[Pagans] What do you think of "Thursatru"?

[VioletVortex]

Thursatru is a strange sect of Heathenry that sees the Aesir/Vanir gods as inferior to the Jotuns, and that Satan is the highest deity of all. At first glance, the idea of "Norse Satanism" looked accurate to me. However, this construct of Satan being a completely separate deity is very off key to me. If anything, Satan is Odin, or maybe some combination of Odin, Thor, and Freya. No evidence seems to support the idea of Satan being the "head Jotun".

What do you think of this movement? I think that it has some value, considering that it fuses Heathenry and Satanism, but its view on the deities of the Aesir and Vanir is abhorrent.

 

[Nietzsche]

..why not just worship/honor Surtr? Or Loki? Or any of the named Jotnar? Why bring in baggage from the Abrahamics and their petty god?

 

[VioletVortex]

..why not just worship/honor Surtr? Or Loki? Or any of the named Jotnar? Why bring in baggage from the Abrahamics and their petty god?

All deities have honorable aspects. The problem with Thrusatru is that it focuses praise to only one god-the supposed Jotun named Satan. Sure, Odin is generally thought of as the highest ranking god, and he is certainly the most important, however, the other deities are recognized as integral parts of the pantheon.

 

[Quintessence]

Do you have any external references that we might review to gather more information? This is the first I've heard of this, and I am not in any position to be making a well-informed assessment of the movement.

On the whole, however, I don't have a problem with any religious movement. It's their path to follow as they see fit... whether I personally agree with it or happen to like it or not. As I'm neither a Satanist nor a Heathen, not sure I have a horse in this race.

 

[Nietzsche]

All deities have honorable aspects. The problem with Thrusatru is that it focuses praise to only one god-the supposed Jotun named Satan. Sure, Odin is generally thought of as the highest ranking god, and he is certainly the most important, however, the other deities are recognized as integral parts of the pantheon.

But Satan has no Germanic roots etymologically. It's a Semitic name. How does that even remotely fit?

 

[Liu]

Interesting question, just checking in to clarify a bit, I hope you don't mind it:
The only kind of Thursatru that I so far encountered was a kind of Chaos-Gnosticism. And from the texts I know of that, they do worship þursir like Loki, Surtr and Angrboða. They may point out that there are parallels between e.g. Loki and Satan, and even consider both to be manifestations of the same extraworldy force, but I have never encountered the claim there that Satan was a þurs or even a jǫtunn.

Which Þursatrus are you taking about that would make such a strange claim, @Hammerheart?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Thursatru is a strange sect of Heathenry that sees the Aesir/Vanir gods as inferior to the Jotuns, and that Satan is the highest deity of all.

I have never heard of Thursatru before today. I have heard of Rokkatru - the worship of Jotnar - yet they do not believe the Jotnar to be "superior" to the Aesir or Vanir, nor do they recognize Satan in any doctrinal scope. No major branch of Heathenry theistically recognize Satan as a part of the Norse pantheon. Not even Thursatru actually mention Satan, but liken themselves to Satanic "anti-cosmology".

This forum post sums it up nicely - and I know the author as well. I quite agree with here that it's basically Rokkatru trying to be "edgy."

If anything, Satan is Odin, or maybe some combination of Odin, Thor, and Freya.

No, he is not. This is your interpretation, but there is nothing theologically to support it.

Sure, Odin is generally thought of as the highest ranking god, and he is certainly the most important,

No he's not. He is Chieftain of the Aesir, nothing more. Some have even posed within my groups that in this Age of Revival, Thor has succeeded his father in this role. Before Odin, Tyr was the Chieftain of the Aesir. To be a Chieftain in Norse society and modern Heathen culture means that you are recognized by your peers as being a worthy leader; not that you are supreme. They are no kings.

Nor is Odin even the wisest of the Gods. He receives advice from Mimir's head, volva, Frigga, Hugin and Munin, and various other deities and beings--Jotnar included.

Nor is Odin the "most important" of the Gods. In day-to-day life, most Heathens don't even call upon Odin, or have any need for him. He does not bring rain, he does not grow crops, he does not protect homesteads.

