The Pagan Pulpit – The Book of Rabyd 2:2 – “I am Free Because I Know that I Am Morally Responsible for Everything I Do.”

April 7, 2019April 7, 2019 / Ed Raby Sr / Leave a comment

Happy Sun’s Day

Announcements:

We don’t pray here – we figure God, the gods and goddesses, or whatever powers that be either know already, don’t give a fuck, or are busy with more important matters than our petty stuff. We also kind of assume that they expect us to do stuff that we can do for ourselves, and that we will do them ourselves and not be lazy. We also believe in being good friends, so we don’t presume on our friendship with the powers that be by asking them all the time for stuff while giving them nothing in return.

We also don’t take an offering here. We figure the powers that be probably don’t need it. Let’s be honest, offerings are not giving to the divine powers, they are given to an organization to support it. Just being honest. God, the gods or whatever never see a dime, farthing or peso of that money; it all goes to the church, mosque or shrine.

Opening Song: “Heaven Knows” – Pretty Reckless

I don’t know if it is the theme of this song that fits the pagan pulpit so well or the simple line – “Don’t do a goddamn thing they say!” Maybe both.

Poem: “If You Could Only Feel” – The Ruined Man

Meditation:

Song of Preparation: “Bark at the Moon” – Ozzy Osbourne

I include Ozzy to introduce this weeks sermon for a lot of reasons. Robert Heinlein was probably one of the great fiction writers responsible for inspiring people to believe we could go to the moon. We went from barking at the moon to actually landing on it surface as human race and a lot of it was due to Heinlein.

Text:

“I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for what I do. I am free no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for what I do.” – The Book Of Rabyd 2:2

Sermon:

I am doing a major rewrite of Part 2 of the Book of Rabyd. I suppose it was only a matter of time before Robert Heinlein got into the Book of Rabyd and this is one of my favorite quotes by him.

There are all sorts of schools of thought about why people do what they do. About ethics and morality in general. The most common I have heard is that we do things out of respect or fear. God, the law or basically some authority in general. I would now maintain is not a very high sense of ethics or morality that you have if you only do things out of some outward focus or because some outward force compels you to be ethical or moral. It basically is an admission that you are not very ethical or moral and you need someone or something to make you so.

This quote cuts through that bullshit, and drives home the point that the only real thing that is responsible for our choices is us. We alone bear the moral responsibility for our actions. Not our fear of the divine (whom ever they may be), respect or fear of the law, or just plain fear. At the end of the day, it is each one of us that is morally responsible for our actions. We alone bear the responsibility for our choices.

Part of this quote is more truth than choice. We tolerate the rules we find tolerable and we break the rules we find obnoxious. I saw this all the time in Christianity. I would laugh inside when people would decry people with tattoos because of an old testament passage about it, knowing full well that same passage had rules like no blended fabrics and other such rules. If those same people were forced to engage those would have become very upset. No matter how much a person claims to live fully their code, they make exceptions. Then most of them lie that they don’t. Neither Heinlein or myself will do that any more. Rules either are tolerable to my freedom of choice or they are obnoxious to the point of being worthy of being broken. I simply state and live that reality while others will deny it.

I think people play this game of fear and respect because it allows them to look down on someone morally and be in their ivory tower. To think of themselves as better because they ‘follow’ some moral code and others don’t or do it imperfectly. The problem with such codes, is when you get right down to it people follow the parts they like or make them feel morally superior, and ignore the parts they don’t and try to hide it so their moral judgment doesn’t come back on their own head.Quite frankly I am sick of this fear/respect dichotomy. In my mind it just leads to more ‘evil’.

Heinlein and the Book of Rabyd offer you an alternative. Better is to live like this – I am free because I am completely responsible for my own actions. No one else, nothing else compels me to be ethical or moral – only myself. I live free and take full responsibility. Period. Stop. Nothing else.

Closing Song: “Inside the Fire” – Disturbed

This closing song has a very serious message. Live your life. Be free and live. Death comes for us quickly enough.

Parting Thought:

Little celebration of getting back into lifting weights this week. One of my favorite quotes about lifting and why personally I find it an oasis in the middle of all the shit of my life at times.

I remain,

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

Crossing Bifrost – Gods and Goddesses – Frigg: Mother Goddess

April 6, 2019April 6, 2019 / Ed Raby Sr / Leave a comment

Happy Saturn’s Day

Frigg is the Norse goddess of weather and clouds. Also known as Frigga and Frig. She is often depicted in white garments as such with silver and grey trims. There is an aspect of being the goddess of change as well as she weaves the future as one of the practitioners of seidr, the Norse magic of divination. She is thus the goddess of weaving and fate. Change is also an aspect of weather and clouds so it fits her as well. She has a queenly air to her as well and this fits her role as the queen of the gods.

