M
Morning_Star15
Guest
So are you saying that anyone can take a Hellenic deity like Hera or Zeus and interpret them however they want? There is no “correct” belief about them, no exact definition of who they are and are not?
- Status
K
KarenNC
Guest
**Yeah,… I agree. Some quasi-baha’i-ish/Zoroastrian sorta thing will develop,… but it’ll never be a “major” religion because of it’s necessity to be “locally oriented” due to it’s dependence on a local culture (racial/geographical/literally-bloodline).
Any pantheon which is “applicable” to a worldwide audience would “degenerate” into universal types, which dilute themselves over time into unity,… which points to the actual God.**
No, I don’t think we actually agree. I am not talking about a pantheon that is applicable to a worldwide audience. There is no reason for any polytheistic religion to be so, nor am I willing to concede that a worldwide religion is even desirable.
That said, my religion is not entirely locally-oriented. It is not dependent on a specific geography, bloodline or racial make-up. I am not, as far as I am aware (and that’s pretty far) of Greek heritage racially. I do not live in Greece. Certainly I believe that our Western civilization is culturally the heir of the Greeks.
I doubt you prefered to find a way to remain within the dominant culture, because you could have found what you were seeking within it but chose not to. I can confidently say that you “could have found it” even without knowing specifically what you were seeking, because it possible to find ANYTHING you could possibly be seeking (that is of God) within Christianity.
Then you are incorrect.
Since you actually DID choose an “acceptable path” within the “dominant culture” (Which is NOT Christian only pseudo-Christian) it’s the same amount of ease either way, so there’s no “doubt” involved.
Clarification? There is hardly the “same amount of ease” in being non-Christian and being Christian in my neck of the woods, and definitely not with my extended family. It may be different in yours.
I have found that folks from other areas of the world and even of the US do not really comprehend what I mean about my area being so Christian in focus. I would say that the dominant culture in my area is pretty definitely Christian rather than pseudo-Christian. Take a look at the following (longish) post from a thread a while back where I describe my experience here
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1786388&#post1786388 , primarily posts #53 and #61.
**
Why would I use something that I believe to be an inadequate (at best) explanation of spiritual reality as the yardstick with which to compare my beliefs?**
Any pantheon which is “applicable” to a worldwide audience would “degenerate” into universal types, which dilute themselves over time into unity,… which points to the actual God.**
No, I don’t think we actually agree. I am not talking about a pantheon that is applicable to a worldwide audience. There is no reason for any polytheistic religion to be so, nor am I willing to concede that a worldwide religion is even desirable.
That said, my religion is not entirely locally-oriented. It is not dependent on a specific geography, bloodline or racial make-up. I am not, as far as I am aware (and that’s pretty far) of Greek heritage racially. I do not live in Greece. Certainly I believe that our Western civilization is culturally the heir of the Greeks.
I doubt you prefered to find a way to remain within the dominant culture, because you could have found what you were seeking within it but chose not to. I can confidently say that you “could have found it” even without knowing specifically what you were seeking, because it possible to find ANYTHING you could possibly be seeking (that is of God) within Christianity.
Then you are incorrect.
Since you actually DID choose an “acceptable path” within the “dominant culture” (Which is NOT Christian only pseudo-Christian) it’s the same amount of ease either way, so there’s no “doubt” involved.
Clarification? There is hardly the “same amount of ease” in being non-Christian and being Christian in my neck of the woods, and definitely not with my extended family. It may be different in yours.
I have found that folks from other areas of the world and even of the US do not really comprehend what I mean about my area being so Christian in focus. I would say that the dominant culture in my area is pretty definitely Christian rather than pseudo-Christian. Take a look at the following (longish) post from a thread a while back where I describe my experience here
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1786388&#post1786388 , primarily posts #53 and #61.
**
Why would I use something that I believe to be an inadequate (at best) explanation of spiritual reality as the yardstick with which to compare my beliefs?**
K
KarenNC
Guest
My question then becomes: Where does each god get their power? The typical answer to that is, “I don’t know, and it doesn’t matter”, which just brings the Christian to the conclusion that the “idolater” (just being descriptive, not pejorative) has a general “I don’t care about that which is unrelated to my wants” attitude.
