Do you believe the gods are all good?

[David19]

I was just wondering, do you consider your gods (or any of the gods) purely good, it's just i was on Jordsvin site, and there was this quote which kind of got me thinking about the gods:

One should envision one's Gods as being at least as good as the best human being

A lot of the site seems good and he does know a lot, but this statement seems a bit New agey, as it seems to say that gods are completly good and will never be 'evil' or negative or anything. My personal belief is influenced a lot by Diane Vera's Church of Azazel, Sumerian belief as well as Aztec and some others, that the gods are beyond good or evil, that some times they are not always 'good', like in the Sumerian religion, i think, the gods basically did what they wanted.

Also, i don't like it when people say, gods are always more 'good' than people, since sometimes i think people can be more good (e.g. Buddha was a good person whereas the gods weren't always).

I'm also influnced by a Chinese Taoism (at least i think it's Taoist), that heaven, hell and earth are all mixed (which basically means the gods aren't always good, demons aren't always evil, etc).

Anyway what are your thoughts/beliefs?

[Toby Stimpson]

No...not all of them, but that doesnt mean they are not gods. :)

[Ishtara]

I am not sure that human criterias such as "good" or "bad" apply to gods. I would not use them to qualify Netjer or the Names of Netjer.

[OpenHands]

Hm, I think the gods just are. Good and bad are subjective views we assign them.

[Philosophia]

Hm, I think the gods just are. Good and bad are subjective views we assign them.

Bingo! Why I voted "no", I do believe the Gods/Goddesses just are.

[WitchCraftWeaver]

I believe like everything else, nature, humans, etc. the Gods and Goddesses all have a "light" side and a "dark" side.

[Zephyrstorm]

I think different groups and individuals define 'good' and 'evil' differently, and that the concepts that they are trying to discuss by using those terms may or may not apply to Gods.
Perspective plays too big a role in determining good and evil for us to have a clue whether Gods are held to those concepts. *shrugs*
my .02 pence.

[Theres]

I am not sure that human criterias such as "good" or "bad" apply to gods.

agreed.
i think They are far beyond the limits of "good or bad", or "gay or straight", or any other boundaries we can put on Them.

like Open Hands said, They just 'are'.

[semi]

I don't believe anything is "all good," be it gods or fluffy little kitties. Being "all good" would be an abomination of nature, in my opinion. Being any extreme absolute ideal can't result in unity of the self because the being would be so far removed to one side of the self that the things on the far side that would allow it to become a whole being would atrophy. It would be highly dysfunctional to be "all good."

[Jolixte]

Nope.

[Against The Tide]

Good and evil are human concepts. Light and dark, order and chaos the Gods are all of these else creation wouldn't be possible.

[Stormwt]

NO

I beleive in balance. And I don't believe in good and evil.

x x x

[aislin_ryann]

Good and evil are human concepts. Light and dark, order and chaos the Gods are all of these else creation wouldn't be possible.

Exactly. There must be balance. And the idea of Good and Evil varies from culture to culture. How can we even begin to label what is Good or Evil for a God/Goddess?

[Malcolm]

I don't think so.

[Meadhbh]

I do not think the gods are either good or evil. Those words don't really apply to something like gods. I think they do what needs to be done and do it when it has to happen. Its people that place lables like good and evil to their actions when they place their own moral systems to their actions. The gods themselves may have a totally diffirent take on good and evil than we do.

[David19]

I do not think the gods are either good or evil. Those words don't really apply to something like gods. I think they do what needs to be done and do it when it has to happen. Its people that place lables like good and evil to their actions when they place their own moral systems to their actions. The gods themselves may have a totally diffirent take on good and evil than we do.

That a bit like what i believe too, i think i may have said in the first post, that i don't think the gods are all good or all evil, somewhere in between, although some may be closer to different 'ends' than others.

I also believe that from their plane/realm, they have a different take on things, they can see further and their take on what is 'good' and what is 'evil' will probably differ.

[BlackMagicalCat]

I do not think the gods are either good or evil. Those words don't really apply to something like gods. I think they do what needs to be done and do it when it has to happen. Its people that place lables like good and evil to their actions when they place their own moral systems to their actions. The gods themselves may have a totally diffirent take on good and evil than we do.
Well,what if a god declares himself,or herself,to be evil?

If we dont believe in evil,does that mean they dont?

God (bible)declares himself to be good.Can a Goddess declare herself to be evil?

[BlackMagicalCat]

Hm, I think the gods just are. Good and bad are subjective views we assign them.
Yes,but can we speak for the gods and Goddesses?

Because we dont say things are good or evil,does that mean they dont either?Can we know what all of them think about themselves?

Is there a god or Goddess who delights in evil?

If a god or Goddess says of themself,I am Good/evil,,,does thier own declaration about themself matter?

How many declare themselves to be good?What about evil?

[HetHert]

Hmm interesting questions. Lets set aside for the moment that good and evil are words to describe a state of moral assignment that subjugates deeds, thoughts, actions...etc.

When a person considers something that extends beyond the realm of ones own knowing its difficult to comprehend the conscious will of something that is so profound as the concept of God.

I think the good and evil require the efforts of consciousness and the will to exert that consciousness into a force or action.

Now consider God/esses or the Supreme All that is the Universe...when it acts are those actions ones that can be defined by mortal moral codes? Are the God/esses above meer mortal conscious endeavors and awareness? If so would they then fall outside of human moral rules and definitions? Would they care?

If one goes by the scriptures that have been handed down and written by man...for the only records we have to date were all written through a human mediumship is what we are considering a basic standard unfiltered from the supreme being or has it been tampered and altered to serve the needs of that time?

Surely basic tenets as do not murder, do not steal, do not covet...etc These are basic laws that seperates humanity from basic animal actions and instincts. Animals kill, they steal, and they covet...its the natural law of survival. Yet these are all things that are considered evil in the scope of many tenets and faiths.

I suppose what I'm saying is evil is as we percieve it to be and then it would be as we project our own definitions to the actions of Gods/esses. If there is a God/ess who claims evilness it will be one that humanity has manifested for itself because it needed to give a destructive force a face by which it could feel more proactive in understanding and protecting itself from...also an explanaition for why something bad and painful occurs when no other explaination is acceptable.

I think there is a lot of misunderstanding of animal instincts and desires...ones that reside deep within the human psyche. I think as primal and savage as some of these instincts are mans only recourse in dealing was to give them a face and diefy them as a means for understanding.

Sorry if thats not an answer but its my perception of evil and its application to the Gods/esses. I can't answer the question about whether "they" see themselves as evil or not.

Is there one that "delights" in evil? Yes there are some in certain tenets that could be considered to delight in doing evil deeds. Lilith was considered evil by some. She would steal babies and murder them (thats old hebraic lore).

[Ninjakitten]

Okay, time for me to blab some half-thoughts I'm having while dead tired from driving for 9 hours and lacking in sleep the past few days...

I think that the concepts of good and evil are subjective, that is defined by each individual. That I worship the Christian God and Goddess, I know I'm supposed to automatically say "God is Good" (um, and say nothing about a Goddess). I think that more likely that God is righteous, in that God can only commit right actions, whether or not I consider them good or evil. God, however, considers all of his actions good, and therefore would want what is written about him to imply that thought. But then there's also the idea that since God created everything, and was not created (may have even created the Goddess... I need to read more of the Wisdom of Solomon), then he created concepts (which are cognitive, and therefore subject to being created), and so is the only one truly able to define any concept, including what is good and what is evil. Therefore, even though I think God is righteous in both his good and his evil, then God, who truly creates the concepts of good and evil is therefore good and I'm just full of it (um, not good, but of "it") :hahugh:

[OpenHands]

Yes,but can we speak for the gods and Goddesses? Because we dont say things are good or evil,does that mean they dont either?Can we know what all of them think about themselves?

We can't know what they think about themselves unless they reveal such things to us, in my belief. Even then, I have sincere doubts that we'd fully comprehend it. But if a deity ever drops in and tells me that they'd like to be known from that point on as Good/Evil, I will be sure use that label from then on. ;)

Is there a god or Goddess who delights in evil?

I imagine that would depend on how you define evil. I can't think of any, personally. In my pantheon, there are some gods with some very scary and violent aspects that I would not want to cross, but I don't consider that "evil". It's their nature. It would be like trying to describe a raging storm or the ravenous jaws of Death as evil. Scary? Hell yes. Something to try and steer clear from whenever possible? Sure. Evil? Can a storm or Death be considered evil? I don't think so, personally.

If a god or Goddess says of themself,I am Good/evil,,,does thier own declaration about themself matter?

Sure. Like I said above, I'm not going to argue if some divine revelation happens and that's how they want to be viewed. Very skeptical that it'd ever happen though- the gods don't drop in for tea with me on a regular basis. ;)

How many declare themselves to be good?What about evil?

I don't keep tabs on all of the gods in the world so I don't know. Certainly not any amongst the gods I worship. They seem more complex than that. Even Mot- the personification of death and sterility that wishes to devour everything, a god that the ancients did not worship and actively worked to keep away- was known as a beloved child of Ilu (who one of the most benevolent deities and father to the gods and humanity). Even Mot isn't considered evil. He just is.

Hopefully that made at least a modicum of sense. :/

[Little Billy]

I was just wondering, do you consider your gods (or any of the gods) purely good,

I don't trust any of them.

LB,
Gnostic Agnostic (GODS? Who needs 'em?)

[Fire's Shadow]

I don't trust any of them.

LB,
Gnostic Agnostic (GODS? Who needs 'em?)

But... Odin offers me candy.

[fareeha]

I think that being Gods, they transcend good or evil. They just are. I know that super-simplistic, but somehow it's hard for me to explain.

Oh! Looking up on the screen I see some other people have explained this concept better. Yeah, what they said. :)

[SilentDreams]

I voted "no".

I believe that the Gods are balanced just like everything else in existence. They have "good" and "bad"(postive and negative or whatever you like to call it) sides just like we all do.

[David19]

But... Odin offers me candy.

Didn't you learn never to take candy from strange gods, lol.

[EmmaG]

No - basically because it is limiting to see the Gods as good or evil. They are beyond everything we understand. When something happens in nature, or someone comes down with a chronic or terminal illness we wonder why. Many tend to think this is evil - many also try to pin this on Satan or some other 'evil' force. But these things are merely a balancing act - they are a must for our world to survive. They open new doors to new experiences, whether positive or negative.

They are what They are. There are no labels, no boxes. They are complete within themselves. Our conceptions of good and evil are of no use to them, because they are beyond all that. They exist for a purpose, and fulfill that purpose.

[Renny]

I voted don't know... because I don't know ^_^


I feel that most of them are good... not all the time, but generally. But then I have gods like Loki... he is neither good nor bad, he is just chaotically Loki. I don't really deal with him much except giving him my honor along with the other gods. I don't feel very close to him, but I do understand he is a necessary force. Chaos is a part of our universe.

[Little Billy]

But... Odin offers me candy.

So do Aliens, or so I have heard.

But when they're done with you, they dump you in a field, next to some mutilated cattle. What's left of you is usually prone to make the Sheriff feel real bad...one of those things that he won't ever talk about, except when he has too much to drink.

See, you gotta be careful with that praying business. You never know what is listening. You might think that you're praying to Odin, or Jesus, or a "strong president"...but what's listening is probably something we haven't even had nightmares about, yet.

[Salanthos]

No, they're not all good. Good and bad are subjective qualities which truly do not apply to anything as a whole. A certain action might be specific enough to qualify, but people, and groups and so on are complex and in that way to some extent trancend good and bad simply by being more than black and white, not just grey but color. And gods, who are by their natures highly complex, do this more than any.

[shuvanilu]

Heck no. Have you hung out with Kali lately??---shuvanilu

[Sehena]

Well there's good and bad in everyone, and everything.
Anything can be used for the purpose of good or evil, it just depends on who possesses it.
Now as to your question, do I think if all gods are good?
Honestly, it depends on who, prays, or uses their magick with that god's power.
There are good spells, and bad spells.
For example if a witch used a spell to bring love into her life, calling upon the power of, let’s say, Aphrodite with no specific person in mind, then yes, that would be a good spell.
But if for instance, a witch used a spell to make someone fall in love with her, using the power of Aphrodite, then of course that would be a bad/evil spell.
The person who taught me about witchcraft, taught me that it was wrong to use your magick to control another being.

[star_belfire]

Other.

Take Sekhmet for example, she is a goddess of magick and healing. But type her name in a google search and you get the story of her almost killing the human race.

Gods are like mortals,go with me on this. A god/dess can love, hate and get drunk so why do they have to be one extreme? Take my example from above sure she got drunk with power and nearly killed everything in her path, but, from my experences, she really careing.

So in answer to the question, anything is possible.

[Little Billy]

Take my example from above sure she got drunk with power and nearly killed everything in her path, but, from my experences, she really careing.



Um, by that logic, a wife-beater just cares too much.

[Xirian]

No, I don't. But I don't think all humans are good either. Any entity with a personality, has the potential to be good, neutral, or bad, IMHO.

[Sehena]

No, I don't. But I don't think all humans are good either. Any entity with a personality, has the potential to be good, neutral, or bad, IMHO.

Exactly! ^_^; There's good and bad in everything. ^_^; Kinda like ying-yang. There's a dark and light side to everything. Both sides are needed to exist.

[Karma Chameleon]

I was just wondering, do you consider your gods (or any of the gods) purely good

No.

[Ladylepgirl]

No way. They have their good days and bad, but no one is inherently all good or all bad. They have to dish out some harsh lessons once in awhile to us all, or else we'd never learn.

[ILOVEAUTUMNS]

one look at the current state of the world and i would say hell no

no wonder if aliens exist they don't want to visit our planet

organized religion is causing all of these wars and the oppression of women

we as a beautiful spiritual pagan community should do something about promoting our way of thinking before the world blows up :(

[David19]

one look at the current state of the world and i would say hell no

no wonder if aliens exist they don't want to visit our planet

organized religion is causing all of these wars and the oppression of women

we as a beautiful spiritual pagan community should do something about promoting our way of thinking before the world blows up :(

That's not true, wars happened before Christianity, and they'll continue even if Judaism/Christianity/Islam go, war is a part of the world, that's why there are war gods in every pantheon, even if world peace was going to be achieved, i think the war gods would have something to say.

Also, the Roman's (& Greek's) were just as oppresive of women, maybe more, they wanted women to be veiled, fathers would arrange marriages for their daughters, etc, when Christianity came, Roman women (and others) saw it as the 'feminist revolution.

Wicca for the rest of us says (http://wicca.timerift.net/pagan_women.html)this:

Roman wives were kept all but captive inside their homes. They were forced to veil themselves upon marriage because of the shame of sexuality the wife alone had to bear. And the Romans had a story they told about a woman who was raped: she informed her husband and father of the crime so that they could seek justice and revenge, then dutifully committed suicide to spare her family the shame of her rape. She was honored as a supreme example of what a woman should live up to.

The simple, historical fact is that Christianity was a feminist revolution within the Empire in which it started. Christian girls could dedicate their bodies to Christ, remaining virgins and never forced into marriage, while the Roman custom was to marry off daughters as quickly as possible. Women could speak during Christian services. Wives appalled the Romans by removing their veils as they rededicated their bodies, the shame of sex no longer upon them. The oft-quoted New Testament passage by St. Paul demanding that women be veiled in Church was not a misogynistic act of control but a measure taken to keep the pagan Romans calm.

Wiccans are quick to cite Christianity's abhorrence with sex as being part of their dislike of women, since sex is associated in Christianity much more strongly with women than with men. But chastity was not originally a component of Christianity. Indeed, the idea seems to have started with the pagan Romans. Right around the time of the life of Jesus they got the idea the semen was the source of a man's power. Therefore, ejaculation and the loss of sperm weakened the man. More drastic solutions to this issue including tying tight cords around the testicles and outright castration

So 'organized' religion isn't the main cause.

[sari0009]

I would have to agree that war will continue to exist on Earth and would add that it will continue to feature as it does until enough of us grow up (become more emotionally and intellectually evolved, using our creative nature to better means and ends).

So while monotheistic religions today are essentially begging sexism and the nastier dark nature of triumphalism, Pagan religions (and agnostics or atheists, for that matter) will suffer the same patterns of human behavior without much work.

And what is that work (besides bandwidth for world peace)?

Emotional intelligence (involves actually using our imagination), along with education, really does make the major difference. Right now, many of the tactics used in religion and politics today resemble what kids do on the playground and employs many of the same basic tactics/tricks/mindsets that domestic abusers, various habitual victims, and addicts do.

[OpenHands]

ILOVEAUTUMNS,

we as a beautiful spiritual pagan community should do something about promoting our way of thinking before the world blows up :(

How are you defining "our way of thinking", by chance? Modern pagan religions and spiritual paths are so incredibly varied in belief and practice that I have a hard time conceiving of any particular way of thinking that applies to all of us.

[Vincent Verthaine]

we as a beautiful spiritual pagan community should do something about promoting our way of thinking before the world blows up


How are you defining "our way of thinking", by chance? Modern pagan religions and spiritual paths are so incredibly varied in belief and practice that I have a hard time conceiving of any particular way of thinking that applies to all of us.
I agree with you one percent,OpenHands.
It's funny how a lot of wars are started by saying:
we should promote "our way of thinking" when they really mean "we need to promote MY way of thinking".

This is a tactic straight out of Machiavelli.

Appeal to peoples need for flattery (beautiful,spiritual),identity(pagan)and consensus(community).
Convince everyone that "your ideas" are actually everyones ideas.(promoting "our way of thinking".Implying that every pagan thinks and has the same beliefs)
Find a convenient "other" to be a scapegoat (in this case,men and monotheism.See ILOVEAUTUMNS other posts)
Proclaim yourself to be the one to act on those ideas.
(That usually comes next).

Even third rate dictators know this one.

[maudlin]

i dont know if the gods/goddesses are entirely "good"
i think that some of them are good in nature, while others are self-serving, just as humans are.
they also possess dark sides, just like we do. there are some gods/goddesses that you just dont want to make angry.

[Phoenix Element]

No, I think Divinity is more of a shade of grey. Not "good" and not "bad."

[Carla O'Harris]

I was just wondering, do you consider your gods (or any of the gods) purely good, it's just i was on Jordsvin site, and there was this quote which kind of got me thinking about the gods:



A lot of the site seems good and he does know a lot, but this statement seems a bit New agey, as it seems to say that gods are completly good and will never be 'evil' or negative or anything. My personal belief is influenced a lot by Diane Vera's Church of Azazel, Sumerian belief as well as Aztec and some others, that the gods are beyond good or evil, that some times they are not always 'good', like in the Sumerian religion, i think, the gods basically did what they wanted.

Also, i don't like it when people say, gods are always more 'good' than people, since sometimes i think people can be more good (e.g. Buddha was a good person whereas the gods weren't always).

I'm also influnced by a Chinese Taoism (at least i think it's Taoist), that heaven, hell and earth are all mixed (which basically means the gods aren't always good, demons aren't always evil, etc).

Anyway what are your thoughts/beliefs?



I think Jordsvin's words make perfect sense, at least for the Norse gods.

But I would not say that the gods are "beyond good and evil". Too Nietzschean. I'd say they're "beyond good". In other words, they're so good that at times we might not be able to understand completely.

[Carla O'Harris]

That's not true, wars happened before Christianity, and they'll continue even if Judaism/Christianity/Islam go, war is a part of the world, that's why there are war gods in every pantheon, even if world peace was going to be achieved, i think the war gods would have something to say.

Also, the Roman's (& Greek's) were just as oppresive of women, maybe more, they wanted women to be veiled, fathers would arrange marriages for their daughters, etc, when Christianity came, Roman women (and others) saw it as the 'feminist revolution.

Wicca for the rest of us says (http://wicca.timerift.net/pagan_women.html)this:



So 'organized' religion isn't the main cause.


