The Gods: Real or Archetypes?

[The Hammer]

I have spent a lot of time lately looking into Heathenry and all of its various aspects. A common thread I notice is that heathens seems divided on the nature of the gods. Do they exist and not care about us? Are they real in an extra-dimensional sense? Are they actual physical beings you can speak to? Are they archetypes that exist to explain aspects of the human psyche? It seems like if you ask ten heathens, you get eleven different answers.

So let's talk about it. What do you think about the nature of wights, gods, and other supernatural beings?

I believe that the Gods are as real as you and I. They exist as both as entities outside of our "reality", that can indirectly interact with it, and sometimes very directly. I believe their interference is a rarity not a repeated thing.
I also believe that we can all feel the Gods, even when they are not directly interacting with us, and we can interact with them through ritual.

 

[Hildeburh]

I have spent a lot of time lately looking into Heathenry and all of its various aspects. A common thread I notice is that heathens seems divided on the nature of the gods. Do they exist and not care about us? Are they real in an extra-dimensional sense? Are they actual physical beings you can speak to? Are they archetypes that exist to explain aspects of the human psyche? It seems like if you ask ten heathens, you get eleven different answers.

So let's talk about it. What do you think about the nature of wights, gods, and other supernatural beings?

It doesn't matter how individuals interpret the nature of our deites we are an orthopraxic folkway not an orthodoxic religion; there is no canon to inform us as to how we should think.

I would be more worried if you asked ten heathens and got one answer.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Whoops, never got back to it...

On a certain level, though (to Hildeburh's last statement), asking ten Heathens will produce one (general) answer, but it depends on what's being asked. In regards to the gods, if you ask ten Heathens who Thor is, all ten are most likely going to say "the god of thunder".

It is correct (more or less) that Heathenry - and for the most part Paganism as a whole - is more orthopraxic than orthodoxic; that is to say that it's more important that you have proper action, rather than proper belief. However a good religion has a balance of both, and while Heathenry isn't as dogmatic as Christianity, we still do have a religious canon through the Eddur, the Sagas, and various folk tales and customs that are consistent in their presentation of the gods to where it would essentially fly in the face of serious Heathenry (as I have observed and shook my head at MANY times on Amino) were someone to claim things like Tyr being kind and peaceful* (when he is a god of war), or Fenrir being "just a really big puppers". There is still enough known about the gods that there can be the dismissal of people just making sh*t up. (And, they almost always throw out the justification of "well it's all made up," which to me just really speaks of irreverence and non-belief in the gods, treating it all like a game.)

 

[Hildeburh]

Whoops, never got back to it...

On a certain level, though (to Hildeburh's last statement), asking ten Heathens will produce one (general) answer, but it depends on what's being asked. In regards to the gods, if you ask ten Heathens who Thor is, all ten are most likely going to say "the god of thunder".

It is correct (more or less) that Heathenry - and for the most part Paganism as a whole - is more orthopraxic than orthodoxic; that is to say that it's more important that you have proper action, rather than proper belief. However a good religion has a balance of both, and while Heathenry isn't as dogmatic as Christianity, we still do have a religious canon through the Eddur, the Sagas, and various folk tales and customs that are consistent in their presentation of the gods to where it would essentially fly in the face of serious Heathenry (as I have observed and shook my head at MANY times on Amino) were someone to claim things like Tyr being kind and peaceful* (when he is a god of war), or Fenrir being "just a really big puppers". There is still enough known about the gods that there can be the dismissal of people just making sh*t up. (And, they almost always throw out the justification of "well it's all made up," which to me just really speaks of irreverence and non-belief in the gods, treating it all like a game.)

A good religion? The Norse did not refer to their folkways as a religion but as the old custom (Forn Sidr) and the conversion to Christianity as siðaskipti, a change of custom.

Heathenry is an umbrella term for a fairly wide array of folkways, there was not one Heathenry in the past as there is not one now. Our ancestors learned from their ancestors and there would have been regional and tribal variations. So unless you are refering to modern Asatru adopting the Eddas, Sagas as canon I cannot agree.

The Eddas, Sagas and folktales (to which folktales do you refer?) inform Asatruers not all Heathens. As an AS pagan the Eddas and Sagas (apart from an historical and perhaps of comparative interest) are of no value to me.

Even for Asatruers it is difficult to consider the Eddas and Sagas as a canon as they have very little to say regarding day to day practice; having been written or censored by Christians. Norse literature contains Christian and Classical themes, omissions and contadictions. Overcoming source problems has always been an issue for Heathens, I'm not advocating a hypercritical approach but to consider Norse literature and later folktales as a canon ignores far too many issues.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I'm aware that the Norse didn't refer to their beliefs as a religion; I'm talking about today's religions. (In general, that's what I mean when I say Heathenry; I am strongly in the camp of we must move past the year 900; ancient foundation but modern practice). And despite there being a division between Norse and Anglo-Saxon Heathenry, somehow we always manage to mingle...

Frankly I view it as akin to Protestants and Catholics.

As for the canon, The Eddur are specific to Norse, yes. There are more sagas than Iceland's, however (as someone in the Troth made mention to me,) and plenty of folktales from any culture - not just Germanic - that can and do include the gods in keeping with their established presence. And even though there is Christianization to sift through, this isn't really an obstacle. There are depictions and tellings that pre-date Christianity and the writing of the Eddur enough that we can reasonably determine what is genuine and what is not. Regardless, they do form a mythological and theological canon, with next to no issues. We don't have one tale where Thor is the god of thunder, and another where he is the god of fire.

 

[DanishCrow]

Not to play Loke's Advocate here, but the reason there's "no issues" is that the canon was all written at the same time, wherein the gods had one specific portfolio. Religious historians are pretty sure all gods have changed names, jobs and even been split up or laid together over time..

Anyway, the reason no historical source in scandinavia talks of "religion" is that we had never had another tangibly different one at that point. It's "forn sidr" because there is no distinction between religion and life. One who differentiates between religions or does not believe would talk specifically of the gods by name.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I don't think I've ever heard or read that the gods changed names, jobs, or spouses in a wildly frivolous (how I read it) manner. Thor has always been a god of thunder, and while he might not be the only one associated with it (Odin is also known as "thunderer",) I don't think he's ever been seen - even outside of written canon - as a god of, say, skiing.

 

[DanishCrow]

I don't think I've ever heard or read that the gods changed names, jobs, or spouses in a wildly frivolous (how I read it) manner. Thor has always been a god of thunder, and while he might not be the only one associated with it (Odin is also known as "thunderer",) I don't think he's ever been seen - even outside of written canon - as a god of, say, skiing.

I'm not sure I expressed it clearly, then. I'm saying that the gods have been different things to different people in different time periods - not through their actions, but through the historical needs of their communities and the political developments around them.

Odin, for example, was not the king of gods or the god of the kings before circa the 800s, as the new class of chieftains required a religion that supported their claims. So if your bondsmen worshipped a bunch of different gods, yours had to be the king of their gods. Shoot, Valhalla itself wasn't a thing before society had halls!

I recommend the paper 'Ascending the steps to Hlidskjalf' by researcher Josua Rood (himself a practicing believer in the aesir) if you're interested.

 

[Hildeburh]

I'm not sure I expressed it clearly, then. I'm saying that the gods have been different things to different people in different time periods - not through their actions, but through the historical needs of their communities and the political developments around them.

Odin, for example, was not the king of gods or the god of the kings before circa the 800s, as the new class of chieftains required a religion that supported their claims. So if your bondsmen worshipped a bunch of different gods, yours had to be the king of their gods. Shoot, Valhalla itself wasn't a thing before society had halls!

I recommend the paper 'Ascending the steps to Hlidskjalf' by researcher Josua Rood (himself a practicing believer in the aesir) if you're interested.

Rood is a good read. I would also recommend: Terry Gunnell, Pantheon? What Pantheon? ( Also a Heathen) Available free online.

 

[Hildeburh]

I don't think I've ever heard or read that the gods changed names, jobs, or spouses in a wildly frivolous (how I read it) manner. Thor has always been a god of thunder, and while he might not be the only one associated with it (Odin is also known as "thunderer",) I don't think he's ever been seen - even outside of written canon - as a god of, say, skiing.

Has Thor always been the the god of thunder? The thunder element took a back seat in Iceland, no thunder storms as it doesn't get warm enough to create the conditions for lightning and thunder. From memory the Eddas mention the thunder aspect once, I would expect experienced Heathens to have moved past simple constructions of our god and godesses. Read Declan Taggart, How Thor Lost His Thunder the Changing Face of an Old Norse God.

