Ask a Pagan

Anyone have any questions for a random polytheist?*

I can't claim to explain things about paganism in general (if such a thing even exists), but I'll do my best to field questions about my beliefs and how I arrived at them. I thought I'd throw this out there because what people think when they hear 'pagan' and what I am actually like are not very similar.

A preliminary answer to a question no one's asked:

Since I live in a city, I don't have the requisite yard space for a Wicker Man. I'm currently putting together plans for a wicker-rat, or possibly a wicker-pigeon.

*My only request would be that this not turn into a battleground for round 10¹¹²³¹ of Atheism v. Theism: The Argument That Wouldn't Die.

What kind of a pagan are you- Wiccan, Generic Nature believer, Witch, Non-Christian but using the term to rebel vs. the Christians, etc?

I don't belong to any organized group, so I guess "generic" about covers it.

I'm certainly not interested in deliberately antagonizing Christians. I like most Christians I know personally.

Where were the pagan gods before the Earth was formed?

Here is a question I've wondered about for a while now, you may be able to answer it or you may not, perhaps it is more of a question for a Wiccan specifically than for a Pagan generally but:

Given the recyclability and reclamation of metals is there any point where a base metal, say copper, becomes so amalgamated with other coppers that it is unusable and unsanctifiable?

i.e. Can I reclaim wire windings from an old motor, smelt them with old pennys and the starter contacts from a 1971 Cutlass, and reforge them into something ceremoniously sanctified like a bowl or dagger or something?

Like I said, it may be more of a specific question for one who practices such things and I don't want to make any assumptions about your practices and rites, but I figured I'd toss it out there anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ivan astikov

Where were the pagan gods before the Earth was formed?

---

Hmm. Haven't thought much about that before.

My first thought is that they were one with the Brahman. (Not that I'm a Hindu, just that Hinduism has the most succinct term for the concept.)

Dangerously, I'm afraid I don't know. Honestly, I can't see why the provenance of the metal would matter once the new object has been created, but as you say, I'm not a Wiccan. I'm also not much of a ritualist.

This is a question I could ask of a practioner of any religion: Do you believe the god or gods of your religion literally exist in the universe we're inhabiting? If so, I won't argue about it; I'm just curious.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Baldwin

Do you believe the god or gods of your religion literally exist in the universe we're inhabiting?

---

Yes. Well, yes about the existing. The "in the universe we're inhabiting" thing is a bit more ... fuzzy.

How did you come to your beliefs?

A more general question. What exactly do you believe? Assume I know nothing at all about paganism, it's probably a safe assumption.

Also, this was touched on a bit in an earlier question but Pagan is kind of generic isn't it? Do you think of yourself as "pagan" or is there a more specific subset that you personally identify as?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Caerie

How did you come to your beliefs?

---

I suppose it was the result of too much reading.

I was raised Lutheran, and was fairly pious as a kid. But I was also big into reading about mythology and folk stories and world history so I kept running into the question of "what about all these people praying to Thor, or Shiva, or Pacha Mama?" Why would God focus all of His attention on such a small geographical area? It never made sense to me, and no one was ever able to give me a satisfactory explanation.

As I got older, I just thought it made sense for the Divine to express itself in multiple ways, since different people and cultures have such different ways of looking at the world.

I didn't start thinking of myself as a pagan until I stopped being a Christian, when I was about 13 or 14. I had to admit that as much as I liked a lot of his teachings, I didn't believe that Jesus was the eternally begotten son of God, nor did I believe that he literally rose from the dead. (There was also the whole business of humans being naturally sinful and requiring 'redemption' just for being human which never sat well with me, but that's all kind of a side-track.)

So that's the thinking side of it. The feeling side of boils down to this: I have experienced what I consider to be a connection to the divine a few times in my life, and that divine has not always had the same voice or personality.

(Apologies in advance for my poor vocabulary where this is concerned.) How much do you believe in the supernatural? What I mean is, the prayers/spells/whatever you call them, so you believe they affect the material world in perceptible ways, do they have effects on the world that we can't perceive (like maybe affecting invisible spirits or forces), or are they strictly internal (e.g. bring you inner peace, etc.)?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NAF1138

What exactly do you believe? Assume I know nothing at all about paganism, it's probably a safe assumption.

---

I believe there is a divine/spiritual aspect to existence. I believe that this aspect can express itself in many ways, sometimes with personalities.

I believe that the purpose of such personalities (i.e. deities) is to assist people in improving or understanding their relationship with the world around them, or with other people.

For me, it is much easier to feel a connection with the divine out in nature. Particularly forests.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NAF1138

Do you think of yourself as "pagan" or is there a more specific subset that you personally identify as?

---

I don't identify myself as anything more specific. My beliefs are too eclectic and/or nebulous for that. Also, religion is a personal endeavor for me, not a communal one.

I hope this doesn't all sound like utter blathery nonsense!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OneCentStamp

How much do you believe in the supernatural? What I mean is, the prayers/spells/whatever you call them, so you believe they affect the material world in perceptible ways, do they have effects on the world that we can't perceive (like maybe affecting invisible spirits or forces), or are they strictly internal (e.g. bring you inner peace, etc.)?

---

I believe that Supernatural is my very favorite TV show. :tongue:

But seriously, while I do believe in "invisible forces", I don't pray with the intention of affecting the physical world*. Prayer for me as an act of communion, a way for me to focus myself for a specific course of action, or a variety of other kinds of mental wrangling.

* I think this in particular is a difference between me and the average Wiccan, say.

Would it make much difference in your life if you woke up and decided that spirits, etc. were all imaginary constructs, with no existence outside of people's heads? It sounds to me like you've got a nice philosophy with a sidecar of meditation; you don't need any spooks or gods for that.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dangerously Unqualified

Here is a question I've wondered about for a while now, you may be able to answer it or you may not, perhaps it is more of a question for a Wiccan specifically than for a Pagan generally but:

Given the recyclability and reclamation of metals is there any point where a base metal, say copper, becomes so amalgamated with other coppers that it is unusable and unsanctifiable?

i.e. Can I reclaim wire windings from an old motor, smelt them with old pennys and the starter contacts from a 1971 Cutlass, and reforge them into something ceremoniously sanctified like a bowl or dagger or something?

Like I said, it may be more of a specific question for one who practices such things and I don't want to make any assumptions about your practices and rites, but I figured I'd toss it out there anyway.

---

My take on it, as a solo practitioner so pragmatic I often shock the shit out of my more traditional compatriots, I say it's all about your intent. Should you use those metals, regardless of their traditional purity, if your will is sufficiently focused you should be able to bind your tools to your use. Then again, I'll grab whatever's handy if I need it--it's a lens, not the thing itself, y'know?

I was also raised Lutheran and took a detour through the wilds of Jehovah's Witnessland until it became intolerable to me that the Abrahamic religions acknowledge no meaningful female principle and thus by definition must always be unbalanced and not representative of reality on even the most basic level--which then casts all sorts of doubt on their claims of higher moral authority. That pervasive intolerance, hostility, anger, blame and dismissiveness towards women that is the hallmark of the People of the Book is something I can't handle and I don't give a shit how many Christian/Muslim/Jewish apologists try to weasel out of it, their religions disrespect women. I have too much self esteem to worship a god who finds me inferior based on my gender and will not lend my aid and energy to a religious system that does the same.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dangerously Unqualified

i.e. Can I reclaim wire windings from an old motor, smelt them with old pennys and the starter contacts from a 1971 Cutlass, and reforge them into something ceremoniously sanctified like a bowl or dagger or something?

