I think your confusion here is that you are conflating mythology with cults.
No, I'm really not. I know three different uses for the word "cult", and none of them are in the slightest related to anything that I've said, or anything that I provided contrary to your claim that "not even Snorri" lists Loki among the gods.
Quite clearly what was put in bold. I gave you a link
to your statement. I bolded
where you said those things. You said, quite plainly in Post #95, that Loki might be worshiped today by "fanboys and fangirls", and that this is a new and
artificial phenomenon.
Let me break this down for you. Calling someone who worships a particular deity a "fanboy/girl" is incredibly disrespectful to them, their worship, and the state of being a theist and devotee in general. Debasing their worship to
artificial is worse. It invokes notions that they're pretending, that their practice is not genuine, which is something that you have
no authority to speak on. None whatsoever.
I find it ridiculous that you're displaying such indignation for being called on this, as well as being quite obstinate in owning this. You throw my words back at me like their the worst on the forum, like they've
wronged you somehow. Let's look at them here.
Armchair Heathen: Used
exactly once, and not even directed at anyone specifically. Do you know what an Armchair Heathen is? It's those who say a lot but show next to
nothing of their actual practice. For all that can be seen, they don't practice Heathenry, they pose it. Dozens of blogs and articles of academia, but not a shred of evidence for faith. An apt term for people that are out there. Does this term apply to you? If not, there's no reason to get offended by it. If so, lace those shoes up and wear them.
Elitist: No results found.
Brownie Points: No results found. Also not an insult; used in lieu of "props" or other manner of modest congratulations.
Roleplaying: Also, no results found. The last three terms that you accuse me of using as "disrespectful slurs against Heathens"
have not been said. Not by me, in any case.
Contrary to this (and further down, referencing "needling",) your posts have been consistently condescending, as well as making mountains of molehills. Challenging an idea is fine, criticizing the word use (which presents the same notion) is ridiculous. Honestly I remained polite as long as humanly possible, but it's more than uncalled for at this point. It is not because you "challenge my ideas"--which I would contest; you haven't really challenged anything, just gone through with a slew of red ink (metaphorically) to inform me of what's wrong. Rather, and related, it's because you act as though I'm so green to this that I bleed grass, hurling text after text that
doesn't actually contradict anything I've posed as though I've
never read them before. It's stuff like this:
For those who don't read Norwegian there is a detailed discussion and synopsis, in the link below. Which is frankly where I believe you got your link in the first place, fordi jeg ikke tror at du kan lese norsk
You're right, I can't read Norwegian very well just yet. But I sure am learning, and contrary to your
assumptions, I do have resources through which the information can be gleaned, colleagues to speak with who
are Norwegian, and discussions on this find and what it means. You falsely assume that I just pulled this random article to toss at you, smugly dismiss it here, but
don't actually contradict anything that I've said.
In the article's final thoughts, the face pendants are discussed. It is noted that while the visages of kings and heroes were crafted with such detail - noting the hair designs - none such were fitted with jewels in the fashion that these two were. It is compared to similar pendants of Odin found in Viking hordes in Russia, but noted as different because both eyes were depicted as whole and present; Odin, of course, having one eye left to him. Garnets are discussed, with mention that in the Viking age they were regarded as having magical properties, and of being associated with fire. This, coupled with the similarity to the Snaptun stone, concludes that these depictions are, in fact, of Loki.
(Also if you hover over the link before clicking it, it is marked as a .pdf. Auto-downloading to your hard drive is a setting that you will have to change in your browser; to my operation it simply opens on a separate tab online.)
This link should be of particular interest to you as it is a discussion by Heathens on Loki and includes many of the points I have raised regarding your importation of ecelectic ideas into Heathenry.
Ah, and there's that word again; eclectic. Let me explain to you just what eclecticism is, and why this remains an incorrect assertion of
my beliefs by yourself.
Eclecticism is, in practice, the application of several different sources, theories, and in general without rules. Within the Pagan Community, this exists in the practices best emulated by Modern Wicca, in where a coven might worship deities of
multiple pantheons, pair gods and goddesses of different pantheons for their rituals, and observe holidays in not just modern but
unculutral fashions. For example, I had the discomfort of standing audience to a Litha celebration meshed with Midsummer to Ra and Brighid. A Norse-based observance (yes, a modern one before you spring on that,) to Egyptian and Celtic deities.
That is eclectic. Contrary to this,
everything that I have posed, spoken of, or referenced is Norse. Not meshed with other pantheons, no candle magic or healing crystals or chakras, etc. You might be fine with eclecticism but frankly I am not, because by observation and experience it equates with carelessness and disregard for culture.
Re: the reddit thread, I am familiar with AnarchoHeathen. Nice fellow, for a Hard Recon. He - and that thread - is also discussing
Ásatrú specifically, which is but one group within Norse Heathenry itself. Others are not as restricted to the aesir alone, and consider all aspects of Norse divinity in their worship and practice. The thread is also rife with criticism of the subreddit moderator team taking official stances like that, and even a statement by AH - of which I've even stated here, mind you - that if Loki is a god he is an Icelandic god.
I have no issue with ecelecticism just find it irritating when folks try to claim a historical basis for modern ideas
Of which I have not done. I have been very clear - and consistent - in posing modern interpretations and applications of the myths. Nowhere have I said
"this is how the arch-heathen saw this" to somehow validate my views as "ancient". So this is an unfair claim of yours. A mythical basis is different from a historical basis.
Before Bede and Snorri wrote down the various myths and stories, they were word of mouth. How many different versions do you think there were? How many times did the stories change details, or what was said, while keeping the overall theme intact? In essence, how often do you think people did
the exact same thing that I've done? How many sat around the fire and ridiculed a man because he didn't tell the story exactly as Torolf had told it three moons ago?
Thanks, for the Wikipedia quote but I know the difference.
Notes from Art History 1 classes that I took years ago, actually. Wikipedia doesn't even show up on the first page when I search what I posted. Just for curiosity's sake, I did a quick search. The description that I gave you is also pretty much what the dictionary gives as well. Imagine that; a basic description is all but universal to the characteristics of an item.
And if you know the difference, why then did you describe an object that is not gold, is engraved rather than stamped, has jewel fittings, and is not a coin of currency as a bracteate?
