Thread: Purgatory: Pagan beliefs (was Set up) Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001114

Posted by Asdara (# 4533) on :
 
Infiniatrian (I really really hope I spelled it correctly!) posted:
quote:
I would be interested to know more generally about how you -- or any pagan -- derive your beliefs, in the absence of a scriptural canon, organised clergy or generally agreed-upon tradition. But I think that probably is a matter for another thread.

So I will start a thread about this after I come back from holiday on Monday. If any of you have any other questions, points of interest, objections ect please post them here. I will read this entire thread (if there are in fact any post other than this one to be read) before I create the actual informative (hopefully) thread. If there are more objections than signs of interest I will not begin the thread at all.

Thank you for your input. [Love]

[edited title to include topic]

[ 07. September 2003, 18:27: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 
Posted by Nibblewit (# 2588) on :
 
I would be really interested to learn more! Looking forward to the start of the thread.
 
Posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon (# 4544) on :
 
I'm looking forward to it, too.

I've wondered how far back do identifiable influences on your faith go? The impression I've gotten is that modern pagans draw on a rather anonymous tradition because of the past difficulties of maintaining any tradition in the face of opposition from Christianity over the centuries. Are there Elders within the faith who remember a chain of belief or practice from, say, a couple hundred years ago?

I'm not trying to challenge you to legitimize your faith through precedent. Hell, if the whole thing got wings fifty years ago, that's fine. Everything has to start sometime, and if a spiritual hunger arose and some creative people found a way to meet that need, more power to them. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by madkaren (# 1033) on :
 
and given that there may be a lack of tradition as such, what do you use as a frame of reference for new stuff?

Madkaren
 
Posted by bessie rosebride (# 1738) on :
 
Are you influenced at all by the Druid culture and spirituality? A lot of modern pagans seem to be; at least I assume this from having visited a number of websites on Druidism. I ask this in a very positive way, because I find the Druids fascinating.

I too look forward to a very interesting thread.
 
Posted by Rob - ID crisis InDiE KiD (# 3256) on :
 
Firstly, what's your personal reason for posting here?
 
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
HOSTLY NOTE

Asdara, thank you for offering to tackle this topic. It should prove to be interesting and informative. I would caution you that pagan beliefs are not likely to be treated any more gently than most Christian beliefs are treated around here. Don't offer anything you aren't willing to have picked apart.

In the interests of keeping the board tidy, please continue posting on this thread instead of starting a new one. I'm going to edit the title to make it more descriptive of the topic.

scot
Purgatory Host
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on :
 
In your beliefs, is morality influenced and defined by religion? Do you accept a moral code outside religion?

And a second, unrelated question : is it god, gods or God (outside of Christianity, Judaism or Islam)?
 
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon:
I'm looking forward to it, too.

I've wondered how far back do identifiable influences on your faith go? The impression I've gotten is that modern pagans draw on a rather anonymous tradition because of the past difficulties of maintaining any tradition in the face of opposition from Christianity over the centuries. Are there Elders within the faith who remember a chain of belief or practice from, say, a couple hundred years ago?

I'm not trying to challenge you to legitimize your faith through precedent. Hell, if the whole thing got wings fifty years ago, that's fine. Everything has to start sometime, and if a spiritual hunger arose and some creative people found a way to meet that need, more power to them. [Big Grin]

I'll take this one, and wait for Asdara's response to Infinitarian's question before I engage in that much broader discussion from the OP.

The classic text on this question is Ronald Hutton's 1999 book Triumph of the Moon. He's the first true academic to consider the issue (at book length, anyway). He shows that, while there were many relevant threads and forces in the few centuries leading up to the creation of Neo-Pagan religions they, essentially, did take wing fifty years ago. Most Neo-Pagans I've met through my Trad basically accept this position now though it would not be hard to find people even ten years ago who honestly believed that Neo-paganism (or, at least, their particular branch of Neo-Paganism) was a survival of a single pre-Christian religion. A few fundamentalists (yes, there are fundamentalist Neo-Pagans) still believe so despite all evidence to the contrary.

Hutton explores several documentable influences in the book. Clearly, Western occult traditions are part of that heritage including Theosophy, Rosicrucians, The Golden Dawn and Crowley. Oddly, Hutton fairly thoroughly shows that the village wise women and cunning men of England, though they certainly existed, were a marginal influence at best. Equally surprising is the fact that English Romantic poetry was an extremely important influence, and, in fact, the prevalent Neo-Pagan duotheism can by traced back to the popularity of Diana and Pan as subjects for that era of poetry.

Hutton focuses on Wicca in particular, but there are also many Classical Pagan Revivalists who focus on recreating the practice of specific ancient religions to the extent that historical records, and both anthropological and archeological research permit them to do so. Few revivalists claim an unbroken lineage of worship, however. But, clearly, to the extent the available materials permit the influences go back much further in those cases.

As for the Elders, its pretty clear that the originators of many traditions did try to convince the people that they taught that theirs was a true Pre-Christian survival. Some of the first students believed and some were skeptical even back in the early 1950's. However, the power of Goddess worship tended to overcome the shakiness of various Traditions' origin myths. I certainly have found Goddess worhip to be extremely powerful and moving, but I know exactly who created my Tradition and how she did so.
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
Do you see your beliefs as 'true' in an objective sense? If so what are your reasons for belief?
 
Posted by English ploughboy (# 4205) on :
 
In the depths of the English countryside there is still a lot of folk tradition with a pagan basis.Ploughboy picked his gooseberrys yesterday and left one or two for the fairys. Most of the Downs churches are built on ancient burial grounds which are pre-christian and a lot of the Christian festivals have a pre-Christian basis. In fact one could argue that modern Christmas as celebrated by the majority of people in this country is more of a pagan than a Christian festival. Personally I would see paganism as the nature religion of our ancestors which has now been replaced by a deeper revelation of God revealed to the world through Christ. Celtic Christianity is a beautiful way for the pagan to assimilate his faith into the infinate depths of the knowledge of the love and compassion of Christ. [Votive]
 
Posted by coffee jim (# 3510) on :
 
If you accept that the roots of your belief lie very largely in the last century, and that historical paganism is almost irretrievably lost...then where do your gods come from? Do you have to 'make them up'? And if so, isn't that a bit like real-life Dungeons and Dragons?
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Please don't be offended if I use my dog to try to understand this, I do that with everything - sort of like Ralphie Wiggins and his cat.
---------

Each day my dog takes one of her dry kibbles out of her bowl and sets it aside. I think its either;

I tend to understand Paganism as a combination of these three things, religious instinct, superstition and natural law all combinied. I don't think there is anything bad or evil in any of it except insofar as it might keep one away from Christianity which, of course, I see as the "best " path, or I wouldn't have chosen it.

Please tell me where my thinking is wrong about this, because I'm sure it must be.
 
Posted by Wally (# 3245) on :
 
quote:
I don't think there is anything bad or evil in any of it
Well, there can be. The Nazis brought back their own version of Paganism (Neo-Paganism some might insist) and were obviously well known for their sociopathic hatred of Judaism, but were also openly hostile to Christianity. William Shirer's classic book about the Third Reich talks about this a great deal, especially the role of Alfred Rosenberg in brining back pre-Christian rituals and mythology.

I'm not bringing this up just to broadside Pagans, but to point out that it is not purely benign in all of its manifestations.
 
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
But it's not necessarily paganism that was a fault with the Nazis. Evil people can have religion too, and many people have used Christianity as an excuse to persecute, for example, gay and black people.
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
But it's not necessarily paganism that was a fault with the Nazis.

The 'green wing' of Nazism is a vast topic. But there is an argument at least that the fetishing of the idea of 'nature' fed into fascist thought.
 
Posted by Wally (# 3245) on :
 
quote:
But it's not necessarily paganism that was a fault with the Nazis. Evil people can have religion too, and many people have used Christianity as an excuse to persecute, for example, gay and black people.
Absolutely, like anything I suppose it can be used for ill and for good. My point is that it has been used for evil purposes by some people (perhaps in the most organized form by the Nazis), and therefore is subject to the same extremes as other religions and also carries some of the same historical baggage.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
Christianity gets blamed for the Spanish Inquisition and evil orphanages. And the Crusades.
Islam gets blamed for what happened on Sept. 11th 2001.
Socialism and atheism both get blamed for Stalin.
Right-wing politics gets the blame for Pinochet (and Thatcher, obviously).

And then we go and blame paganism for Nazi Germany?

What's the fallacy here?

It's that we blame ideologies for what people do. In the end, it's up to people to use or abuse their ideologies as we see fit. It's not the ideologies' fault.

Ideologies don't kill people - people kill people, to paraphrase an organisation for whom I otherwise have little respect.

Hitler wasn't so much a pagan (although he espoused a sort of mystical "aryan pagan" mindset)- he was more a lapsed catholic with an interest in practising the occult and a line in well dodgy views on ancient history.

I think we should also be aware that the stereotype of the pagan as a crystal-collecting fuzzy feminist who weeps every time a squirrel stubs its toe and who hasn't the faintest idea about history (yes, I'm talking about YOU, Silver Ravenwolf) is in fact as false as saying all Christians are like the fundamentalists who everyone so hates.

Before Asdara gets back, go check out http://wicca.timerift.net for a good, balanced view of the Wiccan branch of paganism, its history and its ethos; some people here are occasional visitors to the site, a couple of people there (notably Nightwind, who is a fine example of a Pagan We Like) have returned the compliment.

[footnote: This is by no means an order, but it might be advisable not to invade the bulletin board there en masse. I'd advise you to read the site itself, but there are already three or four Christians there and a mass invasion wouldn't be very nice for anyone. Be respectful, people, even if you don't agree with a word of it.]

[ 04. July 2003, 13:47: Message edited by: Wood ]
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:


And then we go and blame paganism for Nazi Germany?

What's the fallacy here?

It's that we blame ideologies for what people do. In the end, it's up to people to use or abuse their ideologies as we see fit. It's not the ideologies' fault.

Ideologies don't kill people - people kill people, to paraphrase an organisation for whom I otherwise have little respect.


I wasn't aware that anyone had hitherto blamed paganism for Nazi Germany on this thread. Perhaps you could show who did this, and where?

Of course ideologies kill people. You are buying into the liberal myth of the sovereign autonomous individual. Individuals do not act in a social and ideological vacuum. I am far more likely to go out and kill someone if I am continually exposed to an ideology which would allow me to make sense of that action.

What we think matters, and what we think about things of ultimate value matters especially. It is for this reason that threads like this one are interesting and important. And it is for this reason that Wally and I raised (very mildly) the question of the political (mis)use of pagan beliefs.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
I wasn't aware that anyone had hitherto blamed paganism for Nazi Germany on this thread. Perhaps you could show who did this, and where?

Of course they haven't - yet; however, I've heard this a lot from people who fail to see the irony.
quote:

Of course ideologies kill people. You are buying into the liberal myth of the sovereign autonomous individual.

Don't ever call me a "liberal", buster.

Also, I think you have misunderstood me. I'm not buying into anything. Unless it's into the "not typing posts in a clear enough fashion" club.

And, more importantly, I guess I am buying into what seems to me (note emphasis) to be the self-evident truth that human beings have the ability to twist even the most noble and decent of ideologies into something self-serving, hateful and evil. And this includes Christianity and paganism, socialism and Islam and everything else.

quote:
Individuals do not act in a social and ideological vacuum. I am far more likely to go out and kill someone if I am continually exposed to an ideology which would allow me to make sense of that action.
Sure, but these tainted ideologies get identified with the real ideologies, and are twisted by people for their own ends.

quote:
What we think matters, and what we think about things of ultimate value matters especially.
And how does that contradict what I am saying, exactly?

[ 04. July 2003, 14:10: Message edited by: Wood ]
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
Woah, steady...

'Liberal' as in sociological/ political, not theological, which seemed a fair description of your position.

I don't disagree with anything you've just said, but then it seems to me that you're not actually disagreeing with anything I (or Wally) has said. Difference of emphasis perhaps. You choose to emphasise individual agency. I choose to emphasise social/ ideological determinants. But we both recognise the existence and importance of the other. Fair?

Back to paganism..
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
Fair enough, D.O-D.

One thing about paganism: In my (13-years-plus experience of pagans and paganisms) I have noticed, on the whole, that pagans (blanket term) in the States are more likely to be balanced and aware of history. You're more likely to get American pagans admitting that the "old religion mother goddess" thing is a load of old bull and to be comfortable with the idea that just because something is new, it doesn't mean it's not right. Sure there are what some call "fluffy bunnies" in the States too, but they seem to be a smaller proportion. And we have Murry Hope and Kevin Carlyon. [Eek!] [Ultra confused] [Paranoid]

On the other hand, every single British pagan I have ever met has believed:


This of course doesn't mean that all British pagans are complete loons. Just all the ones I've met.

Does anyone else have an experience of British pagans that differs? I'd really like to be prven wrong in this.
 
Posted by Jerry Boam (# 4551) on :
 
Happy Fourth to all my fellow countrymen.
<Nazi/Pagan Tangent>
A note on the Pagan/Nazi connection: It's absolutely true that a number of Nazis actively worked at creating a Neo-Pagan Nazi mythos, but this has to be seen as Nazis creating Paganism, not a widespread Paganism creating Nazism. Some elements of German Christianity, on the other hand, had for so long preached the virtue of nationalism and hatred of the Jews that those widespread, popular and centuries old Christian traditions have to be seen as essential to the development of the very worst of Nazism. I don't think that this massively documented fact can be fairly employed as an indicatory that there may be an intrinsic evil in Christianity.
</Tangent>
 
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:

Does anyone else have an experience of British pagans that differs? I'd really like to be prven wrong in this.

Well, I've only met and shared ritual with one British Neo-Pagan, and so, obviously, I can not draw general conclusions. However, Fred (Lamond) was one of Gardner's initiates, and so you might expect that he would be more likely to be holding onto the pre-Christian survival myth and the inflated magnitude of the "Burning Times". I found him just as open-minded as most American Neo-Pagans about the history of Wicca. I was pleased these several years later to see that he was interviewed and cited in Hutton. Fred's a genuinely nice guy and a stalwart worker towards broad ecumenical accord and understanding.
 
Posted by Wally (# 3245) on :
 
<Nazi/Pagan Tangent Continued>

quote:
Some elements of German Christianity, on the other hand, had for so long preached the virtue of nationalism and hatred of the Jews that those widespread, popular and centuries old Christian traditions have to be seen as essential to the development of the very worst of Nazism.
Do you have some specific examples to back this up? Assuming you’re talking chiefly about Luther’s legacy of Pauline subservience to the state and his late in life lashing out at the Jews, that’s a mixed bag. He advocated taking away the primary source of Jewish livelihood (usury) when they didn’t accept the evangelical reforms or banishing them outright, but neither happened as I recall. His most caustic and violent writings were actually directed at the German peasantry who rose up in revolt with Thomas Muentzer, and that was a movement under an extremist Christian banner. I don’t think the Jews by in large suffered anymore in Germany than they did in other parts of Europe, and probably fared better than in Russia or Spain and Portugal before the horrors of the Second World War.

I would agree that latent anti-Semitism in German culture (not just Christianity) was part of what made the Nazi’s successful and that many German Christians were either impassive or complicit to its worst crimes. It’s difficult to say whether the Christian element in particular was essential to its development as you stated though. The Nazis clearly saw Christianity as a perversion, first to be subverted and ultimately disbanded, so I don’t think they thought it would be part of their way of succeeding. I see the influence of someone like Nietzsche as essential to what was the worst of Nazism, perhaps that’s my own bias. The Pagan part I believe was the product of the fantasies of a few, not a widespread movement as you rightly pointed out. I also think it was German Christians like Niemoller and Bonhoeffer who showed a great deal of the strongest willingness of people within the Reich to stand up to the state and to take action to bring its madness to an end.

</Nazi/Pagan Tangent>
 
Posted by fatprophet (# 3636) on :
 
I wonder which branch of wicca you belong to Asdara (if any) - are you a Gardnerian Wiccan or
Alexandrian for example.
I know that modern wicca was written down and formulated for a wider audience from the 1930s on by certain eccentric enthusiasts but that it claims to originally be a collection of received wisdom passed on in an unbroken line of tradition by witches (at least the one's the Christian's didn't burn) village wisewomen and folk tales that go back centuries, if not millenia. Correct me if I'm wrong Asdara(?)

I know people want to ask if pagans believe the gods, spirits and energies invoked by Wicca "exist"?. I understand that Paganism does not hold to the rationalist's dichotomy between object reality and myth and I guess a lot of Pagans would question the question. Reality can be psychological and buried in a collective unconscious and still have a very powerful effect on the world (quantum physics suggests that the subjective mind can shape the objective world) and in any event all religions posit a transcendent reality that is not testable by science, or objectively observable. Therefore we cannot criticise paganism by insisting it can rationally prove its worldview. Anyway why can't they have gods and spirits if we can have a god and angels?


P.S I once got in trouble with fellow members of my Uni Inter-Faith Society because I invited the resident Pagan Society to give a talk on their beliefs to the group (I was chairperson). I was shocked to discover how my previously very "liberal" christian friends (who were fine about "major world religions") had some huge bee in their bonnets because they thought paganism was really evil. I hope there isn't any repeat of that attitude here (now with evangelicals one might expect it... [Wink] )
 
Posted by English ploughboy (# 4205) on :
 
As a small boy down on the farm I accidentally met what I can only describe as a wood spirit or something. It scared me to death and I ran like hell.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wally:
<Nazi/Pagan Tangent Continued>

I would agree that latent anti-Semitism in German culture (not just Christianity) was part of what made the Nazis successful and that many German Christians were either impassive or complicit to its worst crimes. It’s difficult to say whether the Christian element in particular was essential to its development as you stated though. The Nazis clearly saw Christianity as a perversion, first to be subverted and ultimately disbanded, so I don’t think they thought it would be part of their way of succeeding. </Nazi/Pagan Tangent>

A good book on this subject is Daniel Jonah Goldstein's book Hitler's Willing Executioners which (it's a few years since I read it) I think corroborates this view.
 
Posted by Asdara (# 4533) on :
 
Okay, hi everybody. To start off with (not nessasarily in any order resembling the order these were asked in)

What type of Wiccan is Asdara?
I actually don't think of myself as "wiccan". I branched out of wicca into a more vast paganism about three years into my studies and never looked back. I was (and can still be most closely associated with) Faerie Wicca when I extended my beliefs into the general paganism and incoporated ideas from various family history and personal insight. I would refer to myself (if pressed to catagorize myself) as a Spiritualist Pagan Witch. (I add the witch because not all pagans practice magick--most do, but others do not--and I think it's a distinction that should be recognized)

god, gods or God?
Well it works all of those ways actually, depending on the person you're addressing or your own deity system. I use gods and goddesses, some people also use Lord and Lady (wiccans mostly).

History of Wicca/Paganism?
Mertseger did a great job answering that, and I have only one more thing to add. We know there was what we would call pagan worship in ancient times (The Greeks and Romans are concrete examples of this even if you leave out Druidism entirely) paganism has been around for a long time. Why? Because it's an extremely broad term and almost anything can fall under it. Tribal customs in africa could be considred "pagan". There's just no direct, down the line progression of passing the traditions from one generation to the next as was origenally claimed by the begginners of the movment (and if you have any questions about Crowley ect address them to the more knowledgable Mertsger because I never really had much interest for him so much as for his work)

Druid infulences?
Yes. Most wiccan and pagan beliefs take from Druidic practices then and now. What we know from archeology ect we use and then adapt it to today's world. (Obviously sacrifice of living creatures is much less accepted today then it was back in their time and so we have mostly phased it out--we don't like killing roosters or pigs any more than the next person I assure you) Many druidic runes (the tree alphabet), solar observations, and general festivals are incorporated into the wiccan and pagan traditions.

Origen of gods/goddesses?
No, we do not "make them up" although I've been asked that enough times that I'm not offended that you might think so, it's seems a fairly common misconception. Many pagans and wiccans think of the god/goddess as Lord and Lady. Each has three seperate aspects. For the Lord it is the Hunter-the Father-the Wise Man. For the Lady it is the Maiden-the Mother-the Crone. These titles are the general titles and the way many pagans and wiccans think of their gods. (Much like God for you is also Jehova -I think?- but you all call him the more generic God) Some pagans and wiccans also have patron deities (depending on their deity structure) like Athena or Diana or Brigid who they will use in place of the Maiden or Mother and Hera or another goddess used for the Crone. The same can be done with The Lord or god.

These names and figures are taken from previous pagan cultures and have basis in history and myth most all of the time. Which leads us into the next question.

Do you consider your gods/goddesses to be 'real'?
Yes. But how we think of our gods is a matter of much debate among ourselves. There is a school of thought that all the gods exist separate from eachother and individually are powerful and unequal. The Morrigan is The Morrigan, not just an aspect of the Crone.
Another school of thought is that all the individual deities are aspects of one energy that is Nature beyond the Natural (One who is All yet remains One in perpetual individuality and union) and these aspects were created by humanity to better carve a pathway to understanding what can not be understood, but can be communicated with.
There are many other thoughts but these are the main two I have discussed at length. I subscribe to the second.

Moral Code?
"An it harm none, do what thou wilt" is the wiccan rede. Our One Commandment as it were. I support it, but it is overly simplistic if you do not read more into it. We have emotions, a concience, and a heart. We learn responisbility for our actions at our parent/guardian/ect 's knees. Being a moral and good person does not require a strict moral code filled with injunctions and consequences. It merely requires the desire to be the best person you can be and fullfill your potential. Paganism and wiccanism are all about full-filling your potential. Culitivating yourself to yield a better you. If you are going for this (as you should be as a proper pagan or wiccan and not a fluffy bimbo) then you have all the moral code you need right there.
If that's not enough there's always karma. What you do will come back to you somehow in someway. If you put out more positive than negative then you will be ahead of the game. There are no strict 'rules' though. Unless you have a strict deity.

Finally, what are my personal reasons for bringing this up?
Well, I was asked a few questions to start with, but that was only a prompting. I like talking about my beliefs as much as you all do. Also, I believe in knowledge being the key to ending prejudice. If you know more about pagans and wiccans perhaps you can educate the next person you see that says "Oh, them?!! They're all devil worshippers." and make the world a better place.

Plus, I think everytime I explain my beliefs to others I find a better understanding of them within myself.

Okay, thanks for all the questions. If there are any I missed or any new ones just post em up here.

(Sorry such a long one, there were a lot of Q's to cover [Eek!] ) [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Wally (# 3245) on :
 
quote:
It merely requires the desire to be the best person you can be and fullfill your potential. Paganism and wiccanism are all about full-filling your potential. Culitivating yourself to yield a better you. If you are going for this (as you should be as a proper pagan or wiccan and not a fluffy bimbo) then you have all the moral code you need right there.
I guess to me, a moral code like that does not offer a lot. What I read seems like a religion of personal fulfillment and not corporate salvation. I am probably truly undecided as to what I am, but to me the underlying strength of Christianity is its emphasis on facing ones own shortcomings and flaws and shedding ones desires for personal fulfillment in order to bring about the best for the many. To say that most people, myself included find this near impossible to do, to me does not detract from the potential of the ideal. I think Christianity is quite correct in deeming the gravest sin to be that of pride, and I think pride is what seeks fulfillment in itself.
 
Posted by Nightwind (# 4531) on :
 
Yikes, so much to reply to! My pardons if I miss anyone's question. If I don't address is, would you mind asking again?

To Scot, who warns that our beliefs my be picked apart here - if I was worried about that, I wouldn't be on this board. I belief that if beliefs appear to need to be picked apart, then maybe they need to be picked apart. So I'm not expecting anyone to hold back.

I'm a solitary eclectic Wiccan. I've learned from books and correspondance, not through a coven, and ascribe to no formal tradition such as the Gardnerians or Alexandrians (becasue I've never been trained by one). I cannot speak for Pagans. People who call themselves "Pagans" can come from a wide variety of religions that have very little to do with each other other than some influence from older traditions. Pagans can't even decide who all counts as Pagan. So, to simplify, I just want to make it clear that I'm only going to talk about Wicca.

While it was once claimed that Wiccan was ancient, that claim was built on faulty academic history at the time (along with some possibly creative imaginings of Gerald Gardner, the founder). I accept my religion to date to the 1950s, when Gardner first started publishing his work. While we have been influences by older traditions, we've borrowed the material piece-meal and formed it into something completely new. Just because one can point to pagan origins for certain aspects of Christianity doesn't mean they're any less Christian, and so too with Wicca. Religions do not exist in a vacuum. But just because there's influence doesn't mean there's continuity or lineage.

Gardner claimed to have been taught by the New Forest Coven, although there's been very little evidence of its existance. If someone is claiming they can trace a Wiccan lineage back hundreds of years, I therefore would think them a victim of fraud or a fraud themselves.

I believe my gods exist. I believe other people's gods exist as well, or at the very least I have zero business declaring that they don't exist. Why do I believe in them? Gut feeling mostly. There's a certain resonance I feel with a few of them, and they are the ones I work with. When I read of them, I feel a connection, and when I cast a circle I feel what Christians I imagine would call "being in the presence of God."

The whole Druid/Celtic thing is a dodgy issue, because of how little we really know of them. They never wrote religious information down themselves, so all we have are what the Romans wrote about them, and the myths the Christians set to writing hundreds of years later. I generally work within the Celtic pantheon, but I don't believe for one moment that I'm recreating their religion.

Wicca has adopted some superficial Druidic trappings, but that's about all. Our four main festivals take Celtic dates and often the Celtic names, but often the meanings vary differently even from what we historically DO know about the original holidays.

The framework that I use comes from Gardner, modified by 50 years of development. Since I'm not a Gardnerian, I'm not theoretically privy to everything he taught. However, most of his stuff has gotten into public circulation at this point through various avenues. But I can't give a logical explanation why I find Gardner's framework "right". I investigated a lot of religions before I dedicated myself to Wicca. Wicca just seemed right to me. That may sound like a cop out answer, but I also personally think that's how religion should work. It's not an issue of proof. It's an issue of something deeper and inexplicable.

When I say I find the other religions wrong, I mean they're wrong for me, not that they are objectively wrong. I believe that the untimate power of divinity is largely beyond our comprehension, and that we attempt to understand it through our understanding of God or gods.

I started posting on this board because I had been invited over here by a couple of your members who had shown up on my forum. I stuck around because you guys are reasonable folk who I can have intelligent theological discussion with. I think there are things I can learn about faith from people of other religions. I also, honestly, like being asked these sorts of questions. It forces me to consider questions I've never even asked myself. Occasionally I've even gone "you know what, I'm NOT doing that for any reason other than I read it in a book. How lame." (I'm not attempting to dis belief in the Bible with that quip. More alike you believing something just because Jerry Falwell says so)

I think we generally use religion as a vehicle for morality but that it does not actually reside within religion. I know Wiccans who are scum and Atheists who are much better persons than I. I credit my ethics to my family. I was raised strongly Christian, but my morals didn't evaporate when I left the Church. I don't think many of you would find my lifestyle immoral.

Is this all a bit like Dungeons & Dragons? Only if you consider any new religion to be Dungeons & Dragonsish. Usually this comparison comes up because of the belief in magic that most Wiccans have. Magic, while not identical to prayer, is still far closer to prayer than D&D-type magic. (but that could be an entirely different thread, or a private message should anyone care)

There are things that work in religion and things that don't. Just because I don't go throught he same motions that the Celts went through doesn't mean their gods can't hear me. I learn as much about the Celts as I can, but I know I'm not emulating them. But I do think what I do reaches at least those I feel closest to. I'm sure my method is not the only way of reaching them, and that there are plenty of methods that don't. (My favorite being a story of someone who asked an angry war goddess to bless a peace rally. I mean, duh.)

Like I said, I approach the Celtic pantheon, and I disagree with Asdara about the number of Pagans who simply worship the Lord and Lady. That concept is largely Wiccan, in my experience. If you're Asatru, you're following the Norse pantheon, Religio Romana follows the Roman panthon, etc. Lineaged Wiccan Traditions speak of the Lord and Lady in place of certain specific deities they are simply not naming. There are a good number of eclectic Wiccans who worship simply the Lord and Lady or God and Goddess, but that's a relatively recent development and not one that I personally subscribe to.

And, as a final note, I do play Dungeons & Dragons, and I don't find there to be much similarity at all between my hobby and my religion.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightwind:
Is this all a bit like Dungeons & Dragons? Only if you consider any new religion to be Dungeons & Dragonsish. Usually this comparison comes up because of the belief in magic that most Wiccans have.

To be honest, the Spiritual Warfare/Rapture/ Prosperity movement that exists within certain sectors of the Christian church has much more similarity to D&D than most branches of paganism...

[ 07. July 2003, 16:00: Message edited by: Wood ]
 
Posted by Nightwind (# 4531) on :
 
Every group has its weirdos. I just came across a book the other day that attemps to teach "Wiccan magic" in terms of *gag* Harry Potter, up to and including a section on Defence against the Dark Arts. A review of it on Amazon states it teaches you how to fly. I can only hope the reviewer was joking.

The Witch and Wizard Training Guide
 
Posted by Professor Yaffle (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Wood:

quote:
One thing about paganism: In my (13-years-plus experience of pagans and paganisms) I have noticed, on the whole, that pagans (blanket term) in the States are more likely to be balanced and aware of history. You're more likely to get American pagans admitting that the "old religion mother goddess" thing is a load of old bull and to be comfortable with the idea that just because something is new, it doesn't mean it's not right. Sure there are what some call "fluffy bunnies" in the States too, but they seem to be a smaller proportion. And we have Murry Hope and Kevin Carlyon.

On the other hand, every single British pagan I have ever met has believed:

That they were the true followers of an "old religion";
in the true origin of history in Atlantis;
that 9 million pagans died in "burning times"...

I'm guessing, but I suspect that this may be because the US came into existence after a revolution, whereas the British society tends to legitimate itself in terms of tradition. So I suspect that Americans are more comfortable with the idea of religion as something new and gleaming, whereas the British like it to have a patina of age. It's the same reason that English Socialists invariably harp on about the history of the labour movement and trace their ideological antecedents back to Lilliburne and Winstanley or the way that some Anglo-Catholics like to pretend that Anglicanism stretches back to St Augustine of Canterbury. If one's society is based on a breach with tradition, then tradition is less important as a form of legitimation.

On the other hand, when I was in New York I did spend five minutes watching a lady, on public access TV, who was a specialist in Atlantean Tarot and who claimed that there was an Atlantean scroll tucked away in the paws of The Sphinx, so American pagans aren't immune. Perhaps it's the equivalent of 19th Century American millionaires marrying their daughters into the English Aristocracy.

[ 07. July 2003, 16:45: Message edited by: Professor Yaffle ]
 
Posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon (# 4544) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wally:
quote:
It merely requires the desire to be the best person you can be and fullfill your potential. Paganism and wiccanism are all about full-filling your potential. Culitivating yourself to yield a better you. If you are going for this (as you should be as a proper pagan or wiccan and not a fluffy bimbo) then you have all the moral code you need right there.
I guess to me, a moral code like that does not offer a lot. What I read seems like a religion of personal fulfillment and not corporate salvation. I am probably truly undecided as to what I am, but to me the underlying strength of Christianity is its emphasis on facing ones own shortcomings and flaws and shedding ones desires for personal fulfillment in order to bring about the best for the many. To say that most people, myself included find this near impossible to do, to me does not detract from the potential of the ideal. I think Christianity is quite correct in deeming the gravest sin to be that of pride, and I think pride is what seeks fulfillment in itself.
I don't see that fullfillment of self is a bad thing to be part of the Christian package. Our primary injunctions are to love God, love others, and love ourselves. I don't think fulfilling ourselves is intrinsicly sinful. It only becomes a problem when it is out of balance with our other obligations. Love is not limited; we don't have a small quantity to parcel out between God, neighbor, and self.

I get the impression that for the pagans religion isn't about "salvation". If you don't think that people are basically bad and flawed then salvation doesn't come into it. But if you think that you are basically good, the aim of "self-fullfillment" ie becoming the best person you can be is a worthy goal.

On the other hand, there is nothing in "an it harm no one, do what you will" that says you have to become a better person, so developing your own moral code seems rather optional. You are quite free to be a "fluffy bunny". [Snigger]

So for our contributing pagans, what is the essential force in your personal faith?
 
Posted by Asdara (# 4533) on :
 
quote:
I get the impression that for the pagans religion isn't about "salvation". If you don't think that people are basically bad and flawed then salvation doesn't come into it. But if you think that you are basically good, the aim of "self-fullfillment" ie becoming the best person you can be is a worthy goal.

This is true.

Essential? My relationship with my goddess. Being able to "look her in the eye" without guilt that comes from wrongdoing, without shame that can come from thinking you are less then you really are, and without self-righteous pride that can come from thinking you are more than you are.

Being my true self and being okay with my true self are the essentials to me.

That and knowing that I am following my personal ethical code to the best of my ablities.
 
Posted by Nightwind (# 4531) on :
 
quote:
So for our contributing pagans, what is the essential force in your personal faith?
To better understand Deity and grow closer to it, which I believe will make me a better person overall.
 
Posted by Asdara (# 4533) on :
 
Well said Nightwind! [Not worthy!] [Not worthy!]
 
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 
Neo-Pagan morality is one of my favorite topics to think about and discuss. The first thing that most Neo-Pagans to point on the topic is the Wiccan Rede, as stated by Asdara above. While I agree with the content of the Rede, I truly dislike how it is stated. The Rede as stated is commonly confused by people with two almost diametrically opposed precepts which preceded it: "First, harm none" from the Hypocratic Oath and "Do as you Will shall be the whole of the Law" from Crowley.

Let me state what I believe the Rede says without the anachronistic language used by Gardner: "If an action causes no harm, then that action is not morally wrong." The Rede in this form is neither a statement of non-violence (like "Do no harm") nor is it a statement of licentiousness (like "Do what you want.") It merely says that morally wrong actions are contained within the set of actions which cause harm. There may be actions which cause harm which are not morally wrong as well (like participating in a just war for your country), but the Rede does not speak to that.

The biggest issue that the Rede differs from Christian morality is sex. We can quibble on the definition of "harm", but under the Rede if sex between individuals is done safely and responsibly then it is not a sin without regard to commitment or love between the participants. In fact, the earliest Neo-Pagan groups called themselves "fertility religions" rather than "nature religions", and sex was incorporated as part of the ritual, at least in privacy after the coven had met and departed. Neo-Paganism (at least those parts which follow the Rede) remains broadly a sex-positive religion even if sex is only incorporated symbolically in the ritual these days.

Since Neo-paganism does not tend to have a moral code beyond the Rede, most Neo-pagans look to other sources for their morality. Functionally, most Neo-Pagans I have met tend to be utilitarians though few would know of or have read Bentham or Mills.

What is truly interesting and significantly more restrictive about Neo-Pagan morality than Christianity is the fact that most Neo-Pagans do not believe that the field of morality is restricted to interactions between humans. Thus, interactions between humans and animals, humans and the environment, humans and the spirit worlds, groups of humans with other groups of humans, and groups of humans with the natural world must all be examined in terms of their morality as well. For instance, many Neo-Pagans believe that the harm inflicted by mankind on the environment is not only dangerous to human survivability but morally wrong in itself. Thus, in a way that might seem strange to some Christians many Neo-Pagans who are much, shall we say, freerer in their personal life can be stridently moralistic in their participation in environmental causes. We love our Mother and seek to protect Her.

Neo-Paganism is a broad term as will be repeated throughout this thread, and so it is hard to speak in generality about it. However, I would not be so quick to dismiss it, in general, as a self-centered religion focussed merely on improvement and gratification. The religion as it is practiced does have a kind of soteriology. First, since the religion tends to be matrifocal, it works on the wounds caused by gender inequaility. Second, since the religion tends to worship Nature as divine, it works on healing the rift between "Man" and "Nature" caused, in part, by the Industrial Revolution. Third, since the religion embraces the creative and the intuitive, it works towards empowering people to be preistesses and prophetesses who can create new liturgy, thealogy and even soteriology.

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-centured paradigms held by mainstream society can be a strongly regenerative experience.
 
Posted by Nightwind (# 4531) on :
 
quote:
On the other hand, there is nothing in "an it harm no one, do what you will" that says you have to become a better person, so developing your own moral code seems rather optional.
I agree. The Rede does not push you to be a better person.

And if that's as far as Wiccan wants to take his religion, that's his right, but I find it a fairly shallow approach to religion. I mean, if you want to sum up your religion in 8 words, do you really think you're terribly involved in it?

Just because ethics aren't spelled out for you doesn't mean they aren't there for one to seek.

Also, different traditions have their own teachings. the Church of Universal Eclectic Wicca, for example, teaches 5 Points of Wiccan belief:

The Wiccan Rede
The Law of Return - What you do returns to you
The Ethic of Self-Responsibility - We, and only we, are responsible for our own actions.
The Ethic of Constant Improvement - The desire to improve the world around us, guided in part by the Law of Return.
The Ethic of Attunement - Divinity is within us and around us, and becoming in-tune with this power is a major facet of Wicca.
 
Posted by Wally (# 3245) on :
 
quote:
By Lyda:

If you don't think that people are basically bad and flawed then salvation doesn't come into it.

I should have been more specific in saying salvation in terms of achieving the greatest possible good for humanity as a whole in this life, whatever may happen in the next. Having a positive or negative attitude to humanity to me does not make a difference, suffering is a fixture of our existence whatever your outlook. Developing a system of personal morality certainly can be a good thing, but I don’t feel that it addresses the bigger issues. I’m trying not be obdurate on that point, but it is where Paganism would fall short for me.

You’re quite right in pointing out that developing and bettering oneself should not be minimized or discounted, I hope I didn’t go overboard there. There are many examples of Christians going on intense and personal spiritual journeys, particularly in the mystic tradition.


quote:
The Wiccan Rede
The Law of Return - What you do returns to you

I’ll try not to sound like a total dickhead here, but I find the idea of a law of return or karma to be very offensive. This model of justice to me is about retribution and leaves no place for mercy. In short I think it appeals to our worst instincts to seek an eye for an eye. It also does not make sense when we see the bad people prosper and good or innocent people suffer, often horribly (an argument of course which has been made against God as well).
 
Posted by Asdara (# 4533) on :
 
There many reasons why "bad things" happen. Karma is only one of them.

You may need that "bad" experiance to learn a valuable lesson, or to make you more able to empathize with others around you.

You may have set yourself up for a "bad" experiance by making a less than intelligent decision (you choose not to wear a seat belt and now you have glass in your forehead--not "karma" just cause and effect of your choice)

Karma is just the concept of the type of energy you put out into the universe comeing back to you. If you generate good energy, there will be more good energy out there, therefore it is more likely you will recieve good energy. (Extremely basic, broken down, no details included version)

Nightwind may feel free to elaborate (?) or disagree completely. [Wink]
 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
To be honest, the Spiritual Warfare/Rapture/ Prosperity movement that exists within certain sectors of the Christian church has much more similarity to D&D than most branches of paganism...

And I used to have this game myself... [Embarrassed]

Cool thread, by the way!

David
knows some of these folks from elsewhere, too! [Yipee]
 
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wally:
I should have been more specific in saying salvation in terms of achieving the greatest possible good for humanity as a whole in this life, whatever may happen in the next.

And where Christianity falls short for the Neo-Pagan is that "greatest good for humanity" part. We as Neo-Pagans would seek the greatest good for all life and sentient beings.

quote:
I’ll try not to sound like a total dickhead here, but I find the idea of a law of return or karma to be very offensive. This model of justice to me is about retribution and leaves no place for mercy. In short I think it appeals to our worst instincts to seek an eye for an eye. It also does not make sense when we see the bad people prosper and good or innocent people suffer, often horribly (an argument of course which has been made against God as well).
Well, historically the problems with the concept of karma is not its retributive aspects: the meting out of karmic justice was left to the Gods over the span of lifetimes. The real problem with karma as a doctine is that people are presumed to get what they deserve and no one is given by society the opportunity to improve upon their lot in life. Thus, cultures which have believed in karma and reincarnation have tended to result in strigent caste systems in which some castes have been horrendously oppressed.

The Law of Return in some branches of Neo-Paganism has a much different lineage than karma anyway. It was derived from The Law of Threefold Return which was a directive specifically against the practice of negative magic. It orignally was intended to apply to magical acts with harmful intent. One could cast a hex on another but the price was to have three times the impact rebound on you. The Law of Threefold return has been extended over the years in some branches to where it applies to positves acts as well as negative acts and mundane acts as well as magical acts. Thus, The Law of Return ends up looking exactly like karma, but it's much less broadly held in that form as is the Rede, for instance.

[Superfluous "the"]

[ 07. July 2003, 19:14: Message edited by: Mertseger ]
 
Posted by Nightwind (# 4531) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wally:


quote:
The Wiccan Rede
The Law of Return - What you do returns to you

I’ll try not to sound like a total dickhead here, but I find the idea of a law of return or karma to be very offensive. This model of justice to me is about retribution and leaves no place for mercy. In short I think it appeals to our worst instincts to seek an eye for an eye. It also does not make sense when we see the bad people prosper and good or innocent people suffer, often horribly (an argument of course which has been made against God as well).
No harm, no foul.

I think it is a generalization. We don't always see what comes back to us, because it's not a eye for an eye. If someone steals my wallet, I don't believe that the Powers That Be will have someone steal his wallet in retribution. Furthermore, I'm not going to sit back and wait for Providence to punish him. I'm going to report the incident to the police and do everything I can to get the creep locked up.

I don't look at it so much as a good brings good, bad brings bad thing. (and I realize that was the bit I defined for you, bad me for falling to toting the party line) The Law of Return states you ownly get what you earn, in compliance with the law of ecology (from biology 101 class) that there is no such thing as a free lunch. You take from somewhere, something else has to give. You want something, you have to work for it. Casting a circle and lighting a green candle is not going to make you rich, any more than praying is likely to let you win the lottery.
 
Posted by bessie rosebride (# 1738) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightwind:
Magic, while not identical to prayer, is still far closer to prayer than D&D-type magic. (but that could be an entirely different thread, or a private message should anyone care)

Not sure how narrow the focus of this thread is supposed to be, but this statement intrigues me, and I wish you could open it up just a bit more.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
This is probably an idiotic question, but I've been wondering for ages what Neo-Pagans think of the book The Mists of Avalon. Have any of you read it?
 
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
This is probably an idiotic question, but I've been wondering for ages what Neo-Pagans think of the book The Mists of Avalon. Have any of you read it?

It's pretty much our Bible.

Well, no, but it is well loved in the community. MZB was a Neo-Pagan in the midst of the 80's at the height of feminist Goddess-worshipping side of Neo-Paganism. She returned to Christianity towards the end of her life, and the final book of the Avalon series (the posthumous Priestess of Avalon) speaks to that return. Her presentation of the Pagan ritual and magic in Mists is pretty much how it is understood and done within the community though few would claim to have the powers of her characters. All in all, Mists is a good literary exposition of the modern dialectic between Neo-Paganism and Christianity from the Neo-pagan perspective.
 
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wally:
I’ll try not to sound like a total dickhead here, but I find the idea of a law of return or karma to be very offensive. This model of justice to me is about retribution and leaves no place for mercy. In short I think it appeals to our worst instincts to seek an eye for an eye. It also does not make sense when we see the bad people prosper and good or innocent people suffer, often horribly (an argument of course which has been made against God as well).

I don't think the law of return particularly is incompatible with Christianity, I'd not realised it before I read this but I believe in a law of return to a certain degree.

I've noticed that when I have a very positive attitude towards everything; towards people, towards challenges, things seem to go right most of the time. When I am pessimistic, things usually don't go as well, people aren't as nice.

If I look at driving as an example; when I spend my time on the road being nice and letting people out of side streets in heavy traffic I tend to get the same back. Maybe there is some subtle difference in my driving style when I am being nice that makes people more inclined to wave me out, I don't know. But it does feel like there's a law of return happening.
 
Posted by golden key (# 1468) on :
 
Re the law of return:

There are similar things in the Bible, or at least things interpreted that way.

E.g.,

Cast your bread upon the waters, and it shall return to you after many days--pressed down, shaken together, and running over.

(or something like that!)
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
My question to our resident pagans is a simple one:

How do you think the portrayal of wicca in Buffy the Vampire Slayer (through the character Willow) has affected peoples perceptions of your religion? Was it an accurate portrayal?

Also, do you think this TV show has had an effect on the numbers of (especially, but not exclusively) teenagers experimenting with wicca?

Sorry to be so trivial, but it's something that's bugged me ever since I bumped into a girl I used to go to church with and she said she'd converted to wicca. At the time I thought it was just a Buffy-inspired excuse to dress "gothic" and piss her parents off, but now I know it's actually a real religion I may have to cut her some slack......
 
Posted by Asdara (# 4533) on :
 
quote:
This is probably an idiotic question, but I've been wondering for ages what Neo-Pagans think of the book The Mists of Avalon. Have any of you read it?
Love it. Read it more than once a year. Mists and her other books Lady of Avalon and The Forest House are just excellent when you feel like you're lonely for some "old anchors" in this crazy mixed up world. (BTW, the TV movie while containing some great costume and acting was not up to snuff in my book)

quote:
How do you think the portrayal of wicca in Buffy the Vampire Slayer (through the character Willow) has affected peoples perceptions of your religion? Was it an accurate portrayal?

Also, do you think this TV show has had an effect on the numbers of (especially, but not exclusively) teenagers experimenting with wicca?

Well, I don't watch Buffy. Since the day of the first episode I just decided to ignore it's existence completely. (The way some have done with the Bachlor or Paridise Island because they know they're going to be [Projectile] terrible shows, why even subject yourself to it, right?) However, when I was told that they added a resident wiccan I wondered to myself if I should catch a few re-run episodes to see what the fuss was. She's okay. Obviously it's done for TV ect. but other than that she's a fair representation of your average teen witch. Most adult or more practiced witches/wiccans/pagans are a lot more settled down, less flighty, and less naive, but... it's a show about a vampire slayer how realistic can anyone expect it to be? [Roll Eyes]

I liked Practical Magick (with Sandra Bullock) it's not a great story and it's kinda over the top at places, but it's a bit more down to earth about what a real wiccan household might function as (if you leave the "put in for the movie's sake part)

Most Neo-pagans have very personal ways of expressing their religion (just as I'm sure all of you do) and it's different for all of us how we do what we do. I know some Neo-pagans with blessing cords in every room and their mirrors in all the right places with lush herb gardens and a stone circle in their backyard. I know others who (like me) simply keep a year round altar and make simple gestures everyday to affirm their faith. It's not really able to be "portrayed" than the Christian experiance can be "portrayed" in any movie or TV show. It's a very personal part of real life.

That aside, ask her if she bought a S. Ravenwolf book before you decide to cut her too much slack. If it was teen witch kit... well... as they used to say "you make the call" [Razz]
 
Posted by Asdara (# 4533) on :
 
Bessie Rosebride, what did you want opened up? The D&D vs magick, magick vs. prayer, or D&D vs. magick vs. prayer?

Just ask, cause if you don't ask I don't know what you want to know. [Yipee] [Wink]
 
Posted by Wally (# 3245) on :
 
golden key and IBP, you're both correct. The idea of reaping what you sow makes sense and is evident I imagine in all our lives. I guess what I have a problem with is the idea of a law of return taken to its extreme in ways mentioned by Mertseger. There was a good article in National Geographic a couple months ago about the Dalits, that was one of the first things that came to my mind.

Nightwind filled out the details of the law of return stuff nicely in her second post.

quote:
By Mertseger:

And where Christianity falls short for the Neo-Pagan is that "greatest good for humanity" part. We as Neo-Pagans would seek the greatest good for all life and sentient beings.

Christianity being incarnational, but also Judaism, are about the relationship between people and God. I think the focus then understandably is on humanity. However, I think it's implicit that honoring a creator would mean honoring and protecting its creation (no matter how you believe that creation actually came about).

Also, on a not too interesting side note, I found out not that long ago that I was never baptized. I guess technically speaking, I'm a Pagan.
 
Posted by Nightwind (# 4531) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
My question to our resident pagans is a simple one:

How do you think the portrayal of wicca in Buffy the Vampire Slayer (through the character Willow) has affected peoples perceptions of your religion? Was it an accurate portrayal?

Oooohhhh, you've hit upon a current issue of mine. [Yipee]

Obviously, there's a lot of fantasy elements to Buffy. I'm never going to fly or shoot lighting from my fingers or fling daggers with my mind. However, I don't have any objection with Wiccans being portrayed with such power in the context of a world where vampires and demons walk down your street and have a beer on the corner pub in between their attempts to destroy the world. Clearly we're not talking the same reality you and I live in.

However, the concepts of Buffian Wicca I think are pretty dead on. Willow literally tapped into evil, and it changed her. She tapped into dark powers in order to ennact revenge on her lover's murderers and turned into this black-eyed, black-haired evil thing bent on destroying the world. The power she wielded came back to her. She doesn't just create something from nothing in her magic - she has to get energy from somewhere. Sometimes its herself, sometimes the earth, sometimes hell dimensions, sometimes bystanders, but it always comes from somewhere, and her choices have repercussions. Choices in Buffy always have repercussions, for better or worse.

Now, this is the usual spot where Wiccans explaim "But Willow was a terrible Wiccan!"

Yes, she was, in terms of she did not hold up Wiccan ideals, just as a Christian who murders isn't holding up Christian ideals. But Willow isn't supposed to be the Wiccan poster child. They never say that Willow's behavior is how Wiccans are supposed to act, and in fact the other major Wiccan character, Tara, chides Willow repeatedly for her behavior and tries (mostly in vain) to get Willow on the straight and narrow.

Now, some people have gotten the wrong idea from the show about Wicca. I think the common misconception is that Wicca is just about magic. But, come on, it's clearly a fantasy show. They're clearly taking liberties with reality. I don't know why people think Buffy should be taken as some sort of primer. I mean, do these people think vampires are real after watching the show?

quote:
Also, do you think this TV show has had an effect on the numbers of (especially, but not exclusively) teenagers experimenting with wicca?
I'm sure it has, although I haven't had much experience with it. The media influence I run across most often is Charmed, and this show pisses the hell out of me. They periodically throw the word "Wicca" around, yet portray absolutely nothing of the reality Wicca in it, not even a hint. There have been books published on how to be a Charmed Wiccan. There are entire teenage covens out there revolving around what they learned from Charmed and they're just goofy in comparison to what Wicca actually is. The show's writers' clearly are just throwing the term around because it apparently adds to the coolness factor.

quote:
Sorry to be so trivial, but it's something that's bugged me ever since I bumped into a girl I used to go to church with and she said she'd converted to wicca. At the time I thought it was just a Buffy-inspired excuse to dress "gothic" and piss her parents off, but now I know it's actually a real religion I may have to cut her some slack......
Well, there's nothing in Wicca that says you have to dress to dress like a Goth. Heck, even the Wiccans in Buffydon't even dress Goth, other than when Willow turns to the Darkside. Tara in particular preferred earth tones. (Willow's current mood can actually generally be gaged by her costuming, which is quite commonplace for the show. They invoke piles of symbolism through all seven years of the show)

[ 08. July 2003, 14:18: Message edited by: Nightwind ]
 
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightwind:
The media influence I run across most often is Charmed, and this show pisses the hell out of me. They periodically throw the word "Wicca" around, yet portray absolutely nothing of the reality Wicca in it, not even a hint.

Well, they did ONCE (first or second season when they went to a Neo-Pagan ritual in Golden Gate Park), but, yeah, I know what you mean.

The really interesting thing about the recent mass media portrayals of witchcraft (Buffy, Charmed, The Craft, Practical Magic) is that they are all set in a Good vs. Evil dualism that is almost totally irrevalent to modern Neo-Paganism (though quite relavent to many forms of modern Christianity). Neo-Pagans do speak frequently in terms of harm or danger in their practice of magic and ritual, but almost never in terms of good and evil. Even the societal forces which are demonized to a certain extent within the Neo-Pagan community like the explotation and greed of modern corporations, or the intolerance and hatred directed through religious fundamentalism (of all kinds, not just Christianity) are seen as forces that are appropriate when used correctly but which are largely unchecked and out of balance right now.

