by you, are alien to the spiritual aspects of germanic heathenism and have rarely a place in it.

Anfang
Saturday, April 4th, 2009, 09:22 PM
"What I said is that the idea of pure logic and rationality, brought up by you, are alien to the spiritual aspects of germanic heathenism and have rarely a place in it. "

But it does have a place in Modern Legalism, especially the legal establishment, which as we know is the sharpest tool being used against Germanic preservation, even by our own co-ethnics.

exit
Saturday, April 4th, 2009, 09:25 PM
I gave you my answer to most of the questions you have asked, however your problem seems to be that it's not the answer that you have been expecting to.


Again, wrong. I asked you one question which you continuously try to avoid.


False. Everything has it's place in life and what I actually meant was that logic, the idea of "truth" and rationality are not to be the most important when dealing profoundly with the spiritual aspects of such an old culture, like germanic heathenism.

Again, heathenism is a negative term. Your definition of spiritual is feeling and superstition, whereas mine is intellectual. Heathenism has nothing to do with any orthodox tradition.


What I said is that the idea of pure logic and rationality, brought up by you, are alien to the spiritual aspects of germanic heathenism and have rarely a place in it.

Truth and logic are alien? This is absurd nonsense which doesn't deserve a reply. i've already wasted more time than I'd like on this.

Hrodnand
Saturday, April 4th, 2009, 09:35 PM
Again, wrong. I asked you one question which you continuously try to avoid.

I think I already gave you the answer for that.




Again, heathenism is a negative term.

Here we go again with the negative term. :oanieyes

Perhaps you could provide us finally with a positive term.



Your definition of spiritual is feeling and superstition, whereas mine is intellectual. Heathenism has nothing to do with any orthodox tradition.

Maybe because feelings have an important role when experiencing something spiritual, maybe because one's intellectual skills are not enough to experience anything spiritual.




Truth and logic are alien? This is absurd nonsense which doesn't deserve a reply.

Read the sentence further please! I obviously didn't write that logic is alien in itself, but it is mostly alien when one deals with the spiritual aspects of heathenism. You seem to pick on anything you find now. :nope

exit
Saturday, April 4th, 2009, 11:45 PM
I think I already gave you the answer for that.

In other words you can't provide any objective case for your beliefs.


Here we go again with the negative term. :oanieyes

Perhaps you could provide us finally with a positive term.

The label fits, that's why it was originally established as negative, as to differentiate between heretical and orthodox.


Read the sentence further please! I obviously didn't write that logic is alien in itself, but it is mostly alien when one deals with the spiritual aspects of heathenism.

You claim I misunderstand what you wrote whenever I disagree.


You seem to pick on anything you find now

Your claim that truth and logic are alien to germanic spirituality is nothing short of an outrage. You must have a university education.

Hrodnand
Sunday, April 5th, 2009, 12:25 AM
In other words you can't provide any objective case for your beliefs.

My beliefs are based primarily on my own observations, on traditional folk culture observed and studied in various germanic enclaves and the core wisdom of several authors who approached the old ways individually while staying on track, observing and putting these ways on a practical level in everyday life and in the natural world around, also they did not treat the aspects of heathenism as an orthodox religion or as a math lecture but, as I've said, they've tried to approach the ideas on their own without trying to "cage them" in a strict system of rules, rather concentrating over main ideas that serve for a better understanding.
What I've done is learned how to observe, to perceive and to understand the inner and the outer and the higher, to divide things where they belong and to improve myself individually.
Then I went out and experienced these on my own.


So then, what about your beliefs and the objective case that you've got?




The label fits, that's why it was originally established as negative, as to differentiate between heretical and orthodox.

Hm?




You claim I misunderstand what you wrote whenever I disagree.

Nope you're just being ignorant and I have to repeat myself over and over again because you fail to read a post from the top to the bottom.




Your claim that truth and logic are alien to germanic spirituality is nothing short of an outrage.

I've said that they are mostly alien because you can't understand several aspects of heathen spirituality using exclusively logics and pure rational thinking.

exit
Sunday, April 5th, 2009, 12:49 AM
My beliefs are based primarily on my own observations, on traditional folk culture observed and studied in various germanic enclaves and the core wisdom of several authors who approached the old ways individually while staying on track, observing and putting these ways on a practical level in everyday life and in the natural world around, also they did not treat the aspects of heathenism as an orthodox religion or as a math lecture but, as I've said, they've tried to approach the idea individually without trying to "cage it" in a strict system of rules, rather concentrating over main ideas that serve for a better understanding.
What I've done is learned how to observe, to perceive and to understand the inner and the outer and the higher, to divide things where they belong and to improve myself individually.
Then I went out and experienced these on my own.


I don't want empty rhetoric, I want an objective case that the gods are independent individual beings.


Nope you're just being ignorant and I have to repeat myself over and over again because you fail to read a post from the top to the bottom.

You are flip-flopping and avoiding my one question.



I've said that they are mostly alien because you can't understand several aspects of heathen spirituality using exclusively logics and pure rational thinking

Metaphysics cannot be contrary to logic. Supra-rationial does not mean irrational. If you knew the first thing about metaphysics you would realize that the gods are not independent individual beings because that would imply an irreducible dualism which would nullify both the universe and transcendence. Rene Guenon is right when he wrote about polytheism being a result of ignorance because just as there cannot be two or more contradictory plans for the universe so too there cannot be two or more sets of principles. Of course you will probably deny this by saying that the gods aren't intellectual principles but individual beings yet this flies in the face of all known orthodox traditions. Here is where one usually says "well german heathenism is different from every other tradition" but which is just an excuse to deny any sort of metaphysical doctrine because esoteric universality doesn't sit well with most folkists.


So then, what about your beliefs

Reread my posts in this thread. I've stated quite clearly what I think the gods and giants are from my very first post on! The gods are spiritual/intellectual principles which can be realized by attainment of different states of consciousness; likewise the giants are psychic.

rainman
Sunday, April 5th, 2009, 01:20 AM
Well like why cut your blood and stain runes with it- 1) sympathy magic- it ties the runes to you. 2) the blood has power vril. 3) it psychologically is a comittment to the practice.

So it does have a rational side. Even if we say well I don't know why this works, but it does work and from experience you can say it does then that belief has some rational basis.

What I don't understand is just blind faith in something. Saying because a book or something says something that we should believe it as true. Or because someone else told us.

I thought most Asatruar understood the gods as psychic forces/archtypes myself.

Hrodnand
Sunday, April 5th, 2009, 01:23 AM
I don't want empty rhetoric, I want an objective case that the gods are independent individual beings.

