Keep the Myths Simple Stupid

[lilithu]

I find your attitude to be immature and disrespectful.

Really, as opposed to calling someone else's opinion "tripe"? It's clear from this thread and others that you're convinced your views are always right and when people disagree you dismiss them as ignorant, twisted, or just plain wrong. I can get along with almost any kind of difference of opinion, but I cannot get along with that.

I will most likely not waste my time on you in the future.

Like that's not immature. I wish that I could be a better person and say that this actually concerns me.

 

[Bennettresearch]

You cannot possibly defend that retold stories are unchanged. The retelling and revision of myths in their transmission traditions is nothing less than re-interpretation, and in many cases *gasp* incorporate contradictory philosophical points of view than the original authors had.

So the myth is only meant to have meaning for one group of people at one time and place? That's fine for you and your religion if that's what your religion is about.

You would have us make dusty idols of these stories, rather than the conduits to the living breathing divinity that they are.

Hi Lil and Ang,

Since this topic has grown to include religion, I would like tocaution someone against the re-interpretation of some writings. This is not to say that some exegetics can't be criticized or even corrected, it is only to say that it shouldn't be re-interpreted to fit modern times. I'll give and example.

1. Matthew Henry in his Christological Commentaries writes about the molten sea as a laver for the priests washing their hands in the blood of Jesus. Huh?
Not a good interpretation here.

2. The Mellenialists hijacking Ezekiel to support their views on the signs of the end times.
Not a good interpretation here. Ezekiel's prophecy ended with the return of the Jews under Cyrus and the rebuilding of the 2nd Temple.

It is important to preserve some writings in their original form. Either of these could have been passed down but they reached a point where they were finished works and should remain in that state. It should be the same with Myths. The old myths should be preserved and interpreted according to what they were saying, not re-interpreted to have some modern meaning. If they don't have meaning in their original form then discard them for new myths.

 

[Darkdale]

Worldviews are found in myths. If you are only looking at the particular worldview found in the myth, you are almost certianly looking at only one aspect at the cost of missing the point of the myth altogether. Why just take the worldview and abandon everything else?

This is the real heart of our disagreement. I believe that the myths are important because of the worldview that is expressed in the story. Coming to understand the worldview and the culture of the people who wrote the myths is the reason for reading the mythology in the first place. You seem to be coming from the perspective of "what potential for spiritual and religious development does a myth contain"? If it is the potential of the myth that is important, then I would certainly agree with your position and would consider it our responsiblity to allow a myth to reach its' maximum potential and thus encourage its' natural evolution. So I suppose, were I to begin with your assumptions, I would agree with you; but I simply do not agree with your assumptions.

The myth itself is an expression of the worldview of the people that wrote it and by studying, not only the myth, but the people, the culture, the environment and social structures of the folk who wrote the myths, we can better understand the nature of those reconstructed religions and can offer people of today an alternative worldview. I suppose if you aren't looking at the myths in a religious context, you certainly cannot draw the same conclusions as I have; and if you are comfortable with the Western/Judeo-Christian worldview then the worldview of the people that wrote the mythologies isn't really valuable to you.

However, I think there is a hint of intolerance in the idea that we should dismiss the worldview of the people that wrote the myths, just because we think we know better or that we have a more developed spirituality now.

 

[lilithu]

Hi Lil and Ang,

Since this topic has grown to include religion,

Namaste Carl,

This thread has always been about religion. Did you think that because Darkdale used the word "myth" that we were talking about something else? What do you consider to be the scriptures of other faiths in which you do not believe? the stories of the Buddha's past lives, the stories of the adventures of the Hindu god Krishna. Don't you consider them to be myths? And wouldn't a non-Christian consider the stories in the bible to be myths?

I suspect that many people do not view the stories in their own faiths to be myths; they think the stories in their own scriptures are "true" while the stories in other faiths are "false" and therefore myths. To me, myth is not about literal truth; it's about spiritual truth, and all religious stories are myths even if they have historical basis. I suspect many people think this argument does not concern them. It does. Darkdale may now be arguing that he is only talking about the Norse myths of his tradition, but I do not believe that one can so easily partition to suit one's needs. I do not believe that the myths in some traditions operate so vastly differently than myths in general do. Myths are about spiritual truths and spiritual truths require constant re-interpretion. They require the reader to wrestle with it in his or her own mind and heart. Otherwise, they are just dead words.