Thus, there is an ambivalence to the mass-media portayal of Witches. On the one hand, we go "Yay! They acknowledged our existance, and got some of the trappings right!" On the other hand, we squirm because we don't see the practice of magic as one of dealing with spirits that are strictly divided into two camps (the good and the evil), nor do we believe, therefore, that all witches can be divided into those categories.

[tangent]After I posted last night, I pulled down my copy of Mists of Avalon to check the publication date, and was amused to note that two of the dozen or so modern witches that MZB thanks in her Acknowledgement are loosely in my lineage. Both Aunty Alison (Harlow) and Aunty Starhawk were initiated by the same man (Victor Anderson) who initiated my teacher (Francesca De Grandis). Small world.[/tangent]
 
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
A while ago, prompted, I think, by something said on the ship I had a poke around on the net for christian wicca.

What do wiccans think of 'christian wicca' from a wiccan point of view - is Christianity compatible with your Wiccan beliefs?

I know very little in depth about Wicca outside what has been said on this thread, so I appologise if this is a stupid question.
 
Posted by Nightwind (# 4531) on :
 
quote:
The really interesting thing about the recent mass media portrayals of witchcraft (Buffy, Charmed, The Craft, Practical Magic) is that they are all set in a Good vs. Evil dualism that is almost totally irrevalent to modern Neo-Paganism (though quite relavent to many forms of modern Christianity).
While the show Buffy is about Good and Evil, I don't see it's portrayal of Wicca as being about Good and Evil at all. That's one of the reasons I like it. Yes, you CAN do bad things as a Wiccan. The gods do not take away your magic wand because you're not being all goodness and light. There's no divine power that makes Wiccans more moral than anyone else.
 
Posted by Asdara (# 4533) on :
 
Intellect, to answer your question breifly: No. I don't think you can be both. But when I say that I really mean that I don't think you can be both equally. One must be more prevelent than the other.

Neo-paganims allows for being blended with other religions rather well, because it is so loose and it does not prohibit other gods or practices of worship pertaining thereto.

Christianity as I understand it is far more restrictive with the "ONE AND ONLY GOD" ect. That said I think that non-fundimentalist Christians could add the elements of Neo-paganims to their religious experiance quite easily and with little issue. Still, in my opinion you are either more Neo-pagan or more Christain with overtones and partials of the other rather than having an equal balance.

I don't know why that is really, it's just been my experiance with others.
 
Posted by Nightwind (# 4531) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
A while ago, prompted, I think, by something said on the ship I had a poke around on the net for christian wicca.

What do wiccans think of 'christian wicca' from a wiccan point of view - is Christianity compatible with your Wiccan beliefs?

I know very little in depth about Wicca outside what has been said on this thread, so I appologise if this is a stupid question.

I don't think you can be both. You can have Christian-influenced Wicca, or Wiccan-influenced Christianity, but I think you're one or the other. And honestly, I don't see why you'd WANT to be both. Sounds to me that you're not happy in either if you want to fence sit.

Christians are those who follow the teachings of Christ, right? Christ says there's only one God. Wicca's entire structure is centered around the concept of a balanced duality, an equal God and Goddess. At the site you quote, they suggest Mary as Goddess. But the Christian Mary's not a Goddess. She's mortal. That's her POINT. And she is certainly not equal to an ever-present, all-knowing God.

So some bring up the Gnostic Sophia as Goddess. Except most Gnostics don't consider themselves Christians, and Christians traditionally consider Gnosticism a heresy, so again it feels to me like someone is stretching for an excuse to continue calling themselves Christian.

Christians believe that we are sinful by nature because of Original Sin, which is why we need Jesus as Savior. Wiccans believe that we are only what we make of ourselves, that any bad in ourselves comes from our own choices. We are not in need of a Savior. (I've had a Christian Wiccan tell me he doesn't believe in any of that, which leads me back to the idea that "Christian" then is being applied very strangely, and, I think, erroneously)

Wiccans don't believe in Hell. (other afterlife beliefs vary considerably)

Wiccans believe in the validity of many deities.

Wiccans have no Satan - no entity of absolute evil

Wiccan gods, when drawn from older mythologies, generally have personality quirks I'd say are absent in the Christian God.

Now, I'm not wanting to cookie cut Wiccans and Christians. On some of these things you might be able to find people on either side that don't agree with the norm, but when you take exceptions to the rule enough times.... the rules disappear, and you end up with something resembling neither Wicca nor Christianity.

I'm not even saying the result is necessarily a bad thing. But if you've come up with something new, call it something new. Calling it Christian Wicca is a disservice to both religions and I think constrains the worshipper in his or her search for Truth.

Now, there are Christo-pagans, and I won't argue about them. Since there isn't one "pagan" mindset, there's much more leeway. (and I don't know too much about any of them, so I won't get any more detailed than that)

(wow, I've had two of my buttons pressed in the same day. Impressive. [Not worthy!] )
 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
[Not worthy!] Nightwind [Not worthy!] [Love]

(Myself, while I am open to (or actively believe in) some things which are mostly believed in by Pagans, I am not a Pagan theologically at all for the same reasons Nightwind posted, and those things I believe in common with Pagans (or am open to) are usually things in which used to be believed in by Christians in other times or places -- more notions of cosmology or metaphysics than of deity, if you see what I mean. Just to make things clear.)

David
loves the "Oh My Gods" boards

[ 08. July 2003, 16:50: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
 
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 
And now a view from the other side of the supposed Christian and Neo-Pagan dichotomy. Check my profile. I'm both. The fact is that there's nothing except lack of time which prevents you from both attending church and going to Neo-Pagan rituals.

That being said there are obvious logical difficulties. Polytheism vs. Monotheism. Hierarchy (or. at least, communitarianism) vs. individualism. Patriarchy vs. Matriarchy (or, at least, Matrifocalism, if that's a word). There are ways to see through these issues to achieve a synthesis between the two, but the road is not easy.

Furthermore, there are a ton of wounded people in both camps that do not want you around if you're from the other side. I have many Neo-Pagan friends who were severly hurt by Christians, and there is a tremendous fear of Neo-Paganism from Chirstians as representing things like polytheism and withcraft which are strongly condemed by the Bible at least in perfectly reasonable interpretations of perfectly reasonable translations of certain passages.

Given both the theoretical and practical differences between the two religions there would appear to be no hope of accord between the two.

I nevertheless stake my flag in the ground and seek fervently that accord. I pray for and work towards the ideal of the two faiths growing closer over the next millenium. Why? Because both religions have something the other needs and that the human world needs and that the Earth needs.

Christianity today remains Patriarchal, divorced from Nature, divorced from magic and divorced from the human capacities to prophecy, to continue writing the Bible and to cannonize new works. Neo-paganism offers quality answers to all these problems. Neo-Paganism, on the other hand, has a underdeveloped ethical system at this point, and does not do good works or regular corporate worship or support its Elders well. More to the point, it could embrace the concepts of mercy and redemption, but right now it fears those concepts because they have been used by a Christians as a club to get people to toe the line.

Now, people on both sides will agrue the details of the previous paragraph. I know Neo-Pagans and Neo-Pagan groups which do regular corporate worship and organize to do positive things in their communities. It's still not the norm and not remotely as well done as it is in Christianity. As Neo-Paganism ages and grows it will get better at these things. And there are exciting things happening in Christianity as well. Addressing the divine as Goddess is becoming possible on the fringes. Magic is happening in chrismatic sects. And there are growing numbers who are willing to talk and learn about other faiths as is the case at SOF.

I love both my religions.
 
Posted by bessie rosebride (# 1738) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Asdara:
Bessie Rosebride, what did you want opened up? The D&D vs magick, magick vs. prayer, or D&D vs. magick vs. prayer?

Just ask, cause if you don't ask I don't know what you want to know. [Yipee] [Wink]

Well, the quote from Nightwind was this:

Magic, while not identical to prayer, is still far closer to prayer than D&D-type magic.

I'm not really interested in addressing D&D's, but how is Magic similar and close to prayer?

I don't practice magic, but I do pray. God has, at times, amazingly answered some of those prayers; a sort of "new age" counselor I talked with for a number of years, once said that I had "the power to manifest" (answers and things I strongly desired, I suppose).

To my thinking, I pray, but yield to God's will for the answer. He can grant my request or not. Isn't magic more specific, with a known outcome as the intent?

Please discuss, as you desire. [Smile]
 
Posted by Asdara (# 4533) on :
 
Well this is sometimes a matter of discussion among pagans/wiccans/et all Neo Pagans and what have you as well.

I believe that magick (and yes I spell it funny, just because when i started studying that's how it was spelt and I've just stuck with it even if it is seen as silly to some) is a ritual/action/or even non-consious action to manifest a need/desire/preferable reality.

Prayer is asking your God/gods/goddess for something and hoping you will get it. As far as I know Neo pagans keep that sort of thinking to a minimum. Usually the methods are combined, asking our God/gods/goddess to aid us in our magick rather than ask them to manifest something for us, we ask them to help us manifest it ourselves.
 
Posted by Nightwind (# 4531) on :
 
quote:
I'm not really interested in addressing D&D's, but how is Magic similar and close to prayer?

If I'm simply asking a god for something, I call that prayer. Magic involves invoking a change through your own abilities. However, Wiccans frequently still invoke deity when attempting magic. Sort of a "by your will, I'd like to do this". Moreover, magic within a Wiccan context is generally linked to deity. The power they call magic is an essence that runs through us and our surroundings and the gods, or it originates from the gods, or it IS the gods (depending on the Wiccan in question..) I don't command the gods. If I can work magic it is because the gods have granted me that ability.

Magic's not something you just throw around, and it's not a free lunch. I don't think any of you will object to my view that God is more likely to answer a prayer for work from someone who's actually looking for work that from someone whose sitting on the couch all day asking God to please drop a well-paying job on his head, and it's exactly the same as magic. You only get what you earn. If it worked any other way a lot more people would believe in magic, lighting their little green candles, and winning the lottery.

It's not like D&D. Effects are generally subtle, and they take effort. It's not about chanting a few magic words, waving your hands and having something dramatic happen. It's about tapping into something greater than yourself with sincere and honest desire. And is that not the same way you approach prayer?
 
Posted by shareman (# 2871) on :
 
This may be a dumb question, but it seems to me that most Wiccan traditions take ancient European, or at least Eurasian religions as a starting point. I don't know of any groups that start from, say the Indian or African traditional religions, outside Santoria and such, which is, I think, outside of what we seem to be considering Paganism. Why? Thank God no-one has started from the Classic MesoAmerican tradition [Eek!]
 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
Wiccan traditions seem to, yes, but not all Pagan ones do. And yes, there are people who revere the gods of the southern and central American continents as well!

At one of my Radical Faerie potlucks someone came and gave a presentation on Santeria as well. It's not Wicca, of course.
 
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 
Okay, Magic v. Prayer.

Asdara's definition of magic is a good place to start though I'd quible over the non-concious part since the whole point of magic is to bring about change consciously. (I use the non-k spelling of magic since the point of that was, originally, to distinguish it from stage magic. The two are almost always distinguishable via context, IMHO, though, interestingly, whenever I tell people that I'll be playing in a Magic tournament they almost always assume I mean stage magic rather than the card game, Magic the Gathering.)

The essential elements of magic as practiced by modern practitioners are:

  1. Deciding on the intent of the spell.
  2. Preparation.
  3. Raising 'energy'.
  4. Visualizing the outcome.
  5. Releasing the 'energy' with the intent to bring about the desired outcome.
  6. Conclusion.
  7. Follow-up.

Prayer can be done with a few to all of these steps and is still a worthy activity for lacking them.

I'd like to comment further on the various steps.

Intent A lot of the moral thought in Neo-Paganism focusses on this step. What constitutes an ethical intent for a spell (or a prayer for that matter)? In my Trad, we believe that a spell as the exact same morality were the same effect to be done using any mundane methods that might be out there. Thus, love-spells focussed on getting a specific individual into bed with you are the equivalent of drugging someone and are anathema. Even binding a rapist is considered edgy and best left to the authorities. Often reflective castings are prefered in such cases.

Preparation Often a pre-ritual cleansing is done up to and including scented baths (this certainly could become a lovely part of anyone's prayer ritual). Often a circle is cast though we like to emphasize that we aren't creating a sacred space as becoming reminded and concious of that sacredness. Often the elements or guardians of the elements are evoked to protect the participants in their working. Often the Goddess (and God) will be asked to guide the ritual and outcome of the spell in a way that will be best for all.

Raising energy A variety of methods can and are used (though usually only one or two for a single casting) including singing, chanting, drumming, telling stories, reciting poetry, dancing, telling jokes, and having sex. If you've ever felt the crowd get excited at a church meeting, this step is about doing exactly same thing.

Visiualizing This skill is exactly the same as done by athletes, for instance, when they focus on accomplishing difficult feats. A lot of magical training focusses on this step. A variety of props can be uses to bring our unconcious minds into alignment with this visualization including colored candles, incense, cords, drawings, figurines, and so on.

Releasing the energy We send off the energy we've built up in the earlier steps. The leader of the ritual will try to coordinate and indicate the moment of release for all the participants.

Conclusion Often a ritual meal will be shared to help replenish the energy spent in the earlier steps and create a warm sense of fellowship. Often the spirits who were invited to participate including the Goddess will be thanked. If a circle was cast, then the circle will be uncast or closed.

Follow-up It is expected that all mundane avenues will be explored and worked upon to achieve the spell's intent. If you cast a spell for peace, you're expected to work, as you are able, for peace. If you cast a spell to find love, you're expected to do what you can to get out there and find him or her or them.

Prayer, in conclusion, is a broader psychic activity than spell-casting. There are forms of prayer work which are as technically detailed as spell-work, but there are also forms of prayer which are much less demanding though no less worthwhile.
 
Posted by bessie rosebride (# 1738) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightwind:
It's not like D&D. Effects are generally subtle, and they take effort. It's not about chanting a few magic words, waving your hands and having something dramatic happen. It's about tapping into something greater than yourself with sincere and honest desire. And is that not the same way you approach prayer?

Absolutely. That is how I approach prayer.

Nightwind, Asdara and Mertseger - thanks for your posts. They are insightful, detailed and thought provoking. Much to mull over here. What a great thread! I'm sure I'll have more questions along the way. [Smile]
 
Posted by Infinitarian (# 4513) on :
 
I'm finding this thread completely fascinating -- I'm sorry (since I kind of nudged Asdara into starting it) that I've not had time to participate before now.

One thing that's coming out of this is that, while specific pagan beliefs come generally from oral or literary traditions, the answer to the general question "Why are you a pagan?" is usually along the lines of "I searched and found that it was right for me". I'm not knocking that, but if you ask a Christian the same question they'll usually do one of two things: defend Christianity rationally, or talk about some overwhelming religious experience. I'm wondering if there's any room for these responses in the paganisms followed by participants here? Does anyone reach paganism either by reasoning themselves into a position where they think it's true, or through experiencing a compelling divine self-revelation? It doesn't seem to be something you hear about.

Following on from what shareman said, I'm also interested in whether a divide exists between North American and European paganisms. It seems to me that, here in Britain, being pagan has a lot of emotional "rightness" going for it: the relationship between the people and the land goes back for millennia; ancient earthworks and stone circles absolutely litter the countryside; place names give evidence for beliefs in everything from gods to faeries; harvest rituals and beliefs about crop gods have existed in some form for a very very long time, persisting to an extent in modern society (maypoles, morris dancers etc). In North America, there's no such tradition. Go back a few hundred years and you find Puritans with some very questionable ideas about witches -- go back any further and there's only the Native American tradition, which I don't think any of us mean when we refer to paganism. I wonder if, on some level, this colours British and North American paganisms?

...And if there are any British pagans on the board (are there?), I'd like to know whether there's resistance among the UK pagan community to "imported" paganisms like Religio Romana or Asatru (and, incidentally, I find the idea of anyone worshipping the Norse or Roman gods these days intensely cool), as opposed to "homegrown" Celtic/Saxon stuff?

My other question is specifically Wicca-related: what, precisely and practically, can magic achieve? Is the Buffy episode where Willow first meets Tara, at a meeting of pathetic campus Wiccans whose idea of a spell is something that feels "really empowering", either accurate or fair?

Um, sorry, that's a lot of questions. Looking forward to hearing what our experts have to say.
 
Posted by Asdara (# 4533) on :
 
quote:
I'd quible over the non-concious part
To clear up, I was just referring to the minor magicks we work when we need something badly. Late for work and catch all the green lights, stuff like that.

quote:
Does anyone reach paganism either by reasoning themselves into a position where they think it's true, or through experiencing a compelling divine self-revelation? It doesn't seem to be something you hear about
Well, I don't know about everyone else, but I go through my concepts of the world as often as I have time to check them with rationality and my own inner compass to make sure they still click.

quote:
go back any further and there's only the Native American tradition, which I don't think any of us mean when we refer to paganism. I wonder if, on some level, this colours British and North American paganisms?

Well, there's nothing wrong with incorporating Native American tradtions and magick or medicine into your system. Being pagan with wiccan highlights myself I have incorporated several shamanic practices into my tradition (which is really my tradition personally because I don't belong to any tradition officially).
I honestly never thought of what European pagans think of me, an American pagan. Seems to me that we all love our gods and we all feel with our hearts so it shouldn't be any more of a rift than between the Christians in Europe and the Christians in the US. I could be completely oblivious to the situation though on this patricular note. [Yipee]
 
Posted by Asdara (# 4533) on :
 
Oh, and to quickly address (though I'm sure more addressing will be required later) the "what is magick capable of?" question, that is very much like me asking you "What is prayer capable of?"
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
I'm still intrigued as to why you believe pagan beliefs are true ? The question, even in these allegedly postmodern days, is surely pretty fundamental.
 
Posted by Infinitarian (# 4513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Asdara:
Oh, and to quickly address (though I'm sure more addressing will be required later) the "what is magick capable of?" question, that is very much like me asking you "What is prayer capable of?"

Fair enough.

To answer that question in the same kind of terms I'm hoping the "magic" question will be answered in -- in my experience prayer has never made anything happen that might not plausibly have happened anyway. On a psychological level, it can strengthen, comfort and invigorate (and not just the person doing the praying), and there have been times when people's actions have seemed to me to answer prayers. In my experience prayer never has an immediate, practical effect -- if you're running late and pray that the bus will be slightly delayed so you don't miss it, for example, it almost never happens.

There are Christians who claim spectacular and even miraculous results from prayer -- much-needed large gifts from anonymous donors, spontaneous healing and the like. This doesn't match up with my experience or my theology.

How does magic compare? I've heard/seen wiccans claiming the second class of effect for it, but I must say I'm as suspicious of that as I am of the equivalent Christian claims.
 
Posted by Asdara (# 4533) on :
 
Please define true .

Do I think my beliefs are vaild? Yes. Do I think that they are rational, well thought out, and compatable to my reality? Yes.

What do you mean true?
 
Posted by Asdara (# 4533) on :
 
quote:
There are Christians who claim spectacular and even miraculous results from prayer -- much-needed large gifts from anonymous donors, spontaneous healing and the like. This doesn't match up with my experience or my theology.

How does magic compare? I've heard/seen wiccans claiming the second class of effect for it, but I must say I'm as suspicious of that as I am of the equivalent Christian claims.

Well, I've never thrown fireballs [Roll Eyes] [Wink] But I have protected those I cherish with my energy added to theirs. I have cleared my home of the energies of those who dwelt there before me so that it was a clean and fresh place once more.

But most magick that would be miraculous requires a deep and pervading need to motivate the energies required to produce such a large effect. I can say that I have been blessed to need magick on virtually no occasions. However, when the need is strong enough the will can be motivated to manifest itself in ways that can not be written off as coincidental or "highly plausible". I decline at the moment to share anything person on that issue because the two or three occurances that have happened are very personal to me and are not something that I will expose based on their personal nature.
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
I'm sorry Asdara, but I'm unfashionable enough to believe that for a belief to be 'true' means for it to correspond to an external reality. Thus 'God exists' is true if, and only if, God exists.

I think our beliefs will always be conditioned and limited by our situation, but that nonetheless we can falteringly find out about things external to us and form true beliefs about them. This position could be described as 'critical realism.'

Is this a position which pagan beliefs are compatible with? Do they imply another notion of truth or reality - I notice you talk about 'my reality'?
 
Posted by Infinitarian (# 4513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Asdara:
I decline at the moment to share anything person on that issue because the two or three occurances that have happened are very personal to me and are not something that I will expose based on their personal nature.

That's perfectly reasonable. It's brave enough of you to be holding your beliefs up for general public probing on this thread, without doing the same with your personal life.

All the same, I'd be interested to hear more from our other pagan participants on this, if they're OK with that.

[ 09. July 2003, 13:28: Message edited by: Infinitarian ]
 
Posted by Asdara (# 4533) on :
 
Well, I personally (having as far as I know nothing to do with pagan beliefs in general) believe in subjective reality. What you perceive is real to you. After many discussions amongst friends and other people I simply have taken up the habit of using "my reality" instead of "reality" as a general. The understanding being that I recognize the fact that I may percieve things differently then you do.

And yes, my gods are real. As real as your God.
 
Posted by Wally (# 3245) on :
 
quote:
And yes, my gods are real. As real as your God.
There's obviously no point in debating whose God or Gods are "real". The difference, I think, is that Christians believe in an objective reality, something present and existing outside of any one individuals own mind. When you say your reality is subjective, you imply that your Gods are real, but only for you and are the product of your own creation.
 
Posted by Asdara (# 4533) on :
 
This is a tad OT, but my ideas about reality: (not nessasarily the pagan/wiccan/Neopagan blah blah blah community's beliefs, but mine)

Reality is subjective in that we percieve and understand the world. We only know what we personally know, in other words. What I see as a tree, I believe you see as a tree, but to you it may not be a tree at all.

Reality is also objective in that there is an underlying reality that ties all of the subjective realities together, this could be called conscensual reality, the reality we all seem to agree on basically.

Then there is the possiblity of the ultimate reality, the raw real, undeniably true realness of the base layer of existance. I have a friend who has dedicated his life to finding this layer. I don't know if it's possible myself.

I hope that helps, if not, we'll try it again.
 
Posted by Nightwind (# 4531) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shareman:
This may be a dumb question, but it seems to me that most Wiccan traditions take ancient European, or at least Eurasian religions as a starting point. I don't know of any groups that start from, say the Indian or African traditional religions, outside Santoria and such, which is, I think, outside of what we seem to be considering Paganism. Why? Thank God no-one has started from the Classic MesoAmerican tradition [Eek!]

Wicca was originally based on a theory of ancient pagan religions surviving specifically in Europe, so Gardner's focus was Europe, and it's trickled down. It also has actual roots in Ceremonial Magic, and that is also European/Eurasian.

It also has to do with ancestry. A lot of people are drawn to ancestral gods, and for Americans and Europeans, that's most often going to be European/Eurasian descent.

Now, there are more and more African-Americans who are looking into more traditional African spirutalities, but they generally don't consider themselves Pagans.
 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
This is a really cool thread!! [Yipee]
quote:
Originally posted by Infinitarian:
Does anyone reach paganism either by reasoning themselves into a position where they think it's true

Well, those aspects of cosmology I mentioned before -- that's my reason, yes, but I am also not technically a Pagan...

quote:
there's only the Native American tradition, which I don't think any of us mean when we refer to paganism
I do, but it depends on context. If they are polytheistic, then yes, generally.

quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
I'm still intrigued as to why you believe pagan beliefs are true ? The question, even in these allegedly postmodern days, is surely pretty fundamental.

Well, if some of us can argue that we believe that Doctrine X is true based on Christian tradition, then I imagine someone could argue that something else is true based on collective reports from Pagan traditions -- which, in fact, except in those areas which contradict Judeo-Christian belief, I tend to do, or at least give them what I believe is due weight.

quote:
Originally posted by Asdara:
Please define true .

I would say that truth is what is. If a person says of a thing that is, that it is -- or of a thing that is not, that it is not -- then that person speaks the truth.

quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
I'm sorry Asdara, but I'm unfashionable enough to believe that for a belief to be 'true' means for it to correspond to an external reality. Thus 'God exists' is true if, and only if, God exists.

I agree as well!

quote:
Originally posted by Asdara:
Then there is the possiblity of the ultimate reality, the raw real, undeniably true realness of the base layer of existance. I have a friend who has dedicated his life to finding this layer.

That's the kind I am thinking of.

David
still wants to set up a DC-area MerryMeet
 
Posted by Wally (# 3245) on :
 
quote:
Then there is the possiblity of the ultimate reality, the raw real, undeniably true realness of the base layer of existance.
Two questions:

You say possibility, do you think this layer may or may not exist?

If it does exist, in what way are your Gods related to it?
 
Posted by Asdara (# 4533) on :
 
I believe it exists the way I believe my gods exist. I have no proof, nor have I witnessed it personally.

I believe that this is the layer on which we discover all gods true natures/purpose/meaning.
 
Posted by Nightwind (# 4531) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Infinitarian:

One thing that's coming out of this is that, while specific pagan beliefs come generally from oral or literary traditions, the answer to the general question "Why are you a pagan?" is usually along the lines of "I searched and found that it was right for me". I'm not knocking that, but if you ask a Christian the same question they'll usually do one of two things: defend Christianity rationally, or talk about some overwhelming religious experience. I'm wondering if there's any room for these responses in the paganisms followed by participants here? Does anyone reach paganism either by reasoning themselves into a position where they think it's true, or through experiencing a compelling divine self-revelation? It doesn't seem to be something you hear about.