---

I know many Wiccans who would be delighted with such a ritual bowl or dagger; bonus points are given for creative recycling. I know plenty of neopagan Hermetics who would be gaga over them, argue for two weeks if they should be tools of Venus or The Sun, Hermes or Hephaestus, and then place an order for a dozen.

If one doubts their "cleanliness" in an energetic sense, once can leave them under running water or buried in earth for a mooncycle and they'll be considered clean again. Consecrate and an it harm none, do as thou wilt.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Baldwin

Would it make much difference in your life if you woke up and decided that spirits, etc. were all imaginary constructs, with no existence outside of people's heads? It sounds to me like you've got a nice philosophy with a sidecar of meditation; you don't need any spooks or gods for that.

---

Honestly, no, it probably wouldn't make much outward difference. But it's not just something you wake up and decide, you know? Whether or not I need the gods or the "spooks", I believe they are there.

And thanks, WhyNot and SmartAleq, for giving Dangerously Unqualified a proper answer (i.e. one from people who know what they're talking about)!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SmartAleq

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dangerously Unqualified

Here is a question I've wondered about for a while now, you may be able to answer it or you may not, perhaps it is more of a question for a Wiccan specifically than for a Pagan generally but:

Given the recyclability and reclamation of metals is there any point where a base metal, say copper, becomes so amalgamated with other coppers that it is unusable and unsanctifiable?

i.e. Can I reclaim wire windings from an old motor, smelt them with old pennys and the starter contacts from a 1971 Cutlass, and reforge them into something ceremoniously sanctified like a bowl or dagger or something?

Like I said, it may be more of a specific question for one who practices such things and I don't want to make any assumptions about your practices and rites, but I figured I'd toss it out there anyway.

---

My take on it, as a solo practitioner so pragmatic I often shock the shit out of my more traditional compatriots, I say it's all about your intent. Should you use those metals, regardless of their traditional purity, if your will is sufficiently focused you should be able to bind your tools to your use. Then again, I'll grab whatever's handy if I need it--it's a lens, not the thing itself, y'know?

I was also raised Lutheran and took a detour through the wilds of Jehovah's Witnessland until it became intolerable to me that the Abrahamic religions acknowledge no meaningful female principle and thus by definition must always be unbalanced and not representative of reality on even the most basic level--which then casts all sorts of doubt on their claims of higher moral authority. That pervasive intolerance, hostility, anger, blame and dismissiveness towards women that is the hallmark of the People of the Book is something I can't handle and I don't give a shit how many Christian/Muslim/Jewish apologists try to weasel out of it, their religions disrespect women. I have too much self esteem to worship a god who finds me inferior based on my gender and will not lend my aid and energy to a religious system that does the same.

---

But what if it turns out they're right; what if the God of Abraham exists, and whatever god/gods/thing you worship doesn't?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Baldwin

But what if it turns out they're right; what if the God of Abraham exists, and whatever god/gods/thing you worship doesn't?

---

You mean a variant on Pascal's Wager? There are problems with that, too - if you pick the wrong version of worship of the God of Abraham, you may well be out of luck.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ferret Herder

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Baldwin

But what if it turns out they're right; what if the God of Abraham exists, and whatever god/gods/thing you worship doesn't?

---

You mean a variant on Pascal's Wager? There are problems with that, too - if you pick the wrong version of worship of the God of Abraham, you may well be out of luck.

---

Not exactly; I guess I'm thinking that, if one is to pick a religion, the choice should be based on whether you think it reflects how the universe works in reality, not on whether it makes you feel good. My ex-wife has done that; she's gone back to Catholicism, even though its picture of the universe displeases her; somehow her insane brain has decided that it describes reality, so there she is.

ETA: Orual, my apologies; didn't intend to hijack your thread.

I do have another question: Have you ever gotten a really negative or bigoted reaction from somebody, based on your beliefs or practices?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Baldwin

I do have another question: Have you ever gotten a really negative or bigoted reaction from somebody, based on your beliefs or practices?

---

No, not really. This is probably due to the fact that I mostly keep it to myself. Religion isn't something I jump to in casual conversation or with casual acquaintances.

I wear a pendant that incorporates a pentacle in the design. I've never gotten more than a passing comment on it. I've also spent the bulk of my adult life living in big, liberal cities (Boston and San Francisco). That's also a factor.

A former mentor turned enemy who died of terminal stupidity in his early 30's once described the "gods" as follows;

Imagine the Collective Unconscious of the Human Race as something of a huge computer network like the Internet. The gods are like independent programs operating in that network, free to move from one computer to another (one person to another) and in a large number of people at once, where they exist by sharing (using, "feeding off" if you're feeling particularly non-charitable) the mental resources of each individual in much the same way an independent non-centralized program operating over the internet could do.

In other words, they don't "exist" in the physical sense. They exist only within the Collective Unconscious - a mental construct existing independently in the unconscious mental network of Humanity - but able to access, enter or influence any person in that network.

Now, you can argue all you want as to whether or not such a thing exists, and I'm not interested in hijacking this thread to argue it. I'm merely mentioning one person's opinion on the subject.

Or a similar way of looking at it, god could be like a universal hard drive, capable of storing every emotion, experience, and manifestation of reality/consciousness within it, and humanity is either the pinnacle of its 'database providers', or a work still in progress.

Maybe if we all managed to think/feel the same way about something, and finally found our common ground, the program would shut down, and everything would wink out of existence, and another cosmic experiment would begin?

Although, at our current rate, finding 'common ground' doesn't look like occurring anytime soon.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Baldwin

But what if it turns out they're right; what if the God of Abraham exists, and whatever god/gods/thing you worship doesn't?

---

What kind of convictions would mine be if I were to throw them over and embrace a philosophy I found to be morally abhorrent just to save my skin? Therefore it makes no difference, those religions are not and never will be right FOR ME, regardless of where they stand in the actual cosmological truth sweepstakes. I will not lend them my approval, my energy or my goodwill regardless of my personal consequences.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SmartAleq

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Baldwin

But what if it turns out they're right; what if the God of Abraham exists, and whatever god/gods/thing you worship doesn't?

---

What kind of convictions would mine be if I were to throw them over and embrace a philosophy I found to be morally abhorrent just to save my skin? Therefore it makes no difference, those religions are not and never will be right FOR ME, regardless of where they stand in the actual cosmological truth sweepstakes. I will not lend them my approval, my energy or my goodwill regardless of my personal consequences.

---

I'm not talking about philosophy, just facts. If it were somehow proven that Yahweh existed, I still wouldn't worship him, but I'd have to acknowledge the facts. Maybe the key for a lot of religious people is an ability to believe in what pleases them, regardless of contraindicatory facts. (Though as noted, my ex-wife has exchanged an irrational belief that pleased her for a different irrational belief that she's not as happy with. She's kind of backsliding, though, at least as far as being a cafeteria Catholic.)

Well, for all of that, I'd say that if there were factual, empirical evidence of Yahweh's existence then I'd just say "cool, that means it's more likely than not that ALL the gods exist," but it still wouldn't change my point of view, my habits or my religion. God of Abraham is a dick and I already have enough obnoxious pricks in my life, thanks.

That's a good point. All that proof of the big bearded dude would mean is that one (or more) of three very specific religions may be partially correct. There's still a whole lot of doubt there, and by itself it says nothing about any other religion (except as to their exclusivity).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ulfhjorr

There's still a whole lot of doubt there, and by itself it says nothing about any other religion (except as to their exclusivity).

---

And when there's nothing in your religion about exclusivity to begin with, it all becomes kind of "eh".

Anyone have any other paganism related questions? Or should we continue with the theological thought-experiments*?



*It turns out, after death, your soul is devoured by the Great Cthulu. What do you do. What do you do?