Re read the essay.




Metaphysics cannot be contrary to logic.
If you knew the first thing about metaphysics you would realize that the gods are not independent individual beings because that would imply an irreducible dualism and therefore nothing including the universe could possibly exist.

You are right, I know almost nothing about metaphysics, mostly because I don't approach heathenism through philosophical terms or through any alien set of doctrines.




Rene Guenon is right when he wrote about polytheism being a result of ingorance because just as there cannot be two or more contradictory plans for the universe so too there cannot be two or more sets of principles.

You already mentioned the contradictory aspects of germanic mythology yet you still failed to elaborate to give a valid proof for that?

It's good that you can quote, however that still doesn't have a plausible aspect over mythology.




Of course you will probably deny this by saying that the gods aren't intellectual principles but individual beings yet this flies in the face of all known orthodox traditions.

Proofs?




Here is where one usually says "well german heathenism is different from every other tradition" but which is just an excuse to deny any sort of metaphysical doctrine because esoteric universality doesn't sit well with most folkists.

What methaphyical doctrines are you talking about? :oanieyes

You spread your theories but there isn't one single thing practical about what you've said so far.

In fact I'm failing to understand what are you talking about, because one thing is certain, it has no relevance to germanic heathenism.


The gods are spiritual/intellectual principles which can be realized by attainment of different states of consciousness; likewise the giants are psychic.

This should be the long awaited objective case?
To me it's rather a cheap and easy way to "solve" the profound and spiritual aspect of a culture.




What I don't understand is just blind faith in something. Saying because a book or something says something that we should believe it as true. Or because someone else told us.

Nobody told you what to believe or what not. The reason why I believe is not because of a book or because someone said something but mostly because I've understood things through personal experiences.

Anfang
Sunday, April 5th, 2009, 01:24 AM
The label fits, that's why it was originally established as negative, as to differentiate between heretical and orthodox.

Regarding your "Heathen is a negative term" fallacy-
The label, or the term, in which language?
Even your self knighted claim at being the font of logic and reason here is evaporating.

Etymologically, Heathen comes from the word heath or rather ," h"
in Old Saxon, Old German and Old English. Now right next to that definition in the old english dictionary are the words haelth (health) haeling (healing) haelsear (sothsayer) haelsong (augury divinity) healodi (prosperous) Healsing(salvation). logic and reason would tell a reasonable man that these words are connected linguistically and that they all have very positive meaning. If the word heide had such a negative meaning for our people there would not be so many Girls with the name Heide, would there be? after all people dont hame their child medusa.
What you are doing in your very logical and reasoned interpretation is taken the meaning superimposed by our enemies and tried to present it here as the de facto truth.
By that yardstick GERMANY is a negative word. and germany is a negative thing to our enemies who control the media.This neagtive propaganda has been so insiduous and so relentless that we have gone from a self loving people to a self hating people in 75 years. Your calling heide a negative term
is to me on that level, actually being criminal propaganda.

So I have basically shown you that any "negative meaning" on the word Heide came *after* the imposing of foreign rule upon germanic people, That in spite of this it is still not repudiated by our people, and that by you taking highly subjective and self serving "meanings" as the de facto truth, you are in fact being Illogical, as you did not bother to research the etymology of the word you vere pronouncing value on. Of course this also makes your premise unreasonable.

rainman
Sunday, April 5th, 2009, 01:38 AM
Heathen comes from the word heath which is like the country side. It was a derogatory word that the educated city folk (who were Christianized earlier) used for the country folk who still held to old superstitions.

Hyperboreanar
Sunday, April 5th, 2009, 01:43 AM
All we have in this thread is people twisting mythology so it suit their own modern corrupt beliefs.

The truth is that the mythology of the ancients was real, all the Gods were based on real individuals. I already pasted evidence for this, the ancients wrote in their own histories that certain Gods were progenitors for certain linages. The Gods were therefore real people.

The word ''myth'' itself (stemming from 'mythos', literally translates as ''story'' a ''traditional story'', but over time dictionaries corrupted the meaning.

In 1830 myth was defined as:

''Myths are stories about divine beings, generally arranged in a coherent system; they are revered as true and sacred''

Now we have the following (multiple meaning all under one):

1. A traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.

3. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.

4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.

5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

As you can see, if you want to understand what mythology truly is about, you need to get beyond the modern linguistic perversion of myths and understand the people and events described in myth were real (they may and can in some cases be interpretated slightly differently, but they were still real).

So all this nonsese posted here about the norse gods being spiritual symbols or psychic powers is utter rubbish.

triedandtru
Sunday, April 5th, 2009, 01:53 AM
I see no reason to reply to "Exit" when he cannot manage to respond to my very simple questions. Going against popular opinion has nothing to do with general discontent with your conduct on this forum, sir.

rainman
Sunday, April 5th, 2009, 01:58 AM
As I've studied Aryan religion back to its source they seem to be based on astrology and ancestors. The idea that gods are physical people was a modern invention by the Catholic church that caught on with Christianity and spread into mainstream culture.

Anfang
Sunday, April 5th, 2009, 02:01 AM
Heathen comes from the word heath which is like the country side. It was a derogatory word that the educated city folk (who were Christianized earlier) used for the country folk who still held to old superstitions.

(Anfang shakes head)
Wikipedia doen's always do it. read my post above, please. This is what your average german metropolis looked like :

http://www.highways.gov.uk/aboutus/images/saxon.jpg

Pretty comfotable really, put some hay on the floor and you can use your shield covered by a sheepskin as a pillow if you want. the Women and rugrats are near the back and the man slleps by the entrance in case of attack. from people wolves or bears. 1500 years ago there was no jesus cult in sachsenland.

Hrodnand
Sunday, April 5th, 2009, 02:06 AM
As I've studied Aryan religion back to its source they seem to be based on astrology and ancestors.


First, we were discussing about germanic heathenism so don't import terms like "aryan religion" just because it's easier to discuss something on a general level.




The idea that gods are physical people was a modern invention by the Catholic church that caught on with Christianity and spread into mainstream culture.

Proofs?

rainman
Sunday, April 5th, 2009, 02:48 AM
Germanic is an Aryan subgroup. For me I began to understand it better by studying its sources, because we don't really have much surviving literature on ancient Germanic customs and beliefs. Unless you count stuff written in the Christian age which has been highly indulged.

Everybody pretty much is making up their own beliefs and calling it ancient because there isn't any literature on the philosophy of pre-Christian Germanics. However with Roman, Greek, Vedic etc. you do have literature and it seems to fit right in with Germanic customs and has them makes sense.