I guess I started because it "logically" made sense to me, or at the very least, the other religions I looked at didn't make sense to me. (I was still very shaky in my faith for a long time after I dedicated myself to Wicca.) The idea of one religion being right, and all the others being wrong doesn't make sense to me. Why would God reveal himself to only some people? I don't think there's any great masterplan for humanity. I'm a strong believer in free will, and if we have free will, then we have to take repsonsibility for exercising it. Wicca's focus on universal balance also called to me. I think women's lib is about us simply being consider an equal to men, not bout getting "empowerment" so we can "catch up", so to speak, and that's what I take the philosophy of Wicca to mean.

I have, however, had a couple episodes just in the last year that might be considered revelation. The strongest was when I was practicing grounding with a friend, feeling the energy around me, and suddenly there was just this overwhelming weight on me, as if the air were solid and pressing in, pressing right through me in fact. Since then, I've started feeling things when I sit in a circle to meditate. Nothing nearly that dramatic, but I can feel a presence with me there.

Finally, a few months ago, I went through something I'm tempted to call a personal miracle. I have a lot of health problems - fibromyalgia, irritable bowel symdrome, chronic fatigue, asthma, hypoglycemia, a poor immune system, menstrual problems, ovarian cysts, stuff the doctors don't even have names for. I've been in a wheelchair twice in my life. I am, in short, a mess. Several months ago I was on five different prescriptions several times a day just so I could function enough to go to work. And suddenly I was able to cut 5 prescriptions down to 2, one of which I take once a week, the other I take once a day. I went from sleeping 12 hours a day to 4 or 5. I was able to get more stuff done in those first weeks than I had done in months. This was about the same time that I had started getting really interested in my faith again.

quote:
I'm still intrigued as to why you believe pagan beliefs are true ? The question, even in these allegedly postmodern days, is surely pretty fundamental.
Because when I step into a circle, I can feel my gods' presense. Before I had any such experiences I strongly suspected they were true because I have a hard time beliving that the millions of people who worshipped my gods before me (abeit differently than I do) were total dupes.

[ 09. July 2003, 15:08: Message edited by: Nightwind ]
 
Posted by Nightwind (# 4531) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Infinitarian:


To answer that question in the same kind of terms I'm hoping the "magic" question will be answered in -- in my experience prayer has never made anything happen that might not plausibly have happened anyway. On a psychological level, it can strengthen, comfort and invigorate (and not just the person doing the praying), and there have been times when people's actions have seemed to me to answer prayers. ...
There are Christians who claim spectacular and even miraculous results from prayer ... This doesn't match up with my experience or my theology.

How does magic compare? I've heard/seen wiccans claiming the second class of effect for it, but I must say I'm as suspicious of that as I am of the equivalent Christian claims.

I believe in the possibility of spectacular effects, similar to miracles. However, I generally believe as you do - that magic (or prayer) is likely going to deliver results that might have happened anyway. Whether praying or working magic for someone who had been in a car accident, for example, I would expect, at best for the person to recover gradually. The intention would be for them to not die, for them to recover faster, or with fewer complications or less pain. Obviously, we cannot prove what would have happened if I had done nothing at all. I would not expect for them to rip off their own life support and start waltzing around the room on their previously broken legs.

I do know people who claim to be able to change their eye color or light candles with their minds. Until I see it, I will remain incredibly skeptical of such assertions.
 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightwind:
Before I had any such experiences I strongly suspected they were true because I have a hard time beliving that the millions of people who worshipped my gods before me (abeit differently than I do) were total dupes.

[Not worthy!] My position on worship is based on what we call "revealed doctrine" but I'd agree with the principle here, at least. [Not worthy!]
 
Posted by Asdara (# 4533) on :
 
I have the classic "mood eyes" that I can change, but it runs in the family that way. I can not, however, pull off the candle trick. [Paranoid]
 
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Infinitarian:
I'm not knocking that, but if you ask a Christian the same question they'll usually do one of two things: defend Christianity rationally, or talk about some overwhelming religious experience. I'm wondering if there's any room for these responses in the paganisms followed by participants here? Does anyone reach paganism either by reasoning themselves into a position where they think it's true, or through experiencing a compelling divine self-revelation?

Here's how it happened to me.

I bought my first set of Tarot cards when I was twelve. I thought that the cards were like words, and that putting the cards down in a layout would be like creating sentences. The more cards you put into a layout, the larger the space of possible sentences, and, therefore, the more precise the ideas conveyed would be. In practice, I found that the ideas assigned to each card were vague and overlapping and that large spreads just lead to incomprehensible nonsense. After a while I put the cards away and dismissed them as unscientific.

In grad-school at Stanford, I watched The Power of Myth on PBS which was a set of interviews with Joseph Campbell. Reading Campbell led me to The Viking Portable Jung which was edited by Campbell. Suddenly, I had a scientific way to understand the Tarot and the various related occult subjects. I gave myself permission to study the Tarot, and was soon reading everything I could get my hands on. I was 28, which is interesting from an astrological perspective since that's the so-called "Saturn Return".

And so I studied the occult, but I was by no means a Neo-Pagan. I joined a Men's Group where we did some dream work. I tied doing some lucid dreaming in which one can be aware that one is dreaming and remain in the dream. The second lucid dream I had was a very powerful dream for me (you can read about it here if you're interested). The turning point for me was when I awoke from that dream.

In dreams things shift and change, when you are in a lucid dream you find that you can keep most things from shifting as long as you concentrate and focus your attention upon them. When I awoke from the dream I found myself still trying to keep things from shifting. I was trying to keep my morning cereal box to remain a cereal box, and was reminding myself, "This is not a dream, this is not a dream." when I suddenly had the overwhelming feeling that this, all of this, is a dream. That it's being dreamed by a dreamer so expert in Her atention and focus that She can keep all the cereal boxes everywhere staying the same, and She doesn't have to be dreaming this dream, but She does so becuase She loves us and wants us to grow and learn to dream over lifetimes to a point where each of us can create and sustain a universe within our dreams in others can grow and learn to dream...

I had had a visceral experience of the Goddess. Now, this particular vision of the Goddess is very similar to the Hindu idea of Brahma, the God who dreams and sustains this universe. But my impression was certainly one of femininity, and as I searched to find a teacher who could help me process this experience I found that Neo-Paganism in general was most consonant with my background, and The Third Road in particular was an excellent match for me.

quote:
In North America, there's no such tradition. Go back a few hundred years and you find Puritans with some very questionable ideas about witches -- go back any further and there's only the Native American tradition, which I don't think any of us mean when we refer to paganism.
But as Neo-Pagans we focus on our connection to the land where we live. Thus, an important part of Third Road training is to do some research into how people lived in your area before the arrival of Western Culture. In my area that was the Ohlone. It's fascinating, they lived around the Bay without war for at least a thousand years before the Spanish arrived. We also try to be mindful of avoiding cultural misappropriation and so we tend to not incorporate their magic or their Gods into the Third Road. Nevertheless, there's a lot we can learn from them.
 
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightwind:
I do know people who claim to be able to change their eye color or light candles with their minds. Until I see it, I will remain incredibly skeptical of such assertions.

I wrote a dialogue to myself on this topic when I facing such issues in my training:

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.

Why don’t you use magic to light the candle?

Magic does light the candle.

Are you a witch?

Uh, huh. But the same magic courses in the blood of poet, artist, dreamer, seeker, lover, visionary, seer, seamstress, songster, and anyone who expresses the fire of imagination in their lives (which, at one point or another, is everyone). There is no Cowan who has not cast a spell of aspiration at least once every day for their entire lives. We are them, they are us.

So what can you do?

I can put gritty water on the foreheads of people I love.

So what.

So, the sun rises
(in each other’s eyes)
And the moon waxes
(except when it doesn’t)
And the rain seeks earth
(like tears, like tears)
And plants grow in their reaching towards the sun which rises like the moon waxes which makes the sky sad and so it cries because it can not can not embrace the thorns which make a rose a sacred, harlot rose
(so there)

I don’t get it.

Then maybe you should ask for it.

Look, are you being intentionally obtuse or are you just stupid? I don’t understand what all this mumbo-jumbo is about, and I want some straight answers. If all this shit is supposed to be so powerful, then why don’t you all just wish yourselves rich, or wave your wands and make a permanent world peace, or even do something as a simple as saving yourself when people try to kill you?

I understand your frustration, my love. Why should we study and be a part of something that seems to be both ineffectual and irrelevant to what everyone else considers real and important? Effecting changes in the world requires the same worldly tools whether you are a witch or not. We are in this world to have fun and to help others. Witchcraft is a powerful way to have fun, and it is a powerful way to help others.

So maybe we can not wish ourselves rich, but we can love the work we do, and we can work to enrich everyone in this society. Maybe we can not cast a spell and end all the fighting in the world, but we can delight in this world, and we can work the wounds that lead to violence. Maybe a chalk circle inscribed on the ground around us can not stop a bullet from ending our life, but at least we will have lived the lives we love, and in doing so, perhaps, we will even touch the hearts of killers with the joy of our magic.

So mote it be.

Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha ... So mote it be.
 
Posted by Asdara (# 4533) on :
 
No words, only a newfound respect and love.
[Not worthy!] [Not worthy!] [Not worthy!] [Not worthy!] [Not worthy!]
 
Posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon (# 4544) on :
 
quote:
Quote Mertseger-<snip>Look, are you being intentionally obtuse or are you just stupid? I don’t understand what all this mumbo-jumbo is about, and I want some straight answers. If all this shit is supposed to be so powerful, then why don’t you all just wish yourselves rich, or wave your wands and make a permanent world peace, or even do something as a simple as saving yourself when people try to kill you?<snip>
Funny. Similar things have been asked of Christians. And we have fewer excuses 'cause we've been at it longer (at least than NeoPagans.) I guess that the purpose of spiritual paths isn't to have instant goodies but to enjoy the paths and improve the scenery. [Big Grin]

[Votive] [Love] [Votive]

[ 09. July 2003, 21:03: Message edited by: Lyda Rose of Sharon ]
 
Posted by lapsed heathen (# 4403) on :
 
quote:
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.
[Not worthy!] [Not worthy!] [Not worthy!] [Not worthy!] [Not worthy!] [Not worthy!]

In fact the whole post
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
I want to query some things.

quote:
Originally posted by Mertseger:
The fact is that there's nothing except lack of time which prevents you from both attending church and going to Neo-Pagan rituals.

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.

quote:
That being said there are obvious logical difficulties. Polytheism vs. Monotheism. Hierarchy (or. at least, communitarianism) vs. individualism. Patriarchy vs. Matriarchy (or, at least, Matrifocalism, if that's a word).
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.

Prove me wrong.

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?

quote:
Furthermore, there are a ton of wounded people in both camps that do not want you around if you're from the other side. I have many Neo-Pagan friends who were severly hurt by Christians, and there is a tremendous fear of Neo-Paganism from Christians as representing things like polytheism and withcraft which are strongly condemned by the Bible at least in perfectly reasonable interpretations of perfectly reasonable translations of certain passages.
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).

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.

quote:
Given both the theoretical and practical differences between the two religions there would appear to be no hope of accord between the two.
I would think so. Again, I'd like to know how it could possibly be otherwise.

quote:
I nevertheless stake my flag in the ground and seek fervently that accord. I pray for and work towards the ideal of the two faiths growing closer over the next millenium. Why? Because both religions have something the other needs and that the human world needs and that the Earth needs.
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?

quote:
Christianity today remains Patriarchal, divorced from Nature, divorced from magic
There are Christian ecological groups. 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.

quote:
and divorced from the human capacities to prophecy,
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. Movements like the Jubilee Debt Campaign and Soulforce are intensely prophetic.

Sure, we've lost our way in a very great extent, but it's still there. there's still hope for my faith. If I didn't think so, I wouldn't be a Christian.

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

And what about the traditions of the church?

quote:
More to the point, it could embrace the concepts of mercy and redemption, but right now it fears those concepts because they have been used by a Christians as a club to get people to toe the line.
I was going to raise something like this, but you've beaten me to it, and so I have nothing to add, other than to commend you (in every respect) for your honesty.

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!? [Ultra confused]

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.
 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
I want to query some things.

quote:
Originally posted by Mertseger:
The fact is that there's nothing except lack of time which prevents you from both attending church and going to Neo-Pagan rituals.

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.

And if it is directed at me, I'd honestly say that the non-church things I'm involved in -- such as the Radical Faeries' Monday night potluck suppers -- aren't the same kind of thing for me as going to church and receiving Communion. What Pagan things I have been present at and/or involved in I work with very carefully -- I do not assent to things I don't believe in, for instance. Years ago I went to a Men's Gathering and was blindsided by it being necessary to give a kind of reverence for Mother Earth which I didn't think appropriate for me, so I didn't do it and missed out on something I (otherwise) really wanted to be involved in -- and I still think it was the right thing for me to do. (I later brought it up in the talking circle -- it was supposed to be a "bring your own theology" gathering, open to all, rather than a specifically Pagan (or Christian, or Buddhist, etc.) one -- and several other Christians there agreed with me about being uncomfortable with that.) On the plus side, I got to wander around in the woods in the dark "by myself" and found it (I recall) a spiritually good experience anyway.

(I'm the same way with hymns, actually. There are only a very small number I've found myself unwilling to sing based on the theology, at least at my church. But at church I generally don't have to worry about being unwilling to give assent to some element of the Creeds or the BCP prayers, for instance.)

David
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
Incidentally, I should add for those who aren't aware of this particular shade of the rules that although I am a Host of the Purgatory forum, having weighed in here I am not moderating this thread and will not pull rank or call foul should anyone engage with my points.
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
I'm finding this thread fascinating! Asdara, thanks for starting it.

I've had a number of pagan friends and acquaintances over the years (not counting the teens or young adults who temporarily claim to be pagan in order to shock their parents). It seems to them, and to me, that there are "resonances" between paganism and Orthodox Christianity that don't exist between them and Protestants. Our understanding that a place or a thing can be sacred or holy, our practice of blessing the waters at Theophany, the custom common among many Orthodox of sharing leftover bread with the birds and animals rather than throwing it in the trash -- things such as these make our faith seem less foreign to them, and theirs, of course, which shares similar understandings or practices, less foreign to us.

Yet I find the idea that someone could be pagan and Christian at the same time to be like saying that fresh water can be salty. While there are real similarities, the differences are also real, and deep.

Orthodox Christians are not permitted to participate in the rites of other faiths, although we can attend services as guests or observers. I've attended a pagan funeral, because I was asked by the widower, and because burial of the dead is one of the seven corporal works of mercy enjoined upon Christians. But I did not, and could not, participate in the rite, sing the hymns, speak the prayers (even though the words were printed in a very nicely done booklet given to all the guests).

I agree with Wood, I think. An artifical synthesis of paganism and Christianity doesn't seem to do justice to either one. Knowledge, understanding, and respect don't require it, and Christianity, it seems to me, forbids it.
 
Posted by Asdara (# 4533) on :
 
quote:
I was asked by the widower, and because burial of the dead is one of the seven corporal works of mercy enjoined upon Christians.
Seven corporal works? Never heard of them, what are they?

quote:
That being said there are obvious logical difficulties. Polytheism vs. Monotheism. Hierarchy (or. at least, communitarianism) vs. individualism. Patriarchy vs. Matriarchy (or, at least, Matrifocalism, if that's a word).
-------- -------- ----------- ----- -------- ------- --- ------

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.

I think the "matriarchal" that is being refered to is the fact that the goddess (especially in goddess spirituality, wicca-sometimes, and any Dianic practices) is heavily emphasised. The Christian God being Male, this would seem to indicate a patriarchy where a Goddess as a primary deity would indicate a matriarchy.

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?

My question is, how can you ask a person to choose, if both faiths are equally dear to a person, which faith is "their" faith?

I personally don't think that merging the two faiths will ever materialize, but I do think we should work toward understanding eachother and living side by side in worship of our respective deities.

[edited long string of hyphens]

[ 11. July 2003, 19:15: Message edited by: frin ]
 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
I'm somewhat confused and I know this has been dealt with to some degree on this thread, but I'm a bit confused by the whole "two faiths" thing. If one is looking at elements which are genuinely contradictory, how do you deal with them? I'm looking at Christian and Pagan notions in terms of whether this or that element is true, basically, and while I am quite open to many things Pagans believe, these are things which -- in my understanding -- don't contradict what Christianity teaches about the nature of objective reality.

I suspect there are people in both camps who see things in terms of "what is the nature of reality? Does it contain one or many deities, and what is their nature, and how should I relate to such matters?" and others in both camps who see things in terms of "I follow the practices I follow because I find them helpful." I'm definitely in the first camp, myself. But is this perhaps part of what's at issue? My guess is that people who follow both faiths do so because they are more the latter, but I may be utterly mistaken -- is it, then, that you see some truths in both Christianity and Pagan beliefs, and that the ones you see as valid in each are ones which don't contradict each other?

I hope this isn't rambling, nor offensive. I have known people (the men's group I've mentioned before) who practiced various rituals, and when I asked whether the leader was actually calling on beings he believed were real, or was doing it for symbolic value without a real belief in them, or for some other reason, I was told that he didn't know. [Eek!] It does seem to me that, whether one is a Christian or a Pagan, one should at least be clear about whether one expects any being to respond or not. At very least, mouthing the words without really thinking about whether one believes in them seems potentially quite dangerous -- but then I've known people in church who do just the same thing. If I say something or am involved in a ritual of any kind (church, political ("I pledge allegiance..."), nature-related, etc.) then I want to at least be conscious of what I'm trying to do and believe what I'm assenting to.

David
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Asdara (# 4533) on :
 
Those are very worthwhile things. Thank you for sharing that info with me. [Love]
 
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 
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!? [Ultra confused]

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.
 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 
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:


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.


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?
 
Posted by lapsed heathen (# 4403) on :
 
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!?



 
Posted by lapsed heathen (# 4403) on :
 
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
 
Posted by golden key (# 1468) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
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.
[Big Grin] 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!]
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
Finally, I'm on to Mertseger's other post.

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


[Killing me]

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.


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.
 
Posted by Nightwind (# 4531) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Asdara (# 4533) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
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. [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] **

You're quite right. I should have been clearer.
 
Posted by Asdara (# 4533) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Asdara (# 4533) on :
 
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).
 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Nightwind (# 4531) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Asdara (# 4533) on :
 
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] [Wink]
 
Posted by Nightwind (# 4531) on :
 
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. [Razz] [Wink]

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 ]
 
Posted by Asdara (# 4533) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
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!] [Not worthy!]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Jerry Boam (# 4551) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Asdara (# 4533) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Alcuin (# 2089) on :
 
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
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Asdara (# 4533) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
[Not worthy!] Josephine [Not worthy!]
 
Posted by Nightwind (# 4531) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
I nominate this thread, when it's done, for limbo.

[Not worthy!]
 
Posted by Poppy (# 2000) on :
 
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!)
 
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by bessie rosebride (# 1738) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
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.

 
Posted by Alcuin (# 2089) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 
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! [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!

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.
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
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:


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 [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.
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 ]
 
Posted by Alcuin (# 2089) on :
 
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
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Poppy (# 2000) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Ben26 (# 4201) on :
 
Phew! What a fascinating thread. My head is spinning a bit as I have learnt a whole load of stuff I didn't know before.

Just a couple of quick question (and sorry if they have been asked/answered already. I have only skim read the thread just now and will read it in more detail later) but

A) If I have understood correctly, most Pagans are ex-Christians or people who were brought up in strongly Christian homes. I'm not knocking that. However, I am curious as to why this would be so. I realise that this thread is not about peoples personal lives/experiences and I respect that. Some general trends regarding the sociology of this would be interesting though if people don't object to the question.

B) I am still not 100% certain of the difference between Paganism and Wiccan. I hope I am not being thick but further details on this point would also be nice.

Great thread. Will read it again when my I feel able to take more in.

Ben26
 
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ben26:
A) If I have understood correctly, most Pagans are ex-Christians or people who were brought up in strongly Christian homes. I'm not knocking that. However, I am curious as to why this would be so. I realise that this thread is not about peoples personal lives/experiences and I respect that. Some general trends regarding the sociology of this would be interesting though if people don't object to the question.

Well, the ex-Christian part is only true to the extent that the Western societies in which Neo-Paganism has arisen have been predominantly Christian. It's not like this movement is a concerted mass exodus from Christianity: it's a haphazard, small exodus from mainstream society. I have a couple Neo-Pagan friends who are from Jewish families and many Neo-Pagans are from families that had no particular religion at all.

quote:
B) I am still not 100% certain of the difference between Paganism and Wiccan. I hope I am not being thick but further details on this point would also be nice.
It's not that complicated, but it does needed to be stated. Wicca is a sub-set of Neo-Paganism. It's probably the largest subset of Neo-Paganism at this time. Generally, Wicca is derived from the Tradition created by Gerald Gardner in the late 1940's, but there have been other nearly independent strains of Wicca which have been created through hearsay or outright theft. Nearly all Wiccan's call themselves Witches and would accept Neo-Pagan as a more generic term for their religion along with other Traditions. Some Non-Wiccan Neo-Pagans also call themselves Witches: I am one such. My Trad is an off-shoot of Victor Anderson's Feri Tradition which arose completely independently of Gardner though the two did correspond apparently at one point in the 60's.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mertseger:
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.
We must have very different ideas of what constitutes austere. Mine doesn't have strong sexual connotations.
 
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Mertseger:
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.
We must have very different ideas of what constitutes austere. Mine doesn't have strong sexual connotations.
Yours is much more the standard viewpoint of the Crone. That particular poem was meant to tweek the sandard Neo-Pagan streotype of what the Crone is like.

[ 12. July 2003, 23:11: Message edited by: Mertseger ]
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mertseger:
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.

You know, on NPR one morning this week, they were talking about all the office buildings in San Francisco that were standing empty after the dot-com bust, and what uses all that real estate is now being put to. And one little aside in the story was very interesting -- they said that, in a particularly Californian way, some new tenants are hiring consultants to cleanse the negative energies from an office building before moving in, to release the sadness or anger or whatever that was left over from previous tenants.

A similar practice, as Bessie noted, is common among Orthodox Christians -- we usually have a priest bless a new home or office when we move in (an office if it's our office, of course; most of us don't presume on our secular employers to allow us to have our priest come in with holy water and incense!), and those blessings are repeated anually, after the Great Blessing of the waters at Theophany.

So, back to California -- would one assume that these consultants are generally neo-pagan priests/priestesses of one sort or another? Or could any neo-pagan perform such rites on behalf someone else if asked? Is this considered a religious duty or practice? Does it seem odd or inappropriate that some have set it up as a business?

Would one assume that the ones hiring the consultants are themselves neo-pagan? Or is it something that has become cool to do in California, without respect to ones own particular religious beliefs?

Thanks, Mertseger, Asdara, and Nightwind, for being willing to answer so many of our questions. Mousethief and I have a close friend who is pagan, and we've talked many times about the resonances we see between his faith and ours, but I haven't had a chance to ask him about that story I heard on NPR. I think I know what he'd say, anyway; it would be really interesting to have someone else's take on it.
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
All this stuff about faeries takes me back to theological college...

Ahem!

Alcuin, you are that most bizarre creature the illiberal liberal, with a fundamentalist disdain for anyone who disagrees with your, allegedly, enlightened views.

The view of Jesus of Nazareth you present is one that no serious scholar of the historical Jesus, and by this I don't mean just Christian ones, would agree with. Even the least 'conservative' scholars would hold that some notion of salvation would have been ubiquitous to Jesus' cultural environment, and would add that the idea of the 'Kingdom' (a salvific idea if ever there was one)was central to his teaching. More generally, it is very difficult to imagine a first century Palestinian Jew having views such as those you describe. The Essenes are regularly invoked as ur-types of all sorts of spiritualities, but were basically just boring old monotheistic Jews, I'm afraid. The whole case smacks of the sillier sections of the 'Mind, Body and Spirit' sections of discount bookshops to my mind. Of course you are free to dismiss all of this as cover-up or conspiracy on the part of churchiology, at which point I despair.

I have every respect for, and genuine interest in, pagan beliefs. I'm afraid, however, that your intolerance towards Christians and your blatant attempt to rewrite history (for which, I suppose, you get chutzpha points) is irksome.
 
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
You know, on NPR one morning this week, they were talking about all the office buildings in San Francisco that were standing empty after the dot-com bust, and what uses all that real estate is now being put to. And one little aside in the story was very interesting -- they said that, in a particularly Californian way, some new tenants are hiring consultants to cleanse the negative energies from an office building before moving in, to release the sadness or anger or whatever that was left over from previous tenants.

A similar practice, as Bessie noted, is common among Orthodox Christians -- we usually have a priest bless a new home or office when we move in (an office if it's our office, of course; most of us don't presume on our secular employers to allow us to have our priest come in with holy water and incense!), and those blessings are repeated anually, after the Great Blessing of the waters at Theophany.

So, back to California -- would one assume that these consultants are generally neo-pagan priests/priestesses of one sort or another? Or could any neo-pagan perform such rites on behalf someone else if asked? Is this considered a religious duty or practice? Does it seem odd or inappropriate that some have set it up as a business?

Would one assume that the ones hiring the consultants are themselves neo-pagan? Or is it something that has become cool to do in California, without respect to ones own particular religious beliefs?

Well, even though I work in the SF Financial District, I haven't heard of this service, though it doesn't surprise me. I don't think the story provides enough information to tell the religious persuasion of those who do such work. My guess would be some non-religious New Ager would be opereating such a business. But I wouldn't be surprised if they were Neo-Pagans or even Christian.

The issue of the money in Neo-Paganism is interesting. There's a broad spectrum of beliefs about what is and isn't appropriate all the way from the idea that your psychic abilities are completely interfered with by taking money to the complete opposite where a spell or reading won't work unless the client contributes at least a nomimal amount. I charge 5 cents for a Tarot reading (I don't do it over the internet, though: I need to be in the same room as client since I'm extremely colaborative in my readings).

Whether Neo-Paganism should have a paid clerrgy at all was a hot issue about ten year ago in the community. They are many that believe that part of what we are trying to get away from is a belief that we need intermediaries to the Gods. One the other hand, clergy perform a variety of other services to a community and some of our elders were not being well taken care of after a lifetime of service. I think most are coming to accept the inevitability of paid clergy as the religion grows larger and more organized. But there's still some resistance.
 