Okay.

Paganism? Meh! What's in it for me? Would I be right in thinking it is more like an appreciation of your natural surroundings, than a code of conduct to live your life by?

My judgement of a religion would always favour the most simplified expression of its meaning; the more morals, proselytising and historical justification of its existence, the more corrupted by human influence it would be.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ivan astikov

Paganism? Meh! What's in it for me?

---

If you order within the next 30 minutes, we'll send you Paganism, the Apostasy attachment, and two kegs of 80-proof Witches' Brew. And a ShamWow!

Seriously though, my intention here is merely to explain myself, not to convince other people to think the way I do. I am not a fan of proselytizing either.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ivan astikov

Would I be right in thinking it is more like an appreciation of your natural surroundings, than a code of conduct to live your life by?

---

It's closer to the former than the latter certainly. That doesn't mean I don't have a moral code of conduct. I think ethical behavior is a worthwhile pursuit in and of itself; which for me, boils down to being honest and trustworthy, and treating others with consideration and respect. Which is more than enough of a challenge.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ivan astikov

Okay.

Paganism? Meh! What's in it for me? Would I be right in thinking it is more like an appreciation of your natural surroundings, than a code of conduct to live your life by?

My judgement of a religion would always favour the most simplified expression of its meaning; the more morals, proselytising and historical justification of its existence, the more corrupted by human influence it would be.

---

It's all about balance. We look to the natural world to see the myriad examples of how systems balance each other and how each tiny part does its bit to make the whole work. We see how lack of balance leads to stress and unhappiness and damage and evil. We acknowledge that every light has to have its dark, every good its bad, every health its illness, every female its male. We strive to bring ourselves into balance with our own natures and those around us, and we use our wills to influence our surroundings into greater harmony. Sometimes we intentionally create disharmony in order to bring greater balance in the long run. Nature is our teacher, not our god.

And on top of all that, your 'churches' are forest glades and other natural beauty spots.

It sounds like there are a lot of Far Eastern 'Earth worship' type ideas involved in paganism. Does it have any parallels with the ideas of feng shui and that sort of 'oneness with nature' kind of a philosophy?

If there's anything valuable or useful about religion in the first place, isn't it that it encourages people to rise a little bit above themselves, treat other people well, be part of a community, and so forth? A religion that is essentially based around "believing in" whatever is momentarily appealing to each adherent would seem to be incompatible with the virtues that people see in real religions, since there's really no aspect of challenging oneself by adhering to a system of ethics that may require effort to hold to, or by engaging in fasting or other tough but (supposedly) fulfilling shows of devotion.

Also, does it ever seem disrespectful to take the religious beliefs of other people -- deities that they actually did believe existed, or ceremonies that they really did think were necessary, or whatever -- and sort of process it all through your own preexisting values and cultural biases into one homogeneous mass whose parts don't even really resemble those of the religious traditions they were co-opted from?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ivan astikov

It sounds like there are a lot of Far Eastern 'Earth worship' type ideas involved in paganism. Does it have any parallels with the ideas of feng shui and that sort of 'oneness with nature' kind of a philosophy?

---

Feng shui has nothing to do with "earth worship".

Mind if I butt in again? Excalibur always asks such good questions, I can't resist!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibur

If there's anything valuable or useful about religion in the first place, isn't it that it encourages people to rise a little bit above themselves, treat other people well, be part of a community, and so forth?

---

No, I don't think so. I think that's a particularly Christian Protestant view of religion. I think people can and should do that quite well, perhaps better, without religion.

My religion is all for me. It's about giving myself the time, space and permission to explore, to relax, to feel good and bad in turn. It gives me a framework for understanding myself, the natural world, and the rhythms and tides of humanity and the universe. When I examine them, I see how the one relates to the other, and the cycles of a day, a year, a lifetime and a civilization are all so very similar, only the scale differs. What use is that? Well, one, I just find it neato. But two, it gives me a clue of when "this too, shall pass" and when, "aw, HELLS NO!" are each appropriate reactions. If something doesn't fit the cycle, it may be considered out of balance and worth extra care or examination.

Quote:

---

Also, does it ever seem disrespectful to take the religious beliefs of other people -- deities that they actually did believe existed, or ceremonies that they really did think were necessary, or whatever -- and sort of process it all through your own preexisting values and cultural biases into one homogeneous mass whose parts don't even really resemble those of the religious traditions they were co-opted from?

---

Good question! Yes, it does sometimes. I used to write and perform a lot of group ritual work, and it's something I was always aware of. I have two thoughts to share on that topic: one is that most ritual elements are uncopyrightable. I don't mean that in just a legalistic sense, I mean that, in a historical sense, it's almost always impossible to find out who did anything first, or why. Most of what I'm stealing was previously stolen, and will probably be "stolen" by people at my circles in turn. At some point, I think it becomes public domain, in both the legal and spiritual sense. Because of this, I don't think anyone has a right to exclusive use of spiritual materials, ideas or deities. I believe that anyone who can make use of them should, and anyone who I deem unworthy won't find them useful, anyhow. I'm not a fan of occultism in the sense of hiding stuff, although I do honor my vows and don't share things I learned under vows of secrecy.

Secondly, I think that bells and whistles and tales change over time as the needs of the tellers change. When I was young, the story of Persephone was that she was kidnapped and raped by Hades, and later tricked into eating the seeds of the pomegranate, sealing her fate to reside, unwilling, in the underworld, for 3 or 6 months out of the year. In the past 10 years, the story's changed. Every time I've heard it, from different storytellers to different circles, Persephone is seduced by Hades, chooses to go to the Underworld with him, shares a pomegranate with him, and doesn't want to leave until Demeter forces the Gods to demand it lest the Earth be cursed and barren. It's an entirely different story, with the same names and general plot. Something in us, right now, needs a story of a powerful young woman escaping the domineering mother, or perhaps the story of a mother learning to let go of her daughter, instead of a young powerless woman subjugated by a man. So are we co-opting the story? Are we twisting it and making it false? Or are we using familiar archetypes to speak to our current Truth? I haven't entirely decided, to be honest, but I think it's something worth pondering.

Excalibur, I will answer your questions, I just need get caught up at work first.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Orual

Excalibur, I will answer your questions, I just need get caught up at work first.

---

Okay, but don't feel you have to, I wasn't really expecting a serious response.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibur

Also, does it ever seem disrespectful to take the religious beliefs of other people -- deities that they actually did believe existed, or ceremonies that they really did think were necessary, or whatever -- and sort of process it all through your own preexisting values and cultural biases into one homogeneous mass whose parts don't even really resemble those of the religious traditions they were co-opted from?

---

A good point. I wonder if the Christians will now come to the defense of their faith...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibur

Also, does it ever seem disrespectful to take the religious beliefs of other people -- deities that they actually did believe existed, or ceremonies that they really did think were necessary, or whatever -- and sort of process it all through your own preexisting values and cultural biases into one homogeneous mass whose parts don't even really resemble those of the religious traditions they were co-opted from?

---

Perhaps this might be the crucial dividing line between Christians and pagans--is it the function of the person to serve the religion or the religion to serve the person? No sensible pagan would argue against the point that every experience, every insight, every point of view is necessarily colored by individual experience and bias such that there is NO One True Way, only many true ways, as many as there are people and each person may have a variety of possible true ways available to her along with a myriad of false ones as well. The crucial lesson pagans take from the example of nature is that everything is infinitely mutable, changeable and unique while the whole remains pretty much unaltered by the teeming multiplicity it incorporates. No need to go to war over ideology--why would it threaten me that you worship differently? Even the high priest and priestess of the same coven will STILL be worshipping differently from each other even as they chant in unison, if only because one is representing the female principle and one the male.

