“Darker” Gods Are Misunderstood but Necessary.

I’m one of those odd pagans that like to learn new things. I ask questions and sit back, waiting for the information to role in. When it comes to others’ paths, I am doubly fascinated. On Twitter, I know a ton of people with different spiritual and religious practices. I know ceremonial magicians and I know Heathens, I know Vodouisants and hoodoo root workers, I talk with Asatru and Kemetics and CRs and Hellenismos. Pretty much on my Twitter feed, if you’ve had anything to do with anything with paganism, I’ve got someone in that particular tradition or path added in some form or another. When I can’t find answers in groups or via the Internet or I’m just beyond mind-blown with information and can’t possibly handle looking up more, I turn there for answers. I received a bunch of answers to my questions today by TreeGoldandBeeGold and Semiotechnic.

I was asking about the Troth because apparently, they’re against Loki being saluted in public or something. I didn’t understand why this was. So those two lovely users explained that it was due to his roll as the adversary, so to speak. I likened it to his being like Lucifer: There are Christians out there who salute him in some way, but they’re in the minority. And in effect, that seems to the case with this Heathen/Asatru organization.

And I found myself thinking about this.

For a while, I was likening it a bit to people’s misunderstanding of both Sutekh and Sekhmet in the Kemetic pantheon. There are a lot of people out there who get hung up on the more negative associations with these two gods. On the one hand, we have Sekhmet who went off on a bender and tried to kill humanity, first at the request of her father and then later, because she was drunk with the blood of humanity. People seem to get hung up on this because this is the first and really, only, myth about Sekhmet. They don’t seem to realize that if she wanted to go on a bender again, she would have. The same can be said for people with Sutekh, and actually more often than is the case with Sekhmet. They’ll hear that someone is a Sutekh kid and jump back in fear. He’s an “evil” god of chaos and what they don’t seem to understand is that he was very part and parcel to the Kemetic pantheon, once upon a time. His image went through a very long and drawn-out vilification process.

The thing is that people (and gods, too) change. The things they once believed or held dear may morph into something new. The things they did in the past may not hold as much weight today as they did then. And from what I’ve felt from my working with Sekhmet, she isn’t the kind of “beastie” that would just go off and kill humanity for shits and giggles anymore. She laughingly has referred to that part of her life as her “youth-filled days.” She’s thousands upon thousands of years old now and has learned a lesson or two in all that time. But, with Sutekh, there’s something different I want to go on with this one. It leads into the rest of this post, but let me first add this little caveat: I am not a Sutekh kid. He has never once approached me. The information I’ve gathered about him is mostly gleaned from forums and blog posts of Sutekh kids. (In other words, if I get someone wrong, someone say something please!)

In regards to Sutekh, he seems to have come to the realization that what he did against Wesir and Heru were necessary evils. This is something that people don’t seem to realize happen, either in the realm of the gods or in the realm of humanity. Some evils that are committed are necessary. For example, if we have another Hitler coming into power and someone has the ability to kill that person, then for the greater good of humanity, isn’t that one of those necessary evils that should be committed? In killing the person and going against the laws of ma’at, we are also upholding ma’at.

The case of Sutekh is very similar to this. If it wasn’t for him, then ma’at would not have been Photobucket upheld. I can’t quite comment on how he was upholding ma’at when he was getting rid of Wesir or fighting it out with Heru, but Sutekh is at the head of the barque of Re. He is the god that faces Apep each night on the journey in the underworld. Each night, Sutekh is sitting there with his spear while the gods behind and the mortals behind arm themselves with knives and magic spells. Each night, Sutekh and Apep battle it out and each night, Re remains victorious with the help and aid of the “chaotic” and “evil” god that is Sutekh. If not for him and his spear, there is no telling if the end of the world would have happened already. Even though he is such an “evil” guy he goes through the battle each night and he comes out victorious. This, however, is part of the god that people don’t seem to either remember or understand.

He upholds ma’at by aiding and abetting the solar barque. Chances are, he was upholding ma’at by fighting with Heru and by taking the kingship from his brother. Though an “evil” god, he still has his place in the role of ma’at.