The idea that Christianity was some kind of "feminist revolution" is a laugh. Yes, Rome was patriarchal, and therefore in need of being superceded. But what Christian propaganda. But that's exactly what I'd expect from a fluffy bunny site like "Wicca for the Rest of Us". (How arrogant!)

And "war gods" might just be gods who urge people to stand up for their rights and struggle to achieve progress. It's humans who have misinterpreted them as demanding conquest and carnage. For those who would, they are not called "gods" ; they are called jotunns. Real gods want to help us develop the Golden Age, and then you will see all of the dross that prejudiced humans have poured over these pure archetypes cleansed. Those "war gods" will then be saying very different things.

[Annyka]

I don't believe in GOOD or EVIL... I believe in balance and believe the Gods/Goddesses etc are balanced. Some may lean towards human's definition of Good more or Evil more, but over all they are balanced. NOTHING is purely evil or purely good - Gods/Goddesses included.

[David19]

The idea that Christianity was some kind of "feminist revolution" is a laugh. Yes, Rome was patriarchal, and therefore in need of being superceded. But what Christian propaganda. But that's exactly what I'd expect from a fluffy bunny site like "Wicca for the Rest of Us". (How arrogant!)

And "war gods" might just be gods who urge people to stand up for their rights and struggle to achieve progress. It's humans who have misinterpreted them as demanding conquest and carnage. For those who would, they are not called "gods" ; they are called jotunns. Real gods want to help us develop the Golden Age, and then you will see all of the dross that prejudiced humans have poured over these pure archetypes cleansed. Those "war gods" will then be saying very different things.

Aren't Jotuns only in the Norse cosmology?, i don't mean to sound dumb or rude, but i wouldn't try and say who's a real god and who's a 'Jotun', because i think it'd be disrespectful to the gods and their cultures (e.g. calling Ares or Yahweh a 'jotun' would be disrespectful to the Ancient Greek religion and the Hebrews plus Yahweh and Ares probably wouldn't be too pleased, lol).

[David19]

I believe the gods are beyond good or evil, i've recently read something about Babylonian gods and Sumerian where the gods have their own goals and desires, and good or evil don't apply to them, i don't think you can call them good or evil.

[Carla O'Harris]

I'm a human being. I have the right to ethically evaluate any being and pronounce my critique, especially if the behavior of the entity is being hailed as something worthy of worship and honor.

[Carla O'Harris]

Aren't Jotuns only in the Norse cosmology?, i don't mean to sound dumb or rude, but i wouldn't try and say who's a real god and who's a 'Jotun', because i think it'd be disrespectful to the gods and their cultures (e.g. calling Ares or Yahweh a 'jotun' would be disrespectful to the Ancient Greek religion and the Hebrews plus Yahweh and Ares probably wouldn't be too pleased, lol).


You're missing my point. Some jotunns can shapeshift, and certainly take on the image of a god. I'm not saying that Mars or Yahweh are jotunns, but I'm certainly saying that it's possible for human beings to lose touch with the original essence of an archetype and place all kinds of jotunnish negativity onto it, such that the real Mars or Yahweh might be disgusted with the false images of them being used for heinous activities.

[David19]

I think i understand what you're saying now. Although personally, i don't usually use 'archetype's' when describing the gods, because, IMO, i think it takes away from the individuallity of the gods.

[Rasenna]

The idea that Christianity was some kind of "feminist revolution" is a laugh. Yes, Rome was patriarchal, and therefore in need of being superceded. But what Christian propaganda. But that's exactly what I'd expect from a fluffy bunny site like "Wicca for the Rest of Us". (How arrogant!)

And "war gods" might just be gods who urge people to stand up for their rights and struggle to achieve progress. It's humans who have misinterpreted them as demanding conquest and carnage. For those who would, they are not called "gods" ; they are called jotunns. Real gods want to help us develop the Golden Age, and then you will see all of the dross that prejudiced humans have poured over these pure archetypes cleansed. Those "war gods" will then be saying very different things.

I believe that jotunns is a Germanic word, is it not? Not many people south of the Alps would therefore use it. Also: according to Greek mythology, the Golden Age of Man has passed. It was the first age of man. There may or may not be a new Golden Age. I am a hard polytheists, and therefore see calling Gods "archetypes" as being highly offensive to Them. War Gods are war Gods, including Yahweh. <shrugs>

[Rasenna]

I don't believe in GOOD or EVIL...

I do. Raping someone or molesting someone is evil. Pure and simple. Mass murderers are evil. Period.

[Little Billy]

And "war gods" might just be gods who urge people to stand up for their rights and struggle to achieve progress. It's humans who have misinterpreted them as demanding conquest and carnage.


Then they're piss-poor Gods, for allowing themselves to be misrepresented.

You have something resembling proof for this, yes?

[Malcolm]

I believe that jotunns is a Germanic word, is it not?

Something like that...


edit: Please leave the jotun out of this. They aren't gods...well not most of them, its tricky like that.

[Carla O'Harris]

I believe that jotunns is a Germanic word, is it not? Not many people south of the Alps would therefore use it. Also: according to Greek mythology, the Golden Age of Man has passed. It was the first age of man. There may or may not be a new Golden Age. I am a hard polytheists, and therefore see calling Gods "archetypes" as being highly offensive to Them. War Gods are war Gods, including Yahweh. <shrugs>

I'm using the Germanic term for an Indo-European wide concept. GrecoRoman gods also fought with giants (not the Titans but the giants). Ugly, deformed, huge, dimwitted but cunning, essentially demonic forces. Therefore, while I'm using dialect in using "jotunn", it's an entirely appropriate and applicable term.

Within the Germanic context, the new Golden Age is precisely what everything is aiming at. Due to Wagnerian misemphasis, people think everything is about Ragnarok. Ragnarok is just the cleansing before the return of the Golden Age. Of that there can be absolutely no ambiguity ; Voluspa is absolutely clear on that. The reason Ragnarok matters and is fought so hard is precisely so that the world may be renewed. We know it is the return of the Golden Age because Balder will return.

But the restoration of the Golden Age is more widespread than Germanic culture ; it's an Indo-European wide concept. (And beyond that!)

The gods don't care at all about humans applying useful concepts like "archetypes" to understand their many energies ; overpersonification is just as much an error as overabstraction ; we are dealing with complexities where both and neither can be said to apply.

"War gods are War gods". Oh, really? In the absolute? Ahistorically? Even when one can find traces that some of these gods had prior aspects that may have been more emphasized? I'm going to charge you with essentializing historical distortions of gods by reifying religious ramifications of militaristic periods in history, and I'll reiterate that an entity whose sole purpose is to inspire carnage as such is, whatever you want to call it, for all intents and purposes, a jotunn. A being that wants people to stand up for themselves, struggle to improve themselves, and show fierceness in the face of a universe full of conflicts, may be something else altogether.

[Carla O'Harris]

Then they're piss-poor Gods, for allowing themselves to be misrepresented.

You have something resembling proof for this, yes?


My proof is the way religions get warped by militarism all the time. "God is on our side" and so forth.

[Tadrith]

Carla, kettle, meet pot.

You discredit everyone's opinion but claim your own as authoritative? I'm sorry woman, but your "proofs" are just as feeble as everyone elses, particularly when it comes to knowing the divine.

My proof is the way religions get warped by militarism all the time.

I'm sorry, but this is piss poor proof. If you were to get some facts on the table, something tangible, you might have something. I can equally say:

"Wicca is only a product of the repression of the feminine. The goddess does not truly exist, it is only a fiction of one man's imagination who was unable to properly express his adoration for women in public".

See the above? Do you consider that as proof? I'd wager not... its on part with your own statement. Full of influences that *might* be true, but lack any form of worldly connection.

A for effort atleast though.

Cheers,
Tad

[Gypsy flower]

no
there has to be good and evil in all things

[Carla O'Harris]

Carla, kettle, meet pot.

You discredit everyone's opinion but claim your own as authoritative? I'm sorry woman, but your "proofs" are just as feeble as everyone elses, particularly when it comes to knowing the divine.



I'm sorry, but this is piss poor proof. If you were to get some facts on the table, something tangible, you might have something. I can equally say:

"Wicca is only a product of the repression of the feminine. The goddess does not truly exist, it is only a fiction of one man's imagination who was unable to properly express his adoration for women in public".

See the above? Do you consider that as proof? I'd wager not... its on part with your own statement. Full of influences that *might* be true, but lack any form of worldly connection.

A for effort atleast though.

Cheers,
Tad


Ha! What a laugh! I do not "discredit everyone's opinion but my own" but engage in careful dialogue. I listen to what other people have to say, take into account what is valid, and respond.

Yes, you are correct that my statement does not constitute a watertight logical proof, and therefore from a highly technical standpoint (which I am not invoking), my use of the word "proof" was inaccurate in this case. Please replace that with "demonstration".

In any case, the point still stands that historically religions have declared in wartime that God was on their side. (Go to the history books to confirm this ; it is not my job to do other people's homework every time I speak. Uncontroversial facts readily accessible in common works are not my responsibility to footnote for others. Every speech act has an allusive field that only a pedant would have a desire to fully document every time they spoke.) I am making the assertion that this is one of the less laudable sides of religion, and I say that with extreme understatement.

[Carla O'Harris]

no
there has to be good and evil in all things


I disagree with this on its face, but am willing to dialogue about it if these terms can be defined. To me, these are abstractions. Is being human about having good moods and bad moods, good days and bad days? Certainly. Does nature show cycles of fluctuation? Certainly.

But does this mean that serial killers are a good thing because their evil somehow brings "balance"? That would be a ridiculous assertion.

[Malcolm]

But does this mean that serial killers are a good thing because their evil somehow brings "balance"? That would be a ridiculous assertion.


whats a mother teresa without a john wayne gacey, or a ghandi without a hitler

[Carla O'Harris]

whats a mother teresa without a john wayne gacey, or a ghandi without a hitler

A great world! (I assume you're being ironic here.)

[Malcolm]

A great world! (I assume you're being ironic here.)

A little bit. The "great world" will never exist.