That flexibility of view, lack of dogmatic insistence on rituals that don't sing for us and the the willingness to value the diversity other individuals bring to the table rather than seeing it as a challenge or a devaluing is not a weakness but a strength.

I guess pagans attend a self-taught individual studies program whereas Christians have to study for the final and might run afoul of a proctor having a bad day. :tongue:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SmartAleq

NO One True Way

---

Right, but if it's all whatever you personally find appealing, doesn't that pretty necessarily mean none of it is actually real?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibur

If there's anything valuable or useful about religion in the first place, isn't it that it encourages people to rise a little bit above themselves, treat other people well, be part of a community, and so forth? A religion that is essentially based around "believing in" whatever is momentarily appealing to each adherent would seem to be incompatible with the virtues that people see in real religions, since there's really no aspect of challenging oneself by adhering to a system of ethics that may require effort to hold to, or by engaging in fasting or other tough but (supposedly) fulfilling shows of devotion.

---

To be perfectly honest, I think it would be better for everyone if the tie between ethics/morality and religious could be severed all together. Tying the idea of what makes a good person to holding a particular set of beliefs about the divine has led to all manner of unpleasantness in the world.

Being “a part of a community” has never been a requirement of any faith I know of: all religions have their hermits. The folk who prefer to pray in closets, as it were.

I don’t think I am “believing in” whatever is “momentarily appealing”, though I’m not sure there’s any way to convince you of that. My essential beliefs haven’t changed in nearly a decade, longer for my core moral values. My ethics do require effort on my part, and as far as religious practices are concerned, meditation is quite a challenge for me – I’m not very good at focusing or quieting down my brain.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibur

Also, does it ever seem disrespectful to take the religious beliefs of other people -- deities that they actually did believe existed, or ceremonies that they really did think were necessary, or whatever -- and sort of process it all through your own preexisting values and cultural biases into one homogeneous mass whose parts don't even really resemble those of the religious traditions they were co-opted from?

---

Again you are asserting that I somehow don’t “actually” believe in deities, despite the fact that I have said that I do. But as for the question: no. Every single person on earth processes everything they experience through their own values and cultural biases. It’s part of being human. The people of the ancient world had no problem at all co-opting deities from each other: the Greeks, the Romans, and the Celts all did it. Heck, Jesus is considered a bodhisattva by some people.

It’s incredibly difficult not to filter pagan beliefs through modern thought. For the most part, we don’t even know really what the ancient practices were, really. There are reconstructionists, groups who try to keep their practices as much in line with the ancient ones as possible, but in many ways it’s not possible. How do you recreate the way religion was intrinsic to all aspects of private and public life in a time and place like ancient Greece? (And I’ve never yet heard of the Hellenic Reconstructionists sacrificing a hecatomb to Zeus. Can you imagine how much that would cost?)

The bottom line is: we’re human. Our brains are not identical. Therefore, it follows that our perceptions of the world will not be identical.

I’m going to steal an analogy from Christopher Moore (from Lamb, a wonderful book about Jesus learning kung fu, yoga, and how to make cappuccinos). He used it do describe parables, but I’m going to use it for religions in general: when you point something out to a cat, the cat doesn’t look at what you’re pointing at; it looks at your hand. As far as I’m concerned, humanity is a bunch of cats, looking at a bunch of different hands, all pointing at the same spot.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibur

Okay, but don't feel you have to, I wasn't really expecting a serious response.

---

Well, apparently you hit on a couple of points that made people chatty. Oops.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibur

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SmartAleq

NO One True Way

---

Right, but if it's all whatever you personally find appealing, doesn't that pretty necessarily mean none of it is actually real?

---

No. It means that everybody's got it a little bit wrong. But everybody's got it a bit right too. The world isn't only made up of binary opposites.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ivan astikov

Does it have any parallels with the ideas of feng shui and that sort of 'oneness with nature' kind of a philosophy?

---

All I know about feng shui is that it's a way to charge twice as much for interior decorating. I'm afraid I'm not very up on Chinese religions.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Orual

All I know about feng shui is that it's a way to charge twice as much for interior decorating. I'm afraid I'm not very up on Chinese religions.

---

Someone once described the development of feng shui to me as some dude a couple thousand years ago in China who said, "Gee, I wonder what would happen if we stopped storing the dead bodies in the drinking water?" and then got a little overexcited about the results. :tongue:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibur

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SmartAleq

NO One True Way

---

Right, but if it's all whatever you personally find appealing, doesn't that pretty necessarily mean none of it is actually real?

---

Well, really, what difference does it make? What is real and who decides? I'm pretty sure YOU think you're real, but from my perspective you could be a bot or a fairly chatty Turing mod, so which of us is right about you? Answer--both of us are, and probably neither of us are in the cosmic scheme of things. Do I need validation from anyone else that my choice of path is right or wrong? Nope, because I was born alone and I'll die alone and in between I have to make my own path, step by step. Can I learn from others and value their input? Yes, but it's always my final decision as to what happens with my life and nobody else can ever take that cup from me, nor would I want anyone else deciding my path. I don't need anyone else to agree with me, my own personal universe has its own gods and forces that are no doubt totally different from yours, and that's cool as long as you don't try to fuck about in my universe using the rules unique to yours--it won't work and it'll just piss me off.

Also, I wouldn't assume I find everything about my path appealing--quite a lot of it is hard and something I'd rather not do, but I do it because it's RIGHT to do so regardless of my personal liking for my tasks and obligations.

SmartAleq, your post inspired a spin-off thread, if you'd care to join me...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WhyNot

Someone once described the development of feng shui to me as some dude a couple thousand years ago in China who said, "Gee, I wonder what would happen if we stopped storing the dead bodies in the drinking water?" and then got a little overexcited about the results. :tongue:

---

There's some other thread around here or maybe at GiBo or somewhere where someone makes a point that for whatever reason, nowadays we find it extremely appealing to try to come up with rational purposes for various (ancient or non-western) cultural practices like feng shui or, say, the Kosher law, but that these explanations usually don't really generally hold much water and involve a lot of twisting things around to justify them.

My general opinion feng shui (which was originally a lot less oriented around interior decorating and a lot more about building locations) has no rational purpose like hygiene or even aesthetically pleasing decoration. I think it's a mistake to try to understand practices like feng shui by justifying them according to our own values.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SmartAleq

Well, really, what difference does it make? What is real and who decides? I'm pretty sure YOU think you're real, but from my perspective you could be a bot or a fairly chatty Turing mod, so which of us is right about you? Answer--both of us are, and probably neither of us are in the cosmic scheme of things.

---

Well, no. That's not what "real" means. If you reject objective reality, I guess I have no way to convince you otherwise, and I guess there's no reason to try to conform your understanding of the world to the real world if there is no real world. But, since I don't, I can comfortably say that I'm not a computer program, and if anyone says otherwise they are wrong. And if someone does say that, and I deny it, we can't both be right or "sort of" right. There's an actual world out there, and while it's true that we perceive it in a limited way, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that we can't figure out a lot of things about it.

Is that it? I mean, I guess there's not really any reason to try to figure out if you're actually praying or worshiping or performing ceremonies for a real deity if you don't believe in the notion of objective reality. Is that really the case? Because as far as I can see, we can't all be right about religion. Both Christianity and Islam, for instance, prescribe their faith universally (in contrast with, say, Judaism, or Hinduism, which don't place any importance on converting outsiders.) Christianity and Islam say different things about the world; they make different claims about history; they involve different laws. It's simply not possible for a Christian and a Muslim to both be right. They could well both be wrong, but they just can't both be right, because their believes are mutually contradictory.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SmartAleq

Also, I wouldn't assume I find everything about my path appealing--quite a lot of it is hard and something I'd rather not do, but I do it because it's RIGHT to do so regardless of my personal liking for my tasks and obligations.

