I’m sure this title has some people scratching their head. “Of course it can,” you say to yourself “no one believes in Odin and Thor anymore.” Well that is not totally true, but yes, the majority of people have rejected Norse mythology as fact. They do not worship the Asgard or trim their nails before going into battle in an attempt to slow the coming of the end of the world (See Naglfar). But rejection of the literal truth of Norse Paganism (I use Norse Paganism as an example here since I am interested in it, I am sure similar theme(s) can be found in many other pagan beliefs) is not what this entry is about, I wish here to speak for a moment on the mindset and values of Norse mythology.
Norse mythology embodies strength. The warrior is at the center of the myth. It revolves around him and the strength he has to overcome evil, and receive glory and honour. These are themes that appeal to everyone. Everyone wants to be the hero, wants to overcome enemies on their own, everyone wants to have their praises sung. Christianity directly opposes these themes. It glories in weakness, and it tells people that they have no strength and deserve no glory.
What I mean here when I say Christianity glorifies weakness, I mean as a virtue. I mean what Peter Leithart says in Against Christianity “Few Christians have been as astute readers of Paul as Nietzsche [See The Geneology of Morality]. Pagan that he was, he could see what Paul was up to. He could see that Paul was slyly going about the business of ‘transvaluating all values,’ at least pagan ones, giving new names and encouraging as virtue behavior once considered disgraceful.”
Against Pagan virtues and values Christians have lifted up: Humbleness, humility, meekness, submission, and charity. We have denounced pride, strength, glory, and power. We relate to the servant and reject being the master. This is what I mean when I say Christians “glorify in weakness”
The Christian is still weak after they become a Christian. The gospel is a gospel of weakness (In that it is antithetical to pagan thought), it’s admitting that we can not do what we need to do on our own and that we need to give ourselves up to Christ. This does not only happen when one becomes a Christian, but is the continual pattern of the Christian life.
Look at what Paul says about the weakness of the Christian:
1Co 2:3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. … (Read More)
2Co 12:9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
And when Paul does speak of power, it is not his own, but God’s power, which comes in his weakness:
2Co 13:4 For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him by the power of God toward you.
The scriptures take what was virtue, and changes it. What was the virtues that pagans strove for are now considered “bad” by Christians, and what was considered weak by pagans are now “good” for Christians. Christianity therefore embraces weakness and glorifies in it. The Christian savior died in the most humiliating way possible at the hands of those had strength. Yes, power comes out in the end, but that power comes through weakness.
When these two views clash why then would anyone choose the Christian values? Why would someone stand up and choose weakness over strength?
There can be only one answer; those who choose Christianity over Norse paganism have come to understand that they have no strength. One who is sure of his own strength will never choose Christianity. This is what is meant when Christian speak of brokenness. Unless one has tried to live like a Norse warrior and failed they will always reject the Christian worldview. Until one sees their own strength as an illusion they will continue to embrace it. In this Christianity is a religion of failures.
This is not to say that there is no glory and strength in Christianity, but that as opposed to Norse mythology, it is directed away from the individual and towards God. Not only is it direct towards God, but it comes out of our own weakness. It is, quite literally, the pagan world turned upside down.
What then is the answer to the opening question? If men can succeed on their own strength then Christianity has nothing on Norse Paganism. If however, the strength that is lifted up as virtue in Norse Paganism is unattainable in reality, then Christianity is there for all who fail.
You may also be interested in:
Excellent article. While the faith of a mustard seed can move mountains, it is never OUR power that effects change in the world. Only God can make anything change.
Great article. I read this as you teetering on the edge of Caputo and Vattimo’s “weak ontology” (which gets voiced as “weak theology” in Caputo and some Radical Orthodoxy folks). I’m not sure I completely buy into it primarily because of Nietzsche’s critique of Pauline ideology in The Antichrist (which I think directly says what Leithart mentions). In other words, I don’t think there is a strict dichotomy between “strong theology” and “weak theology,” especially if both are treated as ideologies. Here, I’m thinking of the current critique of ideology as found in the likes of Zizek (who tends to get into “fun” arguments when around the RO folks), Badiou, and Deleuze. Thinking in terms of “strong” vs “weak” is already the wrong path for theology, as it ties theology into a particular worldview that pushes theology to the realm of “unnecessary excess.”
cchrisr, this is the first time your way over my head. I have no idea what or who your talking about.