[Carla O'Harris]

Are you suggesting that John Wayne Gaceys or Hitlers are somehow a necessary part of existence? I consider them highly unfortunate accidentals that it is our duty to keep as improbable as possible.

[Malcolm]

Are you suggesting that John Wayne Gaceys or Hitlers are somehow a necessary part of existence?

Actually yes.

Please understand that it doesn't mean I agree with what they did. I view them in the same way I view life threarening disease or any other unfortunate part of existence. Its there for a reason. Its there for ust to learn from.

Anyway, I don't think anything constructive will come out of this dialogue. I think we should just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

[David19]

I believe that jotunns is a Germanic word, is it not? Not many people south of the Alps would therefore use it. Also: according to Greek mythology, the Golden Age of Man has passed. It was the first age of man. There may or may not be a new Golden Age. I am a hard polytheists, and therefore see calling Gods "archetypes" as being highly offensive to Them. War Gods are war Gods, including Yahweh. <shrugs>

I agree with you completly, because those are my beliefs too (that the gods are individuals, not aspects or 'archetypes', etc).

[David19]

Are you suggesting that John Wayne Gaceys or Hitlers are somehow a necessary part of existence? I consider them highly unfortunate accidentals that it is our duty to keep as improbable as possible.

Actually, something a bit like that came up in my Holocaust lecture, basically, my lecturer asked, has Hitler not appeared, would the Holocaust still have happened, some people thought yes, even though it was a history lesson, it did go into a bit of metaphysical topics. Anyway, that's probably too off topic, but i'd thought i'd mention it.

[Carla O'Harris]

I agree with you completly, because those are my beliefs too (that the gods are individuals, not aspects or 'archetypes', etc).


Not to be condescending, but most people who object to the archetype theory don't really even understand it. It pertains to human perception and the human psyche, not speaking to what realities beyond that are. That means whatever those realities are, they are mediated through the functions of the archetypes.

[Tadrith]

"War gods are War gods". Oh, really? In the absolute? Ahistorically?

If the "oh really" is not cause for discreditation of this person's comment, I'd would greatly appreciate the full enlightenment that you can pristinely purvey in your pointed promulgation. Shall we dance? I tire of skirting the issues, lets get down to it:

Can you answer Little Billy's question?


And "war gods" might just be gods who urge people to stand up for their rights and struggle to achieve progress. It's humans who have misinterpreted them as demanding conquest and carnage.

Then they're piss-poor Gods, for allowing themselves to be misrepresented.

You have something resembling proof for this, yes?

I'll repeat that: "You have something resembling proof for this, yes"

Initially, your proof was:

My proof is the way religions get warped by militarism all the time.

I deemed this inadequate because it is a very feeble argumentation; there are no direct links to the topic at hand. I expected more from you. You however countered with
In any case, the point still stands that historically religions have declared in wartime that God was on their side.

Which still fails to elaborate how humans have misrepresented the gods, demanding conquest and carnage. If anything, you have just mentionned how a civilisation can ask for aid from a God (in the method of claiming that they were favoured by the divine). People go to war for greed, lust, and power; they ask the gods for help in doing it. It is not often that people go to war for their god, if it were always the case I'd be inclined to agree with you. However, since it is not...

The ball is now in your court.

Cheers,
Tad

[Carla O'Harris]

Well, then, you must think that "war gods" approve of greed, lust, and power, which by definition makes them jotunns.

Often these "war gods" have been more about spiritual struggle and then warped by militaristic societies.

And one more thing, youngster : I'm not obligated to answer to you or anyone, and with your attitude, you're lucky I respond to you at all. Try showing a little more respect and knocking that chip off your shoulder, and we'll see where we can go from there. I'm much more interested in productive dialogue than I am the kind of discourse you're proposing, and for the record, I don't owe anyone "proof". I don't believe in the little proof-game, and never have. That's called jumping through someone else's hoops and doing someone else's homework. I've already told you to go do yours. Let me know when you're finished.

[David19]

Well, then, you must think that "war gods" approve of greed, lust, and power, which by definition makes them jotunns.

But they'd only be Jotuns if they were orignally a Germanic deity or spirit, wouldn't they.

I don't think people should classify a deity or any type of spirit with a name that wasn't originally used for them.

But that's just me.

[maphdet]

The Gods ...well I'm not sure they are all good or all evil.
I'm not sure that they are not aliens.
I'm not sure that they are not us.
I'm not sure that they are not anything.
I'm not sure that they are not everything.
I'm just not sure.
But I'm sure that I am both good and evil.

[Xirian]

Not to be condescending, but most people who object to the archetype theory don't really even understand it. It pertains to human perception and the human psyche, not speaking to what realities beyond that are. That means whatever those realities are, they are mediated through the functions of the archetypes.

I know I'm probably going to get some backlash for this post, but it's worth it in my opinion.

I happen to be a hard polytheist not because I can't wrap my mind around the "archetype theory", but because that's simply not what I believe and feel is right when it comes to my personal spirituality. I certainly believe that works for you, but it sure doesn't work for everyone. (And yes, your comment was a bit condescending, but when you start off a comment like "Not to be condescending", what should one expect?)

I think Tadrith made some very good points and did it in a very intellectual and direct way, and will receive karma points from me for his posts. Showing interest in the fact that you had not answered a question that was presented to you and asking you to be more clear. I guess I don't see anything wrong with that. Some people set the tone for certain conversations, and I don't think it was Tadrith who did that.

I feel that your reaction to his comments were disrespectful to him, and not the other way around. Instead of simply answering his question or telling him that you don't feel you need to answer, you answered, but you also added an ad hominem in what appeared to me to be an effort to distract us with the fact that he's younger than you and might therefore owe you some sort of age-related respect, which is something I feel, should be earned and has absolutely nothing to do with the argument at hand.

I don't happen to believe that you owe anyone proof either, but why post if you're not going to try to explain your thoughts and comments? However, I am simply a bystander who is injecting my thoughts into a matter that doesn't concern me, hence the backlash comment earlier.

I'm not obligated to answer to you or anyone, and with your attitude, you're lucky I respond to you at all.
Then why post your opinions at all? This is a discussion board and it is expected that people will question your comments, right?

I believe that jotunns is a Germanic word, is it not? Not many people south of the Alps would therefore use it. Also: according to Greek mythology, the Golden Age of Man has passed. It was the first age of man. There may or may not be a new Golden Age. I am a hard polytheists, and therefore see calling Gods "archetypes" as being highly offensive to Them. War Gods are war Gods, including Yahweh. <shrugs>
I personally agree with this comment.

Real gods want to help us develop the Golden Age, and then you will see all of the dross that prejudiced humans have poured over these pure archetypes cleansed.
How can you be so sure what 'Real Gods' want? Would you bet your life on it? If you would, I have a feeling you would end up losing your life. Only because I don't even know the deep intentions of the person that I call my life partner, I certainly don't know the intentions of the deities. If I did, why would I need to chat with you all on the message boards to learn new things? Just some things to think on.

I find that speaking for the deities always causes problems and probably always will. They don't generally respond the way we'd like in many situations. However, Carla, maybe yours do and that would be something to see, seriously.

[ObsessedFae86]

Hm, I think the gods just are. Good and bad are subjective views we assign them.

Exactly.:hahugh:

[HeavensHope]

well considering I believe there's only ONE supreme being (yes, one that covers all faiths and one that has no gender), yes, I believe the one I believe in is pure, "good" depends on what your idea of good is. I see God the same way I see parents. To me we're all God's children and in the ideal family or at least in the family I grew up in. Parents have uncondtional love for their children, sometimes they dont agree or like what their children do and they get punish for it. The way I see it is that God doesnt punish us, we punish ourselves. If you do wrong you'll have to suffer the consequences that come with it.

God's job like any parents job is to steer and guide their children into the right path. By right I mean, living a good life and finding what makes you happy.

So yeah I believe God is good. (why does that sound familiar?)

[Xirian]

God's job like any parents job is to steer and guide their children into the right path. By right I mean, living a good life and finding what makes you happy.

So yeah I believe God is good. (why does that sound familiar?)
That's interesting, because I don't think I've really thought about the deities actually have a job or duty to me in any way. I don't think it's their responsibilty that I make the proper decisions that affect me and my family in this life time. I see the deities much differently than you, which is what makes this thread fun to read and comment on. There are so many unique views on this subject.

I think how you view them is a very intriguing. I can completely see how you'd be under the impression that God is good.

[Incendia]

Okay...here’s my little, late night developing thought process.... Coming from a hard polytheistic viewpoint, I'll venture to say that the gods are neutral, neither good nor evil. Some deities are a lot more aggressive (and pissier) than others, i.e. war deities...but I don't think that that makes them evil. But then again, I think of certain deities that proclaim themselves as the supreme deity and instruct their followers to deny other gods and destroy their temples. I just don't know how to feel about that, when I think of how positive and patient my "patron" deity is...but then again...his followers have taken over the temples of other deities too...so I guess that nullifies my argument. Perhaps we should use order and chaos instead. Both are needed for the Universe to function, both are neither good nor evil, with some deities having more of an affinity for chaos and some for order. To further complicate things, you throw in the whole human, free will variable, which often doesn’t coincide with or represent the will of the gods. So, in summary, I voted I don’t know. Mwhahahaha! :smoke:

[HeavensHope]

That's interesting, because I don't think I've really thought about the deities actually have a job or duty to me in any way. I don't think it's their responsibilty that I make the proper decisions that affect me and my family in this life time. I see the deities much differently than you, which is what makes this thread fun to read and comment on. There are so many unique views on this subject.

I think how you view them is a very intriguing. I can completely see how you'd be under the impression that God is good.


well...i can see God as neutral too but I choose to see God as good. I wouldnt pray or worship anything that was bad. That's just me.

It's nothing I was raised on, it's just what I felt was right for me.

Half of my family is buddhist...so I'm a little confuse on how they see God.

The other half are christians of different variations. Some see God as being neutral, some see him as all God but in a different way then how I see it. Others see him as what seems to me to be more human, one that gets angry and jealous.