How Thor Lost His Thunder: The Changing Faces of an Old Norse God, 1st Edition (Hardback) - Routledge

In the literature Thor is many things; god of fertility, war god, protector of the people the common people and god of hallowing. His name may translate to thunder as Odin's translates to frenzy/rage/excitement but Heathen gods are far more complex than the etymology of their name. If someone asked me what Thor was god of my first reaction would be Heathens don't have god/esses of XYZ like the Romans.

 

[Hildeburh]

I'm aware that the Norse didn't refer to their beliefs as a religion; I'm talking about today's religions. (In general, that's what I mean when I say Heathenry; I am strongly in the camp of we must move past the year 900; ancient foundation but modern practice). And despite there being a division between Norse and Anglo-Saxon Heathenry, somehow we always manage to mingle...

Frankly I view it as akin to Protestants and Catholics..

Ouch....... Protestants and Catholics are monotheistic, orthodoxic mass religions. We've all moved past 900AD but that does not mean we equate our folkways with Christianity or aim to ape them by claiming a canon of belief or praxis. Claiming universality diminishes us, it does not enrich us.

As for the canon, The Eddur are specific to Norse, yes. There are more sagas than Iceland's, however (as someone in the Troth made mention to me,) and plenty of folktales from any culture - not just Germanic - that can and do include the gods in keeping with their established presence. And even though there is Christianization to sift through, this isn't really an obstacle. There are depictions and tellings that pre-date Christianity and the writing of the Eddur enough that we can reasonably determine what is genuine and what is not. Regardless, they do form a mythological and theological canon, with next to no issues. We don't have one tale where Thor is the god of thunder, and another where he is the god of fire.

The Sagas are late and folktales are and admixture of cultural imputs that have been transmitted through countless retellings. There are some runes that predate the Eddas and Sagas but nothing else (beside archeology, etymology, linguistics and some charms) that predate Christian interference and censure. Anything recorded and interpreted through the lens of Christianity is suspect.

There are a few written tales of Thor, most of which (if not all) have nothing to do with thunder. They are tales of strength, protection, hallowing and fertility.

Why the need for a canon? Hangover from a Christian worldview? Desire to emulate Abrahamic religions? Move toward orthodoxy or one Heathenry? Count me out.

 

[Maponos]

The gods are real. Archetypes are just a false form of polytheism created by "rational" people because they won't allow themselves (or can't) to believe in something more. It's the same thing as reducing the gods to being "aspects" of one ultimate creator or reality (which is a form of monotheism).

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Has Thor always been the the god of thunder? The thunder element took a back seat in Iceland, no thunder storms as it doesn't get warm enough to create the conditions for lightning and thunder.

False. Iceland gets (modernly) about five storms a year. Norway only gets about four. Yes, Thor has always been a god of thunder (not the god; as I said there are others who are also associated with it) as that is in his name. The Norse gods do differ from Greek and Roman deities in that they don't have just one archetype, however what attributes they do have have not shifted so drastically as for Thor to suddenly become a winter god. This is what I meant. Ask ten Heathens and they may say that Thor is and they may say other things as well, but I am more than confident that all would say he is the god of thunder.

Yes, I am also well aware that at some point Odin replaced Tyr as Chieftain of the Aesir (if in fact they are different gods), but what manner of god Odin is did not change.

Ouch....... Protestants and Catholics are monotheistic, orthodoxic mass religions.

I am well aware. Which is why I said akin to. As I said, somehow we (Norse and Anglo-Saxon) always end up mingling; you yourself always seem to have something to say in regards to Norse Heathenry and how we're doing something wrong, despite being an Anglo-Saxon Heathen yourself (much like Protestants always seem to have some opinion on how Catholics are doing something wrong). And while I'm well aware of your disagreement to this, Heathenry - Norse perhaps moreso than AS - does have some level of orthodoxy.

And have we all moved past 900 CE? Strict Reconstructionists seem not to have, giving constant insistence on things being done exactly as they were in the Viking Age.

The Sagas are late and folktales are and admixture of cultural imputs that have been transmitted through countless retellings. There are some runes that predate the Eddas and Sagas but nothing else (beside archeology, etymology, linguistics and some charms) that predate Christian interference and censure. Anything recorded and interpreted through the lens of Christianity is suspect.

Suspect, but not useless. It is not that difficult to do, really. Nor does it matter how "late" something was written down; Heathenry as various religions really only has beginnings in the 1960's. What we have to base off from - so far as lore goes - is all much earlier than that.

There are a few written tales of Thor, most of which (if not all) have nothing to do with thunder.

You're missing the point.