 

[VioletVortex]

But Satan has no Germanic roots etymologically. It's a Semitic name. How does that even remotely fit?

The incarnation of Satan referenced in Christianity is sort of a composite character of Indo-European, Egyptian, and Semitic gods and devils. Examples include Set, Enki, Ea, Dyeus, and Ahriman. The name "Satan" also comes from Indo-European roots, with variations meaning things along the lines of "truth". The word was probably taken and distorted to mean "adversary" in Hebrew. I may be wrong, but this is what seems likely to me.

Do you have any external references that we might review to gather more information? This is the first I've heard of this, and I am not in any position to be making a well-informed assessment of the movement.

On the whole, however, I don't have a problem with any religious movement. It's their path to follow as they see fit... whether I personally agree with it or happen to like it or not. As I'm neither a Satanist nor a Heathen, not sure I have a horse in this race.

Thursatrú – “Norse Satanism”

This seems to be the predominant source for the religion. It's a new movement, probably something constructed in the past decade.

 

[VioletVortex]

I have never heard of Thursatru before today. I have heard of Rokkatru - the worship of Jotnar - yet they do not believe the Jotnar to be "superior" to the Aesir or Vanir, nor do they recognize Satan in any doctrinal scope. No major branch of Heathenry theistically recognize Satan as a part of the Norse pantheon. Not even Thursatru actually mention Satan, but liken themselves to Satanic "anti-cosmology".

This forum post sums it up nicely - and I know the author as well. I quite agree with here that it's basically Rokkatru trying to be "edgy."


No, he is not. This is your interpretation, but there is nothing theologically to support it.


No he's not. He is Chieftain of the Aesir, nothing more. Some have even posed within my groups that in this Age of Revival, Thor has succeeded his father in this role. Before Odin, Tyr was the Chieftain of the Aesir. To be a Chieftain in Norse society and modern Heathen culture means that you are recognized by your peers as being a worthy leader; not that you are supreme. They are no kings.

Nor is Odin even the wisest of the Gods. He receives advice from Mimir's head, volva, Frigga, Hugin and Munin, and various other deities and beings--Jotnar included.

Nor is Odin the "most important" of the Gods. In day-to-day life, most Heathens don't even call upon Odin, or have any need for him. He does not bring rain, he does not grow crops, he does not protect homesteads.

Odin can be summarized as the "god of the mind". Strength (Thor) comes from the mind. Enlightenment and metaphorical light (Baldr) also comes from the mind. I think the same could be said off most deities. Different people might find different things important. For example, a dedicated powerlifter would find more importance in Thor. A philosopher might find more in Odin, and so on and so forth.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

The incarnation of Satan referenced in Christianity is sort of a composite character of Indo-European, Egyptian, and Semitic gods and devils. Examples include Set, Enki, Ea, Dyeus, and Ahriman.

No. The Christian "devil" is doctrinally Satan, an angel that fell from grace after challenging the throne. Theologically, this would make him satan-Samael.

Parallels made between those deities that you've mentioned are as vinegar-and-oil as the comparison that you try to make between Satan and Odin. You've got a god of chaos, darkness and storms; a god of crafts, water, and creation (and Ea is his Babylonian name); a god of the daylight sky; and a hypostasis (a personified name for a quality) for destructive force. The only true parallel that can be drawn between any of those are Set and Ahriman; and the later only functionally describes the former.

In fact, the "Satan" of Satanism isn't Satan at all, it's a hypostasis itself for a number of qualities.

The name "Satan" also comes from Indo-European roots, with variations meaning things along the lines of "truth". The word was probably taken and distorted to mean "adversary" in Hebrew. I may be wrong, but this is what seems likely to me.

No, it does not, and I feel like this has been explained to you before. Satan is Hebrew, which is rooted in Afro-Asiatic languages, not Indo-European. It means "one who opposes, obstructs, or acts as an adversary." You are wrong, and will persist to be so until you heed correction.

Thursatrú – “Norse Satanism” This seems to be the predominant source for the religion.

That is an opinion-piece blog post. This blog post is informational presentation on Thursatru.

Odin can be summarized as the "god of the mind".