Posted by Alcuin (# 2089) on :
 
In his post of the 10th July (19:59), Mertseger commented: "Christianity does not have a magical practice, though as I alluded to before charismatic sects come pretty close."

I respect this view of yours, Mertseger, but I do not agree with it. In my opinion, Christianity is pure white magic. Think of prayer, think of the acquaintance of angels, think of the agriglyphs, think of ascension, think of reincarnation.

And even churchianity has retained magical ritual: think of the eucharist. If the celebrant is a priest of the Petrine lineage, the angel of the eucharistic presence is always there on the etheric planes above and to the east of the altar. He is there from the invocation to the dismissal and is manifest to clairsentient view.

But I know what you mean about charismatic sects. Individuals within these do sometimes accidentally open up to lower astral energies in a way that might reasonably be called magical. A few years ago we had the Toronto "blessing". This, perhaps, was an uncontrolled channelling of mischievous animal (and other) energies. The uncontrolled mischief was dignified, for a while, with the name "Holy Spirit", I recall.

Alcuin
 
Posted by golden key (# 1468) on :
 
Alcuin--

What, please, are "agriglyphs"? [Ultra confused]

If I'm dissecting that correctly (agri=related to farm/field; glyphs=picture writing), the only meaning I can think of is crop circles! While they're interesting to look at, they're not part of Christianity.
 
Posted by golden key (# 1468) on :
 
Pagan ideas of the afterlife.

Would someone talk about this, please?

Among Pagans I know and in my reading, I've usually come across reincarnation combined with a stay in Summerland between lives. I've met Pagans who believe in an *endless* cycle of reincarnation--no ultimate destination of any kind.

*Personally*, I find that last idea terrifying.

Thanks in advance!
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alcuin:
In his post of the 10th July (19:59), Mertseger commented: "Christianity does not have a magical practice, though as I alluded to before charismatic sects come pretty close."

I respect this view of yours, Mertseger, but I do not agree with it. In my opinion, Christianity is pure white magic. Think of prayer, think of the acquaintance of angels, think of the agriglyphs, think of ascension, think of reincarnation.

And even churchianity has retained magical ritual: think of the eucharist. If the celebrant is a priest of the Petrine lineage, the angel of the eucharistic presence is always there on the etheric planes above and to the east of the altar. He is there from the invocation to the dismissal and is manifest to clairsentient view.

But I know what you mean about charismatic sects. Individuals within these do sometimes accidentally open up to lower astral energies in a way that might reasonably be called magical. A few years ago we had the Toronto "blessing". This, perhaps, was an uncontrolled channelling of mischievous animal (and other) energies. The uncontrolled mischief was dignified, for a while, with the name "Holy Spirit", I recall.

Alcuin

[Killing me]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
[HOST MODE]

quote:
Originally posted by Alcuin:
even churchianity ...

Alcuin, as has been said several times before (including by Josephine on this thread) the word "churchianity" is heavily loaded, and to many people deeply offensive. It has the strong implication that attending church, and the associated liturgy and ritual, is somehow different from Christianity. And, what is more, your use of "even" implies that it is inferior to Christianity.

Please apologise for your continuing use of the word, and restrain from using it in the future. Discussions of the place of ritual and liturgy in Christian worship are, of course, welcome - but not on this thread.

Alan
Purgatory host

[/HOST MODE]
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alcuin:


And even churchianity has retained magical ritual: think of the eucharist. If the celebrant is a priest of the Petrine lineage, the angel of the eucharistic presence is always there on the etheric planes above and to the east of the altar. He is there from the invocation to the dismissal and is manifest to clairsentient view.


I don't suppose you could provide any credible sources showing how widespread this belief is/ ever has been, could you?
 
Posted by Nightwind (# 4531) on :
 
quote:
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. 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?
Strangely enough, when I was in England, I never met another Pagan. Lancaster University had an occult student group, but they all were only interested in various forms of magic without religion. So I can't comment on the British Pagans (although I'd much prefer to be living in England again, does that count? [Wink] )

America certainly has it's loonies though, and a fair number of them. Silver Ravenwolf I think is the absolute worst. She has more than a dozen books in print and she still sticks to the ancient religion, 9 million dead wiccans routine. Edain mcCoy I think is American, and she wrote about this wonder ful branch of Wicca called Witta that was practiced in Ireland for thousands of years, all off the testimony of ONE supposed Witta priestess. Then we get titles like "How to be a witch in 7 days" and "Emergency Magic":

quote:
Sometimes it’s not enough to wrestle the alligator or jump from a moving car. Sometimes survival depends on fate, or the favor of the gods, or on the mysterious powers of the mind. That’s when you need Emergency Magic. Offering 150 spells for 75 different dire situations, Emergency Magic gives readers the tools to escape all kind of potential danger.
You’ll learn spells for: Making your mother-in-law love you Keeping your boyfriend faithful Fitting into your wedding dress Protecting your cad from theft Getting rid of ghosts Landing a new job …and 69 other worst-cast scenarios

The weird history thing may be dieing off, but now we're just getting all this goofy, absurd, watched-Harry-Potter-too-many-times stuff. I go to the Wicca/Witchcraft section of bookstores nowadays mostly for a laugh, but it's a rather strained laugh. It's just embarassing.
 
Posted by golden key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightwind:
America certainly has it's loonies though, and a fair number of them.

<major snip>

The weird history thing may be dieing off, but now we're just getting all this goofy, absurd, watched-Harry-Potter-too-many-times stuff. I go to the Wicca/Witchcraft section of bookstores nowadays mostly for a laugh, but it's a rather strained laugh. It's just embarassing.

Yeah, Christian books can be embarassing, too.

At least your loonies aren't shouting and money-grubbing on tv, the way ours are! [Roll Eyes]

[ 14. July 2003, 03:53: Message edited by: golden key ]
 
Posted by Nightwind (# 4531) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ben26:

A) If I have understood correctly, most Pagans are ex-Christians or people who were brought up in strongly Christian homes. I'm not knocking that. However, I am curious as to why this would be so. I realise that this thread is not about peoples personal lives/experiences and I respect that. Some general trends regarding the sociology of this would be interesting though if people don't object to the question.

B) I am still not 100% certain of the difference between Paganism and Wiccan. I hope I am not being thick but further details on this point would also be nice.

A)
I think it has more to do with the fact that we live in strongly Christian communities (at least over here in America). If you randomly pointed at someone in a crowd, odds are they would be a Christian. Therefore, when someone leaves their religion and becomes Pagan, odds are they're going to have come from Christianity.

There are reasons, however, that I hear time and time again from Pagans on why they left Christianity. These include - need of a feminine divine, interest in experience over dogma, feelings of separation from nature, a need to escape patriarchy (which I usually envision being said ina tone similiar to that of the Church Lady on Saturday Night Live when she says "Could it be....SAAAAATAAAN?")

I personally don't agree with any of those reasons.

B) Mertseger has already answered this, but in case there's still confusion, I believe when I say Pagan and he says Neo-Pagan, we're meaning the same thing. There are some people who differentiate between the two terms, but most, I think, consider them synonymous.

Groups that frequently call themselves Pagan include Wiccans, Witches, Goddess Spiritualists, and the various Reconstructionist religions such as Asatru (Norse) and Kemetic Religion (Egyptian). There's virtually nothing you can say that you can say is common between all those religions as far as beliefs go. I think of Pagan to mean a modern religion influenced to some degree by pre-Christian religion. This is why I've mostly kept my comments specific to Wicca, which is my personal branch of Paganism. I find generalizing about Pagans in general tends to just get ugly. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Nightwind (# 4531) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by golden key:

At least your loonies aren't shouting and money-grubbing on tv, the way ours are! [Roll Eyes]

Only because there's not yet a big enough market. I was just reading a Wicca book tonight in which the author relates stories of people selling $1400 ritual daggers and offering training in exchange for a percentage of the student's income for the rest of their life. The latter is outright cultish and scary as all hell. Just proves that there are unscrupulous people everywhere. [Mad]

Even Ravenwolf writes things like how everyone around you will start noticing that you're more lucky and fortunate and successful if you start practicing magic, which sounds like serious incentive to buy more of her books so you can learn more of this great and wonderful stuff.
[Disappointed]
 
Posted by Rat (# 3373) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Asdara:
The Christians (or Puritains or whatever they were) who burned them

Not, on the whole, Puritans. Mostly Roman Catholics.
[slight tangent]

I don't think this is entirely true. If I remember correctly protestant Scotland and Germany were pretty enthusiastic witch burners.

From what I've read (I think in Cohn's "The Witchcraze in early modern Europe" though I can't verify that right now), the RC countries were keener on burning heretics, but by the time the witch craze had really got underway had begun to feel that torturing and burning were not the most positive way of dealing with the issue. The mass heretic persecutions of earlier medieval times had made a lot of people within the church rather wary of this kind of thing. Not that it didn't happen, but outbreaks of witch burning in RC countries tended to be more localized and somewhat contained by the authority structure of the church - often someone from outside, who was not caught up in the hysteria, would come to investigate what was going on and put a stop to it. The looser, often unformed, hierarchies of the new protestant churches meant that it was easier for hysteria to run out of control in protestant areas.

I believe that the official policy of the RC church at this time was that putative witches should be treated as insane or deluded. There are certainly recorded incidences of someone spontaneously coming to the Inquisition and confessing that they flew to Finland to kiss the devil's bottom (or something), only for the inquisition to say the early modern equivalent of "No you didn't, go away you sad, mad person". Obviously, official policy was not always followed on a local level though.

I am writing from rather distant memory, so may be deluding myself, but I think the popular association between the RC church, the inquisition and witch burning is an unfair one. A re-reading of the book may prove me wrong (if I remember correctly it is a damn good book, and worth reading).

[/slight tangent]

[added missing words]
Rat

[ 14. July 2003, 11:08: Message edited by: Rat ]
 
Posted by Asdara (# 4533) on :
 
Okay, I just read everything between my last post and this post here. If I miss anything (and I will) hopefully I can come back for it later, or if you want an answer you haven't gotten, ask again.

BTW I'm totally thrilled how well this thread is going. I've learned some new materials and I think everyone else posting seems to be pretty postitive about keeping the thread on track so... [Yipee] [Love]

Anyway, Pagan afterlife ideas. This is a huge, huge, topic of discussion because it's highly personal and most Neo-pagans have different ideas about what is beyond this life.

MOST people can agree on: we re-incarnate(to a greater or lesser degree), there is some type of "land beyond" (heaven, summerlands, some type of lay-over terminal or what have you) and generally some type of ascension at the completion of the cycle. That's about all.

My personal beliefs are that we re-incarnate, learning lessons (our soul-not us the people we are not nessasarily, although kinda-don't get me started) and then between lives we rest and recoup in the summerlands (or a place of similar nature) reveiwing our lessons. Then we can plan our next lives (to a certain extent and with the help of our gods and the gods within) to learn our next lessons. So it goes until we have leanred what all can be gleaned from the human experiance and the animal experiance. At that point we would either ascend to oneness with our gods or move on to some other plane/dimension/ect to learn some other experiance (perhaps a solely spirit experiance for example) and the cycle would continue until we had learned sufficently to re-join our gods/nature/the cosmos/ect.

That's a personal theory. I also believe that we tend to re-incarnate with virtually the same group of souls (kinda like a "class" I guess you'd say) of differing ages, but similar lessons required.

Okay, I'm spent. Let me know what I missed/forgot to address guys. [Wink]
 
Posted by Nightwind (# 4531) on :
 
I agree with you Rat on the history thing. The witch-craze tended to center in areas of greatest unrest, particularly religious unrest. Where the RC Church had a firm grip, such as in Spain, the persecution was relatively mild. Protestantism was fairly volatile by nature at the time, and so the burnings did indeed tend toward Protestant areas. England is a notable exception to this. Only under James I (who was personally a paranoid freak about Witchcraft - presumably because of his upbringing in Scotland) did the trials really take off, and they still generally paled in comparison to what was going on on the Continent.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Archangels Michael & Faith have a holiday home in Banff, Canada?

Visalise purple flames or whatever. Open windows and crystals? Apply salt to the body to clease it of demons?

Methinks I smell, if not a troll, at least a mildly subtle parody of new-agey neo-pagan wooly-crystal fluffy-bunny waffle coming from the being posting as Alcuin.

Feng shui next?
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightwind:
Only because there's not yet a big enough market. I was just reading a Wicca book tonight in which the author relates stories of people selling $1400 ritual daggers and offering training in exchange for a percentage of the student's income for the rest of their life. The latter is outright cultish and scary as all hell. Just proves that there are unscrupulous people everywhere. [Mad]

Even Ravenwolf writes things like how everyone around you will start noticing that you're more lucky and fortunate and successful if you start practicing magic, which sounds like serious incentive to buy more of her books so you can learn more of this great and wonderful stuff.
[Disappointed]

I can't think of any reason why your money-grubbing looneys would be any different from our money-grubbing looneys. People is people, when a's said and done. I was in a "new age" shop not that long ago, listening to the shopkeeper purvey a sizeable (and expensive) quartz crystal as a known specific for a list of ailments that would have made an old-time hair tonic salesman smile in admiration.

[ 14. July 2003, 14:42: Message edited by: Laura ]
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
I just remembered this article about witchcraft in Africa which I read some time ago; thought it might be interesting to folks here. The author is an Orthodox Christian who lives in South Africa.
 
Posted by Nightwind (# 4531) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:

Methinks I smell, if not a troll, at least a mildly subtle parody of new-agey neo-pagan wooly-crystal fluffy-bunny waffle coming from the being posting as Alcuin.

HA ha ha ha ha!
I normally don't make pointless posts like this, but that line was absolutely precious. I think it was the waffle at the end that got me. [Not worthy!]
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rat:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Asdara:
The Christians (or Puritains or whatever they were) who burned them

Not, on the whole, Puritans. Mostly Roman Catholics.
[slight tangent]

I don't think this is entirely true. If I remember correctly protestant Scotland and Germany were pretty enthusiastic witch burners.

From what I've read (I think in Cohn's "The Witchcraze in early modern Europe" though I can't verify that right now), the RC countries were keener on burning heretics, but by the time the witch craze had really got underway had begun to feel that torturing and burning were not the most positive way of dealing with the issue. The mass heretic persecutions of earlier medieval times had made a lot of people within the church rather wary of this kind of thing. Not that it didn't happen, but outbreaks of witch burning in RC countries tended to be more localized and somewhat contained by the authority structure of the church - often someone from outside, who was not caught up in the hysteria, would come to investigate what was going on and put a stop to it. The looser, often unformed, hierarchies of the new protestant churches meant that it was easier for hysteria to run out of control in protestant areas.

I believe that the official policy of the RC church at this time was that putative witches should be treated as insane or deluded. There are certainly recorded incidences of someone spontaneously coming to the Inquisition and confessing that they flew to Finland to kiss the devil's bottom (or something), only for the inquisition to say the early modern equivalent of "No you didn't, go away you sad, mad person". Obviously, official policy was not always followed on a local level though.

I am writing from rather distant memory, so may be deluding myself, but I think the popular association between the RC church, the inquisition and witch burning is an unfair one. A re-reading of the book may prove me wrong (if I remember correctly it is a damn good book, and worth reading).

[/slight tangent]

[added missing words]
Rat

Rat,
you're on the right lines there but are a bit confused.

There's no such thing as Germany in early modern times - there was a patchwork of different states occupying roughly the area of modern day Germany: some Protestant and some Catholic. Some of these states (both Protestant and Catholic) were amongst the most enthusiastic witch burners.

The distinction between states which preferred to pursue heretics, as opposed to those which were very keen on pursuing witches is between Northern and Southern Catholicism, not between Protestantism and RC.


Spain and Italy adhered to an older interpretation of canon law which roughly said that those who claimed to be witches were making it up and should, more or less, be given a penance for wasting inquisitorial time (as happened in the Basque country where an inquisitor investigated witch cases and concluded that they were groundless).

Other Catholic states did not adhere to such an interpretation and were pretty keen on burning witches (France is a notable example).

The extent of witch burning has a lot to do with legal systems and standards of evidence, as well as religious attitudes.

Scotland is similar to other northern European states. Check out Scottish witches here: Survey of Scottish witchcraft

cheers,
Louise

[ 14. July 2003, 18:40: Message edited by: Louise ]
 
Posted by golden key (# 1468) on :
 
Asdara, thanks for the afterlife info.
 
Posted by Rat (# 3373) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:
Originally posted by Rat:

I don't think this is entirely true. If I remember correctly protestant Scotland and Germany were pretty enthusiastic witch burners.


Rat,
you're on the right lines there but are a bit confused.

There's no such thing as Germany in early modern times - there was a patchwork of different states occupying roughly the area of modern day Germany: some Protestant and some Catholic. Some of these states (both Protestant and Catholic) were amongst the most enthusiastic witch burners.

Oh honestly, Louise, you always correct me - couldn't you just let a little bit of factual inexactitude slip by so I can feel like my brain hasn't totally turned to mush? [Wink]

You are correct of course, I did know that Germany didn't exist and the area wasn't in the particularly mono-cultural - I was just being lazy calling it Germany. Although I am pretty sure that the book I read did say the protestant states in the-area-vaguely-comparable-to-Germany were especially enthusiastic. A phrase suggesting that these states burned more witches in three years than the inquisition did in its entire existence is stuck in my head for some reason. However, as we all know in the light of dodgy dossiers, its a bad idea to rely on a single source - you have obviously read more widely and certainly more recently than I have.

That is interesting about a North/South divide - I hadn't thought about it that way, but it fits perfectly with the examples I had in my head. I guess I was assuming too high a level of conformity among Catholic countries.

I do agree it is too simplistic to say that witch-burning fell out neatly along religious lines, and I hope I didn't suggest that. There were all sorts of issues of social instability and political upheaval too, which were factors in creating an environment ripe for mass hysteria.

[anybody want to talk about Cathars? - I'm good on Cathars [Smile] ]

Rat
 
Posted by Sparrow (# 2458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rat:
[anybody want to talk about Cathars? - I'm good on Cathars [Smile] ]

Rat

Please, tell me about Cathars! (Honestly, I do want to know. A Wiccan friend of mine is writing a book (fiction) and brings in the Cathars at one point, I don't know enough about them to offer criticism/help.
 
Posted by Poppy (# 2000) on :
 
I'd like to know about cathars too. Are they connected to the knights templar?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
as happened in the Basque country where an inquisitor investigated witch cases and concluded that they were groundless

Or, as some claimed, were preparing to get serious about inquiring into the affairs of the women of one village, and had locked them up, when all of a sudden the fishing fleet returned from the North Atlantic, and the men were very cross...
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Poppy:
I'd like to know about cathars too. Are they connected to the knights templar?

See the Wikipedia Entry on Cathars.
 
Posted by Rat (# 3373) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
quote:
Originally posted by Poppy:
I'd like to know about cathars too. Are they connected to the knights templar?

See the Wikipedia Entry on Cathars.
That about covers it, I'm sure better than I could have, thank you Laura.

For an interesting read about some of the last remants of Catharism, Montaillou by Emanuelle Ladurie is a good book. An in-depth look at life in a mediaeval village, gleaned mainly from the records of the inquisition. A particular star is a chap, who's name I've forgotten, who claims to be both a Catholic priest and a Cathar Perfecti (Perfectus?), while simultaneously having it away with every female he can lay his hands on.

Rat

[ 16. July 2003, 09:49: Message edited by: Rat ]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Poppy:
I'd like to know about cathars too. Are they connected to the knights templar?

In two ways:

- The Cathars and the Knights Templar used to kill each other a lot

- both have been used by all sorts of loonies who know nothing about them to shore up all sorts of absurd arguments

I have an Internet Law of my own to supplement the famous Godwin's Law. Whenever anyone brings the Knight's Templar into an argument, they don't know what they are talking about [Smile]

Just mentioning them doesn't count - using them to support your side almost always does [Wink]
 
Posted by Poppy (# 2000) on :
 
Thank you for the references. I had got quite a lot of information on cathars and knights templar from various search engines but I wondered how it fitted in with paganism and wicca.

Information available on line seems to be either well researched with historical notes or utterly barking mad but then that's the internet for you.
 
Posted by Nightwind (# 4531) on :
 
I don't think anyone's suggesting a link between modern Paganism/Wicca and Cathars. Someone was just expressing he had knowledge of them.
 
Posted by Asdara (# 4533) on :
 
Well, I think that pretty much wraps up the "Ask your local pagan" portion of our thread. [Cool]

Thanks for keeping it civil everyone. If anyone has anymore questions feel free to post them here, or send a PM to either myself or (and I'm assuming she's open to this) Nightwind or any of the other pagans/christian-pagans you saw post here. Thanks again all for the great convo. [Love]
 
Posted by bessie rosebride (# 1738) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
I nominate this thread, when it's done, for limbo.

[Not worthy!]

I second this.

quote:
Originally posted by Asdara:
Well, I think that pretty much wraps up the "Ask your local pagan" portion of our thread.

Thanks for keeping it civil everyone. <snip> Thanks again all for the great convo. [Love]

Likewise, thanks to y'all for inviting and engaging us in such a thoughtful and fascinating discussion. [Not worthy!]

Since this began, I've even found myself in the bookstore looking for some of the titles mentioned on this thread.
[Smile]
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
Would it be fair to suggest that paganism, as practised by individuals, becomes less and less corporate?

Putting it another way all our pagan shipmates have taken pains to point out general pagan beliefs and then say how their beliefs differ. In effect, it seems to me, to be that being a pagan is actually creating a mythology that suits oneself.

Further still Paganism is in fact a “feel good” cult in which there are no doctrines or dogmas. Each adherents journey is their own. Lacking any tradition against which beliefs may be challenged each pagan simply finds the route of least resistance to the “next stage.” That there is no such thing as heresy in paganism because there is nothing concrete to have a contrary opinion to.

I have enjoyed this thread and thank all the careful participants. I have avoided posting because for a woolly liberal I find myself lacking the admirable control shown by all sides here. And that I find disconcerting.

Sadly all that has been posted here by my pagan shipmates has only served to further my concerns. I have highlighted my main concern above. And in one sense I have pre-judged and need not hear any reply. I recognise that Christianity is as fraught with human failure as all other human enterprises but for millennia it has called people to a common creed and life to which the host of heaven testify to its veracity and efficacy.

Every pagan I have ever met or heard is happily reinventing (what has been reinvented a hundred times already, in its at bets 70 year journey) their own journey to suit their own psychological, emotional and spiritual state. That journey is never rigorously tested and when it feels lack some freshness is passing a bit more is bolted on.

I do not know why the subject of paganism, above all others, brings out the fundie in me. I try hard not to equate those strong emotions with negative ones but sometimes I fail. In this failing I feel like I am not doing the spirit of this thread justice, sorry.

P
 
Posted by Nightwind (# 4531) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:

Putting it another way all our pagan shipmates have taken pains to point out general pagan beliefs and then say how their beliefs differ. In effect, it seems to me, to be that being a pagan is actually creating a mythology that suits oneself.

Further still Paganism is in fact a “feel good” cult in which there are no doctrines or dogmas. Each adherents journey is their own. Lacking any tradition against which beliefs may be challenged each pagan simply finds the route of least resistance to the “next stage.” That there is no such thing as heresy in paganism because there is nothing concrete to have a contrary opinion to.

You're still looking at Paganism as a single religion. It's not. We talk about general beliefs because we are all different branches. Generalizing about Paganism is frought with more peril than trying to generalize about Abrahamic faiths. Expecting us Pagans to give a unified answer on our religion is like expecting the same of a Jew, Christian and a Muslim.

I'm much more specific about Wicca. There are things I consider Wiccan even though I do not agree with them, just as people of one Christian denomination consider members of other denominations Christian, even though they don't agree on all points. There are things, however, that I do not believe are Wiccan. The one that immediately coems to mind are those who believe only in the Great Goddess. Balance is central in Wicca. It requires God and Goddess.

Wicca is only about 60 years old. Therefore, there is very little "tradition" to fall back to. Look had how much Christianity evolved over it's first few centuries. We're still in the growing stages.
 
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 
Doffs Christian and puts on Neo-Pagan hat.

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Would it be fair to suggest that paganism, as practised by individuals, becomes less and less corporate?

No, it really would not be fair to make such an assessment, nor is it true. You seem to be suggesting that every Neo-Pagan picks and chooses those parts of the various religions which are available, and, thus, there is less and less commonality between Neo-Pagans over time. Nightwing's comments about the diverstiy of the religion are apropos, but, more than that, the reverse seems to happen to individuals more often than not. That is, many people (particularly after the important year for pagan publication that occured in 1979) start out on their Neo-Pagan faith journey by grabbing bits and pieces from what they have read and putting together a solitary practice, but as they are drawn to the community they often find a more formalized training and liturgy in a Tradition which meets their needs. Thus, the religion of individual Neo-Pagans often becomes more and more corporate rather than less and less.

But having said that, my Tradition affirms the paths of solitaries (those who can not or choose not to join with others for whatever reason) and eclectics (those who incorporate a wide variety of Traditions into their practice). We have found that people who come to Neo-Paganism through solitary practice tend to be more dedicated because they have managed to sustain a religous life without any kind of corporate support. The eclectics tend to be more scholarly having investigated many Traditions in order to incorporate the lore into their practice. We welcome and encourage both these gifts.

quote:
Putting it another way all our pagan shipmates have taken pains to point out general pagan beliefs and then say how their beliefs differ. In effect, it seems to me, to be that being a pagan is actually creating a mythology that suits oneself.
Very few Neo-Pagans create mythology. I am intrigued by the human capacity to do so, but that's not really what happens in general.

What is true is that Neo-Pagans are generally open to the truth of a wide variety of mythologies. Some Pagan Revivalists restrict their attention to a single mythic cycle, but even in such cases they remain open to the fact that other mythologies do speak effectively to other people. In the more general Neo-Pagan community it is not uncommon to hear people name Diana, Isis, Inanna, Bridget and Cerridwyn in the same ritual. No, we do not think that that are all the same Goddess. Yes, we do think that They all exist and act in the World even though They were originally worshipped by widely different cultures and in widely different times.