Now, as I understand it, there is a similar concept in Heathenry. In Kemetism, the whole big shebang is led about by ma’at, which can be construed as order and truth. In Heathenry, if my research is telling me right, their version of this is called orlog and wyrd. Now orlog seems to be translated as “primal law.” In effect, from what I’ve been reading, it is this law that all beings follow. Everything that is created is done with the rules of orlog in effect, which leads me to believe that this may be the case with necessary evil, but I’m getting ahead of myself. The other word, wyrd, seems to mean a kind of fate. From what I’ve been reading about it, it’s kind of like the energy you put into orlog. Now, I will fully admit that I can’t really wrap my head around these concepts and someone was nice enough to point out that these are things people can spend, literally, their whole lives trying to understand. But, from my perspective in Kemetism, it kind of seems to me that orlog is ma’at under a different name. It is all things and it is nothing. It is the way of the world, but it is through wyrd or heka that it is put into play. (NOTE: Anyone with a Heathen, Asatru, vague Nordic background want to try to learn me on this, do it. Please. I am begging you. You have no idea how long I’ve been hemming and hawing about this particular section.)

It is with my background in Kemetism, my worship of Sekhmet, and my friending of a number of Sutekh kids that I get to the gist of all of this. (OH MY GODS. THIS WAS ALL JUST LEADING UP TO SOMETHING?!?!) What I’m thinking is that we’re taking this whole basis of the “darker” gods being dark, but we’re forgetting that they have significant roles in the lives of the gods and ours as well. We can lump them under some happy-toned little group and leave it at that, but they all have necessary roles to play during all of this. Loki’s is, ultimately, to bring about Ragnarok. Sutekh’s is to, ultimately, steal the kingdom from his nephew, as he did steal it from his brother. Sekhmet’s is, ultimately, to bring about the end of mankind again. Each one of these gods has a very negative connotation, but they also have significant positive roles to play in our lives and in the realm of the gods. Sekhmet is the goddess of healing. Sutekh protects Re from Apep and succeeds, every night. And Loki seems to have helped the gods, to either positive or negative effects, when needed.

I guess what I’m saying is that these gods all have negative looks and feels to them but these are necessary evils. These are all things that are bound to happen and that the laws of the realm, the world, the gods, the universe, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the whatever all need. Without light, there is no dark. Without life, there is no death. Without law, there is no disorder. I kind of went through this when I was talking about ma’at for the first time, in my isfet entries. (Link below.) Just because they’re all seen as bad doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re not around for the greater good. These beings are all so “evil” and everything, but we forget that sometimes you need a little evil. Sometimes, the darkness is as necessary as the lightness. Otherwise, what’s the point?

Relevant Post
1. Isfet…

33 thoughts on ““Darker” Gods Are Misunderstood but Necessary.

  1. I think it all depends on your definition of “evil.” As humans, we tend to be a little bit…narcissistic about it. Evil is, to us, anything that harms us or anything we perceive harms us. It’s all about us…

    And so the darker gods are seen as evil because we perceive their actions as harmful. If we step outside tho…well, we have trouble doing that. Because, after all, we *are* human. Still, if we can at least acknowledge that bad things do happen for good reasons, maybe…just maybe…we can see a small, atom-sized drop of the big picture and relax a little. Maybe.

    Our language is so riddled with words that don’t quite cover it…white/black, good/evil, light/dark…when it *definitely* would seem to be that it would change drastically depending on where you’re standing at that moment.

    As usual, my 2 cents plus lots and lots of extra change. ;-)

    • Yes. Since we are so two-dimensional (in our three-dimensional bodies) we never stop to think about the aspects that are shades of gray. Loki and what he did could be construed as a shade of gray. Sutekh and his work with Heru is another thing that is shades of gray. But because we’re so hyper focused on the good versus evil fight (possibly a leftover from Christian dogma practices we were raised in?), we tend to forget that there are some things in the realm of gray that are NECESSARY.

  2. Okay, sticking my neck out here. *grin* My own (Lokean, non-Heathen, UPG-heavy, spiritwork-influenced, to-be-taken-with-your-customary-dose-of-sodium-chloride, YMMV, etc.) understanding of orlog and wyrd is that they’re both related to what people think of as Fate–just different parts of it. Orlog is more or less your total balance of actions and experiences to date–your karma, if you will. Wyrd is what you’re meant or Intended to do on your life path (which for a lot of people is a “Create Your Own” sort of deal). So in this view they’re intrinsically linked and inform each other, and are pretty similar to what you’ve written here–just completely different, LOL.

