Heathen beliefs and dualism?

[David19]

Something Carla mentioned in the thread in the Magic & Rituals forum called 'have you ever done black magic?' (http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=148639&page=9) got my interest:

A ridiculously polemical statement. Religions around the world believe in good and evil, including significant branches of Indo-European religion, particularly the Germanic. The idea that good and evil have no place within a pagan perspective is absolutely absurd. If you would like to lay claim to a non-dualistic spirituality, that is perfectly valid, but to position people who espouse a traditional dualism as being somehow less mature or spiritually developed than yourself is nothing but a nasty and obnoxious polemical statement.

And, i was just wondering, is there a dualism of good and evil in Heathenism, as i didn't think there was (or in any Indo-European religion, apart from Zoroastrianism), if there is, how does it fit into the Heathen cosmology, like who are the 'good' guys, who are the 'bad' guys, etc.

I've seen some people say the Jotun were 'evil', but i've also seen a few articles that say their not 'pure evil' or are like humans (some are evil, some are good, some are neutral, etc), and i've also seen some say that Loki is 'evil' (but from what i've read, Loki seems like a really cool god, and more a god who just likes to play jokes).

Any help you could give me in understanding this would be very helpful, as despite not being a Hrathen, i really do like the beliefs and find it interesting.

Thanks :)

[Garm]

And, i was just wondering, is there a dualism of good and evil in Heathenism, as i didn't think there was (or in any Indo-European religion, apart from Zoroastrianism), if there is, how does it fit into the Heathen cosmology, like who are the 'good' guys, who are the 'bad' guys, etc.

Thanks :)

The good guys are us

The bad guys are them

Somethings never change

[Carla O'Harris]

Here's a section from Havamal, Odin's own words :

117.
Ráðumk þér, Loddfáfnir,
en þú ráð nemir, -
njóta mundu ef þú nemr,
þér munu góð ef þú getr -:
illan mann
láttu aldregi
óhöpp at þér vita,
því at af illum manni
fær þú aldregi
gjöld ins góða hugar.

I counsel thee, etc.
A bad man
let thou never
know thy misfortunes;
for from a bad man
thou never wilt obtain
a return for thy good will.

"Illan" translated here as "bad" is often translated as "evil" as well. In any case, it's the same concept.

We see here that the words "good" and "evil" exist in a heathen context.

Here's Odin's response to the suggestion that Ymir might be considered a god :

Þá svarar Hárr: "Fyr engan mun játum vér hann guð. Hann er illr ok allir hans ættmenn. Þá köllum vér hrímþursa.

"By no means do we acknowledge him God; he was evil and all his kindred: we call them Rime-Giants.

Hann (He) er (was) illr (evil) ok (and) allir (all) hans (his) aettman (kinsman).

In other words, the rime-thurs are evil.

For clarification,

http://lexicon.ff.cuni.cz/html/oi_cleasbyvigfusson/b0318.html

ÍLLR, adj., compar. verri (q. v.), superl. verstr; illr is still often pro-

nounced with a long vowel, esp. in the forms illt, ills, as also illr and illr,

although it is usually in mod. books spelt with i; the long vowel is a

remains of the contraction which in the Scandin. languages has taken place

in this word: [Ulf. ?* bil s; A. S. yfel; Engl. ill, evil; Hel. ubil; O. H. G.

ubil; Germ, ii bel; Dan. ild; Swed. il/-; in mod. Engl. ill is of Scandin.,

evil of Saxon origin]; -- ill, evil, bad, in a bodily and moral sense: in sayings,

illt er at eiga þræl at einga-vin, Grett. 154; illt er at eggja obilgjarnan, or

illt er at eggja illt skap = trvp iA. a\aipa. pf) ffxakevtiv; erat maðr svá illr at

einugi dugi, Hm. 134; fátt er svo fyrir öllu illt, að ekki boði nokkuð gott,

=='/ i s an ill wind that blows nobody any good; ilia gefask ill ráð, Nj. 20;

opt stendr illt af kvenna tali, Gísl. 15; opt hlýtr illt af ilium (or illt má af

ilium hljóta), Ísl. ii. 151; frest eru ills bezt, Fms. v. 294. 2. ill, bad,

of quality, capacity; illr búþegn, a bad farmer, Fms. i. 69; illr hestr, a b a d

hor s e, þiðr. 191; illt skald, a poetaster. 3. evil, wicked; góða frá

ilium, Eluc. 37; illr maðr, Hm. (ill-menni); ill ráð, evil counsel, 9; til

góðs ok ills, /o r good or evil, Grág. ii. 144; sjá við íllu, beware of evil,

Sdm. 39; illt eitt, all wickedness, as a nickname, Fms. ix. 419 (423

sqq.) 4. bad; ilium huga, an evil mind, spite, Hbl. 21; ills hugar,

Hy'rn. 9; illt skap, ill humour; vera í illu skapi, to be in an ill mood;

það er illt í inér, to be angry; maela illt, to use foul language, Bjarn. 32;

ill orð, e vil words, Skrn. 2; varð honum illt til liðs, Fms. i. 22; ill old,

evil times, vi. 96; illt veðr, ill weather, v. 295; íllar álögur, evil,

oppressive burdens, vii. 75, v. l.; ill heilsa, ill health; illt, unwholesome;

er þat illt manni, Eg. 604; medic., e-m er illt (mér er illt), to be ill; illt

er (' tis a pity] at eiga dáðlausa sonu, Ld. 236; honum þótti illt (he was

sorry) at heyra læti þeirra, Fms. iv. 368: denoting harm, hurt, grunaði

at mikit illt mundi af þéf hljótask, tsl. ii. 151; verðr hann þeim stórhöggr,

ok fá þeir illt af honum, Fms. xi. 135. 5. with gen. ill, difficult;

illr viðr-eignar, ill todeal with, Nj. 18, Eg. 147; íllir heimsóknar,

Fms. vii. 299; flestir verða íllir aptrhvarfs, 315: with dat. ill t o

o ne, illr e-m, (cp. Scot, 'ill to his friend, waur to his foe'), 655 A.