Nor do we embrace these Goddesses simply to suit ourselves and our passing whim. We worship these Goddess (and other Goddesses and Gods) because doing so honors Them, honors Their activity in the world, honors the Goddess who acts through through Them, and honors our forebearers who worshipped Them first. We worship these Goddesses because doing so helps to cleanse us of the patterns and behaviors (like consumerism or patriarchal oppression) which modern society seems to encourage in us. We worship these Goddesses because doing so brings us into a closer relationship to the Earth.

quote:
Further still Paganism is in fact a “feel good” cult in which there are no doctrines or dogmas.
I would say "few" rather than "no" doctrines or dogmas, and would be proud of that fact. But I strongly object to the dismisal of our religion as either "feel good" or a cult.

My Tradition is an ecstatic religion. There is an ecstasy to be found when you truly open up to God, and that ecstasy can be found in every religion (and, most certainly, in Christianity). But you seem to be saying that Neo-Paganism is shallowly supporting and encouraging the whims and urges of its adherents, and that is just not true. We take our responsilities as Preistesses and stewards of the Earth quite seriously.

Nor is it true that Neo-Paganism is a cult. There was certainly concerns even within the community itself about Neo-Paganism being like the Moonies or Scientology in the 70's and 80's when the religion was smaller and was still being led in some cases by a few chrismatic leaders. However, there has been such a strong emphasis on the power of the individual to think for themselves since Neo-Paganism's beginnings that it never has really been close to being a cult.

quote:
Each adherents journey is their own. Lacking any tradition against which beliefs may be challenged each pagan simply finds the route of least resistance to the “next stage.” That there is no such thing as heresy in paganism because there is nothing concrete to have a contrary opinion to.
You have just described what is commonly called and railed against in Neo-Paganism the "fluffy bunny." They exist. They are not the majority. Nor do I condem them as some would. The one person in my advanced training who made it all the way through to initiation with me was a complete fluffy bunny when she started out. She pushed any sort negativity away from herself and acted like her religion and herself should contain nothing but sweetness and light. But she went deeper as we got into training, and she eventually found and tapped into her inner bitch. I was so proud. And through her example I came to have hope for fluffy bunnies in general.

quote:
Sadly all that has been posted here by my pagan shipmates has only served to further my concerns. I have highlighted my main concern above. And in one sense I have pre-judged and need not hear any reply.
You're predjudiced and don't want to hear it? That hardly matches the Pyx_e I know from Hell.

quote:
I recognise that Christianity is as fraught with human failure as all other human enterprises but for millennia it has called people to a common creed and life to which the host of heaven testify to its veracity and efficacy.
You have a direct line to the host of heaven, too? That's odd, when I talk to them, they seem to like and to be actively nurturing this new religion (particularly the hostesses). In all seriousness, Neo-Paganism can not claim millenia of Tradition yet, but as to the efficacy and veracity of that which is held in common within the individual Traditions within Neo-Paganism, I believe that they match that of any religion.

quote:
Every pagan I have ever met or heard is happily reinventing (what has been reinvented a hundred times already, in its at bets 70 year journey) their own journey to suit their own psychological, emotional and spiritual state. That journey is never rigorously tested and when it feels lack some freshness is passing a bit more is bolted on.
That journey is never rigorously tested? You try living out as a minority religion in a predominantly Christian (at least in its trappings and heritage) country. Look, we as Neo-Pagans don't see the need for Neo-Pagan martyrs, and the adverse effects of being Neo-Pagan are as nothing when compared to persecutions that Christians and Jews have experienced at various points in their history. Nevertheless, there is job discrimination (as in people have lost their jobs) and governmental discimination (people have lost their kids) merely for being openly Neo-Pagan. Our faith is tested and challenged all the time by the differing values of the larger culture in the same way as the faith of any religious person is challenged by the values of an increasing secular society.

As for the inventiveness of Neo-Paganism: that's not a bug, that's a feature. Yes, there is some arbitrariness to the accretion in our religion, and a few individuals use that as an excuse to believe what ever they want to believe. But most Neo-Pagans are hoenstly seeking a deeper relationship to the Goddess who is the Earth, to the Goddess who is the All-That-Is. We do not regard the individual or the self as inherently bad (no Original Sin, though when we sin, we try to do so in as original manner as we can [Wink] ), but, that being said, we do affirm that we as individuals and, in particular, our "psychological, emotional and spiritual" desires are but a small part of All-That-Is. We trust, therefore, in the Goddess to reconcile the good of the one with the good of the many, and in serving Her we understand that the good of the many (including all sentient beings and living creatures and ecosystems not just humans) comes first.

I'm glad you stated your trepidations, and no one is asking you to be Neo-Pagan. But we do wish to be understood a bit better, and I hope that my words can help in that for you.
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
Mertseger, Nightwind and Asdara (who pmed me) thank you for your measured and careful responses. I posted partly because it felt a bit like this thread was closing and I wanted to step in. I still have much to discuss not least because of your recent posts.

P
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
OK, to continue. I accept all that has been written and in one sense I am not trying persuade you (or you me) but to learn a different perspective to think upon. And you have given me that.

I would add to the previous point that the pagans I have most contact with are your three, who are sensible, have thought out your faith and are prepared to be onboard the ship with all it slings and arrows. I also live near Glastonbury, I often go there and retreat to the abbey annually. So I recognise the “fluffy bunny” you describe (indeed Christianity has its proportion of the same sort) but I would add to that (seemingly to me) a high proportion of disaffected, drug taking, immature adults who seem to use pagan ideas as a framework to not engage with life in any meaningful way.

Which leads me on to my next point. Every Sunday I say in church:

“Our Lord Jesus Christ said:
The first commandment is this:
‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is the only Lord.
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart,
with all your soul, with all your mind,
and with all your strength.’

The second is this: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’
There is no other commandment greater than these.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

Now I am not trying to argue that Christian Scripture is in and of itself right. But my whole life has pointed me in the direction of the first commandment:

“I am the Lord your God: you shall have no other gods but me.”

It is clear to me that We were made to worship God. He is our purpose, our only salvation, our lodestone and our only truth. In my daily life and in my observation of the lives of those around me my/our contentment and usefulness depends almost entirely on what we chose to worship. We may worship a huge diversity of things, feelings, “principalities and powers” , indeed our propensity to NOT worship God is astounding. In some of these false idols little harm is found. If the center of ones life is an obsession with Manchester United or maybe Princess Diane, then that idolization is not as dangerous as one which may include for instance alcohol, sex, money, power or the visible and invisible powers of this world.

So I am faced with a provable truth in my life. Those things which I consider to be “false idols” have unerringly lead me and those around me to unhappiness. It is possible to worship them and receive great rewards but ultimately they are a hollow as the Golden Calf. God seems pretty clear on this one to me. He asks of his followers a level of obedience in this because it is best for them, not because he needs worship.
Of course this is where the rubber hits the road for us now. I stand in great danger of seeming to tell you that your whole belief structure is not only worthless but positively harmful! You therefore, I hope, can see my trepidation on entering this thread. Due in some large part to me knowing that the things “I” am often most certain about are the things “I” have often got most wrong. This is not a fear of me being wrong ( I would not be here if I were not wanting to hear your thoughts) but a fear of being to erm harsh? maybe.

In short I consider the worship of any other gods to be the worship of false idols. This opinion is not based (solely) on scripture but on my own life experience and my observations of others around me Christian (yes Christians fall away), pagans and type of person in between. I still contend that the inherent propensity to worship anything but God (it is just our pride) coupled with the seemingly pagan attitude of finding ones own path as well as the ever present human conditions of self delusion and self righteousness leads me to believe still that paganism is inherently dangerous.

I am not so blind as to not see many of the above qualities glaring out my own last paragraph. This is very difficult.

P
 
Posted by G.R.I.T.S. (# 4169) on :
 
quote:
I am not so blind as to not see many of the above qualities glaring out my own last paragraph. This is very difficult.

You have only defended what you believe, and admirably so. It is good to lay out our faith at times and see it as it is. Although it may be "difficult", I hope you can still nod and say, "Yes, that's it for me." And I think you practiced the careful concern you were admiring in others.

Thank you for speaking with your heart, your soul, your mind, and, I believe, with great strength.
 
Posted by golden key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
In short I consider the worship of any other gods to be the worship of false idols. This opinion is not based (solely) on scripture but on my own life experience and my observations of others around me Christian (yes Christians fall away), pagans and type of person in between. I still contend that the inherent propensity to worship anything but God (it is just our pride) coupled with the seemingly pagan attitude of finding ones own path as well as the ever present human conditions of self delusion and self righteousness leads me to believe still that paganism is inherently dangerous.

FWIW, they *are* worshipping the Divine as they understand it.

I know of Pagans--one dear friend in particular--who work hard at becoming better people and being an agent of the Divine by putting as much good into the world as they can.
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
quote:
FWIW, they *are* worshipping the Divine as they understand it.

I know of Pagans--one dear friend in particular--who work hard at becoming better people and being an agent of the Divine by putting as much good into the world as they can.

Firstly, I know many heroin addicts who are worshipping the divine as they understand it. I consider the worship of some of the pagans gods to be as wicked.

Secondly it does not overly help to cite individuals. I acknowledge that there are pagans who are more loving than many Christians. It is not what you do but the why that you do it.

P
 
Posted by lapsed heathen (# 4403) on :
 
From Pyx_e

quote:
It is not what you do but the why that you do it.

Jesus did not make that distinction, read the sermon on the mount.
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
LH, that answer was in direct reply to GK's point and a continuation of the commandment to Love God and our neighbour (which Jesus also said). From that I could argue that the sermon on the mount is a very strong expression of the “why” of God in that it promises hope, comfort and a place with Him for the little, lost, last and least.

In short my point is that unless, in ones actions and the way one lives ones life, one is striving to adhere to that commandment (it is the “why” behind ones life) then all is vanity.

It is possible to be a “good” pagan and a “bad” Christian. We can not make any absolute arguments. And far be it form me to decide or tell God who is going to make it. That is His prerogative. But at the risk of being repetitive He is , in my opinion pretty convincing on what it is right for us to worhsip Him alone and the experience of my life bears it out.

Pagan gods, whilst in one sense are often very real are not in any way shape or form similar to God, who expressed his love to us in His Son. The worship of them is, in my opinion ultimately damaging.

P
 
Posted by Nightwind (# 4531) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:

I would add to the previous point that the pagans I have most contact with are your three, who are sensible, have thought out your faith and are prepared to be onboard the ship with all it slings and arrows. I also live near Glastonbury, I often go there and retreat to the abbey annually. So I recognise the “fluffy bunny” you describe (indeed Christianity has its proportion of the same sort) but I would add to that (seemingly to me) a high proportion of disaffected, drug taking, immature adults who seem to use pagan ideas as a framework to not engage with life in any meaningful way.

Eep! Glastonbury can be a scary, scary place as far as Fluffies are concerned. Judging Paganism on Glastonbury is like judging American morality on Las Vegas.
 
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:

“I am the Lord your God: you shall have no other gods but me.”


This is, AFIAK, a legitimate interpretation but not a legitimate translation. Most English translations have Exodus 20:3 and Deuteronomy 5:7 as "You shall have no other gods before me." And, clearly, there are other perfectly legitimate interpretations of that translation.

quote:
It is clear to me that We were made to worship God.
Sure, if you accept that there was a single creator God who then communicated to humans solely through the Bible (and, perhaps, certain specific, Christian traditions).

quote:
He is our purpose, our only salvation, our lodestone and our only truth.
What do you mean "our", Kimosabe?

This attitude is one of the most infuriating and patronizing thing about conservative Christianity. I'd accept it if you actually meant the group of people who share your religion, but, no, the context makes it pretty clear that you mean that it should be true for every human being.

quote:
In my daily life and in my observation of the lives of those around me my/our contentment and usefulness depends almost entirely on what we chose to worship. We may worship a huge diversity of things, feelings, “principalities and powers” , indeed our propensity to NOT worship God is astounding. In some of these false idols little harm is found. If the center of ones life is an obsession with Manchester United or maybe Princess Diane, then that idolization is not as dangerous as one which may include for instance alcohol, sex, money, power or the visible and invisible powers of this world.
Oddly, I think many Neo-Pagans would agree with the substance of your argument here. One possible interpretation of the idea of "false idols" is that there are Gods that can cause harm to those who serve them. The Neo-Pagan view of the matter tends to be that the forces and powers in the universe are there for a purpose, but sometimes these forces are misused or become out of balance. However, that fact does no preclude our enjoyment of those forces when they are not misused or out of balance, nor does it mean that we should solely direct our attention to the Goddess in ritual.

quote:
So I am faced with a provable truth in my life. Those things which I consider to be “false idols” have unerringly lead me and those around me to unhappiness. It is possible to worship them and receive great rewards but ultimately they are a hollow as the Golden Calf. God seems pretty clear on this one to me. He asks of his followers a level of obedience in this because it is best for them, not because he needs worship.
Okay, so if we set up a test to measure the happiness of participants of various religions after a lifetime of practice, you'll accept the results if the some of the ones who did not particularly "obey" the Christian version of the one God were the happiest? Of course not. In the Christian paradigm to which you apparently subscribe any suffering to obey the Lord merits reward in heaven, and, therefore, earthly happiness is not an indicator of salvation. Thus, there is no test that can be performed to validate your hypothesis since the results can only be assessed in the hereafter.

I am not disagreeing with you that there are some harmful things to which people can unconsciously or consciously dedicate their lives. I am not convinced, however, that some forms of Christianity are not without their own dangers to some their individual adherents. (The brother of one of my housemates in college shot and killed his ex-girlfriend on the streets of San Jose because she had been telling their fundamentalist Christian community that he had raped her because she could not admit in that community that she, you know, had sex with him. There is no excuse for his action, but the strictures of their religion definitely played a large role in the tragedy.) Nor, am I convinced that worshipping any other God necessarily leads to harm.

quote:
Of course this is where the rubber hits the road for us now. I stand in great danger of seeming to tell you that your whole belief structure is not only worthless but positively harmful! You therefore, I hope, can see my trepidation on entering this thread. Due in some large part to me knowing that the things “I” am often most certain about are the things “I” have often got most wrong. This is not a fear of me being wrong ( I would not be here if I were not wanting to hear your thoughts) but a fear of being to erm harsh? maybe.
And I can just as easily argue that some forms of Chirstianity and some fairly universal Christian ideas are equally harmful to individuals and the world. There are forms of Christianity which are horribly repressive. There are forms of Christianity which are blithly intolerant and fully capable of directing their bile with violence. Fortunately, both of these cases are exceptions to the majority of Christianity which is fairly benign.

More harmful in a global sense, however, is the idea that there is only one God (which is not bad in itself) and that Christianity is the only religion through which that one God has spoken. When there are competing monotheisms whose fundamentalists believe that every other monotheism is irreconcilably and fundamentally wrong, then you get the kind of international conflicts that are happening today. Look, no matter how much you believe that there is one God and you have the only Message from that God, the people on the other side are simply not going to wake up one day and agree with you. The only global solution is toleration not conversion.

And a significant number of Neo-Pagans would say that there is one Goddess at the Kore. We just think think She has never stopped speaking. She even speaks through Christians, and Moslems, and Jews.

quote:
In short I consider the worship of any other gods to be the worship of false idols. This opinion is not based (solely) on scripture but on my own life experience and my observations of others around me Christian (yes Christians fall away), pagans and type of person in between. I still contend that the inherent propensity to worship anything but God (it is just our pride) coupled with the seemingly pagan attitude of finding ones own path as well as the ever present human conditions of self delusion and self righteousness leads me to believe still that paganism is inherently dangerous.
I am not sure when all is said and done that we can worship anything but the Goddess. The very act of turning our attention to the Sacred reaches towards that Oneness. You speak of the dangers of self-delusion. I could speak of the dangers of group delusion and corporate pressures to conformity. But these are not the Goddess. She abides. She waits while we grow towards Her as individuals and She waits as we grow towards Her as groups of worshipers. Yes, there are alluring forces that will sidetrack people and groups, and things will go out of balance. But neither the Bible nor Christianity tips that balance one way or the other.

We are the Body of Christ. All of us. All people. But we cannot justly assert that fact without being aware that some do not know and do not need to know Him through the words and traditions of Christianity.

quote:
Firstly, I know many heroin addicts who are worshipping the divine as they understand it. I consider the worship of some of the pagans gods to be as wicked.
Now, this statement, on the other hand, is an outright slur. Do you really personally know that many heroin addicts and are able to make broad conclusions about their religious convictions? (It could be your job: I really don't know for sure.) In any case, the fact that there is one group of people performing harmful activities (blowing up abortion clinics, hijacking jets and piloting them into skyscrappers) is no basis for condemning the religious beliefs of those who share the beliefs with the miscreants let alone condemning everyone who doesn't share the same beliefs as you which is what you are doing here. You are perfectly welcome to believe what you want about the worship of "some pagan gods" (and I have tried to be a patient as possible with you) but your logic in this latest post is execrable and your implication that Neo-Pagans are somehow like heroin addicts is offensive.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
Wow. I've been away since last week (graduating wth an MPhil and helping in the marrying off of my sister-in-law - and yes, both events went off without a hitch), and it's nice to see that after various diversions that this thread has gone back on track.

Alcuin hasn't been back, I see. Judging on previous form, he'll poke his head over the parapet again in about three to six months' time, spout the same stuff, say "churchianity" enough times to get a warning from the hosts, and then vanish until the coast's clear. I know I said I wasn't going to pull rank on this thread, but... Alcuin, if you're reading this - bear in mind that if you come back with the same crap again the hosts and admins Will Not Be Happy.

*sigh*

Anyway, as I said. Back on topic.

In all the confusion, I saw that some previous points had not been fully discussed. So, once again:

quote:
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.
But why is defining worship as the religious activity due only to God tautologous?

I honestly don't se your reasoning here. Please explain.

On to more recent questions:

quote:
posted by Mertseger:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:

“I am the Lord your God: you shall have no other gods but me.”



This is, AFAIK, a legitimate interpretation but not a legitimate translation.

Nope. It's a legitimate translation as well, well within the spectrum of what the Hebrew could mean.

quote:
Most English translations have Exodus 20:3 and Deuteronomy 5:7 as "You shall have no other gods before me." And, clearly, there are other perfectly legitimate interpretations of that translation.
But do these legitimate interpretations contradict Pyx_e's point? I don't think they do.

quote:
Posted by Mertseger: Okay, so if we set up a test to measure the happiness of participants of various religions after a lifetime of practice, you'll accept the results if the some of the ones who did not particularly "obey" the Christian version of the one God were the happiest? Of course not. In the Christian paradigm to which you apparently subscribe any suffering to obey the Lord merits reward in heaven, and, therefore, earthly happiness is not an indicator of salvation. Thus, there is no test that can be performed to validate your hypothesis since the results can only be assessed in the hereafter.
I have to say that I really must agree with this.

quote:
Also posted by Mertseger: I am not convinced, however, that some forms of Christianity are not without their own dangers to some their individual adherents. (depressing example) Nor, am I convinced that worshipping any other God necessarily leads to harm.
Again, I'm forced to agree, to an extent. I guess religion's what you do with it. And yes, as we've said before, there are insanely harmful groups in many religions - yes, even paganism (and you've got to bear in mind that apart from my acquaintance, you, Asdara and Nightwind are - to my relief and delight - the first examples of pagans I have discussed with who are not hateful history-denying loons. If my previous experience was all I had to go on, I'd have said that paganism was intensely harmful) they aren't the religion - they're examples of twisted approaches to said religion.

quote:
More harmful in a global sense, however, is the idea that there is only one God (which is not bad in itself)...
But it is central to the Christian faith.

quote:
Look, no matter how much you believe that there is one God and you have the only Message from that God, the people on the other side are simply not going to wake up one day and agree with you. The only global solution is toleration not conversion.
And, of course, toleration does not mean agreement. You can tolerate someone perfectly well while still considering them to be wrong. It's how you express that disagreement.

Take, for example, this thread. Toleration is in evidence, but that doesn't mean we have to put reasoned argument out the window.

quote:
And a significant number of Neo-Pagans would say that there is one Goddess at the Kore. We just think think She has never stopped speaking. She even speaks through Christians, and Moslems, and Jews.
Why is this any less patronising than the monotheistic attitude you've mentioned already?
 
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 
Hey, Wood, welcome back!

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:

Alcuin hasn't been back, I see. ...

Hey, I successfully resisted responding to the troll, and I was sorely tempted. Silence always seems best in such situations.

quote:
But why is defining worship as the religious activity due only to God tautologous?
Because if that's your definition then it's wrong by definition to worship anything else and, therefore, you are condemning everyone who does not venerate your God. And you may feel that this is so, however, I assure you that no dictionary of the English language includes the moral condemnation as a necessary part of the definition of worship. Thus, your definition is not what the word worship is commonly seen to be.

The point is that the restriction of Who it is apropriate to worship is a moral stricture separate from the definition of the word "worship". In fact, that stricture had its beginnings in the Frist Commandment and evolved therefrom. But the moral component is not inherent to the definition of "worship".

quote:
quote:
Most English translations have Exodus 20:3 and Deuteronomy 5:7 as "You shall have no other gods before me." And, clearly, there are other perfectly legitimate interpretations of that translation.
But do these legitimate interpretations contradict Pyx_e's point? I don't think they do.
One legitimate interpretation of the First Comandment is that YWHW was telling one specific group of people that YWHW should come first for worship before all the other Gods worhshipped by that specific group of people. This interpretation is the tightest interpretation possible and clearly both Judaism and Christianity made their standard interpretation of this passage broader to the point that the imperative was to worship no other gods at all, then, later, that no other gods existed at all, and, under stricter forms of Christianity, that the stricture should obtain for all people. These broader interpretations may well be found elsewhere in the Bible and the ensuing montheistic traditions, but they are not inherent to the language of the First Commandment.

quote:
quote:
More harmful in a global sense, however, is the idea that there is only one God (which is not bad in itself)...
But it is central to the Christian faith.
Again this is the monotheism/polytheism debate which hinges on the definition of God. Either there is only one Goddess and Christians, Moslems, Jew and anyone else who believes in some sort of Unity at the Kore are all worshiping that God (including a significant number of Neo-Pagans), (exclusive-or) there are multiple Gods and the God worshiped by Christians is different from that worshipped by Moslems and so on. You cannot logically have it both ways at the same time. I find myself going back and forth between the two paradigms as I think most people do. I try to do so conciously, however.

quote:
quote:
And a significant number of Neo-Pagans would say that there is one Goddess at the Kore. We just think think She has never stopped speaking. She even speaks through Christians, and Moslems, and Jews.
Why is this any less patronising than the monotheistic attitude you've mentioned already?
Because I (and most Neo-Pagans and many people in many other religions) am open and accepting to the fact that God speaks through Christianity and other religions whereas conservative Christianity denies that God speaks through any religion other than theirs. It's not the monotheism by itself that puts specific religions including conservative Christians and orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Moslems into the position of Lording over everyone else, it is, instead, the auxiliary belief that the one God spoke solely through one particular religion that does so.

Thank you, Wood, as usual for the engagemnt of this thread.
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
quote:
Firstly, I know many heroin addicts who are worshipping the divine as they understand it. I consider the worship of some of the pagans gods to be as wicked.

quote:
Now, this statement, on the other hand, is an outright slur. Do you really personally know that many heroin addicts and are able to make broad conclusions about their religious convictions? (It could be your job: I really don't know for sure.) In any case, the fact that there is one group of people performing harmful activities (blowing up abortion clinics, hijacking jets and piloting them into skyscrappers) is no basis for condemning the religious beliefs of those who share the beliefs with the miscreants let alone condemning everyone who doesn't share the same beliefs as you which is what you are doing here. You are perfectly welcome to believe what you want about the worship of "some pagan gods" (and I have tried to be a patient as possible with you) but your logic in this latest post is execrable and your implication that Neo-Pagans are somehow like heroin addicts is offensive.
My point was in reply to Golden Key and you have (deliberately?) taken it out of context. As it was a reply addressing very point you make about not defining a group by the actions of an individual.

You know as well as I do that the way that I used the word “worship” in the context of a heroin addict is not overtly religious. But was a continuation of the idea of the many false idols that humans worship. I would add that I do know enough about heroin, heroin addicts and their convictions to make a statement.

You make for me my first point. That paganism, neo paganism or whatever you wish to call it can not clearly define itself. Within its pantheon of possible gods to worship there are some very dark and demanding figures. Some of whom are dangerous.

Again the problem lies with me trying to discuss this with someone whose doctrine is open to immediate change, undefined and unlike any other large body. I am sure your personal belief system does not encompass the worship of dangerous entities but you can not make that claim for other pagans.

If you find the idea difficult that there is a darker side to paganism then that is not my problem. If you can not see that improper choice of idols leads to broken lives, be those idols spiritual entities or man made substances then you are self deluded.

I have qualified my references to scripture and I am not saying my religion is better than yours but this is going nowhere until you accept that within the pantheon of pagan gods there are some very dark characters.

I can live without your patience. I would be more comfortable with your assessment of my logic if you bothered to contextualise your criticisms of it in regard to replies from previous posters.

P
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mertseger:
Because if that's your definition then it's wrong by definition to worship anything else and, therefore, you are condemning everyone who does not venerate your God.

And you may feel that this is so, however, I assure you that no dictionary of the English language includes the moral condemnation as a necessary part of the definition of worship. Thus, your definition is not what the word worship is commonly seen to be.

Whoa, cowboy. I'm definitely not following your reasoning here - more importantly, it's clear to me that we've been talking at cross purposes, since you seem to think my definition of worship to be something entirely other than what it is.

In my rather old copy of the Concise Oxford Dictionary, worship is defined as "Reverent homage or service paid to God"; and "Adore as divine, pay religious homage to; idolise, regard with adoration..." and so on.