Then the Christian is coming to an incorrect conclusion. It is a fact that we cannot conclusively know where the Gods get Their power, and that whether we know or do not know does not change that power, it simply is. Given the choice between uselessly and endlessly fretting about that which we cannot know (and which knowing or not knowing does not change) and simply getting on with the business of dealing with that power as it manifests in our life, which is the most productive, rational and sane use of energy?
Then the Christian is coming to an incorrect conclusion. It is a fact that we cannot conclusively know where the Gods get Their power, and that whether we know or do not know does not change that power, it simply is. Given the choice between uselessly and endlessly fretting about that which we cannot know (and which knowing or not knowing does not change) and simply getting on with the business of dealing with that power as it manifests in our life, which is the most productive, rational and sane use of energy?
K
KarenNC
Guest
**Your concept of the Communion of Saints really missed the mark. For Saints cannot give us anything, but offer prayer to God for us. **
I understand that. I worded my response poorly.
**God cannot be manipulated, nor be controled, for God is God. **
Neither can my Gods.
**The biggest problem(misconception) I see with those that reject Christianity, expect God to make the world they way they want it. **
Not at all. If the world were the way I wanted it, it would not look at all the way that it currently is.
** What many reject as punishment and rewards based on sin or the lack of sin are what you use in your signature the consequences of our own choices, if we choose selfish immoral actions then our consequences will be harmful, to our selves and others, thus we impose punishment unto ourselves and others. As we learn not to be selfish and self centerd then good consequences will be the fruit.**
No argument there.
**Selfishness is what original sin is, God gave our first parents the whole world, with one restriction, but their selfish wouldn’t allow them to be satisfied with having that one restriction. They thought thy were better then God, or could be as God. That is the rebellion that continues in all of our sorrows today. **
Then you are saying that God created Adam and Eve already in a state of original sin? Otherwise where did those selfish tendencies originate if not with God’s creation of them?
Thinking that one could be better than or as a God is called hubris in my religion and is not a good thing.
This is just one example, but what I’m trying to show is, the rejections of morality, seen as unwanted restrictions or rules as based in Judea-Christian traditions affect not only the person that rejects it, but others even to the point of death.
Well, you might have an issue with me if I had rejected Christianity because of a rejection of unwanted rules or restrictions. I did not. I rejected it because I find the basic premise, that there is only one omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent deity, flawed.
I understand that. I worded my response poorly.
**God cannot be manipulated, nor be controled, for God is God. **
Neither can my Gods.
**The biggest problem(misconception) I see with those that reject Christianity, expect God to make the world they way they want it. **
Not at all. If the world were the way I wanted it, it would not look at all the way that it currently is.
** What many reject as punishment and rewards based on sin or the lack of sin are what you use in your signature the consequences of our own choices, if we choose selfish immoral actions then our consequences will be harmful, to our selves and others, thus we impose punishment unto ourselves and others. As we learn not to be selfish and self centerd then good consequences will be the fruit.**
No argument there.
**Selfishness is what original sin is, God gave our first parents the whole world, with one restriction, but their selfish wouldn’t allow them to be satisfied with having that one restriction. They thought thy were better then God, or could be as God. That is the rebellion that continues in all of our sorrows today. **
Then you are saying that God created Adam and Eve already in a state of original sin? Otherwise where did those selfish tendencies originate if not with God’s creation of them?
Thinking that one could be better than or as a God is called hubris in my religion and is not a good thing.
This is just one example, but what I’m trying to show is, the rejections of morality, seen as unwanted restrictions or rules as based in Judea-Christian traditions affect not only the person that rejects it, but others even to the point of death.
Well, you might have an issue with me if I had rejected Christianity because of a rejection of unwanted rules or restrictions. I did not. I rejected it because I find the basic premise, that there is only one omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent deity, flawed.
