In America as in Scandinavia

Long story short, when the Europeans navigated along and settled in the African continent, they came across native religions, which were then taken to America via the slave trade. Ògún, Osun or Yémojá, these are African gods worshipped throughout today’s American continent under variations of their names. Another one of those deities is Eshu, whom the Europeans saw as the devil. Well, they considered any non-Christian god the devil, but Eshu was so in a particular fashion. Why? Because He’s a trickster, a prankster, indecent, playful, astute, sly, provocative and sensual. He basically ticks almost all of the satanic boxes. Yet Eshu is an African god of crossroads, movement and communication, which is why He’s often given the first offerings in African-Brazilian ceremonies, so that all other offerings flow and reach the other Gods. And this is no surprise if you think that He’s… well, a trickster.

See, tricksters are usually subversive figures. They’re transgressors who have the ability to move freely through geographical, social, moral and even sexual boundaries. That’s why sometimes they’re also deities of creativity, because they excel at thinking outside the box and breaking with the routine. It’s creative chaos, baby. They make things move, make things flow. Idleness is not their thing, movement is! Fluidity, an offshoot of which is slyness, is the cornerstone of the trickster. Because what is fluid is not fixed and can therefore assume whatever shape is necessary to get things done, to get things going. And that’s what Eshu is: movement, fluidity, creative chaos. That’s also the case with Hermes, the divine messenger, god of trade and thievery, inventor, prankster, father of Hermaphroditus, the one who can enter and leave the Underworld freely. And that’s also the case with Loki, the trickster who often travels from one world to another, the bringer of gifts via chaotic pranks, father and also mother.

Why am I writing this? Because too many modern heathens do to Loki what Europeans did to Eshu: they equate Him with the devil! Which is ironic, since one would expect polytheists to be a lot more open-minded and avoid the simplistic view of good against evil that is so common in monotheism. But though ironic, this is not unexpected. For one, because many modern heathens had a Christian upbringing or live in a society where Christian philosophy is pervasive. And secondly, because too many Norse polytheists take the Eddas at face value; even worst, some will read them like a Bible. And that’s just wrong! Plain and simply wrong! As wrong as saying Loki is evil and should not be worshiped.

Loki by Hellanim

Loki by Hellanim

The thing about knowing how Europeans saw Eshu is that it gives you a clue as to how Norse Christians saw Loki. How could a sly prankster who does not conform to social norms on morality and sexuality be anything but a Satan-like figure? How could He not be confused, identified or influenced by tales about the Christian devil? And as such, how could He be anything but the devilish enemy of the Gods in the eddic poems or Snorri’s work? Ever wondered why his binding until the end of the world resembles that of Satan?

If by now you’re thinking that the Eddas contain genuine pagan myths and therefore what they say are pagan views on Loki, think again! What we know as the Poetic Edda and Snorra Edda were written roughly two hundred years after Scandinavia became officially Christian. The tales they contain are certainly rooted in pagan traditions, but the form those narratives have today were fixed no earlier than the 1200s. This means that what we have are stories that were transmitted during two hundred years of Christian dominance. They were told at a time when monotheistic theology was preached at every mass, people prayed to the Christian god on a daily basis and organized their lives around Christian thinking and practice. By the time the Eddas we have today were written down, this would have been going on for two hundred years or more. And every time a story is told, it is adapted by its narrator. Not sure about that? Then go ahead and open your copy of the Poetic Edda: the two poems on Helgi Hundingsbani are essentially two versions of the same tale; the lays on Sigurd’s adventures do not match entirely with the narrative of the slightly later Völsunga saga (and Carolyne Larrigton’s notes make that abundantly clear); Grimnismál speaks simultaneously of one hart eating from Yggdrasill’s branches (stanza 35) and four such animals (stanza 33), suggesting that either there were different traditions or that someone added an innovating stanza without eliminating the older version. These things happen because tales are fluid. They’re fluid when committed to writing and even more so when committed to memory by word of mouth. Every time they’re told, two things happen: one is conservation, in that the narrator is not creating a brand new story, but passing down an old one; but the other is innovation, in that by telling the story, one opens it to influences and changes by the narrator or his audience. And after two hundred years of that process in a Christian context, don’t expect the myths to be accurate renderings of pre-Christian tales. The Eddas are not an Old Norse Bible! They are fragments of pagan traditions that were last transmitted and adapted by Christian authors roughly two centuries after Scandinavia’s official conversion. They contain multiple pagan elements, yes, because conservation is one of the dynamics in the passing down of traditional stories. But there’s also innovation in them, a lot of it derived from Christian thinking and classical traditions. They’re not accurate accounts of the Gods’ deeds and most certainly not Their word!