OK….In a condensed nutshell….
Gianni Vattimo, an Italian philosopher whose concentration is Heidegger and Nietzsche, began to argue that contemporary metaphysics (i.e. after Heidegger’s critique of what he called onto-theology, theology which was always started from viewing God as an ontological entity and equating God with Being) should take up a “weak ontology” (and he uses the kenosis of Christ from Philippians as his starting point) that devises of a theology without being tied to ontology. Jean-Luc Marion brings this from the philosophical into the theological one with his famous work of the 80s God Without Being. More recently, John Caputo, philosopher of religion over at Syracuse (as well as Merold Westphal at Fordham), has taken up this new discourse. In Caputo’s The Weakness of God, he takes this thread of kenosis and ties into the later Derrida’s “religion without religion” to argue for weakness because “the more [theology] talks about weakness, the more we can be sure it has power up its sleeve” (p 8). By taking up the garb of weakness, Caputo believes that the power of God stored in the Event (albeit more of a Badiouan concept) can be unleashed and work through the humble to reach and effect the world.
Now, I am skeptical of such a move because it still reeks of ressentiment in new eschatological terms (Nietzsche’s biggest critique of Paul was that while he preached weakness, he really didn’t buy it because in the end, God would jump out of heaven and smite those who didn’t join the “weak” club that Paul advocated). In fact, any eschatology that is displaced to some future event implies this to some degree. I’d rather be honest and just say that theology is all about power (or the will to power), deferred to some future incarnation…or to stop talking about power altogether (i.e. forget “strong” and “weak” theologies), since both make theology an optional element of lived experience. I want a theology without a hidden ideology (Zizek’s sense here is closer to Lyotard’s “meta-narratives” than to the “normal” use) and a “weak” theology isn’t it.
Bryan said, “There can be only one answer; those who choose Christianity over Norse paganism have come to understand that they have no strength.”
Exactly. No strength of character, of will, of mind, of body. Even apostle Paul got frustrated with his own attempts to be strong: (from Romans 7)”For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing.”
It just always comes back to faith and trust, reliance on something we cannot see, touch, or prove to give us strength of character, will, mind and body. “Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!”
An interesting article, but I believe some of your central premises to be flawed. Speaking as one of those afore-mentioned folks who still worships Odin and Thor, and who daily attempts to consciously regain the ancient pre-Christian Germanic mindset (and also to instill it into my daughter), your characterization of the conversion of the Germanic nations is simply incorrect from an historical perspective.
Take, for example, the actions of Charles the Great (aka Charlemagne), who slaughtered 4,500 Saxons at Verden purely because they had been caught practicing their ancestral religion, in the course of a general military campaign to forcibly convert the Saxons to the Christian faith. Similar scenes were found in England and Scandinavia, where those who refused to convert were put to the sword or worse.
It is also the case that Christianity itself underwent a transformation as it encountered and attempted to impose itself on the Germanic peoples of the North (of whom the Norse were but one example). The Germanic ideals of strength, courage, honor, etc. all ultimately found their way into what could be considered the “mainstream” Christianity of the time. An excellent scholarly book on the subject is “The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity” by James Russell (Oxford, 1996).
One example of this transformation is the Anglo-Saxon poem “The Dream of the Rood”, which is styled as the thoughts of Jesus’ cross itself on its role in the crucifixion. In that quintessentially Germanic view of Jesus, he is described as the leader of a war-band, displaying the standard Germanic qualities of heroism, strength, etc.
The whole idea was the opposite of what you propose above; the Christians were deliberately making their faith look like that of the Germanic peoples, in order to make the conversion process more appealing (this “bait and switch” approach is also seen in the campaign to tear down Pagan holy sites and replace them with churches at the specific behest of Pope Gregory I). When that failed, the Christian leaders would not hesitate to stoop to violence (and, in the case of Iceland, economic blockade) to achieve their goals. In the end, that hard-sell approach brought about fundamental changes in the Christian religion that are still seen today.
That’s interesting, Joseph. I don’t think anybody had commented on the conversion of Germanic Europe to Christianity, so thanks for chiming in. If what you say is correct, it seems that Christians–as often happens–turned to syncretism to make the faith more appealing. That isn’t biblical, at least not in a broad sense. Some form of cultural contextualization is necessary, but mixing biblical themes with pagan and extra-biblical values is dangerous and invariably pollutes the true gospel.
