Something I don't understand about symbols

[Czidnoma]

Um, first, a quick intro, since this is my first post. I'm not Pagan, Wiccan, Christian, Jew, anything. I know the term "Unverifiable Personal Gnosis", and I suppose my entire set of beliefs falls under that category. I joined PFRC thinking this appeared to be a good resource for information on the many diverse pagan beliefs, which I've been curious about for a while.

Now, in reading through the "Worst things to say as a pagan" thread, I reach the page in which someone has posted a link to a tattoo that mixes an ankh, generic tribal designs and runes. I get why that's laughably bad. It clearly demonstrates a total lack of respect. No one could translate it, so I'll also go ahead with the assumptions that, like the later mentioned kanji tattoos with unfortunate translations, the person with that tattoo didn't expend the slightest effort to research.

But another comment got me really thinking. On the subject of a Thor's Hammer tattoo. Why would a person with said tattoo have to be Norse Recon to justify having it? As the symbol and the mythology are public, the Edda are widely available, isn't it acceptable to appreciate the symbol and what it represents without being part of the tradition?

I mean, if I apply the same situation to the things I know, it seems overly protective. Nietszche is an important icon to me. His writings have strongly influenced my beliefs. Actually, his concept of the Abyss as Zarathustra describes it in the discussion at the tightrope walker's performance, that is a fundamental concept in my beliefs. But if I were to see someone with a tattoo of the famous "He who fights with monsters..." quote, I don't think I could assume that the line doesn't mean as much to them as it does to me.

And so, why is it bad to express appreciation for a symbol that is associated with a specific tradition, so long as that symbol and what it represents are accessible without initiation?  

[IH_Zero]

With the ankh, or any other Egyptian/Kemetic symbols, I wouldn't be totally adverse to someone tattooing themselves with them, but I would wonder if they knew the full meanings behind them, or just got it because it's cool.

I personally wouldn't tattoo myself with any Kemetic symbols, even being of that path myself, as symbols are very powerful heka, though the symbols on their own are not powerful without the proper rituals.  

[Czidnoma]

Ah, well, that's a fair point. Some symbols have power just being, right? Or so I gathered when someone, referring to the ankh/rune tattoo, said that using Ogham to spell out one's name is not a good idea.  

[TeaDidikai]

Czidnoma

On the subject of a Thor's Hammer tattoo. Why would a person with said tattoo have to be Norse Recon to justify having it?

Norse Recon? Not always, usually, but not always. Norse Pagan, most certainly.

Here's the thing- within the traditions, these symbols contain mysteries (Futhark) and marks of ownership, such as the Vulknuter, the Thorshammer etc. Stamping one on your a** is like writing "Property of Thor".

We're talking about marks that are intended to last as long/longer than you do. Marking yourself as a follower/devotee etc of a deity isn't something one should do willy nilly.

Quote:

I mean, if I apply the same situation to the things I know, it seems overly protective. Nietszche is an important icon to me. His writings have strongly influenced my beliefs. Actually, his concept of the Abyss as Zarathustra describes it in the discussion at the tightrope walker's performance, that is a fundamental concept in my beliefs. But if I were to see someone with a tattoo of the famous "He who fights with monsters..." quote, I don't think I could assume that the line doesn't mean as much to them as it does to me.

Problem with your analogy: We don't care what the tattoo means to you. We're concerned with what it means to the gods and the implications that holds for someone we have to deal with.

And yeah, I'm happy to mock someone who brands themselves as property of a divine being they are complete strangers to. It tends to be amusing/messy as long as I don't have to deal with the fallout.  

[Czidnoma]

TeaDidikai

We're talking about marks that are intended to last as long/longer than you do. Marking yourself as a follower/devotee etc of a deity isn't something one should do willy nilly.

Not remotely suggesting it is. I mean that, after significant research and reflection, can one not claim to have a meaningful attachment to one god or path without initiation?

Quote:

And yeah, I'm happy to mock someone who brands themselves as property of a divine being they are complete strangers to. It tends to be amusing/messy as long as I don't have to deal with the fallout.

Continuing from above with this convenient segue, if it means making oneself "property" of a god or path, aren't there degrees of... possession? That is, if the person in question doesn't claim or attempt certain things that are strictly limited to the initiated, are they unable to have a relationship with a god, period?

I'm thinking of all the Christians out there who aren't affiliated with an organized sect, but are nonetheless Christians. I'm sure that the restrictions vary from one pantheon to another, and even from one god to another. It's up to the god who they will accept and how, isn't it? So, if someone uninitiated marks themselves with the symbol of a god who will accept them without initiation, and they do so respectfully, why shouldn't they?

I think I should apologize for drawing my analogy from that specific example of the Thor's Hammer tattoo. I don't know Thor's, err, policies on this subject. ^^; I only brought that one up because it's what made me think of this. My question wasn't restricted solely to that example, which maybe wasn't a good one to broach the question with?  

[rmcdra]

Czidnoma

Not remotely suggesting it is. I mean that, after significant research and reflection, can one not claim to have a meaningful attachment to one god or path without initiation?

Depends on the god or gods in question. If a god or gods require proper initiation for one to be a devotee, then it's at best pure ignorance and a sign of crappy research and at worse spitting in the face of the deity(ies) in question.

Quote:

Continuing from above with this convenient segue, if it means making oneself "property" of a god or path, aren't there degrees of... possession? That is, if the person in question doesn't claim or attempt certain things that are strictly limited to the initiated, are they unable to have a relationship with a god, period?

Again this depends solely with the deity or deities in question.

Quote:

I'm thinking of all the Christians out there who aren't affiliated with an organized sect, but are nonetheless Christians. I'm sure that the restrictions vary from one pantheon to another, and even from one god to another. It's up to the god who they will accept and how, isn't it? So, if someone uninitiated marks themselves with the symbol of a god who will accept them without initiation, and they do so respectfully, why shouldn't they?