Just to reiterate what I said under the Goddess Freya, I don’t think Frigg and Freya are the same woman. They have very different spheres. Freya might be considered the aspect of femininity that is a single warrior maiden, the archetype of the shield maiden, who is a party girl The kind of girl a man wants around when he is single and sowing his wild oats. Frigg on the other hand is very much that aspect of femininity a man wants to settle down and have children with. One is the erotic expression of love and sexual desirability, the other is a good and loving mother and wife. As I pointed out before one is Vanir and the other Aesir. Each of them has different children and in Frigg’s case her son Balder is central figure along with her love for him on one of the main stories of Norse Mythology.

Now it should be noted that Frigg has her own flaws. When her husband Odin was away and missing she did sleep with both of his brothers. This may be more of a reflection that the Norse people did not have as strong conviction about sexual fidelity in marriage as other religions and cultures. She has her warrior aspects as well, especially when it comes to defending or avenging her children.

Frigg’s symbols are birds particularly falcons and like her husband – ravens. There is a grass called Frigg’s grass that was used as a sedative for mother’s giving birth. Mistletoe is also sacred to her. A mother looking out for her children and her home is her aspect.

Frigg’s one failing is that despite her powers of divination she could not prevent or reverse the death of her beloved son Balder. This I suppose one of the great ironies of her story that she is both a mother and a strong one at that. A powerful woman who weaves the tapestry of fate and yet despite all this she cannot prevent something terrible from happening to her children. All her power and love is not enough.

There is definitely a lesson here for the mothers of her time when she was worshiped. That even if a mother knows the fate of her children and is wise, understanding and powerful, misfortune can still happen to her children. In a world where children died much more frequently and early than today, this is a message designed to comfort mothers. If Frigg herself cannot stop her own son’s death, what makes you think you can? No matter what, that is truly out of your hands.

Modern depictions of Frigg are rare. She of course appears in the Thor comics and the movies. I can say this that she is definitely cast as a mother sitting at home rather than a warrior goddess like Freya is at times. A strong mother who runs her household well, who cares for her children and loves her husband is what she is an example of to others. A strong archetype and a common one in mythology. You see much the same with Hera in Greek Mythology.

Personally, being a little pagan in mindset, I can respect the separation of femininity in Frigg as opposed to say the masculinity of Odin and Thor. The one thing Norse mythology has is a strong set of expectations of what is feminine and what is masculine, without saying one is weaker than the other. Just very different chosen roles. Mother verses Father is definitely a dichotomy with Frigg and Odin and the Roles are very distinct yet strong. Based on the mythology, the idea of more than two genders or gender neutral is simply not present. Rather it embraces the two genders as the way it is and exults both of their strengths. Frigg being the strong aspects of what it is to be female and Odin the strong aspect of what it means to be male.

I think when you look at stories, the strong mother and wife is something that literature in general never seems to get tired of as an archetype. Perhaps it is because all of us look back to some sort of strong mother figure who influenced our lives and so it is very relatable. We are all children, so Frigg appeals to us and our own sense of motherhood as a powerful force in our lives.

In my own writing Frigg knows the future but rarely gives it out because of her past experience. She has learned fighting fate is a bad way to go. Knowing the future does not help change it. She is loving and caring but sad, drawing strength from her husband and children. Passionate and Powerful, but very much down to earth.

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

Odin’s Eye – Bible Problems: The Four Gospels

April 4, 2019April 4, 2019 / Ed Raby Sr / 1 Comment

Happy Thor’s Day

Discussion:

Another one of those posts where what I taught in the past about the Bible is going to have some of the problems I will now reveil. Problems I discovered that are a little overwhelming to maintaining faith. I am actually going to take on one of the more solid parts of the Bible – where we actually have four witnesses of events which would seem to fulfill the Bibles’s own standard of ‘two or three” plus one. However as we will see, this doesn’t’ a) solve other problems and b) some of the events witnessed still only have one witness.

The gospels actually illustrate some Bible problems so well that they provide an excellent test case for critics. I mean if you can have four witnesses, and still present something that makes you scratch your head, then anything less than that obviously is worse.

