Ask a Pagan

[fons_vitae]

This is why quoting from the Bible won’t cut it with many Pagans,

Well, obviously. I think the Bhagavad Gita is quite interesting, but I wouldn’t hold it as divinely inspired because I’m not a Vaishnavite Hindu. I’m sure it’s similar for you with the Judeo-Christian Scriptures.

because many of us simply don’t invest our sacred writings with that much authority.

This part I don’t get. Why title them “sacred” if they don’t actually “embody the laws and doctrines of a religion,” to use a dictionary definition of the term?

 

[Lokabrenna]

Hi Loka! I have a casual interest in [neo]paganism so thats cool that you’re here. Here are a few questions that come to mind:

Does your religion have any distinctive symbols? i.e. Wiccan pentacle, Jewish Star of David, Christian cross. I love the Wiccan pentacle personally! I’ve got coasters and jewelry and all sorts of witchy things even though I don’t believe in it lol! Just wondering if you had something similar.

Also something I have wondered about with religions such as yours: how do you know the names of your gods? Did humans just pick some names for the gods they perceived, or did the gods actually reveal themselves to humans way back when, like “Hello, I’m Freyja, the goddess of love.”

Hello!

The most recognizable symbol that is adopted by those who worship the Norse gods is Thor’s Hammer (mjollnir) which looks like [

I think it’s also important to remember that no religions developed in a vaccuum. The Norse pantheon is part of the Indo-European “family” and I think that many people tend to forget that. However, I also think that the Germanic tribes came to their own understanding of these forces. Tyr and Zeus are not the same deity, even though their names are both related to Dyeus (who is a Proto-Indo-European deity). All deities are, to some extent, informed by cultural context.

On the other hand, whose to say that a god didn’t just pop in and be like: “HELLO! MY NAME IS ______!”

I think I should also point out that some Pagans have been asked to call their deities by certain names (that are just between them). In British Traditional Wicca (Gardnerian or Alexandrian traditions) the true names of the God and Goddess are “oathbound” and never revealed to those who aren’t initiates of the tradition.[.

However, it’s not as appropriate for those who worship the Vanir (as Thor is part of the Aesir) so here are a bunch of other symbols that someone might use: http://www.vanatru.us/vanic-symbols.html

This was actually recently discussed on a Yahoo! Group I frequent, the most popular symbols were a wain (a wagon/cart), the sunwheel, and the boar. I like the boar myself. The boar is strongly associated with both Freya and Frey, as well as being a fertility symbol. There is also evidence to indicate that at least some warriors went into battle wearing helmets with images of boars, rather than wolves (which are sacred to Odin). Often people who say that they worship the Vanir focus on the fertility aspect and ignore the more martial aspect of their tradition, so I think the symbol is a nice compromise, of sorts.

The answer to your second question varies, some might say that a deity named Freya always existed, and choose to reveal herself to the Germanic peoples. Technically, “Frey” and “Freya” are titles (“Lord” and “Lady” respectively) rather than proper names, although Frey is also called “Ing” or “Ingvi”. Unfortunately, no “proper name” (if there ever was one) for Freya exists, so most just use their title-names. Anyways, when I was first exploring Wicca, I came across the book “Embracing the Moon” by Yasmine Galenorn, which includes this passage:

For example, we have Poseidon, a Greek God of the waters. While the Greeks named Him, the energy that is Poseidon existed long before humankind as part of the elemental energy of water. (pg. 77)

](. )](http://store.higherheart.com/shopimages/products/normal/Thors-Hammer-Pendant.jpg)

 

[Lokabrenna]

Well, obviously. I think the Bhagavad Gita is quite interesting, but I wouldn’t hold it as divinely inspired because I’m not a Vaishnavite Hindu. I’m sure it’s similar for you with the Judeo-Christian Scriptures.

The problem is that some people tend to forget that when talking to Pagans, mostly Christians of the Protestant evangelical “Jack Chick is teh kewlest!” kind.

This part I don’t get. Why title them “sacred” if they don’t actually “embody the laws and doctrines of a religion,” to use a dictionary definition of the term?

Let me rephrase that: “Many of us don’t invest our lore with that much authority.” Especially for those who honour the gods of the Norse and the Celts, our lore was first written down by Christians. Hellenics, Kemetics, followers of Religio Romana, and Sumero-Akkadian Pagans are more fortunate in that respect. They wrote stuff down on their own.

