Ship of Fools: Purgatory: Pagan beliefs (was Set up)

Printer-friendly view

»	Ship of Fools » Ship's Locker » Limbo » Purgatory: Pagan beliefs (was Set up) (Page 3)

Email this page to a friend or enemy.

Pages in this thread: 1 2 3 4 5

Source: (consider it)

Thread: Purgatory: Pagan beliefs (was Set up)

Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Asdara:
Seven corporal works? Never heard of them, what are they?

To feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, shelter the stranger, clothe the naked, visit the sick, minister to the prisoner, and bury the dead.

There are also seven spiritual works of mercy. These are to teach the ignorant, counsel those in doubt, admonish sinners, comfort the sorrowful or afflicted, forgive willingly, suffer wrongs patiently, and pray for all, both the living and the dead.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003 | IP: Logged

Asdara
Shipmate
# 4533

Posted

Those are very worthwhile things. Thank you for sharing that info with me. [Love]

--------------------
Not all those who wander are lost. -- J.R.R. Tolkien

Posts: 239 | From: Illinios | Registered: May 2003 | IP: Logged

Mertseger

Faerie Bard
# 4534

Posted

Boy this is going to take a while. Thank you for your questions though.

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Is that a general "you" or a "you" directed at David? I ask this because in the context of the post, it's not immediately clear, and if it is a general "you", I'm really going to have to take issue with that point.

I did, indeed mean a general "you". In the most mundane sense that most people don't mind who comes and sits next to them in ritual or church, nothing stops anyone from going to both a Christian church and Neo-pagan rituals. Now, if a particular church found out that you were a Neo-pagan they might hound you out or, worse, try to "save" you but even that might not happen. Though I'm not out with everyone at my church, I am out with a few (including, BTW, the one who selected me to be a part of the Pastor Nominating Committee), and I suspect that even if everyone knew, it wouldn't matter at my particular church. In fact, it is my intention to meet with the new pastor we just called and tell him where I'm at before I take another leadership role at that church, but I suspect that we'll reach an accord. Most of my fellow Thrid Road initiates know I'm Christian and it does not matter to them one whit.

I suspect that you mean that there must be some insurmountable internal conflict that must arrise in practicing both faiths, and, I assure you, that does not have to be the case.

quote:
Is paganism necessarily matriarchal? If it is, why? What's your basis for this? I was under the impression that matriarchal societies are a lot rarer than people used to think (matrilineal societies, on the other hand...) - and matriarchal religion was an arguable phenomenon at best.

Now, we run into why I am so careful about my terms. I am refering to the difference between modern Neo-Paganism and Christianity and not paganism as defined by everything that is outside of the three big monotheisms plus Buddhism. Neo-Paganism is mostly matrifocal. The basis for this assertion is both my experience of this religion as its practiced in my Tradition, and Neo-Paganism's writings since its inception 50 years ago. Most Neo-Pagans hold gender-equality as an ideal, but are perfectly comfortable with emphasizing Goddess over God as a way to counteract the male-dominated society in which they find themselves.

quote:

quote:

There are ways to see through these issues to achieve a synthesis between the two, but the road is not easy.
I honestly find it impossible to see how. How about some pointers?

The shortest question has the requirement for largest response. There are very few of us even trying to reconcile the two faiths, and so the only pointers I can give are the ones I have come up with in my own faith journey. Clearly, I going to make assertions which can be attacked in a variety of ways, and so I'm just going to request that readers not get personal as you tackle these individually.

One God Here are my essays from Everything2 on polytheism and monotheism:

quote:
poloytheism The first necessary heresy is, "Why not God the Mother?" The faith-sense of worshipping a Mother is substantially different. We expect nurturing, contact and warmth. She will always have a little something special for us. For me, the experience of God the Mother was so moving that the shackles of Patrifocal religion dropped away fairly quickly.

It is a small step from having two ways of conceiving God to having two Gods. That's why there is so many energy spent explaining the Trinity in the Christian tradition. It's inherently unstable and the Moslems were wise to drop it. If you're going to hold up monotheism as this paragon of religious evolution, you'd better really be monotheists, and no one does that better than the Islamic traditions. (The Judaic traditions come in a close second, but they still have the historical baggage of Yhwh's transition in the Torah from one God among many, to the one God of the Israelites, to the One and Only God.)

There are several ways to approach polytheism. Another path for me is Jung. There is ample evidence that there are unconscious psychological processes in human beings. To a greater or lesser extent these processes exhibit cognitive faculty, and to a greater or lesser extent some of these processes appear to be autonomous. If our personal psyche is not monolithic, then there is little reason to expect our collective psyche to be monolithic. Thus, spirits can be regarded as a legitimate scientific model of this collective psychology.

A third route which lead me to polytheism is sociopolitical. The women warriors of the last half of the Twentieth century have fought hard to establish a history and tradition of matriarchal authority. In the feminist paradigm, the beneficent Goddess-centered religions of pre-history were obliterated by the rise of patriarchal warrior cults. Whether these primal Goddess cults were monotheistic or not is moot. If these early matrifocal cultures were like the modern indigenous peoples for which we do have good historical records then in the matriarchal golden age, people attended to a wide variety nature spirits as a pantheon. You might hate your neighboring community's Gods but you would not doubt Their existence or Their power. It does not matter to me if there really was a matriarchal golden age, because the ideal of a tolerant, earth-centered society is a worthy paradigm whether or not it has a genuine historical precedent.

The last route for me to polytheism is philosophical. The Gods exist. That statement may merely be tautological. The number "2" exists, but I never ran into Him on the street. There is a sense in which anything we can think of exists, because, certainly, that encoding and representation of information exists. Clearly, there is a spectrum of existence. An atheist might propose that the Gods exist in the same sense that Don Quixote exists. (Interestingly, a pantheist would probably say that Don Quixote exists in the same sense that the Gods exist.) The existence or non-existence of incorporeal beings is only relevant to the extent that these beings are seen to act within the world as we know it. Does Yhwh exist? All we know for certain is that a whole bunch of people act as if He does. Therefore, even the most obsessive materialist can accept the pragmatic criteria of judging religions: there may be no materially manifesting Gods walking across the face of the earth, but, nevertheless, the beliefs and consequent actions of the various adherents to different beliefs do directly impact the material world, and, therefore, belief systems can and should be judged according to that impact. It is precisely in this sense that even strict monotheists refer to Jesus, Buddha and Allah as separate Gods.

quote:
montheism Are polytheism, and monotheism disjoint and if not, then to what extent are they conjoint?

All deism hinges on the definition of deity. Generally, practitioners of religions self-identified as monotheistic rely upon a definition of deity in which there is a single God who created All that Is. The All-that-Is (in this paradigm) includes all matter, all the laws that govern the relationship between bits of matter, all beings (material and immaterial) and all the laws that govern the relationship between those beings. Generally, this God is ascribed several other attributes including being immortal, innatal (unborn and uncreated), omniscient, omnipotent, perfect and good. According to this monotheistic definition of deity anything which is not all these things is not God. Interestingly, the requirement of "good" in this definition of deity opens the door to the existence of a Satan who is everything God is except good, although exactly how two contrary omnipotent beings can exist in the same universe and remain both omnipotent and contradictory is never adequately made clear.

Of course, strictly speaking none of these godly characteristics are required for monotheism. All that is strictly necessary for an individual to be a monotheist is the belief that there is a thing called "God" and that that thing is the unique member of its class. On the other hand, I believe that the definition of "God" needs to be shared by a number of people sharing the same language, but exactly how large that number needs to be is unclear. If I and a bunch of my friends start calling a specific pencil "God", and say that that specific pencil is the only "God", then to what extent does our language match the common usage of the word? I would say that in this case our definition of God is so far from the consensus definition of the word as to be irrelevant if not meaningless.

People who self-identify as polytheistic tend to have a wider variety of definitions of deity than people who self-identify as monotheistic. Nevertheless, the definition of a God or Goddess in a Classical pantheon is an essentially immaterial, immortal being (who may or may not be capable of manifesting in the material of this world) with specific great (certainly superhuman) but not omnipotent powers. Interestingly, all monotheistic world religions have at least admitted the possibility of such beings in their orthodox pantheons except that they have chosen to call them other names: angels, demons, faeries, peri, deva-dasi, djinn, efreet and many many others. Thus, a classical polytheist might regard a monotheist as really being a polythiest in practice, and a monotheist might think that a classical polytheist as really being either an atheist or another monothiest depending on whether the polytheist's pantheon includes a being which matches the monotheist's definition of "God". With the exception of a quibble around the attribute "good" most modern practicing pagans I have met do include such a being in their personal pantheon although they tend to call Her the Goddess. That is, there is quite a lot of commonality between theists despite the indoctrination from both camps that the two positions are supposed to be mutually exclusive.

The Bible I take the position that the Goddess has spoken through people in the past and continues to do so today. Some of the words that the Goddess spoke through people were eventually written down and collected into Holy Books including the Bible. However, the existence of the Bible and other Holy Books does not mean that we should stop listening for Her voice in our own lives nor shut-up on those rare occasions when She chooses to speak through us.

The Bible is alive! It's not a process that was completed in the middle of the Fourth Century CE. The words of the Goddess are in those books too, but also in the Tao Te Ching, and the lyrics of some pop-sings and in some poetry and in some art and, Goddess help me, some television. Discerning what is an isn't the word of the Goddess is not a trivial task, but the point is that Christians, mostly, aren't even trying. The most they can do is compare what is said now with what was said in the Bible, and dismiss anything which doesn't match their translation and interpretation. They closed their ears to the living voice of the Goddess centuries ago.

Witchcraft The arguement that Reginald Scot made in his 1584 best-seller, The Discoverie of Witchcraft, is that all the biblical passages which are translated as "witch" had nothing to do with what the people who were being persecuted for that activity in his time. I would argue today that what modern people who call themselves witchs do today has little or nothing to with both the Biblical "witches" did nor with what those who were persecuted during "The Burning Times" did.

Neo-pagans reclaimed the term as a way to affirm that they practiced magic and that they identified with people who were persecuted for having been accused of practicing magic in the past.

The Bible was written by tribes which had a very similar attitude about magic that other tribes had throughout the world: namely, the magic we practice comes from our God and is good, but there are these other tribes which are practicing magic against us and our God and that magic is bad.

To take this issue out of the heated context of the Hebrews or the Isrealites, let's look at what the Ohlone in Northern California did. The tribes in California typically each had a magical practitioner who spent his time casting protective magic to prevent his tribe from being harmed by the magic from other tribes. There is no equivalent documentary evidence that such practitioners ever practiced negative magic against neighboring tribes. Certainly, such practitioners at least spent far less time practicing curses and hexes than they did practicing protective charms. You can find the exact same xenophobic approach to magic in the cunning men and women of up to the mid-Eighteenth century England who often made the bulk of thier income from removing curses that were likely never cast by anyone to begin with.

That being the case, I see the Biblical injunctions against magic as based upon a similar tribal xenophobia. Therefore, I choose to believe that the Goddess was speaking to a different isssue in such passages than what is being practiced now by modern Neo-Pagan Witches. I'm sure you can go all kergymaniacal on this point, but remember, I don't believe that the Bible is limited to that which was canonized 1600 years ago.

Jesus So why would a modern Witch be remotely interested in what Jesus had to say or the power of Jesus living in their lives?

First, the messages of healing, empowerment, forgiveness, redemption and hope that were embodied in His teaching represent a powerful source of wisdom even before we consider matters of Incarnation or Appotheosis. Modern Neo-Paganism is lacking, in general, a thealogy of mercy, grace and forgiveness, and that's sad.

Second, Jesus as a myth represents a powerful, transformational journey. Witches like myths. We like to experience them in our rituals. We try a lot of different ones on for size to see how they speak to our souls. The story of Jesus is certainly one which could have a lot of value for Neo-Pagans, but, again, the wounds that Christians have caused prevent many Neo-Pagans from seeing that fact.

Third, Jesus as God is living force in the human world. Here's what I said on the matter in the ancient Holy Book I wrote five or so years ago:

quote:
Listen, O My Children, to the Chorus of Creation, and the Wisdom that speaks therefrom. 2The voice of this good Earth and Its creatures are astonished and amused by that which Humanity has wrought upon Itself. 3A species in which the male and the female are made substantially equal has chosen a God and forgotten the Goddess. 4For millennia piled upon millennia some Human cultures which idolize Man and the Boy-child which is His Avatar have washed Their tide of domination across the collective psyche of Humanity. 5The God of Tantrums has usurped the guise of many wise and gentle Gods. 6He has spoken His One Word "No" from pillars of fire, and has fostered hatred within and between and among His cults. 7He has gurgled infantile glee as His followers struggle to accommodate the dictates of His Canon. 8The God of Tantrums is Righteous Indignation and Righteous Retribution. 9He is invoked only at great peril, and Humanity has been doing so for millennia.

10Hear the Good News of the Lady! 11The God of Tantrums is not the only God. 12He demands that He is the only God, 13but, even were He to hold His breath until His faced turned blue, it would not be so. 14The day of the Lady is at hand. The God of Tantrums will gentle at Her touch. 15She shall sit Him on Her lapi again, 16and He shall recover the discipline of Ecstasy. 17He will unbounded rage no more forever. 18The screaming of His Angels will cease, 19and His followers shall once again hear Creation’s sweet refrain.

20When the God of Tantrums recovers Ecstasy, Humanity shall be transformed. 21The voice of Woman shall be heard again. 22The voice of the Earth shall be heard. 23The voice of all the shunned, oppressed and hated People of the Earth shall be heard. 24In the Temples that are Her mountain tops they shall be heard. 25Atop the glass towers of business, in the sanctum of boardrooms they shall be heard. 26In palace, legislature, parliament and capitol they shall be heard. 27The Chorus of Creation shall be heard again in the centers of Human focus, 28and the People of the Earth shall drink the wine of restoration. 29The bounty that is the fruit of this good Earth shall be restored. 30In all of Its amazing diversity, the Earth will be made pure again and cherished.

The point being that I think that some of nominal Chirstianity is an expression of the God of Tantrums rather than Jesus, and, contrawise, I have seen the living Jesus working through Neo-Pagan groups and rituals as much as I have in Christian churches.

quote:
I have some experience of the "wannabe pagan" side myself, and abandoned it comprehensively in my early twenties. This may have had something top do with the fact that nearly every pagan I had ever met was a fool with no idea of history and a hotline to Atlantis (this is not to say that this is the condition of pagans generally, just that nearly all the ones I personally knew were idiots, with two - and only two - exceptions, and one of those was an American on an exchange year anyway. There has still only ever been the one exception among the British pagans I know).

You just haven't met the right Neo-Pagans then. I'm blessed to be in one of the epicenters where really smart and interesting people have found their way into the new religion.

quote:
I think that even in the most liberal interpretations of these Bible passages, there's the general view that witchcraft is Right Out, not least because with God watching over us, and with the Law and the Prophets, there was simply no point for its existence. It was superfluous.

Magic is never superflous. It's fundamentally how consciousness interacts with the world.

quote:
Surely it's better to stick to your own faith and, while having learnt the lessions from the other, work towards the community of your faith growing towards your ideal, rather than attempt to create an artificial synthesis of two faiths with little or nothing in common?

Ah, but there's huge commanlity between the two of them, but neither are conscious, collectively, of that fact. Plus, they're both fun.

quote:
There are Christian ecological groups.

Exception not the rule. In the Chirstian and now, generally, Western paradigm Man is separate from Nature is seperate from God.

quote:
Meanwhile, in what sense do you mean "magic" here? because if it's in the sense I think you mean, I really will have to take issue.

I have largely the same definition of magic as Asdara posted above. Furthermore, I discribed the technical practice of magic at length in a previous post in this thread. Christianity does not have have a magical practice, though as I alluded to before chrismatic sects come pretty close.

We are powerful beings, and our psychic skills are largely ignored by Christianity.

quote:

Again, it depends on what you mean by prophecy. Pace the charismatic movement, in its primary Biblical sense, prophecy is the act of speaking out for the poor and the dispossesed.

No! Prophecy is the act of letting God speak through you. It just so happens that a very important way that the Goddess speaks through people is by speaking out for the poor and disposssed. But She has a lot to say about other matters as well.

quote:
writing the Bible and to cannonize new works. Call me dense, but I'm not sure why this is a problem exactly?

As mentioned above, it keeps people from seeing that the Bible is alive and that God continues to speak through human speach and writing. It also gets in the way of seeing that what may have been prophetic 2000 years ago in one particular culture may not be so useful now, and that the Goddess is trying to speak to modern issues.

quote:
And what about the traditions of the church?

They have their time and place as well. I come not to bury the Church but to praise it. I think traditions are lovely things. As long, that is, as they bring people together instead of dividing them, and as long as they do not get in the way of hearing what God has to say right now.

quote:
Originally posted by Mertseger a bit later:
How do you know when you are on the right path?

You meet the mist for which the mountain waits. You understand her beauty and her softness. You know the rainbow of their passion. You see the solar orgasm of their completion.
The mist for which the mountain waits? The rainbow of their passion? The solar orgasm!?

I really don't want to be harsh here, but how does a "solar orgasm" (whatever that means) legitimise your choice of path, exactly?

Seriously, now. I've often thought of my experience of the beauty of an early morning in the countryside (I assume that's what you're talking about, right?) or by the sea as one of the reasons that I believe the Christian God exists. The point being, it's the kind of evidence which can be pulled out for anything.

This problem is the exact opposite of the first one you brought up at the top of this post. I do not mean a general "you" in this case (though I'm happy if it works for others as well). I wrote this piece from me to me when I was in training. This fact is completely unclear without the context, and I did think of editing that particular passage out when I posted it here. But it is poetic and some liked it anyway.

So here's the context. An exercise we did in one of the first couple of witchcraft classes I was in was to visualize the God as a mountain. We went around in a circle and each of us spoke one attribute of that mountain. The initiate who sstarted us off began something like "It is before dawn. The mountain waits."

A week or so later my Men's Group which had no Neo-Pagans in it at all decided to do a group visualization. I began, "It is before dawn. The mountain waits," and they group created this stunning visualization of the mist as Goddess joining with the Mountain as God. The visualization was incredibly moving, but what was strange was while I was contributing every fourth sentence or so, I wasn't the one bringing in the Goddess or Their union. I was so fascinated at how one part of my life was connecting to another part, that I felt like I was on the right path. These connections which still happen for me all the time are, in part, why I continue to follow the strange path that I do.

--------------------
Go and be who you are:
The Body of Christ,
The Goddess of Body,
The Manifest Song of Faerie.

Posts: 1765 | From: Oakland, CA, USA | Registered: May 2003 | IP: Logged

ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Mertseger:
I suspect that you mean that there must be some insurmountable internal conflict that must arrise in practicing both faiths, and, I assure you, that does not have to be the case.

Well -- speaking doctrinally, what you describe here in many ways doesn't seem like my understanding of Christianity at all. No personal offence is meant here -- my understanding of Christianity is Trinitarian (though I would argue that non-Trinitarian sects, such as the Mormons, are indeed Christian but seriously in error), patriarchal (in its conception of God as Father, rather than Mother, at very least), and definitely that God is separate from Creation, though there is a difference between being separate by intrinsic nature and separate by (repairable) damage to the relationship.

I do agree that there is a lot more we all have in common with each other than people often think -- as Lewis put it, "The gap between those who worship different gods is not so wide as that between those who worship and those who don't." But I also think there is a real gap; that's part of why, despite my own openness to any number of (certain specific) things believed in or practiced by Pagans, I am also clear that I am not a Pagan myself. I can celebrate the changing of the seasons and the cycles of life, I can believe (or be open to) any number of paranormal things being real (and even part of God's "very good" Creation rather than a sinful aberration or diabolical illusion), but to me none of this intrinsically contradicts the Creeds or other defining statements of faith, as I understand them.

Perhaps I should ask: What do you believe to be the defining nature of Christianity, Mertseger? Would it be found in the Creeds, or elsewhere? What are the limits of what Christianity can be?

Once again, I hope none of this sounds arrogant or rude. [Embarrassed]

David

[ 10. July 2003, 20:40: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001 | IP: Logged

Mertseger

Faerie Bard
# 4534

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Perhaps I should ask: What do you believe to be the defining nature of Christianity, Mertseger? Would it be found in the Creeds, or elsewhere? What are the limits of what Christianity can be?

My immediate answers to this are all flippant. You'll have to excuse me: after three-and-half-hours of a PNC meeting last night, I'm getting really tired of thinking about things in Christian terms.

So let me do my flippant ones first:

Committee meetings. Christianity is fundamentally about that. Oh, and potlucks. And budgets.
No, Christianity is about simple answers to stupid questions.
No, it's definitely about detailed, rigorous defended statements about whether Mary's hymen remained intact during labor.
No, it's about a wishy-washy liberalism that has quietly ceded all evangelism and passion and growth to rabid dunderheads that believe we should go back to a time which never existed in the first place.
No, it's the potlucks.

I'm sorry, that's out my system. For now.

Look, I'm a mathematician. I am accustomed to doing logical analysis at the highest level possible. I try to keep up with you all here, and I know you all enjoy that logical argumentation here as well.

I think the Creeds are useful. They are a brief statement of the myth, and touch upon doctrine. The can put you in a beautiful, worshipful mindset when used in church. But they also say things which are fundamentally unverifiable about beings which are, at least currently, immaterial and events which occured a long time ago without a lot of immediate documentation.

I'll give you my personal statement of Christianity, but to have you all pick that to pieces might hurt. Here goes anyway.

I believe in God. I believe that She creates, sustains and nurtures All-That-Is. She is the Matrix of our being, and I love Her.
I believe in Jesus Christ, Her son, who lived and taught here on the Earth for while as human being. I believe He was crucified, dead and buried. I believe that on the third day thereafter He arose from the dead. He continues to live and act in the lives of human beings.
I believe in Sophia, the Wisdom of the Goddess, who speaks through All-That-Is. I believe humans can hear Her and speak with Her voice even though language itself is not always an adequate vehicle to convey the completeness of Her, Wisdom. She is patient as we grow towards Her.
I believe in You, the reader of these Words. I believe and trust the Goddess in you, the Jesus in you and the Wisdom in you.

How's that? Do I get my Christian gold star? Do I have to give back my lovely green initiation cord, and spit on the Goddess now?

--------------------
Go and be who you are:
The Body of Christ,
The Goddess of Body,
The Manifest Song of Faerie.

Posts: 1765 | From: Oakland, CA, USA | Registered: May 2003 | IP: Logged

lapsed heathen

Hurler on the ditch
# 4403

Posted

quote:

Originally posted by Mertseger a bit later:
How do you know when you are on the right path?

You meet the mist for which the mountain waits. You understand her beauty and her softness. You know the rainbow of their passion. You see the solar orgasm of their completion.
The mist for which the mountain waits? The rainbow of their passion? The solar orgasm!?

Posts: 1361 | From: Marble county | Registered: Apr 2003 | IP: Logged

lapsed heathen

Hurler on the ditch
# 4403

Posted

As I seconded this I'll explain what I as a Christian responded to;
Mertseger described a 'religious experience' better than I've read on these boards in some time.
I try not to fall into the "your Gods are really my God misinterpreted" trap but I do believe that the Religious experience is common to all, our response to it leads us different paths.
When I lost faith I searched for something that answered that experience and tried Wicca for a while (must have met the same people as you Wood [Frown]

) . When I left and returned to Christianity I brought many things with me, none excluded by being Christian but none in Christianity as I found it then. Time has moved on and many of the 'pagan' aspects of my beliefs are now being expressed in Christian theology perhaps they were awalys there and its the mood of the times to acknowledge them now, whichever its for the better IMHO. So I have a strong sympathy with Mertseger on this one if not total agreement.