4. 6. cl os e, stingy, cp. góðr (II. /3); illr af aurum, Jd. 35; illir

af mat, Hkr. i. 140; hinn matar-illi, a nickname, Hkr. COMPDS:

íll-brigði, n. pl. a bad trick, Hkr. ii. 287, Grett. ill A. ill-byli,

n. a wretched home; göra e-m i., Ísl. ii. 141. ill-deildir, f. pl. and

ill-deilur, ill-dealings, hostilities, quarrels, Ld. 158, Fms. vii. 144, Nj.

77, Vígl. 29. ill-dyri, n. an ill beast, noxious animal, Ísl. ii. 300.

ül-felli, n. . mi s hap, Barl. 115. ill-fengr, adj. ill-natured, Fms. iii. 141

Grett. 144. fll-ferli, n. pl. ill doings, evil ways, Bs. i. 279. ill-fuss,

adj. ill-willed, Ld. 258. fll-fygli, n. an ill bird, noxious bird, Pr.

186. íll-fýstr, part, bent on evil, Nj. 72. fll-gengr, adj. rough,

of a horse, opp. to gúðgengr. ûl-geta, u, f. ' ill-guess, ' imputation.

fll-girnd and fll-girni, f. ill-will, ill-nature, wickedness, Fms. vii. 37,

Rd. 236, Grág. i. 131, Bs. i. 45. fll-gjarn, adj. ill-willed, ill-natured,

wicked, Nj. 38, Hom. 19, Bs. i. 40: superl., Fms. ii. 46, x. 327. flj.

gjarnligr, adj. ill-natured, spiteful, Hom. 19, 53, Sks. 445. ul-gresi,

n. 'evil-grass, ' tares, Magn. 502, Sks. 549, Barl. 34, N. T., Vidal. pas-

sim, íll-grunaðr, part, suspected of evil, Mar.; vera íllgrunaðr um

6-1, 65. 1. 264. fll-gœfa, u, f. ill-luck, Barl. 55. fll-gæti, n. ill fare,

Barl. 55. fll-görð, f., esp. in pl. ill doings, Fms. vi. 291, Sks. 583,

Stj. ülgörða-flokkr, m. a gang of rogues, Fms. viii. 232. ill.

görða-maðr, m. an evil-doer, of thieves, robbers, Eb. 300, Fms. i. 43,

N. T., Vidal. fllgörða-samr, adj. (-semi, f.), evil-doing, Fms. xi.

90. fll-hreysingr, m. (see hreysi), a savage, miscreant, Sturl. i. 14,

iii. 26. ill-hveli, n. n n evil whale, Fas. iii. 507. fll-kvikendi,

ul-kykvendi, n. a n evil beast, e. g. a snake, toad, etc., 655 xii. 2, A. A.

284. fll-kvittinn, adj. slanderous. ul-kvittni, f. calumny.

fll-kyndugr, adj. lewd, Bs. i. 256. ul-kyngi, f. lezvdness, Mag. 129.

ill-leikni, f. ill-treatment, Fms. ii. 185, viii. 41. ül-lifnaðr, m. an

evil life, lewdness, Stj. 386. flllifnaðar-maðr, m. a man of an ill

life, Fb. i. 233. fll-lífl, n a wicked life, Barl. 138, Fms. viii.

54. ül-lífr, adj. wicked, biðr. 69. ül-lyndi, n. an ill temper.

fll-lyndr, adj. ill-tempered. íll-læti, n. pl. hideous grimaces, Konr.

ill-mannliga, adv. wickedly, cruelly; ilia ok L, Fms. v. 265; i. ok

grimmliga, Ld. 246, Mar. ul-mannligr, adj. ill-looking, rogue-like,

cruel, wicked, Fas. ii. 84, Fms. iii. 116: neut., Mar.: compar., Fas. ii.

534: superl., Nj. 78. íll-máligr, adj. foul-mouthed, slanderous,

Finnb. 280, Hav. 38, Str. 15. ill-menni, n. a knave (of thieves and

robbers), a wicked, cruel man, Fms. ii. 4, vi. 60, S3'mb. 59, Nj. 32.

ill-mennska, u, f. wickedness, cruelly, Hav. 44. íll-mæla, t, with

acc., in mod. usage with dat., to libel, slander, talk evil of, Str. 15, Hkr.

iii. 262; vera íllmæltr af e-u, to have evil reputation from, Bs. i. 759.

ül-mælgi, f. slander, calumny, 623. 30. ül-mæli, n. a libel, Nj.

183, Lv. 53, Boll. 350, Dropl. 11, Krók. 7. ül-orðr, auj. ' ill-worded, '

abusive, Fms. iii. 143, Nj. 66. íll-ráðigr, adj. giving wicked counsel,

Fms. x. 380. ül-ráðr, adj. wicked, Sturl. iii. 281: a nickname, Fb.

iii. íÜ-ræða, u, f. bad language, Sks. 25. íll-ræði, n. evil doings,

crime, Fms. x. 390, Róm. 256. íllrœðis-maðr, m. an evil-doer,

criminal, Sturl. i. 137, Fms. iii. 155, Fs. 20. íll-ræmdr, part, of

evil report. ill-sakar, f. pl., in the phrase, troða íllsakar við e-n, t o

have a rough fight with one, Nj. 219. ül-skái, a, m. the le s s of two

evils; hvárt þykkir þér bctr ? ... pat þykki mér íllskáinn at þú hafir,

Band. 21 new Ed. íll-skárri, compar., íll-skárst, superl. the less

of two evils; það er íllskátra, íllskást. íll-skeptr, part. ' ill-shapen, '

i. e. ill-natured, Stj. 43: wroth, Th. 76. ül-skælda, u, f. a poetaster,

Eg., Hkr.; a nickname given to a poet for having stolen the burden of

another poem, see Fms. iii. 65. ill-spar, f. pl. evil prophecy, croak-

ings, Glúm. 354, Fas. i. 372, Bret. 38. ill-svipligr, adj. ill-look-

ing, Fb. i. 260. íll-tíðindi, n. pl. evil tidings, bad news, Sturl. iii.

210. ill-tyngdir, f. pl. [tunga], ' evil tongues, ' slander, Grág. i. 361.