 

[SteveVH]

Well, the Cathars, for starters, but that’s just one group, but I’m thinking more broadly: What happened to all those heretics who refused to repent of their heresy? Obviously, they couldn’t be allowed to run around poisoning the minds of the populace. How do you think they were dealt with? The history books I’ve read seldom have heretics and orthodox Christians sitting down for tea and both agreeing to disagree.

Not sitting down to tea is a long stretch from being burned at the stake. Any honest Catholic must recognize that there have been abuses and travesties commmitted by certain members of the Church. However, these have been blown so out of proportion that they have more to do with myth than reality. You will find numbers of those killed during the Inquisition, given by enemies of the Catholic Church, that total more people than actually lived in Europe at the time. In reality, over a four hundred year period, the best evidence available is that there were around 2,000. That is still an autrocity, but a far cry from the “millions” some wish to claim. The same applies to heretics burned at the stake.

My point is that so-called “heretics” also had a strong belief in their convictions, and were often willing to die (horribly) based on the strength of their convictions. Yours is not the only tradition to have those who suffered and died for what they believed in. Radbod of Frisia famously refused baptism with these words: “I would rather roast in Hel with my ancestors than feast in heaven with a pacel of beggars.” Obviously, he believed in his gods enough to risk the wrath of the Church.

Well, I have never heard of Radbod of Frisia and your comment that “so-called “heretics” also had a strong belief in their convictions, and were often willing to die (horribly) based on the strength of their convictions” is too general a statement on which to comment.

My intent isn’t to bash Catholicism (why would I even be offering to enter dialogue if I was just going to do that?) but more to point out what I see as an inconsistency re: martyrdom.

I’ve seen nothing in your comments that would lead me to believe that you were here to bash the Catholic Church.

Actually, I never said that I thought Jesus never existed, I said that I think that there is a possibility that he never existed, just as it is possible that he does exist. Since this sounds like sloppy theology, I clarified my position further (in an earlier post) saying that I think a historical Jesus may have existed, but I don’t think that what’s been written about him is entirely accurate. In fact, I’m more of the opinion that all gods exist, but I don’t believe that any one god will speak to everyone.

As for “proof”, quite simply, there is no definitive proof I can offer you (nor any you can offer me) that any gods exist. As I have said before, unlike other Pagans, I have had no grand religious experience that has convinced me, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the gods exist. Even if I had, such a religious experience would only be valid to me, and no one else. Generally speaking, Paganisms aren’t “religions of the book”, although some traditions place more emphasis on textual sources than others, particularly reconstructionist traditions, but even those textual sources aren’t seen as infallible documents. This is why quoting from the Bible won’t cut it with many Pagans, because many of us simply don’t invest our sacred writings with that much authority.

I don’t think I asked for proof, only some evidence that would sway one in choosing to deny Jesus Christ in favor of Norse gods, dwarfs, elves and fairies. In Christianity we at least have witnesses to what Christ said and did, that’s all I’m saying.

I lived on the other side of the fence for years lol, but yes, I do consider my professors to be credible sources. The particular professor in question can pick up a text written in Koine Greek and translate a passage for someone on the fly. I should know, I was standing right next to him when he did it! Apart from that, I invest much less authority in textual sources (and the authors who wrote them) than your average Christian would.

Do you deny the writings of Plato and Aristotle? The Bible holds at least as much crediblity as do these. As far as one being a language expert our Church is overflowing with them, so I see no advantage gained in that regard by your professors. My opinion is that this has more to do with what one wishes to believe than any convincing evidence. But, to each his own.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Hooray! A lighter question! (I still have so many left to answer!)

To answer your first question: Yes. To answer your second question: Yes. Your third question is a little more complicated:

I believe that the Aesir and the Vanir are allies. They joined together to form the Norse pantheon. I know of at least one other person who thinks that the Aesir are cosmic thugs who abuse the poor, innocent Vanir, but I think they get along rather well. As for the elves and dwarves, there is some debate as to whether the Vanir and the elves are related, in a sense, but I see them as separate. The elves and dwarves are powerful beings, but they don’t have the power (and scope) of the gods. There are also the wights, wight may also be a term for “god”, but in modern Heathenry a wight is usually thought of as being a tutelary spirit of something (land-wights, house-wights, etc.) who are responsible for looking after a bit of land, or a house, or a river, sort of like how Greek religion had dryads, hamadryads, naiads, etc.