No, Odin can be oversimplified as the "god of the mind." Which glosses over that he is also a God of sex, magic, sacrifice, war, and death. More so than this, in a truly Heathen mindset the Gods are not archetyped into "the god of this & that". Odin is Odin, and he does what he will.

Thor, likewise, may be the strongest of all the Aesir, yet this is lent in large due to his belt, Megingjord. Strength also does not come from the mind, but from the physique and the muscles. I cannot will myself to benchpress 400lbs.

Baldr is also problematic to your archetyping. He is mentioned in very few poems and myths, and so not much is known of him. He is best known to be a God relating to goodness and daylight. Yet these are guesses--even the interpretation of him as a Summer God is relatively new. Yet none of his attributes are enlightenment and metaphorical light.

 

[Liu]

Thursatrú – “Norse Satanism”

This seems to be the predominant source for the religion. It's a new movement, probably something constructed in the past decade.

The predominant source is the book Gullveigarbók which is mentioned in it. But interesting read nonetheless, thanks.
it gives a very different impression from what you wrote in this thread yourself, though, so you might want to re-consider that.

That is an opinion-piece blog post. This blog post is informational presentation on Thursatru.

For an opinion-piece it seemed rather reliable, though, but thanks for that other link as well. I found no important contradictions between the two essays, and both are basically in agreement with what I know about it myself.

So, @Hammerheart I'd suggest you put those two links into the first post of this thread, and then they can be used as a solid base for further discussion (in which I'll refrain from participating as my perspective on this topic is really not very Pagan).

PS: @The Ragin Pagan , since that came up once again in this thread - what's with your thread about the etymological origin of Satan that you wanted to make? Or did I recall that wrongly?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I don't think I was going to make a separate thread (or at least, I don't remember intending to do so,) but most of what there is to tell is here.

 

[Liu]

I don't think I was going to make a separate thread (or at least, I don't remember intending to do so,) but most of what there is to tell is here.

I was referring to

For the origins of Satan, and that whole discussion, I may start a topic elsewhere to carry on that conversation. I've much to weigh in on it, a few criticisms (constructive) to give, and feel that there's much to discuss that several people could benefit from.

But never mind when I got that wrong.
It seems a bit too offtopic here, and I think I agree with your stance on it, but since the topic does come up now and then a separate discussion of it might be helpful.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Ah, so I did. Well, there's not much more to tell for Satan himself. A few common names like Beelzebub and Lucifer could stand for some expansion, and there certainly could be a separate thread for that if you all would like.

 

[VioletVortex]

No. The Christian "devil" is doctrinally Satan, an angel that fell from grace after challenging the throne. Theologically, this would make him satan-Samael.

Parallels made between those deities that you've mentioned are as vinegar-and-oil as the comparison that you try to make between Satan and Odin. You've got a god of chaos, darkness and storms; a god of crafts, water, and creation (and Ea is his Babylonian name); a god of the daylight sky; and a hypostasis (a personified name for a quality) for destructive force. The only true parallel that can be drawn between any of those are Set and Ahriman; and the later only functionally describes the former.

In fact, the "Satan" of Satanism isn't Satan at all, it's a hypostasis itself for a number of qualities.


No, it does not, and I feel like this has been explained to you before. Satan is Hebrew, which is rooted in Afro-Asiatic languages, not Indo-European. It means "one who opposes, obstructs, or acts as an adversary." You are wrong, and will persist to be so until you heed correction.


That is an opinion-piece blog post. This blog post is informational presentation on Thursatru.


No, Odin can be oversimplified as the "god of the mind." Which glosses over that he is also a God of sex, magic, sacrifice, war, and death. More so than this, in a truly Heathen mindset the Gods are not archetyped into "the god of this & that". Odin is Odin, and he does what he will.

Thor, likewise, may be the strongest of all the Aesir, yet this is lent in large due to his belt, Megingjord. Strength also does not come from the mind, but from the physique and the muscles. I cannot will myself to benchpress 400lbs.

Baldr is also problematic to your archetyping. He is mentioned in very few poems and myths, and so not much is known of him. He is best known to be a God relating to goodness and daylight. Yet these are guesses--even the interpretation of him as a Summer God is relatively new. Yet none of his attributes are enlightenment and metaphorical light.