The gospels are contradictory – This is particularly true when it comes to the resurrection accounts. Some gospels really have no account at all. Mark doesn’t have anything other than a statement that Jesus rose from the dead. The longer ending is probably an addition from someone regurgitating a story and not someone who was an eyewitness. Even when there is a claim to being eyewitnesses they can’t seem to get their story straight. Despite the claim to the contrary, this does not validate the story, it is what in court would be contradictory testimony. It would be thrown out, but gospel apologists continue to make the leap (this not being able to get their story straight) means the gospels are actually more authentic. No, quite the opposite in fact. It means there was a lot of confusion ‘resurrection’ morning and in moments of confusion any story can be both fabricated and propagated.
The gospels also suffer from confirmation bias. Every writer of each gospel clearly wants the story to be true, and thus does not offer critical analysis of many events that are presented in the Life of Christ. In my opinion, this is the main atmosphere on ‘resurrection’ morning. A desire that Jesus of Nazareth was alive so strong that it created and atmosphere of mass psychological collusion. Before you think that couldn’t be possible, I remind people of Jim Jones and Jones Town and Heaven’s Gate, events that show that human beings can desire something so badly they will not look critically at what they are being told, Based on these false beleifs they will in fact kill themselves and be martyred for it; if they believe it strongly enough regardless of whether it is true or a lie.
Timeline issues – yeah, I am stuck on the resurrection again because it was one of the problems I faced regularly in teaching the event. The accounts vary in their timeline and even events are presented differently to the point that they contradict each other in order of events. Who saw Jesus before someone else is a regular problem. Throughout the gospels some things appear in different order. Not a deal breaker but one of those ‘ keeping a straight story’ issues.
Historically speaking if you are looking for other biographies or historical accounts of Jesus of Nazareth, you will disappointed. The only accounts we have are from his disciples and they biased. There is no objective historical account of his life, There are mentions in other sources like Philo and Josephus but all they really prove is that Christianity is indeed something that stretches back to the first century, but Jesus himself and his life is untouched by these sources. .
The two or three witness problem still persists despite their being four accounts. Why? 1) The Gospel of John stands alone in many accounts. It offers up events that don’t have any collaboration at all. Even from the other gospels. John literally stands alone in his accounts of things at times and thus does not met the Bible’s own standard of ‘two or three witnesses’ for those events. 2) The other gospels clearly either copied each other or a common account. I have no problem with this historically speak except sometimes the word choice is verbatim which means they didn’t do much more digging than to copy without further investigation. There many theories to this, but in the end what you have is the possibility that instead of three accounts from three different witnesses, what you get is one account of these events, which are not collaborated, and simply copied by others. When they do differ, Matthew, Mark and Luke have the same problem as John. They often stand alone with many stories. One gospel writer will present one story, but the other two leave it out. This happens a lot and in the end you get very few stories that all four gospel writers actually touch. The only miracle they touch is the Feeding of the Five Thousand and it looks like John is trying to correct the account of the other three. The rest mostly deal with Jesus’ time in Jerusalem before he was crucified. That he had triumphal entry, he held a last supper where he said he would be betrayed, etc. But all goes south at the resurrection where things get completely contradictory or confusing.

Time to Look Through the Eye:

Faith:

As a student of the Bible, what faith I have left in the Bible is an interesting thing and the gospels in particular. I taught Life of Christ at least ten times in my ministry. I think you can reasonably say that Jesus of Nazareth was probably a real person and that he indeed was a Jewish Rabbi, and probably a controversial one to the point he was hated by the other rabbis, religious teachers and groups. The gospels are a reflection of that but are written by his followers. So how do you continue to follow the teachings of a rabbi the others have decried as a heretic? You present Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah and add a whole lot of legend to the real man, so that it makes the people who killed him look like complete assholes. The gospels may very well be a reflection of reactionary activity. Like Paul Bunyan or John Henry who may have been real people but their legend got big to the point of being ridiculous; Jesus of Nazareth suddenly becomes much more than he really was to justify Christianity’s existence and growth. I have faith that human beings may want to believe something so badly, they will lie to themselves and create stories to make their experiences change in their mind to verify the new presented ‘truth’.

Religion:

Christianity itself developed a problem of having so many accounts of Jesus life that were so contradictory, they convened a council of the church to sort it out. This has led to the question: the criteria used may simply been one way of one group trying to politically eliminate another. The criteria were created by men for men’s purposes. The gospels chosen in the end may simply been the least contradictory, but still not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. Religion then has a vested interest in defending its ‘holy’ book so they cannot be questioned and ‘BAM!’ – two thousand years later, they still stand despite all the problems. Not because they are the truth or history, but they have become religious tradition further defended by doctrine and dogma.

Theology:

I suppose I have no Messianic Theology anymore. I was asked once recently if I had renounced Christ. I shrugged, is there anything to renounce? I mean I don’t see the need for humanity to have a messiah figure. In fact I would say looking for one or needing one is a cop-out trying to look for someone else to come along like a white knight and save you from all your problems. My Christology these days might simply be non-existent. Not renounced, just faded out of existence as no longer needed. Jesus was either a great teacher that people either added to his story to the point it is just as unlikely as other tall tales, or he was a lunatic who people believed so strongly they made stuff up to reinforce their belief in a lunatic. Was he the Messiah? – My answer: do we need one? Was He Lord? Once again do I need one?

Spirituality:

I like some of the teachings of Jesus. I find them spiritually uplifting as I consider them. That said, I would also say I can treat them with the same attitude I treat the teachings of Buddha, Confucius and other great and deep thinkers. Containers for truth, but not THE truth. Just human beings that said some wise words and I find spirituality in a lot of people’s words beyond the standard religious figures. It is the one way we live on I suppose – the wisdom that can be found in words we wrote or spoke.

Events are a different matter. I don’t find spirituality in events I didn’t personally experience anymore. I can find inspiration in tales of courage, honor and other stories where virtues are center, but my spirituality is my own experiences in life, my own study and my own vision for myself..