íll-iigi, i. e. lllhugi, a pr. name, cp. hugr (II). fll-úð, f. ill-nature,

Vkv. 19, 22. íll-úðigr, adj. evil-boding, Am. 13, Hkm. 15, Fas. i. 192.

íll-úðligr, adj. ill-looking, grim, Bárð. 167. Ül-verk, n. an evil deed,

Hav. 38. ül-viðri, n. bad weather, Fms. i. 275, ix. 233, Rb. 102,

Str. 88, Sks. 211. íllviðris-klakkar, m. foul-wsatber cltfiids, Sks.

234. íllviðris-kráka, u, f. an evil crow. ill-vili, a, m. ill-will,

Fms. i. 71, vii. 312, xi. 250, Orkn. 264. ill-vilja, adj. = íllviljaðr,

Fagrsk. ch. 272. íllvüja-fullr, adj. ill-willed, Bs. i. 45. illvilja-

maðr, m. an ill-ivisber, Sturl. iii. 227. íll-vüjaðr, part, ill-willed,

Fms. ix. ?35, Sks. 160, Barl. 38. ul-virki, n. a cruel, evil doing,

crime, Háv. 38: as a law term, an outrage, done with an evil intention,

defined in Grág. i. 130, 131: robbery, ravage, Fms. vii. 18, xi. 57. ill-

virki, a, m. an ill-doer, criminal (thief, robber), Grág. i. 130, Greg. 40,

Fas. i. 56 (Ed. illvirkr), Fms. xi. 445, Al. 108. ill-viti, a, m. evil-

boder, a nickname, Bjarn.: name of certain crags, among which sounds are

heard when a storm is coming. íll-vœrt, n. adj. what is not to be stood;

þá kom regn svá mikit, at í. var úti, a pelting rain, so that one could hardly

stay out-of-doors, Bs. i. 172. ül-yrða, t, to abuse, speak evil to, Fas.

ii. 229, Finnb. 228, Stj. 529. fll-yrði, n. pl. /o?/ l language, libel,

Nj. 64, Boll. 360, Karl. 509. ill-yrmi, n. [ormr], vermin, Fms. x.

380. illyrmis-legr, adj. (-lega, adv.), like vermin. fll-ýðgi, f.

= ílhíð, Hom. (St.) íll-þolandi, part, intolerable. íll-þræli, n.

a wretched thrall, Am. 59. íll-þýði, n. [þjóð], a rabble, gang of

thieves and robbers, Fms. vii. 8, 16, Bs. i. 142, Hkr. iii. 208, Fb. ii. 349.

íllþýðis-fólk, n. = íllþýði, Hkr. i. 36, Fms. vi. 162, ix. 384, v. 1. ill-

býðis-maðr, m. a thief and robber, Fms. viii. 73, v. l.

Voluspa is a story about how the Golden Age got destroyed by evil, and is an extended narrative of the Fall leading to Ragnarok, at which time the world will be renewed.

As far as where the evil giants go when they die, let's see what Skirnir has to say about it in Skirnismal :

Thou shalt go thither,
where the sons of men
shall never more behold thee....
Solitude and disgust,
bonds and impatience,
shall thy tears with grief augment.
Set thee down,
and I will tell thee of
a whelming flood of care,
and a double grief.
Terrors shall bow thee down
the livelong day,
in the Jötuns’ courts.
To the Hrimthursar’s halls,
thou shalt each day
crawl exhausted,
joyless crawl;
wail for pastime
shalt thou have,
and tears and misery....
Thy mind shall tear thee
from morn to morn:
as the thistle thou shalt be
which has thrust itself
on the house-top. ...
Hrimgrimnir the Thurs is named,
that shall possess thee,
in the grating of the dead beneath;
there shall wretched thralls,
from the tree’s roots,
goats’ water give thee.
Other drink shalt thou,
maiden! never get,
either for thy pleasure,
or for my pleasure.


The words ill/yfil and good are native Germanic terms, which should in itself be an indication.

The giants are not only the frequent foes of the gods (as giants or their near-equivalents are in all of the Indo-European mythologies), but are described as evil, and they have a special place of torture in Niflhel reserved for them, a place also reserved for adulterers, oath-breakers, and murderers amongst men.

[Faol-chù]

From Northvegr--A Heathen Reconstructionist Group site:

http://www.northvegr.org/northern/index.php

What does the Northern Way have to say about good and evil? There is no ultimate embodied being of good or evil in the Northern Way. There are some who try to put forth the idea that Loki is the Northern version of the Christian Devil, or portray Othinn as ´The Prince of Darkness´. These ideas are ridiculous and warrant no serious consideration. There are forces of chaos and forces of order. There are actions that are ill for one's own kin and there are those actions which benefit one's own kin. There is, contrary to popular belief, a concept of good and evil in Heithni. However, it is important that the reader not make the mistake of using these two words with their modern Christian meanings. The original Germanic meaning of these words was different in some very important ways. A person is judged to be good or evil depending on his or her actions and how those actions affect his or her kin; spiritual or blood. In the Northern Way evil is very "relative." What that means is that the situation will many times show whether or not a given action is evil. What is evil is that which harms one's kin, family or tribe in Verdandi (the present) or Skuld (the future), in essence harming most oneself and one's place in the cosmology. What is good is that which supports and nourishes one's kin, family and tribe. To this end, there certain ethics that Northfolk are expected to exhibit. But there is no absolute moral set of laws or prohibitions that are considered evil if performed, simply based on opposition to some artificial moral code.


If you go to google and type is 'Asatru' and 'evil', you will find that most of the sites tend to reiterate this same thing...

Le meas,

[Carla O'Harris]

Good and evil exist ; the giants are evil ; the places of torture are reserved for the giants and those who commit heinous acts ; these facts are absolutely grounded both in the language and the lore, and no modern synthesis can erase these facts which are prominent.

[Faol-chù]

Good and evil exist ; the giants are evil ; the places of torture are reserved for the giants and those who commit heinous acts ; these facts are absolutely grounded both in the language and the lore, and no modern synthesis can erase these facts which are prominent.

Sorry Carla....

I'm puttin' my money on the reconstructionists who actually STUDY these things and learn about the nuances in the lore. (Do you actually KNOW any Norse language, Carla?)

You've proven to me previously that your understanding of the cultures IN CONTEXT is sadly lacking.