---

You made up a religion that is unappealing to you? Why in the world would you do that?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibur

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SmartAleq

Also, I wouldn't assume I find everything about my path appealing--quite a lot of it is hard and something I'd rather not do, but I do it because it's RIGHT to do so regardless of my personal liking for my tasks and obligations.

---

You made up a religion that is unappealing to you? Why in the world would you do that?

---

Y'know what dude? I've been responding to you in good faith, but you're getting right up on the tight, close border of insulting--perhaps you might want to step back a bit in order to keep this a civil discussion?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SmartAleq

Y'know what dude? I've been responding to you in good faith, but you're getting right up on the tight, close border of insulting--perhaps you might want to step back a bit in order to keep this a civil discussion?

---

Sorry, but it's hard to come up with an interpretation of your words here which I, at least, can really take seriously. I mean, would it be better if I humored you?

If your religious beliefs are different from other people's -- which, as far as I can tell, is true of most or all neopagans -- then what are the possibilities? One is that you personally received a revelation; you are more intimately aware with the divine than other people. Obviously I would be skeptical of anyone who claimed to have experienced a divine revelation, but it's certainly conceivable. God could come to me in a dream or a burning bush or whatever and tell me I have to eat a pound of Lima beans every day, and I certainly wouldn't enjoy that.

But if you are not somehow uniquely aware of the nature and desires of God/the Gods/whatever, then why would there be any need to impose upon yourself some obligation that you don't enjoy? If you believe your Gods don't really care what exact religious obligations you undertake, why would you undertake something unpleasant? I'm not about to start eating a pound of Lima beans a day to make Vishnu happy if I have no reason to think it'll make Vishnu any happier.

What other explanation is there? As far as I can tell you don't believe you understand the Gods' will for us better than the rest of us (leaving you uniquely aware of some holy obligation that you don't enjoy). The Gods just don't really care whether or not you keep Kosher/fast on Fridays/wear a hair shirt/whatever, right? Because they're not necessarily unhappy at me for not doing it, are they? In which case, what's in it for you to do it? Or have your Gods kindly left me alone, while picking unlucky you out for some special, unpleasant mission?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibur

I mean, I guess there's not really any reason to try to figure out if you're actually praying or worshiping or performing ceremonies for a real deity if you don't believe in the notion of objective reality. Is that really the case? Because as far as I can see, we can't all be right about religion. Both Christianity and Islam, for instance, prescribe their faith universally (in contrast with, say, Judaism, or Hinduism, which don't place any importance on converting outsiders.) Christianity and Islam say different things about the world; they make different claims about history; they involve different laws. It's simply not possible for a Christian and a Muslim to both be right. They could well both be wrong, but they just can't both be right, because their believes are mutually contradictory.

---

Not all Christians claim theirs is the exclusive truth, not even all Christians claim their religion is the best for everyone. Ditto for Muslims. So if you ignore the fact that some folks claim their religion is *exclusively* right and the *only* way (because that's a different argument), then...

Why can't they all be right? I can give you a half-dozen different sets of directions to my house from a given location. Some of them are mutually contradictory. Nonetheless, they are all "right" and will get you there, several of them are even equally efficient. Some are better for cars, others for bikes/pedestrians; some are faster, others are more pleasant; one way may be more efficient this trip due to other stops, another may be better on a different trip. Which one is the right one?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by redtail

Not all Christians claim theirs is the exclusive truth, not even all Christians claim their religion is the best for everyone. Ditto for Muslims. So if you ignore the fact that some folks claim their religion is *exclusively* right and the *only* way (because that's a different argument), then...

---

Normative Christian and Muslim belief certainly do. And I think any honest reading of either the Bible or the Qur'an pretty much requires the reader to acknowledge that the books at least are making that claim. "There is no God but God, and Mohammed is his prophet", "No one comes to the father except through me", etc. etc. etc. I have no doubt that there are some Christians and Muslims who don't hold to those believes but that would be a pretty heterodox belief.

Quote:

---

Why can't they all be right? I can give you a half-dozen different sets of directions to my house from a given location. Some of them are mutually contradictory. Nonetheless, they are all "right" and will get you there, several of them are even equally efficient. Some are better for cars, others for bikes/pedestrians; some are faster, others are more pleasant; one way may be more efficient this trip due to other stops, another may be better on a different trip. Which one is the right one?

---

If you claimed one day that driving up Elm and turning left on Oak was the only possible way to get to Aunt Maggie's house, and if your wife said that driving down Walnut Street and cutting through the school parking lot to get to Maple Avenue was the only possible way to get there, one of you would by necessity have to be wrong.

Likewise, if I say that God is gigantic talking deer that lives in Muncie and will send anyone to hell who doesn't worship his prophet, The Fonz, and you say there is no God at all, at least one of us simply has to be wrong. Not all religions are mutually incompatible, of course, but some of them clearly are. It's just not logically possible to say that we're all equally right. It may give you a nice warm feeling to do so, but that doesn't make it accurate.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibur

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SmartAleq

Y'know what dude? I've been responding to you in good faith, but you're getting right up on the tight, close border of insulting--perhaps you might want to step back a bit in order to keep this a civil discussion?

---

Sorry, but it's hard to come up with an interpretation of your words here which I, at least, can really take seriously. I mean, would it be better if I humored you?

If your religious beliefs are different from other people's -- which, as far as I can tell, is true of most or all neopagans -- then what are the possibilities? One is that you personally received a revelation; you are more intimately aware with the divine than other people. Obviously I would be skeptical of anyone who claimed to have experienced a divine revelation, but it's certainly conceivable. God could come to me in a dream or a burning bush or whatever and tell me I have to eat a pound of Lima beans every day, and I certainly wouldn't enjoy that.

But if you are not somehow uniquely aware of the nature and desires of God/the Gods/whatever, then why would there be any need to impose upon yourself some obligation that you don't enjoy? If you believe your Gods don't really care what exact religious obligations you undertake, why would you undertake something unpleasant? I'm not about to start eating a pound of Lima beans a day to make Vishnu happy if I have no reason to think it'll make Vishnu any happier.

What other explanation is there? As far as I can tell you don't believe you understand the Gods' will for us better than the rest of us (leaving you uniquely aware of some holy obligation that you don't enjoy). The Gods just don't really care whether or not you keep Kosher/fast on Fridays/wear a hair shirt/whatever, right? Because they're not necessarily unhappy at me for not doing it, are they? In which case, what's in it for you to do it? Or have your Gods kindly left me alone, while picking unlucky you out for some special, unpleasant mission?

---

You don't need to humor me, just don't be insulting is all I ask. As for gods, it's pretty clear you see gods as being outside yourself, something entirely separate from yourself. Me, not so much. I'm a part of everything, including whatever odd twists in the continuum we choose to see as gods for a time. In a very real sense, I AM my own god, and I choose sometimes to personify that godhead as something outside myself, especially if it's something I have a hard time dealing with. Sometimes I make small perverse gods of misfortune up on the spot, the better to categorize and deal with the problem they represent. Somebody else maybe doesn't do that, is maybe more comfortable with all gods being much bigger and more unknowable than themselves--if that helps them visualize and process, who am I to say they're wrong?