Thanks for your comments Joseph.
You are historically correct. The Germanic people’s incorporation into Christianity altered Christianity in many ways. I recently finished reading “Christendom and Christianity In The Middle Ages” by Adriann H. Bredero and he mentions how strict Christian laws became looser to allow the incorporation of the Germanic peoples. Even a read of Beowulf shows how the two traditions were influencing each other.
However my post wasn’t meant to be about what historically happened, but comparing the two worldviews. In a perfect world a groups worldview would be more then a set of beliefs, it would be what is actually followed, but as you aptly pointed out Christianity hasn’t always followed it’s purported worldview. Consider the post an idealistic understanding of both worldviews, divorced from actual events.
Joseph, I suspect most here would agree that the politicization of Christianity had a huge negative impact. Christianity as a religion is clearly not one of strength or imposition, and making it such results in something that is not Christianity. A Christian should NEVER view themselves as better than others or as having deserved the right to brag over their superiority.
Christianity teaches that all men, including ourselves, have chosen at a fundamental level to be wicked evil creatures who lack the proper concern for ourselves, others, and God. We do things that are self destructive, harmful to those around us, and disobedient to the one who made us. Despite all this, God has offered His son as a sacrifice to pay the cost of our offenses, allowing us to have forgiveness essentially by just signing on the dotted line to accept payment. Doing so requires making a fundamental about face, surrendering from trying to “save ourselves” and trusting in God to fix our wrongdoing. When we do this, God enacts a change in our very essence, leaving us with no room to brag of any changes.
A Christian who talks down to you or acts like they are a better person than you isn’t living their faith. They can accurately point out that you do wrong things that hurt yourself and others, but must admit when doing so that they are no better. Only with God’s outstretched offer of help can any of us be better. Conversion by the sword is no conversion at all, and one who would attempt such a thing likely doesn’t understand what it is they claim to believe. I am sorrowful at the actions committed against your people and against your faith by those falsely claiming to be acting in a Christian manner.
Bryan, in your response (thanks, by the way), you state “my post wasn’t meant to be about what historically happened, but comparing the two worldviews”. Yet I think that speaks directly to my point that one cannot divorce either world-view from the historical record. As you yourself admitted, Christianity itself changed once it came into contact with the Germanic peoples. I would argue that it had fundamentally changed once it became ascendent in the Roman Empire (“politicized” as Atanamis said) and the pagans of the various Mediterranean peoples became subject to the same sorts of persecutions that the Christians suffered. The difference being that under the Pagan Roman emperors, the persecution was politically based (the Christians being perceived– rightly or wrongly– as a threat to the cultural and poltical hegemony of the Empire), while under the Christian Roman emperors, that persecution was based on religious beliefs.
One cannot therefore compare the world-view of the Germanic Pagans with that of the idealized pre-Nicean Christianity, because that faith had essentially ceased to exist except as a rarified ideal which was almost never realized, and most certainly not amongst the Christians who would have been most energetic in spreading their faith among the peoples of the North. It would be as applicable as, say, comparing pre-Pauline Christianity.
It should be noted, of course, that even in Norse society the sort of world-view you mention (strength, honor, courage) was an ideal to be pursued, just as the Christian ideal of humility and weakness (to use your term) was only an ideal. At the end of your essay, when you state:
“If however, the strength that is lifted up as virtue in Norse Paganism is unattainable in reality, then Christianity is there for all who fail.”
It is unrealistic to expect that any ideal would be universally attainable, and Norse (Germanic) society was quite capable of sustaining itself without Christianity to be there to catch those who “fail” to live up to its loftiest idealized goals. One might easily turn things around and say:
“If the weakness and humility that is lifted up as a virtue in Christianity is unattainable in reality, then Paganism is there for all who fail.”
It would be just as correct, after all.
Joseph, I’m not sure what you mean when you say we can’t compare the worldviews without looking at the historical record. Sure we can. Just because some Christians a millennium ago thought that syncretism with Norse culture was acceptable doesn’t mean that it was, or that the product of such syncretism is correct or right. It’s not.