My point in saying that Satanism is a form of Paganism is not that Satanism was originally a Pagan religion practiced by ancient Indo-Europeans. I am saying that it is a composite ideology of different Pagan traditions, hence it being a form of Neo-Paganism, much like Wicca.

I understand that all of the deities have many aspects, but isn't it more concise to say (especially for those new to Odinism) that "Odin is the god of the mind", Thor of physical strength, Freya of beauty and so on and so forth, even though it is truthfully much more complex than that.

You are right, you cannot will yourself into benching 400 pounds when in mundane circumstances, you would only be able to bench 100 or less. However, I think you are missing my point. You cannot directly will such great strength into existence. However, over time, with sufficient willpower, you will be able to gradually increase your strength to any reasonable goal.

You seem to think that a Pagan is obligated to match his views with the commonly accepted theology. I will put it this way-maybe I am not within your definition of a Heathen.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

My point in saying that Satanism is a form of Paganism is not that Satanism was originally a Pagan religion practiced by ancient Indo-Europeans. I am saying that it is a composite ideology of different Pagan traditions, hence it being a form of Neo-Paganism, much like Wicca.

This is taking a route that has been posed and discussed in another thread already. It should also be noted that some Pagans don't consider Neo-Wicca to be a form of Paganism.

I understand that all of the deities have many aspects, but isn't it more concise to say (especially for those new to Odinism) that "Odin is the god of the mind", Thor of physical strength, Freya of beauty and so on and so forth, even though it is truthfully much more complex than that.

Firstly, it should be made clear that Odinism is the volkisch "racist" element of Heathenry. Secondly no, it is best to present the Gods as they are, unabridged, so that misinformation does not take root.

I think you are missing my point. You cannot directly will such great strength into existence. However, over time, with sufficient willpower, you will be able to gradually increase your strength to any reasonable goal.

By developing my muscle mass and ability. Strength still does not come from the mind; only when grossly over-simplified. It's like saying that everything we are and do comes from the mind, because of either voluntary or involuntary actions. It glosses over and ignores the complex machine that is the human body and being.

You seem to think that a Pagan is obligated to match his views with the commonly accepted theology. I will put it this way-maybe I am not within your definition of a Heathen.

To put it bluntly, I don't just think you're not within "my definition" of Heathenry, but any definition of the religion. A point that is frankly frustrating, as you've been asking questions of Heathenry, but only to the goal of forcing it to align with your Satanic origins; something that you've stated yourself. You cannot fit a round peg into a square hole half its size.

 

[VioletVortex]

This is taking a route that has been posed and discussed in another thread already. It should also be noted that some Pagans don't consider Neo-Wicca to be a form of Paganism.


Firstly, it should be made clear that Odinism is the volkisch "racist" element of Heathenry. Secondly no, it is best to present the Gods as they are, unabridged, so that misinformation does not take root.


By developing my muscle mass and ability. Strength still does not come from the mind; only when grossly over-simplified. It's like saying that everything we are and do comes from the mind, because of either voluntary or involuntary actions. It glosses over and ignores the complex machine that is the human body and being.


To put it bluntly, I don't just think you're not within "my definition" of Heathenry, but any definition of the religion. A point that is frankly frustrating, as you've been asking questions of Heathenry, but only to the goal of forcing it to align with your Satanic origins; something that you've stated yourself. You cannot fit a round peg into a square hole half its size.

First of all, Wicca and Satanism aren't Paganism it it's purest form, they are Neo-Pagan religions, meaning they are modern constructs that don't intend to reconstruct any older forms of Paganism.

Odinism is not necessarily a Neo-Volkish movement. Asatru is similar, those most Volkish practitioner's believe that Asatru is to be confined to only those of Nordic descent, and that the beliefs are to be followed as spoken, whereas Odinists generally see it as a religion for all Europeans. Wotanism, on the other hand, was founded strictly as a front for Nationalism. Ancestry is important, but I don't think that our gods should be exploited to promote a political doctrine. The name was chosen because Wotan doubles as an acronym for "Will of the Aryan Nation", which is really stupid and demeaning to the actual deity. Heathenry, on the other hand, is an all encompassing term for any form of traditional Paganism that isn't Greco-Roman.