Why mark one's self with the symbol of a deity or deities if one is not going to be loyal to the deity or deities in question? How can one be respectful to a deity or deities if one is claiming to be a devotee of a deity or deities and is not?

In the case of Christianity, a non-denominational Christian is still a Christian because they are a follower of Christ and his teachings. Also most sects are followers of YHVH (the gnostics are a special case and its debatable if they are followers of a different God or just have a different understanding of YHVH) and believe Christ to be YHVH incarnate (Arians, Ebonites, and Jehovah Witnesses are notable exception to this that come to mind).  

[Kashaku-Tatsu]

My guess is if you are that drawn to a deity, you should put some major thinking into initiation or other form of dedication. The tattoo could be the finalizing step in the dedication. I did a scarification several years ago as a binding part of my dedication.  

[TeaDidikai]

Czidnoma

Not remotely suggesting it is. I mean that, after significant research and reflection, can one not claim to have a meaningful attachment to one god or path without initiation?

Of course. That doesn't change the meaning of the mark though.

Quote:

Continuing from above with this convenient segue, if it means making oneself "property" of a god or path, aren't there degrees of... possession? That is, if the person in question doesn't claim or attempt certain things that are strictly limited to the initiated, are they unable to have a relationship with a god, period?

You seem to be under the impression that all paths require initiation or dedication. They don't. The point isn't about initiation or dedication, it's about the meaning of the symbol. And when it comes to a relationship between deities and humans, what makes you think it is the humans that set the terms?

Quote:

So, if someone uninitiated marks themselves with the symbol of a god who will accept them without initiation, and they do so respectfully, why shouldn't they?

Again, I don't give a flying rats a** about initiation.
Thor doesn't require initiation or dedication. But marking yourself as his means that you are going to be under that mark for as long as you bear if not longer.

Quote:

I think I should apologize for drawing my analogy from that specific example of the Thor's Hammer tattoo. I don't know Thor's, err, policies on this subject. ^^; I only brought that one up because it's what made me think of this. My question wasn't restricted solely to that example, which maybe wasn't a good one to broach the question with?

No need to apologize.

That specific instance was someone who had never had any dealings with the gods. She didn't get the ink because she had a relationship with Thor, but because it was pretty and she was ******** an Asatru.  

[PhantomPhoenix0]

TeaDidikai

But marking yourself as his means that you are going to be under that mark for as long as you bear if not longer.

I read this and wondered, if you've done something to piss off the owner of said symbol (in this case, lets go with Thor). Would getting a tattoo of the symbol be... well opening yourself up to trouble?  

[Maze]

Probably.

I have a back-spanning tattoo idea based on symbols associated with Tyr and Zisa. I'm not ready for that, though. Quite possibly never will be.

Until I am, or until I decide not to go with it at all, it sits at the back of my brain and occasionally urges me to doodle it.  

[TeaDidikai]

PhantomPhoenix0

TeaDidikai

But marking yourself as his means that you are going to be under that mark for as long as you bear if not longer.

I read this and wondered, if you've done something to piss off the owner of said symbol (in this case, lets go with Thor). Would getting a tattoo of the symbol be... well opening yourself up to trouble?

Likely.

In the case of symbols like the Vulknuter, a Veve, etc, this is a mark of ownership (as much as such a thing can be applied to deities). Pissing off your owner is usually a bad idea.  

[Deoridhe]

TeaDidikai

PhantomPhoenix0

TeaDidikai

But marking yourself as his means that you are going to be under that mark for as long as you bear if not longer.

I read this and wondered, if you've done something to piss off the owner of said symbol (in this case, lets go with Thor). Would getting a tattoo of the symbol be... well opening yourself up to trouble?

Likely.

In the case of symbols like the Vulknuter, a Veve, etc, this is a mark of ownership (as much as such a thing can be applied to deities). Pissing off your owner is usually a bad idea.

A a side note, Mjollnir is actually (upg) one of the safer symbols for AsatruaR, Norse pagans, etc... because Thor was tasked with protecting humanity as part of his mandate, and so he's disinclined to hurt you even if you don't believe in him. I have found him astonishingly forgiving.

The valknut on the other hand.... one Odinsson I know referred to his valknut tattoo as "insert spear here". I refuse to get one because the oldman and I will have a talk before he sacrifices me for something, damnit; I want to at least get SOMETHING out of it. evil So I wear the valknut, but I would not tattoo it.  

[TeaDidikai]

Deoridhe

A a side note, Mjollnir is actually (upg) one of the safer symbols for AsatruaR, Norse pagans, etc... because Thor was tasked with protecting humanity as part of his mandate, and so he's disinclined to hurt you even if you don't believe in him. I have found him astonishingly forgiving.

Interesting. The flip side of that from my experience is that if you still pledge yourself by marking, you're still inviting yourself to be acted upon if he needs to protect humanity from you. wink

Quote:

The valknut on the other hand.... one Odinsson I know referred to his valknut tattoo as "insert spear here".

I like.

Do you wear the one I gave you?  

[saint dreya]

Deoridhe

The valknut on the other hand.... one Odinsson I know referred to his valknut tattoo as "insert spear here".

Most of those I talk to like to think it's a promise of a glorious death. Painful, gruesome and bloody, yes. But glorious.  

[TeaDidikai]

saint dreya

Deoridhe

The valknut on the other hand.... one Odinsson I know referred to his valknut tattoo as "insert spear here".

Most of those I talk to like to think it's a promise of a glorious death. Painful, gruesome and bloody, yes. But glorious.

That reads as wishful thinking.