For anyone who is curious as to why I say that, I provide you with exhibit A:
(Be sure you check out the WHOLE THREAD, if you haven't already)...

http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=147455

[David19]

Thanks for the answers to everyone, although i'm not too sure about that place, Niflhel, 'cause is adultery really that bad of a crime?.

Also, isn't Loki a Jotun, yet he and the Norse gods work together, i think anyway and he's Odin's blood brother.

Aren't blood brothers supposed to be really tight?.

[Carla O'Harris]

Thanks for the answers to everyone, although i'm not too sure about that place, Niflhel, 'cause is adultery really that bad of a crime?.

Argue with Voluspa. There it is considered a bad crime. The reason is it breaks up the family and home which is holy and sacred. Secondly, it is a form of oath-breaking.

Also, isn't Loki a Jotun, yet he and the Norse gods work together, i think anyway and he's Odin's blood brother.

Individual jotuns like individuals of any evil race may be exceptions at times, but let's keep in mind that Loki and Gullveig contribute to the downfall of the world, so they can definitely be described as evil in tendency.

Aren't blood brothers supposed to be really tight?.

Yes, they are. Too bad Loki betrayed Odin by killing his most beloved son.

[Xentor]

Admin mode. if this quarreling does not stop, posts that don't deal with the topic will be deleted and people will be penalised.

[SwordsFlameSong]

***ADMIN MODE***


Carla and Mjolliner

Please remember this rule


2. Debate the idea, don't attack the poster.


Though there has been editing the originals have been seen. I do thank you for the editing however.

That being said, the tenor of what is being written still seems to be aimed at each other. So, this adminning also applies to anyone else who may be doing the same.

MY personal preference is not to see this thread closed. SO please, EVERYONE, get back on the topic.

Thank you

[David19]

Argue with Voluspa. There it is considered a bad crime. The reason is it breaks up the family and home which is holy and sacred. Secondly, it is a form of oath-breaking.

I guess that makes sense in Voluspa's time, but i think in modern times, it wouldn't matter that much (as not everything revolves around families).


Individual jotuns like individuals of any evil race may be exceptions at times, but let's keep in mind that Loki and Gullveig contribute to the downfall of the world, so they can definitely be described as evil in tendency.

For a different perspective on Loki, i like this site, http://loki.ragnarokr.com/pipindex.htm.


Yes, they are. Too bad Loki betrayed Odin by killing his most beloved son.

I'm not sure if i've said this before, but there was an interesting site, by a Heathen who worshipped Odin, who had a lot of cool articles of Heathen mysticism, that made the point Loki was acting on Odin's orders to 'kill' Balder, in that he wanting Balder to survive Ragnarok, and Hel was the only place he'd survive, apparantly, it was Odin who sent Balder his prophetic dreams of his death or something.

So, i don't think Loki is that evil, when you really investigate his character.

But thanks for the information :).

[Faol-chù]

For a different perspective on Loki, i like this site, http://loki.ragnarokr.com/pipindex.htm.



Thanks for that, David...

I particularly thought this part was interesting (though I've heard it before!):

Loki... is the creature who transgresses all boundaries; even more significant, Loki represents the boundary itself... Loki may most properly be seen as representative of more than either the boundary or the boundary crosser; in the character and role of Loki, the boundary, difference itself, has collapsed. But to say that it 'has collapsed' implies its prior existence, and this does not adequately describe Loki. In Loki that opposition has never been created; what is elsewhere two is one in Loki." -- Karen Swenson

This is a great comparative to the Gaelic god Lugh, and his Welsh Cognate, Llew...

Lugh is known in Gaelic lore as a 'crosser of boundaries', and the similarities here are glaring, when one compares the relationship between Odin and Loki, and Llew from the Welsh lore, who had an 'unnamed', and misshapen twin brother, who scrambled to sea as soon as he was born.

Both of them serve to cross boundaries and/or BE the boundary...:)

[skilly-nilly]

For a different perspective on Loki, i like this site, http://loki.ragnarokr.com/pipindex.htm.

So, i don't think Loki is that evil, when you really investigate his character.

But thanks for the information :).

What an interesting site---thanks for pointing to it.

I agree with this:
"We lose a lot of the flavour and richness of the Norse tales if we look at them simplistically as parables of good versus evil, which is the legacy of living in a society with a Judeo-Islamo-Christian frame of reference."

and feel that way about interpreting Irish lore as well.

On some other thread, I was reading (this is only my memory of the post and so not exact) that Wyrd (being something like Fate) causes believers to not have free will (since things happen without our will)

Although I didn't respond there, I disagree with this idea, since I view Wyrd as the inevitability of things happening (in part, leaving out the 'called to do' part of the concept). Once things happen, it rests with us to decide what to do about it. 'Free Will' (imo) rests in the response.

The idea of Loki as being the catalyst for change (a value-neutral role) is very intriguing, much like the role that Coyote plays in several SW First-Peoples' Mythos. The fact that change is disruptive and troublesome and that Loki/Coyote/Hermes (depending on which culture one bases one's beliefs in) often get it wrong are also value-neutral.

The site David19 points to also includes the interesting idea that Loki has more/any followers now (as opposed to few/none in pre-Xian times) because this is a time of disruptive change, and so the God of Troublesome Change is more needed.

**scurries off to the other Path to post about the Irish pantheon**

[David19]

The site David19 points to also includes the interesting idea that Loki has more/any followers now (as opposed to few/none in pre-Xian times) because this is a time of disruptive change, and so the God of Troublesome Change is more needed.

I like that view, and i think it makes a lot of sense.

[Carla O'Harris]

I guess that makes sense in Voluspa's time, but i think in modern times, it wouldn't matter that much (as not everything revolves around families).

Au contraire, the home is central to the religion. Adultery is technically an oath-breaking in regards to marriage and the home. If the married partners have an understanding whereby extramarital activity does not break their marriage and home, it is not adultery.




For a different perspective on Loki, i like this site, http://loki.ragnarokr.com/pipindex.htm.

A decidedly modernist take that frankly does not square with all of the aspects of Loki. Don't get me wrong ; I like this site and find many parts of it charming. But Loki's role in the downfall of the world is important and must be addressed.