You can't work out without motivation and inspiration, otherwise, it would be boring, mundane work.

I think that this argument well illustrates the difference between two sides of Paganism. Some Pagans, like you, are more literally theistic, whereas others, like myself, are really polydeists, seeing the gods as personifications of various forces.

With that last statement, are you suggesting that I am more of a Satanist than a Pagan? I am open to any suggestions, as I am religiously confused.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

First of all, Wicca and Satanism aren't Paganism it it's purest form, they are Neo-Pagan religions

When I say "Paganism", I mean Contemporary Paganism (or "Neopaganism"). It is less cumbersome, and many don't enjoy the "neo-" prefix.

Odinism is not necessarily a Neo-Volkish movement. Asatru is similar, those most Volkish practitioner's believe that Asatru is to be confined to only those of Nordic descent, and that the beliefs are to be followed as spoken, whereas Odinists generally see it as a religion for all Europeans.

No... Odinism is the volkisch/folkish (it means the same thing) form of Heathenry. While you can find racist Ásatrúar (e.g. the Ásatrú Folk Assembly), you will have a much harder time finding tolerant and inclusive Odinists.

Heathenry, on the other hand, is an all encompassing term for any form of traditional Paganism that isn't Greco-Roman.

No it's not; it does not include the various Celtic cultures and pantheons, and only includes Slavic and Uralic pantheons depending on who you ask.

With that last statement, are you suggesting that I am more of a Satanist than a Pagan?

Yes.

 

[VioletVortex]

When I say "Paganism", I mean Contemporary Paganism (or "Neopaganism"). It is less cumbersome, and many don't enjoy the "neo-" prefix.


No... Odinism is the volkisch/folkish (it means the same thing) form of Heathenry. While you can find racist Ásatrúar (e.g. the Ásatrú Folk Assembly), you will have a much harder time finding tolerant and inclusive Odinists.


No it's not; it does not include the various Celtic cultures and pantheons, and only includes Slavic and Uralic pantheons depending on who you ask.


Yes.

I've always thought of Paganism as a synonym for Reconstructionism, and Neo-Paganism as any religion from a set of personal or newly created ideologies. For example, Thursatru is a form of Neo-Paganism.

I consider myself an Odinist, and I am on an Odinist form. I am fairly tolerant and somewhat inclusive. I have no problem with anyone choosing to follow Heathenry, however it will always be the religion of the Europeans. I saw a picture of a Nazi skinhead with an Odal rune tattoo, and I sometimes wonder if these people even know what the runes they're using mean, or if they are using them because they were used on Nazi military uniforms. Furthermore, I also wonder if these people are really supporting their people, or if they are using their ideology as an excuse to hate others. From what I see on the Odinist forum, most of the users there are similar to you in their beliefs regarding ancestry, saying that it is important but not necessarily a decisive factor.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I've always thought of Paganism as a synonym for Reconstructionism, and Neo-Paganism as any religion from a set of personal or newly created ideologies. For example, Thursatru is a form of Neo-Paganism.

Contemporary Paganism is Paganism today, whether it be reconstructionist or revivalist. Compared to paganism - sometimes written as "Arch-Paganism" or "Ancient Paganism".

I have no problem with anyone choosing to follow Heathenry, however it will always be the religion of the Europeans.

Meaning what? Do you believe the Gods to be bound within the confines of Scandinavia and Germania?

I saw a picture of a Nazi skinhead with an Odal rune tattoo, and I sometimes wonder if these people even know what the runes they're using mean, or if they are using them because they were used on Nazi military uniforms.

Odal was never - to my knowledge - used on Nazi uniforms. More than this, technically the Odal rune is applicable to their beliefs.

From what I see on the Odinist forum, most of the users there are similar to you in their beliefs regarding ancestry, saying that it is important but not necessarily a decisive factor.

I have stated that my ancestry is important to me, as it is my roots. I do not believe it to be important to my beliefs outside that biological fact. I can't say if they share this view - which would make them Tribalist - but I am quite uncomfortable being paralleled with Odinists.