Anfang
Sunday, April 5th, 2009, 03:23 AM
Germanic is an Aryan subgroup. For me I began to understand it better by studying its sources, because we don't really have much surviving literature on ancient Germanic customs and beliefs. Unless you count stuff written in the Christian age which has been highly indulged.

Everybody pretty much is making up their own beliefs and calling it ancient because there isn't any literature on the philosophy of pre-Christian Germanics. However with Roman, Greek, Vedic etc. you do have literature and it seems to fit right in with Germanic customs and has them makes sense.


I guess that the Germanic Studies departments of many Universities are making it up as they go.:|

Here is a facsimile of one stanza from the poem rymskivia, which tells the story of how r recovered his stolen hammer:



And here is a transcription, with the missing letters underlined:

a qva at heimdallr hvitastr sa visi hann vel fram sem vanir arir. bin
do ver or a bruar lini hafi hann i micla men brisinga.

Note the marks of suspension used to indicate missing letters: in the second word (qva), the symbol over the "q"; in the third word (at), the symbol over the ""; in the fourth word (heimdallr), the bar over the "ei"; and in the eighth word (hann), the symbol over the "h".

And here is the stanza, converted into standard old Icelandic, and broken up into lines:

kva at Heimdallr, hvtastr sa-
vissi hann vel fram, sem Vanir arir-
"Bindu vr r brar lni
hafi hann it mikla men Brsinga.


And a English translation:

Then Heimdall said, the whitest of the gods-
he can see far ahead as the Vanir also can
"Let's dress Thor in a bridal head-dress,
let him wear the great necklace of the Brisings.


------------------------------------------------------

The sagas of the icelandics- hrafkes sage
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Hrafnkels_sage_(Icelandic_saga)

-------------------------------------------------------
The Voluspa' was passed down for hundreds of years orally before it was written Down, as Homer' Illiad and odisey were by the greeks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%B6lusp%C3%A1

PendaMercia
Sunday, April 5th, 2009, 10:09 AM
May I?


I don't want empty rhetoric, I want an objective case that the gods are independent individual beings.


Define objective.



Metaphysics cannot be contrary to logic. Supra-rationial does not mean irrational. If you knew the first thing about metaphysics you would realize that the gods are not independent individual beings because that would imply an irreducible dualism which would nullify both the universe and transcendence.


Define terms and substantiate your statements in the terms defined. If metaphysics is absolute logic there is no place for empirical science, or other independently individual systems of logical thought. Metaphysics is, in part at least, illogical or it would be altogether unfalsifiable. If it were unfalsifiable than it would be even less useful than it is currently thought to be.



Rene Guenon is right when he wrote about polytheism being a result of ignorance because just as there cannot be two or more contradictory plans for the universe so too there cannot be two or more sets of principles.


Why can there not be two or more contradictory plans for the universe, two or more sets of principles? This goes against fundamental logic and is little more than reductionism. I doubt the competence of any system of thought that asserts the existence of any 'plan for the universe'.


Here is where one usually says "well german heathenism is different from every other tradition" but which is just an excuse to deny any sort of metaphysical doctrine because esoteric universality doesn't sit well with most folkists.

Esoteric universality? You mean metaphysics as reduced to your particular viewpoint and then projected onto everything else? So when someone doesn't agree you can accuse them of rejecting 'universality'?

Every tradition is different from every other tradition because each thing is itself and not something else. As an entire group, there are commonalities between differing traditions which can emerge as patterns. These patterns indicate a multi-polar collective that can be reduced along each axis. This is as close as we can come to 'esoteric universality'. Unless of course we reduce the entire thing along a single axis, to a specific tradition and call the view from that point 'universal'. Which it may be, but only in so much as it is relative to other similar points. Looking inward from the tip of any branch we can honestly say that what we are seeing is the tree. But the most complete view of the tree is had from forming an overall image based on looking inward from the end of each of the branches.

That is the basis of a polytheistic metaphysics. It is falsifiable which means it is not a creation of perfect logic.

There is a 'Germanic metaphysical doctrine' but it is equal parts 'techne' and 'episteme'; a process with a manifest intent that static enumeration usually does not adequately serve.



Reread my posts in this thread. I've stated quite clearly what I think the gods and giants are from my very first post on! The gods are spiritual/intellectual principles which can be realized by attainment of different states of consciousness; likewise the giants are psychic.

I don't entirely disagree with this. But in a discussion of this kind we have to clearly define terms such a being, principles, independent, etc.

It can well be argued that sentience is simply a principle that is realized by attainment of different states of consciousness. Sentience being that which makes us human. Yet as humans we are individual beings. Not because we are each unique heaps of biometric data occupying singular vectors in space-time. But because we know that we are these things.

Unless substantiated statements are made using clearly defined and agreed-upon terms, all that is going on here is the tossing around of sometimes pleasant, sometimes grotesque, sophistry.

rainman
Sunday, April 5th, 2009, 10:26 AM
What does your Germanic studies department say? This could open up a whole other topic itself. Academia is very anti-Aryan since the end of WWII. First they changed the name "Aryan" to "Proto-Indo-European" or PIE. Then I've read many supposedly scholarly sources that said that "Aryan" was never a race and I believed it for a long time. Lo and behold I find out the the Vedas in India some 2,000 years old written by the Aryans refer to themselves as "Aryan". They contrast the light skinned Aryan race with the darker people they were at war with. Likewise it is found in other later Aryan sources. It is also a linguistic term. The Aryan race spoke the Aryan language. Most modern European languages are derived from Aryan dialects as is Hindu. The culture itself is derived from a common Aryan root. We're talking about roughly 5,000 B.C. It wasn't until maybe 500 B.C. maybe 1,000 at the earliest that we see the first emergence of Germanic culture which is an offspring of Aryan. The Germanic birthplace/homeland is the southern tip of sweden and the northern area of Denmark. The earlier Aryan emergence was in Ukraine. Prior to that we had a general Europe wide Caucasion group that the Aryans derived from and intermingled with. The Caucasion race emerged about 30,000 or 35,000 B.C. or there abouts. The same way that we can say American English/Culture is an offspring from England. Or that modern Spanish is an offspring from Latin. You can say Spanish and French are both distinct languages/cultures but they both go back to a Latin root. Latin itself has an Aryan root. Prior to Aryan no records exist. In fact the original Aryan language (PIE) there are no records of and its reconstructed. The culture itself is mainly reconstructed from common traits in its daughter cultures. Though the Indian Vedas are the oldest preserved literature from that culture or close to it. With the Greeks and Romans we also have much older and more detailed literature. While the Greeks were recording Platos Philosophy or Homers Illiad the Germanic people were not writing anything other than etching very basic things on runestones. Mainly using runes for record keeping, rememberance of dead ones, and magick. No real "books" were published until later Roman influence.

umm about exits comment: I believe the gods are part of the universe just as we are. They didn't creat it. The universe formed on its own. According to myth fire and ice combined in the great void, but however you take it. The gods of the Norse are not perfect omnicent beings. Yes if you said there were more than one perfect all knowing beings who created the world then that would contradict.

exit
Sunday, April 5th, 2009, 02:29 PM
Re read the essay.

