The Cauldron: A Pagan Forum

Hey guys I have a question that is kinda complicated amd might be super stupid but here it goes.....

Ok so first off I have always heard that Gullveig was actually another aspect of Freya, and there are a few things that dont add up for me if that is the case. First off, I always kind of assumed that Odin is in charge of the reign of the nine worlds. He created humans, dwarves, and put Hel in helheim. If that is the case then he would have given Freyr Alfheim as a toothgift, which would mean it would take place after the Æsir Vanir war which would mean that since Freyr and Freya are twins then Freya would have been very young also meaning Odin and the other aesir burned a little girl alive.
So if that is not true, then who gave Freyr Alfheim? Do the Vanir have authority over Alfheim? Am I missing something obvious? (Please feel free to point out if I am)

Does this help?

Yes it does thank you. Not only for answering my original question, but for pointing out my flaws with Odin as well. Its very embarassing to see how easy it is to slip back into my old christian monotheistic way of thinking:ashamed: I never realize I'm doing it until someone else points it out. Of course like you said it doesn't help the Eddas were written and edited by christians. Thanks a bunch!

Yes it does thank you. Not only for answering my original question, but for pointing out my flaws with Odin as well. Its very embarassing to see how easy it is to slip back into my old christian monotheistic way of thinking:ashamed: I never realize I'm doing it until someone else points it out. Of course like you said it doesn't help the Eddas were written and edited by christians. Thanks a bunch!

...I'm not sure it's entirely wrong of you to see it that way.
 
I can think of at least one possible example of a Ruling god: Regnator Ominium Deus.

Anyway. ROD was the Supreme Ruler of All for one particular tribe (Semnones). Tacitus says that "here [in the grove] God, the supreme Governor of the world, resides, and that all things else whatsoever are subject to him and bound to obey him." It's very likely that Tacitus got this information straight from the Semnones, who had visited Tacitus around this time.

Some scholars even think that the belief in ROD was a precursor to a later belief in Odin as All-father as there are similarities in sacrifice, spears and fetters.

Ok so first off I have always heard that Gullveig was actually another aspect of Freya, and there are a few things that dont add up for me if that is the case. First off, I always kind of assumed that Odin is in charge of the reign of the nine worlds. He created humans, dwarves, and put Hel in helheim. If that is the case then he would have given Freyr Alfheim as a toothgift, which would mean it would take place after the Æsir Vanir war which would mean that since Freyr and Freya are twins then Freya would have been very young also meaning Odin and the other aesir burned a little girl alive.
So if that is not true, then who gave Freyr Alfheim? Do the Vanir have authority over Alfheim? Am I missing something obvious? (Please feel free to point out if I am)

What Helio said. But also, maybe you're reading the myths a bit too literally?

If , for example, the Aesir-Vanir war refers to a shift from hunter gatherers to farmers, as some people believe, then the Vanir could have been old age-wise, but young in terms of spiritual presence and authority in human-god affairs. Like the difference in a 50 year old being an apprentice and having less seniority on a job then someone who is a journeyman and 26 years old. It's not necessarily about age, but experience. In that case, Freyja wasn't necessarily young age-wise if she was Gullveig.

It's not exactly the same thing: a god can rule over all without being a creator or actual father of all, much like a king can be the ruler of his lands and a father to its inhabitants. And even a supreme god may govern in council, much like Zeus does in the Iliad or a king with his peers.

Except that the account pretty clearly states that ROD was the progenitor of the Semnones, the "original stock" and that the tribe/s were descended from him.

Oh! Do you think there's some confusion for the OP that All-Father means Odin is the father of the entire world, it's people, and all it's religions?  I really didn't think that anywhere in archeo or modern heathenry that anyone really took it to mean anything other than he is the father of All Things descended from Germania/ heathen religion. The alternative *would* be a very dangerous and non-PC opinion, whereas seeing a god as a Supreme Ruler/Father in your own religious environment is acceptable enough that one shouldn't have to worry about changing any mindsets. I would think, anyway.

As for the deity of the Semnones, linguistically and even geographically, there's a good chance that it may have been Tyr: the name itself means simply "god", deriving from the same root as "zeus" and "iovis";

Yes, I've heard that theory as well. But how does  that negate any argument that it's acceptable to see an All-Father god without the worry of being too Christian? Especially considering Tyr's etymological tie with Tuisto, the Father of the various tribes?(Similar to Buri, so the Eddas aren't entirely unreliable.)


 

as a sky god, He'd naturally and literally be above all (and hence rule all); and, judging from placenames, Tyr was much more popular in Denmark than anywhere else in Scandinavia, leading one to wonder if that popurality reflects His earlier and greater importance in Germanic polytheism. Of course, Odin may have picked up the role of the top sky god later on, but that goes to show how much of One-Eyed's currently known status is a late, socially biased and to some extent a Christian influenced role.

I rather like Russell's idea that Christianity became heathen influenced and not the other way around.