Sorry for double, browser acting up

Posts: 1361 | From: Marble county | Registered: Apr 2003 | IP: Logged

Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

Posted

Re whether different spiritual paths can be joined/blended/what-have-you:

I think people believe what they do for different reasons, or a combination of reasons. Some look for Ultimate Truth, some want love, some want healing, some want guidelines for life, some need miracles, some want salvation, some want heaven.

Personalities, experiences, culture, and maybe even biology come into play, too.

Belief systems tend to come in a package. (E.g., "this is the (insert belief system name) Guide To Life, The Universe, And Everything".) For some people, this is perfectly natural--it's second nature.

Others, by virtue of all the things listed above, are inclined to evaluate and accept ideas individually.

Still others follow their hearts.

So keeping to one particular path doesn't work for some people **because of who they are**.

I think I'm interfaith by nature, and this has been heightened by various experiences. It was lurking there, even when I was growing up fundamentalist.

I hit a point where I desperately needed some things I wasn't finding in Christianity. The Feminine Aspect of God, for one. I sought material on Her, on Christians who were honoring Her--and at the time, I couldn't find much.

So I started looking at Pagan materials. I found a magazine focusing on "the Goddess in every woman". It filled a need. And I learned a lot about Pagan faith, how women came to the Goddess (often, they'd been wounded in other faiths), how they did personal devotions and struggled to find time for them (like Christians making room for Quiet Time). Eventually, I found Christian materials, too--but I still find Pagan materials helpful.

I'd been pulled towards Buddhist meditation for a long time, but fought it. However, I hit a point where I knew I needed to try it, and it's been very helpful.

For a look at this beyond Pagan/Christian relations, try the book "Jew In The Lotus", by Joel Kamenetz. It's about the many Jews who've turned to Buddhism, and why they have. Many of them felt a need for meditation and mystic practices, but didn't even know those existed in Judaism. (The practices had become hidden knowledge, and weren't widely known.) It's a really good read, too!

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001 | IP: Logged

Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7

Posted

Long posts deserve thorough answers.

quote:
Originally posted by Mertseger:
In the most mundane sense that most people don't mind who comes and sits next to them in ritual or church, nothing stops anyone from going to both a Christian church and Neo-pagan rituals.

True, but there's a difference - as Chastmastr has already pointed out - between turning up and participating.

quote:
Now, if a particular church found out that you were a Neo-pagan they might hound you out or, worse, try to "save" you but even that might not happen.

Well, of course it depends on the church, doesn't it?

quote:
Though I'm not out with everyone at my church,

Why? Seriously, I am genuinely curious. You say that you're quite happy to be seen as both a pagan and a Christian, but there must be some people who you know wouldn't take it well. Or am I way off-base here?

quote:
I suspect that you mean that there must be some insurmountable internal conflict that must arise in practicing both faiths, and, I assure you, that does not have to be the case.

I cannot possibly see how this can be true - although I think this and your following posts do explain adequately why you think this. I'm going to have to disagree with you.

quote:
Neo-Paganism is mostly matrifocal.

Matrifocal doesn't equal matriarchal though, does it?

quote:
Most Neo-Pagans hold gender-equality as an ideal, but are perfectly comfortable with emphasizing Goddess over God as a way to counteract the male-dominated society in which they find themselves.

Isn't that an inherently contradictory stance? Shouldn't it be better to worship both male and female aspects of God?

quote:

The shortest question has the requirement for largest response. There are very few of us even trying to reconcile the two faiths, and so the only pointers I can give are the ones I have come up with in my own faith journey. Clearly, I going to make assertions which can be attacked in a variety of ways, and so I'm just going to request that readers not get personal as you tackle these individually.

Getting personal is against the rules of this board. While I'm not hosting the thread, rest assured that if anyone breaks the bounds of debate - even me - it'll be noted, and the hosts will ask for an apology.

On the other hand, if you make assertions in Purgatory, you should expect for them to be taken apart, as has always been the ay round here. But we attack issues, not people, and please don't ever think that in critiquing your beliefs, I'm getting personal. Similarly, the only comments I take personally are personal ones, and you should not be afraid to mount the strongest defence of your views.

quote:
We expect nurturing, contact and warmth.

Not something outside the Christian experience by any stretch of the imagination.

quote:
She will always have a little something special for us. For me, the experience of God the Mother was so moving that the shackles of Patrifocal religion dropped away fairly quickly.

Just a note: several Christians on this board routinely refer to God as "She". God, while traditionally conceived of as male, is beyond gender, and in recent years many sections of the church have woken up to the fact.

quote:
It is a small step from having two ways of conceiving God to having two Gods. That's why there is so many energy spent explaining the Trinity in the Christian tradition. It's inherently unstable and the Moslems were wise to drop it.

OK. This is the MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR sticking point.

Whgile the doctrine of the Trinity may be "inherently unstable", it is and always has been one of the defining points of the Christian religion. As in, without it, you cease to be substantively Christian.

Sure, there may develop groups in the future who jettison it, but for all intents and purposes, they will be members of a different religion.

quote:
If you're going to hold up monotheism as this paragon of religious evolution, you'd better really be monotheists, and no one does that better than the Islamic traditions.

I believe that this comes right down to personal opinion.

quote:
In the feminist paradigm, the beneficent Goddess-centered religions of pre-history were obliterated by the rise of patriarchal warrior cults.

Archaeologically speaking, you're on very shaky ground here.

quote:
If these early matrifocal cultures were like the modern indigenous peoples for which we do have good historical records then in the matriarchal golden age,

I was under the impression that while matrilineal (but still patriarchal) societies have existed and do exist, archaeological opinion had in the last twenty years or so pretty much rejected the idea of a "matriarchal golden age". Which historical sources were you talking about, exactly?

quote:
It does not matter to me if there really was a matriarchal golden age, because the ideal of a tolerant, earth-centered society is a worthy paradigm whether or not it has a genuine historical precedent.

Which society would that be? Again, this borders on my academic field of expertise and is a new one on me.

And bear in mind that if you say the Native American societies, do bear in mind that recent archaeological evidence has shown that they slashed, burned and hunted with the best of them - their environmental impact was only minimal because of their small numbers.

quote:
The last route for me to polytheism is philosophical. The Gods exist. That statement may merely be tautological. The number "2" exists, but I never ran into Him on the street. There is a sense in which anything we can think of exists, because, certainly, that encoding and representation of information exists.

Sure, but this stuff's existence does not depend on us. Take fractal geometry, for instance, which is based (as I undertsand it - I'm a duffer at maths) on the roots of negative numbers being applied to a graph. The results look like shapes found in nature. This is an entirely intellectual concept (as in "imaginary numbers" cannot exist in the "real world") and yet it already existed and was just waiting to be discovered by some enterprisong mathmo.

There is an objective reality. I don't claim to have a handle on what it is, but Christianity is my best shot at describing it.

quote:
It is precisely in this sense that even strict monotheists refer to Jesus, Buddha and Allah as separate Gods.

Actually, no. Buddha isn't actually a god at all; meanwhile a strict monotheist would declare the "god" that isn't hers a phantom, an imaginary thing, at best an imperfect mirror; in short, no God at all.

quote:
Generally, practitioners of religions self-identified as monotheistic rely upon a definition of deity in which there is a single God who created All that Is. The All-that-Is (in this paradigm) includes all matter, all the laws that govern the relationship between bits of matter, all beings (material and immaterial) and all the laws that govern the relationship between those beings. Generally, this God is ascribed several other attributes including being immortal, innatal (unborn and uncreated), omniscient, omnipotent, perfect and good.

No argument with that.

That's part one. Part two soon to follow.

[ 11. July 2003, 11:44: Message edited by: Wood ]

--------------------
Narcissism.

Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001 | IP: Logged

Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Mertseger: According to this monotheistic definition of deity anything which is not all these things is not God. Interestingly, the requirement of "good" in this definition of deity opens the door to the existence of a Satan who is everything God is except good, although exactly how two contrary omnipotent beings can exist in the same universe and remain both omnipotent and contradictory is never adequately made clear.

You're getting into Manichaean dualism here. This is not the Christian viewpoint, and never has been. In Christian cosmology, evil comes from a failure to be entirely good. Satan is defined as an archangel, a finite created being, who fell from grace. Satan is not omnipotent, does not have equal opposite powers with God, and is not actually even ultimately responsible for all the evil in the world, this responsibilty falling upon human beings who, in their pride and selfishness, screwed up creation. Satan is viewed by those who believe him literally as a powerful spirit... but as nothing more.

quote:
Thus, a classical polytheist might regard a monotheist as really being a polythiest in practice

You fail to bring in the factor of worship. Yes, there are in many expressions of Christianity supernatural hierarchies, but these figures neither demand nor deserve our worship, and are therefore not gods, and do not claim to be.

quote:
That is, there is quite a lot of commonality between theists despite the indoctrination from both camps that the two positions are supposed to be mutually exclusive.

It's not the belief in a Supreme Being that's the sticking point. I hope I've got this across.

quote:
The Bible is alive! It's not a process that was completed in the middle of the Fourth Century CE.(and later on)

As mentioned above, (the closed canon) keeps people from seeing that the Bible is alive and that God continues to speak through human speech and writing. It also gets in the way of seeing that what may have been prophetic 2000 years ago in one particular culture may not be so useful now, and that the Goddess is trying to speak to modern issues.

I believe that the Bible is alive. But again, here's your sticking point. The church has worked on Scripture, Tradition and Reason: Scripture - the book; Tradition - the dynamic of interpretation which is fluid, and which recasts itself through the ages; Reason - the common sense that allows Tradition to be dynamic and for the Bible to remain alive.

I think by saying that "I think traditions" are lovely things" you prove yourself unaware of exactly the dynamic, fluid power that Tradition grants to the Christian faith.

So it is an ongoing process, and frankly, the Bible rewrites itself in every generation, while remaining the one collection of texts. That's the beauty of it. To assume that having the one book ties you down to one interpretation of things forever and for always is incredibly narrow.

At the same time, it is the central text of the Christian faith; to add more words to it, while paradoxically making the course of our faith through history less fluid and dynamic, will also mean that ultimately we follow a different religion.

It pains me to say this, because you've clearly thought long and hard about this, but I think I would find more sympathy with your views if you were of the opinion that Christianity should be rejected outright. It seems to me that your views are far more the views of a pagan with an interest in some aspects of Christianity than one who holds both faith positions at the same time.

quote:
The words of the Goddess are in those books too, but also in the Tao Te Ching, and the lyrics of some pop-songs

Pop songs? [Ultra confused]

Any examples?

quote:
and in some poetry

I'll only believe you on this one if you include Dylan Thomas. Good poetry has the work of God in it:

quote:
Part of my favourite Dylan Thomas poem:
And death shall have no dominion
Dead men naked they shall be one
With the man in the wind and the west moon
When their bones are picked clean and the clean bones gone
They shall have stars at elbow and foot
Though they go mad, they shall be sane
Though they sink through the sea, they shall rise again
Though lovers be lost, love shall not
And death shall have no dominion.

Go read the whole thing somewhere. It's my favourite poem ever.

quote:
and in some art and, Goddess help me, some television. Discerning what is an isn't the word of the Goddess is not a trivial task, but the point is that Christians, mostly, aren't even trying.