Conclusion:

I would say my path has taken a very honest turn. You can’t create a special group of ideas or books and then say you will not criticize them and then claim to be objective. The gospels are ancient writings, that when we subject them to the same scrutiny as many other writings of antiquity, fall short in many areas. This is simply true. They are religious tradition protected by religious dogma that once ripped away, you find a much more difficult truth. They are perhaps a mixture of true stories about Jesus of Nazareth mixed with tall tales. They are very possibly fabricated stories with an agenda that has nothing to do with the real man Jesus of Nazareth.

Continuing to Walk the Path,

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

Odin’s Eye – My Spiritual Rebuilding

March 28, 2019March 28, 2019 / Ed Raby Sr / Leave a comment

Happy Thor’s Day

Discussion:

I am taking a break from the order to think a little bit about some things. This last week of March has definitely been about making my Realignment of Virtues with their respective principles, goals and bucket list item. I will be engaged in this until Saturn’s Day and then on March 31st the new stuff kicks off in full. Not having the time to do some proper research for the Bible Problems post that is supposed to fall this week, I decided to talk about something more spiritual and personal instead.

The people in my life do not understand the change of my beliefs and some of them are the closest to me. To them this change has been sudden and only now are some of them starting to get used to the idea but they still don’t understand it. Trying to rebuild one’s spirituality in this environment is not difficult, just often misunderstood because to others it was sudden but to me it has been long in coming. This is a decision I agonized over for a long time. One that has placed me in a position of rebuilding my spirituality after taking a sledgehammer (metaphorically speaking) to what i had built during my time as a Christian.

Time to Look Through the Eye:

Faith:

I consider myself a spiritual person still. There is part of humanity that one cannot put into a purely rational box no matter how much you try. The thing I have thrown off is religion. I have however not thrown off ‘faith’. Like it or not everyone has faith is something. Something they cannot rationally prove but still live their life by. Atheists deny this but if they were to go through their philosophy and principles they live by my guess is somewhere they would have to admit they go forward with without any proof – yet. They would contend they believe proof will be found eventually but it just hasn’t been found yet. That’s faith no matter how much you shake and dance.

I am not going to deny I have faith in stuff I can’t prove. I recognize my ignorance and ignorance is going to lead to some things you are going to take on faith because you have no choice or the alternative is to simply exist without progress. I take that there is a part of human beings that is spiritual on faith, because I cannot see a scientific or rational answer for some things – yet.

Religion:

The one thing I have discarded is religion. I recognize two forces that pass themselves off as good but are in reality evil as fuck. Government and Religion. With government I recognize there is a necessary evil that must be engaged because people are inherently tribal. Religion I can’t find to many uses for anymore. It is by its nature, controlling and manipulative. It sells you something that you don’t even need to solve a problem you don’t actually have. It has all the morality of the huckster selling snake oil and has the same objective.

It disguises greed, lust and manipulation as industry, love and care. It calls you to dwell in ignorance so you can preserve your faith. Never question things because if you did you might realize the ‘holy men’ are taking you for a ride. Cleaver, as perhaps if you lose your ignorance you might see that it is harming you far more than helping you. I refuse to engage a system of belief anymore that sees to tell me what THE TRUTH is; as I find, truth is not something that is always easy to find or black and white anymore. I have no use for religion in rebuilding my spirituality, as it is probably is in reality one of the most spiritually destructive forces there is.

Theology:

Whatever the divine might be, I now reserve the right to question its justice, mercy or decisions. I think the Norse attitude toward the gods is probably mine. The Norse gods are not interested in worship. They are interested in a life well lived. Mans approach to them is not to fawn or fall on one’s knees, but to stand bravely. They don’t want the devotion, but just respect for their power. Theologically, it seems if the divine is our parent, like a good parent it would want us to grow up and stand on our own and teach our descendants to do the same.

Spirituality:

This last year has been both a cubicle and a flood of challenges. I am starting to put some of the things I did last year at this time in the category of ‘more than a year ago’. By the time summer is over all of it will be there. This flood and fire I have been going through has cause the storm to rage at times and my scars to burn with pain; but in all of that, I feel like I am being reborn. I am becoming something greater than I was, something stronger. I no longer bow, I stand. I no longer need the crutch that is religion and I am done with its snake oil spirituality.

Conclusion:

I used to be a tiger and lion person. Strong animal images but both perform in the circus. But these days the wolves and ravens are more my speed. Not as strong but wild and free. You can put thme in cages but they will never be tame. I find that both light and darkness are not to be feared but used. I feed both wolves (Need and Want) and both ravens (Reason and Wisdom). I no longer see myself as sinner or saint – just a man rebuilding and discovering his true self. In that I find my spiritual rebirth and growth. I am Grey. An old scared grey wolf if you will. I have a pack but it is small, but then again I know what I bring to the table, so I am not afraid to fight or eat alone either.