I'm not sure if i've said this before, but there was an interesting site, by a Heathen who worshipped Odin, who had a lot of cool articles of Heathen mysticism, that made the point Loki was acting on Odin's orders to 'kill' Balder, in that he wanting Balder to survive Ragnarok, and Hel was the only place he'd survive, apparantly, it was Odin who sent Balder his prophetic dreams of his death or something.

Interesting speculation ; good for a novel. It definitely makes for an intriguing story. But as a religious explanation for the entire sequence of events, it is not an explanation that is justified by the lore. So yes, interesting story, but not lore-strict.

So, i don't think Loki is that evil, when you really investigate his character.

Loki is caught in a difficult situation, between his Aesir friends, and his evil Jotun kinsmen.

Under ordinary circumstances, it is possible that someone with his character might live out an amusing life where his considerable jester skills would prove of some value to the community. In such a context, his mischief could prove to be relatively harmless.

However, Loki was not in such a situation. Rather, he was in the home of the cosmic creators who warded over the world and protected it from the marauding, chaotic, even malevolent forces of the jotunns where his every action made a great deal of cosmic difference and was loaded with significance for every single being.

You might enjoy a pranksterish, capricious spirit in everyday life, but would you want such a person mucking about in a nuclear silo or in the computer center at NORAD?

Interesting novel-plots aside, Loki brought about the death of Odin's favourite son, a son who was intimately linked with the Golden Age. That in itself constitutes a breaking of his blood-brother oath, and is an immense betrayal. Loki also turned the tribes of dwarves and elves against each other in a contest that left both sides sore, thus breaking the frith and bringing strife between important nature-artists who attend to the world. Then he brought about the birth of three horrible monsters who brought considerable amount of woe to the world. He caused strife amongst armies and turned people against each other and he encouraged adultery. He is one of the main characters involved in the breakdown of the world that leads to Ragnarok. Whether you choose to call that evil or not, that's a pretty villanous role.

From a certain perspective, Loki's tale is a Tragedy, one that ends up involving everyone. Because of this, it is said that he is hated by every living soul.

It is his position as a traitor, and not as a Satan figure, that is important. It is the thurses and ill jotunns who are the main adversaries, but Loki as a go-between put in a difficult situation ends up making the wrong choices that spell great ill for the world.

[Carla O'Harris]

The idea of Loki as being the catalyst for change (a value-neutral role) is very intriguing, much like the role that Coyote plays in several SW First-Peoples' Mythos. The fact that change is disruptive and troublesome and that Loki/Coyote/Hermes (depending on which culture one bases one's beliefs in) often get it wrong are also value-neutral.

This is extremely simplistic. The result of Loki's actions are anything but "value-neutral". They meant the end of an age of unprecedented peace and prosperity and the commencement of an age of strife unseen or heard of before. Because of this, he was hated by all living souls, or so it is said, which places him in a decidedly different tradition than those traditions where the trickster is revered and his follies laughed at. These actions are not value-neutral. They are laden with value.

[Xentor]

Admin mode

I told you all to stop the bickering. I warned you for the consequences. Two of you (Carla O'Harris and Faol-chù) chose to ignore my warning. You are now banned for a day. Your quarreling posts are deleted. If you can't play nicely, you won't play at all.

This thread is re-opened. Please continue the discussion. This time, do stay on topic.

[David19]

Au contraire, the home is central to the religion. Adultery is technically an oath-breaking in regards to marriage and the home. If the married partners have an understanding whereby extramarital activity does not break their marriage and home, it is not adultery.

I guess that makes sense, but i still don't think oath-breaking relegates being eternally tortured or whatever happens in Nilfhel(sp?).

BTW, in Heathenism, what are the fate of does people who are evil (Hitler, pediphiles, etc), do they go to Nilfhel or somewhere else.


A decidedly modernist take that frankly does not square with all of the aspects of Loki. Don't get me wrong ; I like this site and find many parts of it charming. But Loki's role in the downfall of the world is important and must be addressed.

I believe one of the quotes on that site is:

Better to be infamous than nothing at all

Or something like that, i think Loki could feel that at times (that's just me, though, it doesn't come from any personal experience with him).


Loki is caught in a difficult situation, between his Aesir friends, and his evil Jotun kinsmen.

On the Loki site, there's this article on Ragnarok, http://loki.ragnarokr.com/Perspective/ragnarok.html and it says:

What side he fights on is really immaterial in the final analysis. As much as I love Loki, even I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that if he sides with the Aesir it would make any difference to the outcome. A difference which makes no difference is no difference.

When Loki sides with the Jotuns during Ragnarok, what he's doing is showing loyalty to his family of blood and birth, rather than the one which adopted him after he swore blood-brotherhood with Odhinn. Even in spite of the binding and the serpent dripping venom, who's to say that Loki goes into Ragnarok with a glad heart, although many people seem to assume so?

So perhaps, he's siding with his family as wasn't family a big thing among the Norse?.

And, he may see it as just showing some family loyalty 'cause he knows even if he fights with the Norse gods, they'll all die anyway.

I also like that the site says 'who's to say that Loki goes into Ragnarok with a glad heart'.

To look at it with different eyes is to see the essence of tragedy played out so well elsewhere in the eddas and sagas. When Gudrun kills her children to revenge her husband's murder of her brothers in Atlakvida, she's exhibiting the same sort of natal loyalty at the expense of her acquired family which Loki shows at Ragnarok.

This is cool too, as i think you mentioned Gundrun before, but she may have been acting out of blind vengence, if she lost her family (to use a pop culture example, if you've ever seen Buffy season 6, Willow's girlfriend, Tara gets shot by Warren, and she dies, this pushes Willow into absorbing vast amounts of darkest magic, to get revenge, she ends up killing him, but 'cause she's fueled by grief and magic, she goes on a bit of a revenge spree, until Xander gets through to her).

Perhaps Gundrun was facing something similar to Willow.