I did. It had nothing objective to say on this matter.


You are right, I know almost nothing about metaphysics, mostly because I don't approach heathenism through philosophical terms or through any alien set of doctrines.

Whatever you don't understand is alien?



You already mentioned the contradictory aspects of germanic mythology

Not sure what you're talking about.


It's good that you can quote, however that still doesn't have a plausible aspect over mythology.

What makes you think that I haven't come to the same realization? If I say 2 + 2 = 4 am I quoting? Theory in the original sense was the same thing as practice.



In fact I'm failing to understand what are you talking about, because one thing is certain, it has no relevance to germanic heathenism.

You are not the pope of "germanic heathenism".


To me it's rather a cheap and easy way to "solve" the profound and spiritual aspect of a culture.

You are reducing everything to "culture" or folkism, more on which later...



Etymologically, Heathen comes from the word heath or rather ," h"
in Old Saxon, Old German and Old English.

The term heathen is completely modern. It is the same as pagan which also means country dweller and has absolutely nothing to do with wisdom. It refers to those people who held on to the old residues of tradition after Christianity took hold. Religion is a social binding, something that began from a degeneration of tradition, especially in Greece and Rome, where meanings of symbols and gods were lost and their wisdom became allegories and myths about which anyone could believe anything so long as they remained loyal to the gods of the city which were nothing more than tribal gods having so much authority over the city. There was no transcendent component and no higher meaning, which is why when Christianity came along it was supra-national rather than tribal because its message was about salvation of souls and had nothing to do with the gods of the city or empire and for that reason was opposed. It must be clear that anyone reviving paganism/heathenism as tribalism can only carry further this degeneration of tradition.



Define objective.


as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.

I deny that the ideas I put forth were my personal interpretations or anyone's personal interpretations for that matter. To say otherwise is to prove one's ignorance of metaphysical realization.


If metaphysics is absolute logic

Never said it was logic which is reflective knowledge.


Metaphysics is, in part at least, illogical or it would be altogether unfalsifiable. If it were unfalsifiable than it would be even less useful than it is currently thought to be.

Wrong. Metaphysics alone is infallible because it relies on the pure intellect which involves direct knowledge, whereas logic is reflective knowledge. Metaphysics is the absolutely real whereas logic deals on a lesser plane of reality.


Why can there not be two or more contradictory plans for the universe, two or more sets of principles? This goes against fundamental logic and is little more than reductionism. I doubt the competence of any system of thought that asserts the existence of any 'plan for the universe'.

Nonsense. Two or more contradictory plans would cancel each other out just as two infinities would limit each other and therefore not be infinite.


Esoteric universality? You mean metaphysics as reduced to your particular viewpoint and then projected onto everything else?

This has become a debating technique on this forum. Claim that universal principles are one's personal views.



So when someone doesn't agree you can accuse them of rejecting 'universality'?

All metaphysicians I know of are in unanimous agreement. Others, who pretend to be metaphysicans are frauds.

velvet
Sunday, April 5th, 2009, 03:37 PM
You are not the pope of "germanic heathenism".

You neither.


The term heathen is completely modern.

Anfang tried already to explain that this is nonsense.

Old norse:
heiinn: heathen
derives from/is related to:
heir: reward/salary/gift; bright one (kenning for shield); heath
heir: honour; heir s ok -> and honour be (standing phrase for greeting)

heiregi: salary receiver, one who is worth of
heiingi: 'heath dweller' (kenning for wolf in poetry)



There was no transcendent component and no higher meaning

No? I would think otherwise. Maybe you try to read some our myths and tales and poetry instead of reading about it?


I deny that the ideas I put forth were my personal interpretations or anyone's personal interpretations for that matter. To say otherwise is to prove one's ignorance of metaphysical realization.

Yes, that is exactly the problem. You quote other people of a hermetical doctrine, then deny that it is ones personal interpretations, and claim it is the ultimate truth, because you call it, from your perspective 'objective' on the basis that it is not 'your own' interpretation.
I knew people like you before, switching on will between topics and reasoning just to blur the fact that they actually dont understand anything and not even can formulate their own conviction. But find for some reason pleasure in attacking other people.
You contradict more than once your own statements yourself.



Wrong. Metaphysics alone is infallible because it relies on the pure intellect which involves direct knowledge, whereas logic is reflective knowledge. Metaphysics is the absolutely real whereas logic deals on a lesser plane of reality.

Explain 'direct knowledge' and say where you get your direct knowledge from.


Nonsense. Two or more contradictory plans would cancel each other out just as two infinities would limit each other and therefore not be infinite.

Newtonian physics applies to the physical reality on earth, true. When you try to use newtonian physics on quantum mechanics, you encounter some flaws, when you try to use newtonian physics on black holes and on large scale observations in the universe in general, it fails completely. It doesnt make newtonian physics false on earth nonetheless, it just does not apply to ALL physical phenomenons.
And beside the theories that handle those phenomenons, out there in the universe are forces working, which contradict the earthy reality in its very roots.
Not only dualism, but in fact pluralism and even contradictional pluralism is the basic ground on which the universe is built upon.

There is no point in concentrating on one single aspect and to claim its ultimate truth, because it is not the ultimate truth but a closed-minded, focused view onto only one, and the most simple, aspect of reality.

Hrodnand
Sunday, April 5th, 2009, 04:56 PM
Whatever you don't understand is alien?

No, hermetical doctrines and strict systems are alien heathenism.





What makes you think that I haven't come to the same realization? If I say 2 + 2 = 4 am I quoting?

That's not the same as experiencing something spiritual in the context of heathenism.

That's just another cheap way to explain away certain meanings that would imply a profound and serious personal experience.


Theory in the original sense was the same thing as practice.


What original sense?




You are not the pope of "germanic heathenism".

:oanieyes




It must be clear that anyone reviving paganism/heathenism as tribalism can only carry further this degeneration of tradition.


So the best way would be an universal view of metaphysics where no cultural spiritual aspects exist but everyone bows down to a set or rational rules set by the great IDEA?




as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.