Why the need for a canon? Hangover from a Christian worldview? Desire to emulate Abrahamic religions? Move toward orthodoxy or one Heathenry? Count me out.

Then be out, but this fear of being like Christianity is crippling you and others. Having a canon - which is there, whether you recognize it or not - gives us theological foundation and a sense of presence. There is nothing but a mindless, play-time jumble when everyone has their own unique and differing version of the same god, and no consensus on how public rituals are to be held and practiced. There must be a foundation to go forward, and there cannot be a foundation without consistency.

 

[Hildeburh]

False. Iceland gets (modernly) about five storms a year. Norway only gets about four. Yes, Thor has always been a god of thunder (not the god; as I said there are others who are also associated with it) as that is in his name. The Norse gods do differ from Greek and Roman deities in that they don't have just one archetype, however what attributes they do have have not shifted so drastically as for Thor to suddenly become a winter god. This is what I meant. Ask ten Heathens and they may say that Thor is and they may say other things as well, but I am more than confident that all would say he is the god of thunder.

Site your reference for that assertion, has there been a survey? Is that aspect of Thor prominant in your canon? Or just your opinion? I'm a Heathen I would have gone with warrior and protector, I would explain the thunder aspect as the noise as Thor rides into battle or as Adam of Bremen relates one aspect of Thor as the god that presides over air which govens thunder, lightning, rains, fair weather and crops. Its no accident that the Eddas and Sagas have little to say on Thor in his aspect as thunder god; it was simply not prominent.

Yes, I am also well aware that at some point Odin replaced Tyr as Chieftain of the Aesir (if in fact they are different gods), but what manner of god Odin is did not change.

? Wasn't me that mentioned Tyr replacing Odin. It's a theory based on linguistic evidence, Proto-Germanic *Tīwaz stems from the Proto-Indo-European theonym *Dyeus as does Zeus and Jupiter who were heads of their respective pantheons. Gods rise, fall, blend with other deities, change roles, relevance and nature over time. In the Norse pantheon Tyr and possibly Freyr/Frig attest to that and there are many other example throughout the pagan world.

The problem with Norse literature is that we have an understanding of the gods is that it is not only sparse and frozen in time but includes Christian and classical themes. It's also very light on many aspects of day to day practice for women and common folk.

I am well aware. Which is why I said akin to. As I said, somehow we (Norse and Anglo-Saxon) always end up mingling; you yourself always seem to have something to say in regards to Norse Heathenry and how we're doing something wrong, despite being an Anglo-Saxon Heathen yourself (much like Protestants always seem to have some opinion on how Catholics are doing something wrong). And while I'm well aware of your disagreement to this, Heathenry - Norse perhaps moreso than AS - does have some level of orthodoxy.

Actually we don't always mix well. I dont know what experiences you have had, but in my experience Norse pagan groups do not represent my worldview or meet my ritual needs. My gods/esses are not interchangeable with yours, remember there are centuries dividing AS paganism from Norse paganism. You overestimate the value of Norse sources to non Asatru.

And have we all moved past 900 CE? Strict Reconstructionists seem not to have, giving constant insistence on things being done exactly as they were in the Viking Age.

I'm not a strict reconstructionist and you are conflating larpering with reconstructionism. Reconstructionism is a methodology which emphasises historical accuracy over eclecticism, it aims to arrive at a sensible modern folkway based on what we know not what we imagine.

Suspect, but not useless. It is not that difficult to do, really. Nor does it matter how "late" something was written down; Heathenry as various religions really only has beginnings in the 1960's. What we have to base off from - so far as lore goes - is all much earlier than that.

Even in the 60s there was variation in practice and we've come along way since then. Heathenry is a wide umbrella term and many of us are not in the slightest bit interested in Norse mythology. Uniformity of practice is a step away from traditional paganism not an improvement on or reflection of what was practiced by the many tribes that comprised the Germanic speaking world

Then be out, but this fear of being like Christianity is crippling you and others. Having a canon - which is there, whether you recognize it or not - gives us theological foundation and a sense of presence. There is nothing but a mindless, play-time jumble when everyone has their own unique and differing version of the same god, and no consensus on how public rituals are to be held and practiced. There must be a foundation to go forward, and there cannot be a foundation without consistency..

The notion of a theological foundation for all Heathenry is nothing more than a borrowing of an Abrahamic worldview, our ancestors lore was based on primary orality, they were not people of the book.