Apart from that, the basic concept that you have of the gods and their relationship to life, the universe, and everything is correct, but simplistic. While it is true that the Aesir are often thought of as the “gods of civilization” in some areas, they also had spheres of influence that seemed more “Vanic” in nature. Thor, for instance, was honoured in some places as the bringer of rain that fertilizes crops, whereas (particularly in Sweden) Frey was honoured for doing the same thing. While I’m on the subject of Frey, he was also said to have sired a line of Swedish kings, and “kingship” is definitely something I would put in the “civilization” category. There’s a lot of crossover between deities in that respect.

Actually, the idea that it was originally the gods vs the jotnar (and not the Aesir vs. the Vanir) was very recently put forward by a very well-respected scholar of Norse/Germanic religion, who argued that the deities known as ‘the Vanir’ were not in fact a separate group of deities. Before I forget, I should discuss the jotnar…

The Jotnar (giants) get a bad rap among those who honour the Norse gods. I would say that there are definitely some jotnar who like to destroy things and generally don’t have any interest in humans. On the other hand, half the gods wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for the jotnar, and despite their supposed evil-ness, the gods can’t seem to stop marrying them. Apparently, male giants are evil, female giants are…well…very attractive…that said, there is a small number of people who actively worship jotnar who are not allied with the gods, but they are not looked on favourably by the Heathen community in general.

I personally don’t think that all jotnar are bad, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t believe that some just want to…smash things…

All very interesting stuff. I wasn’t aware that Thor was sometimes associated with rain and crops, though it makes sense if he was already associated with thunder and therefore storms. Kind of natury for one of the Aesir, to be sure. Sometimes I wonder if Thor was on the way to replacing Odin as the chief Norse god as Odin had apparently replaced Tyr. The Swedes were odd in their attributing their royal line to Frey though; just about everyone else went for Odin/Woden I think. Still, obviously any mythology of a natural religion is likely to be very complex and to have exceptions to most rules.

I’m surprised to see you make the distinction between elves/dwarves and wights. I thought “wight” was a very general term for just about any kind of spirit, even a human soul. Might the more limited use of the word be a modern development?

Your grammar is interesting. I’m sure I once knew the plural of Jotun is Jotnar, but forgot it somewhere along the line and started using the singular form of the word as the plural as well, so thanks for reminding me. I also find it interesting that you use “dwarves” instead of “dwarfs.” More consistent if you prefer “elves” to “elfs”, but I thought J.R.R. Tolkien invented the word “dwarves” and it was not technically correct English.

For the record I’m certainly not in favor of worshiping wanes and wights at this late date, but I think it is to the credit of Catholicism when it tends to preserve and purify even the pagan past, once a little distance has been gained from it at least. I’m not sure to what degree the same can really be said of the pagans themselves: meaning the mainstream bunch of people, many of them churchgoing, who reject revealed religion and opt for some personalized selection of natural philosophies and fashions. Perhaps there is an inevitable instability in such an approach to truth and life that tends to make each generation replace the beliefs and values of the previous one with some new subjective “truth.” This pagan attitude is not all bad. It is basically the natural state of humanity, though I thank God we Christians have something better.

 

[latin_rite]

If thor had any real power , he would have made the “thor” burger from burger king taste better.

 

[Lokabrenna]

All very interesting stuff. I wasn’t aware that Thor was sometimes associated with rain and crops, though it makes sense if he was already associated with thunder and therefore storms. Kind of natury for one of the Aesir, to be sure. Sometimes I wonder if Thor was on the way to replacing Odin as the chief Norse god as Odin had apparently replaced Tyr. The Swedes were odd in their attributing their royal line to Frey though; just about everyone else went for Odin/Woden I think. Still, obviously any mythology of a natural religion is likely to be very complex and to have exceptions to most rules.

It makes more sense when you consider that each deity had their own cult centre. Frey’s cult was prominent in Sweden, but elsewhere Odin was more popular. I recently heard the theory that if Christianity hadn’t changed the religious landscape that Thor would have actually come out “on top”. He is generally thought to be the god of the common people, so I think it makes sense, in a strange way.

I’m surprised to see you make the distinction between elves/dwarves and wights. I thought “wight” was a very general term for just about any kind of spirit, even a human soul. Might the more limited use of the word be a modern development?

I suspect that “wight” is a general term in a similar way to the Greek “daimon” (which was used as a word for “god” but seems to have become a class of spirits on its own). In modern Heathenry, the term “wight” most often refers to the “spirits of the land” who are immanent in nature specifically, while the gods are somewhat “set apart” from the land. I suppose it could be said that all gods are wights, but not all wights are gods.