I admit that most of us aren't even trying. Personally, I see the divine hand in all of the truly great art - and, as I said, God spoke through Dylan Thomas. The fact is, if you're a Christian, it may be the word of God, but it's not the Word of God, this being Jesus Christ and the vessel that holds its words. Yes, God speaks through many things and gives art to many people (but not, in my opinion, people who make popular TV shows), and we can learn from these things, but our faith stands or falls on Scripture, Tradition and Reason.

I'm trying to present the widest possible view of Christianity here, but the fact remains that without the Trinity and without the triat of Scripture, Tradition and Reason, Christianity ceases to become Christianity. I'm not saying it's wrong to abandon these things - I don't honestly know. But it is wrong, in my opinion, to
abandon these things and then still call it the same religion.

quote:
The most they can do is compare what is said now with what was said in the Bible, and dismiss anything which doesn't match their translation and interpretation. They closed their ears to the living voice of the Goddess centuries ago.

This, and your reply to my statement about Christian ecological groups, suggests to me that your experience of Christians has on the whole been as negative and as unrepresentative as my own experience of pagans.

I should think even a cursory look at some of the discussions here should prove you at least partly wrong on this point. In fact, the fact that we're discussing this in a civil manner at all proves you wrong, I think.

quote:
I would argue today that what modern people who call themselves witches do today has little or nothing to with both the Biblical "witches" did

True. The so-called witches of Scripture were in fact mediums; people who spoke to the dead.

quote:
nor with what those who were persecuted during "The Burning Times" did.

I'm not saying you think this (evidence suggests you don't)... but this is one of my personal gripes, inasmuch as the people who were killed in the so-called "Burning Times", apart from being of a number far less than the nine million quoted to me by pagans of my acquaintance, were on the whole Christians with odd superstitions and/or people who didn't like them. It's an insult to the innocent Christians who died to call them pagans.

quote:
That being the case, I see the Biblical injunctions against magic as based upon a similar tribal xenophobia. Therefore, I choose to believe that the Goddess was speaking to a different isssue in such passages than what is being practiced now by modern Neo-Pagan Witches.

Actually, I think you're probably right on this point, come to think of it.

quote:
I'm sure you can go all kergymaniacal on this point, but remember, I don't believe that the Bible is limited to that which was canonized 1600 years ago.

Whoa there. You argue a point from Scripture (FWIW fairly persuasively to a point) and then say that any arguments against it from Scripture are irrelevant because you don't believe that Scripture is closed?

That's not cricket.

Right. So much for part two. Part three on its way.

[ 11. July 2003, 11:48: Message edited by: Wood ]

--------------------
Narcissism.

Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001 | IP: Logged

Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7

Posted

Still taking on that one post from Mertseger...

quote:
Originally posted by Mertseger: Here's what I said on the matter in the ancient Holy Book I wrote five or so years ago:

Minor point, mainly unrelated to discussion: but how can your holy book be ancient if you only wrote it five years ago? If you wrote it yourself, how do you know it's holy?

quote:
4For millennia piled upon millennia some Human cultures which idolize Man and the Boy-child which is His Avatar have washed Their tide of domination across the collective psyche of Humanity. 5The God of Tantrums has usurped the guise of many wise and gentle Gods. 6He has spoken His One Word "No" from pillars of fire, and has fostered hatred within and between and among His cults.

If you really think these things about Christianity and Christians, it really does beg the question: why even try and identify yourself with Christianity? You can admire Christ without the baggage of the label Christian, you know.

quote:
The point being that I think that some of nominal Christianity is an expression of the God of Tantrums rather than Jesus

Show me a religion that hasn't had its central tenets hijacked by lunatics at some point or another, and I'll show you a religion that's seriously deluding itself.

I've said it several times before and I'll say it again: never, ever, ever underestimate the capacity of human beings to twist even the noblest enterprise into something petty, selfish and evil. It's part of the human condition.

Even pagans, after a tradition of only fifty years, have their idiotic leaders and blind followers - one only needs check out the proportion of pagan literature and the followings commanded by Silver Ravenwolf and, on this side of the Atlantic, by Murry Hope. The point is not that pagainsm is wrong; it's that it is prey to the same negative human impulses as every other religion, and in fact, every other ideology period, no matter how good.

quote:
, and, contrawise, I have seen the living Jesus working through Neo-Pagan groups and rituals as much as I have in Christian churches.

No argument.

Wesley believed in the idea of "prevenient Grace"; that the grace of Christ could be exhibited in those who did not believe in Christ as the Saviour. I have a lot of time for that view. Although I generally keep it quiet, since me saying it to people is generally misconstrued as patronising.

quote:
You just haven't met the right Neo-Pagans then.

You appear not to have met the right Christians. are we quits? [Smile]

quote:
Magic is never superflous. It's fundamentally how consciousness interacts with the world.... (and later)Christianity does not have have a magical practice, though as I alluded to before chrismatic sects come pretty close.

We are powerful beings, and our psychic skills are largely ignored by Christianity.

But if it's fundamentally how consciousness interacts with the world, what's the point fo rituals?

More: I think the general idea of magic as presented to me over the years by many people, and presented in no new way here, offends my sense of fair play. There are miracles all around us, every day. I see new wonders walking down the street, on the lake I can see from the window of my office, in the interaction of the human beings that I meet every day.

But I see no point in changing the playing field. If I am to be truly human, than to basically cheat, to, in the words of Grant Morrison, "hack into the operating system on the universe", for my own ends is to deny that, and to break my common bond with rest of the human race. I believe that it is God's place to change things, and I believe that it is in His/Her will to answer prayer when He/She wishes. Sometimes prayers aren't answered, sometimes they are. All thinngs, I still believe, work for the good, and I will be a member of the human race at the end.

There is miracle (or magic, or whatever you want to call it) in the world we see everyday. And yes, some of us don't look for it, but this is not an excuse to try and buck the system and create new ones.

We do not live in a grey reality. We live in a vibrant, living, broken, awe-inspiring world. And God surrounds and informs it all. And so I still believe that rituals and magic are superfluous, in the same way that I am intensely critical of the so-called "prosperity Gospel" found in some of the wacko corners of my own faith.

We are powerful beings, but we do not need to cheat reality to express that.

However, I understand that this is basically a matter of opinion, in the end of the day, and could well descend to a "yes it is"/"no it isn't" dichotomy.

quote:
Ah, but there's huge commanlity between the two of them, but neither are conscious, collectively, of that fact.

I still don't think you've really yet explained what that commonality is.

quote:
Plus, they're both fun.

Hey, you've got me there.

quote:
posted by me a while back:
Again, it depends on what you mean by prophecy. Pace the charismatic movement, in its primary Biblical sense, prophecy is the act of speaking out for the poor and the dispossesed.

quote:
Posted by Mertseger in reply: No! Prophecy is the act of letting God speak through you. It just so happens that a very important way that the Goddess speaks through people is by speaking out for the poor and disposssed. But She has a lot to say about other matters as well.

In all fairness, I should have clarified that what I mean in the act of speaking out for the poor, the dispossessed, speaking out against injustice, proclaiming good news, is precisely that: God speaking out through the person. What I believe that prophecy is not is the act of predicting the future.

*phew*. That was a monster, wasn't it? And I don't think I'm even finished yet. [Eek!]

--------------------
Narcissism.

Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001 | IP: Logged

Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7

Posted

Finally, I'm on to Mertseger's other post.

quote:
Originally posted by Mertseger:
So let me do my flippant ones first:

Committee meetings. Christianity is fundamentally about that. Oh, and potlucks. And budgets.
No, Christianity is about simple answers to stupid questions.
No, it's definitely about detailed, rigorous defended statements about whether Mary's hymen remained intact during labor.
No, it's about a wishy-washy liberalism that has quietly ceded all evangelism and passion and growth to rabid dunderheads that believe we should go back to a time which never existed in the first place.
No, it's the potlucks.

quote:
Look, I'm a mathematician. I am accustomed to doing logical analysis at the highest level possible. I try to keep up with you all here, and I know you all enjoy that logical argumentation here as well.

Keep it coming.

quote:
I think the Creeds are useful. They are a brief statement of the myth, and touch upon doctrine. The can put you in a beautiful, worshipful mindset when used in church. But they also say things which are fundamentally unverifiable about beings which are, at least currently, immaterial and events which occured a long time ago without a lot of immediate documentation.

I think you've pretty much summed up the point of having faith.

I agree with your assessment, although the beautiful, worshipful mindset AKA the "warm fuzzy feeling" is not what the Creeds are there for. They're there both as a summary of what makes the Christian faith what it is and as a point on which we can affirm what we as Christian have always believed. The Creed is the statement of who and what we are.

quote:
I'll give you my personal statement of Christianity, but to have you all pick that to pieces might hurt.

Hey, if you weren't expecting it to be picked to pieces you wouldn't have posted it, right?

quote:

Here goes anyway.

I believe in God. I believe that She creates, sustains and nurtures All-That-Is. She is the Matrix of our being, and I love Her.
I believe in Jesus Christ, Her son, who lived and taught here on the Earth for while as human being. I believe He was crucified, dead and buried. I believe that on the third day thereafter He arose from the dead. He continues to live and act in the lives of human beings.
I believe in Sophia, the Wisdom of the Goddess, who speaks through All-That-Is. I believe humans can hear Her and speak with Her voice even though language itself is not always an adequate vehicle to convey the completeness of Her, Wisdom. She is patient as we grow towards Her.

But you've basically described - in idiosyncratic terms - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I think it's what you leave out that's interesting. Why did jesus arise from the dead on the third day? Are Jesus and "Sophia" God as well?

quote:
How's that? Do I get my Christian gold star? Do I have to give back my lovely green initiation cord, and spit on the Goddess now?

*sigh*

Yes, I know you're kidding, but...

I think you should be aware that no one's asking you to give up being a pagan, or for that matter, to give up being a Christian. I think that there are serious logical inconsistencies in your argument, mainly precipitated on a more than slightly idiosyncratic interpretation of what you consider Christianity to be, but ultimately it's your call what you do with your religion, mate.

AND finally, can I just say, "bloody hell, is that the time?" I've just spent over two and a half hours on this lot and I should really go and work (one of the best/worst* things about being freelance is the way that you can just go off and do your own thing for a while...). Anyway, I hope I have provided food for thought and further discussion, rather than stomp all over it with the weight of words.

__________
*Delete as applicable.

--------------------
Narcissism.

Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001 | IP: Logged

Nightwind
Shipmate
# 4531

Posted

quote:
Most Neo-Pagans hold gender-equality as an ideal, but are perfectly comfortable with emphasizing Goddess over God as a way to counteract the male-dominated society in which they find themselves.

I don't agree with this at all. This is the approach of some such as Goddess worshippers and some Wiccans, but I don't think it common to Paganism overall, and I personally have huge objections to the concept. You're either equal or you're not. Putting one over the other because of the behavior of people in other religions is more like paybacks than equality.

--------------------
We've replaced their pagan gods with Folger's Crystals. Let's see if they notice.

Posts: 117 | Registered: May 2003 | IP: Logged

Asdara
Shipmate
# 4533

Posted

Wow. That was a good hour read between the two of you and I read quickly.

.

quote:
It's an insult to the innocent Christians who died to call them pagans.

Just one quick thing, because this bothered me. The Christians (or Puritains or whatever they were) who burned them, crushed them with rocks, and hung them are the ones who first 'insulted' them by calling them pagan. Just wanted to point that out. [Wink]

**This has been a message from someone who wishes more people would crack a book on the burning times rather than rant about it on their web pages trying to pass off that millions died and other such tripe [brick wall]

**

I'll proabaly come back and post more later, but I think those long posts need time to digest. [Razz]

--------------------
Not all those who wander are lost. -- J.R.R. Tolkien

Posts: 239 | From: Illinios | Registered: May 2003 | IP: Logged

Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Asdara:
Just one quick thing, because this bothered me. The Christians (or Puritains or whatever they were) who burned them, crushed them with rocks, and hung them are the ones who first 'insulted' them by calling them pagan. Just wanted to point that out. **This has been a message from someone who wishes more people would crack a book on the burning times rather than rant about it on their web pages trying to pass off that millions died and other such tripe **

You're quite right. I should have been clearer.

