Tacitus Two is an alternative text signaling a potential divergent timeline. Janne Floris tells Manse Everard:
"'Tacitus - Two - remarks near the end of the Histories that the religion of the wild Germans has changed since he wrote his book about them. A female deity is becoming prominent, the Nerthus he described in his Germania. Now he compares her to Persephone, Minerva, and Bellona.'" (2, pp. 490-491)
(An important planet is named Nerthus in Poul Anderson's Psychotechnic History. We project mythological names onto the heavens. "Woden" is a planet in the Technic History.)
The Tacitus Two Nerthus combines death, wisdom and war at a time when, as Everard observes, "'...the male sky-gods...'" (p. 491) should have become dominant. How do religions change, particularly when there is conflict between male and female figures? We see the beginning of this process when the warrior, Heidhin, begins:
"'The Anses -'" (3, p. 500)
- but the charismatic prophetess, Veleda, interrupts:
"'Let Woen and the rest grumble at Niaerdh, Nerha, if they like. I serve her.'" (ibid.)
Heidhin scowls but does not reply. One person can move the world - if she is standing in the right place.
The story culminates with a prayer to:
"Mary, mother of God..." (IV, p. 639)
The female in the highest place? The Catholic Church has resisted a move to have Mary declared Mediatrix. Years ago, a devout Irish Catholic fellow student embarrassingly said to me as someone else was walking past, "But in a way, Paul, the Blessed Virgin is the Mediatrix of all Graces because it was she who consented..." Of the four canonical Gospels, two contain different legendary Nativity stories. In one of these, Gabriel appears and "Announces" to Mary. My friend accepted this fairytale as a historical event. The original of Mary would have consented to nothing more than marital relationships with her husband. But belief is a powerful force. Veleda served the goddess. My friend revered the Mother of God. Poul Anderson dramatizes a historical progression from Germanic polytheism to the complex Christian synthesis.
8 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
The irony being that Janne Floris was thought to be Nerthus by Veleda.
No, you are speaking as one who denies the supernatural is real. I believe God is real and did send the archangel Gabriel to ask the BV for her consent to becoming the mother of the Incarnate Logos.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Well, of course I assume that everything that exists is "natural" until proved otherwise. The Annunciation is one story in one Gospel. There is nothing else to back it up. It was customary to write that kind of story about the antecedents and birth of anyone considered important.
Paul.
Sean,
Again, as before, you seem to think that the existence of the supernatural is a premise or axiom that it is legitimate to assume and that it is questionable or illegitimate to "deny" it. The onus of proof is entirely the other way around. If you affirm the existence of anything, then you are obliged to present reasons for your affirmation. No one else is obliged to disprove it. This is a basic logical point. Life on Mars is an example. I really do know someone who thinks that I am obliged to disprove that there are cities hidden under the surface of Mars.
When asked for positive evidence, you cite Lourdes which I acknowledge as an as yet unexplained phenomenon of which there are many. Are we able to discuss any of this without merely repeating what we have said before?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, I believe the Scriptures to be axiomatic proofs of the reality of the supernatural due to believing them divinely inspired. No, I believe the onus for proving the opposite lies on people who think as you do. You are free to believe both they and philosophic arguments for the reality of God are false. Those who disagree are free not to believe antisupernaturalist arguments. I conclude, again, that philosophic arguments alone cannot definitively answer such questions, nor will I accept the claims some might make that they do.
You also "repeat," as you did in this blog post. Having done so, I felt free to respond.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
"Axiomatic proof" is a contradiction. An axiom is a general premise, preferably a self-evident one, e.g. that, if A=B and B=C, then A=C. Geometry is based on axioms like that in a plane a straight line is the shortest distance between two points. A proof is a line of reasoning starting from premises which are axioms and/or evidence and ending with a conclusion. How do you know that a particular set of scriptures is divinely inspired? That proposition is certainly not an axiom. You seem to be saying that you are right because you are right.
The onus of proof is on those who do NOT accept your religious beliefs (as opposed to any other set of beliefs)? That only has to be stated to be seen to be false.
Of course we are free to believe whatever it is that we do believe! (Although that has not always been acknowledged in history.)
Philosophical arguments do not settle such matters, therefore it is ok to hold onto a received belief whatever arguments are brought against it? What role DOES reason play?
I repeated myself in this blog post?
My point about "repetition" is that these disagreements become repetitive and that becomes pointless. I was arguing with a political sectarian. He said something and I replied to it. The argument continued and before long he repeated word for word what he had said before. I then said, "I could repeat the reply that I gave before but you did not accept it then and therefore will not accept it now so what is the point?" We could have gone forever but I drew a halt.
Paul.
You have to believe that at least one supernatural being, God, exists before you can accept that any text is divinely inspired. Then you argue that the fact that a particular text is divinely inspired is proof of the existence of a supernatural being. Circular argument.
"How do you know that God exists?"
"It says so in the Bible."
"How do you know that the Bible is true?"
"Because it is the word of God."
Circular argument.
Kaor, Paul!
Refused, antisupernaturalist arguments are circular.
Yes, you repeated, when you called the Annunciation to the BVM a fairy story.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Refused?
How are antisupernaturalist arguments circular? Supernaturalism must be accepted as an axiom like "1 + 1 = 2"? That turns everything upside down.
I repeated by calling the Annunciation a fairy story? Can you show me how it is a historically verified event?
Paul.
Post a Comment