Re: Proving in the negative?

But Freya herself says, "The next major turning point for me was a life-changing spiritual and magical experience: an intense, spontaneous invocation of the God Woden. I took this to be a calling to open up the Northern pathway, which until then, was virtually non-existent within the occult community."

But still nowhere does she say that she gleaned her knowledge of Thor from magickal means. She gleaned it from research, and the fact that Guerber said the same thing makes it clear that research by different parties uncovers the same thing.

You may read what you wish to into the silence of the Eddas on the subject. But not only can't I find proof for what the Eddas don't contain, I shouldn't have to.

As I said before, the Eddas were difficult to interpret and are not so easy to read. I learned that the hard way when I tried to get through its various verses. So I'm not certain how you can be so sure that it was never implied in the Eddas that Thor was a representative of the lower classes.

Oddly you dispute the very primary sources that your sources employ. And then you turn logic on its head by saying,
Usually, the best way to insure that a certain interpretation is valid (if not outright "correct") is if several individuals record the same thing. I provided evidence that several writers have in fact said the same thing about Thor and his relationship to the lower classes.

Either the Eddas are source enough to validate the interpretations of Aswynn and Guerber, or if they must be thrown out, then the work dependent on them by Aswynn and Guerber must too be rejected.

As I said before, the fact that Thor's worship was widespread makes it clear that the lower classes had a special rapport with him. The Eddas are not historical documents per se, they are tales written in either prose or poetic verse to explain the nature of the deities. In these verses, despite their difficulty to interpret, it was made clear that Thor was birthed by Odin and Jord to protect Asgard and all humanity from the threats of the giants, the trolls, etc. It has been clear in all of these sources that Thor had a special affinity for Midgard and that he was brought into being by a union between the Lord of Asgard and the Goddess of the Earth. This makes it clear that Earth (i.e., Midgard) is under his special province. This also makes it clear that it's valid to see Thor as a protector of the Earth and a special defender of the lower classes. Once again, you're insisting that Aswynn, Guerber, and others who have said the same things are all wrong simply because the Eddas do not specifically state that Thor was the god of the working class. When you consider how many of the lower classes were farmers it becomes clear that in the past Thor was popular among them for good reason.

Oftentimes a particularly egregious error will creep into later interpretations and be repeated by the vast majority who substitute interpretations for the original. Fer instance ( and don't make me have to cite this since the citing has been so one-sided thus far ) the notion that during the Great Fire of Rome the Emperor Nero played a musical instrument which wouldn't be invented for centuries. It was so often cited that "Nero fiddling while Rome burned" became a cliche.

The particular citings that I provided made it abundantly clear that I didn't pull my ideas of Thor being the protector of the lower classes from thin air. This seems to be what you accused me of doing, before you started saying that all of my sources are wrong. Most of the citings you made were not really relevant to the subject here. Those citings simply disparaged Guerber and Aswynn, but they failed to disprove the idea of Thor being a god of the working classes. I think the fact that many sources say the same thing about Thor makes it quite clear that my interpreation is a valid one, even if you (or others) do not agree with it.

The article reprinted from Idunna showed how some of Guerber's misstatements have become accepted by those who would never read the Norse for information about the Norse. And are often repeated unquestioningly by those who believe that Guerber is a decent source.

I never said that Guerber was right about everything. I simply stated that many sources repeat the idea that Thor was the god of the working class. As I mentioned up above, Thor's status as such can be interpreted from the tales provided when you consider the circumstances of his birth and the fact that his influence was so important to those who tilled the land.

Since so few wish to read mythology in order to learn mythology I have no doubt that I will fight a losing battle on this topic.

I have read the Norse myths numerous times during the course of my life, and they always convinced me that Thor was a special protector of the human race and I can readily see why he would be embraced by the lower classes. It's no mystery to me why this shows up in several sources. I never got the negative interpretations of this that you seem to have for inexplicable reasons. We simply have a disagreement about interpretations. Unlike what you're accusing me of, I'm not accusing you of misinterpreting anything simply because you have a different interpreation than I do. The fact remains, a lot of people in the modern world see Thor as a special protector of the common man. If you see Thor in an entirely different light, then that is your personal business. I won't interefere with it. But so far, you haven't convinced me that Thor is a symbol of ruling class oppression.