Androgynous/Homosexual Deities?

[Ula]

Re: Androgynous/Homosexual Deities?

Reverence alone does not make something a deity. They have existed long before the souls of mortals entered into bodies of flesh, they have never not existed, nor will they ever cease to be. Being deities is their nature. They were not "made" Gods and Goddesses. No one can make something a true deity except perhaps the holy ones themselves. Jormungand is the enemy of one of them, he is an enemy of the sacred balance, of harmony itself. The enemy of the Gods is also the enemy of the human race and all life. The Aesir are but a few among the ranks of the holiest of holies and I stand with them as I do with all others in this world and the next.

Also I think, in all sources I can remember, that Jormungand is referred to as "he". Of course, the gender of Jormungand has not been a great concern to me, so who knows?

At this point this turns in to a I am Asa, reconstructionist and I am right. We both have stated we are not Asatru or reconstructionist and we have both been plain about UPG. At this point it becomes a pissing match and there is no reason to keep going on over the same material. We don't agree, it happens.

[Raphaeline]

Re: Androgynous/Homosexual Deities?

Dionysis was male until he was castrated, thus changing his gendered status.

What are you talking about? His incarnation as Zagreus that was torn apart?

[Optimistic discord]

Re: Androgynous/Homosexual Deities?

Reverence alone does not make something a deity. They have existed long before the souls of mortals entered into bodies of flesh, they have never not existed, nor will they ever cease to be. Being deities is their nature. They were not "made" Gods and Goddesses. No one can make something a true deity except perhaps the holy ones themselves. Jormungand is the enemy of one of them, he is an enemy of the sacred balance, of harmony itself. The enemy of the Gods is also the enemy of the human race and all life. The Aesir are but a few among the ranks of the holiest of holies and I stand with them as I do with all others in this world and the next.

Also I think, in all sources I can remember, that Jormungand is referred to as "he". Of course, the gender of Jormungand has not been a great concern to me, so who knows?

Can we spin this into a seperate thread, I am interested to see more of your views on this, as many faiths have gods being killed/created. And many faiths also have mortals becoming immortal.
I may not agree with some of what you have said but I am curious to read more.

Jormungandr is describe as one of Loki's sons so I would assume he is male. An enemy of the sacred balance? That is certainly "an" interpretation of his role, though not one I am used to.

------
The question of gender-roles is an interesting one, Many cultures had a third-gender in antiquity (and still do) so it is not a modern concept.
Priests,seers,oracles were often a third gender and gods of many faiths had sexual lifestyles that bounced all over the place.

- - - Updated - - -

Some more deities for the mix:
Abrao
Aku
Awo
Mwari
Agdistis

Are a few.

[Corvus]

Re: Androgynous/Homosexual Deities?

The Ancient Greeks saw Dionysus as a castrated male. I'm not disputing that.

I'll dispute that. Are you sure you're not confusing Dionysus with Attis? (they do have some similar traits) I don't remember Dionysus ever being castrated.

If you're included castrated gods as genderqueer then include Attis. Though there is probably some other things that would tie him into this. He was a fertility god, consort of the goddess Cybele. He's an archetypal dying god where his self mutilation, death and rebirth represent the seasons and the crops. Attis's birth is pretty interesting as are the different variations of his death. His priests were all also eunuchs.

[Claude]

Re: Androgynous/Homosexual Deities?

Phanes-androgynous
Zagreus-male
Dionysus-male

The thing about the Dionysus myth that gets Him labelled as the LGBT savior god has nothing to do with castration. When He was young and hiding from Hera He was often dressed up as a female. Another thing that lends to His feminine qualities is that the majority of His representations show Him as a beautiful beardless youth which when compared to macho deities like Zeus or Poseidon made Him seem far less than manly.

The third as aspect that gives Dionysus this sort of air comes form the myths. On His way to the Underworld Dionysus found Himself in need of some directions. He asked this man to lead Him to the entrance and in return He would grant him one favor. The man asked Dionysus to have sex with him upon His return. Dionysus agreed and was shown the entrance to Hades. Unfortunately the man died after Dionysus reemerged from the Underworld. Dionysus immortalized him in a constellation if I remember correctly.

Dionysus was never castrated but some of the gods He is associated with were. Chief among them are Osiris and Attis.

