Evil Deity

[Gleb]

Re: Evil Deity

Can't think of any real EVIL deities ... Loki was a trickster ... Hades was the god of the dead ... Thanatos was god of death (ie the grim reaper) ... Beelzebub was a daemon ... Satan was originally a member of Gods high council that watched over humans ... He was like Gods prosecutor for human sins ...

Set.
But Set was also Ra's protector, so I wouldn't necessary call him 100% evil.

[THANK...]

Re: Evil Deity

I don't worship deities because I see them as emanations of chaos, but if I did: If we define evil as harming other creatures and the planet, then no. If we define evil as opposing the status-quo of spiritual and human dogma, then yes.

[Norse_Angel]

Re: Evil Deity

The only evil I can really pin-point in Norse Mythology, would not actually be Loki, as already stated above, but the dreaded Surt. Surt bred the chaos and wrath of Muspelheim, the land of fire and destruction. His name literally translates into English as "Black," which could just be a personification of his charred skin. Carrying a burning sword into the battle of Ragnorak, the twilight of the Gods, he kills Frey, who forfeited the only defense he had for love. He is the father of all fire Giants, as well the grandfather of Loki, who is the personification of chaos within the gods realm. Surt brings about the end of the world, and inevitably, the death of the gods.

HM, I would love to hear your take on this.

[Munin-Hugin]

Re: Evil Deity

The only evil I can really pin-point in Norse Mythology, would not actually be Loki, as already stated above, but the dreaded Surt. Surt bred the chaos and wrath of Muspelheim, the land of fire and destruction. His name literally translates into English as "Black," which could just be a personification of his charred skin. Carrying a burning sword into the battle of Ragnorak, the twilight of the Gods, he kills Frey, who forfeited the only defense he had for love. He is the father of all fire Giants, as well the grandfather of Loki, who is the personification of chaos within the gods realm. Surt brings about the end of the world, and inevitably, the death of the gods.

HM, I would love to hear your take on this.

I've not put much thought into Surtr for a long time, and I'm glad you brought him up. Despite being a creature of wrath and chaos, as well as all the things he does/has done, I still cannot view him as actually evil. His origins are those of part of what formed all of creation (and was the first realm to exist), when the fires of Muspelheim intermingled with the freeze of Niflheim, and so it is the purpose of all things to be born, to exist, and to die so that it may make way for the cycle to begin again. For that to happen, there must be a catalyst to bring about the ending, and he exists to fulfill that role. As a being of primal fire, you have to look at the role of fire in and of itself. Yes, it will burn and destroy, ravage and kill, but it also brings with it warmth, heat, and a cleansing. The old gods will die, the lands cracked and sundered, but from that will rise a new, clean pantheon and world so that existence may continue.

Huh. That sort of ended up coming out as something that could also be added to the creation myth thread. Oh well, it works here too.

[Norse_Angel]

Re: Evil Deity

There are absolutely two ways to look upon Surt, and that was what I was looking for from you.
Surt (fire) being the oldest living being to ever exist within Gunudigap (endless space) stretched the heat of Muspelheim until it reached a point and met with Nifelheim, which ended with the formation of universe. In a way, he was meant to destroy the creation he instigated in creating.
Great two way perspective.

- - - Updated - - -

We may also turn our attention to Fenrir, the God of Destruction, the Wolf who sets out to devour the world, and all creatures dwelling within it. Is it evil that drives him; instinct, revenge? More so, is revenge an evil principle? It is within his nature to consume, but this is amplified with a blood lust for those who chained him.
Thoughts?

[Munin-Hugin]

Re: Evil Deity

There are absolutely two ways to look upon Surt, and that was what I was looking for from you.
Surt (fire) being the oldest living being to ever exist within Gunudigap (endless space) stretched the heat of Muspelheim until it reached a point and met with Nifelheim, which ended with the formation of universe. In a way, he was meant to destroy the creation he instigated in creating.
Great two way perspective.

The breakdown of all the various parts of Northern myth about creation and destruction, and even the move from Tyr to Odin as "chief" amongst the gods, shows a definite progression. In a way, it shows how all things change over time, and with each stage of being, a different type of rule is needed for continued existence. From chaos and upheaval, to war and strength, to wisdom and cunning, finally to brightness and hope (after Ragnarok with Baldr taking the reigns). It shows how both gods and mankind have to progress and evolve.

Sorry for getting a bit off topic here.

[DavidMcCann]

Re: Evil Deity

To take what you said, that a "good" plant or animal is one that is healthy and capable of reproduction. Therefore, logically, is it "good" to reproduce. What does that mean to say for those that do not reproduce, be in through genetic make-up or choice? Are seedless watermelons and grapes "evil" plants? Are humans, who are simply rational (and I say that loosely) social animals "evil" if they choose not to have children? By this logic, then those plants and those humans are "evil".

With apologies to anyone who finds this off-topic, here we go. And I'm going to stick with using the word "bad" rather than "evil", since it has less emotional baggage.

Is a seedless grape a bad one? Yes, as a plant. It may be very good as a food, but as a plant it's entirely dependent on humans for its continued existence. How can that be good for it?