--------------------
Narcissism.

Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001 | IP: Logged

Asdara
Shipmate
# 4533

Posted

Nightwind, I don't think it's done intentionally so much as it's a knee-jerk reaction that most pagans (who are not in completely goddess centered traditions) grow out of it with time and understanding.

--------------------
Not all those who wander are lost. -- J.R.R. Tolkien

Posts: 239 | From: Illinios | Registered: May 2003 | IP: Logged

Asdara
Shipmate
# 4533

Posted

I told you there would probably be more later.

quote:
More: I think the general idea of magic as presented to me over the years by many people, and presented in no new way here, offends my sense of fair play. There are miracles all around us, every day. I see new wonders walking down the street, on the lake I can see from the window of my office, in the interaction of the human beings that I meet every day.

But I see no point in changing the playing field. If I am to be truly human, than to basically cheat, to, in the words of Grant Morrison, "hack into the operating system on the universe", for my own ends is to deny that, and to break my common bond with rest of the human race. I believe that it is God's place to change things, and I believe that it is in His/Her will to answer prayer when He/She wishes.

I'm sorry, while you see these things as 'cheating' I see them as simply using the tools made available to you. If God didn't want us to use our power, why then do we have it? Free will and all of that is nothing if you do not take action to move along the course of your life.

I don't see how using your own talents and will to generate magick in any way separates you from the rest of humanity (other than the fact that you are actually using what you have, rather than waiting for Deity to come along and do it for you).

--------------------
Not all those who wander are lost. -- J.R.R. Tolkien

Posts: 239 | From: Illinios | Registered: May 2003 | IP: Logged

ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

Posted

I think it depends on whether one considers "magic" (however defined) as using the system as it was meant to be used, or "hacking into it via back-doors to get an advantage." And I could see people having either view. Some people might even argue that magic (or parapsychological phenomena) is simply Part Of The Way Things Are, and that using that talent -- or asking other beings for help -- or any number of other variants -- is no more "breaking the rules" than planting a crop and reaping the harvest, or asking a friend (or someone in authority) for help in an endeavour. But others might see it in terms of a sneaky way to get what one wants.

I suspect -- and I know this is not universal -- that most Pagans would be more of the "order of the universe and quite proper to use" bent, and certain magician-types (not all, but definitely the "darker/self-centred" ones) would see it as another way to get what they want without paying the usual cost.

And yes, there are certainly parallels with ecology and the environment -- those who try to work with nature and make things better without simply abusing it, vs. those who are quite happy to strip-mine the land for what they want and leave it barren.

David

[ 11. July 2003, 15:16: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001 | IP: Logged

Nightwind
Shipmate
# 4531

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Asdara:
Wow. That was a good hour read between the

quote:
It's an insult to the innocent Christians who died to call them pagans.

Just one quick thing, because this bothered me. The Christians (or Puritains or whatever they were) who burned them, crushed them with rocks, and hung them are the ones who first 'insulted' them by calling them pagan.

That still doesn't make it any less of an insult when we do it.

What source are you getting this from, that the victims of the witch-trials were ever called pagans?

--------------------
We've replaced their pagan gods with Folger's Crystals. Let's see if they notice.

Posts: 117 | Registered: May 2003 | IP: Logged

Asdara
Shipmate
# 4533

Posted

They were called witches. I know that you have issues with the word Pagan and it's applications but as there are just so many words to use to describe the issue we are talking about it's easier sometimes to use the word pagan rather than wiccan/witch/pagan/spititualist/neo-pagan/ect/ect/ect. [Razz]

--------------------
Not all those who wander are lost. -- J.R.R. Tolkien

Posts: 239 | From: Illinios | Registered: May 2003 | IP: Logged

Nightwind
Shipmate
# 4531

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Asdara:
They were called witches. I know that you have issues with the word Pagan and it's applications but as there are just so many words to use to describe the issue we are talking about it's easier sometimes to use the word pagan rather than wiccan/witch/pagan/spititualist/neo-pagan/ect/ect/ect.

But we're NOT not talking about Wiccans, Pagans, Spiritualists or Neo-Pagans. We're talking about Christians who were wrongly accused of being Witches. The claim was made that it was the Christian accusers who called these people Pagans. They didn't. They called them Witches. When talking about what was said it is immaterial as to what the victims actually were. And I'm not even sure why you're bringing up Wiccans, Pagans, Spiritualists or Neo-Pagans, because we're not talking about any of those people.

[ 11. July 2003, 16:38: Message edited by: Nightwind ]

--------------------
We've replaced their pagan gods with Folger's Crystals. Let's see if they notice.

Posts: 117 | Registered: May 2003 | IP: Logged

Asdara
Shipmate
# 4533

Posted

Okay, my apologies. They were Christians accused of being witches. I don't think any of them were actuall witches though and even if they were they weren't the devil worshiping, flying, cursing, nutcases that they were made out to be regardless of whether or not they practiced midwifery or herbcraft.

--------------------
Not all those who wander are lost. -- J.R.R. Tolkien

Posts: 239 | From: Illinios | Registered: May 2003 | IP: Logged

ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

Posted

Gosh, Wood.

That was rather forensic of you.

And all I managed on the Ship today was to yell at Mike and Di. [Not worthy!]

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002 | IP: Logged

ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Asdara:
The Christians (or Puritains or whatever they were) who burned them

Not, on the whole, Puritans. Mostly Roman Catholics. Though there were a few dodgy puritans doing it, particularly the unfortunate events in East Anglia during the English Republic, and the famous case a few years later in Salem, Massachucetts. (a word No True Scotsman can spell)

As those two witch-hunts are by far the best known to English-speaking people (because they are the most serious ones committed by English-speaking people) they tend to distort our perception of the thing.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002 | IP: Logged

Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Asdara:
I'm sorry, while you see these things as 'cheating' I see them as simply using the tools made available to you. If God didn't want us to use our power, why then do we have it?

It's a difference in perspective, then. Neither of us is going to chnge the other's perspective; but hey, there's no harm in talking about it. [Smile]

God gave us loads of powers. Not all of them are beneficial, or even useful. But another question is, do we have this power at all?

To be honest, apart from the whole "cheating" thing, I actually have to say that I have over the past couple years begun to suspect that magic doesn't actually work. At the very least, I have never seen it work; more, those of my acquaintance who claim it works have fallen mysteriously silent when it comes to me. Either it doesn't work, or, as far as personal experience can be said to be , it doesn't work on me.

As I've said on a couple of occasions, for the twenty-seven years of my life I have lived under the threat of some supernatural force or another. They haven't got me yet. In fact, unless the curse that a recent nerk threatened to cast on me was actually the "lucky, prosperous, and happy" hex, it didn't work with him, either.

I grew up surrounded - and I mean surrounded by the paraphernalia of the supernatural. And you know what? Not once has the supernatural manifested itself in my life. As a kid I wanted it to. Oh, how I wanted it to. And I believed it. And tried and tried to make it real.

Even after I converted to Christianity, finding myself among people who spoke in tongues and who claimed to heal by the power of prayer, the supernatural has remained entirely absent from my life.

I want to believe in magic. But the only magic I see is the magic of life, the magic of a kind word (25 indie points of you get the music reference there), the magic of the birds on the lake, the magic of the sun, of the first bite in the orange, the magic of the smile my wife gives me when she wakes up beside me in the morning. God is at work in those things.

quote:
Free will and all of that is nothing if you do not take action to move along the course of your life.

I agree.

But I believe utterly that the practice of magic is a red herring in that. I believe that God gave us free will to sort our own problems out, to move ourselves along, and to fight - and I mean fight to see Jerusalem builded here (5 lit points for spotting the reference), to see justice in our day, to see the Good News of equality and peace shouted from the rooftops.

I don't believe that He does that for us; I don't believe that we need magic to do it.

quote:
I don't see how using your own talents and will to generate magick in any way separates you from the rest of humanity (other than the fact that you are actually using what you have, rather than waiting for Deity to come along and do it for you).

God has never done it for me. He gave me tools to do what was needed, the will and strength to survive and the power to make it on my own. And I realised not long ago that I did.

I am the child of working-class parents; I paid my own way through two degrees. I was told I would be unemployable with the academic disciplines I have chosen; I am a moderately successful creative with a beautiful wife, a beautiful home and the brightest future imaginable.

I thank God that he gave me the will and determination to fight through all that I have been through - and only a few people here have any idea - but I had to make the choice to make it myself.

And hell, if I could have done it, anyone could have done it, without resorting to breaking into the rules of reality.

We can surpass our wildest dreams of potential, but I firmly believe that while magic may be helpful to a few, we do not need magic, if magic exists outside of the wonder of creation and the human experience.

--------------------
Narcissism.

Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001 | IP: Logged

Jerry Boam
Shipmate
# 4551

Posted

quote:
Wood wrote:
We can surpass our wildest dreams of potential, but I firmly believe that while magic may be helpful to a few, we do not need magic, if magic exists outside of the wonder of creation and the human experience.

But "outside of the wonder of creation and the human experience is precisely the opposite of whay has been clearly said here.

I used to make the same statements you do about the supernatural, now I can't. I am quite sure I can't prove this to you. But sometimes prayers are directly answered and miracles occur. Likewise, magic works. This probably isn't a useful topic for an argument, because any anecdotal evidence I can supply will be unconvincing to you, neverthless, I feel the need to put in a word for those Christians who believe in a miraculous dimension to God's present action in the world and those pagans who believe that their magic actually does something.

--------------------
If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving is not for you.

Posts: 2165 | From: Miskatonic University | Registered: May 2003 | IP: Logged

Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Jerry Boam:
I used to make the same statements you do about the supernatural, now I can't.

I used to believe utterly, now I'm sceptical. You've moved in an opposite trajectory to me. It happens. Who's right. Well, you can tell me when I see you in the Afterlife, K?

quote:
I am quite sure I can't prove this to you. But sometimes prayers are directly answered and miracles occur. Likewise, magic works. This probably isn't a useful topic for an argument, because any anecdotal evidence I can supply will be unconvincing to you, neverthless, I feel the need to put in a word for those Christians who believe in a miraculous dimension to God's present action in the world and those pagans who believe that their magic actually does something.

Likewise, I'm not going to convince anyone here with my own anecdotal evidence. While on the one hand it's fairly easy to make an objective statement about what Chrstians believe as per the creeds, once we get into the realms of the supernatural, things become entirely subjective.

Besides, I'm not saying that miracles don't work. Are magic and miracles (assuming magic works) necessarily the same thing?

--------------------
Narcissism.

Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001 | IP: Logged

Mertseger

Faerie Bard
# 4534

Posted

I'm just going to pick and choose a bit this time rather than doing a point-by-point since clearly both Wood and I are insane (well, at least in terms of our thoroughness).

I will say, in general, that I do not expect anyone other than me to go through the amount of soul-digging to practice both faiths. I'm just trying to demonstrate its possibility. I do like the members of both faiths to learn to communicate better with each other and this thread is a great example of how that improved communication and understanding is possible. Great job, Asdara, Wood, ChastMastr and Nightwing in particular!

Honestly, I don't think I'd ever want the two faiths to merge even if they could (the possibility of which, of course, has not been demonstrated). One of the best things about Neo-Paganism is that it is strongly opposed to proseltyzing, and Christ, on the other hand, was pretty clear that one should. All I can say is that I enjoy the ritual and practice of both, and I do not expect others to do so.