What if, instead of comparing Norse ideals to the Christian worldview, we compare Norse ideals to a biblical worldview? Of course we still have to define what we mean by a biblical worldview, but at least we’re no longer bound by particular historical heresies that existed (and still exist!) in Christianity.
Joseph wrote:
That doesn’t make much sense to me. The weakness and humility in Christianity isn’t something that we work to attain. It’s merely an acknowledgement of our own inability to secure our own salvation, and an acknowledgement of the sovereignty of God. It’s not something we strive for or that we work towards.
Conversely, the Norse ideals of strength and courage and honor are all qualities that we must work towards and strive to attain. It’s a works-based system, whereas Christianity is not. That’s a qualitative difference. Flipping Bryan’s statement around doesn’t work, because the Christian ideals aren’t something that we must “attain.”
If weakness is something you can “embrace”, “glorify”, and actively “choose” (to use Bryan’s words from the original article) then of course it’s something you are actively working to attain. The fact that it is an active choice requires some sort of conscious activity to bring the state of weakness about. Hence, one strives for it.
That said, my flipping of his statement was not so much a serious assertion that those who find Christian weakness would necessarily become Pagans (although that certainly happens), so much as an attempt to point out that the original statement was in itself flawed, since just because an ideal is something that cannot be completely attained in real life, that doesn’t mean we should not continue to strive towards that ideal.
Most certainly it does not mean that one would abandon the faith that sets up the ideal.
Embrace, glorify, choose, whatever. The point of weakness is that embracing it basically means giving up the quest for strength and greatness.
A lot of people leave works-based religious systems because they realize they can never measure up. That goes for works-based Christian sects, too, of which there are plenty. People get beaten down about their failures because they can never be good enough.
I was going to wait to give Bryan or some of the other posters some time to reply, but since it’s past their usual hour, I’ll chime in once again.
I think our fundamental disconnect lies in the value each of us (by virtue of the world-views we hold) places on the physical world vis-a-vis the afterlife.
Germanic Paganism doesn’t really emphasize the afterlife. It is most certainly mentioned (Valhalla being the most prominent, but hardly the only, example, and of course the Christian missionaries took the name Hell from the ON Hel) but it is not really the focus of our outlook.
We do not perform “works” in order to secure any particular station after we die. If we give thought to the process at all, we perform deeds in order to secure our reputation in this world. One of the most oft-quoted verses from the Havamal states:
Cattle die, kinsmen die
the self must also die;
I know one thing which never dies:
the reputation of each dead man.
Ultimately, it is ones Earthly reputation that is most important to the Norse Pagan. Not because it has anything to do with one’s position in the afterlife (the traditions surrounding such are many and contradictory, and as such are left to the conscience and belief of the individual) but rather the memory that we leave here on the Earth. There are entire rituals (the arvel, for one) which focus on remembering those who have gone before. When one speaks of “ancestor veneration” in the context of Germanic Paganism, it is most proper to think in those terms; not the actual worship of ancestors as disembodied spirits, but rather the remembering of them and their actions and impact upon the world.
The afterlife, to coin a phrase, will attend to itself. Whether it is spent in Valhalla, or Hel’s hall, or Vingolf, or in the side of a local mountain, is ultimately immaterial. (With the caveat that Niflheim, where the souls of oath breakers and murderers go to torment, is something to be avoided, but even that might be a later Christian interpolation; the sources are unclear.)
Contrast that attitude with the Christian concept that the material world is only a prelude to the afterlife, and that the afterlife is much more important than this world. I’m not sure that’s a gulf in attitude that can be breached, really, but I’m happy to engage in such stimulating conversations until such time as I am called up to Hel’s hall…
I don’t think weakness is something your actively seek to attain most of the time. For the Christian man is born into the state of weakness. Some try to get out of it on their own, others embrace their state and rely on God. There are time when one does chose to take the weaker position (IE. Not retaliating) but what I had in mind with the article was the general disposition on the person.
If I have aspects of Norse mythology wrong in the article you must forgive me. As I said in the article I have a growing interest in Norse mythology but I have only really read the Prose Edda and the Völuspá, which is already Christian influenced.
Interesting…
Just to introduce myself, I am a committed Christian who lives in Scotland, and who has distinct Anabaptist and postmodern tendencies – glad that’s clear
Doesn’t the story of Jesus parallel the Norse concept of the warrior who has the strenth to over come evil and then gets rewarded???
The difference being in how you think evil is overcome…
To me, one of the most poignant things is not that Jesus was weak, but that he was strong. He had more power than anyone else, and yet he CHOSE to limit it, both in becoming incarnate, but also in his death.
So I think that Christianity most definitely does value strenth, honour and courage, but at the same time redefines them.
I think true humility (in the sense of recognising what you truly are) is something which is profoundly unnatural and takes alot of work. I’m not using it the context of salvation (that’s a whole different topic and I suspect I have a very very different understanding of it…). For me, humility involves allowing God to define me rather than trying to define myself. That repeated exposure and stripping of defences is something which demands effort – not because I’m trying to turn myself into something, but because I have to make the time and space and be vulnerable enough to God to let Him do it.
I don’t find Christianity to be a religion of weakness at all. If it had been it never would have survived until now- and certainly won’t have the strength to forge the future.
Weakness was never a Christian virtue- just view the lives of the saints and martyrs.
Gentleness is not weakness. Humility is not weakness. The gentle-man contains his strength.
Bruce, you mean all of those martyrs who died while pleading that God have mercy on them (e.g. Stephen, Agnes, etc)? Being perceived as “having balls” doesn’t make one strong. In fact, it is amazing in these cases that Christianity did survive since heavy persecution tends to eradicate conversion (compare that with the Jesuit missionaries in 17th century Japan), not fuel it more. It can be argued that once Christianity became the state religion of Rome (that was 325 CE), its politicization became a “religion of strength,” but definitely not before.
question: does “weakness” mean ‘can’t do something’ or ‘won’t do something’?
I believe I defined weakness in the piece:
“Against Pagan virtues and values Christians have lifted up: Humbleness, humility, meekness, submission, and charity. We have denounced pride, strength, glory, and power. We relate to the servant and reject being the master. This is what I mean when I say Christians “glorify in weakness””
So when I’m using the word here I’m using it as the opposite of what the “world” views as strength.
Oh, and since the question of politics came up I’m actually pro Christendom and don’t think that needs to be at odds with my view here, but that is a whole other post.
Jesus victory was won by allowing himself to be killed. He didn’t overcome evil through force of strength, but through living a perfect life (such that he owed no debt of sin himself) and then allowing himself to be killed so that he could take on himself the punishment of others.
The core of the gospel is about surrender, not victory. We surrender to the acknowledgment of our wrongdoing. We don’t defend ourselves against the accusation of being evil, or of deserving unimaginable punishment for our evil. We don’t try to bargain for forgiveness, or to pretend to deserve less. Instead, we embrace a free gift for which we can claim no personal credit. The Christian has NO standing to brag about what they are, since all we have is the free gift provided to us based on our unconditional surrender.
Anyone who thinks they are better than others isn’t a Christian. Anyone who things they are stronger than others isn’t either. Only those who like Paul will admit that all of their best efforts are pathetic can be granted Christ’s forgiveness. Christ came for the weak, the hurting, they dying. Those who think they are strong and can muscle their own way through life are not only wrong, but will pay for being wrong in the last judgment.
Christ gives us HIS strength, but even that is demonstrated through humility. We have the strength to move mountains but use it to forgive our enemies. A Christian believes that only in surrender can we be strong.
“The core of the gospel is about surrender, not victory.”
I understand why your saying that, and agree with the rest of what you say but I do not like that sentence one bit. The gospel is about Christ’s victory over evil, which allows the establishment of His Kingdom. The victory came about becasue of the surrender, but in the end the gospel is the announcement of the defeat of evil and the setting up of the Kingdom that all can join in.
I’m still coming off my NT Wright binge.
The Norse have an odd concept of a warrior if it includes a person setting aside their strength to be tortured and killed for the payment of another person’s debt. I don’t know much of anything about Norse mythology, so perhaps it does, but if not then pastasmissus’s statement was entirely nonsensical. But yes, Christ’s payment of that debt allows humans access to victory over death and evil. God’s victory over evil has always been inevitable, and will be demonstrated when all evil is thrown in the pit and creation is remade. Christianity is about the weakness of the human and the omnipotent holiness and love of God.