    …But then, I’m just one of those hippy-dippy Northern Trad. folks. What do I know? :P

    (And yeah, I did plenty of hemming and hawing of my own with this reply. I sooooo do not feel qualified to Edumacate the Masses about this kinda thing… especially since my own understanding of it is limited and probably Not Mainstream At All.)

    • Thank you for trying! I’ve gotten some comments on it from an FB group (the one that started this post, actually). And everyone opinion seems to be entirely different.

  3. A lot of the problem is that most people just don’t have a clue. We’re misled by the animal heads, and the late, late Greek stories. OMG, Anubis is the Evil God of Death! People confuse jackals with hyenas, when in fact they’re cute coyotes. Evil if you’re a chicken farmer, I guess.
    Bast is the Cuddly Kitteh! If people were more familiar with Wenut, she’d be the Divine Bunneh. Bast and Wenut are avenging Eyes of Ra, every bit as much as Sekhmet. Hethert is the placid cow, who has 2 foot long spear horns and hooves that can crack a skull. The very things that meant something to the Egyptians mislead us.
    In preparing my Kemetic Intro, it occurred to me that the Egyptians with their symbols were like modern physicists trying to explain a cosmic process. It’s the understanding that’s important, not the story.

  4. The things with Set is that in order for Heru to become the person he needed to be he had to be pushed. So Set pushed him, hard. With most Dark Gods there is that element of overcoming one’s own fear in order to attain mastery over one’s Self. In my opinion Set didn’t really want the Kinship and neither did Heru, but Set saw in Heru great promise, so he pushed Heru into that position by competing with him. In essence is tricked Heru into wanting and them winning the crown.

    I have served Loki for quite some time now and I used to get the whole “OMG how can you serve Loki he’s evullll!” type of spiel from people, especially those who identified with Thor. I would quickly remind them of several things. Loki and Odin (Wotan) were blood brothers and Loki was best friends with Thor and they had many dangerous amusing adventures together.

    In the story of the death of Balder (which Loki is most known for) there is a hard lesson to be learned and things which are not understood by many Heathens because they do not consider the story in the context it was written, namely how the blind and infirm were treated (often abandoned into the wilderness to die since they were essentially dependent upon others for sustenance and offered little to the tribe). They also fail to remember that the Aesir were in a state of perpetual war with the Jotuns (Frost Giants) and so had to keep vigilant less they be overcome.

    In the story Balder (who is a peace loving person and a bit of a pacifist) calls out to his brothers ans sisters to put down their arms and follow a way of peace. Many of the Aesir do this and become somewhat complacent. Loki sees the danger in this, as their being complacent will lead to an easy victory for the Jotuns over the Aesir. he is unsure how to deal with the matter as no one will listen to him. One day Balder has a dream in which he sees his own death and he goes to his brothers and sister and explains what he saw in his dream. To avoid the dream coming true all the Aesir (except Loki) go out into the world and extract promises from every living plant and animal that they will do no harm to Balder. They overlook one small plant, the mistleto as they see it as inconsequential. So to celebrate his invulnerability the Aesir throw a gala for Balder and have fun by throwing various objects at him (which had already made the promise not to hurt Balder). Loki disguises himself as a woman and looks around and asked all the animals and plants it they had made the same promise not to hurt Balder. All answer yes, until he comes across some mistletoe who says it was never asked and so never gave the promise. Loki now sees his opportunity to save his people by eliminating Balder and restoring them to their warrior ways. He goes to Hod with his sprig of mistletoe and asks him to shoot Balder, which he does, killing Balder. All the Aesir are aghast until the see Loki and realize he is the one responsible. They give chase but are unable to catch him. Balder goes to the Underworld, called “Hel” which as it turns out is overseen by Loki’s daughter. She says that if every creature of Midgard (Earth) weeps for Balder then she will release him. So they set about to get every living thing to weep for Balder and got everyone and everything to do so until they came upon and old hag (Loki in disguise) who refused to weep for Balder (thus condemning him to Hel until after Ragnarok). In the myth is it Hod who lets loose an arrow with a sprig of mistletoe attached that kills Balder, though Hod was said to have been blind. I call your attention to another Saxon myth (Saxon is the English term for Norsemen) of Robin Hood. In this tale there is a man called Little John, who was actually a giant of a man. He was called this in order to fool enemies. Often times when two bands of fighters met one another, they would call forth their best warriors to fight and whomever was the victor won the battle for their side. So calling himself “Little” John would fool the enemy into possibly choosing someone not so adept in battle and enabling Robin Hood’s forces to easily get the victory over on their enemies. The same is true of Hod. How wasn’t actually blind, but was keen of eye and deadly with a bow. This is how he was able to kill Balder with a single shot and not miss once.
    So Loki’s actions while on the surface may seem evil, they actually served a great good, for which he was severely punished.
    It also must be mentioned that were it not for Loki, Odin wouldn’t have Sleipnir, Thor would not have Mjolnir and many of the various Aeisr would not have their magical gifts because it was Loki who obtained all those things for them by betting the Dwarves (Loki wagered his own head) they could not fashion such remarkable devices.

