Religious people, what is your view of the norse gods?

It’s only in the past few years that I’ve understood that early Christians didn’t deny the existence of the Graeco-Roman gods.

They believed that they existed, but they were actually demons, or fallen angels, or lower deities or whatever. So it was wrong to worship them. You’ll find arguments like ‘some being attaches itself to the statue of a god and inhabits it, and when you worship it you may get results, but they will be harmful in the end’.

When Christians refused to sacrifice to the Roman gods, it was not they were refusing to go through a meaningless ritual to beings that didn’t exist. It was that they were refusing to worship lower deities that they believed did exist, because ‘you shall have no other gods before me’.

No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons.
    – 1 Corinthians 10:20–21

Both Christians and pagans believed that the Graeco-Roman gods were real, but Christians believed they were demons who should not be worshipped.

I recall reading that Romans didn’t really “believe” in their gods, but thought of them as cultural hooks for holidays, akin to Santa, Groundhog, Great Pumpkin, etc. Parallel to Norse gods. The monotheistic distinction was the idea that God is the font of Ethics. Before then, a sense of the Golden Rule carried its own rewards and punishments, and people were essentially atheists with vivid memes.

That’s not the accepted view today among historians and other academics - if it ever was.

Depends on who, and when, you mean by “the Romans”, and also depends on what you mean by “gods” and “existing”. By the time of the rise of Christianity, it was common for Romans to view them in much the same way that we view Santa or Uncle Sam (though I’m sure that that wasn’t universal, and there were some who still viewed them literally), and those inclined to religion generally sought out the various Mystery Cults (including Christianity). But there was a time before the mystery cults when the Roman gods themselves were the focus of religion, and a time before that (before the influence from the Greek pantheon) when Roman religion revolved around entities with those same names, but which might not be what we would recognize as “gods”.

What fascinates me is the valkyrie, the Norse equivalent of an angel. They reward violence and death in battle with eternal life with their god, Odin, but take a very dim view of, say, dying peacefully in your sleep. That’s 180 degrees from the traditional Christian angels who exemplify peace and love.

I would guess that people varied. Just as today we have a mix of people who are very devout, and who think of Jesus as a hook for the Christmas holiday, who may sit next to each other at a Christmas church service.

If you want a view of what devout pagan worship may have looked like in pre-roman Italy, I recently read “Lavinia”, by Ursula Le Guin, and the main character is a devout woman. Le Guin did a lot of research for the book, and that part is likely fairly accurate.

Their culture didn’t emphasize peace and love (or even pay lip service to it - the Crusades had very little to do with peace and love practically - it mostly involved Christians looting their fellow Christians for personal gain - and yet it did pay lip service to these ideas) so why would their religion?

Whether they believed in their gods or not, ethics didn’t derive from religion. It wasn’t their gods’ job to tell people how to behave morally and ethically toward one another.

What are you basing that opinion on?

Things to be careful of:

  • Taking elite literary sources as being representative of the general population.
  • Depending on Christian sources and Christian-influenced sources (19th century to present day).
  • Relying on outdated scholarship (certainly anything older than 30-40 years).
  • The cultural bias of ‘I don’t believe this, so I can’t imagine anyone else believing it’.

I assume that you are referring to the Romans here.

I am no expert, but here is what I’ve taken away from my reading.

In our modern morality, the bottom line is that all men are created equal, and therefore have a set of natural rights that must be protected. We decide if something is “moral” or not by reasoning about how it would affect people; different people may weigh different acts differently, or argue about who does and does not meet the definition of a “person” with rights. For example, if you are pro choice, it isn’t because you believe killing is right; it is because you don’t consider a clump of cells to be a living human being with rights.

Compare that to medieval morality, pre-enlightenment (focusing on Europe here); or rabbinical Judaism morality. Morality is ultimately drawn from God’s will/love (Christianity) or God’s law (Judaism). Something like two men having sex doesn’t hurt them or anyone else; therefore modern morality generally accepts gay sex. But religious law can point to Deuteronomy and say “It is forbidden, therefore immoral”.

Interesting side note, nowadays many religious people take the religious argument (gay sex is bad because it is an abomination in the eye of God!) and modify it to meet our modern moral framework. So yes, God said don’t have gay sex; but he must have had a reason for doing so; and since he is God that reason must have been good. We can reverse engineer it and declare “well, I have nothing against homosexuals, but the purpose of marriage is to raise a family and homosexuals can’t do that as well!”. The Ben Shapiro school of debate. But I digress.