So to claim that Loki is a devil or evil being unworthy of worship because of what the Eddas say is as ridiculous as claiming that Eshu should not be worshipped because Christians saw Him as the devil. Both gods were reinterpreted from a Christian perspective, which naturally painted them in very dark tones. Know your sources, people! And by that I’m not saying you should memorize them so you can quote them like Evangelicals often quote the Bible (though that is a useful tool). When I say you should know your sources, I mean you should keep in mind when, where and who wrote them. Time, place and the author’s beliefs are not indifferent: they shape what is written. Imagine what two hundred years or more of that in a Christian society must have done to the Norse pagan trickster.

Advertisements

30 thoughts on “In America as in Scandinavia

  1. Ye know, this “anyone who doesn’t worship Loki is because Christian baggage” straw-man is just as overly simplified and shows a lack of knowledge of the other “side” as the “anyone who worships Loki is an emo tumblr blogger” straw-man. No one actually argues, “Loki is the devil,” so let’s knock that lie off, ok? The Eddas are Christian-influenced. All of it. This does not mean that therefore every negative detail must have been a positive part of Norse religion. There isn’t any proof of historical Loki worship. Nor of Heimdall, Snotra, Fulla, etc. (Snorri’s goal was to preserve the poetic style, *not* information about Norse religion. For all we know several gods could have been made up in order to alliterate better) However contrary to those three examples, there is no surviving information about Loki from anywhere *near* the pre-Christian era that paints him particularly positively (Loka Tattur is both from the 18th century and isn’t as “positive” of a story as people like to blindly assume).

    As such, worshiping Loki is based on nothing more than entirely modern sensibilities and reinterpretation of the same texts that Asatruar treat like “Bibles.” To act as if those who have an entirely positive view of Loki are somehow more “true to history” or “more authentic” or some shit is therefore plainly ridiculous (of course anyone who acts that way for any reason is plain ridiculous anyway, so…). It isn’t some betrayal of Germanic religion nor Christian influence to exclude Loki from one’s practice, for many of us it is simply looking at the same information and coming to a different conclusion than you. Many of us feel that Odin is the one that fills the positive trickster/culture hero role, after all it is *Odin* who was equated to deities you mention like Mercury and Hermes. (I personally tend to jive with the theory that Loki was a hypostasis of Odin and an attempt to demonize things about Odin without directly attacking him).

    Now yes, there are plenty of ignorant people out there who have a negative attitude about Loki simply because of a knee-jerk, literalist reading of the Eddas. They then use this as an excuse to treat people who worship Loki badly. They are wrong to do so and they are ignorant, yes. But not everyone who disagrees with your interpretation of Loki is of this type. My attitude is: You worship Loki? Knock yourself out. I couldn’t care less. Just don’t talk crap about me and mine for not doing so. We aren’t closet Christians. We don’t believe Loki is the devil. We simply don’t view him as a deity for us to worship, for various reasons. That’s our business, not anyone else’s.

    • It’s one thing to say you don’t worship Loki because you don’t relate to Him or He’s not relevant to you. Quite another is to state that He *shouldn’t* be worshiped because He’s evil. The former is simply a matter of personal preference – I myself don’t worship multiple gods because they’re not relevant to me. The latter is a statement of faith that derives from a Christian-influenced view on Loki. And I’ve met a considerable share of heathens who see Him as a devil-like figure. Some even refuse to say His name, though most just point out that He’s the enemy of the Gods and then spew a few arguments that are incredibly similar to what one would hear from an Evangelical priest on devil worship.

      Of course, that may not be your case and you may not be a closet Christian of any sort, but that doesn’t mean you’re not carrying monotheistic notions on religion. In the ancient world, even deities who were seen as scary, destructive or negative had a cult, apotropaic or not. Loki might have had one or He may have been honoured in a more positive light; He may have been part of public religion or it may have been a strictly domestic thing. The fact that there are no traces of an ancient cult of Loki neither proves that it never existed (because our information is fragmentary at best) nor that it shouldn’t exist today (unless you’re re-enacting the past as opposed to reviving an ancient religion). Although it should be noted that there is some academic ground for a cult of Loki as a Norse Agni. See here:

      http://polytheist.com/orgrandr-lokean/2014/09/17/a-new-place-for-loki-part-i/

      • “It’s one thing to say you don’t worship Loki because you don’t relate to Him or He’s not relevant to you. Quite another is to state that He *shouldn’t* be worshiped because He’s evil.”