    On the useage of the word “Lucifer” I must make a slight correction.

    • Well, see the thing with Lucifer is that I know people who do follow him. And it’s definitely LUCIFER that they’re following, not Satan. And again, this is a topic that I’m very leery of starting because I don’t know a lot about it and I haven’t done a lot of research on it.

      • I was just pointing out that in Christianity Lucifer is equated with Satan, but the reality is that the term “light bringer” or “morning star” is attributed to holy beings such as Jesus as is mentioned in the article. I’ve been on quite a few Luciferian forums in my time and what I took away from them is that the Luciferians don’t so much worship a being called Lucifer. They serve the Concept of Lucifer, that is to say not being under someone boot heel and being subservient to others. If people do actually worship a being known as Lucifer then I would ask who this being is because if it’s not Jesus or Beelzebub then who is left?

        • I don’t know. I think that the person they’re following is Lu. (One of the blogs I follow is in this group and I’ve never had cause to doubt her.) Maybe it’s a fallen angel who liked the name?

  5. Respectfully…This entire collection of points has been brought up and discussed to death, then necroed and discussed again on heathen forums. Heathenry does not typically call for the dichotomy you are describing. Loki is *not* typically thought of in heathen circles as any Christian idea of devil or adversary. He is a literary construct who has no historically known instances of worship. The Eddas are not scripture, but oral traditions transcibed by a Christian scholar. Therefore it behooves the heathen to look to preceding evidence (uncorrupted by Christian influence) when coming to the actual practice of honoring the Ancestors, Wights, Alfar, Gods. While the Eddas are not scripture, they still to a degree show the modus operandi of each God. Loki’s proclivity is being a traitor at the end of a long list of problems he caused in the first place.
    Does it make sense to invite someone over, and at the same event invite someone who absolutely screwed the person over and now wants to kill them? If you are drinking to the Aesir and Vanir, you’re seriously going to toast one of their enemies?

    • What’s an “Alfar”?

      I guess my thoughts on it are just… Kemetic. I didn’t realize that there was a different set of thought processes that went into religions until just this moment, so I’m sorry about that. I always just kind of seen the whole shebang, either it being of a Nordic or Kemetic or Greek variant, that all of that was in the past and since then the gods have grown to see what they did as X, Y, and Z and are now past that point. As I said in the entry, Sekhmet has laughingly told me that her destruction of mankind was a youth-filled moment. And I tend to think of what deities did back then as their youth-filled days, myself. Thousands of years have passed since then, and so, they’ve all “grow up” so to speak. Just my two-cents there.

      That being said, I had no idea that Loki wasn’t in the Eddas. When I looked him up earlier there were references to him in all these poems and whatnot…? And while I did look via Wiki, I assumed that those poems meant that he was in the book, so to speak.

      • Loki is in the Eddas, and plays an important role within that story environment. The reason why I pointed out that the Eddas are not scripture is partially because he is part of it as a tragic villain.
        Alfar is an archaic Norse reference to elves, but there are some important distinctions between the Alfar and other European elves. Their tendencies and personifications change from region to region. Alfar are more along the lines of sacred and ancestral beings, either of light or darkness. Light elves are honored much like deities.