Loki, the unknown quantity, comes to Asgard as Odhinn's blood brother, saves the Aesir's bacon by getting the walls of Asgard rebuilt for nothing, showers the gods with gifts, and gets them out of trouble when they require it of him. So he has a slightly off-kilter sense of humour. Everybody has their quirks. And who's going to have the nerve to tell Odhinn he has terrible taste in blood-brothers, no matter how much they might believe it?
Gradually, as things become less and less idyllic, the gods feel the need for a scapegoat, and fasten their attention on Loki, the outsider in their midst. Baldr dies, and things are getting tense. Loki, embittered by the unjustified and unbridled suspicions which have been attached to him, gets really drunk at Aegir's feast and tells everyone off. He's sealed his own fate. They catch him, and bind him.

Odhinn doesn't get involved in the fray, although he allows the others to do as they will. By allowing their petty revenge against Loki, perhaps he hopes to stave off Ragnarok a while longer. Perhaps because of the length and depth of their relationship, there is an implicit understanding between the Loki and Odhinn on this point. Perhaps Loki is as much the sacrifical victim to Odhinn's plans as Baldr is.

But, the day of Ragnarok finally arrives and Loki is confronted with that most basic test of loyalty. Will he stand with his friend, or his family? In the end, he makes the only honourable choice he can, sides with the Jotuns, and perishes fighting Heimdallr.

I think these last few paragraphs are interesting too, as it kind of makes you sympathetic to Loki's plight - fight with his family and he's accused of being 'evi', fight with his friends and adoptive family, and he'll be killing his family and the people he grew up with (like you might not be able to kill your own cousins, brothers, etc).


It is his position as a traitor, and not as a Satan figure, that is important. It is the thurses and ill jotunns who are the main adversaries, but Loki as a go-between put in a difficult situation ends up making the wrong choices that spell great ill for the world.

This kind of brings up something else, in Heathen mythology (and please anyone else who wants to help, feel free :)), what are thurses, are they the same as Jotuns?, also, are there any Jotun powers, who act in a sort of leadership way, like who organizes the Jotuns into an army at Ragnarok, as most armies have a power above them (hope that made some sense :)).

[Carla O'Harris]

I guess that makes sense, but i still don't think oath-breaking relegates being eternally tortured or whatever happens in Nilfhel(sp?).


That's because you're not understanding the importance of oaths in an oral culture where they form the very bonds of the society. People have to be trusted to keep their word. Without that kind of trust, society begins to fall apart. That is a sign that Ragnarok is near. Those who fail to keep their sacred oaths contribute to the coming of Ragnarok. Knowing that breaking an oath can be punished by being sent to Niflhel makes one take oaths very seriously, and avoid taking oaths lightly. It creates a culture where no one signs a contract (taking an oath in an oral culture is signing a contract) without reading all of the fine print, and changing any stipulations that aren't agreeable, by negotiating all necessary disclaimers.

Secondly, when we talk about oath-breaking, we are more specifically talking about perjury, or what the Bible calls "bearing false witness", which specifically means breaking one's oath in court, thereby contributing to obstruction of justice and possible false accusation of others. Perjury in our day and age still has very strong penalties.

BTW, in Heathenism, what are the fate of does people who are evil (Hitler, pediphiles, etc), do they go to Nilfhel or somewhere else.

There's no general catalogue as in other religions (besides adultery, oath-breaking, and murder), but in general, if one acts like a giant, one may end up going where the giants go. To discover what happens to child-molesters and rapists, consult Tacitus, who suggests that those who so dishonor the body are drowned in the scum of marshes --- perhaps a somewhat fitting punishment!!




I believe one of the quotes on that site is:
Or something like that, i think Loki could feel that at times (that's just me, though, it doesn't come from any personal experience with him).

Certainly a complete perversion of the Northern spirit, to say that it is better to be infamous than nothing at all, if by that we mean that it is better to have one's name spread far and wide for evil, despicable deeds.




So perhaps, he's siding with his family as wasn't family a big thing among the Norse?.

As I said, we may say that at times he is in a difficult position.

And, he may see it as just showing some family loyalty 'cause he knows even if he fights with the Norse gods, they'll all die anyway.

Who's all going to die? Certainly not all the gods. Haenir, Njord, Modi, Magni, Vali, Vidar, Balder, and Hodur survive, and so may Frigga and even Freya for that matter. And since Loki is the one who kills Heimdall, Heimdall also could have survived if Loki had not joined against the gods. So in fact it could make a difference. Certainly it would make a difference to Loki --- he might have survived! But as it is, the myths suggest that a force like Loki will have no place in the world to come.


I also like that the site says 'who's to say that Loki goes into Ragnarok with a glad heart'.

Maybe, but if you read Lokasenna closely he certainly sounds even at that stage as if he is filled with hate for the gods.



This is cool too, as i think you mentioned Gundrun before, but she may have been acting out of blind vengence, if she lost her family


Gudrun went insane. She killed her own children!! What are they if not family?!

But yes, I'd be willing to admit that Loki's story is a tragedy, a tragedy with consequences for the whole world.


I think these last few paragraphs are interesting too, as it kind of makes you sympathetic to Loki's plight - fight with his family and he's accused of being 'evi', fight with his friends and adoptive family, and he'll be killing his family and the people he grew up with (like you might not be able to kill your own cousins, brothers, etc).

There are indeed some interesting points there, but it also reads like Loki propaganda. Loki claims responsibility for Balder's murder in Lokasenna, and admits to all sorts of other heinous crimes. It is because he admits to killing Balder --- and therefore framing Hodur, who was also killed --- that he is to be blamed. And consider that Loki's "family" didn't really treat him too well either --- obviously, duh, they're rime-thurs!!



also, are there any Jotun powers, who act in a sort of leadership way, like who organizes the Jotuns into an army at Ragnarok, as most armies have a power above them (hope that made some sense :)).

Hrym(nir) and Surt :

Voluspa

49. Hrym steers from the east,

51. Surt from the south comes
with flickering flame;

[David19]

That's because you're not understanding the importance of oaths in an oral culture where they form the very bonds of the society. People have to be trusted to keep their word. Without that kind of trust, society begins to fall apart. That is a sign that Ragnarok is near. Those who fail to keep their sacred oaths contribute to the coming of Ragnarok. Knowing that breaking an oath can be punished by being sent to Niflhel makes one take oaths very seriously, and avoid taking oaths lightly. It creates a culture where no one signs a contract (taking an oath in an oral culture is signing a contract) without reading all of the fine print, and changing any stipulations that aren't agreeable, by negotiating all necessary disclaimers.