That means that the ideal would be for us all to be "objective" senseless idiots who don't think over anything but swallow everything as it is given? Is that the ideal person that you mean?

exit
Sunday, April 5th, 2009, 04:57 PM
As to the question posed by many on here, will I further explain terms and principles so others can use it to form their parodies, the answer is no, because this is exactly what happens. As I said, there is no serious search for the truth, and I don't think heathens take their own views seriously, much less anyone else's views.


No, hermetical doctrines and strict systems are alien heathenism.

I never brought up hermetism. Why are you relying on someone's smear tactics to debate me when I already said that this person was wrong? I never once said I was a hermetist which is Greco-Egyptian by the way. However, there are things in every valid doctrine that are universal, otherwise they are false and therefore heretical.


That's not the same as experiencing something spiritual in the context of heathenism.

You don't even know what I'm talking about or you yourself.


So the best way would be an universal view of metaphysics where no cultural spiritual aspects exist

Wow I don't remember saying this. Are you going to distort everything I say now because I don't believe in polytheism?

Hrodnand
Sunday, April 5th, 2009, 05:20 PM
I don't think heathens take their own views seriously, much less anyone else's views.


As if you would know anything about heathen views. What you've done so far is judging which is a weak "argument" when debating over such topic.





Why are you relying on someone's smear tactics to debate me when I already said that this person was wrong?

I don't judge or label people after what you say, but about what I consider to be wrong.




I never once said I was a hermetist which is Greco-Egyptian by the way.

No you didn't but one can behave as one without claiming that he/she actually is, which is most unworthy to me.



You don't even know what I'm talking about or you yourself.


As if you would know or even understand what I mean.




Wow I don't remember saying this. Are you going to distort everything I say now because I don't believe in polytheism?

Sure you didn't say that but you keep pointing towards similar ideas.

exit
Sunday, April 5th, 2009, 05:26 PM
As if you would know anything about heathen views.

Did you not say that no one knows for sure what the ancients believed? How do you know they were polytheists? Should Christianity be labelled polytheism because it has angels? Did all ancients believe the same thing? Were the old ways always the same? Did they ever degenerate? Maybe these questions need to be asked more often by more people.

velvet
Sunday, April 5th, 2009, 05:30 PM
As I said, there is no serious search for the truth

You failed so far to point even in the direction of the so-called truth you're constantly talking about


and I don't think heathens take their own views seriously, much less anyone else's views.

You could give it a try by explaining your view. So far you only said that all other's views are wrong, but your 'view' has gotton no substance by your words. You only contradict other views.
Why should anyone take your view, that you refuse to explain, serious? There is simply nothing to take serious, no substance, no meaning, only contradiction. It is your own fault when you think that people swallow your so-called truth, abandon what they know, just because you say it is wrong, without explaining why.


I never brought up hermetism. Why are you relying on someone's smear tactics to debate me when I already said that this person was wrong? I never once said I was a hermetist which is Greco-Egyptian by the way.

No one said you are hermetist, and again, only because you say someone is wrong doesnt make it a valid claim as long as you fail to explain why.
But those splitters you present are those of a hermetical closed doctrine, a doctrine that validates itself, which is symptomatic for monotheistic beliefs.


because I don't believe in polytheism?

That is exactly the problem. Why do you call yourself heathen, when you cant even accept the pluralism of the gods?

Hrodnand
Sunday, April 5th, 2009, 05:45 PM
Did you not say that no one knows for sure what the ancients believed?

We can conclude what they have believed after we take in consideration several sources that have survived .




How do you know they were polytheists?

First, because I doubt that a whole culture which was in such a close relation with the natural world around would have claimed that all the aspects and phenomenons found in life and nature would belong to one single "governor".

Second, it is mentioned in several sources.





Should Christianity be labelled polytheism because it has angels?

No because Christianity evolves and focuses mostly around the main "almighty" god. The angels don't have god-like roles this results that they are not considered gods which further results that christianity is monotheistic.
Angels are just simple servants of the "almighty".




Did all ancients believe the same thing? Were the old ways always the same?

They believed more or less the same this concludes that their ways were also more or less the same. One tribe honored a certain god more while another tribe focused mostly on other deities but the "pantheon" was still the same.




Did they ever degenerate?

Yes, after the introduction of christianity.

exit
Sunday, April 5th, 2009, 05:52 PM
We can conclude what they have believed after we take in consideration several sources that have survived.

So if it wasn't written it is not included. Whose interpretation then is valid?


No because Christianity evolves and focuses mostly around the main "almighty" god.

You mean like the All-Father?


The angels don't have god-like roles

Of course they do.


They believed more or less the same this concludes that their ways were also more or less the same.

Wild speculation. No civilization has ever stayed the same.



Yes, after the introduction of christianity

I see, blame it all on Christianity.


would belong to one single "governor".

Monotheism doesn't have a single governor either. There is a hierarchy with different roles delegated to different angels.

Hrodnand
Sunday, April 5th, 2009, 05:58 PM
So if it wasn't written it is not included.

It's not written in doctrines or under any set of rules.




You mean like the All-Father?

All-father is not almighty.




Of course they do.

Yet they are still not considered gods.



I see, blame it all on Christianity.

Yes, mostly.




Monotheism doesn't have a single governor either. There is a hierarchy with different roles delegated to different angels.

Off topic.

exit
Sunday, April 5th, 2009, 06:04 PM
It's not written in doctrines or under any set of rules...

...or none that you recognize.



All-father is not almighty.

Many would also argue that the Christian god isn't either, but are they right?



Such as?

It should be obvious that the gods battle the giants and the angels battle the rebel angels.


Off topic.

You brought it up.

Hyperboreanar
Sunday, April 5th, 2009, 06:09 PM
Should Christianity be labelled polytheism because it has angels?

The Hebrew word for God is Elohim.

Elohim is plural and means Gods, not a single God.

Christianity has it's origins in polytheism.

Plurality in Genesis confirms the polytheistic origins of the Bible.

'And God said, 'Let us make man in Our image'
Genesis 1:26,

'Behold, the man has become like one of us''
Genesis 3:22

'Come, let us go down and there confuse their language'
Genesis 11:7

exit
Sunday, April 5th, 2009, 06:12 PM
The Hebrew word for God is Elohim.

Elohim is plural and means Gods, not a single God.

Christianity has it's origins in polytheism.


Polytheism doesn't mean simply many gods, but individual independent gods which are no longer different aspects of a whole. Polytheism derived from a degeneration of tradition. If this weren't so then how could you make man in the gods image?