I would like tocaution someone against the re-interpretation of some writings. This is not to say that some exegetics can't be criticized or even corrected, it is only to say that it shouldn't be re-interpreted to fit modern times. I'll give and example.

1. Matthew Henry in his Christological Commentaries writes about the molten sea as a laver for the priests washing their hands in the blood of Jesus. Huh?
Not a good interpretation here.

2. The Mellenialists hijacking Ezekiel to support their views on the signs of the end times.
Not a good interpretation here. Ezekiel's prophecy ended with the return of the Jews under Cyrus and the rebuilding of the 2nd Temple.

It is important to preserve some writings in their original form. Either of these could have been passed down but they reached a point where they were finished works and should remain in that state. It should be the same with Myths. The old myths should be preserved and interpreted according to what they were saying, not reinterpreted to have some modern meaning. If they don't have meaning in their original form then discard them for new myths.

I agree that myths should be interpreted according to what they're saying. When someone violates this, it's obvious and their reinterpretation falls by the way side. A miniscule blip in history. But just because some interpretations seem whacked doesn't mean that stories shouldn't be reinterpreted. A couple of examples of seeming misuse does not invalidate the entire process. The fact is that we all re-inpterpret the stories in the scripture to fit us because none of us can understand things except in within our own framework. With knowledge, we may take into account things that we know about the people who wrote the stories, but our understanding is still inescapably modern. (Heck, the very argument that we need to take historical and cultural circumstances into account is a modern view.) The only difference is whether we recognize that's what we're doing.

1. As AE said, when people argue against reinterpretation, what they're really saying is that their reinterpretation is the right one. And the question becomes, on what basis do they make that claim?

2. If we are not allowed to reinterpret the stories in the bible, if they are only to be seen as "recorded history," I ask again, what significance does the recorded history of a small semitic desert-wandering tribe that lived thousands of years ago have for you?

 

[mr.guy]

Just because people have adopted alien worldviews to their old folk religions...

Am i reading too deeply into this statement, or would geneology be good determining factor for one's best suited or "most natural" religion?

The myth itself is an expression of the worldview of the people that wrote it and by studying, not only the myth, but the people, the culture, the environment and social structures of the folk who wrote the myths,

This implies that myth is strictly used to reflect views previously held by a culture before their writing. Would you say that it is impossible to correctly use myth to alter it's indigeneous culture and people?

we can better understand the nature of those reconstructed religions and can offer people of today an alternative worldview.

Kinda like the aryan migration, right?

 

[Darkdale]

Am i reading too deeply into this statement, or would geneology be good determining factor for one's best suited or "most natural" religion?

I believe that, but it's not a universal belief. In other words, I have chosen the pre-Christian religion of the old Germanic Tribes, because that is where I hail from. To me, that just makes good sense. lol, but I think it is obvious that the great majority of people don't see it the same way. Islam, Christianity, Wicca... these are all universal religions that try to appeal to all mankind, to all different kinds of folk. The UUs go as far to try to appeal to all different kinds of worldviews. While this doesn't makes sense to me... I can kind of see the appeal.

This implies that myth is strictly used to reflect views previously held by a culture before their writing. Would you say that it is impossible to correctly use myth to alter it's indigeneous culture and people?

Yes, I would say that myth is used to reflect the worldview of the folk from whom the myths were derived. I'm not sure I understand your question though. Would it be impossible to correctly use myth to alter the worldview of the folk from whom the myths were derived? I would say that to try to alter the worldview, the general religious paradigm itself, would be wrong and to interpret a myth in such a way would be to do a disservice to the folk from whom the myths were derived and to miss the real value of the myth itself.

Kinda like the aryan migration, right?

The Aryan migration? Is this in reference to the Indo-European migration to Europe? I'm not sure I understand the relation.

 

[Bennettresearch]

Namaste Carl,

This thread has always been about religion. Did you think that because Darkdale used the word "myth" that we were talking about something else? What do you consider to be the scriptures of other faiths in which you do not believe? the stories of the Buddha's past lives, the stories of the adventures of the Hindu god Krishna. Don't you consider them to be myths? And wouldn't a non-Christian consider the stories in the bible to be myths?