[Xirian]

well...i can see God as neutral too but I choose to see God as good. I wouldnt pray or worship anything that was bad. That's just me.

It's nothing I was raised on, it's just what I felt was right for me.

Half of my family is buddhist...so I'm a little confuse on how they see God.

The other half are christians of different variations. Some see God as being neutral, some see him as all God but in a different way then how I see it. Others see him as what seems to me to be more human, one that gets angry and jealous.
Thanks for the explanation. I see what you mean now. I don't see them as neutral, but simply entities that have personalities. My views on deities are extremely practical, in my personal opinion. But I think that's another thread entirely.

But my thoughts to the question here were:
No, I don't. But I don't think all humans are good either. Any entity with a personality, has the potential to be good, neutral, or bad, IMHO.

I do not feel the deities are infallible and always one thing or another. How I was raised, I was lead to believe that, but my views have changed drastically.

[HeavensHope]

Thanks for the explanation. I see what you mean now. I don't see them as neutral, but simply entities that have personalities. My views on deities are extremely practical, in my personal opinion. But I think that's another thread entirely.

But my thoughts to the question here were:


I do not feel the deities are infallible and always one thing or another. How I was raised, I was lead to believe that, but my views have changed drastically.

ahh...I get it.

[Incendia]

well...i can see God as neutral too but I choose to see God as good. I wouldnt pray or worship anything that was bad. That's just me.

Ditto. I would never devote myself to a deity that I did not feel loved by. However, I've heard others claim that deities don't interact with humans on such a personal level, are incapable, or just don't give a crap.

Edited to add: Who says that evil deities aren't capable of love? *opens can of worms and scurries off* ;)

[Mirain]

I agree that "good" and "evil" are consepts set by us as humans according to our culture. What is evil in the US may be perfectly fine in Nigeria. The Gods are above those boundries. They just are and we put them into those catagories. Thats just my opinion though.

[HeavensHope]

I agree that "good" and "evil" are consepts set by us as humans according to our culture. What is evil in the US may be perfectly fine in Nigeria. The Gods are above those boundries. They just are and we put them into those catagories. Thats just my opinion though.

I agree, what's good or evil varies per person. I just perfer to follow a higher being that 'loves'. :)

Not saying that that God has nothing better to do then follow my ever step in life...lol, but occasionally we need some guidance and when we ask, our answers come in many forms. Sometimes it's not what we expect.

[Xirian]

Who says that evil deities aren't capable of love?
I feel that my deities are capable of all the emotions that we have. I might be an evil person, but I still could have the capablitity of loving my child. Look at Bonnie and Clyde. I feel they loved each other, but they didn't appear to have that same feeling for the people they killed.

Just as a wouldn't want a friend that loved me unconditionally (parents not included), I wouldn't want a deity that loved me unconditionally. I would want to earn their respect and love by communicating with them in a way that showed respect and then love would come later, after I felt comfortable that they might have my better interests at heart.

I don't want someone around that always agrees with me or always tells me they love me when I've done nothing to earn that. I simply can't trust a person like that. I feel that being able to form a relationship with an entity should be something that's worked on all the time, like one does with a good friend. There will be times when I don't speak to my friend/deity and there will be times when I call to them regularly.

I see them as good, bad or nuetral on the face, but when dealing with me, I feel that they have the capabilities of having a whole string of emotions as I do. But I'm also of the belief that the deities are something that humans make up to help us explain the things that are going on around us. They are not infallible, they have many of the same weaknesses as humans that worship them do and I believe we project strengths on them that we admire and wished we had.

Talk about opening a can of worms. LOL

[Carla O'Harris]

But they'd only be Jotuns if they were orignally a Germanic deity or spirit, wouldn't they.

I don't think people should classify a deity or any type of spirit with a name that wasn't originally used for them.

But that's just me.


Ok, if you want to be a semanticist, you call them whatever you wish : demons, ghouls, jotunn, Formorians --- you take your pick. You can call a tomato many different things depending on your language, but you'll still be referring to the same basic thing --- even if the tomatoes in one area are a little hairier than in others, or in one area are sweeter, etc.

My point still stands. A being that encourages nothing but carnage, bloodlust, and cruelty is no god. That being is a demon, a jotunn, a formorian, whatever you want to call it.

[Carla O'Harris]

Powerful entities that behave in irresponsible ways ought to have their power stripped from them. And since in most cases, this isn't a case of these "beings" behaving irresponsibly, but human beings egoically twisting these sacred concepts to fit their inane politics and twisted cultures and then trying to deify that culture, one doesn't have to worry about that. What one has to worry about is the twisted distortions that religions can impose on the human psyche. Serving a set of abstractions who encourage one to engage in cruelty or foster any nastiness that creates more pain in the world is just idiotic, and I'm under no obligation to "respect" that in any way, sorry. Spirituality is about improving oneself and one's relation to the world, and bringing out the very best in us, not encouraging that which is the worst in us. And yes, I expect any real gods to be able to be at least as good as the best human beings. Otherwise, why would they deserve my respect? If they can't be as intelligent, as thoughtful, as creative, as loving as the best of human beings, then maybe those best of human beings deserve more veneration than any so-called god who can't live up to those standards. Rather, they should be setting the standards for humans. Otherwise they begin sounding like abstract labels slapped onto justifications for lack of self-development.

[Carla O'Harris]

I know I'm probably going to get some backlash for this post, but it's worth it in my opinion.

I happen to be a hard polytheist not because I can't wrap my mind around the "archetype theory", but because that's simply not what I believe and feel is right when it comes to my personal spirituality. I certainly believe that works for you, but it sure doesn't work for everyone. (And yes, your comment was a bit condescending, but when you start off a comment like "Not to be condescending", what should one expect?)

Do you use your psyche to interact with the world? Then from an archetypal perspective you are doing so through archetypes. So even if you believe that the gods are real beings in the real world, you'd be perceiving them through the archetypes in your psyche and thus your relationship to your own psyche would still be relevant. It's a psychological point, and subtle, but not unimportant.

Personally I find it difficult to posit a hard polytheism and not run into immense contradiction. Are all of the chief gods who rule over the world the same god viewed differently, or are they in competing positions? Are they different names for the same entity? Or are they different beings? If they're different beings, how do they handle their governance? Do Poseidon and Njord get together and agree that Poseidon will only rule the oceans for people of Greek ancestry, and Njord will only do it for people of Germanic ancestry? What kind of bureaucratic entanglements take place when a German and a Greek get together and have children? Unless one's hard polytheism allows for different peoples giving different names to the same beings, I don't see how one could hold the position except in a very isolated world that we no longer live in.



I think Tadrith made some very good points and did it in a very intellectual and direct way, and will receive karma points from me for his posts. Showing interest in the fact that you had not answered a question that was presented to you and asking you to be more clear. I guess I don't see anything wrong with that. Some people set the tone for certain conversations, and I don't think it was Tadrith who did that.

Well, apparently you think being snarky is setting a proper tone. Note I changed my sentence in the face of contentious semantics to "demonstration" rather than "proof" per se, indicating that I was engaging in a conversation, rather than footnoting every step I took. I made that very clear. Had he simply asked for clarification in a respectful and open spirit of dialogue, I would have responded differently.



I feel that your reaction to his comments were disrespectful to him, and not the other way around. Instead of simply answering his question or telling him that you don't feel you need to answer, you answered, but you also added an ad hominem in what appeared to me to be an effort to distract us with the fact that he's younger than you and might therefore owe you some sort of age-related respect, which is something I feel, should be earned and has absolutely nothing to do with the argument at hand.

But experience is relevant. And when people have a certain amount of experience with a topic, they ought to be given credit for that history of thought, rather than expected to footnote everything they say.



I don't happen to believe that you owe anyone proof either, but why post if you're not going to try to explain your thoughts and comments?

I'm happy to explain my concepts. That doesn't mean that I am required to meet someone else's standards of proof. I don't engage in proof-games with people. They're silly and pointless. Discussing matters and explaining things, on the other hand, is something different altogether.

How can you be so sure what 'Real Gods' want? Would you bet your life on it? If you would, I have a feeling you would end up losing your life. Only because I don't even know the deep intentions of the person that I call my life partner, I certainly don't know the intentions of the deities.

Well, I can tell you that I set standards and have expectations for the human beings around me, so I most certainly do for the beings who purport to be better than those human beings and deserving of some kind of veneration. I don't venerate tyrants, period, whether they're human or beyond. And since I'm not a god engaging in a mythic knowledge-contest with a giant, I don't need to bet my life on any knowledge-dispute.:cutesanta

I find that speaking for the deities always causes problems and probably always will. They don't generally respond the way we'd like in many situations. However, Carla, maybe yours do and that would be something to see, seriously.

I don't expect them to respond how I'd like. But I do expect them to act as ethically as I'd expect of any human I'd want to be around.

[Xirian]

Spirituality is about improving oneself and one's relation to the world, and bringing out the very best in us, not encouraging that which is the worst in us.
I believe that's what spirituality is about for you, but that's not what it's about for everyone. For others, it may just be about understanding all aspects of their personalities, good or bad. Not about improving one's self, but simply observing one's self. That's more what it's about for me than anything. Learning about myself. If I improve or not, that's not what my personal spirituality is all about. There is no set goal when it comes to my spirituality aside from learning more about myself.

And yes, I expect any real gods to be able to be at least as good as the best human beings. Otherwise, why would they deserve my respect?
They shouldn't, but that's not the same for everyone. If someone is all about death and destruction and that is what they need in order to respect a deity, then that is their business. If that's not what it's about for you, then so be it. Forcing your opinions about what things should and shouldn't be about, is no way to get people to understand where you're coming from. You use a lot of matter-of-fact statements as if you are trying to convince someone else to believe what you believe. As long as you're convinced, that's all that should matter. You've stated your thoughts, you don't feel you need to provide proof and I think everyone knows how you feel about this particular subject. If this is what you believe, believe it. Don't try getting others to believe you, because that's simply not going to happen with everyone you encounter.

Rather, they should be setting the standards for humans. Otherwise they begin sounding like abstract labels slapped onto justifications for lack of self-development.
Once again, if that is what you need out of your deities, then that's awesome. But that's not what it should be for others, if that's not what they feel or need.

