Beneath the Surface

So anyway. I've started catching up on some of my email lists for the last week or so (longer in some cases :)) and came across some discussion on one list about oaths, and the idea that just how binding an oath actually is can depend on who the oath is made to. It's not the first time--although it's likely the most glaringly weird example--I've seen some heathens use the innangardh/utgardh (sorry for any misspellings there) thing to justify treating non-heathens differently.

And obviously it's not something I agree with--I can't imagine that your Wyrd would suffer any less because of who you behaved dishonorably toward--but I'm wondering whether there are any stronger sources for this. The main lore-based precedent I've seen cited is the dealings of the Aesir and the giants, specifically the tale where the Aesir contracted with a builder to build a giant-proof wall around Asgard, agreeing to pay him the sun, moon and Freyja if he could complete it within the time limit because they thought he couldn't, turned out he could, Loki got them out of it, yadda yadda yadda. Anyway, I'm looking in Snorri's Edda now, and here's what he says specifically about how that all ended:

And when the builder realized that the work was not going to be completed, then the builder got into a giant rage. But when the Aesir saw for certain that that it was a mountain-giant that they had there, then the oaths were disregarded and they called upon Thor and he came in a trice and the next thing was that Mjollnir was raised aloft.

So that before they knew he was a giant, they had stuck to the letter of the agreement and their efforts to escape giving him payment amounted to going between the lines (probably fair enough since the builder himself had an advantage in his mighty horse that he did not let on to the Aesir about, so that neither party was totally open to start with), but when they found out that he was a giant, all bets were off.

But I don't think that's strictly a matter of one of us/not one of us, and doesn't really indicate that it's acceptable to cheat those who are not in the innangardh. The relationship between the gods and the giants was explicitly one of enmity, not simply of being different tribes--the giants were working toward specifically different, in fact opposing, goals.

So what I'm curious about is whether there is anything else in the lore that might support the us-vs.-them thing that you sometimes see. I mean, it's got to be based on more than just the story I mention above, right?

Went to Pagan Coffee Night tonight, which is always fun, and occasionally thought-provoking. Tonight it was. We were discussing Troy (which I have not seen, but several of the folks there have) and that led into discussion of the bases of reconstructionist religions--literary and archaeological evidence--and that led into a discussion of the question "If, tomorrow, new evidence turns up that is contrary to what you have known about the religion you are reconstructing, how would that affect your beliefs (and practices, presumably)?"

It's an interesting question, and we discussed it for a while. I think (although I suppose you couldn't know for sure unless it happened) that very little that could turn up would be likely to change the core of my belief, but that certainly the details would be open to reinterpretation. I think that would be the case.

I also think that such a thing would be more likely to affect those folks who take a very fundamentalist approach, such as the Edda-thumpers who consider Ragnarok to be more literal than figurative. For example, Loki: there are plenty of heathens who not only avoid dealing with Loki in their personal practice, they don't think there is a place for him in heathenry at all. The two sorts of reason I've heard for not dealing with Loki are the moral (since, if you take the lore literally, he is destined to betray the Aesir and side with the etins at Ragnarok, it is a bad idea to have any dealings with him at all) and the historical (since there is no evidence of a Loki cult in the historical record--no temples, no recorded worship, no places named for him--he was surely not a god any more than any etin and should not be treated as one). But what if evidence turned up that Loki did have a cult following--that the ancients did honor him in some fashion? Would the folks who leave the sumbel when someone toasts him have a change of heart? Or would they maintain their present position? Or would it depend on the reason they don't deal with him in the first place--might it be that the historical folks would change and the moral folks would not?

Another thought comes to mind, and that is that this sort of thing has happened in the past. Think of all the goddess-worshippers who built a theology upon the theories of Marija Gimbutas--when those theories were thrown into doubt (and they are no longer in favor among her academic community, haven't been in some time) did they abandon them? Some did, I'm sure. But you still see plenty of folks who believe in a near-Utopian prehistoric matriarchy, and take any criticism of it very poorly indeed.

Hell, think of Christianity and evolution. For a lot of people, Darwin turned their world upside down. And now? Well, more liberal Christian sects seem to have little trouble with it, finding that evolution does not conflict with or contradict their non-literal interpretation of Biblical lore. The fundamentalists, however, deny it, refuse to include it in their view of the world, and that's where "creation science" came from--because a literal interpretation of their Bible does find it to be a problem.

Very likely the same thing would happen among the recon communities if something new and surprising were to turn up.