So worship is that action which is due to a God. That thing which you worship is a god/God(dess). If you worship something in religious terms it is your god. As Christians we only worship God (as expressed as Father/Son/Spirit); we don't worship angels, we don't worship spirits. Why should the limitations that we place on our own worship condemn anyone else?

quote:
The point is that the restriction of Who it is appropriate to worship is a moral stricture separate from the definition of the word "worship".
And it's a restriction we place on ourselves. Have I told you, Asdara or Nightwind who to worship? No. I've told you who I worship. No more. No less.

But to tolerate another's choice of divinity or divinities they worship is a completely different matter from actually deciding whom - or what - it is appropriate to worship yourself; likewise, tolerating a different faith is entirely separate from actually agreeing with it. As a Christian, I believe that worship is due to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. But I can't expect those of another religion to change their ways because I worship like this (and FWIW, the most enthusiastic proselytes in my experience have been the atheists - who, of course, don't worship at all - and the fluffy bunny pagans. Have they changed the way I worship in their efforts to convert me? Nope. Nor have I had any effect on them. )

quote:
One legitimate interpretation of the First Comandment is that YHWH was telling one specific group of people that YHWH should come first for worship before all the other Gods worshipped by that specific group of people. This interpretation is the tightest interpretation possible
Excuse me? The tightest interpretation possible is that while there may have been other Gods, Yahweh was the only one the Israelites were allowed to worship. Henotheism rather than Monotheism.

If you read the original 10C's in the context of their text, it's quite clear that - while the existence of other gods may have been recognised - Yahweh was the only one whom the Israelites were allowed to worship, hence the horrible things that happened to Israeilites who disobeyed this stricture in the early books of the Bible. In fact, I'd even argue that the henotheistic interpretation is more hostile than the monotheistic one because of the opposition inherent - less "our God is the only God", more "our God is the only worthwhile one, and fuirthermore, he could have your God in a fight with one incorporeal hand tied behind his incorporeal back!"

quote:
Again this is the monotheism/polytheism debate which hinges on the definition of God. Either there is only one Goddess and Christians, Moslems, Jew and anyone else who believes in some sort of Unity at the Kore
(Could you explain to me what this phrase "Unity at the Kore" means? The first time you used it, I thought it was a typo.)
quote:
are all worshiping that God (including a significant number of Neo-Pagans), (exclusive-or) there are multiple Gods and the God worshiped by Christians is different from that worshipped by Moslems and so on.
Right...

quote:
You cannot logically have it both ways at the same time.
Yep. With you here...

quote:
I find myself going back and forth between the two paradigms as I think most people do.
Do they? I was under the impression that most people picked one and stuck with it, but behaved as if they believed both, depending on the situation.

quote:
I try to do so consciously, however.
Why?

quote:
Because I (and most Neo-Pagans and many people in many other religions) am open and accepting to the fact that God speaks through Christianity and other religions whereas conservative Christianity denies that God speaks through any religion other than theirs.
But saying that "you've got truth in your warped and narrow little fashion, while we have a purer, better take on it" which, admittedly uncharitably put, is the position of many pagans, Baha'is, new agers and whatever is easily as patronising as saying "we're right and you're wrong"! Maybe even more so, because of the smug "we're more right than you are, and we're also nicer than you because we're willing to concede that you may be just a little bit right" attitude so often projected.

Personally, I think that the "I think you're wrong... but I might be too, so hey, let's just agree to disagree and talk about it in a civilised fashion" attitude is the best route to take in situations like this.

_____


About monotheism:

The monotheism thing is as much a sticking point as the Trinity earlier on. If you want to believe that it's wrong, that's fine, and we can talk about that. But you can't attach the Christian label to a faith that lacks the cosmological aspects on which Christianity is dependent. Maybe Christianity is wrong to adhere to these things. Maybe we should abandon it if it is wrong. But what we cannot do is redefine the faith in our own image. We take it on or we deny it; we don't create our own faith and call it Christianity.
 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
One question might be -- among the various Pagan gods (and there are many different takes on that, depending on the person or tradition), how are they viewed in the context of their pantheon? One could say that Satan is a figure in Christian belief, and therefore there are "dark figures" in Christianity -- and this is true. But (apart from diabolists) Christians don't worship or try to emulate Satan; in the same way, how are the darker deities viewed by Pagans who believe they exist? Are they seen as opponents of the benevolent gods, or more like the Id vs. the Superego -- a necessary part of the world, but one which cannot be made the most important part? Or as symbolic of something? Apart from certain Pagans who like to be gadflies and stir up trouble (I've known some), I don't know of many who make, say, Loki their patron. (And even Loki is nowhere near as dark a figure as Satan.) I'm not entirely sure that some who do are being wholly serious (though it could be a risky attitude to take, regardless). I've seen one person on a board I know talk about regarding Eris (goddess of discord, and yes, before the movie came out) as a patron, and many other people slowly back away, or hint that this might not be the wisest thing to do...

I'd also point out that in many Pagan traditions, the universe is viewed more as a cycle of the pattern of nature rather than as a war of good vs. evil. Of course there are dark figures in Pagan beliefs; there's darkness in the universe -- though whether or not it's viewed as an opponent to battle for some ultimate or temporary victory, or as a necessary part of the cosmic ecosystem, or some other thing, is another matter. And also the "darkness" of aggression and certain passions is not necessarily the same as the "darkness" of evil, though it can often be conjoined with it.

I hope this is helpful in clarifying some of this...

David
not a Pagan as such, himself
 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
Edit time elapsed, so I'll add that my above bit is in reply to Pyx_e's comments re dark Pagan figures.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
One question might be -- among the various Pagan gods (and there are many different takes on that, depending on the person or tradition), how are they viewed in the context of their pantheon? One could say that Satan is a figure in Christian belief, and therefore there are "dark figures" in Christianity -- and this is true. But (apart from diabolists) Christians don't worship or try to emulate Satan;

True... but then, as I said before, Satan isn't part of a pantheon. He's just an angel who went bad.

quote:
in the same way, how are the darker deities viewed by Pagans who believe they exist? Are they seen as opponents of the benevolent gods, or more like the Id vs. the Superego -- a necessary part of the world, but one which cannot be made the most important part? Or as symbolic of something?
Good question. I'd like to know that too.

Pyx_e: I don't think it's fair to accuse Mertseger of having inconsistent or constantly changing views. While I am in agreement with the guy on very little, it seems, it's not fair to accuse him of moving the goalposts. He has certainly been consistent.
 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
True... but then, as I said before, Satan isn't part of a pantheon. He's just an angel who went bad.

Agreed -- but part of this depends on one's definition of the word "god." For orthodox Christians, the Christian deity is the creator and sustainer of everything, including time and space -- not so much the biggest, most powerful, or even most important part of the universe, as something else entirely -- like the writer of a story is to the story. But many Pagan deities, even the most important ones, are part of the system. If we're using the Christian notion of divinity then none of the Pagan ones -- all of whom, as I understand it, even the Horned God and the Mother Goddess, are part of the universe but not outside or transcending it -- are "gods" in the Christian sense.

Whereas in the Pagan sense, not only are the Christian deity and Satan part of our "pantheon," but so are all the angels and, very probably, for those of us who revere them or practice devotions to them, the saints -- from a Pagan point of view they're just lesser divinities than the big one.

David

[ 22. July 2003, 17:10: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
 
Posted by Nightwind (# 4531) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:

If you read the original 10C's in the context of their text, it's quite clear that - while the existence of other gods may have been recognised - Yahweh was the only one whom the Israelites were allowed to worship, hence the horrible things that happened to Israeilites who disobeyed this stricture in the early books of the Bible. In fact, I'd even argue that the henotheistic interpretation is more hostile than the monotheistic one because of the opposition inherent - less "our God is the only God", more "our God is the only worthwhile one, and fuirthermore, he could have your God in a fight with one incorporeal hand tied behind his incorporeal back!"

I' have to disagree with this. The God of the Old Testament does not say "I'm better than the other gods" he simply says "You can only worship me." While I don't know of any stories in pre-Christian mythology that could be equated, I do think this very much in line with various pre-Christian religion. The Celts worshipped the Celtic gods. The Romans worshipped the Roman gods. The Romans didn't think that their gods were neccessarily better or more real, but they were their gods. Likewise, the Roman gods could get quite snippy if the Romans didn't give them their due, but they didn't give a damn that people in the rest of the world weren't worshipping them.

Deity has historically been much more tied to people and/or lands than Christianity is. The Romans WOULD pray to Celtic gods when they were in Celtic territories so as not to offend the native powers. Yahweh is god of the Hebrews. Therefore the Hebrews needed to get their butts in line and properly worship him, which included not worshipping other gods.
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
Wood said:
quote:
Pyx_e: I don't think it's fair to accuse Mertseger of having inconsistent or constantly changing views. While I am in agreement with the guy on very little, it seems, it's not fair to accuse him of moving the goalposts. He has certainly been consistent.

Mertseger , I am sorry if I came across as saying that. When I said :
quote:
Again the problem lies with me trying to discuss this with someone whose doctrine is open to immediate change , undefined and unlike any other large body.
(my bold)

I was implying that as your journey progressed your faith would change. I am rehashing my original point on this thread which was sort of accepted (or at least understood). I am not suggesting that anyone on this thread would change position mid-stream to suit this thread.

I am saying that the pagan journey seems to me to be one of constant diversity. Which has no bedrock in Doctrine.

P
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
David, (puts on Jewish voice) Gearter, lesser as long as he loves the mother. [Big Grin] Pagan Joke.

I understand that you seem to be implying a “level” of worship. With God at the top. And that other lesser gods are not "worshipped" in the same way. Right?

P
 
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:

You know as well as I do that the way that I used the word “worship” in the context of a heroin addict is not overtly religious. But was a continuation of the idea of the many false idols that humans worship. I would add that I do know enough about heroin, heroin addicts and their convictions to make a statement.

I am perfectly capable of making mistakes, and so I checked the context as you requested, but I still stand by my assessment of your logic. golden key spoke up for Neo-Paganism by saying that we worshipped the Divine as we understand it. You responded that herion addicts do so too. Herion addicts are not necessarily and almost almost always not Neo-Pagans, and, therefore, your mentioning of them only serves to insult.

I know that you are trying to present the position that if people follow their own whims then they can in some circumstances (and will almost inevitably under your viewpoint) be led to harm themselves and others. And then you are trying assert that that is what Neo-Pagans are doing. And I am telling you (again!) that Neo-Pagans while holding individualism at (perhaps!) a greater value than, let's say, Christians, are not doing that. Yes, we are creating new liturgical forms, yes, we are creating new religions, and, yes, we are worshiping different Goddesses and Gods, but these activities are not always self-directed and are not done only for self-fulfillment as you insist without evidence to assert.

quote:
Again the problem lies with me trying to discuss this with someone whose doctrine is open to immediate change, undefined and unlike any other large body. I am sure your personal belief system does not encompass the worship of dangerous entities but you can not make that claim for other pagans.
Actually, I can and do make that claim for a lot of but not all Neo-Pagans. I have seen and participated in a reasonably large number of Neo-Pagan rituals over the past seven years and have read extensively in the available liturature, and I can attest that the vast majoirity of these rituals involve the worship no more dangerous entities than can be found at any mainstream, run of the mill, Christian church.

quote:
If you find the idea difficult that there is a darker side to paganism then that is not my problem.
I don't find that difficult. We just disagree about the magnitude. You seem to feel that Neo-Paganism is mostly dark and that Christianity is mostly light. (If we must use this somewhat racist analogy of light and darkness.) I would argue that most religions are mostly light both measureably in the positive impact on the participants in their lifetimes and immeasurably in the impact on the souls beyond the span of a single lifetime.

quote:
If you can not see that improper choice of idols leads to broken lives, be those idols spiritual entities or man made substances then you are self deluded.
But I can see that. I'm just arguing that Neo-Paganism does not inevitably nor even more than rarely lead to broken lives.

quote:
I have qualified my references to scripture and I am not saying my religion is better than yours but this is going nowhere until you accept that within the pantheon of pagan gods there are some very dark characters.
Of course, I admit there are some dark characters! Some of the most intriguing Gods are tricksters. Many Neo-Pagans love to study the darker Gods, because they too have wisdom to teach us. (See, for instance, Hyde's Trickster Makes The World for an interesting analysis of trickster Gods by a Non-Neo-Pagan). That does not mean that we invite such Gods to our rituals nor do we necessarily or even ever serve them in our lives.

Furthermore, few Neo-Pagans believe in a good and evil dichotomy. We, in fact, honor many aspects of darkness. The womb is dark. Our unconcious is dark. Much fertile regrowth occurs through the darnesses that we experiance in our lives. Both Neo-Paganism and Christianity acknowledges the presence of darkness (it's one of the things that we have in common). Christianity calls everything it doesn't like "sin" and then looks to Christ for salvation from that sin. Neo-Paganism says that even dark forces have their purpose and uses ritual and our relationship to the Gods to bring such forces back into balance (in cases where they are not) so that the darker forces might return to serving that purpose.

Here's a poem I wrote for a young woman who was recovering from clinical depression at my church.

Finally, let me offer an olive branch. Pyx_e, your compassion and and concern are admirable. There are a lot of hurting people out there, and Christ can and does bring healing to many such through the tools and structure of the catholic Church. You have certainly met some Neo-Pagan goofballs as have I, and it natural that you would be skeptical about the validity of Neo-Paganism. Please, embrace that skepticism, that compassion and concern. If any religion is causing harm to its participants, then it must be held accountable. But, also, meet us Neo-Pagans (and other minority religions) as equals, and do not assume that our path leads inevitably to harm without knowing more about our religion.
 
Posted by Nightwind (# 4531) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
One could say that Satan is a figure in Christian belief, and therefore there are "dark figures" in Christianity -- and this is true. But (apart from diabolists) Christians don't worship or try to emulate Satan; in the same way, how are the darker deities viewed by Pagans who believe they exist? Are they seen as opponents of the benevolent gods, or more like the Id vs. the Superego -- a necessary part of the world, but one which cannot be made the most important part?

Paganism generally doesn't have an equivelent to Satan. Most of us don't recognise an entity of evil. There is Set, in the Egyptian pantheon, and I know some people who worship Set actually call themselves Satanists. But in general, that sort of entity just doesn't exist.

So the question becomes, what are we calling a "dark pagan god"? Do you count Hades? Ruler of the Underworld, yes, but (aside with that little incident with Persephone) a fairly well behaved guy (certainly behaves better around the ladies than Zeus!). He's not anyone's opponent.

What about the Morrigan? She commands spectres, rules the battlefield, and revels in slaughter, along with being a fertility goddess. Yet she fights on the side of the "good guys" - the Tuatha de Danaan vs the Fomorians and the Fir Bolgs. Honoring her does not mean you approve of slaughter anymore than worshipping Yahweh makes you a supporter of reigning fire from the sky. What she does offer is perseverance and strength, both on and off the litteral battlefield. She is focused rage. Rage is not a bad thing in itself. When those planes hit the WTC, should we not be furious? Hell yes. Should we go out and shoot the first Arab we come across because we're pissed off? Absolutely not. I'm a pretty angry person. When I'm just venting in any direction, things pretty much just suck. But if you can focus it, it can drive you toward positive ends, and if it's spent through positive ends, then you're getting it out of your system.

She also embodies things out there that, yes, are unpleasant. There is war and death and pain and slaughter and fear out there. Pretending they're not doesn't gain you anything. Deities like the Morrigan help us come to better grips with the world we live in.

quote:
I'm not entirely sure that some who do are being wholly serious (though it could be a risky attitude to take, regardless). I've seen one person on a board I know talk about regarding Eris (goddess of discord, and yes, before the movie came out) as a patron, and many other people slowly back away, or hint that this might not be the wisest thing to do...
There is an entire branch of paganism out ther called Discordianism, also known as Erisian, and, yes, their goddess is Eris. Eris is not bad. She is chaotic. The idea of chaos not neccessarily being bad is an odd one for some people to understand. Chaos is the most transformative power in the universe. It brings about both destruction and creation.

If you'll excuse the pop culture reference, I'm going to use Dungeons & Dragons as an example. Creatures in that game are labeled not only "good" or "evil", but also "lawful" or "chaotic". Therefore, you can get lawful evil people, and you can have chaotic good people. Robin Hood would be chaotic good. Machievelli would be lawful evil. (so, actually, would many depictions of Satan, who frequently is shown forced to keep to the letter of arrangements, if not the intention)

quote:
And also the "darkness" of aggression and certain passions is not necessarily the same as the "darkness" of evil, though it can often be conjoined with it.
Very true. Darkness is mystery, knowledge, fears to overcome and boundaries to be pushed. It is the void from which we come and is therefore tied to rebirth.
 
Posted by Nightwind (# 4531) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
But many Pagan deities, even the most important ones, are part of the system. If we're using the Christian notion of divinity then none of the Pagan ones -- all of whom, as I understand it, even the Horned God and the Mother Goddess, are part of the universe but not outside or transcending it -- are "gods" in the Christian sense.

Views on the nature of deity vary immensely among pagans and even just among Wiccans. We have panthiests, panentheists, and both soft and hard polytheists, plus plenty of people who can't easily categorize themselves as any of the above. I, for instance, see them as part of the system, yet still separate.


quote:

Whereas in the Pagan sense, not only are the Christian deity and Satan part of our "pantheon," but so are all the angels and, very probably, for those of us who revere them or practice devotions to them, the saints -- from a Pagan point of view they're just lesser divinities than the big one.

I personally would not call an angel a deity. An angel is a spiritual being or essence, but not as high as a god. An angel is not something you worship, but something to be respected.
 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
I understand that you seem to be implying a “level” of worship. With God at the top. And that other lesser gods are not "worshipped" in the same way. Right?

No, I'm thinking in terms of definition of deity, rather than who deserves worship and/or reverence. The Christian idea (transcends all creation, including all other spiritual beings, created and sustains them all, the author of Fate, etc.) as contrasted with the Pagan idea (part of the cosmos, possibly subject to Fate, etc.). Within the Christian context -- mainly between Catholic and Protestant lines, I'd say -- there is diversity of belief about who does and does not deserve reverence (i.e., the Catholic end of the spectrum (which includes me) is fine with devotions of some sort to saints, whereas the Protestant end tends to regard it as giving undue devotion.) I don't think there is agreement within all Christendom as to whether God is at the top of a hierarchy of devotion, or whether one may express such devotion exclusively to God, or perhaps whether the sort of devotion given to angels, saints, etc. is of a different nature than that given to God. There's a whole long article on New Advent on the distinction between worship of God and devotion to saints, from the Catholic point of view.
quote:
The worship of latria (latreia), or strict adoration, is given to God alone; the worship of dulia (douleia), or honour and humble reverence, is paid the saints; the worship of hyperdulia (hyperdouleia), a higher form of dulia, belongs, on account of her greater excellence, to the Blessed Virgin Mary. There is Scriptural warrant for such worship in the passages where we are bidden to venerate angels . . . , whom holy men are not unlike, as sharers of the friendship of God...
But not all Christians (or even all Catholic Christians) believe this way, so I didn't want to get into all that. I was thinking more in terms of "notions of the divine essence" than of what one should or should not do in response to it.

David

[ 22. July 2003, 18:45: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
 
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Apart from certain Pagans who like to be gadflies and stir up trouble (I've known some), I don't know of many who make, say, Loki their patron. (And even Loki is nowhere near as dark a figure as Satan.) I'm not entirely sure that some who do are being wholly serious (though it could be a risky attitude to take, regardless). I've seen one person on a board I know talk about regarding Eris (goddess of discord, and yes, before the movie came out) as a patron, and many other people slowly back away, or hint that this might not be the wisest thing to do...

Both Loki and Eris are initeresting special cases in my experience. One (and only one, AFAIK) of my fellow initiates became rather involved with Loki. She regarded herself, at least for time (though AFAIK she still does), as a priestess of Loki. She seemed to be just as functional and happy in her life as ever (headed off to Oxford to study, last I heard). Her preistesshood seemed to express itself most overtly in a love for cheesy plastic skull props though I know it affected her more deeply than that. She seem to love how Loki led her to see things in different ways. She knew the He was inherently transgressive, and so she took pains to ward her boundaries fairly closely. I'd say the path worked for her, but it was certainly one of the more dangerous paths I've seen taken within my closer community.

OTOH, I find Discordianism thoroughly charming. I f you like mental gymnastics and paradox then the Principia is a wonderful romp. The two authors decided to act as if Eris were real and something which could be worshiped in any meaningful sense, and followed that idea through. I learned a lot from Discordianism but I'm not sure I'd call myself an adherent. When all is said and done, Discordianism is lacking something for me and that something would be a service ethic.

Wood, thank you for expressing the henotheism and montheism distinction better than I succeeded in doing. That, indeed, was what I was after.

I would admit that our side can come off as patronizing as well. I'm sorry if I did so. I've tried to praise what I like about other religions consistent even as we have focussed on Neo-Paganismm in this thread.

I think we've stated our positions as well as we can, and I'm fine with agreeing to disagree as well on most of what we've covered.
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
Mertseger: Please accept my apologies also for the "addict" thing. I am not so obtuse as to not be able to see that it could be offensive. I did not mean it to be so but simply as a (rather harsh I accept) rebuttal of the sort of argument that says “Well I know a person who ……….” In these sorts of arguments we could be here all day giving examples of saints and sinners and get no nearer any mutual understanding. I do not add this to my apology as an excuse.

I am also not so blind as to be able to avoid the Christian goofballs that abound so I am again not saying my religion is better than yours.

I continue to enjoy this thread.

P

[ 22. July 2003, 19:14: Message edited by: Pyx_e ]
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
*cracks knuckles*

You know that research degree I graduated in last week? [Big Grin] *
quote:
Originally posted by Nightwind:
I have to disagree with this. The God of the Old Testament does not say "I'm better than the other gods" he simply says "You can only worship me."

Yes, but like all the henotheistic groups in the Middle East, the idea of the deity as the only deity worth worshipping is certainly implied, and, when read in the light of the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua, which are of a piece, it becomes clear that Yahweh demands exclusive worship because of His supremacy.

quote:
While I don't know of any stories in pre-Christian mythology that could be equated, I do think this very much in line with various pre-Christian religion. The Celts worshipped the Celtic gods. The Romans worshipped the Roman gods. The Romans didn't think that their gods were neccessarily better or more real, but they were their gods. Likewise, the Roman gods could get quite snippy if the Romans didn't give them their due, but they didn't give a damn that people in the rest of the world weren't worshipping them.
Not completely true. With the Romans, tolerance only went so far - ie. it only worked as long as they could identify the gods of the countries they came into contact with and assimilate them, hence, for example, the shrine to the British goddess Sulis having a bloody great temple of Minerva on top of it, the message being, "you were worshipping our goddess all along; you are now worshipping her in her true face; therefore you are now Romans, because you are worshipping Roman gods; and furthermore, you were always potentially Romans because the gods are the same."

But they never managed to assimilate the Egyptian
gods - they couldn't get the hang of them because they were conceived in a completely different fashion - see their portrayal in Virgil's Aeneid VIII, the one exception being Isis, who ended up with a not-entirely-respectable secret mystery cult which existed in competition with the other mystery cults, namely Mithraism, the Magna Mater and Christianity (and later Sol Invictus).

For the Romans, it was all about politics. The gods you worshipped in the ancient world defined the nation of which you were a part, hence the Roman need They barely tolerated the Jews because it was too much trouble not to (and when they became more trouble than they were worth, with the umpteenth rebellion, they suppressed them savagely). Meanwhile, the Christians, whose refusal to perform the ancient rites amounted to an act of treason, were given no quarter.

quote:
Deity has historically been much more tied to people and/or lands than Christianity is.
Yep.

quote:
The Romans WOULD pray to Celtic gods when they were in Celtic territories so as not to offend the native powers.
Again, not wholly true. They gave obeisance to the Romanised versions of the gods whom they had conquered, ie, they saw these gods as aspects of the Roman gods and treated them accordingly.

quote:

Yahweh is god of the Hebrews. Therefore the Hebrews needed to get their butts in line and properly worship him, which included not worshipping other gods.

True, but bear in mind that the Hebrews weren't Romans. They lived several hundred years earlier and had a very different worldview. For them, henotheism meant having a fierce pride in the God they had and wiping out other gods, whose worshippers responded in kind; witness the battles against Baal and Asherah in the Books of Kings, for example.

I think also of the short-lived cult of Aten in the reign of the Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaten (after the late 1350s BC) - the inscriptions that weren't destroyed clearly show that Aten was not just the main god, but the greatest, and in opposition to the others; likewise, when Akhenaten died and his cult crumbled the Egyptians took their vengeance on Aten and attempted to wipe all traces of his worship from the face of the earth.

___
*Actually, it was specifically about the ancient literature of religious conversion. But I had to read up a lot about ancient religions, obviously. I'm not an expert, but I'm not untrained...

[ 29. July 2003, 10:30: Message edited by: Wood ]
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
The Romans worshipped the Roman gods. The Romans didn't think that their gods were neccessarily better or more real, but they were their gods. Likewise, the Roman gods could get quite snippy if the Romans didn't give them their due, but they didn't give a damn that people in the rest of the world weren't worshipping them.
Actually, the Romans borrowed the entire Greek pantheon and renamed the gods, which I think says a lot about them. They then imposed them on a variety of native cultures, renaming some of the native gods and merging them.

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Apart from certain Pagans who like to be gadflies and stir up trouble (I've known some), I don't know of many who make, say, Loki their patron. (And even Loki is nowhere near as dark a figure as Satan.)

I spent some time researching the myths around Loki a few years ago. If you look through the sequence of those myths you will see that he starts out as a lighthearted, adventurous, inventive and engaging companion of the gods, a Promethean figure even (Loki brought the gift of fire to mankind), and gradually becomes darker and more vicious until he meets a terrible end. Curiously enough he was the only one of the Norse pantheon whose character seems to have developed. The other gods had become static. I admit to having a soft spot for Loki - as I do for Hermes or Mercury, or other gods who used intelligence and wit rather than brute force to get out of tricky situations.