A canon for all heathens based on Norse literature? You don't see the problem with that for non Asatru Heathens? Unfortunately the playtime jumble pretty much sums up Asatru with its eclectic inclusions, UPG and gap filling with non Heathen ritual. You are not the first to want a Heathen bible, probably not the last but thankfully as a concept its never gained any ground.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Site your reference for that assertion, has there been a survey?

You're reading way too far into it. I said "may say", and the point is that there is consistency among our theology. One person doesn't think Thor to be the god of thunder, and another think him to be the god of fire. It is also well known among most Heathens (I interact directly with anywhere from 45-200 on a daily basis) that our gods are not The God of XYZ, and as rigid as the Greco-Roman deities, yet there is still a rhyme to the reason.

Its no accident that the Eddas and Sagas have little to say on Thor in his aspect as thunder god; it was simply not prominent.

I thought you said there wasn't a canon? For there not being a canon, you're certainly using the Eddur and the Sagas as though they're a doctrinal canon. This seems to be more your opinion, because the Eddur and the Sagas also have little to say in regards to Thor being a god of protection, despite the prominence of it.

The problem with Norse literature is that we have an understanding of the gods is that it is not only sparse and frozen in time but includes Christian and classical themes. It's also very light on many aspects of day to day practice for women and common folk.

Any mythology is "frozen in time". The understanding of the gods that we have through the Eddur and the various Sagas also span several hundred years. The Christian elements are very easy to pick out, and aren't as prolific as most people assume. Classical themes aren't really present - Norse mythology stands apart from Greek mythology (don't know why only that is considered "classical") - and Snorri's "Classical education" is only truly a hurdle (a small one) in the Prose Edda.

In short there is no real problem with Norse literature, and it offers a well enough basis for theology, cosmology, and ritual practice through the Sagas and legends. Which, for the later, cover a lot of common practice for both men and women, common and noble. The issue there - to be expected - is that many of the practices are not practical or necessary in our modern world.

Actually we don't always mix well. I dont know what experiences you have had, but in my experience Norse pagan groups do not represent my worldview or meet my ritual needs. My gods/esses are not interchangeable with yours, remember there are centuries dividing AS paganism from Norse paganism. You overestimate the value of Norse sources to non Asatru.

I didn't say we mix well, I say we mix often. Somehow, you're always here trying to give me the business when it comes to Asatru and Norse Pagansim. If AS Heathenry is so different from Norse Heathenry, what does it matter to you?

But, since we've got the opportunity here, what is an Anglo-Saxon world view? What are the ritual needs not met by Norse Pagan groups? How are the gods and goddesses (Odin/Wotan, Thor/Donnar, Frigg/Frija) non-interchangeable? What are the Anglo-Saxon myths and sources?

I'm not a strict reconstructionist and you are conflating larpering with reconstructionism.

I never said you were, and no, I'm not. In fact, some Hard Reconstructionists that I've butted heads with insist that modern Asatru is "LARPing" rather than practicing "true Heathenry". I am well aware of what Reconstructionism is, and I am also aware that Hard Reconstructionists insist upon rigid adherence to historical accuracy to the point of hypocrisy, rather than historical adaptation. We've gone round and round over eclecticism, so I'd hope that you'd remember what all was gone over in regards to that.

Uniformity of practice is a step away from traditional paganism not an improvement on or reflection of what was practiced by the many tribes that comprised the Germanic speaking world

Even under the umbrella of "Heathenry", there is grounds for division of culture. We often see a division of terms and ideas between Old Norse and Anglo-Saxon, presented as comparable but not interchangeable. Secondly, there was so much difference of practice and slight variations of practices and beliefs likely and primarily because our forebearers didn't have the luxury of the internet and global communication. That's not a problem these days, and we're much easier able to compare and collaborate in our theology.

The notion of a theological foundation for all Heathenry is nothing more than a borrowing of an Abrahamic worldview

And every single other religion out there. This jumping at the Shadow of Yahweh is just... ridiculous. Nor have I suggested becoming a "people of the book"; frequently both here and elsewhere I remind that the Eddur are not similar to the bible, nor are a "divine source". Our forebearers told the myths orally because they lacked writing - even the oldest Futhark at 200 CE is derived from Roman script - and once they did have writing the myths began to be written on runestones. They were also woven into art, so it's inaccurate and short-sighted to pretend like there was no record of the myths at all, save for what was orally told.

