Because of Veleda, much that was formerly given to the sky-gods is being given to the goddess, Nerha. Heidhin has read in the stars, in the weather, in the flight of ravens and in cast bones that the gods will withhold victory if they are not appeased. How do these things tell him that or indeed anything else? It is what he believes in any case. But he adds:
"'And what if I am mistaken? The fear itself is real in men's hearts. They will begin to hang back in battle, and the foe will break them.'" (p. 531)
Again (see Doubts), how the gods respond and how people think/fear/hope etc that the gods respond seem to amount to the same thing for practical purposes.
When Veleda claims that her goddess:
"'...is no bloodthirsty Ans.'" (p. 534)
- Heidhin responds:
"'Hm, aforetime you said otherwise.'" (ibid.)
- and he grins. As Veleda tires of the struggle, her goddess becomes less bloodthirsty.
We do not know this yet but Janne Floris as the goddess will give Veleda a new message of peace. Meanwhile, the text is preparing us for such a change in Veleda herself.
20 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Trying to discover knowledge of the future by superstitious methods of divination is an ancient weakness. Even now far too many still believe in nonsense like astrology.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Astrologers, palm-readers, card-readers and spiritualists have all told me things that were true. I see no reason to adopt a position for or against. We just need to learn more.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree, such persons can find out a lot from news sources, spies, confidential sources, shrewd observation of people, etc. It's still nonsense.
See as well how Anderson handled such people in THE BYWORLDER.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I disagree. I have been told things that a card reader could not possibly have learned from any of those other sources.
Why can't we just discuss the issues instead of categorically, uncompromisingly disagreeing? That is not the way to learn anything.
Paul.
A card reader told Sheila that she was a student, then that she was a teacher, then got confused. She thought that she had contradicted herself. For that single academic year, Sheila was a student teacher.
She named a sum of money that Sheila would soon receive. It was exactly the amount of a travel expenses claim that Sheila had just submitted.
She told me that I lived in a big house. I said, "No." We lived in a small terrace house at the time. Then she said, "It has three floors." It did. That was big to her. She lived in two rooms.
She said, "You've got someone living there with you." We did. Smiling knowingly, she added, "And you're not getting on very well with him!" I denied this. She was unphazed by any denial and just moved on. She was right. Problems with the lodger were only beginning and soon blew up.
We lived (and still live) in Lancaster. The card-reading woman, Mrs Hampson, lived in Sheila's home town in Northern Ireland and was regularly visited by clients who spoke well of her abilities. There was no way that she knew anything about us or could have learned anything about us before our single visit to her.
Evidence like this has to be critically considered, not summarily dismissed.
My mind is open. I am still learning at 76.
Kaor, Paul!
Disagree. From page 33 of A POCKET CATHOLIC DICTIONARY, by John A. Hardon, S.J. (Image/Doubleday: 1980, 1985):
[It is normally wrong to believe in astrology or to direct one's life and conduct according to its supposed predictions. The reasons are that astrology involves contradictions, since it claims uniform influence on persons born on the same day and in the same place, and who later on prove to be unmistakably different; it claims to predict accurately the free future, i.e., happenings that depend on the exercise of man's free will, whereas such knowledge is unknown to anyone except God; it is against the doctrine of free will, for it leads to fatalistic views of man's destiny; and it is against belief in divine providence, which includes the influence of divine grace and the value of intercessory prayer.
Astrology has been more than once formally condemned by the Church, as at the Council of Trent, which expressly forbade the faithful to read books on astrology dealing with "future contingent achievements, with fortuitous events and such actions as depend on human freedom, but daring to claim certitude about their occurrence" (REGULAE TRIDENTINAE, 9). Those who believe in astrology expose themselves to a weakening of their Christian faith.]
I'll have nothing to do with astrology, mediums, palm reading, "spiritualists," divination, and all other such absurd and superstitious practices.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Disagree. I will keep my mind open to evidence. Read about Eysenck's investigation of astrology. Mrs Hampson clearly spoke with knowledge.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Refused. Even Satan can pretend to be an angel of light, giving "signs and wonders," to deceive the unwary.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Refused?
This is absurd. Someone like Mrs Hampson is not Satanic. My friend who is an astrologer and who told me something that really hit home is not Satanic.
Andrea who gave me a very pertinent Tarot card reading is not Satanic.
These categoric disagreements and refusals (?) are not a discussion.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I never said the persons you listed are Satanic, I do believe they can be deceived. Not the same thing.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But they said things which were true and helpful.
Paul.
Note that Poul evidently thought that women were less vengeful than men. I disagree -- they just tend to be more subtle about it, since walking up to an enemy and smashing his skull with a hammer is often less practical for them.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I did mention something like that in one of my letters to Anderson, how Dahut, in THE KING OF YS, was the first actually evil female character I noticed in his stories. He admitted being something of a gynolator!
Much harder for a woman only five feet tall and 100 lbs. soaking wet to bash in the head of a hulking brute 6 feet tall and weighting 250 lbs! She'd have no choice but to be subtle about killing him.
Ad astra! Sean
"Have some (poisoned) beer, darling..."
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Haaaaaaa!!! Exactly.
I also thought of how Jael murdered Sisera, general of the king of Hazor, in Judges 4.17-21 by hammering a tent peg thru his skull as he slept (after fleeing from his defeat by the Israelite chieftain Barak). That was an act of inexcusable treachery because Sisera had thought Jael a friend.
Ad astra! Sean
Well, if you can't fight someone straight up, treachery becomes attractive...
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Far too true! It can be so tempting to betray a friend or ally if that was what it tales to curry favor with the winning side.
Ad astra! Sean
Or if you just don't like them but can't directly harm them face-to-face.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
That too can and does happen. But the impression I got from Sisera's story was that he had good reason to believe Jael and her clan were allies or friends.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment