GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2003-08 > 1059765983


From: "AGeorgeSand" <>
Subject: Re: An honest question, Re: Annalistic Writing - Ancient Ireland: SCIENCE and MYTHOLOGY -
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 21:26:23 +0200
References: <15.159fef75.2c483c5d@aol.com> <299f1138.0307191604.4ecb5a0c@posting.google.com> <3F1A435E.9050506@dcn.org> <299f1138.0307201532.7e142153@posting.google.com> <3F1C2159.2030303@dcn.org> <299f1138.0307211951.5434ce48@posting.google.com> <3F20AB6F.90901@dcn.org> <299f1138.0307250656.2d34dbbd@posting.google.com> <3F21870A.6060805@dcn.org> <299f1138.0307251854.4fc11338@posting.google.com> <3F256C72.6000001@dcn.org> <3F25E65E.9010601@interfold.com> <3F2620D1.4030003@dcn.org> <299f1138.0307311944.3abc3276@posting.google.com> <045b01c3580e$0f273500$0100007f@AnnieMobileUnit> <3F2A828B.7030107@interfold.com>


> So because Augustus did this, all gods are men with overactive
> egos?

most gods do in fact originate in mortal men who outdid themselves and their
peers, and were blown up in myth and legend; especially when other people
start
thinking about them and finding themselves outdoing themselves in turn...
this
strange power of mind... people have been trying to make sense of it, for a
long
time....

usually it's not a matter of their own egos... at least not at first...
people get tired of that, long before the god stage... it's about going
beyond
the limits and surviving the experience, charting the pathways that others
may
follow, but couldnt find themselves, etc...

Afraid I cant tell you where I read the Odin stuff because at the time, I
wasnt taking it very seriously; but took note that there was a historical
basis to it....

Odin turned out to be later than Jesus, which surprised me;
that he might figure "hey if it worked for him, it'll work for me" didnt
surprise me at all. I'm sure I found evidence for it on this list; try the
archives.

Im afraid I have just too much work at this time, to dig it out,
I think there are folks around here who know plenty well what sources tell
the story; I'll leave the discussion to others this time;
but I'd be glad to dig on it later...

if you're so very into intellectual honesty... you could trot out the
proper refs yourself, to defend the theory rather than attack it; an old
debate club trick, defending the opposing cause... an exercise of style, for
the truely accomplished ... show us your stuff; i'm sure you have the refs

sorry I cant help you myself for the moment... remind me in about six
months...
I suppose I shouldnt participate in the discussions until I have the free
time to back up my assertions, so I will politely withdraw, temporarily.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: An honest question, Re: Annalistic Writing - Ancient Ireland:
SCIENCE and MYTHOLOGY -


> AGeorgeSand wrote:
> > dear Jallan:
> >
> > "If Germans were tough does that mean that the genealogies in the
> > Anglo-Saxon Chronicle are correct and therefore the god Woden must be
> > considered an historic person?"
> >
> > Woden WAS a historic person, before he declared himself a god; he had a
> > family & his genealogy is somewhat known....
>
> Of course there is no evidence for these claims. That doesn't
> stop you from believing them, but should at least call for a
> qualifier or two.
>
> > Ceasar Augustus (and many others, including ALL the pharoahs)
> > also declared themselves gods, but that didnt stop them from being
> > historical persons... any more than it did Woden & his sons... don't you
> > ever read before you pontificate? you got a prejudice for Romans because
> > they had a sense of order?
>
> So because Augustus did this, all gods are men with overactive
> egos?
>
> > Woden got the idea of declaring himself a god, from Jesus, in fact... he
> > hung
> > himself on a tree, in imitation of Him, and poked out an eye, to gain
inner
> > sight...
>
> Source, "God it's Great to be God, the Unauthorized Autobiography
> of Woden".
>
> > Hardly a more scientific method than keeping what we have, unproven tho
it
> > be for the moment, until we find better, or some sort of disproof.
>
> No, actually, there is a more scientific method - evaluating
> everything before blindly accepting it. We have been through
> this before. Without such an approach, I could, today, invent a
> pedigree, and by these criteria, you would have to accept it
> until something better comes along.
>
> > Why would somebody invent that? to fool whom? you? insignificant worm in
an
> > unimagined future? hardly...
>
> For the same reason that someone would credulously accept it -
> because they want a longer pedigree than they have evidence to
> support.
>
> taf
>
>





This thread: