The Beliefs Of Amon Amarth

[Tyra]

Ok.

Yeah I thought about that - two different peoples (the aesir and the vanir) and how they ended up living together. And wasn't it Snorri who said that the Aesir were named after were they came from (Asia) or something? But how are they described in Heimskringla?

It says that Odin is the chief of the main town of a land in Asia to the east of Tanakvisl, called Asgard. Odin was mighty warrior who'd won many kingdoms for himself (for example, he had great possessions in the land of the Turks), but when Odin went with his army against the Vanir they withstood him. When both sides became tired of raiding the other ones' lands, they made peace and exchanged hostages (Frej, Freja, Njord and so on). When Odin worked magic and looked into the future, he knew that his offspring was to dwell inthe northern parts of the world, so he set off for that place with his priests and many of his people. The prose Edda also says Odin went north to Sweden from Turkey. "The king there was called Gylfi and, when he heard of the expedition of the men from Asia, as the Aesir were called, he went to meet them and offered Odin as much authority over his kingdom as he himself desired."
Heimskringla says that Odin was fair and noble in his looks, and it also explains how come he is thought of as a god, and it tells of his shapeshifting, his ravens, his wolves and so on. Regarding that previous discussion, it speciffically says that "Odin died in his bed in Sweden, and when he was near death he had himself marked with a spear point and dedicated to himself all men who died through weapons".

 

[TheLastWithPaganBlood]

Ok thank you.

 

[TheLastWithPaganBlood]

Well, it wasnt uncommon for it to happen but being the "receiver" was frowned upon.

http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/gayvik.shtml

I think Tacitus said that sexual offenders were killed and sunken in a bog.

 

[Tyra]

I think Tacitus said that sexual offenders were killed and sunken in a bog.

OK, don't quote me on this, because this is just my personal opinion, not founded in science or collected from any important book of reference or whatever:
There are two words - ergi and ragr - that are mentioned several times in places that I know of (such as Ynglingasaga and Hrafnkel Frejsgodes saga). These words are supposed to mean that someone is behaving "unmanly". In Gulatingslagen (old Scandinavian law from 1100-1200 sometime - can't remember exactly when, but not even sure we know for sure as I have not read the whole thing myself) I think it says that anyone who calls a man ragr is to be declared lawless. The roots of the word seem to come from the same word that makes up the modern Swedish "arg"(=angry). The original IE word has in other languages come to take on meanings that have to do with sex, often with animals.
I think that this whole thing may have to do with the importance of fitting in whithin what is societal norm. It is said that when Mjöllnir was stolen, Thor dressed up as a woman to steal it back, which made him "argr", something other than what he usually was. In Hrafnkel Frejsgodes saga it says that "everyone becomes ergisk when they get old", that is, they behave differntly than what they would have earlier. I think the whole thing is that any activity that falls outside of what is typically the norm, homosexuality included, is not encouraged. It is therefore OK to use a dick as a dick, but not an asshole as a c#%& - in other words, one can screw a guy up the ass if one is a man, but it is not OK to be the guy that receives the first guys dick. That's for women and is unmanly.

Now then, if you really want to stir the pot, Ynglingasaga clearly says that women only should practise seith because it involves so much ergi (unmanliness), and yet Odin is the God of seith. He learned it from Freya. Anyone want to touch that?

 

[TheLastWithPaganBlood]

yeah but he put himself to shame just so he coul learn it -> become wiser -> become a better leader. or something. it was shameful for him to do so however, but a price he had to pay.

but back to homos:they mention the words here: http://www.heathenfront.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2282

ANd the story of Thor dressing up may have been entirely written by snorri according to some. and even if it wasn't he didn't exactly put on a dress because he thought it was fun. and is there anything in ON litterature that speaks against betiality, pedophilia, coprophagia and necrophilia?

 

[yllmar]

OK, don't quote me on this, because this is just my personal opinion, not founded in science or collected from any important book of reference or whatever:
There are two words - ergi and ragr - that are mentioned several times in places that I know of (such as Ynglingasaga and Hrafnkel Frejsgodes saga). These words are supposed to mean that someone is behaving "unmanly". In Gulatingslagen (old Scandinavian law from 1100-1200 sometime - can't remember exactly when, but not even sure we know for sure as I have not read the whole thing myself) I think it says that anyone who calls a man ragr is to be declared lawless. The roots of the word seem to come from the same word that makes up the modern Swedish "arg"(=angry). The original IE word has in other languages come to take on meanings that have to do with sex, often with animals.
I think that this whole thing may have to do with the importance of fitting in whithin what is societal norm. It is said that when Mjöllnir was stolen, Thor dressed up as a woman to steal it back, which made him "argr", something other than what he usually was. In Hrafnkel Frejsgodes saga it says that "everyone becomes ergisk when they get old", that is, they behave differntly than what they would have earlier. I think the whole thing is that any activity that falls outside of what is typically the norm, homosexuality included, is not encouraged. It is therefore OK to use a dick as a dick, but not an asshole as a c#%& - in other words, one can screw a guy up the ass if one is a man, but it is not OK to be the guy that receives the first guys dick. That's for women and is unmanly.