Continuing to Walk the Path,

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

The Book of Rabyd 1:7 – ‘The Only Proper Use of Aggression is to Protect One’s Rights or the Rights of Others’

March 24, 2019March 24, 2019 / Ed Raby Sr / Leave a comment

Happy Sun’s Day

Text:

“The Only Proper Use of Aggression is to Protect One’s Rights or the Rights of Others” – The Book of Rabyd 1:7

Thoughts and Exposition:

The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) is stated many ways but the basic gist of it is a combination of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and “love your neighbor as yourself”. Every major religion in the world has something like this in it, but then all of them turn around and use fraud or even force to control others.

So leaving religion behind, it is simply that people have their rights and no one should use violence or lies to take them away. If someone or group of someones does use violence to try to take rights away, the NAP simply states that the person whose rights are being threatened or people around them who see that their rights are being threatened have the right then to use violence in return in defense.

Aggression is further defined as the use of physical force, threatening the use of force or fraud. This is not pacifism as the use of force or even the threat of force is allowable in actions that involve self-defense or the defense of others. There are other types of force but the NAP is about physical force, threat of physical force or fraud.

This means a lot of other areas where things are about influence, politics and other types of force are not necessarily covered by the NAP. However, if one thinks on this that means that much of what government does is a violation of this principle. This really limits how much the government should do and puts it clear focus on the government as the force that protects the rights of its citizens and does not threaten them with force or trick people out of their rights through fraud.

On a personal level, this means that if I were to act in a violent manner, that means the one who I am acting on has made a decision to violate my rights or the rights of another person. Other than that, it is never right for me to initiate violence and it is certainly never right for me to engage in fraud. This part is actually more challenging in many ways than gripping about government. One must always be first concerned that you are following the NAP before you judge others on their following it. It is more a philosophy of personal responsibility than anything else.

Following the NAP leads to a practical morality. There is nothing more frustrating on the one hand than people who, because of their politics, religion or other beliefs, think they have the right or force their viewpoint on others through law, violence or fraud. One the flip side, it is also frustrating to watch people stand aside while violence or fraud is perpetrated and they do nothing about it. The NAP gives us a principle to guide us. It is not perfect, but it is a lot better all others I have found so far and far more practically useful.

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

The Pagan Pulpit – The Book of Rabyd 1:7 – ‘The Only Proper Use of Aggression is to Protect One’s Rights or the Rights of Others’

March 24, 2019March 24, 2019 / Ed Raby Sr / Leave a comment

Happy Sun’s Day

Announcements:

Opening Song: ‘Paranoid” – Black Sabbath

Considered widely to be the first metal band and this one of the first metal songs. I start by giving Black Sabbath props for being trail blazers.

Poem: “Unknown” – The Ruined Man

The problem with being real is being hated. The problem with being fake is you’re a lying coward.

Meditation:

Song of Preparation: “Non-Aggression Principle” – Liberation Animation

I love this song, it is a fun. It also introduces today’s topic very well.

Text:

‘The Only Proper Use of Aggression is to Protect One’s Rights or the Rights of Others’ – The Book of Rabyd 1:7

Sermon:

Closing Song: ‘Dizzy’ – Tommy Roe

I include this song this week because it was the popular song on the radio the day I was born. My 50th birthday was this last week so this is more nostalgia than anything else. I like the video of a 1960s girl in a short skirt doing the 1960s dancing. Couldn’t fit that era more if you tried.

Parting Thought:

Be yourself. If people can’t handle it, that is their problem, not yours.

I remain,

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

Odin’s Eye – Deism: The Search for The Rational God

March 14, 2019March 14, 2019 / Ed Raby Sr / Leave a comment

Happy Thor’s Day

Discussion:

I still very much embrace Deism as the most rational way to approach the subject of the divine. I think the notion that there is no god is just as irrational as the theist or religion who thinks he/she has god locked down. The great challenge for me as a deist is to deal with the subject of the divine using only reason and natural revelation as a guide. Heavy emphasis on the reason part because natural revelation is still subject to human interpretation.

Epicurus’ argument against God is pretty well-known and I still have some of the same problems with it as I had as a Christian. In fact much of my arguments against it have not changed because even back then the defense against philosophy is not theology, it is more philosophy. Most notably Epicurus assumes his definition of all-powerful, etc. are locked down and cannot be challenged. He seeks basically to win the argument about god through definition which is an argument from authority based on the authority of the definition. What his argument does do is present the rational contentions about the divine that need to be addressed very concisely and in a logically sound manner.

This is actually one time where the Eye lines up pretty good with each part of Epicurus’ argument. So….

Time to Look Through the Eye:

Faith:

If he is able but not willing? He is malevolent

I find it interesting that Epicurus engages in faith at this point. He has faith that there is such a thing as malevolence or beneficence and assumes that god must be one or the other. Such definition really lose their meaning if you dismiss notions of good and evil and realize there might be a rational reason why a supreme being might create and then move on. As George Carlin points out – God may simply not give a shit. He may be a creator, but it does not imply that he is malevolent simply because he refuses to do something about ‘evil’. He may simply also look at humanity and say – “you did this shit to yourselves and you have the capability to get yourself out, take responsibility for the ‘evil’ and suffering you have caused and fix it yourselves.”