[monsno_leedra]

Re: Androgynous/Homosexual Deities?

This particular story is not UPG it's from chapter 42 of the Prose Edda book Gylfaginning. Understand you don't like the position she's taken but no reason to rude about it. The conversation should and can be civil.

While I don't have the referenced book the story of Loki changing into a mare was to used a means to an end. In that instance to lure away the stallion that was aiding in the construction of a wall which would have allowed the giant to take Freja, Odin's wife. By doing so Loki directly causes the task to fail and Freja is not taken as the price. So sorry just because one uses a hammer for a task doesn't make them a carpenter. Just because one uses a sexual ruse to cause a task to fail does not make them bi-sexual or anything similar as it was a means to an end to achieve a desired result.

But like I said any story can be reworked to make it support ones agenda or position. Insisting upon Loki and a sexual slant removes all the fact he did it to stop or undermine a bet that was going to be lost otherwise.

[thalassa]

Re: Androgynous/Homosexual Deities?

I BELIEVE THAT Reverence alone does not make something a deity. I BELIEVE THAT They have existed long before the souls of mortals entered into bodies of flesh, they have never not existed, nor will they ever cease to be. I BELIEVE THAT Being deities is their nature. I BELIEVE THAT They were not "made" Gods and Goddesses. I BELIEVE THAT No one can make something a true deity except perhaps the holy ones themselves.

Personally, I completely and utterly disagree, but I fixed it for you, so that it finally makes for an accurate statement. Which is my problem with a good effing chunk of posts in this thread.

Because really, the only accurate statement one can make about the gods is that the ultimate nature of god is ultimately unknowable…except to the individual’s perception of and experience with god (and this includes the option that deities do not exist at all or that they all exist simultaneously). There is no such thing as an objective event, fact or state(ment) that one can make about a completely abstract idea that is entirely subjective. Because of that, there isn't a single god that can be measured, weighed, observed, photographed, or otherwise independently verified in a way that has ever garnered consensus. Additionally, different cultures (historical and modern) and individuals explain god in culturally relative and personally meaningful ways without any universal agreement or cohesion.

IMO, making an unqualified definitive statement about the nature of deities smacks of some pretty big hubris.

Which pretty much goes for this whole thread...and leads me to an official banket nasty-gram.

MOD NOTE TO EVERYONE: SHARE YOUR OPINION FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE AND STOP BITCHING ABOUT HOW OTHERS VIEW THINGS. IF YOU FEEL THE NEED TO DISAGREE, DO SO RESPECTFULLY AND WITH THE HUMILITY THAT THIS IS YOUR FREAKING OPINION. HECK, SUPPORT YOUR OPINION ALL YOU WANT, BUT SNIDE REMARKS AND CATTY RETORTS ARE NOT WELCOME, AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING NICE TO SAY, STFU.

Don't make me lock this shit because you all don't want to play polite.

And now, I'm going to follow my own advice and bow out...because I have very little to say regarding the last page or so that is nice.

[Lokabrenna]

Re: Androgynous/Homosexual Deities?

There's actually a great deal of queerness in the Norse pantheon:

While Freyr's sexuality is a matter of debate (my personal opinion is that it's much less of an issue for deities than it is for humans) in the Gesta Danorum, Tacitus mentions priests of Freyr who cross-dress and make "effeminate" gestures. They're so shocking that they even shock other Heathens at the time, and remember, these are priests, these are individuals who do religious things for a living.

There are a number of goddesses who take on "masculine" roles, like Skadi, Gefion, and Freyja. There's also some speculation that Njord may have originally been intersex or a goddess at some point, but this might be an outdated theory. In any case, there's definitely a tendency among modern Heathens to see Njord as, shall we say, "passive", especially when compared to deities like Odin. This in no way implies that he actually is, I'm just saying that the attitude is definitely there.

There's also some interesting connotations regarding the relationship between Frigga and Fulla. Fulla is said to be Frigga's sister, but it's interesting because not only is Fulla tasked with keeping Frigga's treasure box (which is a very important job) but also her shoes. In Old Norse, "shoe" is slang for "vagina", which leads one to wonder what the exact nature of their relationship is.

[Ula]

Re: Androgynous/Homosexual Deities?