My comment about the parallels between Jesus and the Norse warrior were in the light of the original statement
“The warrior is at the center of the myth. It revolves around him and the strength he has to overcome evil, and receive glory and honour. These are themes that appeal to everyone.”
I was just pointing out that this is actually true of Christianity, with Jesus as the hero. He has the strength to overcome evil (which we don’t) and is then rewarded by the Father with glory and honour.
Maybe the “Christus victor” model of the atonement was influenced by Norse/Germanic worldviews, but it remains a recognised orthodox understanding of the atonement within mainstream Christianity.
As for Christians denouncing power, status, pride etc – all I can say is “if only”.
Think I might have been reading too much NT Wright too
The Norse have an odd concept of a warrior if it includes a person setting aside their strength to be tortured and killed for the payment of another person’s debt.
Indeed, and I think that is at the heart of the matter. The Norse do *not* have such a conception, which is non-sensical on its face. I think what Bryan is trying to say is that such is the Christian conception.
Of course, as a Norse Pagan myself, I do not agree with such a mindsetI find such milquetoasterie to be quite quite repugnant.
Joseph,
Repugnant nonsensical milquetoasterie? Only the bravest of the brave would sacrifice himself for his comrades, as did the Son of God for those who would become sons of God.
I refuse to believe no Norse warrior was ever brave enough to lay down his life for his friends. And in the same way that a true Norse warrior would be willing to suffer and die if that was the price for saving his people, so was the Son of God willing.
To do anything less than sacrifice oneself for one’s people if necessary is what is repugnant and cowardly.
I would like to state that I am probably not as knowledgeable as everyone above is and I’m not a regular here as well, I just chanced upon this board.
“What then is the answer to the opening question? If men can succeed on their own strength then Christianity has nothing on Norse Paganism. If however, the strength that is lifted up as virtue in Norse Paganism is unattainable in reality, then Christianity is there for all who fail.”
What do you mean by success?
Michael: You seem to misunderstand the context of my statement.
I was referring specifically to the quote, which was the first paragraph of my post (I don’t quite know how to get this board to do italics) which referred to being tortured and killed to pay another’s debt.
That is wholly inconsistent with the Germanic world-view, and I stand by my statement that such is nonsensical and milquetoast. For a Norse warrior to meekly surrender himself in such a manner is unthinkable.
You, on the other hand, state a very different circumstance; laying down one’s life on behalf of another. To fight on their behalf is one thing; in the very essence of the struggle is the prospect that, no matter how unlikely, they might prevail. That is one reason why Odin and Tyr are known as “givers of victory” and often (especially in the case of Odin) give it to those who might not seem worthy of winning.
You might equate a meek surrender with a defiant stance in the face of overwhelming odds, but I do not. As to which your own god chose, one has to look no further than Gethsemane. Knowing what was coming, he rolled over and awaited his fate. That, I find repugnant (and, as I believe I pointed out above, so did the early Germans, so much so that the Christians had to alter their own religion to accept such a point of view; I invite you to read the Anglo-Saxon poem “The Dream of the Rood”). A truly Germanic man would have faced the oncoming Romans with sword in hand, nonetheless doomed because of the odds, but defiant to the end because to do any less would be to place his own fate in the hands of someone else.
Joseph
I think what you’re saying is really interesting. It seems that you and I differ over what constitutes ‘fighting’ and ‘bravery’. Maybe that’s what the issue is.
For me, Jesus didn’t “roll over and await his fate”. Why? Because it didn’t have to be his fate. He had the power to stop it at any time. He could have physically fought. He could have used his power to kill his enemies. He could have ordered the armies of heaven to fight on his behalf. He could have saved himself even while on the cross.
But he didn’t, because he was fighting a different battle which needed to be fought a different way. To fight in the way you are suggesting might have resulted in going out in a blaze of glory, but would have resulted in losing the real battle.
I also like “The Dream of the Rood” and that has probably had some influence on my thinking. I certainly don’t see Jesus as some kind of pathetic victim who was powerless to change matters so just gave up. I just see him as a warrior, but fighting a different type of battle to the ones you are talking about.
Naryb
*I would like to state that I am probably not as knowledgeable as everyone above is and I’m not a regular here as well, I just chanced upon this board* me too, but one heck of a good read don’t you agree?.