I suspect that many people do not view the stories in their own faiths to be myths; they think the stories in their own scriptures are "true" while the stories in other faiths are "false" and therefore myths. To me, myth is not about literal truth; it's about spiritual truth, and all religious stories are myths even if they have historical basis. I suspect many people think this argument does not concern them. It does. Darkdale may now be arguing that he is only talking about the Norse myths of his tradition, but I do not believe that one can so easily partition to suit one's needs. I do not believe that the myths in some traditions operate so vastly differently than myths in general do. Myths are about spiritual truths and spiritual truths require constant re-interpretion. They require the reader to wrestle with it in his or her own mind and heart. Otherwise, they are just dead words.


I agree that myths should be interpreted according to what they're saying. When someone violates this, it's obvious and their reinterpretation falls by the way side. A miniscule blip in history. But just because some interpretations seem whacked doesn't mean that stories shouldn't be reinterpreted. A couple of examples of seeming misuse does not invalidate the entire process. The fact is that we all re-inpterpret the stories in the scripture to fit us because none of us can understand things except in within our own framework. With knowledge, we may take into account things that we know about the people who wrote the stories, but our understanding is still inescapably modern. (Heck, the very argument that we need to take historical and cultural circumstances into account is a modern view.) The only difference is whether we recognize that's what we're doing.

1. As AE said, when people argue against reinterpretation, what they're really saying is that their reinterpretation is the right one. And the question becomes, on what basis do they make that claim?

2. If we are not allowed to reinterpret the stories in the bible, if they are only to be seen as "recorded history," I ask again, what significance does the recorded history of a small semitic desert-wandering tribe that lived thousands of years ago have for you?

Hi Lil, it's Craig not Carl.

You have kind of gone off with out really getting my meaning. I am only differentiating between myth and religion as to which is defined as which. Dark calls these stories myths, A lot of people call the Bible stories fact and history. Yes, Bible stories can be identified as myths, but this is just picking hairs. My main point was the interpretation of myths and religous stories or prophecies.

This is not to say that some exegetics can't be criticized or even corrected, it is only to say that it shouldn't be re-interpreted to fit modern times.

I stated very clearly that these writings can be re-interpreted. What is important is to not lose their true meaning in this re-interpretation. I didn't want to fill up this page with a lot of examples so I only gave two. How many examples would it take to prove my point that to ignore hermeneutics, meaning traditions and culture, and project it into a new world may alter it a great deal from its original audience and intention. We are obligated to look through their eyes, not to re-interpret what they say through our eyes.

 

[Bennettresearch]

Am i reading too deeply into this statement, or would geneology be good determining factor for one's best suited or "most natural" religion?

This implies that myth is strictly used to reflect views previously held by a culture before their writing. Would you say that it is impossible to correctly use myth to alter it's indigeneous culture and people?

Kinda like the aryan migration, right?

Hi MG,

You are apparently proving Dark's point here. We all know that Hitler altered the world view of his people by hijacking myths and re-interpreting them for his own political means. I think this is the essence of the argument. Restoring these myths to their original form and interpreting them according to when and by whom they were written is the most important thing.

 

[lilithu]

Hi Lil, it's Craig not Carl.

Ooops, sorry. Hi Craig.

You have kind of gone off with out really getting my meaning. I am only differentiating between myth and religion as to which is defined as which. Dark calls these stories myths, A lot of people call the Bible stories fact and history. Yes, Bible stories can be identified as myths, but this is just picking hairs.

I don't believe so. I believe that the fact that many Christians see the stories in the bible as primarily historical and not mythical is the cause of much unnecessary friction (ex - evolution vs creationism) and more importantly deprives them of a valuable spritual resource. Judaism has always known that their stories are open to successive reinterpretation. Hence, their long and rich tradition of Midrashim. Much of Christianity wants to take these same stories, a heritage that they claim to share with their Jewish sisters and brothers, and reduce its meaning to nothing by historical fact. In doing so, these stories lose their relevance.

My main point was the interpretation of myths and religous stories or prophecies.

This is not to say that some exegetics can't be criticized or even corrected, it is only to say that it shouldn't be re-interpreted to fit modern times.

I stated very clearly that these writings can be re-interpreted. What is important is to not lose their true meaning in this re-interpretation. I didn't want to fill up this page with a lot of examples so I only gave two. How many examples would it take to prove my point that to ignore hermeneutics, meaning traditions and culture, and project it into a new world may alter it a great deal from its original audience and intention. We are obligated to look through their eyes, not to re-interpret what they say through our eyes.