I heard the same thing, but I read it on the Viking Answer Lady's web site. To me, that just makes sense. What doesn't make sense to me is for same-sex relationship members to say they prefer the same sex, yet one will always play the masculine role and the other the feminine. Also, it's just as wrong for a man to act the female as it is for the female to act the manly role. My opinion, but that is the way I see it. Along these lines, I heard/read that Scottish warriors used to humiliate their defeated foes by raping them anally, yet were not seen as homosexuals by doing this. I'd sure fight harder knowing that this might be done to me.

Now then, if you really want to stir the pot, Ynglingasaga clearly says that women only should practise seith because it involves so much ergi (unmanliness), and yet Odin is the God of seith. He learned it from Freya. Anyone want to touch that?

yeah but he put himself to shame just so he coul learn it -> become wiser -> become a better leader. or something. it was shameful for him to do so however, but a price he had to pay.

but back to homos:they mention the words here: http://www.heathenfront.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2282

ANd the story of Thor dressing up may have been entirely written by snorri according to some. and even if it wasn't he didn't exactly put on a dress because he thought it was fun.

Concerning Odin, I don't think he was necessarily proud of the fact that he practices Seid. In Lokasenna, when Loki berates the Aesir, Odin was unable to retort Loki's condemnation of his indulgence of seid. Granted, the birth of Slepneir was brought up, it really didn't do anything to justify seid. I think Odin saw it as a necessary evil, as the gods were continuously making grave errors in judgement, ranging from Odin's use of gold in Ottar's ransom to Frey's surrendering of his sword for Gerd. Plus, being the seeker of wisdom that he is/was, I think Odin went through any means possible to gain as much wisdom as possible... from giving up his eye, his dignity, to his very life (in obtaining the runes.)

Concerning Thor, the episode in Thrym's hall, where Thor was dressed up as Freyja to retrieve Mjollnir, I see that mostly as a grave illustration of exactly how important Thor was to the rest of the Aesir, as well as the importance of Mjollnir itself. For Thor to debase himself in that manner, particularly with the full knowlege of the rest of the gods, made it no trivial matter!

Still, to take all this a step further, it was just more than physical acts that brought out swift vengeance, at least in the way that I know it. Didn't men die as a result of calling into question a man's manhood? For example, wasn't there hell to pay if a man called another man a whiney bitch?

 

[TheLastWithPaganBlood]

There was Holmgång if he wasn't right.

 

[Sleipnir]

Concerning Odin, I don't think he was necessarily proud of the fact that he practices Seid. In Lokasenna, when Loki berates the Aesir, Odin was unable to retort Loki's condemnation of his indulgence of seid. Granted, the birth of Slepneir was brought up, it really didn't do anything to justify seid.

It was actually Odin who "started it", he made mention of Loki's hermaphroditic nature:

"Granted I gave,as give I should not,
mastery to worser men:
thou winters eight wast the earth beneath,
milking the cows as a maid,
and there gavest birth to a brood:
were these womanish ways I ween."

and it was then that Loki replied:

"But thou,they say, on Sáms Isle once
wovest spells like a witch:
in warlock's shape through the worldst did fare:
were these womanish ways I ween.:

I think Odin saw it as a necessary evil, as the gods were continuously making grave errors in judgement, ranging from Odin's use of gold in Ottar's ransom to Frey's surrendering of his sword for Gerd. Plus, being the seeker of wisdom that he is/was, I think Odin went through any means possible to gain as much wisdom as possible... from giving up his eye, his dignity, to his very life (in obtaining the runes.)

It was most definitely needed, I would'nt call it a necessary evil though, Odin was doing all he could to delay Ragnarok even though he knew it was coming and what the end result would be. It is interesting also that when Odin was banished for 10 years and Ullr took over...Saxo Book 3... it was if I remember because of his practice of seidh.

Concerning Thor, the episode in Thrym's hall, where Thor was dressed up as Freyja to retrieve Mjollnir, I see that mostly as a grave illustration of exactly how important Thor was to the rest of the Aesir, as well as the importance of Mjollnir itself. For Thor to debase himself in that manner, particularly with the full knowlege of the rest of the gods, made it no trivial matter!