Onto the meat:

quote:

quote:
Though I'm not out with everyone at my church
,Why? Seriously, I am genuinely curious. You say that you're quite happy to be seen as both a pagan and a Christian, but there must be some people who you know wouldn't take it well. Or am I way off-base here?

Purly, timing issues really. I was in training as a Witch at the same time I was completing a term on Session at church. Thus, I was struggling to reconcile how I would be both at the same time I was called to be a leader at my church. I'm a bit more comfortable with my path now, but other than the huge time commitment of being on the PNC I'm hardly practicing either religion at this point. Crisis of faith? No. Crisis of having a three-year old. As Shawn becomes easier to manage we're finding time for these other things again, and it'll be good to get him started on Sunday school soon.

My last night those several years ago on Session I was in charge of the lesson so I brought in candles and read this poem which is about as Neo-Pagan as you can get. They liked it. So I'm not so much afraid of a backlash as just hesitant to share that part of my faith journey when it is complicated (as demonstrated by our interchange in these topics in this thread) to do so.

quote:
Isn't that an inherently contradictory stance [prefering Goddess over God]? Shouldn't it be better to worship both male and female aspects of God?

Yep, and someone in Neo-Paganism itself brings that point up every time its mentioned. (Thank you, Nightwing for chiming in.) And then we go right back to emphasizing Goddess over God. I was just stating where Neo-Paganism is at, not making a case for.

Look, gender issues matter in our religious practice. Christianity has just barely scraped the surface in its grudging, occasional use of "She" to refer to God. This all came to a head for me when I wrote The Book of Nub. I had two long time friends act as my muses and editors as I wrote the piece. The standard Wiccan solution to the problem of gender in addressing the Devine is to focus on a God and a Godess at the the center of All-That-Is. The problem in my process of trying to let the Goddess speak through me was that my two editors were Gay males. Why put a hetereosexual couple at the center? I briefly considered Their sexuality to shift into all possibilities, but then why two? You're then excluding all the happily polyamorous from having their prefered relationship at the center. And so on.

In the end, I settled on the fact that every human on this earth to date is the child of genetic material from one man and one woman. Thus, God and Goddess.

But I still put the Goddess first because I still love the way the powerful women in Neo-Paganism light up when they see themselves and their gender reflected by the Divine and even embraced as Divine.

quote:
OK. This is the MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR sticking point.

Whgile the doctrine of the Trinity may be "inherently unstable", it is and always has been one of the defining points of the Christian religion. As in, without it, you cease to be substantively Christian.

Sure, there may develop groups in the future who jettison it, but for all intents and purposes, they will be members of a different religion.

Nothing generates a bigger sense of [Snore]

for me than the clutching of Trinitarianism as the be-all-end-all of Christianity. Clearly, its defense is important to a lot of Christians. Clearly, its defense is important to a lot of people on this board.

But for me, and, perhaps only for me, the Tinitarian doctrine is inherently theoretical and abstract, and the energy spent to understand, argue and defend the various nuanced versions of the Trinity is the intellectual equivalent of dogs pissing to mark their territory. It may well be that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one in some rigorously defined sense that everything else in the All-That-Is is not. But that doctrine is a long, long way from the practical matters like how am I going to deal compassionately with the next response in this thread, or giving comfort to my fellow humans, or attending to the damage that humanity is inflicting on the environment. And using the presence or lack of acceptance of the Trinity as a way of separating and, more, distancing ourselves from people who are doing all those things (and any others which are percieved as a positive good) is just absurd to me.

quote:
And bear in mind that if you say the Native American societies, do bear in mind that recent archaeological evidence has shown that they slashed, burned and hunted with the best of them - their environmental impact was only minimal because of their small numbers.

The Calirfornian tribes are interesting. They weren't matriarchal, and, honestly, I can't remember of the top of my head about the matrilineal part. They certain had intertribal raids, but the evidence was that it was limited to blowing off the inevitable conflict over resources that built up every few generations. All the evidence is that there was no warfare in which one tribe replaced the culture of another tribe in an area (at least in the Bay Area) for one thousand years, and if we posit that the two changes in the burial practices which did occur prior were not due to conquest then the length of relative peace goes back much further.

You say this fact was the result merely the population size, and that might well be part of it, however, I believe that there were also other mechanisms involved as well for that amazing record of peaceful coexistance. Of course, those mechanism might not be particularly positive or replicatable in the modern world. Tribal cultural in California was demonstably xenophobic, and probably more importantly there were a huge number of mutually unintellible languages being spoken (what? over 300 language groups in California alone, IIRC). Nevertheless, I think that living in a close relationship to the land and its rhythms played a part in that peacefulness and could play a part in our culture's return to peace.

As for their enivornmental impact, I was amazed to learn how much they did to shape their enviornment in California. They did annual intentional burns to keep back the douglass firs which created ecosystems which were less useful to them, and so on. Nevertheless, the relationship to the earth seemed to be more of one of gardners (though they were not agrarian) and stewards than we are in our culture of exploit, consume, use up, polute, sometimes destroy and occasionally move on.

quote:
Sure, but this stuff's existence does not depend on us. Take fractal geometry, for instance, which is based (as I undertsand it - I'm a duffer at maths) on the roots of negative numbers being applied to a graph. The results look like shapes found in nature. This is an entirely intellectual concept (as in "imaginary numbers" cannot exist in the "real world") and yet it already existed and was just waiting to be discovered by some enterprisong mathmo.

The discovery vs. creation issue in mathematics is not settled at all. There is mounting evidence that supposedly fundamental ideas like number are human creations. I read a truly interesting book on that topic, but I'll have to check my shelves at home to refresh my memory.

quote:
You fail to bring in the factor of worship. Yes, there are in many expressions of Christianity supernatural hierarchies, but these figures neither demand nor deserve our worship, and are therefore not gods, and do not claim to be.

Define worship, please. As far as I can tell, both you and ChastMastr are usuing the word as if it were defined as that religious activity which only should be reserved for God alone, which seems a little tautalogical. You both must have a defintion that is more than that.

quote:
It pains me to say this, because you've clearly thought long and hard about this, but I think I would find more sympathy with your views if you were of the opinion that Christianity should be rejected outright. It seems to me that your views are far more the views of a pagan with an interest in some aspects of Christianity than one who holds both faith positions at the same time.

Possibly. I mean I've had Christian regenerative experiences, but those predated my Neo-Pagan ones. On the other hand, I've seen the Goddess do wonderful things through the committee process in the churches I've a part of over the years. All I can really say is that I seemed to be called to serve and participate in both communities. I have no problems with the doctrines of either and no problems personally confessing to both. I certainly can see how you might, and even how almost all people might.

quote:
Minor point, mainly unrelated to discussion: but how can your holy book be ancient if you only wrote it five years ago? If you wrote it yourself, how do you know it's holy?

Ah, it's just an absurdly arrogant joke. The exercise was to try to let the Goddess speak through me and say the post important things which need to be said for this time. That's the most important lesson that my personal experiment in prophecy taught me. Prophecy is not about fortelling the future, it's about revealing the now and saying what must be said.

Were my efforts successful? How the heck can I say whether my words were holy or not? I tried to do it in a way that provided a lot of feedback to me on the piece that was from multiple viewpoints: Christian, Neo-Pagan and non-religious. I love what came out and it was published in a Neo-Pagan magazine with a strong Unitarian connection (called Connections, in fact).

But, clearly, it was not ancient, not a book and, most likely, not holy.

quote:
You can admire Christ without the baggage of the label Christian, you know.

what baggage? Nobody gave me any baggage. I got a copy of the RSV at confirmation, but no luggage whatsoever.

quote:
But if it [magic] is fundamentally how consciousness interacts with the world, what's the point fo rituals?

Because we are not just our consciousness. We also have a personal unconscious, and there are also spirits and other beings in the world which are acting in our lives and in the world. Ritual serves to bring all those things together to focus upon the desired intent.

quote:
There is miracle (or magic, or whatever you want to call it) in the world we see everyday. And yes, some of us don't look for it, but this is not an excuse to try and buck the system and create new ones.

We are part of the system and there is nothing we can do to buck it. We can, however, direct the energy available us to to accomplish good ends or ill. Magic is a powerful way to do so. So is prayer. Also, what Asdara said.

quote:
I still don't think you've really yet explained what that commonality is.

They're both theistic. They're both full of empassioned, wonderful, beautiful people (like you) trying to undertand, live and breathe in relationship to the Divine. They are both focused on making postive changes in the human world. They are both compassionate, and have wonderful liturgies. They both attract wounded people and provide healing for a good proportion of those who find their way there. They both provide a spiritual way of life which puts the participants in accord with the world. They both are human institutions and have flaws and sometimes those flaws result in really bad things happening to some participants. Sheesh, I could keep going on forever. (as if you and I haven't already in this thread).

Fun stuff Wood! Thanks for the spar and discussion!

--------------------
Go and be who you are:
The Body of Christ,
The Goddess of Body,
The Manifest Song of Faerie.

Posts: 1765 | From: Oakland, CA, USA | Registered: May 2003 | IP: Logged

RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Mertseger:
The first necessary heresy is, "Why not God the Mother?" The faith-sense of worshipping a Mother is substantially different. We expect nurturing, contact and warmth. She will always have a little something special for us. For me, the experience of God the Mother was so moving that the shackles of Patrifocal religion dropped away fairly quickly.

I can't see why a matrifocal religion wouldn't have the potential to be equally shackling. And the whole idea that God the Mother is all warm and nurturing and that God the Father is cold and stern is just gender stereotyping. My personal experience in praying while regarding God as the Mother is that this face of God can be quite austere.

If I were to jump ship and join the pagans, I'd have to sign up with Nightwind's crowd, I think, on the basis of this point alone.

Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001 | IP: Logged

Mertseger

Faerie Bard
# 4534

Posted

quote:
My personal experience in praying while regarding God as the Mother is that this face of God can be quite austere.

Oh, so you've met the Crone? Cool. I love Her too.

--------------------
Go and be who you are:
The Body of Christ,
The Goddess of Body,
The Manifest Song of Faerie.

Posts: 1765 | From: Oakland, CA, USA | Registered: May 2003 | IP: Logged

Asdara
Shipmate
# 4533

Posted

quote:
And hell, if I could have done it, anyone could have done it, without resorting to breaking into the rules of reality.

It think this may be where we're failing to communicate. Magick is not nessasarilly 'breading into the rules of reality', it's just manipulating energies in reality and nature and exerting your influence on them to produce a desired (or close to desired) result. We don't break reality any more than advanced technology or some other such method would. We adhere to the laws of nature and by learing about those laws we are able to work within them to get what we need to get acomplished done.

--------------------
Not all those who wander are lost. -- J.R.R. Tolkien

Posts: 239 | From: Illinios | Registered: May 2003 | IP: Logged

Alcuin
Shipmate
# 2089

Posted

On the 7th July, Mertseger commented that: "The feeling that many find when they come to Neo-paganism is one of coming home. Seeing this good Earth as our Mother, and embracing our relationship to Her beyond the strictures and human-centred paradigms held by mainstream society can be a strongly regenerative experience."

I rather agree with this. It is worth remembering that Jesus of Nazareth (in his Palestinian incarnation) was a shaman – perhaps the first major neo-pagan in Western culture. His status as a "saviour" is a spiritually illiterate fiction of early churchianity.

This perspective on Jesus may be confirmed quite soon as protected ancient texts are released. I think, in particular, of the Mary Magdalene scroll, shortly to come to light.

Alcuin

Posts: 94 | Registered: Jan 2002 | IP: Logged

Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Alcuin:
It is worth remembering that Jesus of Nazareth (in his Palestinian incarnation) was a shaman – perhaps the first major neo-pagan in Western culture. His status as a "saviour" is a spiritually illiterate fiction of early churchianity.