But anyway, I'm not quite sure how saying "well, yes, but any god could have been the supreme ruler and progenitor" makes any difference in whether or not one can see a god as ruler and father? Is it that we must choose the correct god -- which wouldn't seem right because, as you pointed out, there are obviously several options for that role.  

Or is the difficulty in saying that any one god created the world or universe? I can see how that might seem Christian influenced, but obviously the world is here, and must have come here somehow, and it would seem natural for people to have a myth concerning it's creation. What philosophy/s in heathenism in particular leads you to believe that they wouldn't have seen anything supernatural or spiritual lending a hand in the creation of the world? In fact, there seems to be a 1-1-3 system from both Germanic and Scandinavian sources that includes 1 as the father of all things/potential, 1 as the father of man/creator, and 3 the various fathers of society/realized creation.

Sorry if I'm coming from left-field. I'm in a place of rethinking things and not entirely sure if I'm twisting it (heathenry) out of shape too much.

And if you want to go down the path of links between Germania and the Eddas, remember the pattern: one primordal being, a descendent and a triple offspring; Tuisto, Mannus and three tribes on one hand, Yimir, Bor/Buri, Odin and his brothers on the other.

I feel like you didn't read my post very well when you're reminding me of something that I had just written:

----

In fact, there seems to be a 1-1-3 system from both Germanic and Scandinavian sources that includes 1 as the father of all things/potential, 1 as the father of man/creator, and 3 the various fathers of society/realized creation.

----

Again, the point was not to negate that particular argument, but to keep things clear considering Haggis' self-assumed tendency to slide back into a monotheistic way of thinking. Keep in mind how the thread started and the specifics of who did it.

I didn't see her "self-assumed tendency to slide back into monotheistic ways of thinking". What I saw was her 'realization' after you told her that she wasn't thinking properly. I've become very uncomfortable with the (usually recon) trend of instructing others on how to change their mindsets/ rewire their brains. Personal issue.

And in any case, I was thinking of the original post of this thread, when Haggis said, and I quote, "He [Odin] created humans, dwarves, and put Hel in helheim." There's an obvious monotheistic tone in this, as Haggis admitted, and that's what I was addressing when I pointed  out the Christian influence on Odin as depicted in the Edda.

She said he created humans, not all humans. You admit yourself that there is an established pattern of humans believing gods created them:

Elsewhere in Tacitus' Germania, you also have references to other progenitors of other human groups, like Mannus. To be the divine ancestor of one tribe doesn't mean a god is the divine ancestor of all mankind. But see below on the matter of Tuisto.

So where is the monotheistic thinking?

That is how he is depicted by Snorri. The creator of all, though of course it turns out that Snorri was making a mockery of the old gods, in the end depicting them as something along the lines of demons trying to immitate the "one true god".

Did I miss the announced consensus on this? Seriously. I've been out of the loop for the last year.

Heathen Gods as Supreme Rulers and Creators isn't as simple as pure Christian-influence. Many early converts became Arians because (among other things) Christ was subordinate to the Father and it fell in line with their socio-religious structure.  

In The Heliand, the author (largely believed to have a deep personal understanding/relationship with the Saxons) had Christ *replace* Woden as the Supreme God. This is an important detail, Christ was depicted as taking on the *same* authority that Woden possessed.  

Maybe the idea that the gods were *never* Supreme Rulers and Creators is your monotheistic, Christian mindset showing?  Wouldn't it make more sense for Christians to think other gods never had that type of power or authority, rather than archeopagans thinking that?

Of course, the problem with making this sort of connections is that people often forget about the chronological distance, regional developments and the problematic nature of the existing sources. There's just too much between the two texts to make a one-on-one correspondence.

Yeah. I suppose it would be odd to think that beliefs that remained similar over the course of hundreds of years and at least as many miles could ever have some actual truth and value to them.

See above. It's not that I don't enjoy a good conversation, it's just that not everyone is firmly in a polytheistic mindset. Neither you nor I started this thread.

Does everyone have to be in the same mindset? I thought personal, intuitive, experienced spirituality was part of the joy in being a non-orthodox folk religion. Was just trying to make that clear to the OP.

Got it? Or do we have to continue to unravel a topic simply because you misinterpreted my initial stressing that a polytheistic supreme god is not the same as a monotheistic one?

She said in her initial post that might be a stupid yet complicated question. It is complicated!

I don't think I misinterpreted your original post. In fact, in my initial reply I agreed with you, "What Helio said". I just wanted to point out to the OP that thinking there can be a supreme ruling, creator god is not "entirely wrong" or entirely Christian-influenced.

My original intention was never to disagree with your post, or to contradict you. It was simply to give some more information into the roles and perceptions of the gods in case a creating, ruling deity is something the OP was interested in or connected with, because it *is* possible to have that in your personal religious environment. So basically: "what helio said, but there is also this other possibility that is not christian-influenced, so thinking the way you are would not be entirely wrong."

That you popped up arguing that felt a lot like you were arguing against there being a possibility at all.