K
KarenNC
Guest
They are welcome to try to do so. The question is more properly if the God or Goddess in question would recognize or desire to be in relation with them based on that interpretation. The Gods are perfectly capable of defending Their own reputations.
No, there is not a central dogmatic understanding of who a God is or is not. There is definitely room in my religion for personal gnosis as a way to learn more about a deity. If Aphrodite chooses to show herself to someone as a Goddess of War, then I can not point to a central authority and say “no, you are not encountering Aphrodite because She can only be encountered in thus and such a way.” As a Goddess, Aphrodite is certainly able to show Herself as She pleases. I can, however, say that that interpretation is certainly at odds with the way in which the majority of individuals, both ancient and modern, have expressed that they have encountered Her and that that encounter does not, then, mean that the ancients of necessity encountered Her in that way, nor that I am bound to now see that as the “correct” interpretation of Her nature.
At root, it is between the God and the worshipper. Even among the ancients, the individual Gods had many ephitets, or descriptions of Their natures, some which were unique to the individual God and some which were applied to several Gods. See theoi.com/Cult/ZeusTitles.html#Cult for an example of the various ways in which Zeus was encountered by the ancients (also scroll up on that page).
C
Chancellare
Guest
A sampler:
Aristotelian philosophy emphasizes the reality of Natural Laws and Moral order. For example, Aristotle advocated how moral conduct contributes to the good life for human agents, including the Eudemian Ethics and the Magna Moralia in which he explained his views on morality.
His works influenced all other western religions from Christianity to Judaism with an exception to Islam who considered all pagan thoughts anathema to their religion.
This example shows that Natural Laws, ethics, reason and morality are immutable rules of conduct if man should live in harmony and good existence. Violate them and you end up with unfortunate consequences.
Given the above premises, does Paganism as practiced today recognize the immutablity of the above rules?
B
Bennie_P
Guest
In what way is this flawed? or is it because you were raised in democracy, so you need a committee to worship?
On the lighter side…And God said, “Let the committee be implemented with long-range planning and strategy.” The committee considered guidelines and linkages and structural sensitivities, and alternatives and implemental models. And God saw that this was very democratic. And so would have ended the fifth day, except for the unintentional renewal of the debate about the differences between goals and objectives. On the sixth day the committee agreed on criteria for adjudicatory assessment and evaluation. This wasn’t the agenda that God had planned. He wasn’t able to attend, however, because he had to take the afternoon off to create day and night and heaven and earth and seas and plants and stars and trees and seasons and years and sun and moon and birds and fish and animals and human beings. On the seventh day God rested and the committee submitted its recommendations. It turned out that the recommended forms for things were nearly identical to the way that God had created them; so the committee passed a resolution commending God for his implementation according to the guidelines. There was, however, some opinion expressed that people should have been created in the committee’s image.
M
Morning_Star15
Guest
If it’s all about how these gods present themselves to you, and there’s no set dogma, then how do you know that it’s not the same deity that’s presenting themselves to you under different circumstances? I know you reject the Christian interpretation of God, but what about the Hindu interpretation, that all of their different “gods”, like Vishnu, Shiva, Lakshami, etc. are all just different aspects and manifestations of the one god Brahma (I hope I spelled that correctly)?
K
Keikiolu
Guest
Oh. OK. So can I assume that, basically, you would treat your gods exactly like a very powerful respected friend?
So you’re seeking after super-friends?
I’d LIKE to say something clever like, “So do little children on saturday mornings watching cartoons!”,… but that would be “annoying”…
…so I won’t.
Of sorts, I suppose.
My real question, I think, is from where you get your morals and ethics, which are what you STRIVE to fullfill in life (which is how/why I called them “goals”)?
See the paragraph directly above. Thanks for clarifying my thinking, chief…!You’re the one who believes in gods. You tell me…!
Ah, but you are the one who brought up “goals.” Since your definition and mine of “respect” differ fairly widely, I need to understand what you mean by “goals” in this respect.
OK. That’s cool. That is a most sensible answer, as both “comfort” and “choosing a wise decision” are the two basic categories of the results of “worship/prayer” to me as well.Heh he he he… yup.