As for understanding the will of the gods, well, yes I guess I am more in touch with what my own gods want--much less so for your gods because they don't speak to me. Why do I do things I find unpleasant? Because they are necessary. Raising children is hard, and when they misbehave it would be easy and quite satisfying to hit them until they stop--but also quite wrong in the larger sense, more damaging to the world than taking the hard road of educating and being patient. My sense of balance and rightness leads me on difficult paths sometimes, paths I'd rather not walk down because to do so will be personally painful, but I do it anyway because I see that the good that will come from my discomfort is much greater and more worthy. An amoeba can recoil from unpleasant stimulus, but it takes a conscious, thinking being to embrace pain in order to do a greater good. Somebody has to jump on those grenades, y'know, and I don't trust most people to do it so if it comes my way, it's my task to do no matter whether I like it or not. Sure, I could duck out and please myself and be a pusillanimous little wretch like the majority of people, but to do so would be a betrayal of myself and I choose not to do so. I don't necessarily look down on the free floating amoeba people, but I don't trust them with anything important, either.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibur

Normative Christian and Muslim belief certainly do. And I think any honest reading of either the Bible or the Qur'an pretty much requires the reader to acknowledge that the books at least are making that claim. "There is no God but God, and Mohammed is his prophet", "No one comes to the father except through me", etc. etc. etc. I have no doubt that there are some Christians and Muslims who don't hold to those believes but that would be a pretty heterodox belief.

---

The Hebrew Torah aka The Old Testament makes pretty clear that there ARE other gods, but that the Jews are not to worship them. It doesn't claim that *everyone* should be worshiping YHVH. Belief in the Torah is one of the fundamental tenets of Islam, and is pretty basic to normative Christianity. So which piece is correct: that there is only one god, or that there are many?

Quote:

---

If you claimed one day that driving up Elm and turning left on Oak was the only possible way to get to Aunt Maggie's house, and if your wife said that driving down Walnut Street and cutting through the school parking lot to get to Maple Avenue was the only possible way to get there, one of you would by necessity have to be wrong.

---

True, but pagans aren't claiming such a thing. They're the ones saying that there are multiple paths, and yet you seem to have a problem with that idea. Perhaps my wife and I are mistaken in one thing we believe (that there's only one way to get to Auntie's), but that doesn't mean that Aunt Maggie's house is imaginary, does it?

Quote:

---

Likewise, if I say that God is gigantic talking deer that lives in Muncie and will send anyone to hell who doesn't worship his prophet, The Fonz, and you say there is no God at all, at least one of us simply has to be wrong. Not all religions are mutually incompatible, of course, but some of them clearly are. It's just not logically possible to say that we're all equally right. It may give you a nice warm feeling to do so, but that doesn't make it accurate.

---

I'd say that's the problem of those who claim their religion to be the only, exclusive, sole TRUTH, which generally doesn't apply to pagans.

Somehow you're making a jump from "some religions/believers claim exclusive truth" to "which means that any other religions are just made up" with no real intermediate steps. That's a pretty big leap and I'm not buying your logic.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by redtail

The Hebrew Torah aka The Old Testament makes pretty clear that there ARE other gods, but that the Jews are not to worship them. It doesn't claim that *everyone* should be worshiping YHVH. Belief in the Torah is one of the fundamental tenets of Islam, and is pretty basic to normative Christianity. So which piece is correct: that there is only one god, or that there are many?

Quote:

---

If you claimed one day that driving up Elm and turning left on Oak was the only possible way to get to Aunt Maggie's house, and if your wife said that driving down Walnut Street and cutting through the school parking lot to get to Maple Avenue was the only possible way to get there, one of you would by necessity have to be wrong.

---

True, but pagans aren't claiming such a thing. They're the ones saying that there are multiple paths, and yet you seem to have a problem with that idea.

---

I am not questioning the fact that neopagans frequently argue that "multiple paths" exist. I don't understand why you would claim that I denied that. That doesn't even make sense within the context of what I was saying.

The difficulty is that many of the "paths" out there are mutually incompatible. You can come up with confused excuses why they're not that might be satisfactory for you all you like. It's still the case that the Christian bible and the Qur'an (along with, of course, the beliefs of mainstream Christians and Muslims) are clearly mutually contradictory -- quite a striking fact when you consider how closely related those two religions are.

Quote:

---

Perhaps my wife and I are mistaken in one thing we believe (that there's only one way to get to Auntie's), but that doesn't mean that Aunt Maggie's house is imaginary, does it?

---

:???:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by redtail

Quote:

---

Likewise, if I say that God is gigantic talking deer that lives in Muncie and will send anyone to hell who doesn't worship his prophet, The Fonz, and you say there is no God at all, at least one of us simply has to be wrong. Not all religions are mutually incompatible, of course, but some of them clearly are. It's just not logically possible to say that we're all equally right. It may give you a nice warm feeling to do so, but that doesn't make it accurate.

---

I'd say that's the problem of those who claim their religion to be the only, exclusive, sole TRUTH, which generally doesn't apply to pagans.

Somehow you're making a jump from "some religions/believers claim exclusive truth" to "which means that any other religions are just made up" with no real intermediate steps. That's a pretty big leap and I'm not buying your logic.

---

I can't even follow you anymore. I think the points I was making were pretty clear; I don't know how to try to explain them again in a way you will understand.

I can't begin to unravel all of this, so forgive me if I'm being simplistic. But are you all bumping up against Pascal's Wager?

Smartaleq seems to be saying that their actions reflect on them regardless of a deity. Doing the Right Thing is what's most important.

Redtail seems to be saying that the world is multi-theistic and that this isn't a bad thing since their God allows for the multiple paths as long as you do the Right Thing.

Excalibur seems to be saying that there is hypocracy in theism and (s)he doesn't understand the position because the doctrines are inconsistent.

I'm not taking a position here, just wondering if I have this right. Do I?

I believe redtail is positing that the general path of Christianity (10 Commandments, faith in Jesus) may indeed be a way to spiritual enlightenment/salvation, while some of their details (don't wear cotton/poly blends, stone the adulterers, "only come to the Kingdom through Me") might be in error. And the one that you're harping on, in particular, is widely believed to be ambiguous; YHVH clearly, at one point, says that there are other gods, but his followers should not put Them before Him. I'm okay with that; since I'm not his follower, and as far as I know am not descended from Abraham, it clearly doesn't apply to me. There's the religion at the center, and then there's the stuff for social/political control that man added on to it; the one may be a valid path without everything of the later being correct. That's what I believe, anyway, whether it's what redtail believes or no.

I dig Jesus. He really is allright with me. I just don't think all of His followers took very good notes during his lectures. In particular, I don't think their Way is the only Way. (And there's some stuff about women in there I can't quite get behind, either.)

I come to this discussion at a particularly apropos time, as my philosophy discussion groups have been engaging on the topics of god conceptions, humanism in theism and satanism, and the role and experience of faith, worship and spirituality in one's life. Being an atheist, there are certain aspects of spirituality and religion which are not necessarily beyond my intellectual grasp, and yet of which I seem incapable of personally experiencing. I am thinking primarily of the spiritual experience and the motivation to worship. As a pagan, do you worship? And if so, what is your personal experience of this -- how would you describe this experience in secular terms?

I have wondered if my experience of a scientific epiphany might be psychologically equivalent to a spiritual revelation. Are such revelations important to you, or even considered a component of your paganism? Off hand I'd imagine so, with the significance placed upon Nature. (At the end of the day, I will probably always go home to epistemic agnosticism, though I am perfectly willing to entertain religious and spiritual ideas, and I hold out the possibility that one day I could discover good personal reasons for having (a) faith. But for the time being I find myself thoroughly satisfied with scientific investigation and naturalism. Supernatural concepts strike me as being metaphysically dishonest.)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Orual

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NAF1138

What exactly do you believe? Assume I know nothing at all about paganism, it's probably a safe assumption.