Unfortunately the playtime jumble pretty much sums up Asatru with its eclectic inclusions, UPG and gap filling with non Heathen ritual.

Non-Heathen ritual like what. Please, do enlighten us, since you're hell-bent to ignore prior discussion on what eclecticism is and is not, and insist that Asatru is somehow eclectic. Tell us what this "playtime jumble" you're on about is. And, as suggested above, give us some other sources (specifically Anglo-Saxon,) since for some reason Asatru "doing things wrong" is a huge concern from someone who for the life of themselves claims to not take direction from Asatru.

 

[Hildeburh]

You're reading way too far into it. I said "may say", and the point is that there is consistency among our theology. One person doesn't think Thor to be the god of thunder, and another think him to be the god of fire. It is also well known among most Heathens (I interact directly with anywhere from 45-200 on a daily basis) that our gods are not The God of XYZ, and as rigid as the Greco-Roman deities, yet there is still a rhyme to the reason.Asatru.

Lol, I have a tendency to interpret things way too literally. But I couldn't have said it better, our gods are not the gods of XYZ; including limiting Thor to the the god of the thunder.

I thought you said there wasn't a canon? For there not being a canon, you're certainly using the Eddur and the Sagas as though they're a doctrinal canon. This seems to be more your opinion, because the Eddur and the Sagas also have little to say in regards to Thor being a god of protection, despite the prominence of it.

Did I in what respect? Seriously, you don't think the Eddas primarily represent Thor as a warrior god; protector of Midgard and Asgard from Jotans? In what respect do they represent him as a god of thunder? Are there any mythological stories that recount Thor's connection to or use of thunder?

Any mythology is "frozen in time". The understanding of the gods that we have through the Eddur and the various Sagas also span several hundred years. The Christian elements are very easy to pick out, and aren't as prolific as most people assume. Classical themes aren't really present - Norse mythology stands apart from Greek mythology (don't know why only that is considered "classical") - and Snorri's "Classical education" is only truly a hurdle (a small one) in the Prose Eddas.

?The Christian elements are easy to pick out, wow man you must have a PHd in history. I wish! Separating Christian elements from Heathen keeps academics and in a job and Heathens lining up for the next book and article. What we would like to be a true representation of Heathen folkways and what has been bastardised by Christians and/or the passage of time cannot be so easily separated.

In short there is no real problem with Norse literature, and it offers a well enough basis for theology, cosmology, and ritual practice through the Sagas and legends. Which, for the later, cover a lot of common practice for both men and women, common and noble. The issue there - to be expected - is that many of the practices are not practical or necessary in our modern world.

I envy your uncomplicated acceptance of what are essentially stories filtered through time and the lens of Christian scribes. You don't think they added and subtracted to fit their own worldview or deleted aspects alien or antithetical to Christianity? You think they faithfully retold the stories of the Old gods whilst trying to demonise and displace them?

They cover a lot of practice for men and women? Name one women's ritual.

The Eddas are mythological they have very little to say about ritual; archeology has more to tell us in this area. The Sagas mention only three blots a year; Disirblot/Winter nights, Yule/Midwinter and Sigurblot/start of summer. Personally I prefer to use linguistics, archeology, toponomy as well as written sources to reconstruct the Old gods and rituals.

Ididn't say we mix well, I say we mix often. Somehow, you're always here trying to give me the business when it comes to Asatru and Norse Pagansim. If AS Heathenry is so different from Norse Heathenry, what does it matter to you?

You know that's a hard question to answer. It matters because I'm a passionate Heathen.I guess I get tired of pseudo history and the dilution of Heathenry with individual UPG and neowicca.

But, since we've got the opportunity here, what is an Anglo-Saxon world view? What are the ritual needs not met by Norse Pagan groups? How are the gods and goddesses (Odin/Wotan, Thor/Donnar, Frigg/Frija) non-interchangeable? What are the Anglo-Saxon myths and sources?

I'm glad you asked I've been thinking of doing a blog on that. PS. The AS god/esses are Woden/ Thunor/Frige or Frig. Wotan is OHG; Frija is OHG and Donar is OHG. I may start on the days of the week. What do you think?

I never said you were, and no, I'm not. In fact, some Hard Reconstructionists that I've butted heads with insist that modern Asatru is "LARPing" rather than practicing "true Heathenry". I am well aware of what Reconstructionism is, and I am also aware that Hard Reconstructionists insist upon rigid adherence to historical accuracy to the point of hypocrisy, rather than historical adaptation. We've gone round and round over eclecticism, so I'd hope that you'd remember what all was gone over in regards to that.