        This is true. Though not everyone believes he shouldn’t be worshiped due to being evil. In addition, not everyone believes that “shouldn’t” should apply universally. Those who do think it applies universally (both on the “should” and “shouldn’t” side) are suffering from another Christian assumption: that religious traditions should be universal. My group would qualify as believing Loki “shouldn’t” be worshiped (based on our understanding and adoption of Germanic culture, not theological beliefs about “good” or “evil”), however we do not believe this tradition of ours to be relevant outside of our own innengard, which is why we don’t go around bothering Lokeans. As long as no one tries to force Loki into our rites, we don’t try to force him out of anyone else’s. Seems like a reasonable way to agree to disagree to me, what do you think?

        “but that doesn’t mean you’re not carrying monotheistic notions on religion.”

        Well, I wasn’t raised Christian, so any understanding of monotheism is incidental to having lived in this society. In addition, I’ve been at this for 15 years and questioning myself on that same basis the entire time. I’m fairly certain that “monotheistic notions” aren’t behind my view of Loki.

        “In the ancient world, even deities who were seen as scary, destructive or negative had a cult, apotropaic or not.”

        Yeah no shit, like Odin. 😉 The problem is that we have no evidence of Loki from prior to Christianization nor from outside of Norse or Norse-influenced areas. It’s hard to say that he was viewed as anything *at all* by pre-Christian peoples without some sort of information from that time period. Now this isn’t relevant to whether he should be worshiped today, I agree. My problem is when people try and act like their worship of Loki (or Heimdall for that matter, and I say this as a member of a group who includes Heimdall) is *definitely* and *concretely* drawn from pre-Christian religion, when we have no way of knowing this. It’s a matter of being honest with oneself and others about the basis of one’s beliefs and practices, not whether you “can” or “cannot” do something. As such, arguing about one’s inclusion/exclusion of Loki based on who is “more historical” is a fool’s errand: neither side is going to concretely prove their belief.

        “Although it should be noted that there is some academic ground for a cult of Loki as a Norse Agni. See here:”

        I’ve read that article, didn’t find that point particularly convincing. I think the association with fire is a bit dated and overstated.

      • Some people are uncomfortable with tricksters and that’s fine. It’s similar to devotees of gods of ecstasy not being especially fond of gods of reason. Personal preferences are just that: personal. And the same goes for communal worship: just as Tyr appears to have been almost absent from public religion outside Denmark (at least judging from the existing placenames), it doesn’t shock me that Loki is not part of the practices of some groups. What I object to are some of the reasons people put forward, namely that He’s evil because of what the Eddas say and especially when that’s stated as a universal notion. It goes against the diversity that’s at the heart of polytheism and the resulting worldview in shades of grey, as opposed to simple black and white. Even if one is to believe that Loki was at one time a Norse Agni, that role may not have been universal throughout ancient Scandinavia and different gods may have presided over the hearth and ritual fire in different parts of the region. It’s that old caveat that when asking what the old Norse believed in, one must also ask which Norsemen, where and when.

        Now the thing with monotheistic notions on religion is that you don’t need to be raised a Christian in order to have them. You simply need to live in a society where monotheistic thinking is pervasive. The fact that many modern polytheists still refer to their religion as “a faith” is a symptom of that pervasiveness; even though, as polytheists, if they believe in many gods but do not worship all of them, it is their praxis and not doxa that defines them. When the public debate on religious matters is dominated by monotheisms, the way we think about religion can easily be influenced by that overwhelming presence. You can see it in the monistic approach to interfaith dialogue, the very notion of inter-“faith” and in the common idea that only the “good” entities should be worshiped. Ergo, by being evil, Loki should be set aside. You don’t have to be raised a Christian to do that.