I believe that I did address what you said. From my previous post:

"I agree that myths should be interpreted according to what they're saying. When someone violates this, it's obvious and their reinterpretation falls by the way side."

There's always going to be some people who will go off in their own direction, based more on internal dynamics than on what's in the myth. And they may even get some noteriety for a moment, but in the light of history, we see that they are wrong. When the true meaning is violated, that error is self-corrective.

My point is that just because there is the possibility of error when we reinterpret doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done. It has to be done. The true meaning in myths requires reinterpretation with each generation, in order to preserve its meaning, because the meaning itself is not within the historical and cultural circumstances of its genesis but in the spiritual relevance that is recognized within them. The meaning must have personal relevance. If it gets locked in one place and time while the rest of society changes, the meaning will get distorted even as you try to preserve it. You lose the spirit of the law while trying to preserve the letter.

 

[mr.guy]

I think this is the essence of the argument. Restoring these myths to their original form and interpreting them according to when and by whom they were written is the most important thing.

Would this not apply to Christianity as well? Given darkdale's opinion of neo-heathens, does it not stand to reason that one sect of christianity must necessarily be most correct when applied to these standards?

 

[Darkdale]

Would this not apply to Christianity as well? Given darkdale's opinion of neo-heathens, does it not stand to reason that one sect of christianity must necessarily be most correct when applied to these standards?

Well, there is a point in which we cannot be that certain about what the authors of a myth meant. For example, once we have an understanding of their language and culture, we can look at the more popular Jewish Creation myth and categorically say that it was not trying to tell us to worship Satan or that Satan created the world. That would be a crappy interpretation. We can also be certain that there was no concept of feminism, equal rights or democratic values in the myth. If you are reading those into them, you are wrong. However, how are we supposed to view "God" in that story. Some might say 'X' and others 'Y' with regard to God as he related to mankind. At this point you have to really dive into what we know about the cultural ideal of God at the time, something, sadly, we know very little about. So at some point, once everyone has agreed on the facts as we know them, there will still be room for various interpretation; but I think we can be sure that those differences will neither effect the worldview of the authors or the meaning of myth in the least. Now there further back in history you go, the least we know about the peoples, the concepts and the cultures, so the least we can really know for sure about the meanings of the myths. That's when you have to do some compare and contrast to see if they resemble any more recent myths and so forth; to create more certainty in your interpretation.

 

[lilithu]

Well, there is a point in which we cannot be that certain about what the authors of a myth meant. For example, once we have an understanding of their language and culture, we can look at the more popular Jewish Creation myth and <....> We can also be certain that there was no concept of feminism, equal rights or democratic values in the myth.

This example that you choose is the perfect argument against your position.

1) You say we can be certain that the myth contains no concept of feminism or democracy. All that means is that you feel certain about this, because I disagree. Of course the authors of that myth would not have used modern words like "feminism" or "democratic" but there is a basis for both in the first Hebrew creation myth recounted in Genesis. Man and woman were created at the same time, both made in the image of God. All subsequent humans carry a likeness to God. If you think this is a "modern" interpretation imposed upon an old myth, I point out that the ancient Hewbrew culture to which this myth belongs also was one of the very first societies in history to argue against "might makes right," to argue that even kings are held accountable to justice. The idea of "equal rights" may not have been extended far enough by our standards, but then our own founding fathers fell short of the ideal also. The concept of "equal rights" was there in ancient Israel (and reflected in the first creation myth). For us to insist that it be extended to all peoples before we recognize that the concept was there is an imposition of our own modern sensibilities.

2) Understanding the language and culture, biblical scholars know that two different creation myths were redacted together, with the newer one being placed before the older one. So we have at least three different sets of authors spanning diffferent time periods, the author(s) of the older myth, the author(s) of the newer myth, and the author(s) who edited the myth together. Which "original" meaning are we supposed to preserve?

 

[Darkdale]

2) Understanding the language and culture, biblical scholars know that two different creation myths were redacted together, with the newer one being placed before the older one. So we have at least three different sets of authors spanning diffferent time periods, the author(s) of the older myth, the author(s) of the newer myth, and the author(s) who edited the myth together. Which "original" meaning are we supposed to preserve?