---

I believe there is a divine/spiritual aspect to existence. I believe that this aspect can express itself in many ways, sometimes with personalities.

I believe that the purpose of such personalities (i.e. deities) is to assist people in improving or understanding their relationship with the world around them, or with other people.

For me, it is much easier to feel a connection with the divine out in nature. Particularly forests.

---

Would it be accurate to characterize your beliefs in deities as beliefs in the ability of something universal and divine to express itself through various avatars? In this sense, I am reminded particularly of the Christain trinity.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WhyNot

I believe redtail is positing that the general path of Christianity (10 Commandments, faith in Jesus) may indeed be a way to spiritual enlightenment/salvation, while some of their details (don't wear cotton/poly blends, stone the adulterers, "only come to the Kingdom through Me") might be in error. And the one that you're harping on, in particular, is widely believed to be ambiguous; YHVH clearly, at one point, says that there are other gods, but his followers should not put Them before Him. I'm okay with that; since I'm not his follower, and as far as I know am not descended from Abraham, it clearly doesn't apply to me. There's the religion at the center, and then there's the stuff for social/political control that man added on to it; the one may be a valid path without everything of the later being correct. That's what I believe, anyway, whether it's what redtail believes or no.

I dig Jesus. He really is allright with me. I just don't think all of His followers took very good notes during his lectures. In particular, I don't think their Way is the only Way. (And there's some stuff about women in there I can't quite get behind, either.)

---

I'm not denying that at least parts of the Old Testament were written by henotheists and presuppose a henotheistic worldview. And there's no implication in the Jewish scripture that the religion is meant to be universal.

None of that is true of the New Testament, however.

Dammit, I hate when I spend forever writing a post and then y'all just pass me by. Stop that! :tongue:

Clarification, I am not a pagan nor do I play one on television. I've known a few, but I don't claim to be any kind of expert. This is just intellectual for me; I happen to find religion a fascinating subject.

What I find disturbing about Excalibur's posts is twofold. First, the casual dismissal of certain religions as "made up" (and snarky opinions about those religions and the adherents thereof) while other religions are "real". That's pretty rude, IMO. Unless Excalibur is claiming his own personal divine revelation, I don't see where he's got any more "objective reality" to his beliefs than, say, Orual does. Second, Excalibur seems to accept the idea of multiple valid paths for "real" religions such as Hinduism, while making snotty comments about the very same concept in neo-pagan religions. That's quite the double standard.

For some reason, Excalibur seems to believe that because some religions (e.g., Christianity & Islam) have some adherents and/or tenets that claim exclusivity, then somehow that should cause a problem for certain other religions (e.g., neopaganism) that don't claim such a thing. It's like arguing with a Shi'a Muslim and insisting that he must believe that Abu Bakr was the rightful caliph because the Pope said Jesus is Lord. It's just silly.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibur

Quote:

---

Originally posted by redtail

Perhaps my wife and I are mistaken in one thing we believe (that there's only one way to get to Auntie's), but that doesn't mean that Aunt Maggie's house is imaginary, does it?

---

:???:

---

Actually, I should have phrased that as "but that doesn't mean that Aunt Maggie's house, or the roads to it, are imaginary".

Let's say that I am Muslim and insist that Islam is the only path = "driving up Elm and turning left on Oak was the only possible way to get to Aunt Maggie's house". Let's say my wife is Christian and insists that Jesus is the way = 'driving down Walnut Street and cutting through the school parking lot to get to Maple Avenue was the only possible way to get there'. Let's say that our son Johnny is a Pagan = 'look at a map and see four other routes from our house to Aunt Maggie's'. Obviously, I am mistaken in one thing - that I have the secret of the one and only way to Aunt Maggie's. Ditto for my wife. That doesn't mean that I'm wrong about everything, just that one piece.

The fact that I'm mistaken in that one belief does not mean that Aunt Maggie does not exist, it does not mean that Aunt Maggie's house doesn't exist, and it doesn't mean that the six paths to Aunt Maggie's house are just made-up figments of Johnny's imagination. Similarly, the fact that certain sects believe they have The One True Way doesn't mean everyone else is wrong, nor does it mean that those sects are necessarily wrong about everything else. Johnny can smile indulgently at my insistence that I have the only way, knowing that I can still get to Aunt Maggie's when I need to.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibur

Quote:

---

Originally posted by redtail

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibur

Likewise, if I say that God is gigantic talking deer that lives in Muncie and will send anyone to hell who doesn't worship his prophet, The Fonz, and you say there is no God at all, at least one of us simply has to be wrong. Not all religions are mutually incompatible, of course, but some of them clearly are. It's just not logically possible to say that we're all equally right. It may give you a nice warm feeling to do so, but that doesn't make it accurate.

---

I'd say that's the problem of those who claim their religion to be the only, exclusive, sole TRUTH, which generally doesn't apply to pagans.

Somehow you're making a jump from "some religions/believers claim exclusive truth" to "which means that any other religions are just made up" with no real intermediate steps. That's a pretty big leap and I'm not buying your logic.

---

I can't even follow you anymore. I think the points I was making were pretty clear; I don't know how to try to explain them again in a way you will understand.

---

I think the problem is "we're all equally right". I can't speak for anyone else, but I know a lot of people (Pagan, Christian, Jewish) that may not believe all religions are *equally* right, but who do believe they are all at least mostly true for their adherents. Sort of like Roman Catholicism recognizing Eastern Orthodox sacraments - they don't think the EO are RIGHT right, but they're willing to make allowances.

I can believe you have a valid path to God, while not agreeing with every single little thing that you believe. If I think you're wrong about having the ONLY valid path to God, that doesn't mean I have to think you're wrong about the rest of it. It may not work in reverse - if you believe you have the only path, then you pretty much are required to think that I'm completely wrong about everything - but that's your problem, not mine.

Or, much more concisely:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Orual

No. It means that everybody's got it a little bit wrong. But everybody's got it a bit right too. The world isn't only made up of binary opposites.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by redtail

For some reason, Excalibur seems to believe that because some religions (e.g., Christianity & Islam) have some adherents and/or tenets that claim exclusivity, then somehow that should cause a problem for certain other religions (e.g., neopaganism) that don't claim such a thing. It's like arguing with a Shi'a Muslim and insisting that he must believe that Abu Bakr was the rightful caliph because the Pope said Jesus is Lord. It's just silly.

---

I was strictly saying that since Christianity and Islam make contradictory claims about how one may get in touch with Big G up there, they can't both be true. Small-o orthodox Christian teaching makes it very very clear that there is no way to the Father but through Jesus. Orthodox Islamic teaching clearly contradicts this. Therefore, they can't both be true. Therefore, the (as far as I can tell, quite common) neo-pagan claim that all spiritual paths are equally valid can't actually be true -- because it's easy to find any number of religions that have contradictory requirements or make contradictory claims to exclusivity.

It's not that complicated, dude, and trying to find a few heterodox Christians out there who don't believe Jesus is the exclusive path to salvation won't change the fact that most Christians do, in fact, believe that.

Part of the claim of Christianity -- in fact, a really, really central part of it -- is that it's universal. It's meant for everyone. If all spiritual paths are equally valid, then this claim of Christianity simply must not be correct. Right? So, in fact, if you're right, most Christians must in fact be wrong. Is there some problem with that logic?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibur

I was strictly saying that since Christianity and Islam make contradictory claims about how one may get in touch with Big G up there, they can't both be true. Small-o orthodox Christian teaching makes it very very clear that there is no way to the Father but through Jesus. Orthodox Islamic teaching clearly contradicts this. Therefore, they can't both be true. Therefore, the (as far as I can tell, quite common) neo-pagan claim that all spiritual paths are equally valid can't actually be true -- because it's easy to find any number of religions that have contradictory requirements or make contradictory claims to exclusivity.