      • There’s no “reply” link to your above comment, so I’ll have to throw this here. We’re largely agreed on your first paragraph. One of the other things true of ancient polytheisms is taboo. And some tribes will have taboos that other tribes do not. While I mostly agree with your “shades of grey” comment, the Germanic peoples had some fairly clear ideas on some things that were clearly black and white (particularly “that which harms one’s community” and “that which helps one’s community”). This is where I could turn around and start accusing you of modernist, Christian-influenced thinking, if I didn’t think this was a tired, unverifiable tactic. While you’re point about not being raised Christian and still being influenced by monotheistic thinking is true, if you’re stating that my views on Loki are the result of this, then I simply have to say you’re wrong, and you have no real place to claim it without knowing more about me and my peoples’ reasoning for our policies (the same way that I can’t do the same to you without really knowing much more about you, see how that works?). Honestly, the “Christian-baggage” argument is so vague and subjective anyone can bust it out to derail and deflect from another person’s views. Similarly, both “sides” of this Loki issue use the exact same argument against each-other and both sides cite plenty of historical information in their claims.

        My ultimate point comes down to this: there is no provable historical orthodoxy or canon regarding Loki, there simply isn’t enough useful information for there to be one. As such, all opinions on the worship of Loki are ultimately modern. There are people on both sides of the argument who hold their views due to Christian-influenced and or modernist thinking, as opposed to Germanic polytheist cultural thinking. There are also people on both sides who do *not* hold their views because of that influence and simply disagree on interpretation of the evidence. Finally, there’s absolutely no point in either side bothering the other, because Germanic polytheisms are not universalist religions, they are tribal religions. Why does everyone spend so much time worrying about the practices of those who aren’t in their tribe? *That* is the most insidious example of “Christian thinking,” in my opinion. As such, I find fault with anyone on any side who tries to paint everyone who disagrees with them as ignorant closet Christians and their own views as the one true reflection of ancient thinking.

      • No, I’m not saying that you don’t worship Loki because of Christian influence. From what I can gather from this little discussion, your reasons are rooted on the specifically Germanic focus of your practices, whereas Loki is known only through Norse sources. On that matter, though both are part of the Germanic world, one should never forget how much the non-Indo-European Saami may have influenced the religious practices and beliefs of the ancient Scandinavians, especially in the north and centre of the peninsula, generating myths and developing gods that were unheard of or little known south of Denmark.

        In any case, it was never my point that everyone *should* worship Loki, but that it’s ridiculous to say that you *shouldn’t* because the Eddas depict Him as evil or devil-like. Know your sources, know your History. It is perfectly reasonable and legitimate to worship Loki and what is told of Him in medieval sources should be read with a large amount of salt.

      • Oh, they’re aware of “alternative views,” and I can tell you their minds aren’t going to be changed on this topic. They’re great folks regardless. Their founder, Thorberht, was head of the Theod I was a part of several years ago and our groups maintain good ties, so I speak from personal experience.

  2. There are many reasons both good and bad for both choosing to worship or not worship Loki- but I could say the same of worshiping any other deity. For every Heathen that actually views Loki as a Devil figure (and implicitly Odin as a Yahweh figure) there’s an immature Lokean project their modern gothic teen angst into their Loki worship, or someone else viewing Freyja as a “Sex Goddess” and so forth. As you said, we all need to be aware of monotheistic influence, as well as Western globalized pop culture, influence from Neo-Wicca, ceremonial magic and the New Age, political agendas etc. There is a particularly American cultural spin on reconstructionism (among Celtic & Germanic traditions) I’ve noticed-http://paganleft.wordpress.com/2014/07/10/reconstructionism-and-american-culture/ I’m not a reconstructionist anyway, it’s a useful set of methodological tools, but I need a religious practice that makes sense to my time & place- later next month for example, I’ll be honoring the hero cultus of Martin Luther King Jr. and other Civil rights activists. It’s not Ancient Tradition, but if that ain’t a modern hero cult, I don’t know what is…

    • As I said in another post, reconstructionism should be a tool and not an end in itself. The point is to understand an ancient culture so as to identify religious principles and place them in a modern context, not to imitate or fetishize the appearance of an ancient religion or civilization. And your tribute to Martin Luther King is a perfect example of that: you’re applying the ancient practice of hero worship to a modern context. That’s the hallmark of a living religion, as opposed to a fossilized one where only people who were worshiped in the pre-Christian period would be honoured today.

      And yes, there’s also simplification and sanctification, with regard to Loki and other deities. Odin’s supposed supremacy, for instance, is another case of taking medieval sources at a face value: people forget that He’s the patron of poets and was popular among military leaders, precisely the two groups that crafted or influenced most of the existing sources. No wonder then that their patron god figures highly in the lore. Had we a collection of tales and myths by farmers, fishers and miners from, for instance, ninth-century eastern Scandinavia and I daresay the mythology would look different.