Can’t argue with that…! Heh he…
So, to sum up,… I’m REALLY most intersted in from where you get your morals and ethics.
Thanks again.
Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaika
i ia oe. Aloha nui.
K
Keikiolu
Guest
Then we do agree. I agree that polytheism can’t be a “universal” religion, due to it’s inherent factional nature.
The problem with that is, and I’m expecting you to disagree with this, that religion is where ethics and morality come from.
You either believe that it’s a good idea for all humanity (and any other “sentient” critters in the cosmos) to have a common, and true (non-relativistic), set of “operating rules”, or you don’t.
If you do, the natural consequence is monotheism. If you don’t, then polytheism is just dandy, and infinitely and endlessly “customizable” to suit the individual.
It’s interesting how many pagans remained pagans (full blown polytheists) in “Greece”, isn’t it?
OK.
Not gonna argue an obvious impasse with you.The “dominant culture” is not really Christian, but a weird mix of pagan and Christian.
It apparently wasn’t IMPOSSIBLY difficult for you to become who you are, and be such without the persecution that would materially limit you from owning a computer.
No one has burned you at the stake, quite yet, have they?
OK.
You wouldn’t, obviously. What I’m saying is that you should try to, just to see the contrast.
Once again, I’m using MY definition of God,… not yours.
You have admitted that you understand how I define God.
You also admit that you define your gods as not-like my God, in that they are “not the whole answer” to the realities of creation.
You actually don’t try at all to measure your gods against anything, other than their effectiveness in being what they are to you.
You don’t try because you find it “silly”, because it would prove nothing,… which is a perfectly correct conclusion.
You’re focus is on your immediate “needs”. Not on your “eschatology”,… your destination.
…though your end will come. And then you can be “dissolved” into your “friendships” with your gods.
Sounds cool to me, I suppose.
But that’s not how I see my end, and I prefer my end to yours.
Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaika
i ia oe. Aloha nui.
K
Keikiolu
Guest
OK. So we can both be “correct” in our own way. That’s a good thing to admit.
So, as I’ve said, the polytheist focus is solely on “effectiveness”, within the constraints of the individual polytheist’s “ethics”, which come from… where?
The thing that you have “wrong” about monotheism is that we fret about where God, or His power, comes from.
Only polytheists COULD fret about such things, and they choose “not to”, because it’s a ludicrous question unless you grant that it CAN come from a “SINGLE THING”.
God answers the question perfectly and simple-ly.
Polytheism CREATES fretting, which can’t completely go away, because to grant that one type of “spiritual being” can exist necessitates that there may be other forms of “spiritual being” that could exist,… unless you can account for their existence within your “system” of thought.
I can explain gods as demons.
You can’t explain God, in any way that accounts for the characteristics of God as God as opposed to “a god”, within your “system”.
Therefore, your “fretting” exists.
That “fretting” is the reason that polytheists eventually choose monotheism, and how polytheism “points toward” monotheism, and the truth.
Polytheism is the “intermediate stage” in the progression: Childlike->Childish->Adult.
But,… of course,… I could be completely wrong and the universe is entirely a joke of chaos, in which case which one of us is more correct?
I got me on THAT one…!! I have no idea who would be more “right” in that case…!!
Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaika
i ia oe. Aloha nui.
K
KarenNC
Guest
How do you know that a penguin, an ostrich and a hummingbird aren’t simply all just the same bird presenting itself to you under different circumstances or called by different names? You may have noted that I am also not Hindu, so you may safely assume that I do not find that system to be a superior explanation of spiritual reality to mine either.
K
Keikiolu
Guest
Touche…!!
Morning doesn’t seem to realize that the only difference between a polytheist and a monotheist is that one answers the questions of beginnings and endings, and one doesn’t…!
It’s not about “manifestations”, as both “actual” polytheistic and monotheistic “manifestations” are real,… it’s about the reason FOR those manifestations.
- For the monotheist: They’re to move man toward God.