Good ,I get tired of people tarring me with that particular feather. I tend to agree hard reconstructionism is self limiting in many respects.

Even under the umbrella of "Heathenry", there is grounds for division of culture. We often see a division of terms and ideas between Old Norse and Anglo-Saxon, presented as comparable but not interchangeable. Secondly, there was so much difference of practice and slight variations of practices and beliefs likely and primarily because our forebearers didn't have the luxury of the internet and global communication. That's not a problem these days, and we're much easier able to compare and collaborate in our.

OK I like that. Just have to bear the limitations in mind. For example, there is often many hundreds of years that divide say AS sources and OHG sources with Viking sources, they cannot be seen as a simple continuum to be cut and pasted. There were many gods and goddesses specific to certain tribes and localities, which cannot neatly be pan-germanised nor can written sources be accepted as uncomplicated dogma.

And every single other religion out there. This jumping at the Shadow of Yahweh is just... ridiculous. Nor have I suggested becoming a "people of the book"; frequently both here and elsewhere I remind that the Eddur are not similar to the bible, nor are a "divine source". Our forebearers told the myths orally because they lacked writing - even the oldest Futhark at 200 CE is derived from Roman script - and once they did have writing the myths began to be written on runestones. They were also woven into art, so it's inaccurate and short-sighted to pretend like there was no record of the myths at all, save for what was orally told.

Not sure futhark was solely derived from Roman script but that is another post. Unfortunately, the myths were not 'written' on runestones, we all wish they were. Mythological characters are depicted on a small number of runestones but most have proven difficult to interpret or have more than one interpretation. I am familiar the depiction of myth on the Gosforth Cross In England. But which myths were 'written' on runestones in Scandinavia? There's a great deal of art in AS England too but it is difficult to interpret with any degree of confidence.

Non-Heathen ritual like what. Please, do enlighten us, since you're hell-bent to ignore prior discussion on what eclecticism is and is not, and insist that Asatru is somehow eclectic. Tell us what this "playtime jumble" you're on about is. And, as suggested above, give us some other sources (specifically Anglo-Saxon,) since for some reason Asatru "doing things wrong" is a huge concern from someone who for the life of themselves claims to not take direction from Asatru.

Oh. That one's easy dude go to any Asatru website and look at their "The Wheel of the Year" you'll have trouble finding evidence for many of them in the Eddas or Sagas. It's a grab bag of celebrations fitted uneasily into the neopagan concept of the Wheel of the Year.

 

[Cassandra]

The gods are real. Archetypes are just a false form of polytheism created by "rational" people because they won't allow themselves (or can't) to believe in something more. It's the same thing as reducing the gods to being "aspects" of one ultimate creator or reality (which is a form of monotheism).

What a great exchange of thought, thank you all!

My personal take on this matter:

I completely understand your resentment about people calling Gods archetypes.

You may want to know, that Carl Jung who created the term "archetype" was equally abhorred, but by the abuse of the term. Atheists started to explain archetypes as something like general profile types, like Zeus being the ideal leader type, And Hephaestus more like the nerd technician.

But that is NOT, I repeat NOT what Jung meant with archetypes. For Jung Archetypes are more like spiritual beings that live in the common consciousness of a people and that develop in that common consciousness which is their living world.

Jung never meant the term to mean: A God is just an archetype, a stock character. Sure the Greek did divide people in something like 50 stock types. Maybe you ever saw this picture of Johannes Vermeer. This is what was called a Tronie, not meant as depiction of a true face but of a particular stock character.

To paint Gods as stock characters is ludicrous, because that is not what the Gods were and are to the people. For the people they have always been real living beings, though of a different nature than humans. Though they were held in high esteem for their benign powers (and also feared for their anger), humans did not feel inferior to the Gods, nor did they feel the need to submit to the Gods, like in Abrahamism. They were just another class of beings and they are fallible like Human beings. Actually the Gods are not simplifications but extremely complex beings and not easy to understand. that is why they are depicted in various ways and why there has always been a variety of ideas on their nature as well.

Tribal Gods were considered to be the ancestral forefathers from whom tribal people descended and remained spiritually connected, Hence the later role of tribal gods as as creator and fertility gods. But Gods were also adopted when people merged.