Ok, thanks for clearing that up, although maybe the oath part bit was more serious back in Norse times, now it doesn't seem a big deal (e.g. people get divorced, people lie, etc the world doesn't fall apart 'cause we're not a 'tribal' people anymore, etc).


There's no general catalogue as in other religions (besides adultery, oath-breaking, and murder), but in general, if one acts like a giant, one may end up going where the giants go. To discover what happens to child-molesters and rapists, consult Tacitus, who suggests that those who so dishonor the body are drowned in the scum of marshes --- perhaps a somewhat fitting punishment!!

Thanks, i'll look up Tacitus.


As I said, we may say that at times he is in a difficult position.

That i'd agree with.


Who's all going to die? Certainly not all the gods. Haenir, Njord, Modi, Magni, Vali, Vidar, Balder, and Hodur survive, and so may Frigga and even Freya for that matter. And since Loki is the one who kills Heimdall, Heimdall also could have survived if Loki had not joined against the gods. So in fact it could make a difference. Certainly it would make a difference to Loki --- he might have survived! But as it is, the myths suggest that a force like Loki will have no place in the world to come.

I thought in Ragnarok, most of the Norse gods die, with Balder ruling over the children of the old Norse gods?.

Wouldn't Freya be involved in Ragnarok too?, she is a warrior isn't she (like she gets 1/2 the slain doesn't she?).



Maybe, but if you read Lokasenna closely he certainly sounds even at that stage as if he is filled with hate for the gods.

Although, you never know what happens behind the scenes that makes him feel like that.


Hrym(nir) and Surt

Would they be the most powerful Jotuns, or would there be powers even above them (i.e. would they have bosses that they reported too, etc?).

Thanks for answering my questions, and do any of the Jotun survive Ragnarok, as in DustyPuppy's thread called 'After Ragnarok' (http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=145367), Lovehound said:

At the END of the Voluspa, she states that she sees a dragon flying overhead, implying that the forces of destruction are also inherent in the new world.

And i was just wondering, does this mean the Jotun (or some of them anyway) manage to survive into the new world (perhaps to build up their numbers again?), or would this dragon be perhaps symbolic of some other kind of supernatural enemy?.

Thanks.

[Dale Ivarie]

I don't believe it's a matter of dualistic versus non-dualistic. More a matter of absolutes. If Loki is so evil why did the Gods hang out with him? Why are there so many myths about Thor and Loki acting togeather as partners?
Many of the ancient religions were more relativistic than the modern monotheitic viewpoint allows for. Sometimes you put up with a person bad qualities (mischief making) because of their positive traits (cunning and intelligence). Life and spirituality are too complex to have everything devided up completly evil or completly good.

On a related topic the book The alphabet versus the goddess follows the social changes that may have occured when writing was introduced as a social force. The difference between how cultures with an oral tradition deal with moral transgressions versus how people of the book whose laws are written in "black and white" deal with them.
The author is a brain surgeon (no really he is) who has studied how the brain works while reading verus watching t.v. etc. very interesting read for those interested in the difference between ancient cultures and modern highly literate ones.


Dale

[Carla O'Harris]

Hey Dale,

The Alphabet Versus the Goddess is indeed an interesting book.

I would agree that Christianity hardened the dualism that was already there and placed things in stronger, more rigid absolutes than existed in heathen times, but we would be mistaken to assume that the ancients shared modern relativism. There was a good and there was an evil, and there were shades in between, and it took great wisdom to discern these, but that there was a line between the good and the bad is certain, and a great deal depended on it.

[Carla O'Harris]

Ok, thanks for clearing that up, although maybe the oath part bit was more serious back in Norse times, now it doesn't seem a big deal (e.g. people get divorced, people lie, etc the world doesn't fall apart 'cause we're not a 'tribal' people anymore, etc).

Well, that's kind of arguable, isn't it? Some might say that all of these things contribute to the world falling apart!!

There's no need for oath-breaking in a culture where oaths are taken seriously and where people are encouraged to custom-tailor oaths to their own circumstances. Many people vow in marriages, for example, "till the death of our love do us part", and so forth.

And you don't really want people perjuring in court! The corruption and dishonesty that characterize public life and government are responsible for a great deal of the troubles in the world, wouldn't you say? Wonder if we made our presidential candidates swear their oath with "And I Commit My Soul To Eternal Damnation and Hellfire If I In Any Way Subvert This Oath" whether it would make a bit of difference or not? At least it would be fun to see them say it!!

I thought in Ragnarok, most of the Norse gods die, with Balder ruling over the children of the old Norse gods?.

We know that Odin, Thor, Freyr, Heimdall, Loki, and Tyr die. We know specifically that Haenir and Njord do not die. We know specifically that Thor's sons Modi and Magni do not die. We know specifically that Odin's sons Vali and Vidar do not die. There is no proof that Frigg dies, and in fact, the fact that she is said to be anguished as Freyr and her husband Odin die indicates that she's still alive to mourn.

Wouldn't Freya be involved in Ragnarok too?, she is a warrior isn't she (like she gets 1/2 the slain doesn't she?).

There is no positive indication that she dies or that she is involved in Ragnarok at all. She may be, but we cannot really say. She does get the slain, which could indicate that she might be directing Einheriar traffic on the battlefield, but her death is nowhere spoken of.


Although, you never know what happens behind the scenes that makes him feel like that.

We know a fair amount. Again, Loki is often in a difficult situation, and seen in the correct light, it is a tragedy, but let's keep in mind that Loki doesn't really help things with his behavior, either.

Would they be the most powerful Jotuns, or would there be powers even above them (i.e. would they have bosses that they reported too, etc?).

Surt is the absolute leader of the fire-giants.