Anyhow - dark gods certainly exist in pantheons. There are two ways of looking at them. You can see them either as the dark face of a bright deity, or you can see them as darkness for its own sake. The latter does appeal to some people. I've come across quite a few references on the net to the worship of Hecate, and others are interested in Set (Egyptian god of evil). While it may appear to be fairly innocuous on the surface, I'm willing to bet that there is hardcore stuff going on elsewhere that isn't advertised. I think it would be naive to assume it wasn't. You can't sanitize these things.

Chaos isn't necessarily bad. Order isn't necessarily good. Darkness can be healing and comforting. Light can be merciless and destructive. But if you want to spend time with any god form or archetype, you must accept the mythology around it as a whole. You cannot shut your eyes to an aspect you don't like or rationalize it. You have to take the light with the dark. And some archetypes are much more difficult to work with than others. Loki in his bright aspect and Hecate as goddess of wisdom to name but two. Seeking out any god form, light or dark, without being properly prepared, is to awaken something within yourself, and you have no guarantee what form that will take. That is what is dangerous about it.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Actually, the Romans borrowed the entire Greek pantheon and renamed the gods, which I think says a lot about them.

Nope. That's not fair on them. What they did do was the same as they did everywhere else, only because they did it earlier on and they hadn't really taken over anywhere else, they simply nicked all the myths and in some cases the personalities of the gods. Juppiter, Juno, Mars, etc. were Italian gods; these constructs were overlaid on the Greek gods, but since the Greek gods had more personalities and better stories, more of them survived.
 
Posted by Nightwind (# 4531) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Not completely true. With the Romans, tolerance only went so far - ie. it only worked as long as they could identify the gods of the countries they came into contact with and assimilate them, hence, for example, the shrine to the British goddess Sulis having a bloody great temple of Minerva on top of it

I'm not familiar with this particular example. Do we know for that the Romans forcibly dropped a temple to Minerva over this shrine, or was it more like an assimilation, or do we actually know? If a large number of Romans moved into an area, and they associated Sulis with Minerva, it would make natural sense that they might replace one with the other without force, and without trying to make some sort of political message.


quote:
Again, not wholly true. They gave obeisance to the Romanised versions of the gods whom they had conquered, ie, they saw these gods as aspects of the Roman gods and treated them accordingly.
Not wholly true. [Wink] We find images and inscriptions of Celtic deities in very Romanized areas such as British Roman forts. These places would have been manned by Romans, not Celts, and apparently they were paying homage to both Roman and Celtic deities individually.

quote:

I think also of the short-lived cult of Aten in the reign of the Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaten (after the late 1350s BC) - the inscriptions that weren't destroyed clearly show that Aten was not just the main god, but the greatest, and in opposition to the others; likewise, when Akhenaten died and his cult crumbled the Egyptians took their vengeance on Aten and attempted to wipe all traces of his worship from the face of the earth.

Akhenaten's religion was the exception, not the rule, on a whole lot of levels. I'm not attempting to say all pre-Christian religions were the same. (I've already given the example of Set who goes against the general statement that these peoples didn't recognise a deity of evil.)I'm saying large majority.


(and just as a note, I'm going on vacation tomorrow for a week, so I'm not ignoring this thread - I'm just not able to read it. [Wink] )

[ 22. July 2003, 19:40: Message edited by: Nightwind ]
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
Nota Analis: the ancient peoples of Britain were the Britons, the Scots and the Picts. The term "Celt" was used by the Greeks (and to a much lesser extent by the Romans) as a blanket term for a group of disparate northern tribes with little in common. It was only around the time of the fall of Rome that the Celts really developed into a more homogenous people group. The idea that there was a "Celtic" civilisation before about AD 550 or so is a myth.

quote:
Originally posted by Nightwind:
I'm not familiar with this particular example. Do we know for that the Romans forcibly dropped a temple to Minerva over this shrine, or was it more like an assimilation, or do we actually know? If a large number of Romans moved into an area, and they associated Sulis with Minerva, it would make natural sense that they might replace one with the other without force, and without trying to make some sort of political message.

You can still see the temple complex and the baths at Bath. It's a bit of a tourist trap actually. [Smile]

The Romans moved there first as a military garrison, IIRC. They built the temple without force (well, without any more force than was needed to conquer the Britons in the first place)... but, it being the most important religious site in Western Britain, it so utterly was a massive political statement.

quote:
We find images and inscriptions of Celtic deities in very Romanized areas such as British Roman forts. These places would have been manned by Romans, not Celts, and apparently they were paying homage to both Roman and Celtic deities individually.
But they were only paying obeisance to British deities after they had conquered them; also, bear in mind that many British forts had large contingents of Gallic auxilia, who wer far enough away from home not to rebel and t prefer kicking the heads of the Britons in rather than their Roman masters, similar gods or not.

quote:
Akhenaten's religion was the exception, not the rule, on a whole lot of levels. I'm not attempting to say all pre-Christian religions were the same.
Fair enough; but the fact that the cult of Aten was the exception tell us of the success of the Egyptian pantheon; the fate of Aten tells us of the underlying attitude. The Egyptians had no time for foreign gods either.

quote:
(I've already given the example of Set who goes against the general statement that these peoples didn't recognise a deity of evil.)
Actually, Set was more a god of chaos and disorder than of evil per se, although since the Egyptians believed that cosmic order was the greatest possible good, it's a piddling distinction.

As far as I can make out, the only religion I can think of with an actual god of evil was Zoroastrianism (and its Gnsotic and Manichaean offshoots).

quote:
(and just as a note, I'm going on vacation tomorrow for a week, so I'm not ignoring this thread - I'm just not able to read it. [Wink] )
Have a good one! [Smile]

[ 22. July 2003, 20:01: Message edited by: Wood ]
 
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Mertseger: Please accept my apologies also for the "addict" thing. I am not so obtuse as to not be able to see that it could be offensive. I did not mean it to be so but simply as a (rather harsh I accept) rebuttal of the sort of argument that says “Well I know a person who ……….” In these sorts of arguments we could be here all day giving examples of saints and sinners and get no nearer any mutual understanding. I do not add this to my apology as an excuse.

I am also not so blind as to be able to avoid the Christian goofballs that abound so I am again not saying my religion is better than yours.

I continue to enjoy this thread.

P

Accepted heartily, and thank you much for voicing issues that I'm sure others were thinking, and thank you for your participation in this thread!
 
Posted by BlueFlame (# 4783) on :
 
I have to admit I got a hedache from reading all this, but I did read it all, and I have a few selective things to comment on, being a Wiccan and a Pagan myself. These are in no particular order and are in varing degrees of relevance and amout of sense made, and should be read or disregarded. 98.9% of points surveyed were on topic and 32% of all statistics are made up.

Ok, I think I'm done.

Blessings,
BlueFlame
Trust me on the Sunscreen.

[fixed code - quotes work differently on this board!]

[ 29. July 2003, 08:15: Message edited by: Wood ]
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
Hi there BlueFlame.

Welcome to the Ship and welcome to Purgatory. (In my capacity as host), do make sure you've checked out the 10C's and the guidelines for the different boards, and... happy discussing.

quote:
Originally posted by BlueFlame:
I have to admit I got a hedache from reading all this, but I did read it all,

Kudos.

quote:
Wood: Belle & Sebastian
25 indie points to the poster with the roast chicken avatar!

quote:
Nazis were Pagans? Thats a new one to me. I personally have a word for it, CRAZY.
Some Nazis were pagans, or, more specifically many of the high-up Nazis created a kind of pagan mythology which reflected their messed-up views.

What they did was to take some of the racial theories prevalent at the time among mainstream scientists (even in 1925, a mainstream and respectable encyclopaedia could list humanity as falling into three species, with the "aryans" - white people, Arabs and Indians - being superior to the other two groups) and made them into an half-religious, half-ideological idea, which had already been put forward by the various occult groups of the previous century, like the Theosophists, for example.

This had the effect of cystalising it, so that when the ethnologists inevitably realised how utterly wrong they were (after WWII, mainly), your Nazis - and a lot of occultists and neo-pagans (hence our friend who told us Hitler was more ascended than us Christians) - still find themselves believing this stuff.

Case in point: This is very much the case in Russia. Russian extremists such as the Russian National Unity (with their almost-swastika symbol and ritualistic practices), and political/pagan ideologues such as Vladimir Istarkhov and Alexander Belov (I'd link their sites, but frankly they're so nasty, I might as well be linking pornography). It seems that there is a brand of paganism that supports right-wing extremism.

Having said that, you only have to check out some parts of the US to see the horrors committed by Christians with twisted right-wing ideologies.

quote:
My cats seem to make sacrifices to the Catfood gods as well. The lineage of Catfood god worship is unknown but is probably not older then the invention of catfood.
What? [Confused]

quote:
I think reality is totaly subjective. Case in point: the DC sniper's "White cargo van".
But that reality, formed of perception and coincidence, has been demonstrated as erroneous, right?

quote:
Poor toe stubbing squirls
[Roll Eyes]

quote:
I think British people in general are insane
You're new here. But if you knew how much damage seemingly innocuous statements like that have done in the past, trust me, you wouldn't have said that.

Take my word on this: it's not a helpful thing to say.

quote:
this goes doubly for British Pagans. Case in point(s): British newspapers and Kevin Carlyon.
Kevin Carlyon is bonkers. As for newspapers, we have tabloids and we have broadsheets. I honestly don't know which papers you're thinking of, but I'd rather read the Telegraph, Guardian or Independent than any other newspaper.

quote:
Rob... you are insane, sorry.
You didn't mean that, right? Cos if you did, you should be aware that it is Not. Helpful.

quote:
Humanity's greatist hope, is each other
I flippin' hope not. Empirically speaking, judging by what we've seen of human nature over the last hundred years alone, if our greatest hope is each other, we are Totally Sunk.

quote:
quote:
Posted by Pyx_e:You make for me my first point. That paganism, neo paganism or whatever you wish to call it can not clearly define itself. Within its pantheon of possible gods to worship there are some very dark and demanding figures. Some of whom are dangerous.
Of plastic western cafeteria utensils Sporks are dangerous. Solution, don't poke yourself with sporks.
1. Now tell us what on earth that's supposed to mean.

2. what in the name of Stuart Murdoch is a "spork"?
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
One can not but admire God sometimes. Blue Flame pops up with a very “original” post just as Wood starts hosting Purgatory.

Welcome Blue Flame. My point was that something’s are inherently dangerous. Yours was, I think, that anything can be dangerous if used incorrectly, right? My point still stands. I would let my child lay with a spork (I know what they are hehehehehe) but not a gun.

As Wood points out, it would be good to do something nice about the unfortunate British/insane thing.

Cool first post.

P

(Wood: spoon + fork = spork, a sort of two in one utensil often with a sharpish edge on the spoon facet so it acts as a sort of knife.)
 
Posted by Asdara (# 4533) on :
 
Pyx_e I understand that you believe paganism to be inherently (and yes the bad speller returns) dangerous. I can see your point, but I would put forward that all religions are inherently dangerous. There is always a danger in belief in something you can not prove. The danger of being wrong, the danger of treading waters too deep, the danger of persecution, the danger of falling under a maniac leader, the danger of drinking kool-aid to transport yourself to a comet. Danger is present in almost every situation of our spiritual lives.

I do not believe that paganism is any more dangerous than, say... christianity. I point out that while we do interact with entities (or some of us do, it's not required per se) and commune with deity, we are not any more in harms way than someone who believes that the Devil is in hell motivating mankind to sin and be brought to eternal damnation.

Just my thoughts. [Votive]
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
Asdara, forgive my simplistic outlook but the way I see it is this; the Christian God, as expressed to us through His Son Jesus, showed himself to us most fully in the cross and in his many teachings which surround the idea of love for God and for our neighbours. The Christian ethos is one of self sacrifice, love and the reconciling of God and His good creation. There is no other side to this, no dark, complicated or tricky side.

I do acknowledge the certainty of your point that all things can be dangerous. Not least how we as humans impose our agendas on the divine, Christian or otherwise.

Two points I have argued are that pagan gods seem to me to be things of this world or of human imagination and that among the pantheon some of those gods (whom not all pagans worship or study) are decidedly tricky, maybe even wicked.

So whilst I am saying that pagan gods are not wholesome, I am not saying that all pagan gods are inherently dangerous only some of them. I am however saying that in terms of the long run and the “truth” (whatever that means) the worship of false idols is not what God, as I understand Him wants from or for us.

I have no doubt that the gods and idols of this world can be powerful and make a person feel very different, this has always been the way. It is easier and has a quicker pay back to worship Baal, Manchester United, the Stock exchange or whatever. God, as I understand Him can seem distant and very hard to have a relationship with but the paradigm laid down by His Son is for me the only one with any integrity.

P
 
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:

quote:
Nazis were Pagans? Thats a new one to me. I personally have a word for it, CRAZY.
Some Nazis were pagans, or, more specifically many of the high-up Nazis created a kind of pagan mythology which reflected their messed-up views.

What they did was to take some of the racial theories prevalent at the time among mainstream scientists (even in 1925, a mainstream and respectable encyclopaedia could list humanity as falling into three species, with the "aryans" - white people, Arabs and Indians - being superior to the other two groups) and made them into an half-religious, half-ideological idea, which had already been put forward by the various occult groups of the previous century, like the Theosophists, for example.

This had the effect of cystalising it, so that when the ethnologists inevitably realised how utterly wrong they were (after WWII, mainly), your Nazis - and a lot of occultists and neo-pagans (hence our friend who told us Hitler was more ascended than us Christians) - still find themselves believing this stuff.

Wood's quite accurate on this point, Blueflame. There is, of course, no direct connection between the paganism practiced by some of the Nazis and the larger modern Neo-Pagan movements although there are some branches of Asatru (a Norse-revivalist set of Neo-Pagan traditions) that do claim that connection much to the embarassment of the rest of Asatru. Furthermore, both Crowley and Gardnarian Wiccans in Britain claim to have performed rituals at the height of the war to oppose the Nazis. Hutton investigated the claim and concluded that it was unlikely that there was any large, organized ritual, (in fact, Wicca almost certainly did not exist at that point) and that most likely Crowley copied the claim from the Wiccans. Made the basis for a nice sci-fi novel by Katherine Kurtz, however.
 
Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Every pagan I have ever met or heard is happily reinventing (what has been reinvented a hundred times already, in its at bets 70 year journey) their own journey to suit their own psychological, emotional and spiritual state. That journey is never rigorously tested and when it feels lack some freshness is passing a bit more is bolted on.

In response to this people talked about the different deities pagans might worship.
I wonder about the actual pagan worship.
quote:
Originally posted by Asdara:
Most wiccan and pagan beliefs take from Druidic practices then and now. What we know from archeology ect we use and then adapt it to today's world. (Obviously sacrifice of living creatures is much less accepted today then it was back in their time and so we have mostly phased it out--we don't like killing roosters or pigs any more than the next person I assure you)

I live in Miami. There are chickens and pigs sacrificed here every day by those who practice Santaria (voodoo). The idea that some die so that others might live seems to me so old, archetypal, and layered with human tradition, that it resonates strongly with me in my worship and faith as a Roman Catholic and even in my work in neuroscience animal research.
So why does it seem to me that many neo-pagans are squeamish on this point of animal sacrifice? What has changed from ancient times to now? I remember a great lecture by Robert Farris Thompson on the Yoruba god Ogun -- everything was great as long as it wasn't his dog being sacrificed. That's when the gulf between the real thing and westerner's pick and choose collage seemed widest to me.

[Fixed code. Don't say I never do anything for you people.]

[ 29. July 2003, 18:54: Message edited by: Wood ]
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Part of the problem as I see it is that the pagan gods, particularly the ones from long-established classical traditions, belong to earlier civilizations which had different values and different moral standards than we do today. Was it the Greeks, or the Romans, who held that fame and material success were the greatest of virtues? If you look at the gods of ancient religions, they have many more human characteristics - they have fits of temper, jealousy, love affairs and so on - it may make them more accessible but I think they reflect humanity at an earlier stage of development, and it seems to me that worshipping them can often be a retrograde step. Is it wise or sensible to dig up an established framework from a more primitive age? With all the myths and associations that go with it? As Robert Graves found when writing The White Goddess, these things have a way of popping up in your life once you start focusing on them.

In most cases we do not have access to the secrets of the mystery cults that were linked with some of the old gods, which could well have been meaningful and given some insight into the spirituality of the times. Perhaps I am misjudging it but spirituality seems the one element that is visibly lacking in the worship of the old gods. (In fact the only classical author I can think of who talks about spiritual experience is Apuleius.) If you look at the way worship was conducted it seems mostly to have been a cycle of request and propitiation. Does the worship of Apollo or Cernunnos or Freyr lead to spiritual improvement, or is it mostly about emotional satisfaction and/or material benefit? What do you expect from your gods?

I am not arguing for Christianity. But it seems a well structured and reasonably well thought out religion which demands a degree of spiritual sophistication and maturity from its followers, as do the other major world religions. (Not that they always get it.) While there are undoubted benefits to liberal thinking and finding your own path, paganism does appear to lack coherence and structure.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
So why does it seem to me that many neo-pagans are squeamish on this point of animal sacrifice? What has changed from ancient times to now?

Um, could it be that it's not actually the same religion at all but a modern construct (which does not imply, incidentally, an moral inferiority)?

[ 29. July 2003, 18:53: Message edited by: Wood ]
 
Posted by Asdara (# 4533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Asdara:
Most wiccan and pagan beliefs take from Druidic practices then and now. What we know from archeology ect we use and then adapt it to today's world. (Obviously sacrifice of living creatures is much less accepted today then it was back in their time and so we have mostly phased it out--we don't like killing roosters or pigs any more than the next person I assure you)

I don't sacrifice animals and I don't know anyone who wants me to start just to satisfy tradition. Things change. Christians don't sacrifice lambs or bulls anymore either. Wow.

A note about sacrifice however: it is done. I have sacrificed my blood (not a pin prick, a goodly amount) I have sacrificed my hair, my eating has been suspended by my own choice as a form of sacrifice. Sacrifice. Think of the word. Back in the older times animals were expensive, nessasary for food, and therefore very important parts of day to day life. Are they now? No. Not really. You may love your cat, or dog, or you might even still have a goat or a sheep you love, but these are not integral to your ultimate survival as they once were to mankind. And there's always the issue that the animal is the one losing it's life (without it's consent) so where is your sacrifice?

Sacrifice in these modern times must become more personal. It must be a true sacrifice and a giving of the self. A willing sacrifice is so much more valuable than an unwilling sacrifice in any situation. If you are willing to sacrifice something, make it something of your own. Either something having to do with your body, or your inanimate possesions. Not a creature that will not benifit from the sacrifice once it's been made to die for your goals.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Sacrifice, for what purpose?
 
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid

I live in Miami. There are chickens and pigs sacrificed here every day by those who practice Santaria (voodoo). The idea that some die so that others might live seems to me so old, archetypal, and layered with human tradition, that it resonates strongly with me in my worship and faith as a Roman Catholic and even in my work in neuroscience animal research.
So why does it seem to me that many neo-pagans are squeamish on this point of animal sacrifice? What has changed from ancient times to now? I remember a great lecture by Robert Farris Thompson on the Yoruba god Ogun -- everything was great as long as it wasn't his dog being sacrificed. That's when the gulf between the real thing and westerner's pick and choose collage seemed widest to me.

My Trad has done live sacrifice at least once though I wasn't there. I don't particularly like to eat lobster, and so there you go. However, much merriment was had apparently as my fellow Third Roaders confronted their squeemishness as they dropped the lobsters in the pot.

There are a few of reasons why animal sacrifice is not common in Neo-Paganism. The first and most important is that we tend to consider all life as sacred, and so we do not easily want to see a particular life extinguished. We do not particularly see blood sacrifices as an important source of either personal power or growth in the modern world nor as a way to get the gods attention though we acknowledge that some religions do and have. A third reason is as simple as (and probably as wrong as) the fact that we are squeemish since like most members of modern Western culture we are extremely divorced from the slaughter of our food. (I must say that I have a really bad case of this latter: my wife was preparing a crab for herself this weekend when I went into the kitchen, and I fled when I saw the legs still moving.)

We must eat, however, and many of us do eat meat. My teacher teaches a simple prayer to our food: "I greet the Goddess: Thank you! I am in your service. Let us be in joy, for all things feed one another." I still use this as a grace.
 
Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
Mertseger,
Thanks for your response but I have questions about your reasons:
quote:
The first and most important is that we tend to consider all life as sacred, and so we do not easily want to see a particular life extinguished.

This is only a reason against sacrifice if you think that those who sacrifice don't consider all life sacred or want to easily extinguish other life forms. I would like to see what evidence you have that sacrifice has ever entailed either of these beliefs.
quote:
We do not particularly see blood sacrifices as an important source of either personal power or growth in the modern world nor as a way to get the gods attention though we acknowledge that some religions do and have.

So throughout human history blood sacrifice has been a way of "getting the divine's attention", but you don't see it that way. Are you or your gods different? Are others (including other pagans) right or wrong? If blood sacrifice has been important for countless other people (and presumably their gods) doesn't that put you in a peculiar position? How do you know you're right?
quote:
A third reason is as simple as (and probably as wrong as) the fact that we are squeemish since like most members of modern Western culture we are extremely divorced from the slaughter of our food.
Can you think of any other (possibly wrong) influences upon neo-paganism that may have resulted in the diminished importance of sacrifice?
 
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
[QB] Mertseger,
Thanks for your response but I have questions about your reasons:
quote:
The first and most important is that we tend to consider all life as sacred, and so we do not easily want to see a particular life extinguished.

This is only a reason against sacrifice if you think that those who sacrifice don't consider all life sacred or want to easily extinguish other life forms. I would like to see what evidence you have that sacrifice has ever entailed either of these beliefs.

I don't have such evidence nor do I need it because that is not the point of my argument. The religions which do practice animal sacrifice do generally hold life sacred, and you and I do not disagree on that point. My point is that Neo-Pagans find it hard to kill things when we don't have to, and, as Asdara argued, with the ready availability of food in our culture it is not a sacrifice (in the sense of forgoing something important to us) to do so.

quote:

So throughout human history blood sacrifice has been a way of "getting the divine's attention", but you don't see it that way.

Not true. I just don't think it's a necessary way (in our culture, today) for getting the divine's attention.

quote:
Are you or your gods different? Are others (including other pagans) right or wrong?
Do they have to be? Seriously. We as Neo-Pagans do not see the world in terms of dichotomies in which if we are right everyone else has to be wrong. I respect the (largely African or, at least Yoruban-descended) traditions which still practice animal sacrifice. The animal's death in such cases is generally much better cared for and attended to than that of the cow that was slaughtered for my roast-beef sandwich today. It is clear that in many cases like Santeria that the animals are sacrificed with ritual and often magical intent. We believe in Neo-Paganism that we have a magical practice that is equally effective that does not required the killing of animals. I do not think either of the two groups thinks that the other is necessarily wrong in these matters just because they are different. I can not speak for the Yoruban-decended traditions, but many in Neo-Paganism do respect the magical practices of these other communities. (Their payment schedules for initiation and rituals, on the other hand...)

As I understand the modern religions which to practice sacrifice of various kinds (based on my reading of Jumbalaya by Tiech and a few TV documentaries), there are particular sacrificial items associated with particular Gods. (Tobacco and Bourbon for one of them, IIRC). In the Neo-Pagan relgion there is no such correspondance which is generally accapted. It's not that we do not believe that the Gods don't appreciate such sacrifices, it's just that we do not have a rigid doctrine document teling us what is appropriate for which God. Heck, most Neo-Pagans who I know do not particularly focus on a single pantheon.

We most generally offer the energy of our worship and prayers to the Gods. My favorite ritual in my tradition is the formal Bardic in which each participant in the circle offers up a song, or a dance, or a joke, or a poem, or a story, or a myth and then the energy that we've built up sharing these things is sent up to the Gods to accomplish our intent and then the excess energy is given back to the Earth with our gratitude.

quote:
If blood sacrifice has been important for countless other people (and presumably their gods) doesn't that put you in a peculiar position?
Not especially no. There are many religions which do not require blood sacrifices. We are one.

quote:
How do you know you're right?
How does anyone? We have exactly the same epistemological problem as every other sentient being on this planet and our solutions to that problem are the same as everyone else's with critically different emphases. We emphasize empiracism, intuition, divine revelation through individuals, and oral tradition a bit more than other groups, I suppose.

quote:
quote:
A third reason is as simple as (and probably as wrong as) the fact that we are squeemish since like most members of modern Western culture we are extremely divorced from the slaughter of our food.
Can you think of any other (possibly wrong) influences upon neo-paganism that may have resulted in the diminished importance of sacrifice?
Again, it's not particularly sacrifice which has diminished but animal and blood sacrifice. But not especially no.
 
Posted by Nightwind (# 4531) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

In most cases we do not have access to the secrets of the mystery cults that were linked with some of the old gods, which could well have been meaningful and given some insight into the spirituality of the times. Perhaps I am misjudging it but spirituality seems the one element that is visibly lacking in the worship of the old gods. (In fact the only classical author I can think of who talks about spiritual experience is Apuleius.) If you look at the way worship was conducted it seems mostly to have been a cycle of request and propitiation. Does the worship of Apollo or Cernunnos or Freyr lead to spiritual improvement, or is it mostly about emotional satisfaction and/or material benefit? What do you expect from your gods?

I do not expect anything from my gods. That would be arrogant. I hope for and seek a closer relationship with them, and I do think this leads to spiritual improvement. This isn't about emotional satisfaction or material benefit. The gods do not buy my loyalty. I do not generally work magic, and the only thing I could even begin to consider beintg a material benefit is the fact that my health has so dramatically improved in the last year. That might be just a coincidence, and it was certainly never expected. I count it as a blessing. If I was just looking for emotional satisfaction I would have remained a Christian - my path from Christianity to Atheism to Adnosticism to Wicca was a long and emotionally painful one.

You are right in that we don't have much on the rites of the ancient mystery cults. However, it was not the rites that bestowed knowledge of the Mysteries. The Mysteries were things that couldn't be explained, only experienced. The rites helped prepare you for that, but they were not the Mysteries in themselves. Therefore, I think it reasonable to believe that the Mysteries can be sought through paths other than those followed by ancient peoples.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0