[Xirian]

Do you use your psyche to interact with the world? Then from an archetypal perspective you are doing so through archetypes. So even if you believe that the gods are real beings in the real world, you'd be perceiving them through the archetypes in your psyche and thus your relationship to your own psyche would still be relevant. It's a psychological point, and subtle, but not unimportant.
You can try to twist what I believe and make it fit into your own thinking, and that's fine with me. Enjoy!!!

Personally I find it difficult to posit a hard polytheism and not run into immense contradiction. Are all of the chief gods who rule over the world the same god viewed differently, or are they in competing positions?
I believe in separate deities, plain and simple. I do not view them in ranks or in positions of competition. They each have their own personalities and own set of standards for themselves.

Are they different names for the same entity? Or are they different beings? If they're different beings, how do they handle their governance?
What do you mean handle their governance? This seems to imply that they have all gotten together and decided what to govern and what not to, right? I don't believe that the deities even have to interact if they don't want to. If they choose to govern themselves as you describe, that is their business. It is not mine. I am of the position that they do as they want, as I do as I want.

Do Poseidon and Njord get together and agree that Poseidon will only rule the oceans for people of Greek ancestry, and Njord will only do it for people of Germanic ancestry? What kind of bureaucratic entanglements take place when a German and a Greek get together and have children?
Must their be a government? I don't feel there needs to be. I left a religion because of the hierarchies and that is not what I want or need from my deities. One reason why I am solitary. It appears that's what others may need, but not me. I'm uncaring as to what they do in their spare time.

Unless one's hard polytheism allows for different peoples giving different names to the same beings, I don't see how one could hold the position except in a very isolated world that we no longer live in.
If that is what you feel then so be it. I'm sure there is more than one Xirian out there that has different opinions and thoughts about everything. And yet, we're not competing, haven't discussed what we'll rule over and don't probably even know each other. And nothing negative has come from that.

I guess it's all about what you value and what you don't. This seems to be an issue for you, when it obviously isn't for me.

Well, apparently you think being snarky is setting a proper tone.
Yes, the snarkiness of all of your posts in this thread have set a tone.

But experience is relevant. And when people have a certain amount of experience with a topic, they ought to be given credit for that history of thought, rather than expected to footnote everything they say.
I feel that experience is relevant when it comes to speaking to someone face-to-face. But on the internet, just because you say you're older and deserve respect, doesn't mean I have to believe you. It is earned, just as it is from everyone I encounter on the internet. You are no different and neither am I, IMO.

I'm happy to explain my concepts. That doesn't mean that I am required to meet someone else's standards of proof. I don't engage in proof-games with people. They're silly and pointless. Discussing matters and explaining things, on the other hand, is something different altogether.
Well, that's great. I feel that answering a question, and when asked to provide proof, providing it, is not that difficult. And when someone fights it, it just makes them look as if they don't know what they're talking about.

Well, I can tell you that I set standards and have expectations for the human beings around me, so I most certainly do for the beings who purport to be better than those human beings and deserving of some kind of veneration. I don't venerate tyrants, period, whether they're human or beyond. And since I'm not a god engaging in a mythic knowledge-contest with a giant, I don't need to bet my life on any knowledge-dispute.:cutesanta
Yeah, I had an ex that was that way and that's why we are divorced now. I expect only what I expect from myself, not more.

I don't expect them to respond how I'd like. But I do expect them to act as ethically as I'd expect of any human I'd want to be around.

~ Samuel Johnson, “It is generally known, that he who expects much will be often disappointed; yet disappointment seldom cures us of expectation, or has any effect other than that of producing a moral sentence or peevish exclamation”

[Carla O'Harris]

I believe that's what spirituality is about for you, but that's not what it's about for everyone. For others, it may just be about understanding all aspects of their personalities, good or bad. Not about improving one's self, but simply observing one's self. That's more what it's about for me than anything. Learning about myself. If I improve or not, that's not what my personal spirituality is all about. There is no set goal when it comes to my spirituality aside from learning more about myself.


They shouldn't, but that's not the same for everyone. If someone is all about death and destruction and that is what they need in order to respect a deity, then that is their business. If that's not what it's about for you, then so be it. Forcing your opinions about what things should and shouldn't be about, is no way to get people to understand where you're coming from. You use a lot of matter-of-fact statements as if you are trying to convince someone else to believe what you believe. As long as you're convinced, that's all that should matter. You've stated your thoughts, you don't feel you need to provide proof and I think everyone knows how you feel about this particular subject. If this is what you believe, believe it. Don't try getting others to believe you, because that's simply not going to happen with everyone you encounter.


Once again, if that is what you need out of your deities, then that's awesome. But that's not what it should be for others, if that's not what they feel or need.


No, I don't subscribe to your relativism.

Ok, while spirituality may not always be about self-improvement, and may be about understanding, I'm setting a standard that it should at least not encourage that which is the worst in people.

If someone is all about death and destruction, they need a therapist, not a god. Inasmuch as that god can act as a therapist, awesome and great! As I stated, I felt that "war gods" might have a lot to teach that differed from carnage and cruelty and so forth, if they can get through the thick skulls of many worshippers!

I have every business being concerned about the values of the people around me. I do not have to respect every person's twisted idea of what constitutes their spirituality. If someone is walking around with voices in their heads telling them to hurt people, that matters. Now if someone merely is engaging in a little Gothic ritual shadow-work as part of a theatre of the psyche, in which they love to imagine death and destruction as part of a tantric exercise, wonderful and more wonderful! I do applaud them. But the moment that they confuse such exercises with actual ethical action in the world, that's where I draw the line.

[Carla O'Harris]

Maybe you're not getting the distinction between proof and discussion. I don't have to prove anything to anyone. "Provide me with proof." You provide you with proof! Since when did doing someone else's homework become my job? If they want to discuss a concept, fine, but demanding I provide them with proof is not a demand I am obligated to comply with.

[David19]

Personally I find it difficult to posit a hard polytheism and not run into immense contradiction. Are all of the chief gods who rule over the world the same god viewed differently, or are they in competing positions? Are they different names for the same entity? Or are they different beings? If they're different beings, how do they handle their governance? Do Poseidon and Njord get together and agree that Poseidon will only rule the oceans for people of Greek ancestry, and Njord will only do it for people of Germanic ancestry? What kind of bureaucratic entanglements take place when a German and a Greek get together and have children? Unless one's hard polytheism allows for different peoples giving different names to the same beings, I don't see how one could hold the position except in a very isolated world that we no longer live in.

I don't see a contradiction, i don't believe that Poseidon only rules the sea for people of Greek ancestry, or that Njord rules the sea only for Germanic people (one of the main reasons, is that gets into the 'folkish' arguement), i haven't got all my beliefs worked out, but i don't think it's the gods that cause the tides to turn or whatever, science can explain that, but i think if someone prays to Poseidon for a storm or calm sea journey, then he can grant that, just as Njord can grant a favour to someone praying to him.

I don't see why they have to work together, maybe with others in their own pantheon e.g. Poseidon may work with Zeus, etc), maybe they will ally with other gods, maybe they won't.

Also, 'hard' polytheism wasn't just for an 'isolated' world,for example, the Greeks were 'hard' polytheistic, yet they knew of other cultures (the Romans, the Canaanites, the Jews, Egyptians, etc), i know a few believed that people were worshipping the same gods, but others were 'hard' polytheistic.

And, to me, i think the gods are all individuals because they differ very differently to other gods, for example, Aztec reconstructionists have said that there gods don't take too kindly to being identified with other ones, and that they're proud of their individuality. Plus, i think Yahweh is different in character to other gods, for example, he's a 'jealous' god, likes blood sacrifice, etc (which other gods do too), so he/she doesn't seem like the type you want to make angry or cross (and i'm guessing saying he's the same god as Zeus, Thor, etc would probably get someone on his 'enemies list', lol).

Anyway, i just thought i'd say that, for me, it's a feeling and just from asking people's experiences that have led me to this belief, but if you or anyone else want to believe in archetypes or whatever, that cool too. I don't think anyone can ever know the true nature of the gods (something i've learned from a Babylonian and Aztec reconstructionist is that the gods do have their own 'lives' and personalities, away from us and the human realm/plane).

[David19]

Ok, if you want to be a semanticist, you call them whatever you wish : demons, ghouls, jotunn, Formorians --- you take your pick. You can call a tomato many different things depending on your language, but you'll still be referring to the same basic thing --- even if the tomatoes in one area are a little hairier than in others, or in one area are sweeter, etc.

My point still stands. A being that encourages nothing but carnage, bloodlust, and cruelty is no god. That being is a demon, a jotunn, a formorian, whatever you want to call it.

I understand you point a little clearer now, but the point i was trying to say, is i don't think people should put 'their' classification on a supernatural being without being told what it is by someone who knows about them. For example, i wouldn't go into Africa and just label a god or spirit there a demon or a Jotun, or whatever, just 'cause it may match something in Europe, as i wouldn't know how the actual worshippers saw it, now if they saw it as a demon or whatever, then i'd feel ok about also calling it a demon.

It's just something i feel strongly about, because while doing a module for my university (and while i've been revising), a lot of European's went into Africa (and America) and labelled the supernatural beings there by using their classification, which to me sounds arrogant (BTW, this last part wasn't directed at you or anyone else, i'm just saying why i don't like putting classifications on one culture's supernatural beings using another cultures classifications).

[Xirian]

Well, Carla, it just seems like you're here to teach, and not actually learn about other people's points of view or have a discussion. But maybe you're right, our views of what a discussion is, are much different. Of course, this is only how your actions appear on the surface.

I disagree with you on this topic and for the time being, will. However, my views are always subject to change. I think how you view your deities is fine, but the way you go about expressing that, is pushy, condescending, and disrespectful, in my opinion. You have specific morals you live your life by, and you want and expect others to live up to them exactly as you lay them out. The only outcome I can see of this, is that you will be disappointed and wish to argue, often. I've read some of your other posts on other threads, and while I might agree with your point of view, I don't respect the way you try to drill it in or put it across to people.

