L33ch
Friend of the Suncross
Sadly enough, brutally murdering Christians kinda gets you thrown in jail for a fairly long time.
I'd totally do it otherwise though >.>
I'd totally do it otherwise though >.>
The Beliefs Of Amon Amarth
- Thread starter Lordmaltreas
- Start date
SMiM
www.metalobsession.net
Nodferatu
New Metal Member
Nodferatu
New Metal Member
Sleipnir said:
I think it's kinda funny that Snorra-Edda was originally written as a school book, by a christian, to teach christians about Ásatrú about 200-300 years after the conversion. What's even more amazing is that the book is not biased and doesn't show this religion in a negative light, being it's written by a christian.
Tomasz
outdoor type
Nodferatu
New Metal Member
Tomasz
outdoor type
Nodferatu said:
well, just as you although you haven't contributed the smallest bit to it, while me I wax and wash my van every day
Nodferatu
New Metal Member
Tomasz
outdoor type
Nodferatu said:
I don't know, do what your gradnfather did that you are so proud of.
I just find statments such as yours a bit off, that's all. Your herritage, how's it yours. You were just born there, that's all. You have no control as to where you are born nor you ever had any input into what "your forfathers" did. So why be proud? Me on the other hand, I picked my van and feel that work that I've done to it gives me right to be proud of it. Get it?
Nodferatu
New Metal Member
Tomasz said:
Yes, I see what you mean. It's a good point. I was born and bred in Iceland and I'm just proud of the history and heritage of my country because I feel that since I'm of Icelandic origin, the history of the country belongs to me, it's part of who I am because this is where I come from.
I'm proud that my country has a long history, I'm proud that it has the oldest parliament in the world, I'm proud of my language and I'm proud that the Sagas and Snorra-Edda came from the same place as I do. I'm proud to be a part of this, because I am, whether I want to or not, because I'm Icelandic.
Is any of this making any sense? :Spin:
Tyra
Member
What's even more amazing is that the book is not biased and doesn't show this religion in a negative light, being it's written by a christian.[/quote]
'Scuse me?! You're kidding, right?
'Scuse me?! You're kidding, right?
Thrymfal
Snootchie Bootchies
Tomasz
outdoor type
Nodferatu said:
I doubt thats true based on the readings I did. Then again im not the most well informed here...
What do any of you think about some saying that Ragnarok in the Edda was possibly modified by christian beliefs(from Snorri)? In the end, the "demon" from the south, Surtur, comes to war with a legion to destroy everything (to make it short). Is it a coincidence that as far as history goes the religion of christianity came from the south and almost annihilated whats known as Asatru today? Muspelheim could easily be compared to a desert since its the land of fire... Surtur and is legion to Christianity. At least figuratively... Maybe its just me... But both story are really similar...
What do you think about that?
Intoxicator
Hell On Earth
asmallchild
Brutal and Relentless
Nodferatu
New Metal Member
Pyaemia said:I doubt thats true based on the readings I did. Then again im not the most well informed here...
What do any of you think about some saying that Ragnarok in the Edda was possibly modified by christian beliefs(from Snorri)? In the end, the "demon" from the south, Surtur, comes to war with a legion to destroy everything (to make it short). Is it a coincidence that as far as history goes the religion of christianity came from the south and almost annihilated whats known as Asatru today? Muspelheim could easily be compared to a desert since its the land of fire... Surtur and is legion to Christianity. At least figuratively... Maybe its just me... But both story are really similar...
What do you think about that?
I think it's an interesting point. I kinda always assumed that these southern people coming to destroy everything were based on black people that northern people had seen. The northeners weren't all that informed about this part of the world and I assumed they would just have been very surprised, even shocked, to see black people. And because man has a tendency to fear the unknown, stories of these black people might have transformed over time and in the end become the basis for these villains.
But that's not really based on anything, I just assumed this. Your point makes a lot of sense.
The reason I said that it didn't seem biased is simply because I didn't see it when I read the book myself. But that was a while ago and I've only read it once.
Tyra
Member
Read it again. It's good reading anyhow! Then read Heimskringla and compare to see how much Snorre changed his tune between the two texts. Snorri changed quite a few things because he could not put them in a christian religious context, and they didn't make sense to his contemporaries.
As far as Ragnarök, I suspect that it's what comes after - Gimli - that may have been changed to take on a "kinder" look to be able to compete with a Christian faith, or maybe as a blend of the two religions coming together. Earlier stories do not conform to this part of the myth.
Having said this, we really quite litterally do not have any written evidence as to what the stories were directly from the Norsemen of the time themselves. This is why we have to rely on Snorri, Ibn Fahadlan, Ibn Rusta, Adam of Bremen, Tacitus and so on. These are either not contemporaries, or are, like in the case of Tacitus, third hand accounts of what was said and done. More often than not, also, written by someone of another religion to make their own look better, too.
As far as Ragnarök, I suspect that it's what comes after - Gimli - that may have been changed to take on a "kinder" look to be able to compete with a Christian faith, or maybe as a blend of the two religions coming together. Earlier stories do not conform to this part of the myth.
Having said this, we really quite litterally do not have any written evidence as to what the stories were directly from the Norsemen of the time themselves. This is why we have to rely on Snorri, Ibn Fahadlan, Ibn Rusta, Adam of Bremen, Tacitus and so on. These are either not contemporaries, or are, like in the case of Tacitus, third hand accounts of what was said and done. More often than not, also, written by someone of another religion to make their own look better, too.
Nodferatu
New Metal Member
Yeah, I'll read it again someday. It's a fun read but also a very hard read (I'm talking about reading it in the old Norse, I don't know if you are).
Tyra
Member
I wish! The closest I can manage is old Swedish, which, none the less, is preferable to trying to figure out which one of the zillion English translations I need to choose. They are all so very, very different - talk about things getting lost in translation! You are very lucky to be able to read the original. I use the Swedish versions for a guideline as to what Snorre really meant to say when I read the English versions. I use the texts for research for my university studies quite a bit, which is why I am so damned familiar with them - we had to disect Snorri, Tacitus, Master Adam and so on to learn how to critizice our archaeological sources and not take them verbatim. That's why I am of the opinion that they are all somewhat (or very) skewed in a Christian fashion (not necessarily on purpose, though, sometimes because so many years had passed between the old religion and the new that the author didn't know how to interpret events in an Old Norse way - one did research differently in the time of Snorri. This is in no way criticism against Snorri. He did us all a huge service in writing what he did, thus preserving many of these stories for the future. It's up to us to try to walk in Snorri's shoes when we read the texts, and not just interpret the texts from the Norse/viking point of view, but also from Snorri's point of view).