Hrodnand
Sunday, April 5th, 2009, 06:17 PM
...or none that you recognize.

Or none that is recognized at all.




Many would also argue that the Christian god isn't either, but are they right?

If not then why do they consider him as almighty?




It should be obvious that the gods battle the giants and the angels battle the rebel angels.

That's a cheap comparison.

The gods are not servants to anyone but their own-selfs, where the angels are always sent by the main god, the angels do not think individually but they are objects for the christian god to fulfill his goals.



Christianity has it's origins in polytheism

That doesn't change the fact that european christianity operates as a monotheistic religion.

exit
Sunday, April 5th, 2009, 06:20 PM
The gods are not servants to anyone but their own-selfs,

Then they're not gods and not divine. Everyone serves a higher law unless one rebels and becomes like a giant.

velvet
Sunday, April 5th, 2009, 06:23 PM
So if it wasn't written it is not included. Whose interpretation then is valid?

For sure not an interpretation which bases on things that are 'not' included.


There is a hierarchy with different roles delegated to different angels.

Delegation is not the same like pluralism. Just because your boss delegated the paperwork to you does not make you the company owner.

Hrodnand
Sunday, April 5th, 2009, 06:24 PM
Then they're not gods and not divine. Everyone serves a higher law lest one rebels and becomes like a giant.

The fact that they are also influenced by Wyrd doesn't make them servants of the Wyrd.

The difference is in the terminology and in the attitude towards higher forces.

Hyperboreanar
Sunday, April 5th, 2009, 06:24 PM
Polytheism doesn't mean simply many gods, but individual independent gods which are no longer different aspects of a whole. Polytheism derived from a degeneration of tradition. If this weren't so then how could you make man in the gods image?

The Gods of all religions were individual people.

When the Bible says man was made in the image of Gods, it means simply they were the same race as the Gods.

The Gods and angels of the Bible are all described as white skinned and light haired. They were real people. In the Book of the Secrets of Enoch or 2 Enoch, Angels are described as ''gleaming white skinned' with ''eyes like lighted lamps'' (light coloured eyes).

Adam the first man of the bible also was white skinned. His name in Hebrew means ''to emit reddness''. Only pale white skin can emit reddness, ie rosy cheeks or a rosy complexion. Since Adam was made in the image of the Gods, the Gods therfore were white skinned. The Gods were also real people, hence their physical features were exactly the same.

Anfang
Sunday, April 5th, 2009, 06:28 PM
What does your Germanic studies department say? This could open up a whole other topic itself. Academia is very anti-Aryan since the end of WWII. First they changed the name "Aryan" to "Proto-Indo-European" or PIE. Then I've read many supposedly scholarly sources that said that "Aryan" was never a race and I believed it for a long time. Lo and behold I find out the the Vedas in India some 2,000 years old written by the Aryans refer to themselves as "Aryan". They contrast the light skinned Aryan race with the darker people they were at war with. Likewise it is found in other later Aryan sources. It is also a linguistic term. The Aryan race spoke the Aryan language. Most modern European languages are derived from Aryan dialects as is Hindu. The culture itself is derived from a common Aryan root. We're talking about roughly 5,000 B.C. It wasn't until maybe 500 B.C. maybe 1,000 at the earliest that we see the first emergence of Germanic culture which is an offspring of Aryan. The Germanic birthplace/homeland is the southern tip of sweden and the northern area of Denmark. The earlier Aryan emergence was in Ukraine. Prior to that we had a general Europe wide Caucasion group that the Aryans derived from and intermingled with. The Caucasion race emerged about 30,000 or 35,000 B.C. or there abouts. The same way that we can say American English/Culture is an offspring from England. Or that modern Spanish is an offspring from Latin. You can say Spanish and French are both distinct languages/cultures but they both go back to a Latin root. Latin itself has an Aryan root. Prior to Aryan no records exist. In fact the original Aryan language (PIE) there are no records of and its reconstructed. The culture itself is mainly reconstructed from common traits in its daughter cultures. Though the Indian Vedas are the oldest preserved literature from that culture or close to it. With the Greeks and Romans we also have much older and more detailed literature. While the Greeks were recording Platos Philosophy or Homers Illiad the Germanic people were not writing anything other than etching very basic things on runestones. Mainly using runes for record keeping, rememberance of dead ones, and magick. No real "books" were published until later Roman influence.

umm about exits comment: I believe the gods are part of the universe just as we are. They didn't creat it. The universe formed on its own. According to myth fire and ice combined in the great void, but however you take it. The gods of the Norse are not perfect omnicent beings. Yes if you said there were more than one perfect all knowing beings who created the world then that would contradict.

I dont have a Germanic Stutidies department. I am not a University.

For the recore Germanic studies departments, Philology and archeology are rather uninfluenced by the leftist influence within Academia.

Honestly, It is very presumtuous to think that the cultural tradition of the Germanic people all developed with the advent of the introduction of the writen word to North lands.

If you were to know the complexity of the poetry and its rythmic properties
perfectly balanced with vocalizations that make them into musical pieces or a complex nature, you would not say that.

When you dig a well you have to dig a few yards down. But then you have real wated, which you can dring.
these texts and extrapolations of "Arian history" are not the well I am drinking from.

exit
Sunday, April 5th, 2009, 06:30 PM
The Gods of all religions were individual people.

When the Bible says man was made in the image of Gods, it means simply they were the same race as the Gods.

The Gods and angels of the Bible are all described as white skinned and light haired. They were real people. In the Book of the Secrets of Enoch or 2 Enoch, Angels are described as ''gleaming white skinned' with ''eyes like lighted lamps'' (light coloured eyes).

Adam the first man of the bible also was white skinned. His name in Hebrew means ''to emit reddness''. Only pale white skin can emit reddness, ie rosy cheeks or a rosy complexion. Since Adam was made in the image of the Gods, the Gods therfore were white skinned. The Gods were also real people, hence their physical features were exactly the same.

You have made some strange theories where everyone including Adam, Jesus, and the Prophet of Islam were white men. In doing so I think you are just being racist and missing the point of theology. Whites don't hold a monopoly on spirituality.

Hyperboreanar
Sunday, April 5th, 2009, 06:42 PM
You have made some strange theories where everyone including Adam, Jesus, and the Prophet of Islam were white men. In doing so I think you are just being racist and missing the point of theology. Whites don't hold a monopoly on spirituality.

I won't go into this here, but check my threads out on Jesus and Muhammad. Both were racially Aryan. Buddha was also Aryan, as was Zoroaster.