Alcuin, calling the central tenet of faith of more than one-third of the people on this planet, not to mention most of the members of this board, "a spiritually illiterate fiction" and referring to our faith by the derogatory term "churchianity" seems to contribute nothing to a reasonable discussion or to increased understanding between Christians and neo-pagans.

Would you be so kind as to rephrase your post and apologize? I, for one, would appreciate it.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003 | IP: Logged

Asdara
Shipmate
# 4533

Posted

Hear Here! (I never knew which "hear or here" it was [Embarrassed]

)

But that aside I do very much agree with Josephine. That kind of lack of consideration tends to lead to grave misunderstands (which just so happen to be the exact type of misunderstandings which we'd like to avoid here).

I too suggest an apology, or a damn good explination, whichever you think would be more redeeming. [Paranoid]

--------------------
Not all those who wander are lost. -- J.R.R. Tolkien

Posts: 239 | From: Illinios | Registered: May 2003 | IP: Logged

ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

Posted

Josephine

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001 | IP: Logged

Nightwind
Shipmate
# 4531

Posted

Alcuin, could you also explain what you mean by "neo-pagan" in your above statement? I'm not understanding what definition you would be using.

Hat's off to Mertseger and Wood. My head's still spinning from all the posting. [Not worthy!]

Oh, yes, and [Not worthy!]

to Josephine too. [Not worthy!]

[ 11. July 2003, 19:09: Message edited by: Nightwind ]

--------------------
We've replaced their pagan gods with Folger's Crystals. Let's see if they notice.

Posts: 117 | Registered: May 2003 | IP: Logged

Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200

Posted

I nominate this thread, when it's done, for limbo.

[Not worthy!]

--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."

Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002 | IP: Logged

Poppy

Ship's dancing cat
# 2000

Posted

I don't know if this is a stupid question but I'd like to ask it anyway?

Mertsegar said that she 'let the goddess speak through me.' Isn't this channeling? I thought that this came under the heading of mediumship which would fall foul of the old testament view of witchcraft.

If you believe that there are spirits and other beings in the world how do you tell which are the good ones, which are the bad ones and which are the ones out to decieve?

I've had several encounters with people who would be best described as on the fringes of paganism. None of them could ever explain what it was all about as well as Mertseger and Asdara have, thank you both!! I think I must have met the same ones as Wood. However there is one man who is is working on a friend of mine and he is far from benign. So I hope you don't mind but how do Mertzeger and Asdara deal with those people in the pagan community who seem to be interested in power and control over other people?

I hope I haven't derailed the thread.

Finally, thank you Wood for the most interesting post/s I have read in ages.

Poppy (trying hard to follow the arguments here. A cat of limited brain!)

--------------------
At the still point of the turning world - there the dance is...

Posts: 1406 | From: mostly on the edge | Registered: Dec 2001 | IP: Logged

Mertseger

Faerie Bard
# 4534

Posted

quote:

Mertsegar said that she 'let the goddess speak through me.' Isn't this channeling? I thought that this came under the heading of mediumship which would fall foul of the old testament view of witchcraft.

Channeling is a new-agey term we sort of avoid in my Trad, but we do do possession work which is much more akin to the mediumship to which you refer. However, I did not enter into a possession when I wrote my prophetic piece, and my sense is that it would be hard. Most Yoruba descended Traditions (which mine is not), in fact, practice a form of possession work in which the practitioner's consciousness is displaced entirely and they awaken with no memory of what happened. We only practice possession in which the practitioner remains conscious, but, having said that, it's still hard to do mundane things like writing when in possession.

I cenrtainly entered into a trance state when I wrote, but I do so for most of my longer poetry (as well as when making music and when participating in religious ritual). My approach was, first, deciding to write in the style of the Bible, meditating on what subjects I'd like to have covered if I had just one chance to say what was needed, asking some friends what they wished had been said by a Holy Book, and then releasing all the words onto the page. Four of us, including my teacher then, essentially edited and challenged the theology line by line.

quote:
If you believe that there are spirits and other beings in the world how do you tell which are the good ones, which are the bad ones and which are the ones out to decieve?

I'm not sure that there are that many spirits which are solidly one or the other. Most have the moral blend that humans do. Faeries have a morality that is notoriously "none of the above" or, at least, not the same as humans, and so one must be careful in dealing with them. We do take precautions and, in general, when dealing with spirits directly during ritual we will cast a "protection bubble" with the intention to keep out any negative energy but allow in any positive energy which might be needed. You need to approach spirits with the same common sense that you would approach any stranger.

quote:
So I hope you don't mind but how do Mertzeger and Asdara deal with those people in the pagan community who seem to be interested in power and control over other people?

We grapple with the issue in the same fumbling way that other human groups do when dealing with people who are misusing their authority under the guise of a spiritual call. Unfortunately, we are far less organized at this point than Christians, for instance, and have, as yet, no ecclesiastical courts. So everything becomes hearsay, slander and panic, in general. We then to try to steer people away from the miscreant and, since we use magic, the inevitable Witch Wars arise. It's a nasty business.

Auntie Starhawk tried to address this issue with her "power over" (= bad) vs. "power to" (= good) distinction, and that ethic has made some ground, but, in general, one must tread carefully into the Neo-Pagan waters because there are a few wolves but no community wolf-hunters.

--------------------
Go and be who you are:
The Body of Christ,
The Goddess of Body,
The Manifest Song of Faerie.

Posts: 1765 | From: Oakland, CA, USA | Registered: May 2003 | IP: Logged

Scarlet

Mellon Collie
# 1738

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Mertseger:
I'm not sure that there are that many spirits which are solidly one or the other. Most have the moral blend that humans do. Faeries have a morality that is notoriously "none of the above" or, at least, not the same as humans, and so one must be careful in dealing with them. We do take precautions and, in general, when dealing with spirits directly during ritual we will cast a "protection bubble" with the intention to keep out any negative energy but allow in any positive energy which might be needed. You need to approach spirits with the same common sense that you would approach any stranger.

One of the spiritual Gifts of the Holy Spirit is "Discerning of Spirits". Of course, the traditional Christian understanding of the bad spirits is that they are demons. Demons have evil intent and angels have good intent, with a strict parameter. How have you (corporately) discovered in tradition or practice that the spirits you encounter are morally blended? I find especially fascinating your warning about Faeries. Can you elaborate?

The "Spiritual Warfare" factions of the Charismatics and Pentecostals especially, approach prayer with the spiritual entities foremost in mind. There's "binding of evil spirits" and invoking "hedges of protection" and calling down "heavenly angels".

I grew up in a house oppressed by evil spirits.
And that just reminded me that even we Orthodox are quite respectful of the need for protection from evil spirits. I just this year had my home blessed. The priest came with holy water and incense and chanted and prayed his way through all my rooms, flinging holy water. He even blessed my cat! [Smile]

As he was leaving, he said "now you won't have any more demons around." How I wish someone had done that when I was growing up!

[ 12. July 2003, 03:45: Message edited by: bessie rosebride ]

--------------------
They took from their surroundings what was needed... and made of it something more.
—dialogue from Primer

Posts: 4769 | Registered: Nov 2001 | IP: Logged

Laura
General nuisance
# 10

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
and I mean fight to see Jerusalem builded here (5 lit points for spotting the reference), to see justice in our day, to see the Good News of equality and peace shouted from the rooftops

Dear Wood,

And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England’s mountains green?
And was the Holy Lamb of God
On England’s pleasant pastures seen?
And did the countenance divine
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here
Among these dark satanic mills?

Bring me my bow of burning gold!
Bring me my arrows of desire!
Bring me my spear! O clouds, unfold!
Bring me my chariot of fire!
I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand,
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England’s green and pleasant land.

--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm

Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001 | IP: Logged

Alcuin
Shipmate
# 2089

Posted

Josephine and Asdara say that they are unhappy with my post yesterday. I must apologise if I have, unwittingly, caused any offence.

My own opinion, for what it's worth, is that the idea of "salvation" is, and always has been, a redundant concept in intelligent spiritual discourse.

We have been created among friends. The cosmos is a positive, nourishing, nurturing place; it supports us lovingly at every level of our being. There is nothing to be saved from; there is nothing to be saved for. All there is is the energy of God's will, which is Evolution. We can choose to evolve actively on our return to the internal experience of godhead, or we can choose to hang around for a perceived other to save us the effort.

And with regard to churchianity, my view, as a communicant Anglican, is that churchianity and Christianity are two quite separate religions, and properly so.

The free-thinking, esoteric, Essene spirituality which Jesus of Nazareth articulated in that long past age was, I suggest, much closer to what we now think of as neo-Paganism than it was to anything constructed by a politically motivated human priest-caste.

Jesus, I think, would not have wasted money on massive limestone artefacts, or time on a legally imposed system of spiritual fascism.

But we all have different ideas about these things.

Alcuin

Posts: 94 | Registered: Jan 2002 | IP: Logged

Mertseger

Faerie Bard
# 4534

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by bessie rosebride:
One of the spiritual Gifts of the Holy Spirit is "Discerning of Spirits". Of course, the traditional Christian understanding of the bad spirits is that they are demons. Demons have evil intent and angels have good intent, with a strict parameter. How have you (corporately) discovered in tradition or practice that the spirits you encounter are morally blended? I find especially fascinating your warning about Faeries. Can you elaborate?

Well, my work with spirits has usually been done in relative safety both in mindset and setting; thus, its not all surprising that I haven't run into anything nasty. Though there was one occult supply store in Long Beach that was in such need of a good cleansing that I had barely walked accross the threshold before I turned around and walked out. And I love occult shops in general.

My teacher told me a tale of her cleansing a crack-house which was pretty scarey. And she gave us training in a quick binding in case of emergency. I don't doubt that there are spirits which can be harmful.

But I do disagree that every (or indeed any) spirit can be lumped into the two categories of good and evil in exactly the same way that I disagree that every person can (or even ever will be, his said, mentioning yet another of his many heresies) lumped into the two categories of saved or damned. Spirits often personify forces that are acting in people or systems or locations, and, in general, those forces have a genuine and positive reason for existing. Sometimes the forces that a spirit personifies is being applied excessively or in a manner that is not healthy and in those cases the spirit can cause harm. Sometimes the spirit is acting perfectly and appropriately according to its nature, and it's the human who's drifted into a space that is not safe (think avalanche). Thus, I object to the martial anology in general since even in pathological situations, it's usually a matter of bring things back into balance.

As for faeries, you'll understand when you meet one. They just have a fundamentally different way of viewing the All-That-Is. Haunting, beautiful, lovely and dark. But it's unwise to assume anything about them. They just don't get human morality or concerns like "occupations", or "marriage", or "safe sex." They're fun though. Here's my version of something Rumi wrote about them:

Tonight I'll be with the faeries until dawn.
They will please me, I will please them.
I want to join them to eat and drink
And twirl around them throughout the night.

I've learned the habits of the fey:
Where they go at night
To play and make love, to work
And drink wine.

The fey are hidden away, safe and secure.
But we are much more secretive than they are.
We are much less visible.

The fey can see our forms,
But they don't know anything about our souls.
They are strangers to us. They follow the way of the Goddess.

You keep searching for faeries
Because you don't know yourself.
Don't sell yourself so cheap.

My faerie is very beautiful.
His face is handsome
And his demeanor is kind.
He picked up the ball quickly from
Lucifer and the other fey.

The night admires his moon-face.
The moon loves to watch him.
He is not bland
And tasteless like tofu.

From his love feast, his wine glass,
From his Irish harp, his guitar,
From his drunkenness.

The night becomes insane and crazy
And my lipstick gets smeared.
He is in every Tradition and deserves this exaltation.

Sleep has died. It gave its baggy trousers to the homeless.
You won't meet sleep tonight.
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"
Whose back are YOU scratching?