“What then is the answer to the opening question? If men can succeed on their own strength then Christianity has nothing on Norse Paganism. If however, the strength that is lifted up as virtue in Norse Paganism is unattainable in reality, then Christianity is there for all who fail.”
I’m not the smartest person in the world,(my brother got the brains in my family, I got the brawns) so bear with me if I misunderstood your question. The way I think of the question is those who choose, refuse, or fight against being weak. relieing on ones own strength rather then someone elses. Standing your ground and fighting. Or simply being stubborn and refusing to do somthing the easy way(In no way am I implying christianity or being a christian or so forth a means of being lazy, weak, or ect. There is norse pagenism which focus’s on ones own stregnth. Asking the Gods what you can do for them, rather then asking them what they can do for you. Training to become stronger and so forth. But in the opposite case where one chooses to be kind, wish nothing but the best for someone, accept help where ever. i cant remember the verse but (Jesus says when some one hits you turn the other cheek and let them strike you again for they will recive there pusinishment) rather then hitting them back. ah fark im tired. Im sorry everyone im trying my best. Norse pagenism(being strong relieing on ones own strength) Christianity( being humble and relieing on God for stregnth).
I think that there is a tremendous amount of misunderstanding in reguards to Norse Paganism which is actually a multifaceted religion made up of many different paths.
The Warrior Path -as noble as it is- was one of many Paths within the Northern Tradition. The whole concept of relying on ones own strength was one of many approaches within this paradigm but not the only one. In fact in the Heimskringla there was a group of warriors who only trusted in their own might and main but in reality these were a-theistic people. They clearly stated that they did not call apon any God.
There were many people who sought the help of spirits of different kinds. If they only trusted in their own strength then they would not of approached these spirits for wisdom, courage, strength, love, or whatever it is they are praying for.
Also, the principles of peace, love, humility, and even compassion were facets of the Northern Tradition, however these were considered feminine virtues and were connected to the Goddesses rather than the Gods. There was even an occasion in Hrolf Kraki’s Saga where a Warrior taught a weak man how to be strong so that people would stop picking on him. Taking the time to help someone out like this is an act of compassion.
The highest virtue in Norse Paganism was not courage, it wasn’t truth, and it wasn’t even honour. The highest virtue in Norse Paganism was Wisdom. Without Wisdom the other virtues can become very destructive. Truthfulness spoken without Wisdom can tear apart social bonds between family members. Courage without wisdom can lead to the most stupid and foolish behavior imaginable. The highest God in Norse Paganism was the god Woden or Odhinn. He is often thought of as a Warriar God but this is actually a misunderstanding of Odhinn and his function. He is a seeker of knowledge and wisdom, the ever expanding cosmic consciousness that is constantly shaping and evolving himself and the world around him. Read about how he is hung apon the World Tree to win the Runes (the word Rune means mystery). Read about how he explores the Nine Worlds and defeats Giants (basically demons) through Questioning them, not by fighting them. In fact there is no part of the Eddas which depicts Odin using physical forms of force.
It is true, Tyr and Odin were called apon for victory in war. But this is because Tyr and Odin embody Intelligence (Tyr is the Divine Judge, ie rational judgement which is intellect) and Wisdom (obviously the domain of Odin). It is Wisdom and Intelligence, -not brute force- that allows one to win wars…most importantly the wars against the powers of ignorance and destruction that are WITHIN our own souls.
The main theme in the Elder Eddas is not this strange hollywood “Viking Religion” that someone apparently dreamed up. Here is the basic premesis of what it is about:
1. The cosmos is symbolically depicted as a World Tree, ie a growing and vibrant organism made up of different parts, ie their description of the 9 worlds.
2. Odinn and his brothers came apon two trees (ie living growing organisms) and gave them breath, inspiration (or odr, the divine spark), and blooming hue.
3. Therefore, the inner reality of man is a reflection of the outer cosmos, ie the 9 worlds are within as they are without.
4. Because the 9 worlds are within, the Gods and mythic events are also within as well as without. The divine spark or odr is within us, ie the essense of the Gods.