I actually think this is the strongest argument for polytheism. That the reason we see so many problems in the world, is it was created by a committee. Just saying.

My faith is that if there is a god or gods or whatever, that they are creators but not necessarily cosmic babysitters. Like good parents he/she or they want us to grow up and tackle our own problems and we can’t learn how to do that effectively without struggle.

Religion:

If God is neither able or willing, then why call him God?

Actually because the definition of ‘god’ is much broader than “Omni” classifications. We also use the term ‘god’ to describe beings of great power and use a small ‘g’. It is religion that paint god as all-powerful in the sense that he can do anything, but there may be laws to the universe that prevent the divine from acting and they may as pointed out above, not give a shit. It doesn’t stop them from being more powerful than anything else and thus deserving the title of ‘god’.

Theology:

If God is wiling to prevent, but not able. Then he is not omnipotent.

I like to point out at this point that Epicurus does not eliminate god with this statement as some atheists claim. It just shows that perhaps human conception of the ideas of omnipotent, omniscient, etc. might not be properly defined. So such a god could exist with all the power that actually exists, knowing everything in the way it is knowable and be present in all places that actually exist. Yes, these ideas create a powerful being worthy of being called god, but there are limits here. Such limits make the normal understanding of omnipotence in need of adjustment, but it doesn’t make such a god not possible or lacking in existence. All this statement really does is point out that our definitions might be in need of change.

Spirituality:

If he is both able and willing? Where does evil come from?

Moral evil is easy to justify if you use freewill as a defense and a god who does not interfere because he wants humanity as a whole to learn and grow. It may not be logically possible to have freewill without suffering. Natural evil is a little harder to justify. Other than if god is still bound to the laws of the universe, then the laws of physics make natural ‘evil’ simple existent and God may very much be a powerful being who fights these forces but cannot do everything. Rationally, the god that actually exists might have limits – both because the laws of the universe place those limits or those limits might be self-imposed because it is not always wise to interfere.

Conclusion:

I am not saying Epicurus is wrong. He may very well be right and God is a figment of human imagination. I respect the atheist position but I find it personally a little extreme because of human ignorance of the universe. His argument actually forms a lot of rational response for deism as it must address these issues to have a rational reason for belief in the divine’s existence. His argument guides the search for the rational god because the questions are valid. That said, I do, as a theologian, see the irony of accepting certain theological definitions in order to make your argument against the existence of god, when those definitions themselves can be challenged.

For me the search for the rational God is part of the journey that I walk. But as a pagan, it is not my only criteria.

Continuing to Walk the Path,

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

Of Wolves and Ravens – Virtue: Moving Higher

March 12, 2019March 12, 2019 / Ed Raby Sr / Leave a comment

Happy Tyr’s Day

Discussion:

Having finished the Nine Noble Virtues it is time to flip the subjects for Of Wolves and Ravens to the flip side. So for the next nine weeks the subjects will be more Side B

Eastern Philosophy
Western Philosophy
Love
Minimalism
Economics
Justice
Political Science
Libertarianism
Wisdom

These are either the Higher Virtues or other philosophical elements that guide my thinking. Subjects where my philosophy is more real and concretely applied to the real world of my life.

Today, however, we return to the general subject of virtue. Mostly the rationale behind pursuing virtue as opposed to Religion as a way of moving higher. I suppose it comes back to the Marcus Aurelius quote I keep using.

My main issue these days is to live a good life and so following good virtues is the path to that. The Nine Noble Virtues (NNV) of Asatru are good ones to follow and no matter what your religion or faith, I don’t think you could fault them. Virtue is a Human trait and if anything is responsible for the good in the world it is when people take their human capacity and guide it by good virtues.

To the Wolves and Ravens:

Needs (Geri):

At this point things will get a little more personal. After departing from my Christian faith, I knew I would need something to guide my life philosophy. I think that is one of the problems of struggling with faith. You hold your principles from that faith, but the basis for doing so is missing. I needed to figure out what that basis was and how I could hold a system of philosophy to guide myself and my character without having faith in a religion. Virtue is an old discussion in philosophy and one that has always had a lot of merit to me. So I found that the need for a system of virtue was very much justified.

Wants (Freki):

I also wanted virtue. One of the things that you get accused of when you leave the faith is somehow you are now lesser of a person. It is never said but it is there. Your ‘lost’, ‘going to follow your sinful nature now’, you are not as ‘good’ in the eyes of the people of the faith you left. Part of my embracing virtue is I want to show how bankrupt a notion it is to believe you need to follow a certain religion or faith to be a good person. That you can be a better person morally without faith or religion is a hard concept for people to accept for some reason. I want to prove that it can be done.

Reason (Huginn):

The rational reason for following virtue for me is that it upholds my thoughts that a person can actually use religion for evil while calling themselves good. After all they are just following their authority of their holy book or holy man. Even if that action causes harm to others, in religion it is still justified because you were doing what your authority told you.