Buddha:

The Signs of the Great Man

(Pali: Lakkhana Mahapurisa):

His hands and feet are soft-skinned (Pali: mudutalahathapado).

''His skin is the color of goldish'' (Pali: suva n nava no).

''He has very blue eyes'' (Pali: abhi nila netto). Note 1: "very (abhi) blue (nila) eyes (netto)" is the literal translation. Nila is the word used to describe a sapphireSapphire
Sapphire is the single-crystal form of aluminium oxide , a mineral known as corundum. It can be found naturally as gemstones or manufactured in large crystal boule for a variety of applications....

Soft skin is found the most in Nordic populations, goldish skin is a tanned sunburnt complexion, and only pale skin tans and blue eyes are a Nordic feature. How many Asians have blue eyes?

velvet
Sunday, April 5th, 2009, 06:57 PM
You have made some strange theories where everyone including Adam, Jesus, and the Prophet of Islam were white men. In doing so I think you are just being racist and missing the point of theology. Whites don't hold a monopoly on spirituality.

Oh great, I've waited already for the racist-card :lol

Honestly, although I wouldnt subscribe to the attitude Rainman presents, it is just true.
Every trace of culture and traditions have been created by whites. The word Iran is the over centuries changed form of aryan, its culture was created by whites, before they were mixed-up with the native (dark) population of the middle east. The warfare embracing jews are whites, where the main part of Israel's inhabitans is the mixed dark race of the middle east. The greek culture: built by whites, their downfall came with the mixing with the invading eastern/southern people. The six thousand years old egyptian culture, built by whites.

It really has nothing to do with racism, it is just the truth.

Hyperboreanar
Sunday, April 5th, 2009, 07:22 PM
Oh great, I've waited already for the racist-card :lol

Honestly, although I wouldnt subscribe to the attitude Rainman presents, it is just true.
Every trace of culture and traditions have been created by whites. The word Iran is the over centuries changed form of aryan, its culture was created by whites, before they were mixed-up with the native (dark) population of the middle east. The warfare embracing jews are whites, where the main part of Israel's inhabitans is the mixed dark race of the middle east. The greek culture: built by whites, their downfall came with the mixing with the invading eastern/southern people. The six thousand years old egyptian culture, built by whites.

It really has nothing to do with racism, it is just the truth.

The ancients knew dark skinned races were not spiritually good, most old teachings assert dark skinned races had no souls as the following confirms:

Ancient Zoroastrianists believed that negroids were the product of a demon and were thus had no soul:

''Zohak, during his reign, let loose a dev (demon) on a young woman, and let loose a young man on a parik (witch). They performed coition with [the sight] of the apparition; the negro came into being through that [novel] kind of coition'' (Bundahishn, XIVB).

http://www.avesta.org/mp/grb12.htm

This tradition is thousands of years old.


Whites don't hold a monopoly on spirituality.

According to a post you made in another thread, you have stated spirit has nothing to do with race.

So what is race in your opinion?

Anfang
Sunday, April 5th, 2009, 08:20 PM
The ancients knew dark skinned races were not spiritually good, most old teachings assert dark skinned races had no souls as the following confirms:

Ancient Zoroastrianists believed that negroids were the product of a demon and were thus had no soul:

''Zohak, during his reign, let loose a dev (demon) on a young woman, and let loose a young man on a parik (witch). They performed coition with [the sight] of the apparition; the negro came into being through that [novel] kind of coition'' (Bundahishn, XIVB).

http://www.avesta.org/mp/grb12.htm

This tradition is thousands of years old.



According to a post you made in another thread, you have stated spirit has nothing to do with race.

So what is race in your opinion?

I think that for the sake of the thread we can refrain from having this discussion on race. it helps 'exit" to *Divert*I dont care what people of other Volkes are or are not. I care what i am, what me and mine will become.

I do not need to compare my people to any other people.

Hrodnand
Sunday, April 5th, 2009, 08:41 PM
I think that for the sake of the thread we can refrain from having this discussion on race.


Anfang is right, let's don't go too much off topic.

velvet
Sunday, April 5th, 2009, 09:48 PM
Anfang is right, let's don't go too much off topic.

I agree. Although it has some interesting aspects, also for the degeneration of pluralism to a simplifying reductionism. ;)

Anfang
Sunday, April 5th, 2009, 09:51 PM
Exit was trying to " change up" to use us baseball venacular.
It was clearly a ruse to *Divert* from the fact that his "Logic and Reason"
argument was based on thin air, like the rest of his argument.
In the end his areguments really do amout to trolling, as there is no serious atempt at scholarship or inquiery on his part in anything he writes.

The interpretation of a word through 'logic and reason" is to be made within the Context of language. Exit failed miserably in using reason or logic towards the subject of language and used instead his own rigid and manufactured "interpretation".
language is based on Usage, progression cultural influences and philological history. having found himself in a corner he threw the "race curve ball" and
it was clearly another subterfuge move. it does seem however to help expose his style, and that style is clearly that of a troller.

Anfang
Tuesday, April 7th, 2009, 07:01 PM
I see some don't like tying up loose ends....

triedandtru
Tuesday, April 7th, 2009, 08:45 PM
You may have rendered Exit speechless. Arguing was becoming a mute point, anyway.

exit
Tuesday, April 7th, 2009, 11:42 PM
If I do have anything final to say regarding this thread, insofar as my views are concerned, and I would like to end it on a good note, it would be that even if you disregard what I have said or simply at this time do not understand it, then that is fine, but I still would caution against seeking experiences of phenomena and other forms of outward inspiration and instead encourage following a path of principles and of acting accordingly, for in the end it does not matter what we experience but what we do and know, and from this, internal inspiration flows readily.

I must also reiterate that my metaphysics is not foreign but based upon all valid external or secondary traditions. And that “If ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.” -Gal. 5:18 Thus ultimately, my views regarding doctrinal unicity must be seen as valid only on the higher plane as was intended, for God became man so that man might become God, which is the same as to say that the gods are intellectual principles which can be realized by attainment of different states of consciousness; for the gods are vertical and spiritual, whereas the giants are horizontal and psychic. The liberated man is therefore both divine and human, god and giant... whereas the source of polytheism is the rejection of the unity of the gods as so many aspects of a whole, which I believe can only nullify any spiritual technique.

Anfang
Wednesday, April 8th, 2009, 02:08 AM
You may have rendered Exit speechless. Arguing was becoming a mute point, anyway.


Well he was sort of mute for a while, I should have let sleeping dogs lie.








"mea culpa, mea culpa mea maxima culpa".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01002/Silas-Opus-Dei_1002905c.jpg

PendaMercia
Sunday, April 12th, 2009, 10:14 AM
as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.