As far as the Rimthurses go, consider what Viktor Rydberg has to say here : http://www.northvegr.org/lore/rydberg/060.php


Two frost-giants are mentioned by name, which shows that they are representatives of their clan. One is named Rimgrimnir (Hrímgrímnir - 35), the other Rimnir (Hrímnir - 28).Grimnir is one of Odin's many surnames (Grímnismál 47, and several other places; cp. Egilsson's Lex. Poet.). Rimgrimnir means the same as if Odin had said Rim-Odin, for Odin's many epithets could without hesitation be used by the poets in paraphrases, even when these referred to a giant. But the name Odin was too sacred for such a purpose. Upon the whole the skalds seem piously to have abstained from using that name in paraphrases, even when the latter referred to celebrated princes and heroes. Glum Geirason [Gráfeldardrápa] is the first known exception to the rule. He calls a king málm-Óðinn. The above epithet places Rimgrimnir in the same relation to the frost-giants as Odin-Grimnir sustains to the asas: it characterises him as the race-chief and clan-head of the former, and in this respect gives him the same place as Thrudgelmir occupies in Vafþrúðnismál.

Thanks for answering my questions, and do any of the Jotun survive Ragnarok, as in DustyPuppy's thread called 'After Ragnarok' (http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=145367), Lovehound said:
And i was just wondering, does this mean the Jotun (or some of them anyway) manage to survive into the new world (perhaps to build up their numbers again?), or would this dragon be perhaps symbolic of some other kind of supernatural enemy?.

Thanks.

Consider Voluspa 64 :

strifes allay,
holy peace establish,
which shall ever be.

An end to strife, and peace forever. That should answer your question.

As far as the serpent/dragon Nidhogg, he seems to be a constant feature of the tree Yggdrasil and sits coiled up at its base. He is a corpse-eater, and Nidhogg flies up to get rid of any corpses that remain from the battle. That is not an indication of the jotunn-race surviving.

[David19]

Well, that's kind of arguable, isn't it? Some might say that all of these things contribute to the world falling apart!!

There's no need for oath-breaking in a culture where oaths are taken seriously and where people are encouraged to custom-tailor oaths to their own circumstances. Many people vow in marriages, for example, "till the death of our love do us part", and so forth.

But, in that example, many people, may say 'i promise to love and cherish you till death us do part' or whatever, but many people do cheat, they do have affairs, etc - in short, they do break oaths, and it doesn't really matter to the bigger picture (that 'oathbreaking' wouldn't even be remembered in a 100 years, and it may only effect 2 people, out of billions of people on this planet).

I understand the importance of oaths in the Norse culture and i can even understand why modern Heathens place an importance on it, but i just don't see that it would really be so drastic as to 'end the world' (or that people who do break oaths, such as marriage ones, go to Nilfhel).

And you don't really want people perjuring in court! The corruption and dishonesty that characterize public life and government are responsible for a great deal of the troubles in the world, wouldn't you say? Wonder if we made our presidential candidates swear their oath with "And I Commit My Soul To Eternal Damnation and Hellfire If I In Any Way Subvert This Oath" whether it would make a bit of difference or not? At least it would be fun to see them say it!!

It would be cool seeing Bush say that....


There is no positive indication that she dies or that she is involved in Ragnarok at all. She may be, but we cannot really say. She does get the slain, which could indicate that she might be directing Einheriar traffic on the battlefield, but her death is nowhere spoken of.

Speaking of Freya, have you heard of Raven Kaldera (http://www.cauldronfarm.com/), a Northern Tradition shaman, he's got a lot of great articles on his site, including ones on about the various realms in Norse cosmology.

On this article about Asguard (http://www.cauldronfarm.com/nine/asgard.html), it has a bit about Freya's hall at Asguard, and says something about the warriors she gets (that she mainly chooses the queer type warriors that aren't dedicated to another god).

He's got a lot of interesting articles, the Heathen ones may interest you (http://www.cauldronfarm.com/nine/index.html),

Anyway, i know that really doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about, but i think he's a very interesting person, especially that he seems to be doing research on shamans of the Norse, i believe.




An end to strife, and peace forever. That should answer your question.

As far as the serpent/dragon Nidhogg, he seems to be a constant feature of the tree Yggdrasil and sits coiled up at its base. He is a corpse-eater, and Nidhogg flies up to get rid of any corpses that remain from the battle. That is not an indication of the jotunn-race surviving.

It may not be in any lore (surviving ones anyway), but i think i don't believe peace would last forever (to go to a different tradition, in Hinduism, there are many cycles, and in every new universe that is created, there are also demons in that one too (although in Hinduism, demons aren't always evil), i believe anyway.

Also, after the dragon had eaten up all the remaining corpses, it'd probably need to devour other things too, i don't think it would suddenly retire or what.

[Faol-chù]

I understand the importance of oaths in the Norse culture and i can even understand why modern Heathens place an importance on it, but i just don't see that it would really be so drastic as to 'end the world' (or that people who do break oaths, such as marriage ones, go to Nilfhel).

Bottom line, David...

If you view yourself as having the world 'in the palm of your hand', then you also have the power to 'unmake the world' with your oathbreaking...

If the gods break their oaths, then the world is 'unmade'...
Humans have that power, as well.

[David19]

Bottom line, David...

If you view yourself as having the world 'in the palm of your hand', then you also have the power to 'unmake the world' with your oathbreaking...

If the gods break their oaths, then the world is 'unmade'...
Humans have that power, as well.

Thanks for explaining it :).

[Hangatyr 13]

I've noticed that there aren't many actual Heathens on this thread. Oh well.

But, in that example, many people, may say 'i promise to love and cherish you till death us do part' or whatever, but many people do cheat, they do have affairs, etc - in short, they do break oaths, and it doesn't really matter to the bigger picture (that 'oathbreaking' wouldn't even be remembered in a 100 years, and it may only effect 2 people, out of billions of people on this planet).I can't stress this enough. Adultery was and still is one of the worst possible things a person can do. Like almost everything that matters in life, this hasn't changed in all of the millenia our people have existed. In my opinion, it's worse than murder. It's not just about oath breaking. It's about betraying the trust of the one person who should trust you the most. It's about a child knowing who it's father is and a father knowing that his child is his. Heathenry is and always has been centered around the family. The notion that this is an outmoded concept is ridiculus. Just because a lot of people do it doesn't make it right. The whore who cheats on her husband or the cad who cheats on his wife deserve nothing less than the maw of Nidhogg. What I have just said may sound a bit too "Hellfire and brimstone" for some people who don't know better, but don't forget where the Christians got the word "Hell" from.