I can’t do that following my philosophy of virtue. Virtue demands that an action must also cause no harm to others whenever possible. It recognizes that appeal to authority is not a rational act but a logical fallacy. Therefore to just follow authority blindly is not virtuous, rather quite the opposite.

Wisdom (Muninn):

I feel that no matter what the twists and turns of my life are now, that the NNV allows me to navigate each fork and crossroad with wisdom. I am not letting some blind guide pull me along. Rather my eyes are open and I makes sure each life decision is guided by principle and virtue. I do take into account what is best for me, but I also no longer think that shows a lack of wisdom but rather it demonstrates wisdom.

Conclusion:

On May 28th, 2018 I was no longer a pastor or a Christian officially. I even have a letter from my former church that fired me retroactively to May 27th to prove it. I keep that letter because there is a line in it that motivates me. From time to time I pull it out and read it:

“This decision was based on the fact that you no longer have the character, ability or right to be the shepherd of any flock”

Well, I plan on making them eat those judgmental and arrogant words and I plan on doing it by living a better life than I ever had as a Christian. I plan on doing that by following virtue. By so doing, I will move higher than I ever have before. I don’t see my leaving the flawed hypocritical virtues of Christianity to follow the NNV as a step downward, but rather a step upward. Time the pierce the sky and live a good life.

I remain,

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

Odin’s Eye – Return to My Theological Objections to Christianity – No Takers

March 7, 2019March 7, 2019 / Ed Raby Sr / Leave a comment

Happy Thor’s Day

Discussion:

I don’t know, when it comes to my four theological objections to Christianity, I feel like the god Heimdall guarding the Bifrost Bridge. Most of the time I seem to be just standing there waiting for something to happen and nothing does. I am not really looking for a fight but I think I have laid it out there what I feel are the four major problems with the Christian theology are and why they basically make it so the whole thing is just another man-made attempt to understand god that is flawed and failed. The result has been crickets.

Simple Restatement of my Four Theological Objections to Christianity:

The Bible’s Inspiration by God – it is not proven, nor can it ever be. It seems highly unlikely that the Bible is the product of a supreme being but rather the product of men. It’s divine inspiration is asserted but never proven.
Sin is an Imaginary Man-Made Problem – Like the Bible being inspired, Mankind being sinners and certain behaviors being sinful is asserted but never proven.
The Cross and the Empty Tomb – an imaginary solution to an imaginary problem. I would also say that such a solution with its suffering and death seems sadistic and unloving. Not the product of a supreme being.
The Justice of the Biblical God is Very Suspect – The scale of justice for the god of the Bible is very unbalanced when you rationally consider some of his actions in the Bible and the doctrines concerning hell and final punishment.

When I first laid these out last summer I did get some feed back, but it was clearly half-hearted and I answered the questions and objections they had to the point apparently that they had no response. This lack of response is not surprising, when I was a Christian I would read Christian apologists looking for answers to these very questions and they really had nothing. The problem with the apologist is no matter how they try, they assume that the Bible is inspired, sin is real, redemption is real and god is just. They don’t really see the need to address these issues because most of them are not really listening to those that object to Christianity. They listen only to pick the battles they can easily win when they see objections to their faith, they tend to ignore the ones that are more difficult.

Time to Look Through the Eye:

Faith:

I refuse to return to having faith in Christianity, if those that practice it cannot provide sufficient evidence that the Bible is inspired, that sin is objectively real and that the solution the god of the Bible has for it is both rational and just. As much as I know Norse mythology is mythology, I actually find it easier now to believe that its’ view of the universe and the gods and goddesses solution to life and living is more in line with reality than Christianity until that happens. I have faith in myself, my family and the creator’s design. Anything beyond that requires proof.

Religion:

It speaks to Christianity’s failure as a religion when it sees someone walk away from the faith and it comes up with doctrines and apologetics that basically shrug its shoulders and say ‘that is just the way it is’. Calvinism is notorious for this fatalistic bullshit, but the fact that other branches of the Christian faith have this – ‘well, there is nothing I can do.” on the face of something that should have a response. Well, then you have just shown to me that perhaps your religion, that you say should lead you to compassion for the lost, is also complete bullshit.

Theology:

Theologically speaking the subjects of special revelation, salvation, god’s nature and final punishment seem to be central to the Christian faith. If no good answer can come when it is proven these are inconsistent and quite frankly paint a picture of a god as 1) a sadistic torturer of his own son when He could have simply forgiven us, and 2) an unjust god who takes our whole lives and destroys them, torturing us forever, simply because he is like a political snowflake who gets offended because we did something he doesn’t like. Perhaps he should develop some emotional maturity and realize he created man and he knew what he was capable of, so why get upset about it? Maybe should forgive them the same way you expect them to forgive each other – without condition. Or perhaps we should just conclude that the god of the bible is flawed and inconsistent because he is the product of the flawed and inconsistent thoughts and feelings of the men who wrote the Bible.