Well, I must admit I am not well educated in Christian Mythology, I've read the Bible a few times, but have never really dedicated myself to its' "study". Now, if what you say is true, and I'll assume it is, then I would draw a couple important conclusions about the creation myth itself. First, that it represented an evolution in the tribal thought of the time. Second, that it represented an original worldview unique to the tribe. Lastly, that the success of the tribe may or may not have been encouraged by the change in prevailing attitudes; the important thing isn't whether or not it did, but that it could have. Obviously this is a point we'll never really "know", but we can form our own opinions.

I disagree that there is even an ounce of feminism in Genesis and I think such a conclusion would require a great deal more faith than I am willing to extend. I am not skeptical as to your claim about the Jews rejection of "might makes right". Consult Nietzsche for my reasons why. However, their creation myth is extremely biased against women. Man was made by god from the Earth and woman was made from man. There is your Jewish social hierarchy, which I must add, continued into the New Testament as well.

Whatever you choose to read into this myth, I still see no reason to attempt to extend it beyond the attitudes, cultures and purposes of the original three myths that were combined. If you will notice, in your defense, you listed anthropological evidence as your reason for reading certain things into the myth. I have no problem with that whatsoever. So long as you are using historical evidence as the grounds for your belief, then I will respect your interpretation.

 

[Bennettresearch]

Would this not apply to Christianity as well? Given darkdale's opinion of neo-heathens, does it not stand to reason that one sect of christianity must necessarily be most correct when applied to these standards?

Hi MG,

Go back and see my example on Matthew Henry's christological interpretation of the OT. I stated quite clearly that christians can do this as well. That is the essence of my statement. Proper exegis requires keeping the subject in context and not going off on some kind of tenagent in a poor attempt at modernizing the original work.

 

[Bennettresearch]

My point is that just because there is the possibility of error when we reinterpret doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done. It has to be done. The true meaning in myths requires reinterpretation with each generation, in order to preserve its meaning, because the meaning itself is not within the historical and cultural circumstances of its genesis but in the spiritual relevance that is recognized within them. The meaning must have personal relevance. If it gets locked in one place and time while the rest of society changes, the meaning will get distorted even as you try to preserve it. You lose the spirit of the law while trying to preserve the letter.

Hi Lil,

You seem to be debating my position but are doing a lot to support it. Maybe the solution here is to describe exactly what the new interpretation is. If someone writes a book that takes a myth, and then gives an interpretation of how this may relate to us in our modern world, then this is fine. They are not altering the old myth, only relating it to us in a different light. Now, if this old myth is adopted with a new interpretation as a representation of some modern viewpoint, then they are actually changing this myth because they have taken it out of the context that it was written in.

We can take old myths and study how they are relevant to us in this modern age, but it is important to have a proper exegetical interpretation based on when and where it was written. So the real importance is whether this myth has been represented accurately, not to try and update it for use in modern times.

 

[lilithu]

Craig, I have not been giving examples because I've bee arguing in favor of the rule, not the exception. Your two examples are exceptions. I am arguing that the vast majority of interpretations are modernized interpretations, made without any problems, and any examples that I give would only serve to limit what we're talking about, which is exactly what I don't want to do. But if you want an example of "modern" interepretations of old myths that do not violate the original meaning of the myth, there is no better example than that of Adam and Eve.

I disagree that there is even an ounce of feminism in Genesis and I think such a conclusion would require a great deal more faith than I am willing to extend.

Again, depends on what you mean by "feminism." Certainly there was no bra-burning, spell "women" with a "y," all-men-are evil sensibilty, but that isn't feminism anyway. There most certainly was the idea that men and women were created equally, and that is feminism. Phyllis Tible's "modern" "feminist" interpretation is based directly on her knowledge of the original language, something that was lost when translated to English. Again, when you say you want to preserve the "original" meaning, who's original meaning are you preserving? Just because a patriarchal society has interpreted the myth to support the domination of men over women for centuries does not mean that they were right.

In the Image of God

As an absent/present figure and a bundle of questions, Adam is the perfect figure for midrash. In the expression that we often see in midrashic parlance, Adam "cries out, interpret me!" The mystery of Adam is perhaps nowhere more present than in his origins.

