Why is it that we talk about the first few steps of Ragnarok in the past tense, (eg, the story of Sigurd, Balder's death), but Ragnarok in general is mentioned in the future tense. Does this mean it's an ongoing thing?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Ragnarok
Collapse
X
-
Thane
- Mar 2013
- 896
- Celtic/Germanic Polytheism
- Ontario, Canada.
- Come join the murder, Come fly with black, We'll give you freedom, From the human trap.
Re: Ragnarok
I'd like to say that I think Ragnarok is a Christian invention. It seems very close to the Christian apocalypse where the good vs. the evil. Then most of our gods and goddesses die and Balder becomes chief god, and balder shares many similarities with Jesus. Also I believe some of it is referred to in past tense because of when Christianity fabricated it, because they told all unconverted heathens that their gods were dying and that Balder was their Jesus so they were worshipping the new better god. So it was a tactic to convert Heathens.
Thats just my opinion though.White and Red 'till I'm cold and dead.
sigpicIn Days of yore,
From Britain's shore
Wolfe the dauntless hero came
And planted firm Britannia's flag
On Canada's fair domain.
Here may it wave,
Our boast, our pride
And joined in love together,
The thistle, shamrock, rose entwined,
The Maple Leaf Forever.
-
Time Lord Apostle
- Mar 2013
- 1541
- Christian, worships Yahweh and Jesus, but doesn't care if you don't.
- male
Re: Ragnarok
while Ragnarok in itself I don't believe was a Christian invention, as its actually very different from the apocalypse in Revelations (well, if you think there even is one in there, but that's a different thread!), the way the story has been told to us and recorded was definitely definitely Christianized, and changed.
Its definitely written in the past tense because the gods are supposed to be dead, and there is new leadership, so worship ours. However, I think this is due to how its being retold, rather than invented whole-cloth.
I think a good example in modern times would be a remake of an older movie that changes some elements along the way and has a different ending.
F
Comment
-
Sr. Member
- May 2013
- 142
- Greco Roman Polytheist and Dionysus Devotee
- male
- IL
- There is no cure for madness when the cure itself is mad-Euripides
Re: Ragnarok
Because the stories probably have different authors writing at different times. Also we can positively say that people aren't fighting with swords anymore and that Attila the Hun is dead (Sigurd) so we talk about his story in the past tense. We can't say that the Gods and Giants have fought their final battle yet though so were refer to this in future tense.
If however you are like me and you read the Eddas and other spiritual stories in an allegorical light then everything takes on a whole new meaning.
Comment
-
Re: Ragnarok
Originally posted by Chessa View PostWhy is it that we talk about the first few steps of Ragnarok in the past tense, (eg, the story of Sigurd, Balder's death), but Ragnarok in general is mentioned in the future tense. Does this mean it's an ongoing thing?
Comment
Comment