      • Not necessarily. I know a lot of reconstructionist who are interested in not just reviving an ancient religion, but also an entire life-style, society and political structure.

      • “Not necessarily. I know a lot of reconstructionist who are interested in not just reviving an ancient religion, but also an entire life-style, society and political structure.”

        Which has nothing to do with whether they are reconstructionists or not.

      • Yes, it does. It’s an issue of degree: some people use reconstructionism as a point from which to start reviving a religion that’s rooted in the past, while others take it to the level of attempting to rebuild social and political structures. It’s an issue of how far you take reconstructionism and some take it to the point of fossilization.

      • “Yes, it does. It’s an issue of degree: some people use reconstructionism as a point from which to start reviving a religion that’s rooted in the past, while others take it to the level of attempting to rebuild social and political structures. It’s an issue of how far you take reconstructionism and some take it to the point of fossilization.”

        Eh, no. You’re misunderstanding what “reconstructionism” is *supposed* to mean (as are the self-described reconstructionists you’re talking about). It isn’t about emulating “hows” and “whats.” See the above posted article for the distinction, as it accurately reflects how reconstructionism is understood by the folks who *actually* coined the term in Heathen circles. Since then many people have misunderstood the term and misrepresented it (which is what you’re reacting to), but that doesn’t change its *actual* meaning.

      • The word “reconstructionism” doesn’t imply the degree, at least no more than the word “polytheism” indicates what type. It can be hard, soft, strict, open, religiously focused, socially oriented, etc. It is of little consequence who *actually* coined the term: from the moment they went public with it, it stopped being entirely theirs, inasmuch as others have freely taken it and helped shaping its current meaning. Which is what naturally happens to words that are used in living languages.

      • “The word “reconstructionism” doesn’t imply the degree”

        I didn’t say it did, my point was the exact opposite of that, actually.

        “Which is what naturally happens to words that are used in living languages.”

        There is a difference between the evolution of a word and the complete mis-definition and mis-representation of a word. The fact that some Neo-Pagans looked at what recons were doing and made incorrect assumptions about it isn’t some natural linguistic drift that we all therefore have to resign ourselves to accepting. Sorry, no, I don’t accept this redefinition and misunderstanding of the term. Reconstructionism is learning the “whys” behind the “hows” and “whats,” it is not simply about emulating the “hows” and “whats” devoid of cultural context. A Neo-Pop-Wiccan perfectly executing a historical Lararium rite isn’t a reconstructionist, they’re a Neo-Pop-Wiccan emulating something historical. A reconstructionist executing a historical Larariuim rite does so with a deep understanding (or as deep as that individual may be able) of the cultural “worldview” behind those rites.

      • The thing is, neopagans didn’t give the word a certain meaning out of nothing. To some extent, they did it because some reconstructionists refused to accept innovations and grow past the primary sources. And that inability can still be found among modern polytheists: Nova Roma is a very good example of reconstructionism taken to the extreme of social and political reconstruction; and while many have left the organization, conservative attitudes that have more to do with a re-enactor are still common in modern Roman polytheism. And I’ve found the same problem among heathens when, for instance, they want to recreate tribal communities, argue that a Norse polytheist cannot worship non-Norse deities because there’s no historical basis for that or have homophobic attitudes because that’s how ancient Scandinavians saw (passive) homosexuality.

        Now, I agree that this is not what reconstructionism should be about. Yet the way to solve the problem is not by saying that the word doesn’t mean what it currently means, but by shaping its sense through usage: polytheists who use reconstructionism as a tool and not an end in itself must present themselves as reconstructionists in order to reshape the term back to its original sense. It s usage that defines meaning, not a decree or a claim of authorship.

      • “argue that a Norse polytheist cannot worship non-Norse deities because there’s no historical basis for that”

        Which isn’t even historically true, lol. 😀

        “Yet the way to solve the problem is not by saying that the word doesn’t mean what it currently means, but by shaping its sense through usage: polytheists who use reconstructionism as a tool and not an end in itself must present themselves as reconstructionists in order to reshape the term back to its original sense.”

        I think we actually completely agree here. I just think part of that is pointing out to critics that this isn’t how we actually use/understand the term and educating about its history. I’m simply not going to accept its misuse as legitimate and its original use as alternative.

      • “Which isn’t even historically true, lol.”

        Go tell ‘hem that! There’s a purist trend in modern Heathenry that seems to assume that the only way to be authentic is by sticking to what the old heathens did and not grow past that. So if ancient Scandinavians never worshiped Neptune or Hephaestus, then neither should modern heathens. Or if they didn’t tolerate passive homosexuality – never mind source criticism – then neither should modern Norse polytheists.

        And while theoretically I agree that we should point out to critics that the word “reconstructionism” originally had a given sense, in practical terms doing so is of little consequence if people then look around and find multiple examples of reconstructionists who take it to the extreme of social reconstruction and refuse any significant innovation. The good practical examples need to outnumber the bad ones, the former need to be more visible than the latter. If not, it will be like Muslims claiming that Islam means peace and then the public debate is full of violent Muslims. Usage makes meaning.

      • “There’s a purist trend in modern Heathenry that seems to assume that the only way to be authentic is by sticking to what the old heathens did and not grow past that.”

        Oh, I’m aware. The funny thing is it’s generally the historically ignorant who argue this. There is ample evidence that Silvanus was rather popular with ancient Germans, for example (and he happens to be one of my household gods).

        “in practical terms doing so is of little consequence if people then look around and find multiple examples of reconstructionists who take it to the extreme of social reconstruction and refuse any significant innovation.”

        Fair enough, I’m probably just a fair bit curmudgeonly, coming from the time period when reconstructionism became a big thing and then watching so much go to shit since then.

      • In ancient Germania, yes, but not so much in ancient Scandinavia. At best, elements of classical deities might have reached the far north and influenced some things in Norse gods (the supposed link between Mithras and Odin comes to mind), but I’ve never heard of any identifiable Roman or Greek god being worshiped in ancient Scandinavia. Even if iconographic pieces found their way, there’s no telling if they had any religious significance for the old Norse. Otherwise, we might as well claim that there were Buddhist Swedes thanks to the little Buddha from Helgö island.

        Of course, none of this prevents today’s Norse polytheists from worshiping non-Norse deities, since it’s an issue of geography and historical conditions, not religious dogma or “purity”.

      • True, there is an interesting article about how Heimdall may have been a borrowing from the Celts, however. Regardless, my point is always that the several Germanic peoples who *did* adopt non-Germanic gods, even if it were true that the Norse never did, illustrates that here is nothing inherent to Germanic cultures that requires them to be “pure” to some particular pantheon. Of course the people I would be arguing this with are likely to be the types who would believe nonsense like the Norse being the “purest” Germanic people, so I’m probably wasting my breath with them.

      • The whole Rig and white god thing. Though it may also be a case of heavy foreign influence on a native (fishing community?) god.

        And yeah, you’re probably wasting your breath with them 😉

  3. Anyone who seems to actually be a serious recon and not just someone who reads books takes that stance (recon as methodology) If there are other aspects of ancient societies a person or group considers beneficial, useful for getting “in the mood” by wearing certain clothing and such- then cool do it for those reasons, not “because it’s old”. You can take ways of adapting modern society to fit more with one’s values- like more focus on being family-centered rather than individual-centered- (my idea of “family” would be GLBT inclusive and gender egalitarian) What I’ve found odd, is coming across people that call themselves traditionalists and claim “we don’t need to reconstruct anything, we have an unbroken folk tradition- all we need to do is remove the Christian bits” but then they describe a recon methodology for their research. Just shows how silly identity politics is. That’s why I just call myself a polytheist, then no one complain I’m not recon enough.

    • I’m of the opinion that faith is personal, ritual is traditional and morality is social. This is a simplification and there are grey areas, but that’s my general view and it fits the basics of an ancient religion that was orthopraxic and generally devoid of moral commandments.

      I’m saying this because it’s an example of old principles applied to a modern context: ancient societies had different values, ergo if morality is social, in today’s world, family religion can be gender egalitarian and assume a male-male or female-female dynamics.

      So again, caelesti, I think you’re on the right track 😉

      • Wow, what an amazing discussion! I’m new to this in, as much as i am a solitary single-handed sailor that ‘stumbled across’ the primal energies of the Gods (Mainly Vanir) in the Northern Baltic. Since becoming blog savvy I have put my toe in the water and it’s full of sharks! Help! I’m going to ask Freya for some help! 😟
        Sounds like there are folk who want to ‘burn witches’ out there (present company excluded) Maybe some folk need to actually try and ‘meet’ the old ones, in the lands of their origins, rather than remaining in ‘Cerebralheim’)? Just a thought.

  4. Pingback: In America as in Scandinavia « WiccanWeb

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s