Spirituality:

The real kicker for me right now, is that I fell more alive spiritually speaking than I ever did when I was a Christian. This break away has freed me from the shackles of religion and guilt and I don’t think I can recommend something more highly if you want joy and peace. No more of the constant “You are not good enough.” No more of the psychological abuse of telling people they are garbage and God hates them until they turn to him. No more of using religion to manipulate the behavior of people, excluding myself from certain people, and justify interfering in people’s lives. Shit, I feel like I actually have found spiritually what I was looking for all along. The Freedom that comes from being liberated from religious shackles and nonsense.

Conclusion:

My problems these days are far more practical. Spiritually, I am free. Believe that or not. My issues of struggle are family, relationships, career, life and enjoying the world. The constant struggle of wrestling with this imaginary thing called sin, which was nothing more than me being taught to loathe and hate parts of myself, is gone. I don’t struggle trying to destroy part of myself anymore. I embrace it and seek to use that part of myself to make me stronger. My needs and wants are not sinful, they just are. They are part of who I am and I accept that. I embrace them not as enemies but as allies.

In the meantime, my objections remain. And I wait.

Continuing to Walk the Path,

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

Crossing Bifrost – Races and Creatures – Giants

March 2, 2019March 2, 2019 / Ed Raby Sr / Leave a comment

Happy Saturn’s Day

I suppose the imagery of a giant is pretty universal but as we will see there is a controversy about it when it comes to Norse Mythology. Giants are the primary antagonists in most of the stories of the gods in Norse mythology. The frost giants take prominence but there are also other types of giants. Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition’s Monster Manual lists six types of giants – Cloud, Fire, Frost, Hill, Stone and Storm. It might be argued that all of these have some from ideas found in Norse mythology.

But the question starts pretty early as regards if the Norse people actually conceived these giants as ‘giants’. The problem is one of translation and when Christians began to translate the word for ‘giant’ they may have bastardized it by adding the Greek mythology concepts and used the word for ‘giant’ that reflected this change. What you see then is a mutation of the original Norse Idea and the Greek idea of titans.

The original concept in the Norse may simply have been beings that represented the forces of Chaos. When you look at some of the giants you get that – Storm, Fire, Frost, Hills, Stone and Clouds are forces of nature that are both large and powerful. Both needed for survival, but also feared because of their destructive nature at times. The “giants” are simply personification of these forces. They may or may not have been large humanoids to the Norse people. It would make more sense if they were not.

The reason I say it would make more sense if they were not, is the simple fact that the gods and goddesses mate with giants and produce offspring. Sex between two individuals of great difference in size becomes problematic, unless the Norse people didn’t really have the concept of giants being large humanoids but rather simple humanoids that personified certain powerful natural forces. To the Norse people the gods and the giants may simply been the same size just representing on the one hand forces of order and civilization (the gods), and on the other, the raw natural forces of the world (the ‘giants’).

What I am saying is that the whole notion of these ‘giants’ being large humanoid like creatures might be a later addition. This would explain why later writers had to give some of the gods the ability to shape shift and change size. But the original myths may not have had this at all. The my simply have been referring to ‘giants’ as those being who represented the great powers of nature.

To me this makes the parings of some of the gods and giants interesting because it represents symbolically the need for the forces of civilization and humanity, if you will, to sometimes cooperate and draw strength from the chaotic forces of nature. That sometimes the ‘children’ of these paring represent both sides of that equation such as Loki pairings with the giantess that produced Fenrir, Hel, and Jormungandr. All of these Children have their chaotic element but there is also the ability to think and speak beyond the base animal that they represent in the case of Fenrir and Jormungandr. Hel herself is human like but represents that primal force of Death, but also her realm is orderly and well thought out.

It is why in Norse mythology all of the gods and giants are the product of a an original giant. That out of the primal forces of nature came the forces of order and chaos. Both are necessary and both can be in conflict or in love (lust) for each other. To me it speaks of how the Norse people could recognize that; in all things, some necessary things were present. Fire is a primal natural force that is dangerous; but without it, civilization and technology is simply not possible. The earth and hills can be wild and dangerous places; but without the earth we mine and the trees we cut down, we would not have tools or shelter. The mythology reflects this idea of necessary harmony, even tough at times those forces are a threat to each other.

In our world the giants represent much the same. Large chaotic forces that must be fought and overcome. The show up in a lot of places in fantasy mythology. But the idea of being primal natural forces is pretty interesting and we see that too. For me though I prefer if the giants remain as the larger than life humanoids. It just makes the battles more epic. Courage is a necessary thing when facing them. Every movie or book that uses them reflects this. Or on rare occasions we find a giant that is actually gentle who desires to help but his great power can unintentionally cause harm. Thus even when we bend such forces to our will, there is still a danger because of their nature.

All important lessons taught to us through the giants.

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

	Grant W on Of Wolves and Ravens – M…
	Wolfgang on “Skadi: Goddess of the W…
	Heimdall Norse Mytho… on “Heimdall – Guardi…
	Ed Raby Sr on Pause, Reset, Re-Align, R…
	Dawn on Pause, Reset, Re-Align, R…