So all this crap about modern secular vs religious morality. What about the Romans? I think Roman morality is based around one central pillar: the glory of Rome. You can be as ruthless as you like; if you are making Rome stronger, (or by extension, your own family within Rome’s power structure) you are being moral.

As an example, let us look at the most idolized figure in Roman Mythos: Romulus.

First of all, Romulus’ orgin story shows us what Roman society valued. Romulus is of noble blood, as a well as divine blood. His ancestors include Trojan heroes who escaped Troy’s destruction by the Greeks, and literal gods - specifically Mars, the God of War.

So the Romans value nobility, as well as their deities. Maybe not in a “all morality stems from the words of Jupiter” sense, but instead in a “you can tell this guy is legit because Mars was his great grandpa” sense - the fact that Romans claimed Romulus descended from the gods show that the gods WERE important in their society.

Next up, what did Romulus actually do? Well, the answer is, a bunch of horrible things - but since they made Rome better, they are celebrated. Morality in a Rome First, Might Makes Right sense.

So Romulus and his brother Remus are orphans, raised by wolves and then peasants (but a peasant boy could never found Rome - that’s why they had to be adopted). They grow up, have some adventures, and go off to found Rome. But they can’t agree exactly where the city should go; so Romulus murders Remus. FRATRICIDE! Surely the Romans won’t honor a Kinslayer? Wait, no, they don’t care. Why? Well, because Romulus was right, and where he founded his city was the correct place to put Rome to lead it to glory. So clearly murdering Remus was the right thing to do!

And the next thing the Romans do, in their first act as a city, is invite the neighboring Sabines to a party, then kidnap the women and run off with them (because Rome had many male colonists, but few women for them go be with). This event was called - BY THE ROMANS - The Rape of the Sabine Women.

Yet this event is celebrated, not mourned. Why? Because in the Roman mindset, even kidnapping a city’s female population and forcing them to marry is “right”, so long as it makes Rome stronger.

What do you think about books like De Natura Deorum? I mean, it’s obviously older than 40 years, but is nevertheless fascinating.

Sorry, but your wild speculation doesn’t seem to be based on any knowledge of Roman literature, culture, or history.

I don’t have the time or the inclination to refute it point by point. I actually find that level of ignorance, misinformation, and guesswork depressing. And it’s off-topic for this thread anyway.

Cicero’s work falls into the category of elite intellectual philosophy.

But it was not the only view, even of intellectuals. Neoplatonism included a belief in the traditional deities, and was thriving up to the 5th century AD.

I’m not sure how sharing my understanding of an ancient society’s view of their deities is off topic, and I’d love to be educated rather than insulted, but you do you.

Eta: obviously i made some wide sweeping generalities about Rome, the same way I did about modern morality, Christianity, or Judaism. But it doesn’t sound like that’s the problem you have with my speculation.

Too late to Eta2: the other biggest thing that stands out to me about Rome is the family, ancestors, patriarchy, etc; but from my reading (again, I’d love to be corrected) it seems like if you were doing what it took to make your family more powerful, you’d be respected for it.

O tempora! O mores!!

Modnote: While the conversation is fascinating, @Babale & @GreenWyvern, it is really hijacking the Op. I would love to discuss some of this with you both especially as the Valkyrie stuff is ignoring part of the Norse afterlife. So please desist in this thread and let me know if you start a new one.

And it’s explicit in Christianity, or at least Catholicism, that Christians worship the same God that Muslims worship.

From the Catechism:

The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.

Jews and Muslims, however, do reject divinity claims for Jesus, although Muslims acknowledge Him as a prophet.

Not a religious view, but just an observation.

Loosely speaking, the Norse gods, like the Greek and Roman type, remind me of Christian saints. People pray to them for special or general purpose. They seem to be somehow getting their powers from the big guy, but I’ve never heard any explanation for how that works. But if St. Christopher can keep you safe in your travels then praying to him seems similar to praying to Norse god for that purpose.

Yes, to me too!

From my (outside) perspective, the Norse or Greek or Roman “god of…” something or other looks much more analogous to the “patron saint of…” something or other in some Christian traditions than to the Christian Supreme Being.

Personally, I come from a Protestant background that doesn’t venerate saints the way, say, Roman Catholicism does, and I’m agnostic about many of the things that Catholics (among others) believe and practice concerning saints.