It's not that complicated, dude, and trying to find a few heterodox Christians out there who don't believe Jesus is the exclusive path to salvation won't change the fact that most Christians do, in fact, believe that.

Part of the claim of Christianity -- in fact, a really, really central part of it -- is that it's universal. It's meant for everyone. If all spiritual paths are equally valid, then this claim of Christianity simply must not be correct. Right? So, in fact, if you're right, most Christians must in fact be wrong. Is there some problem with that logic?

---

Evidently there is, for you.

For many people, of many faiths, including Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, and various Neo-Pagan sects, there is not.

Many Hindus don't believe in religious conversions, because they believe that members of any religion can reach spiritual goals, as long as they practice sincerely.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibur

Both Christianity and Islam, for instance, prescribe their faith universally (in contrast with, say, Judaism, or Hinduism, which don't place any importance on converting outsiders.)

---

You don't seem to have a problem with the concept in Hinduism, why is it such a problem for you in NeoPaganism?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by redtail

Sort of like Roman Catholicism recognizing Eastern Orthodox sacraments - they don't think the EO are RIGHT right, but they're willing to make allowances.

---

No, this is not a correct description of Catholic theology. The fact that the Eastern Orthodox church is teaching things that are (according to the RCC) doctrinally erroneous does not affect the validity of sacraments performed by Orthodox clergy. This is because the Orthodox clergy's magical powers come from the unbroken Historic Episcopate, not from having the correct beliefs -- that is, an Orthodox priest is believed to have been ordained just as legitimately as a Catholic priest. It follows that Orthodox priests should have the same ability to confer the various other sacraments as Catholic priests.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by redtail

Many Hindus don't believe in religious conversions, because they believe that members of any religion can reach spiritual goals, as long as they practice sincerely. You don't seem to have a problem with the concept in Hinduism, why is it such a problem for you in NeoPaganism?

---

Actually, Hindus believe that good people will one day be lucky enough to be reincarnated Hindu, so there is no need to allow conversion.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibur

Quote:

---

Originally posted by redtail

Sort of like Roman Catholicism recognizing Eastern Orthodox sacraments - they don't think the EO are RIGHT right, but they're willing to make allowances.

---

No, this is not a correct description of Catholic theology. The fact that the Eastern Orthodox church is teaching things that are (according to the RCC) doctrinally erroneous does not affect the validity of sacraments performed by Orthodox clergy. This is because the Orthodox clergy's magical powers come from the unbroken Historic Episcopate, not from having the correct beliefs -- that is, an Orthodox priest is believed to have been ordained just as legitimately as a Catholic priest. It follows that Orthodox priests should have the same ability to confer the various other sacraments as Catholic priests.

---

Not according to the Orthodox priests. They don't accept RCC sacraments. So which religion is "real" and which is "made up"?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibur

Actually, Hindus believe that good people will one day be lucky enough to be reincarnated Hindu, so there is no need to allow conversion.

---

"Ekam Sataha Vipraha Bahudha Vadanti," : "The truth is One, but different Sages call it by Different Names" http://www.religioustolerance.org/hinduism2.htm

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibur

Part of the claim of Christianity -- in fact, a really, really central part of it -- is that it's universal. It's meant for everyone. If all spiritual paths are equally valid, then this claim of Christianity simply must not be correct. Right? So, in fact, if you're right, most Christians must in fact be wrong. Is there some problem with that logic?

---

Not at all. I'm perfectly prepared to believe that most Christians are wrong about that. I just don't think that makes Christianity false.

All I have to say at the moment is that if you ever happen to find yourself in Portland, OR, redtail, I owe you a libation of your choice for that lovely summation, and I think you need to establish the Church of Aunt Maggie post-haste. *sincere slow clap* ;)

Ah, Portland OR, yes. The city where you can't get there from here.

:emb: Thanks. Feel free to borrow at will. It was, shall I say, inspired.

I've already got the Church of Dirt to handle, I'll leave the Church of Aunt Maggie to y'all.

I think I'm out of here. I've been wanting to post over in the other neopagan thread that WhyNot started and I don't have time to do both, being slow and all.

Besides, I think Excalibur has made fairly clear that he's just here to snark. I thought he was actually trying to comprehend at first and just didn't realize how obnoxious he was being, but I do believe I was mistaken. :tongue:

Moderator note: Moved thread and fixed some tags.

Orual, if somebody said, "Hey! I wanna be a pagan!" what would you advise them do? Any particular books they should read or questions they should ask?

Ooookay, I didn't wade through the Exy show up there so I may have missed this being answered already. Are your morals influenced by your religious beliefs or vice versa?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuul

Orual, if somebody said, "Hey! I wanna be a pagan!" what would you advise them do? Any particular books they should read or questions they should ask?

---

The one neo-paganism related book I've read that I might recommend to others is Margot Adler's Drawing Down the Moon which is a relatively scholarly look at the development of pagan religions in recent years.

Beyond that, I would recommend reading a lot of things: books on history and culture as much as folklore and mythology.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Nrblex

Ooookay, I didn't wade through the Exy show up there so I may have missed this being answered already. Are your morals influenced by your religious beliefs or vice versa?

---

I did touch on this early on:

(reposting)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ivan astikov

Would I be right in thinking it is more like an appreciation of your natural surroundings, than a code of conduct to live your life by?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by me

It's closer to the former than the latter certainly. That doesn't mean I don't have a moral code of conduct. I think ethical behavior is a worthwhile pursuit in and of itself; which for me, boils down to being honest and trustworthy, and treating others with consideration and respect.

---

I do not believe that morality requires religious belief, or that religious belief guarantees morality. For me they are related, but the one doesn't arise out of the other.

Cool. Thanks for the answer. I figured you wouldn't suggest Silver Ravenwolf. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuul

Cool. Thanks for the answer. I figured you wouldn't suggest Silver Ravenwolf. ;)

---

...


::shudder::

Oh yes. While I've had an interest in pagan paths for a while now, my cousins were the "fluffy bunny" types who turned me off to it. They firmly believe 9 million Wiccans were victims of "the Burning Times" and that Gypsies aren't an actual ethnic group.

Luckily, as time has gone on I've discovered not everyone is that stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuul

Luckily, as time has gone on I've discovered not everyone is that stupid.

---

Oh, we are, we're just stupid in other ways. Vive la difference. :smug:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuul

They firmly believe 9 million Wiccans were victims of "the Burning Times" and that Gypsies aren't an actual ethnic group.

---

Grrrarrrggh.

:Shake:

You know, there was a time when I wondered whether or not people held pagan beliefs into the Christian Era, and if they might have been killed for being witches. This is before I realized that "peasant folk traditions" cannot honestly be equated with "pagan religious beliefs", especially when said peasants would never refer to themselves as anything but Christian.

Then I studied up on European witchcraft-hysteria, and figured out that the reasons people got killed for witchcraft tended more towards "they are my jerky neighbors with nicer pasturage", "that old widow gives me the creeps", or "all the kids are down with the measles, and we can't blame it on the Jews, because we killed them all last winter".

But let's ignore all that. Let's decorate our religion with the corpses of murder victims so that we can give ourselves a nice, warm feeling of faux-martyrdom.

Thanks, Orual. I knew I liked you for a reason. ;) Yeah, the "Burning Times" myth really troubles me. It seems like a ploy to take on some sort of victim mantle rather than to honor the victims of a real and horrific chapter in history.