Your grammar is interesting. I’m sure I once knew the plural of Jotun is Jotnar, but forgot it somewhere along the line and started using the singular form of the word as the plural as well, so thanks for reminding me. I also find it interesting that you use “dwarves” instead of “dwarfs.” More consistent if you prefer “elves” to “elfs”, but I thought J.R.R. Tolkien invented the word “dwarves” and it was not technically correct English.

I’ve seen both ‘Jotuns’ and ‘Jotnar’, and I use ‘elves’ and ‘dwarves’ for clarity’s sake, but Heathens will tend to use ‘alf’ and ‘alfs’ (‘Alfar’ is a term that is used for male ancestors, so it is seldom used when talking about the inhabitants of Alfheim). I’ve also seen dwarves referred to as “svartalfs”, “svartalfar”, or “duergar/dvergar” (the last term isn’t as common, I don’t think). I’ve just elected to use those terms that I think my audience will find familiar.

For the record I’m certainly not in favor of worshiping wanes and wights at this late date, but I think it is to the credit of Catholicism when it tends to preserve and purify even the pagan past, once a little distance has been gained from it at least. I’m not sure to what degree the same can really be said of the pagans themselves: meaning the mainstream bunch of people, many of them churchgoing, who reject revealed religion and opt for some personalized selection of natural philosophies and fashions. Perhaps there is an inevitable instability in such an approach to truth and life that tends to make each generation replace the beliefs and values of the previous one with some new subjective “truth.” This pagan attitude is not all bad. It is basically the natural state of humanity, though I thank God we Christians have something better.

Well, I think it really depends on your definition of ‘better’ lol. I’m glad we could discuss this civilly, too many attempts at interfaith dialogue end in shouting matches, in my humble opinion.

 

[Lokabrenna]

If thor had any real power , he would have made the “thor” burger from burger king taste better.

That’s not fair, food from Burger King was terrible even before they started promoting Thor.

 

[Sonic]

This is a quibble, but I’m actually not Asatru. Asatru is the name for a denomination within Heathenry (which is a bit of an umbrella term in itself). Asatruar often use the term Heathen to refer to themselves (much like Wiccans use the term “Witch”) but they don’t own the term. The reason I call myself a Vanic Pagan (as opposed to a Heathen) is because I believe that Heathenry implies at least some degree of reconstruction, since I am not a reconstructionist, I shy away from using that label. I would say that the vast majority of people who worship these gods are “recons” though.

OOO… don’t be messin’ wit dem quibbles. Tarrible folks dem are, aye!

Thanks for the clarification and the answers.

Btw, you gave me the impression you were following Asatru in this post. Hopefully, you can understand why. I had googled Vanic before asking, and you answer left me scratching my head. The article said the two were related… so I just shrugged and didn’t think much of it.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8014149&postcount=21

 

[Sonic]

Anyways, now to your question: I would say that when I was exploring Wicca, I was definitely in my “teenage rebellion” years and looking for something meaningful, but Wicca ultimately didn’t “fit” me. I found that I was disgusted by all the pseudo-history that was being banded about as fact. I wanted a tradition that valued both scholarship and the lived experiences of their adherents.

That’s pretty much why I didn’t get involved with Wicca, too. I had a lot of Asian friends. So, I ended up studying about Taoism and Shinto, but I never practiced those belief systems.

 

[Lokabrenna]

OOO… don’t be messin’ wit dem quibbles. Tarrible folks dem are, aye!

Thanks for the clarification and the answers.

Btw, you gave me the impression you were following Asatru in this post. Hopefully, you can understand why. I had googled Vanic before asking, and you answer left me scratching my head. The article said the two were related… so I just shrugged and didn’t think much of it.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8014149&postcount=21

Ah, I see. Yeah, I can see how it would be confusing. I was just using Asatru as an example in my post, but many Asatruar do worship the same gods that I do. Think of it as individual Pagans may worship the same gods, but they might approach those gods in different ways. It’s probably not something you might be accustomed to as a monotheist.

That’s pretty much why I didn’t get involved with Wicca, too. I had a lot of Asian friends. So, I ended up studying about Taoism and Shinto, but I never practiced those belief systems.

I should say that there are things that I like about Wicca. They seem to have inherited a ritual “flair” from the magical societies that influenced Gardner. I also think that they’ve done a lot as far as spreading awareness of Pagan religions in general is concerned–which is a good thing to me, maybe not from your perspective! Unfortunately, now people tend to imagine that Paganism = Wicca, which is a headache for the rest of us!