    • I have never seen Loki as an enemy of the Aesir. What I saw was someone who expected more out of his friends than what they were apparently able to give. As I pointed out the Aesir wouldn’t have become as prominent as they did without Loki’s assistance in many instances. Freya was kidnapped, only to be brought back by the combined efforts of Thor and Loki, Thor had his hammer stolen, which was found by Loki and with Thor’s assistance returned. Thor at one time took the only two children of a poor couple, turned them into goats and used them to pull his chariot. Yes that is so admirable! (sarcasm)

      I also tend to read between the lines in the Prose Eddas. I don’t use Snorri Sturlson’s translations as in my opinion they contain a built in bias to discredit the Norse myths. Also in the Lokasenna the trading of insults was a time honored tradition in the culture and not the same as it is now.
      You speak of Loki being a traitor but in the Lokaseena, Loki reveals all of the secrets of the of the Aesir, how Odin broke his own mandate of not killing inside Asgard, how Sif was supposedly faithful to Thor (yet she had relations with Loki) and so on. Basically Loki called them on their hypocrisy and they didn’t like it. When Loki took flight from his “friends”, they not only captured him but in the process killed one of his sons. Consider that Loki was bound with the entrails of his son (which he could have easily broken out of) but because he obviously still felt affection for his dead son, he doesn’t at first.
      You speak of someone being screwed over but for my part I don’t recall a single instance of Loki (unlike the Aesir) killing a member of someone’s family when they couldn’t get to the culprit. So in my opinion your conclusions are flawed and rather than see the Aesir for the imperfect beings they were, you would rather peer through rose colored glasses.
      Basically the Aesir were a bunch of hypocrites who refused to change their ways when called to account and punished Loki for daring them to change. This reason is why he turned upon them and became their enemy. To that end I say good riddance.

      • I will also add that there was nothing in the Lokesenna that was said by Loki towards the Aesir that was untrue. What made the prose offensive was that the Aesir were unwilling to admit their faults and punished Loki for bring them into the light.
        So what is a person to do when they are vilified over and over for trying to make their friends see the truth of their own shortcomings? In Loki’s case he realized it was a lost cause.
        As to your comment about Loki never being worshipped. That is up for debate as most Christians (as an example) today are unaware of groups like the Setians (xeper.org), the Luciferians, etc. So unless you’re a historian with a firm grasp of Old Norse or Icelandic, then you really cannot make that assertion with any degree of authority. Just because it wasn’t written down doesn’t mean there were groups who did honor Loki.

        It’s also not my intent to argue with you. I realize my point of view is not accepted in some Heathen circles (but are in others), such is why I do not belong presently to any such circles. Personally I don’t understand why certain ones are “worshipped” (with their many flaws) and others are vilified when the evidence plainly shows that without the “villain” the “heroes” would never have reached the heights they eventually attained. In my opinion Loki personifies more of what a “hero” actually is than any of the Aesir or Vanir combined because he was willing to fight against the odds and push his friends to greater glory, all the while being unappreciated for his sacrifices including the death of some of his children at the hands of those he called friends. When your friend behaves like an enemy, then one has no recourse but to strike back and defend one’s own family. Yet some historians like Snorri Sturlson have attempted to villianize what they truly did not understand. The Norse culture is not so black and white. I learned a long time ago that in order to actually understand a particular mythos, one had to understand the context and cultural setting in which it was written. I think many Heathens have failed to understand this.

  6. I think with Loki, another thing to consider are the differences between our luxuriant, sheltered modern lives and the brutal, exposed lives of the past. Bjorn from 1 AD would *never* consider Loki a necessary evil that brought transformative change to his spiritual life and emotion well-being. No one had the time for that type of spiritual reflection, not when they’re preparing against frost, wild boar, wild fires, a neighboring invading tribe, sickness and disease, etc. The presence of bad luck, danger, misfortune was a reality everyday, that had a much larger impact on their lives. Loki probably was to ancient heathens as the bad economy is to modern Americans.