Mjollnir was recognized as the greatest gift made by the dwarves for the Aesir, it's also important to remember it isn't the first time the gods had to do something drastic to prevent the Jotuns from getting their hands on Freya.

Still, to take all this a step further, it was just more than physical acts that brought out swift vengeance, at least in the way that I know it. Didn't men die as a result of calling into question a man's manhood? For example, wasn't there hell to pay if a man called another man a whiney bitch?

Cant think of anything right off, I'll ask my kinsmen to see if they can remember anything.

 

[Tyra]

Well, like I said in my last post, Gulatinglangen, which is the closest written Scandinavian law to the old Norse laws, specifies that a man who calls another unmanly will be found lawless. That's about as bad as it gets, short of execution on the spot. Lawlessness was more or less a death sentence.

As for that thing you said about your personal opinion on homosexual behaviour, Yllmar, I think that is an illustration of womens' role in ON society. There are many rules about how men cannot behave like women, but very few that say women cannot behave like men. Women had to learn to do all the things a woman should know and all the things a man should know, since the men were gone for a large part of the year, sometimes for years at a time even. Women had rights before the ting (thing, just so I don't confuse you with the spelling again), right to inherit, right to divorce and so on, all of which they lost with the arrival of Christianity. It is not that big a deal for me to see how being on the recieving end of a man's advances would be seen as unmanly, whereas the feamale counterpart would have been a non-issue. Which is not to say that it was, we just simply don't have any written reference (which is usually an indication)./T

 

[TheLastWithPaganBlood]

My impression is that if you called a man unmanly then you'd have to fight him in holmgång - it was the worst thing you could call a man - but in the very few cases (I presume) where the insulted man would not want to fight, then he'd just have to live with it and the other guy could not fight him. This is kinda my (somewhat) edeucated guess/gut feeling.

 

[Feraliminal Lycanthropizer]

Does anyone have any cool/good pictures of Ouroboros? I'm back into sculpting, but the internet doesnt provide very good images. If anyone has any good ones, please post.

 

[Sleipnir]

Well, like I said in my last post, Gulatinglangen, which is the closest written Scandinavian law to the old Norse laws, specifies that a man who calls another unmanly will be found lawless. That's about as bad as it gets, short of execution on the spot. Lawlessness was more or less a death sentence.

Hey T, was that in any way similar to the types of outlawry in Iceland?

Eh, I wasn't gonna add it but what the heck......

From Sagas of Icelanders:

Full Outlawry:
skóggangur: Outlawry for life. One of the terms applied to a man sentenced to full outlawry was skógarmaður,which literally means 'forest man', even though in Iceland there was scant possibility of his taking refuge in a forest. Full outlawry simply meant banishment from civilized society,whether the local land district,the province or the whole country. It also meant the confiscation of the outlaw's property to pay the prosecutor,cover debts and sometimes provide an allowance for the dependants he had left behind. A full outlaw was to be neither fed nor offered shelter. According to one legal codex from Norway, it was 'as if he were dead'. Hehad lost all goods,and all rights.Wherever he went he could be killed without any legal redress. His children became illegitimate and his body was to be buried in unconsecrated ground.

Lesser Outlawry:
fjörbaugsgarður:
Differed from full or greater outlawry in that the lesser outlaw was only banished from society for three years. Furthermore,his land was not confiscated,and money was put aside to support his family. This made it possible for him to return later andcontinue a normal life. Fjörbaugsgarður means literally 'life-ring enclosure'. 'Life-ring' refers to the silver ring that the outlaw had to pay the godi to spare his life.(This was later fixed at a value of one mark.) 'Enclosure" refers to three sacrosanct homes no more than one day's journey from each other where the outlaw was permitted to stay while he arranged passage out of Iceland. He was allowed limited movement along the tracks directly joining these farms, and en route to the ship which would take him abroad. He had to leave the country and begin his sentence within the space of three summers after the verdict, but once abroad retained normal rights.

 

[Tyra]

Yeah, it sounds very similar. I think how it worked was you had the legal right to, and in some instances were encouraged to, slay an outlaw should you come across one. That would apply to full outlawry. That's what I meant when I said it'd be as much as a death sentence to be sentenced an outlaw.

Now, that's from Gulatinglagen. Sweden, as an example, was not a "country" per se until well into the iron age, and so there were many different laws that applied to many different regions. There is nothing that says such things weren't punishable by holmgång in some parts, just the same way as holmgång was performed differntly in different parts of what later became a unified (well, sort of) Sweden./T

 

[Tyra]

Does anyone have any cool/good pictures of Ouroboros? I'm back into sculpting, but the internet doesnt provide very good images. If anyone has any good ones, please post.

Were you speciffically looking for the ones that are in an O shape? If not, you might want to look under World Serpent. Jormungand was an ouroboro, after all. There's a fair amount of pictures of him on the net, but I am not sure that's exactly what you're looking for?