While I don't have the referenced book the story of Loki changing into a mare was to used a means to an end. In that instance to lure away the stallion that was aiding in the construction of a wall which would have allowed the giant to take Freja, Odin's wife. By doing so Loki directly causes the task to fail and Freja is not taken as the price. So sorry just because one uses a hammer for a task doesn't make them a carpenter. Just because one uses a sexual ruse to cause a task to fail does not make them bi-sexual or anything similar as it was a means to an end to achieve a desired result.

But like I said any story can be reworked to make it support ones agenda or position. Insisting upon Loki and a sexual slant removes all the fact he did it to stop or undermine a bet that was going to be lost otherwise.

My faith is not an agenda. Get the hell over it.

[Dez]

[volcaniclastic]

Re: Androgynous/Homosexual Deities?

My faith is not an agenda. Get the hell over it.

Perhaps you missed the mod warning. This is the last time it'll be issued. If anyone in this thread has a personal problem with anyone else, handle it in private. Quarrel elsewhere.

[Ula]

Re: Androgynous/Homosexual Deities?

Perhaps staff should say something to the people who started the shit in the first place. Especially the one who does this shit almost every topic. That is staffs job right?

[MaskedOne]

Re: Androgynous/Homosexual Deities?

This is dead. Enough warnings have been given.

[thalassa]

Re: Androgynous/Homosexual Deities?

Perhaps staff should say something to the people who started the shit in the first place. Especially the one who does this shit almost every topic. That is staffs job right?

Actually, once a warning was given (by the way, the first time I even read this thread, thank the gods), the only person that continued to participate in a way that was obnoxious, was you. Period. End of story.

Which is the reason why I don't single people out in a first warning--it takes two to tango, or in this case, three or four...and really, the only problem at the point that I posted was that some people were taking dissenting views personally and turning what should have been a respectful debate or disagreement into an arguement. People can have discussions without agreement without turning it into a snarkfest...


Since we are well past first warning though, I'll point fingers. And since you seem to want to make this a public issue, I will be happy to oblige you. I was willing to overlook the first comment after my warning, that perhaps you had missed it...but the second comment, makes it fairly obvious. Thank you for proving my point, in why I DON'T single people out in a first warning. Everyone ELSE took the hint...

Or, as taken from the PF Rules (and I'm red texting the pertinent parts):

A Note from Staff Members Regarding Moderators & Moderation:

This is a privately owned, privately operated, privately funded (partially via donations) forum. It is not a free speech zone, and its not a democracy...and its not unique among forums for that. We allow most speech, and we are largely tolerant of dissenting views, but we don't tolerate bad manners. We've been doing this for over a decade, and we've come to a format that works for this community, so we enforce it. Yeah, it doesn't work for everyone that visits it. Not everyone fits in here, but there are lots of forums around if that is the case--its nothing personal if this is not the internet home for you.

Foremost, the mods and admin are members here, we come here for OUR enjoyment, and we don't get paid to do this. And actually, for those of us that PAID to purchase this forum from its previous owner, we have a bit more of an interest into making this a place that we enjoy coming to. As such, we curtail most off topic conversation, we don't allow trolling, spam, flaming, etc. We also don't allow racism, sexism, etc. And, we severely put down personal attacks. If someone starts something with other members, more often than not, we end up finishing it. Just so you know the difference between us chillin, and us doing our job, it will be in green if it is written by a mod, or in red if it is written by an admin.

Mod decisions are final. Period. Final. Exclamation point. Even if another mod disagrees, that disagreement is handled in private. We don't play good cop-bad cop or mom vs dad here. The other mods and admin will back up a mod or admin decision, period...and so will most of the members, even if they PM a private disagreement to a mod or admin over the matter. If you choose to argue with a mod in a thread, take a disagreement with a mod (or another member) to another thread, or otherwise spread around hate and discontent, you won't last long as a member.

DEBATE is encouraged (provided it is in a debate thread), DISAGREEMENT is encouraged (provided its not engaged in disrespectfully or with gross asshattery), but ARGUING just for the sake of argument or to have the last word or as a form of bullying is not. Arguing with a mod, or blatantly ignoring them will get a thread closed, period. If it becomes a personal habit, its one of the few things that will get you banned.