    [Since there isn’t much evidence of Loki as an actual known entity in pre-christian heathenry, this reply uses Loki as a catch-all term for that specific God as well as trolls, frost giants, etc. “Bad gods”.)

    • I was hoping you would comment!

      And I definitely have to agree with you there. We, as removed from the hardships of living back then, are able to philosophize about it. We’re able to see things in a context that back then just wasn’t done or thought about. As you said, they had more important things to do with their time and those things were, quite probably, the very things that were the difference between life and death.

      That being said, we have to wonder (as pagans) if maybe the philosophy part of the religion is something we should consider as being part and parcel or if we should jettison it and live as close to their way as we can.

      • *Chuckles* …Honestly, I don’t even know if I want to go there! As has been mentioned, this issue has been picked over to death (at least in heathen circles). There was a convo recently about how, if you worship the Jotun, then they aren’t Jotun/Giant/Troll anymore– they’re just Gods (think Skadi). Gods bring value, those beings that don’t just aren’t given that status. So, if Loki brings value to your life then he’s a god plain and simple. And it should be about *your* life (involving family and community) and no one else’s because its a folk tradition not a pan-germanic orthodoxy.

        That being said, there’s nothing wrong in finding just straight up bad entities in our lives despite our modern conveniences. We aren’t completely separated from the past that we don’t experience negativity. We can rationalize it and philosophize about it, but sometimes? A monster is just a monster. Sure, some good may come from the contact, but that’s just the natural cycle of life anyway.

        It’s a choice, I suppose. You can view Loki’s influence in the context of necessary evils, or you can instead view his influence in the events of random shittiness. Reconstruction probably doesn’t have much to do with it. Its probably more about being a half glass full or empty type person.

        (Personally, I avoid him the way people avoid Odin. I just try to fly under the radar and let people who want to hash that out have my share of the experiential data. ;) )

  7. The thing about Loki’s role as a “darker” entity is that it is rather added on to begin with – if you compare Saxo’s version of Balder’s death to Snorri’s, it becones obvious that Loki was added in for the now mostly Christian readership. Mathias Moosebrugger discusses this at length in, “Recovering the Snorri Edda: On Playing Gods, Loki, and the Importance of History.”
    I also strongly suggest Lewis Hyde’s “Trickster Makes This World” for a broader perspective on Loki and Trickster Gods in general. One of Hyde’s main points is that monotheistic cultures often demonize Tricksters for their moral ambiguity. Because we as polytheists were raised in a larger culture of monotheism, reactions to Loki tell us more about where we are in recovering our own indigeny than about Loki Himself.

    • So what it sounds like, to me, is that the Christians needed a devil, so to speak, and Loki was nominated for the roll?

      Thanks for the book recs! I definitely need the “Trickster Makes This World” book. Having one in my house is fine and dandy, but I know little about the trickster side of him and more about his, well, crossroads part. So, thank you.

  8. Pingback: Dark, Evil, Negative: My Feelings on “Those” Gods. | Mystical Bewilderment on The Spiritual Turnpike

  9. Why people pay attention to Snorri — a mid-12th century Icelandic Christian lawyer — as a PRIMARY source, I’ll never know. As a Medievalist, all the Snorri-worship that goes on within the mainstream Heathen community pisses me the eff off. Everyone seems to harp on the Loki-bashing think like it’s the Gospel, but conveniently ignore Snorri’s treatise that the Aesir were actually from Asia” (“Asa-Land” = “Asia,” gotta love flawed etymologies), and that these backwater Norse hicks couldn’t handle the departure of their beloved heroes, so they idiotically built up religious cults around them.

    Seriously . . . Modern Heathens are going to build a religion upon Snorri’s almost-worthless writings, 200 years removed from the Viking Age? I’m ashamed and embarrassed FOR Modern Heathenry. Go to college, guys. Fordham’s a good school. Gods. The only thing those SECONDARY SOURCE books are good for are for understanding the structure of Medieval Scandinavian poetic form. Not primary sources, not in any language. Try again.

    • Yeah, but as Kemetics, we’ve based a lot of our stuff on what anthropologists have written down. Not to the same extent as other cultures, obviously, but a lot of what we’re taking for fact comes from an outsider’s point of view. So, it’s kind of like… a grain of salt is always necessary when someone is writing a book about X religion and you’re thinking about reconning said religion.