And God said, let us make Humankind in our image, after our likeness… And God created the Human in His image, in the image of God he created Him; male and female He created them. (Gen 1:27) <....>

Male And Female

The paradox of the plural and the singular in reference to God returns again in reference to humans when God creates the human (singular) both male and female (plural).* The use of the Hebrew word with the definite article Ha-Adam, "the Adam," seems to suggest, as the NRSV translation has it, "humankind." This translation means that God is creating, not a man who is androgynous, but the basic qualities of "humankind." One of the qualities of humankind is that we are created both sexually embodied and sexually differentiated. This leads Phyllis Trible to make a good case that male and female are created, at first, in sexual equality. She points us to the summary statement about the creation of humankind in Genesis 5: "When God created humankind (adam)....male and female created he them." Trible states, "the parallelism between 'ha-adam [humankind] and 'male and female' shows, further, that sexual differentiation does not mean hierarchy but equality."[2] The continued reference to male and femaleness as a quality of humaneness means not only that each of the sexes is equally human, but that gender and sexual activity is essential to humanity. This is affirmed by God's first commandment to Adam and Eve: "Be fruitful and multiply..."(Gen. 1:28).

Quoted from: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/journals/ssr/issues/volume4/number2/ssr04_02_e01.html Bold emphases are mine.

 

[Darkdale]

Well, your interpretation may be correct, but considering that it came from a talk/essay on FROM RABBINIC TO SCRIPTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY by Steven Kepnes, I think you can see the importance of my model. Coming from an anthropological perspective is the only legitimate way to make an argument for a myth.

 

[lilithu]

Well, your interpretation may be correct, but considering that it came from a talk/essay on FROM RABBINIC TO SCRIPTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY by Steven Kepnes, I think you can see the importance of my model. Coming from an anthropological perspective is the only legitimate way to make an argument for a myth.

Yes and no. "Anthropology" in the theological sense is much broader than "anthropology" in the sociological sense. In theology, "anthropology" or the "study of man" is akin to "theology" or the "study of God." Theologically, anthroplogy is an inquiry into the nature of humanity, not just the study of one group of humans at one place and time. Theologically, anthroplogy is none other than humanism - interpetation of scripture such that it upholds the value of humanity.

I have never argued against the importance of understanding the original text and the context in which it was written. But that can't be all there is. Again, in myth, the spirit of what is meant is more important than the actual letters that are written. I think it would be easier to demonstrate this with something other than a myth (in that it's not a story), our Declaration of Independance. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights and among those rights are life, liberty, and the pusuit of happiness." (Quoting from memory so I may have gotten some of the articles and prepositions wrong.) Strictly speaking, the text says "men." It doesn't say humanity, and makes no mention of women. Now, I don't know what Jefferson was thinking when he wrote those lines, but he could really have meant only men, given the times in which he lived. Knowing that, does that mean that the text only refers to men? Is it the case that when women read it, we can gather no sense of equality and worth from it? I don't think so. Even taking into account the original language and the times in which it was written, I feel perfectly justified in interpreting that text to mean all humanity, not just men but also women, not just whites but also blacks, etc. In this case, I think the spirit of the text is much broader than even what its authors may have consciously intended. I base this on the broader sense of anthropology, where I believe that the nature of humanity is that we are all equal, and not a narrower sense of anthropology confined to the beliefs of one place and time.

 

[Darkdale]

Again, in myth, the spirit of what is meant is more important than the actual letters that are written.

Wait. Stop. I read the rest, but I want to deal with this first. I agree with this 100%. But maybe I have a different idea of "the spirit of what is meant". If a worldview contains a concept, such as "equality" "peace" "justice" "tolerance", then we have every right to read modern evolutions of those concepts into the myths (as you have done with the Jewish Creation Myth; an evolution of a concept, not an alien introduction of one). But, if from the study of a culture, we discover, that the authors of a myth had no concept, of say dualism, then to read dualism into a myth would be wrong as it was not belonging to the original spirit of the text in the first place. If for example, we learned that a group of people believed in many gods, then to read a "one true god" or simply a dual, male/female god, into the myth would be incorrect (as many neo-heathens and wiccans have done with Norse Myth). It does not correspond to the spirit of the text.

Are we agreed here? If we are, then I am misunderstanding the context of your posts.

 

[Pah]

Thread moved here from Mythology when debate is not allowed