I think you have a lot of information to offer and I know there is a lot I can learn from you, but your attitude and the way you come across, leaves much to be desired. I know that I will be the one missing out by no longer trying to have discussions with you, but one chooses their battles and I know there are others out there who have the same information as you, but present it in a much better way.

I don't expect anyone to do research for me, but when a question is asked, I try my best not to be snide and simply answer and let them know if they have anything else to ask me they can and I'd be willing to direct them to the information that I'm using or have at hand. No skin off my teeth, but I guess it is for some.

[OrionNeb87]

I'm probably just repeating what everyone else has said but the gods to me have distinct personalities. The concept of good and evil is different for everyone so its pointless to try to figure out what is "good" and what is "evil". I believe they have a purpose for whatever they do. Even if it seems like what they did is bad and hurtful, there is a reason for it and sometimes there is a lesson involved. We as human beings tend to reflect a bit of ourselves into the gods but its how we understand and relate to them better. I didn't choose the gods I worship, they chose me. I can't speak for them either but I can tell you what they are like for me. I can't tell you what they are like for you because its not always the same. The gods are complex and simple at the same time, like the universe and life itself. The best we can do is try to understand the ones we love and worship and develop our own personal relationships with them. And as stated by others what works for me will not work for everyone. I have been reading through all these posts and I have seen some very interesting viewpoints. A lot of you have made me think hard about this topic. Its very interesting to see the variety encountered in human thought but without it life would be too boring. :)

[AlAskendir]

I see 'evil' as a policital propaganda, perpetrated in organized religion to be able to fuel the war-needs of the political forces of the time.

There being no 'evil', then everything and everyone is "OK", "good", "great", or "excellent", and most people are all of those at one time or another...and I feel it is the same for Goddesses and Gods.

[RainInanna]

I tend to think people who consider the gods as all good are glossing over some of the greatest myths. Try reading The Descent of Inanna, The Iliad, Metamorphoses, or The Contentions of Horus and Set. What would ancient cultures have written about if the gods were always perfect? The myths would consist of something like "hey Sutekh, how you doin today", "not bad Heru, it's a beautiful day huh", "sure is Sutekh, let's sit in the meadow and watch clouds".

By our society's standards, the gods did some evil things. Even by their own cultures' standards they did some evil things. For example, Sekhmet flew into a rage and nearly destroyed mankind, which even the other Netjer didn't like. Definitely wanton destruction that is immoral, inhumane, and causes harm. That said, Sekhmet is one of my most beloved gods.

Alternatively there is Set. I'm sure there are at least one or two Set kids around here. He killed Osiris and tried to kill Horus. By today's standards he did some evil stuff. But many Kemetics see him as necessary in the Ancient Egyptian pantheon as an adversary to Horus, to prove Horus was strong enough to take over his father's position. He provides the necessary balance in Kemet between order and chaos, unlike Apep who epitomizes unnecessary destruction

Evil is relative to the individual and society, but to say it doesn't exist is to ignore half of reality. And rationalizing it as in "oh he must have had a purpose I can't understand" is like saying "oh John raped and murdered all those girls, but I'm sure he had a reason I can't fathom, he's not evil". Maybe John did, but that doesn't change my morals nor the morals of our society as a whole nor the harm that was caused.

[Carla O'Harris]

I don't see a contradiction, i don't believe that Poseidon only rules the sea for people of Greek ancestry, or that Njord rules the sea only for Germanic people (one of the main reasons, is that gets into the 'folkish' arguement), i haven't got all my beliefs worked out, but i don't think it's the gods that cause the tides to turn or whatever, science can explain that, but i think if someone prays to Poseidon for a storm or calm sea journey, then he can grant that, just as Njord can grant a favour to someone praying to him.

I don't see why they have to work together, maybe with others in their own pantheon e.g. Poseidon may work with Zeus, etc), maybe they will ally with other gods, maybe they won't.

Also, 'hard' polytheism wasn't just for an 'isolated' world,for example, the Greeks were 'hard' polytheistic, yet they knew of other cultures (the Romans, the Canaanites, the Jews, Egyptians, etc), i know a few believed that people were worshipping the same gods, but others were 'hard' polytheistic.

And, to me, i think the gods are all individuals because they differ very differently to other gods, for example, Aztec reconstructionists have said that there gods don't take too kindly to being identified with other ones, and that they're proud of their individuality. Plus, i think Yahweh is different in character to other gods, for example, he's a 'jealous' god, likes blood sacrifice, etc (which other gods do too), so he/she doesn't seem like the type you want to make angry or cross (and i'm guessing saying he's the same god as Zeus, Thor, etc would probably get someone on his 'enemies list', lol).

Anyway, i just thought i'd say that, for me, it's a feeling and just from asking people's experiences that have led me to this belief, but if you or anyone else want to believe in archetypes or whatever, that cool too. I don't think anyone can ever know the true nature of the gods (something i've learned from a Babylonian and Aztec reconstructionist is that the gods do have their own 'lives' and personalities, away from us and the human realm/plane).


Well, that's a fine position to take. But I think you are reifying human concepts, and taking far too seriously the over-self-important statements of human priesthoods. I think it's important to remember that while we're dealing with real cosmic and earth energies, we are also dealing with them as mediated through human beings. The same critiques of "revelation" and "inspiration" that apply to the Bible also apply to the book of Nature and people's interpretations thereof. It's being mediated through human beings with all their flaws and all their cultural twists and turns.

I don't take seriously someone saying that "their" gods don't like to be mixed, etc. They're simply projecting their own competitive priesthood with all of its sociological agenda onto a supernatural realm, and that's inherently dishonest. It's a particular social strategy. I think I understand what they're doing. But I don't think it's particularly intelligent, nor the best strategy, so I am quite free to critique it. Overreification of conceptions of divinity, as well as attempting to somehow nationalize the sacred, seems like typical human nonsense to me. I'll attribute none of that to any entities as enlightened as gods.

[Carla O'Harris]

I understand you point a little clearer now, but the point i was trying to say, is i don't think people should put 'their' classification on a supernatural being without being told what it is by someone who knows about them. For example, i wouldn't go into Africa and just label a god or spirit there a demon or a Jotun, or whatever, just 'cause it may match something in Europe, as i wouldn't know how the actual worshippers saw it, now if they saw it as a demon or whatever, then i'd feel ok about also calling it a demon.

It's just something i feel strongly about, because while doing a module for my university (and while i've been revising), a lot of European's went into Africa (and America) and labelled the supernatural beings there by using their classification, which to me sounds arrogant (BTW, this last part wasn't directed at you or anyone else, i'm just saying why i don't like putting classifications on one culture's supernatural beings using another cultures classifications).


I understand your caution and think it's coming from a good place. It's always important to engage in a little self-critique and critique of one's own culture. But it's also good to trust one's feelings, and to have some faith in one's compassion for the beings of this world, and if some sort of human religious system propagates ideas that encourage cruelty in the world, it can be criticized on that basis alone.

[Carla O'Harris]

Well, Carla, it just seems like you're here to teach, and not actually learn about other people's points of view or have a discussion. But maybe you're right, our views of what a discussion is, are much different. Of course, this is only how your actions appear on the surface.

I disagree with you on this topic and for the time being, will. However, my views are always subject to change. I think how you view your deities is fine, but the way you go about expressing that, is pushy, condescending, and disrespectful, in my opinion. You have specific morals you live your life by, and you want and expect others to live up to them exactly as you lay them out. The only outcome I can see of this, is that you will be disappointed and wish to argue, often. I've read some of your other posts on other threads, and while I might agree with your point of view, I don't respect the way you try to drill it in or put it across to people.

I think you have a lot of information to offer and I know there is a lot I can learn from you, but your attitude and the way you come across, leaves much to be desired. I know that I will be the one missing out by no longer trying to have discussions with you, but one chooses their battles and I know there are others out there who have the same information as you, but present it in a much better way.

I don't expect anyone to do research for me, but when a question is asked, I try my best not to be snide and simply answer and let them know if they have anything else to ask me they can and I'd be willing to direct them to the information that I'm using or have at hand. No skin off my teeth, but I guess it is for some.


That you do not wish to interact with my warrior energy is fine. But once again, I'm baffled, because I DID give him the information. He simply wasn't satisfied with what I had to say. Then I pointed out that I'm not required to satisfy someone else, simply to dialogue. He was acting entitled to some sort of satisfaction of his desires. I shared a perspective. Now, come on, he's an intelligent human being. There was enough there for him to develop on his own to come to an interesting place, assuming that he wasn't already biased against the idea to begin with, which I strongly suspect. Someone strongly biased against something asks for proof. And I've already indicated that's not a game I play.

By the way, it's not just me who is explicit about ethical expectations and communicates those socially. That's a part of being a participant in a society, in which limits are placed down. Placing limits on people's psychopathic or dangerously narcissistic tendencies is a good thing, whether it offends someone's exaggerated relativism or not.

[Xirian]

Warrior energy, yet you aren't arguing, but having a discussion. You're only going to play the game by your rules, whatever those may be. I find your argument contradictory, just from reading the threads on this page.

There was enough there for him to develop on his own to come to an interesting place,
You realize from this statment, that you are indeed professing that you did not answer the question. You only partially answered and wanted him to draw his own conclusions. That is not really answering the question. If he wanted to draw his own conclusions, I'm sure he could, but he may have wanted to know the conclusions you drew from your own perspective. I understand you may believe you're drawing or leading him to the truth or the true mysteries, by allowing him to draw his own conclusions. It could have been that others who read your answer did draw conclusions, but wanted to hear yours as a comparison. Enough said.

[Tadrith]

But once again, I'm baffled, because I DID give him the information. He simply wasn't satisfied with what I had to say. Then I pointed out that I'm not required to satisfy someone else, simply to dialogue

Should this refer to me, the reason I asked for more proof is because if you state your opinion in an authoritative manner, discrediting other's as merely misinterpretations or misunderstandings of the morality of the gods (to do so is incredulous, the nature of the gods is obscured to us. Humans do not possess the mental faculties to understand such complexities. Humans are therefore left to make analogies from the brief lessons learned by those who have moments of enlightenment).