You talk too much.
Shut up. You love to hear the sound of your own voice.
You've got to fall in love with love.

quote:
I grew up in a house oppressed by evil spirits.
And that just reminded me that even we Orthodox are quite respectful of the need for protection from evil spirits. I just this year had my home blessed. The priest came with holy water and incense and chanted and prayed his way through all my rooms, flinging holy water. He even blessed my cat! As he was leaving, he said "now you won't have any more demons around." How I wish someone had done that when I was growing up!

Though you might feel safer with the priest's blessing (and I'm glad you had him do it), you can do similar, if less thorough, cleansing yourself on ocassion. Salt water works quite well in the absence of holy water, and virutally any incense will do. Just say a favorite prayer as you go through the rooms and while having the intention that the bad stuff will go and the good stuff will stay. A nice time to do so is while you're doing any mundane Spring cleaning.

--------------------
Go and be who you are:
The Body of Christ,
The Goddess of Body,
The Manifest Song of Faerie.

Posts: 1765 | From: Oakland, CA, USA | Registered: May 2003 | IP: Logged

Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Alcuin:
Josephine and Asdara say that they are unhappy with my post yesterday. I must apologise if I have, unwittingly, caused any offence.

I was going to accept your apology for your unwitting offense with gladness. Until you said this:

quote:
My own opinion, for what it's worth, is that the idea of "salvation" is, and always has been, a redundant concept in intelligent spiritual discourse.

and this:

quote:
Jesus, I think, would not have wasted money on massive limestone artefacts, or time on a legally imposed system of spiritual fascism.

Somehow, when you apologize for stepping on someone's foot by slapping their face and yanking their hair, the apology seems less than sincere.

Please try again, Alcuin. I might even want to discuss your views with you. But not while you're calling me a stupid fascist.

Surely, surely you can do better than that. Can't you?

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003 | IP: Logged

Mertseger

Faerie Bard
# 4534

Posted

quote:
I said earlier:
The discovery vs. creation issue in mathematics is not settled at all. There is mounting evidence that supposedly fundamental ideas like number are human creations. I read a truly interesting book on that topic, but I'll have to check my shelves at home to refresh my memory.

The book I was thinking of was Where Mathematics Comes From by Lakoff and Nunez, 2000. It gets really interesting in its exploration of how the human mind conceives the various types of infinity in Mathematics.

--------------------
Go and be who you are:
The Body of Christ,
The Goddess of Body,
The Manifest Song of Faerie.

Posts: 1765 | From: Oakland, CA, USA | Registered: May 2003 | IP: Logged

Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7

Posted

Once again, insomina claims me, meaning that I post at 6am.

Josephine, this may have been before your time here, but Alcuin is the person who has in the past gone on record as saying, among other things:

Jesus and Christ were two different people, equivalent to Maitreya and Sananda, and that Christ was "overshadowing" (remote-controlling) Jesus from "planetary HQ" in the Himalayas;
Hitler was several levels more ascended than the vast majority of most Christians (making the accusation of "spiritual fascism" a bit rich, frankly). the question of whether this endowed him with extra hit points was sadly unaddressed.

When challenged on these points, Alcuin has never done anything more than restate his/her claim.

And although repeatedly asked by several people, and warned by the hosts, not to use the offensive and loaded term "churchianity" to refer to the beliefs of those with orthodox theologies, Alcuin insists on doing so.

This leads us to conclude that Alcuin is either posting this stuff in order to wind us up, or is sincere but ironically so blinded by his/her own fundamentalisms that the poor chap/chapess is unable to engage in any meaningful manner.

(Miss Hope? Is that you? [Paranoid]

)

Anyway. That out of the way.

Other notes: Laura gets the 5 Lit. points, but no one gets the indie points.

Meanwhile, I should say that my views on the supernatural are far from the orthodox Christian view, on the whole. Hey, we all have our pet heresies. Well, except for Josephine, but hey, we knew that, right?

Re: proselytising pagans. Neo-paganism may oppose proselytising, but I have met several pagans who are most aggressive in their own brand of evangelism.

And: about that "Neo" thing. I have never come across a British pagan who prefixes "neo" to the name of their religion. Having said that, every British pagan I met was under the impression that they were the "old" religion. [Roll Eyes]

Evidence suggests to me that this honesty among pagans is an American phenomenon. Actually, a significantly larger proportion of British pagans seem to be stark staring mad, as opposed to a much larger Sensible Tendency among American pagans. Is this a fair comment? Or am I descending into unhelpful racial stereotyping? If it is a fair comment, why is it? Is it because if you Americans have got Jerry Falwell, Benny Hinn and Fred Phelps, so many of the pagans are sensible because most of the real loons are Christian? or what?

quote:
Posted by Asdara: It think this may be where we're failing to communicate. Magick is not necessarily 'breaking into the rules of reality', it's just manipulating energies in reality and nature and exerting your influence on them to produce a desired (or close to desired) result.

This is where I pull out That Arthur C Clarke Quote, right (which, incidentally, is worth 10 lit points, but loses you five for being geeky for a net total of 5)?

Let me get this straight. So does, say, me succeeding in a great number of enterprises by force of will qualitatively equate to magic in your book?

Now. Back to Mertseger. Trivial first, getting progressively heavier...

quote:
Posted by Mertseger: clearly both Wood and I are insane (well, at least in terms of our thoroughness).

Not insane. Just a bit anal. [Paranoid]

quote:
Posted by Mertseger: Ah, it's just an absurdly arrogant joke.

Damn my sense of humour. It deserts me at the most inopportune moments. [Paranoid]

(Damn. I am SO glad I convinced Simon and Erin to adopt the [Paranoid]

smiley. It has so many uses.)

quote:
Also posted by Mertseger: Define worship, please. As far as I can tell, both you and ChastMastr are using the word as if it were defined as that religious activity which only should be reserved for God alone, which seems a little tautalogical. You both must have a defintion that is more than that.

Why is it tautological? Makes perfect sense to me. It's the adoration and praise due to God, and only God. The other beings of the Christian celestial hierarchy are not worshipped.

quote:
Mertseger also said: The discovery vs. creation issue in mathematics is not settled at all. There is mounting evidence that supposedly fundamental ideas like number are human creations.

But it's not settled either way at the moment, right? And it seems weird that we can just seemingly invent the mathematics of nature, right? I mean, the numbers are the language we have to explain it. We could have an entirely different system of maths and still have found this stuff, expressed in a way this other putative system could have understood.

Hey, I'm out of my depth on this one. If you've read even one book on the subject you're ahead of me, and I'll concede to the judgement of a more knowledgeable man*.

quote:
And finally: Nothing generates a bigger sense of for me than the clutching of Trinitarianism as the be-all-end-all of Christianity. Clearly, its defense is important to a lot of Christians. Clearly, its defense is important to a lot of people on this board.

The fact is, the Trinity may be demonstrated to being a harmful doctrine. But if it is, it will be easier to leave Christianity altogether than to simply jettison it from the religion. We don't have a modular faith; some things are just non-negotiable.

Therest of what you say on the point may well be true; but the history of the Christian faith is so tied up with it that is is not possible to abandon it. I started a thread about the Trinity a while back, and Father Gregory posted some initially incomprehensible but ultimately very rewarding points about how one experiences God as Trinity in worship, whether we're fully conversant with the theology or not.

I advise you to go read them ("Doctrine of Trinity Dependent on Church Fathers?" page 1, look for Fr. Gregory's posts).

quote:
But that doctrine is a long, long way from the practical matters like how am I going to deal compassionately with the next response in this thread, or giving comfort to my fellow humans, or attending to the damage that humanity is inflicting on the environment.

It doesn't have to be.

More than anything, if looked at in a certain way it promotes a wholistic spirituality in which all things are inter-related, which can only be a Good Thing.
_____________
*gender assumed from evidence of posts

[ 12. July 2003, 07:14: Message edited by: Wood ]

--------------------
Narcissism.

Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001 | IP: Logged

Alcuin
Shipmate
# 2089

Posted

Earlier today, at 05.51, Mertseger commented: "As for faeries, you'll understand when you meet one. They just have a fundamentally different way of viewing the All-That-Is. Haunting, beautiful, lovely and dark. But it's unwise to assume anything about them. They just don't get human morality or concerns like "occupations", or "marriage", or "safe sex." They're fun though."

I very much agree with this. Faerie is other. Perhaps it is other in the way that we will be other when we evolve beyond religion and return to spirituality.

The best depiction of Faerie that I have seen in popular literature recently was in a novel by James Herbert (2001) called "Once...." [Pan Books; ISBN 0-330-37613-6]. The spiritual observations made throughout the narrative in this book, concerning the disposition of nature spirits, fairies, good/evil and the lefthand path, were surprisingly percipient. "Once...." is far more than a pulp paperback and one the Anglican Taleban would happily burn.

Later in the same post Mertseger, responding to an exorcism experience related by bessie rosebride, said: "Though you might feel safer with the priest's blessing (and I'm glad you had him do it), you can do similar, if less thorough, cleansing yourself on occasion. Salt water works quite well in the absence of holy water, and virtually any incense will do. Just say a favourite prayer as you go through the rooms and while having the intention that the bad stuff will go and the good stuff will stay. A nice time to do so is while you're doing any mundane spring-cleaning."

Other things that often help in this sort of situation, in my experience, are to open all the windows, clean out the rubbish, keep the house clean, keep the lights on, put a lot of uncut flowers about the place, play classical music (particularly when the house is empty and you're away) and leave a few clean crystals on prominent surfaces (in addition to the salt). Singing and redecoration can help, too. So can symbols or bells or Tibetan singing bowls. Ferns and plants with small leaves can transmute negative forms. And clapping the hands together sharply in each room breaks up stuck energy. Collectively, these changes help to raise the positive energy of the house and invite the angels in.

More proactive at the level of executive spirituality might be to call in the Silver Violet Flame and visualise it filling and surrounding the house. And the archangels Michael and Faith can be invoked at any time for psychic or physical protection, or for courage and strength. The energies of Michael and Faith are particularly accessible on Tuesdays. And they have a retreat on the etheric planes at Banff in Canada, where they can be visited through spiritual practice, in prayer, meditation or during sleep.

But priests can be helpful, too. I have yet to meet a human being who is not a priest.

Alcuin

Posts: 94 | Registered: Jan 2002 | IP: Logged

Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
This leads us to conclude that Alcuin is either posting this stuff in order to wind us up, or is sincere but ironically so blinded by his/her own fundamentalisms that the poor chap/chapess is unable to engage in any meaningful manner.

I see. Which means that I should ignore him, and trust that the hosts who aren't participating on this thread will do whatever is necessary to keep him from derailing things entirely? I can do that. Thanks for the info.

quote:
Meanwhile, I should say that my views on the supernatural are far from the orthodox Christian view, on the whole. Hey, we all have our pet heresies. Well, except for Josephine, but hey, we knew that, right?

I have my pet heresies, too, at least if you ask the Orthodox fundamentalist types. [Wink]

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003 | IP: Logged

Laura
General nuisance
# 10

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
I see. Which means that I should ignore him, and trust that the hosts who aren't participating on this thread will do whatever is necessary to keep him from derailing things entirely?

You can try to ignore him. The Hosts will do their best, as always.

--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm

Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001 | IP: Logged

Poppy

Ship's dancing cat
# 2000

Posted

Mertzeger said 'in general, one must tread carefully into the Neo-Pagan waters because there are a few wolves but no community wolf-hunters.'

Thank you, that is helpful and a really good image.

I think I'll avoid spirits though! I have had enough problems with the uninvited ones without inviting more in.

--------------------
At the still point of the turning world - there the dance is...

Posts: 1406 | From: mostly on the edge | Registered: Dec 2001 | IP: Logged

Pages in this thread: 1 2 3 4 5

Printer-friendly view

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0

sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website