5. The Giantish or “demonic” forces are named after the negative qaulities within man, for an example, there are two etin wolves who named Hati (Hatred) and Skoll (Fear) and they are said to devour the Sun (which evades Hatred) and the Moon (which evades Fear). The Sun and the Moon gives us light so that we may see. Therefore the message is that Hatred and Fear blinds us, and that the Sun and the Moon within are the eyes of the soul ever evading hatred and fear through warm love and rational thinking. The stories about the Gods and Heroes overcoming Giantish forces is about the triumph of Consciousness over Stupidity.
6. The Havimal, which is a treatise of ethics and common sense behavior has a general theme which encourages the knowledge of self, other people, the divine, as well as moderating everything you do.
In a nutshell the Eddas is a Map of the Soul and shows how one can deal with destructive and ignorant forces within and without through Consciousness and Creativity. I would also like to point out that the Nordic society itself was modeled after the World Tree, ie it had a “caste system” of three major functions, Production (=Genitals, the creative part), Warrior (=Heart, the heroic physical part), Sovereigns (=Head, the wise and intelligent thinking part) and that there were different Gods assigned to different functions. The rituals through the year reinforced and developed different facets of the soul (after all the Gods are within and without) and thus society as a whole.
I could go on and on, but like I said…Nordic religion at its core had more to do with Wisdom than anything else. Suprisingly, it would seem that they placed more value on the Head than the Sword, and that they veiwed foolishness as the greatest sin. In fact the word sin (along with the words Good, Evil, Holy, Heaven, Hell, Soul, God, ect…all concepts that can be traced back to Northern European Paganism in the linguistic sense) is a Northern European based word.
Most of the Western World is only Christian in name. They have been Heathen by action. Just pick up a history and see for yourself.
Setting aside for a moment the rather one dimensional description of Norse Paganism (which one should not confuse with Modern Heathenry – It would have been nice if the author made the distinction) I find the article a fair summary of what I find repugnant about Christianity.
But I felt that way before I knew anything about Heathenry. There is also the ancestral tie to heathenry, as an ethnic tradition. A folkway; the lost ways of our forefathers, before their indigenous culture was destroyed by an invasive alien philosophy.
First,
Isn’t the Bushido code been in America for quite a while? What is seen as the Norse qualities is what seems is taught to nthe Japanese Shogun warrior class.
On the other hand, many fail to realise Chritianity was persecuted quite a bit before the advent of Catholicism as many were killed by Romans.
The whole point of weakness as a truth in Christianity as we must exalt our weakness as powerlesness and then God takes care of the rest manifested in weakness.
When in the gospels Christ preached deny yourself, pick up your cross, and follow me, those who save their lives will lose it and those who lose their lives will find it is very much teaching a biblical understanding that man is powerless against sin and so to be victorius we must surrender i.e. admit powerlesness against sin. The cross was an instrument of ridicule to punish those who rebelled against Rome and in Matt 16 I believe picking up the cross of Christ is showing an instrument of death-not of physical butmetaphorical and spirtuality as we must forsake our understandiungs of the scriptures for the understandings taught by God.
Military wise, sending a rag tag army to lay siege on a fortified city by walking around the city for seven days and then on the seenth day seeing the city collapse and Israel victorious. The point in much of the OT is to teach the same thing in the NT-man is weak and God isstrong and God caused Israel to do much which was basically seen as the dumbest thing to do in military tactics but they won anyways.
This can also be seen in David verses Goliath. Even in the riegn of David when God told him to not number his armies and provoked by Lucifer to do so-God punished David and Israel. Why does this matter? David was now relying on numerical superiority as opposed to rtelying on the Lord.
Taking this back to the cross, this is what it means to deny your self and pick up your cross as Christ manifests his power in the weak to confound the wisdom of man.
BTW, going back to the motif of the cross, I believe the Romans eneded up crucifying the spouses and childeren of Pharisees for an uprising and am wandering if this figured into the thinking of Pharisees when they took Christ to be tried in a Roman court. What I think thought thye Pharisees were responsible-keeping them to rule religously more then likely this was done to keep power Structures in place while also meeting out Roman Justice.
Well stated.
Europeans should have never poisoned themseves with a discusting evil plage of a cult created by inbred drug smocking fear mongers. these middle eastern cults are nothing more than fear and slavery, which since its dark twisted birth has done nothing but cause death, hate and division. they led man into 800 of stale human existence, wemon burned, walls raised and have left human kind speaking to statues in its never ending insanity. I will not be a slave.