So I'm wondering how the various Asatruar view it. Do you view it as literal, metaphorical or otherwise?
Also, feel free to discuss it in general.
Also, feel free to discuss it in general.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Ragnarok
- Thread starter Saint Frankenstein
- Start date
I can't speak for other Asatruar, but I view it as somewhere in between metaphorical and literal. That is to say, it's one of many stories that metaphorically describes several literal things: the waxing and waning of the year; innocence, loss of innocence, return of innocence; life, death, and rebirth; new generations having identities separate from old generations; etc.
It's important to remember that the story of Ragnarok is intrinsically tied to the story of Baldur.
It's important to remember that the story of Ragnarok is intrinsically tied to the story of Baldur.
I'm not Asatru, but I know many.
As far as I know, many don't take Rangnarok as strictly literal. In fact, I only know of one literalist Asatru, and he's also die hard Folkish, so maybe that is a correlation of sorts?
As far as I know, many don't take Rangnarok as strictly literal. In fact, I only know of one literalist Asatru, and he's also die hard Folkish, so maybe that is a correlation of sorts?
I do think that it's possible the world will end to start anew, and Loki as breaker of worlds might have a part in that.
I don't necessarily subscribe to the belief in Ragnarok. I feel it has too many Christian parallels to definitively say that it's an indigenous European belief. There's Jormungand, who's the dragon, Surt is Satan, Loki is the anti-Christ and Fenrir is the beast, then in the end conveniently all of the "evil pagan" gods die, leaving Christians to say that only God survived because he wasn't weighed down by evil sin. It's also interesting and also convenient that Surt leads "the sons of Muspel" into the world, similarly to how in Revelation Satan brings demons and spread fire throughout the world.
I think that instead it's much more likely that ideas of these gods were corrupted by Christian influence into Northern Europe, and Armageddon ideas influenced Ragnarok.
I don't necessarily subscribe to the belief in Ragnarok. I feel it has too many Christian parallels to definitively say that it's an indigenous European belief. There's Jormungand, who's the dragon, Surt is Satan, Loki is the anti-Christ and Fenrir is the beast, then in the end conveniently all of the "evil pagan" gods die, leaving Christians to say that only God survived because he wasn't weighed down by evil sin. It's also interesting and also convenient that Surt leads "the sons of Muspel" into the world, similarly to how in Revelation Satan brings demons and spread fire throughout the world.
I think that instead it's much more likely that ideas of these gods were corrupted by Christian influence into Northern Europe, and Armageddon ideas influenced Ragnarok.