  10. Also, to regurgitate a lot of the conversation we were having on another discussion forum (for the sake of facilitating further discussion):

    For some reason, the overwhelming majority of Kemetics (whether Orthodox or otherwise) seem to be able to wrap their heads around the theology, and say “okay, these Gods are necessary for these reasons, whether we like Them or not.” I feel that way about Gods like Heru-sa-Aset, Aset, and Wesir, Whom I’m not very “close to” at all. I still find room in my head and heart to show some damn respect for Them and Their devotees. But somehow, mainstream Heathens (most of them) can’t seem to do this for Lokeans, though Lokeans do for the other Gods, and often worship many of the “acceptable” Gods. Why is this the case? Why are things so hateful and one-sided? What the crap, guys? What’s with the trading God-Jesus-Satan for Odin-Thor-Loki? If I wanted to deal with regurgitated Baptist ideology masquerading as Norse religion, I’d take a nail gun to my face and call it a day.

    At least as far as the Kemetic Orthodox Temple is concerned, there’s no “ebil God of foreigners we don’t want to deal with” sentiment floating about in regard to Sutekh. That tends to be the province of those heavily Judeo-Christian, Black Supremacist “Egyptian Order” types. Temple of Set people, LaVeyans, and Michael W. Fordians tend to play up “ZOMG SET IS THE GAWD OF DARKNESS AND TUNA DRAGONS SUMMONINS” thing, which is equally annoying and likewise glosses over the nuances of Egyptian theology, extracting Him from His context (shamelessly plugging my “article” of Sutekh here :P – http://warboar.wordpress.com/2011/09/08/why-do-you-worship-sutekh/ ).

    Why many mainstream Heathens cannot seem to attempt to understand and accept Loki as part of a functional Multiverse the way the overwhelming majority of Kemetics of various stripes manage to do with Sutekh, I’ll never quite understand. No one says you have to LIKE or worship every damn one of the Gods ever — I mean, historically, no one would have known of EVERY God outside of their own city and within their own culture, let alone their neighbors’; we tend to look at Ancient and Early Medieval panoplies and religion cumulatively rather than periodically, which makes matters hella-confusing. And some of the Gods we worship now, including the uber-popular ones like Skadhi, probably didn’t have cults way back when — place names really don’t mean a whole lot when you have no unmistakeable archaeological evidence to back that worship, and virtually no written texts (that aren’t Christian and 200 years removed — that would be like me writing about the Civil War, pretending to have BEEN THERE and knowing jack-shit about everything that went on).

    Anyway, point is, whether you adhere to this or that God’s worship, They’re part of a functional Creation, and someone else does. Basic respect is mandatory; participation in worship is not. Most mainstream Heathens, more so than most, need to learn the meaning of the honor and hospitality they so obnoxiously and hypocritically preach.

    Pardon my anger, but this Loki-hating/Lokean-hating tripe is ridiculous, childish, intellectually-stunted, and entirely infuriating.

    • Honestly, I wonder if this whole thing is a kind of growing pain. I’ve mentioned before that seems like the Heathen section of paganism has really been taking off lately, more so than say Greek or Kemetic even. There’s larger groups out there and in so doing, they’re trying to make things more stream-lined and easier for new recruits. The thing is that every major religion had schisms and issues before they got to what we see them as today.

      Christianity is the perfect indicator here. Before the councils that decided what was appropriate dogma, everyone was worshiping however they so desired and they were talking about sections of the Bible that we no longer have except as “apocrypha texts.” Maybe this is like the Heathen version prior to the break up of the Christian sects into gnostic and anti-gnostic. (I’ve just used up the last bit of my Christian commentary with that bit. My brain is hurting and I can’t think clearly any more.)

      Anyway, what I’m saying is that maybe we should look at it as a kind of growing pains. And just like in Christianity, it wasn’t until later that Satan and the Great Adversary were hated until much later. Mayhaps the Heathen big guys are thinking with a Christian background, unfortunately, and Loki’s the Big Bad that most two-dimensional people seem to think that they need. It’s unfortunate and shitty, I’ll give you that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s