 

[TheLastWithPaganBlood]

Holmgång continued for wuite long in the germanic countrys. In Germany Hitler was the one to ban it.

 

[Feraliminal Lycanthropizer]

Were you speciffically looking for the ones that are in an O shape? If not, you might want to look under World Serpent. Jormungand was an ouroboro, after all. There's a fair amount of pictures of him on the net, but I am not sure that's exactly what you're looking for?

10 out of 10 chocolate chip cookies for you.

 

[Tyra]

Holmgång continued for wuite long in the germanic countrys. In Germany Hitler was the one to ban it.

That was dumb. You'd think he'd have used it to his advantage instead?

Thanks for the cookies, Feralim. Waddaya mean you're doing sculpting? Thought you'd have your hands full trying to build one of the newfangled feraliminal lycanthropizer or something, so what gives?

 

[Tyra]

Now then, if you really want to stir the pot, Ynglingasaga clearly says that women only should practise seith because it involves so much ergi (unmanliness), and yet Odin is the God of seith. He learned it from Freya. Anyone want to touch that?

Well, now that I've had the time to pull my head out of my ass, I've edited a mail I got from my gythia to omit all personal parts of it and such. She said it would be OK if I post her thoughts on Odin and his "unmaliness" and so on for you all to read. I would love some input on this, Sleipnir et al!/T

If the argument is made that seidh is "shamanistic"
then there are certain things that we would look for
as part of that definition. Generally speaking, as I
understand it, in societies with shamans it is
predominately associated with one sex or another.

The shaman has two classes of deities, the patron
diety and the tutelary deity/ies. Odin would be the
"patron," the husband. Unmanly for man.So, logically, if seidh is shamanism, or shamanistic,
then Odin would be the patron deity, the spiritual
"husband." If a man practiced seidh, then he would
supposedly have Odin as a "husband." Odin says in the Eddas
somewhere that Frig knows the future, but won't say
anything. There's the wife thing again. BUT...more
often Frigg is said to be a goddess of sovereignty, he
is the "king" because of his association with her.

If Odin learned seidh, the
argument for him as a shaman is strengthened by his
association with Freya as the "celestial bride" strengthens that
argument. But, if he was merged into a society where the women
were the practioners, he'd have perhaps had to taken
on the trappings. I think that there's some
shape-shifting involved there.

In shamanic societies it is largely confined to one
gender or the other. The practitioner would be
working with spirits and deities of various sorts, and
would have a "patron" deity. We find Odin making
offerings, giving gifts, to the seeress in the
voluspa. Maybe she was a statue decorated with gold,
etc, as Jarl Hakon's were, rather than an actual
woman, but still, a feminine being. The one that gave
him is power.

Unmanly to "need" the feminine to be the king,
cheiftan and great in battle is my own best bet on why
it's so "ergi." :> Ergi does not necessarily have to
mean homosexual, it has a somewhat broader meaning.

Transgendered, homosexual were often relegated to the
ranks of the shaman, because of their being "outside
the norm."

 

[yllmar]

That's a much broader concept than the reasons why I thought it was a feminine practice. I've read that seidh was ceremoniously practised by wailing and shrieking, which was considered very unmanly. It never occured to me that it was a submissive practice to a masculine power.

Seeing as Freyja was the primere shamaness, then I'm assuming that she would be getting her power predominantly from Odin? Or would there be another power that she would be divining with? If from Odin, then wouldn't this be basically the same concept behind how Odin obtained the runes? Essentially by giving himself to himself? That certainly would be a paradox, since he would be both masculine and feminine in that aspect.

Interesting thoughts. I would like to hear more about it.

 

[Tyra]

OK, well my opinion on this whole issue is very humble, as I am not 100% comfortable with the whole concept of seith myself. I have a hard time connecting in this fashion unless it's just runecasting (which I am exceedingly good at). I feel (intrisically) that this is because I do not connect well with feamale deities other than Frigga, but that's a gut feeling. A few years ago I promised to heed my gut feelings better and I must admit that I am a much happier person since, so I am just working on the assumption that that's what going on. Anyhow, the divination thing has a lot to do with the Norns, too, and as far as I'm concerned, Odin learned seith from Freya. I point that out here because there is reference to it, but some asatruar freak when you say that Odin learned anything from anyone:"Odin didn't need to learn anything from anyone!","totally forgetting, of course, that he goes about
trying to learn everthing from anyone that he can contend with, steal from, etc., which IS typical of the human shaman on his journey"(quoted from same e-mail as a above). Anyhow, I'll go on a fishingexpidition on the topic and come back when I catch somehing and tell you what it is./T