Let the Gods Speak To You

[Crimson Horizons]

Re: Let the Gods Speak To You

This is the part I think I understand the least of what you've had to say in relation to recon practise.

If the aim of a recon is to transplant a world view from one point in time to another, making the necessary adjustments to ensure the worldview is 'up to date', how can you be so sure that what was once a sacrifice is still a sacrifice? And what wasn't a sacrifice still isn't a sacrifice? How can you be sure of anything?

I mean, a lot has changed since the Ancient Norse times and it would be nice to think that had the Norse been able to keep their culture unhindered, then maybe they would have naturally progressed to being a more liberal society than they were. But as that didn't happen, aren't you just guessing like the rest of us as to what would be appropriate now?

As I said, I'm not going to issue any sort of blanket "this is/isn't a proper sacrifice" without knowing all the details, and as Rae'ya said, some of these things are more akin to votive offerings than proper sacrifices (depending entirely upon situations; a $20 sacrifice from a poor heathen is more worthy than a $2000 sacrifice from a rich heathen). What I am certain of is that sacrifice/offerings are still needed. This was how the ancestors traded with the Gods for centuries and I've seen or heard nothing to suggest that the ancient pact no longer holds.

Yes, they were big on the 'law'. But, and correct me if I'm wrong, they were big on the law THEY created for themselves. While it would have been bad to steal someone else's stuff, they didn't seem to have too many reservations about getting on a boat and stealing someone else's stuff who wasn't like them. So how can we say that they would care about the law of the land, when it really depended on which land they were in?

Well, yes, they were big on their law, certainly. Are we any different? Do Texans care about the variances in law in New Hampshire? Not generally. What is the level of care a Grecian has for Canadian law? Beyond a purely academic standpoint, I would wager 'not much'. So most of us only care about our own laws. As an American, our laws are set similarly to the way the Teutons would have set theirs (on paper anyway). Laws we don't like we abide by anyway while still trying to get them changed (ideally).

Now, as to your example, theft was frowned upon as a cowardly act. What you are describing would not have been considered theft but rather taking by force, which was okay outside of the community. It's reminiscent of the old adage you don't crap where you eat. Still, to stick with your basic premise, once going a-viking was no longer an acceptable thing, the ancestors stopped.

I don't mean those questions to sound rude. I found your entire post very interesting. But I couldn't find a way to ask those questions without being quite blunt. (And I tried for a good half hour!)

No worries at all! I have quite a thick skin and appreciate blunt questions. I myself tend to occasionally forget that inflection and intonation don't always translate well in written text. The way I see it, so long as insults aren't hurled, then insults aren't intended.

The thing that bothers me is that they obviously were doing this because they thought it was cool and not because they believed in it, so I was offended when they told me I wasn't performing my rituals correctly.

We have very little evidence of how rituals would have been performed. Some heathens prefer flowery, intricate rituals. Some prefer short, blunt rituals. Whatever the case, anyone who showed up and said "Crimson, you're doing it wrong", and didn't have a mountain of historical and anthropological evidence to back them up would get a solid boot to the backside on their way out my door. The thing about our worldview is that there were so many differences (little though many would have been) based upon the region and timeframe. Some areas fancied Thorr, some Odin, some Freyr. My kindred bears some similarities to those in, say, New Mexico (we'd likely be welcome at each others' meetings, if we knew the hypothetical kindred well enough) but we don't practice the same.

That last sentence is, I think, one of the defining factors that puts someone in the 'not-hardcore recon' category. Which is actually why I use the term 'hardcore recon' when I talk about the sorts of recons that are being mentioned in this thread. I'm sure you know the ones... the ones who give being a recon a bad name. You'll notice that whenever I make a comment that is remotely disparaging, it's about 'hardcore recons', not 'recons'. That's because I very specifically do not wish to generalise and tar all recons with that brush... because I know there's quite a difference in attitudes and worldview.

Interestingly, I sometimes feel that liberal recons need to drop the 'recon' label and use something else instead (just plain 'Heathen' seems appropriate to me). Because at the other end of the spectrum you have people claiming to be a recon Heathen, and yet doing very little that is truly attempting to reconstruct the worldview of our ancestors. Or adopting very modern ideas about the gods, which don't match at all with what we know about how our ancestors thought and dealt with the gods. I wonder if the internet and the increase in solitary Heathens has led to similar phenomenon that we see with Wicca vs neo-Wicca. I have certainly see 'recon Heathens' and 'traditional Heathens' who are not particularly traditional in their worldview and practice... which is fine, but it muddies up the terminology and facilitates unfair generalisations. So both extremes have their disadvantages. But that's off topic.

I don't disagree. My Kindred is a Heathen kindred. I introduce myself (where appropriate) as a Heathen. It's only when I start talking to other Heathen's that I add the classifier 'recon'. To me, it's what I am, I reconstruct the worldview and practices as best as I can given my resources. I guess, if I'm being honest, I'm more a revivalist. I recognize the holes in what information we have and fill them with what feels accurate, both historically and culturally. I have built something (reclaimed it, really) to pass down to my children in a way that's natural. Is it 100% historically accurate^TM? No, but I also wouldn't turn down information saying that something I do is wrong, provided it goes into great depth with many sources about how to do it right.