As tribes merged and started to fight under Kings they brought their Gods with them to the Kings court and that is where the Gods were given separate roams to rule over, thus ensuring that every god was given proper regular honoring by creating specific festivities connected to their specific role. In Greece this occurred in a much earlier period than in Northern Europe. The Edda is the reflection of that. It is this "division of labor" that leads to the misconception of (misunderstood) "archetypes". Mind you, Even before that tribal Gods had specific roams to protect. For instance the tribal God of river people will also be the river God. Like a father also has one or more occupations, so have Gods. Gods have duties to fullfill and they have obligations to people that worship them as well. They are not like the egocentric, ruthless Abrahamic God, that rules as he pleases, and makes servants subject to his plan, and otherwise deems them obstacles. No, good Gods play their part serving the common interest.

And so yes, the roles of the Gods do change with the times and needs of a people and this is completely natural and as it should be. Jung might have said, they change with the change in the common consciousness. That does not mean they are just ideas of people. People themselves also change their role with times and needs. Change does not imply a being does not exist, rather continuous change is a foundation of living beings. Gods are immortal but their reign is taken over by other Gods of new generations. Like Zeus taking over from Cronus taking over from Uranus. That is natural. They are natural beings (not supernatural = fantasy).

The unchanging nature of the Abrahamic God rather makes him suspect of being a cartoon figure like superman who is not able to free himself from the pages of his book and is doomed to remain the same becoming more outdated as people evolve.

For that reason it is also wrong to follow Abrahamism and create a canon and regard the Edda as some sort of scriptural base for belief. As Hildeburh pointed out our ancestors did not have such "religion". Gods are simply part of every day reality and tradition. It is part of the people. It is Abrahamism that made religion into an ideology and a separate thing that can thus be conveniently imposed on other peoples all over the world, regardless of their culture.

It is the priest cast that developed in mass societies that started to commercialize religion as they developed as a separate cast. They turn religion into a orthodoxy as the end of an evolutionary process. At first they are fore-tellers who read the signs in nature, in the end they have become book interpreters who steer people by their interpretation of Gods will. They become ventriloquists and their God their puppet. That is monotheism, the total corruption of the mind that theocracy brings.

Their efforts have been to destroy peoples traditions so they can rule over them by their imposed ideology in which they have put themselves in power.

But Gods will not die. Even after a thousand of years of total brainwash on the people, the Gods are still there. The greatest success that Abrahamism has been able to achieve is atheism. Atheism is as unnatural as Abrahamism, and the result of peoples total rejection of Abrahamism. It is the mirror image of Abrahamism. It is a result of Abrahamism imposing on people only two choices. Either accept their repressive ideology or be an atheist. They never allow the choice to be something different than those two choices. So Abrahamism produces atheists in a huge way, and that actually suits their demonic God well, as his jealous nature does not allow the worship of other Gods. It still fits his megalomaniac strive to be the only worshiped God. Because this God too lives in common consciousness of his people. But the problem is not that he does not exist, but that he is a power hungry oppressive God.

The Jews have a story that this God offered himself to all the peoples in the world, but they all refused to worship him, only the Jews were willing and that is why they are his chosen ones. Of course no people wanted to freely worship this God, he is oppressive. (This was acknowledged by early Gnostic Christians who regarded Jahweh as the evil Demiurch and Jesus as the savior from him, of course they were eradicated). Now the Pagan Gods are no hush bunnies themselves. But Pagans were never their servants. (That slavery started at the big temples) Our ancestors would use the Gods when they needed them, and develop a special relation with one or some of them. Only tribal Gods were worshiped regularly by all in common ceremonies. This was seen as vital to the well-being of the tribe.

No we are not going to introduce orthodoxy as Raging Pagan suggests. Sure then the experts on the writings will volunteer as our priests and interpreters of the will of the Gods. And that is the road of degeneration that leads to Abrahamism. No We do not need such scriptures, all people have direct access to the Gods, no middlemen needed. Sure a specialist like a Shaman comes in handy to solve problems with the spirits, but we do not need book experts for contact with the spiritual world.

That does not mean these stories do not have great value. We need storytellers! The stories and fairy tales have innumerable value. Like Einstein said: “If you want your children to be intelligent, read them fairy tales. If you want them to be more intelligent, read them more fairy tales.”
We need story tellers. What we do not need is explainers, moralizers. Those actually kill the stories with their own interpretations. The stories pose questions, it is for each listener to ponder on them.

The best description of the Gods I have come across is this one.
the latest fairy tale about Paganism from Abrahamism was this one