The information you provided, "do your own research," is a failure because the central assumption lies in the conjecture that I have not effected any. I have indeed done my research and it has pointed me in the cardinal direction that not all the gods are good (for instance, Loki, Aipaloovik, Malsumis, Set, etc. This can also extend on who views what as good/evil. Some gods might change the tide of war in favour of one tribe over the other. The loser, justifiably, may view that God as evil).

I do understand your point that some demons and devils may very well try to coerce humans into commiting atrocities, but to assume that any entity which encourages ferocity, carnage, and general evil must be a demon/jotunn, this is where we disagree.

Cheers,
Tad

[Malcolm]

Well, then, you must think that "war gods" approve of greed, lust, and power, which by definition makes them jotunns.

This is just flat out wrong.

Jotun is not a classification for diety. Jotnar are a very specific race of 'godlike' beings. They only exist with the norse pantheon.

Sure, other gods may act like them but that speaks to their character not their lineage.


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

[Carla O'Harris]

Ok, obviously people are having some misunderstandings here. As far as the specificity of the jotunn category to the Norse mythology, why don't you read my post about semantics? You can call them whatever you like ; they're still the same.

And please note that Loki was bound in Niflhel near Nastrond for his deeds.

And Tadrith, "do your own research" was in response to the specific topic of militarism warping religion, so it still stands.

You realize from this statment, that you are indeed professing that you did not answer the question. You only partially answered and wanted him to draw his own conclusions.

No, that is not the case at all. I answered sufficiently for myself and if he didn't find it sufficient, that's his problem, not mine.

to assume that any entity which encourages ferocity, carnage, and general evil must be a demon/jotunn, this is where we disagree.



Well, we disagree.

Warrior energy, yet you aren't arguing, but having a discussion.

I have discussions with those who are open to discussions. I am also fierce when that is called for by the energy of the opponent.

[Cain]

Nope, not all Gods are good. In fact, based on their behaviour, many would seem curiously amoral, some evil and very few good in any real sense.

[Xirian]

You realize from this statment, that you are indeed professing that you did not answer the question. You only partially answered and wanted him to draw his own conclusions.

No, that is not the case at all. I answered sufficiently for myself and if he didn't find it sufficient, that's his problem, not mine.

Are you kidding me?! You're joking right?! Yes, that is exactly the case, completely. You weren't supposed to be answering for yourself, you obviously know what you think. You should be trying to help the rest of us understand what you're thinking and where you're coming from exactly.

You're starting to sound like an evasive politician, and any logics professor would tear holes in this argument of yours. You did not answer the question. Plain and Simple. You even admitted to not answering the question. A question was asked of you, you answered it partially. That is still not answering the question that was asked of you.

Your comment is something I would expect to hear from a self-centered egotist. "I answered sufficiently for myself..." Why bother posting here? Why not get a blog and just tell people what you think and try to submit it to a pagan newsletter or magazine? Or are you already way ahead of me?

[Carla O'Harris]

Are you kidding me?! You're joking right?! Yes, that is exactly the case, completely. You weren't supposed to be answering for yourself, you obviously know what you think. You should be trying to help the rest of us understand what you're thinking and where you're coming from exactly.

I'm not kidding you. Thesis : Militarism Warps Religion. Demonstration : Look at how in every major war each side thinks God is on their side. This warps even gods that are about peace and love. Demonstration is readily confirmable through commonly available encyclopedias and other history books. For further exploration, consult said history books. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this chain of discussion.

You're starting to sound like an evasive politician, and any logics professor would tear holes in this argument of yours. You did not answer the question. Plain and Simple. You even admitted to not answering the question. A question was asked of you, you answered it partially. That is still not answering the question that was asked of you.

Actually, I did answer the question ; he just didn't like my answer. Plain and simple. And believe me, your logics professor would have to reckon with me ; it would most certainly be a two-sided debate, and I can give as good as I get.

I answered the question. I admit to the fact that I answered it to my satisfaction and that this was not sufficient for someone else. Too bad.

Your comment is something I would expect to hear from a self-centered egotist. "I answered sufficiently for myself..." Why bother posting here? Why not get a blog and just tell people what you think and try to submit it to a pagan newsletter or magazine? Or are you already way ahead of me?

And you seem to think that in order to engage in discussion I am obliged to satisfy everyone and do their homework for them. We disagree about that. It has nothing to do with self-centered egotism. It has everything to do with different argument styles.

[Tahlea]

I think that whilst the Gods try to be good, there are aspects that aren't so good, if you know what I mean. Just like in everything in this world, everything has a good and bad side - some worse than others. The Gods have the potential to be all good, but have downfalls as well. For example, whilst Hades is 'good' in the role that he is in, in the Underworld, he is 'bad' in that it's the Underworld, do you know what I'm saying?

I know what I'm saying, and what I'm trying to get across >_<

[Xirian]

"Truth is beautiful without doubt, but so are lies." ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

"Men who cannot deceive others are very often successful at deceiving themselves"
~ Samuel Johnson

[Xirian]

Oh, wait a minute, I get it now. It took me a while, but that's pretty hilarious. I see now, you really had me for a bit there, Carla. :rolleyes:

[Tadrith]

I'm not kidding you. Thesis : Militarism Warps Religion. Demonstration : Look at how in every major war each side thinks God is on their side. This warps even gods that are about peace and love. Demonstration is readily confirmable through commonly available encyclopedias and other history books. For further exploration, consult said history books. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this chain of discussion.

Your "proof" is, like I have mentioned before, pitiful at best. Your ambiguous and indirect reference only demonstrates that, at the moment, you do not possess anything to support your argument. Should you mention something along the lines of:

"If you recall, Loki was an evil god. Because of his deceitful nature and all the death he has caused, he was emprisoned. Despite being enshackled, he is still an evil god. The act of emprisoning him did nothing to change his character, and he thusly remains an evil God. However, there are some naysayers who claim that all Gods are good and that any who are evil are merely jotunn, despite the insurmountable evidence contradicting their claims..."

Then you could possibly draw upon some other anecdotes of other gods from different cultures, such as Aipaloovik, who is an evil sea god of the Inuit, who drowns innocent fisherman for entertainment.

To do such does not require a page, paragraph, and line number from some ancient encyclopaedia. All it requires is a little bit of paraphrasing. You are an intelligent person, and because of that I expect more from you. And because you are not providing the challenge I was hoping for, I am getting bored. I hope that you can mend your flawed logic, provide some actual evidence, and perhaps come back with me with something of worth and interest. Should you decide to do so, I would be thrilled.

I have already formed my conclusions from discussions with the gods, through books of mythical and actual history, and from worldly observations; while they are liable to change as circumstantiated evidence surfaces, I have yet to see anything of worth coming from you in this thread.

Wishing you the best,
Tadrith

[Malcolm]

"If you recall, Loki was an evil god. Because of his deceitful nature and all the death he has caused, he was emprisoned. Despite being enshackled, he is still an evil god. The act of emprisoning him did nothing to change his character, and he thusly remains an evil God. However, there are some naysayers who claim that all Gods are good and that any who are evil are merely jotunn, despite the insurmountable evidence contradicting their claims..."

no. :hahugh:

[Carla O'Harris]

Your "proof" is, like I have mentioned before, pitiful at best. Your ambiguous and indirect reference only demonstrates that, at the moment, you do not possess anything to support your argument. Should you mention something along the lines of:

"If you recall, Loki was an evil god. Because of his deceitful nature and all the death he has caused, he was emprisoned. Despite being enshackled, he is still an evil god. The act of emprisoning him did nothing to change his character, and he thusly remains an evil God. However, there are some naysayers who claim that all Gods are good and that any who are evil are merely jotunn, despite the insurmountable evidence contradicting their claims..."

Then you could possibly draw upon some other anecdotes of other gods from different cultures, such as Aipaloovik, who is an evil sea god of the Inuit, who drowns innocent fisherman for entertainment.

To do such does not require a page, paragraph, and line number from some ancient encyclopaedia. All it requires is a little bit of paraphrasing. You are an intelligent person, and because of that I expect more from you. And because you are not providing the challenge I was hoping for, I am getting bored. I hope that you can mend your flawed logic, provide some actual evidence, and perhaps come back with me with something of worth and interest. Should you decide to do so, I would be thrilled.

I have already formed my conclusions from discussions with the gods, through books of mythical and actual history, and from worldly observations; while they are liable to change as circumstantiated evidence surfaces, I have yet to see anything of worth coming from you in this thread.

Wishing you the best,
Tadrith


Oh, I don't think Loki was an evil god. I do think he did some things which were evil, and I think he was appropriately punished and restrained for those. (Btw, Loki has jotunn heritage ...)

But you see, you are asking for arguments which are entirely intra-mythological, and thus missing my point. I'm making a sociological-theological point, not an intra-mythological one. Obviously there are gods posited within the literature as being negative. But there is always a translation factor between mythology and ontology. I'm suggesting corrupting factors mediating between those two.

You keep harping on the fact that my "proof" is pitiful, when I've indicated that I'm engaging in a discussion, not attempting to prove anything to you. Had you approached me in anything close to a friendly manner, what I said would have constituted plenty for an interesting conversation. But that wasn't your desire. That's fine. I haven't responded the way you would have liked, and it's not my responsibility to do so.

you do not possess anything to support your argument.

Now that is a false statement on its face. Simply because I am not engaging in "proof" does not mean that I don't possess anything to support my argument. I gave some supportive suggestions.

perhaps come back with me with something of worth and interest.

If you're so interested in the discussion, why don't you come back at me with something of worth and interest? It goes both ways.

[Malcolm]

(Btw, Loki has jotunn heritage ...)

All of the Aesir do. Although I think Skadi and Loki are the only full blooded ones...I could be wrong though.

[Carla O'Harris]

All of the Aesir do. Although I think Skadi and Loki are the only full blooded ones...I could be wrong though.

Loki was raised amongst the Jotunn. That differentiates him f