You cannot make an objective case that you are an independent individual being (no one can), so how could such an objective case be made that the gods are independent individual beings? You are implying that if a positive value does not result from a negative formula, that the value cannot exist as a positive. It is pretty obvious that you have a bias in this subject that is based on nothing objective and is merely your own personal feeling.



I deny that the ideas I put forth were my personal interpretations or anyone's personal interpretations for that matter. To say otherwise is to prove one's ignorance of metaphysical realization.


Entirely circular logic, absolutely subjective and meaningless.
"I am right because I am right and you are ignorant if you disagree with my rightness, even though it is based in nothing but the fact I am saying it is right." You can use this little faulty device anywhere and it will get you the same results: nothing and nothing.



PendaMercia said-
"If metaphysics is absolute logic there is no place for empirical science, or other independently individual systems of logical thought."

which you responded to with this:

"Never said it was logic which is reflective knowledge."




Metaphysics cannot be contrary to logic.
(http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=934867&postcount=71)

If Metaphysics cannot be contrary to logic than it is logical.



Wrong. Metaphysics alone is infallible because it relies on the pure intellect which involves direct knowledge, whereas logic is reflective knowledge. Metaphysics is the absolutely real whereas logic deals on a lesser plane of reality.


This is goofiness and fantasy. The only absolute reality is nothingness: pure objectivity. To be absolutely real, it cannot not exist, it is simply an unperceived unchanging blankness. Being is changing presence, not absolute unchanging absence. In other, more straightforward terms: nothing is infallible. In order to imagine an infallible state you have to change the definition of infallibility. Only that which cannot be tested is absolutely infallible, and only that which does not exist cannot be tested.

So you are, in a very roundabout way, saying that blind faith is the supreme 'philosophical/theological' dogma. A dog that not only spins in circles chasing its own tail, but in fact has caught its tale and is consuming its self.



Nonsense. Two or more contradictory plans would cancel each other out just as two infinities would limit each other and therefore not be infinite.


Why assume all such plans have to be infinite? Infinity is only death, non-existence. It exists only as objects, and even then barely so. This is unipolarity, which is just plain non-nonsensical. Contradiction/opposition is the very genesis of creation.



This has become a debating technique on this forum. Claim that universal principles are one's personal views.


Well the first step in recovery is admitting than one is a conformist. ;)



All metaphysicians I know of are in unanimous agreement. Others, who pretend to be metaphysicans are frauds.

Of course all the people you agree with, agree with you, and everyone else is a fraud.

You arrive here at the land of three dimensions and fault it for not existing in the single dimensions of your origins. "Things can't have height, everything is flat! I don't wanna see rhetoric, I wanna see a flat case of something that has height."

Some see the scales of ouroboros (jormungander), fall to their numinous glow (ginning) and articulate that they have found in that glowing, undifferentiated circle some kind of perfection. Others (sa-rr) seek to kill the self-consuming wyrm, to break the boundary and transcend it. As an individual being he has come close to that, but no matter. It is more of a restriction for men (those residing in midgard) than it is for Gods.


Then they're not gods and not divine. Everyone serves a higher law unless one rebels and becomes like a giant.

This incredibly narrow definition of 'the divine' reveals an internal need to follow a higher law rather than define the laws one will follow for ones self.
Not only does this kind of ideology poison the megenn of the individual and the people, but it poisons a healthy civil society and serves as the predicate for all kinds of tyranny.

A healthy civil society requires that individuals exercise sufficient intellectual honesty and daring to come to their own conclusions about principles of behavior, the collective sum of these conclusions becoming custom, custom through a rigorous and judicial process becoming the basis of law and a vigorous Nation. Sick societies are those in which principles of conduct are concluded upon and enforced as law by a small minority group, regardless of
the conclusions reached by collection of individuals that is the people themselves. That is tyranny. It does not work. When it does work for awhile, it ultimately is violently ripped apart by the stronger and more successful system of civil society.

Giants (Jotun) are not rebels, if anything the Aesir are rebels against the Jotun who represent the established order. The principle is that of self-overcoming, self-improvement in order to dominate competitors. Not one of rebellion against a higher law or even the establishment and enforcement of that higher law.

exit
Friday, April 17th, 2009, 04:08 PM
The Church fathers like Cyprian and Athanasius used Euhemerus to denounce the old gods as false. Euhemerus claimed that the gods were really just deified kings and heroes, but Euhemerus was a hedonist, atheist and ignorant buffoon. So too were the arguments of the Church fathers worthless since one cannot judge a tradition based on its degeneration, and it is clear to anyone reading their arguments that they use the reasoning of a five-year old child to support their accusations. Athanasius claimed that since the gods in myths displayed human actions and values they were indeed human; that mortals were deified for the practice of devising idols so that after their death they might be worshipped not mourned; and that the gods including Zeus, Apollo, Athena, etc., were given the title of gods by Theseus of which Athanasius regards Euhemerism as true history. But that Theseus is human is also denied even to the present day by neoplatonists like Taylor, here http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/ebm/ebm05.htm

Unfortunately, euhemerism is taken up by most Christians including Snorri which must be denounced wherever it is found. But also the idea that the gods are extra-corporeal beings rather than as principles seems rather closely related to euhemerism and I wouldn’t doubt that its origin could indeed be traced to this error.

exit
Saturday, April 18th, 2009, 02:56 PM
Since I touched on the Greek mysteries which I think are quite similar to Germanic mysteries, I think it is also of interest to mention the Orphic hymns which speak plainly of a unity: "He is the One, self-proceeding; and from him all things proceed." And


There is one royal body in which all things are enwombed,
Fire and Water, Earth, ther, Night and Day,
And Counsel [Metis], the first producer, and delightful Love,
For all these are contained in the great body of Zeus.

Zeus, the mighty thunderer, is first; Zeus is last;
Zeus is the head, Zeus the middle of all things;
From Zeus were all things produced. He is male, he is female;
Zeus is the depth of the earth, the height of the starry heavens;

He is the breath of all things, the force of untamed fire;
The bottom of the sea; Sun, Moon, and Stars;
Origin of all; King of all; One Power, one God, one Great Ruler.

exit
Monday, May 4th, 2009, 08:41 PM
The gods are not servants to anyone but their own-selfs, where the angels are always sent by the main god, the angels do not think individually but they are objects for the christian god to fulfill his goals.


In Gylfaginning it is written "Then said Thridi: 'Odin is highest and eldest of the sir: he rules all things, and mighty as are the other gods, they all serve him as children obey a father.'"