You have equated "it is good to be able to able to reproduce" with "it is good to reproduce": the former does not logically imply the latter. As for humans, an infertile one is obviously a bad specimen of Homo sapiens, if you consider them purely as an animal. They may function well enough as an individual, but not as a member of the species. But when it come to choosing to to reproduce, the question of motivation is central. Someone who stood a chance of transmitting a serious genetic defect to a child would obviously be irresponsible to reproduce, if genetic screening wasn't available. Choosing to have children that you can't support would also be irresponsible. If you live in an overpopulated country, choosing to have a lot of children is irresponsible.

there does not exist even a single constant that can be found in various cultural morality

If you know of a culture that accepts murder (please note murder, not killing), then I (and the anthrpological community) would like to hear about it!

"good and evil" are different than "right and wrong"

Obviously. An action can be wrong or bad, but a person can only be be bad. And a bad action need not be wrong, as in the case where it's the lesser of two evils.

[thalassa]

Re: Evil Deity

It is only bad to be a seedless grape if one things that worth is based on passing ones genes down a generaton is one's functional purpose. This is not true biologically, culturally, morally, or logically.

[DragonsFriend]

Re: Evil Deity

Actually, a seedless grape is exactly what it was intended to be. Man designed it to have no seeds and it fills that role very well. It is very good at what it is.

[Munin-Hugin]

Re: Evil Deity

If you know of a culture that accepts murder (please note murder, not killing), then I (and the anthrpological community) would like to hear about it!

It all comes down to just how you define "murder". What one group would call murder, another would call justifiable homicide. Merriam Webster defines it as the "unlawful killing of an individual, more specifically with malicious intent" or something close. But, while that may be the text-book definition, people are ready and willing to spout of that "X is murder" or "y is murder" (I am intentionally not defining X or Y to avoid a further derailing).

Take for example a prisoner taken in battle. The group that did the taking can say that by executing the prisoner, they are in the right and eliminating a threat, thus it is just. But, the people from which the prisoner was taken could declare that the death of their member was unwarranted and therefore was murder. Until there can be a solid, universally decided upon definition of what murder is (or any other word, for that matter), it is actually a moot point to debate various cultures takes on the matter.

[DavidMcCann]

Re: Evil Deity

It is only bad to be a seedless grape if ... passing ones genes down a generation is ones functional purpose. This is not true biologically...

The idea of a living being that can't reproduce is a good specimen is not the biology that I learned!

Actually, a seedless grape is exactly what it was intended to be. Man designed it to have no seeds and it fills that role very well. It is very good at what it is.

Which is what I said: it's good as an item of diet or commerce, but from the biological point of view it fails to fulfill the functions of a fruit.

It all comes down to just how you define "murder".
Until there can be a solid, universally decided upon definition of what murder is (or any other word, for that matter), it is actually a moot point to debate various cultures takes on the matter.

The point i was making was not that there is a universal definition of murder, but that there is (as far as I know) a universal concept of murder, as distinct from justifiable homicide. That would be a moral constant, which you said doesn't exist.

[Munin-Hugin]

Re: Evil Deity

We may also turn our attention to Fenrir, the God of Destruction, the Wolf who sets out to devour the world, and all creatures dwelling within it. Is it evil that drives him; instinct, revenge? More so, is revenge an evil principle? It is within his nature to consume, but this is amplified with a blood lust for those who chained him.
Thoughts?

You could think of Fenrir as a victim of circumstance, in a way. In fact, he's been chained up and bound not for things that he had done, but for the things that he has the potential to do. And in a world where even science states that for every action there is a reaction, the fortold deeds of his could in fact be the cause of the mistreatment he had suffered due to the deeds that he is to perform. It creates a cyclical argument.

It is entirely natural for things to devour other things in order to survive, and I would argue that the desire to consume is present in all things, though most easily observed in animals, sometimes even to the extent of gluttony. Now as you know, in the Norse myths, all things are preordained to come to pass from the very beginning, and all things that exist do so to fulfill it's purpose. Like the argument that some make that "guns are evil", can you truly call something bad or evil for fulfilling the purpose of it's design? A knife is made to cut, be it flesh, cloth, meat, or plant. So too, Fenrir was brought into existence to do that which he is intended. In a way, he is simply a gun or a knife, a tool used to assist in the end.

[habbalah]

Re: Evil Deity

To go back on topic:

Good and evil are purely subjective human point of views, and don't exist outside of one's own thoughts. There's no such thing as objective morality. There are entities that I wouldn't work with because either they represent something that I don't agree with, or something about their self or personality makes me uncomfortable. That doesn't make them evil; just not within a realm that i'm comfortable being.

[MourningStar1719]

Re: Evil Deity

I personally believe there is no such thing as an "evil" or an "angelic" deity. It is the intentions of the being that define our views, not the being itself.

[Munin-Hugin]

Re: Evil Deity

I personally believe there is no such thing as an "evil" or an "angelic" deity. It is the intentions of the being that define our views, not the being itself.

This makes me think of that movie Legion. Of course, if I explain more, there'll be movie spoilers and if folks actually want to see it even though it's an older film, I don't want to ruin it.