- For the polytheist: They’re for whatever they’re for, to be interpreted individually, because an “absolute why” isn’t a legitimate question.
Right, Karen…?
E pili mau na pomaika
i ia oe. Aloha nui.
B
Bennie_P
Guest
This girl’s mother was an athiest.
This is way past amazing:
tinyurl.com/yxewot_
Hope the Link works.
This is way past amazing:
tinyurl.com/yxewot_
Hope the Link works.
M
Morning_Star15
Guest
Was this notion of personal interpretation of the gods and goddesses the common practice in ancient times? It seems to me there were standard beliefs and roles associated with each of the gods. For example, Ovid, in his Amores 1.1 expresses the absulrdity of the notion that any of the Hellenic gods or goddesses could fulfill any role other than that which is commonly assigned to them. Do you have any Greek or Roman sources who believed otherwise?
K
KarenNC
Guest
**So you’re seeking after super-friends?
I’d LIKE to say something clever like, “So do little children on saturday mornings watching cartoons!”,… but that would be “annoying”…
…so I won’t.**
So glad you were able to restrain yourself.
My real question, I think, is from where you get your morals and ethics, which are what you STRIVE to fullfill in life (which is how/why I called them “goals”)?
Well, as I was raised a Calvinist Christian, I would have to say that that formed the basis of my own moral and ethical development. For what I think you are asking, a better question might be “what moral/ethical value system are you teaching your child?”
As an answer:
Wisdom: Good judgment, the ability to perceive people and situations correctly, deliberate about and decide on the correct response
Piety: Correct observance of ritual and social traditions; the maintenance of the agreements, (both personal and societal), we humans have with the Gods and Spirits. Keeping the Old Ways, through ceremony and duty
Vision: The ability to broaden one’s perspective to have a greater understanding of our place/role in the cosmos, relating to the past, present and future
Courage: The ability to act appropriately in the face of danger
Integrity: Honor; being trustworthy to oneself and to others, involving oath-keeping, honesty, fairness, respect, self-confidence…
Perseverance: Drive; the motivation to pursue goals even when that pursuit becomes difficult
Hospitality: Acting as both a gracious host and an appreciative guest, involving benevolence, friendliness, humor, and the honoring of “a gift for a gift”
Moderation: Cultivating one’s appetites so that one is neither a slave to them nor driven to ill health, (mental or physical), through excess or deficiency
Fertility: Bounty of mind, body and spirit, involving creativity, production of objects, food, works of art, etc., an appreciation of the physical, sensual, nurturing…
This is as expressed by a Dedicant Priest in ADF, a group in which we are members. Also some info on more specifically Hellenic takes and sources on ethics
ecauldron.com/greekethics.php
The Tenets of Solon
home.pon.net/rhinoceroslodge/solonstenets.htm
The works of the philosophers–Epicurious, Aristotle, the Stoics, etc
Here’s a nice article: winterscapes.com/sannion/hellenismos.htm
I would say we craft our ethical and moral understanding from a mix of these sources.
I’d LIKE to say something clever like, “So do little children on saturday mornings watching cartoons!”,… but that would be “annoying”…
…so I won’t.
**So glad you were able to restrain yourself.
My real question, I think, is from where you get your morals and ethics, which are what you STRIVE to fullfill in life (which is how/why I called them “goals”)?
Well, as I was raised a Calvinist Christian, I would have to say that that formed the basis of my own moral and ethical development. For what I think you are asking, a better question might be “what moral/ethical value system are you teaching your child?”
As an answer:
Wisdom: Good judgment, the ability to perceive people and situations correctly, deliberate about and decide on the correct response
Piety: Correct observance of ritual and social traditions; the maintenance of the agreements, (both personal and societal), we humans have with the Gods and Spirits. Keeping the Old Ways, through ceremony and duty
Vision: The ability to broaden one’s perspective to have a greater understanding of our place/role in the cosmos, relating to the past, present and future
Courage: The ability to act appropriately in the face of danger
Integrity: Honor; being trustworthy to oneself and to others, involving oath-keeping, honesty, fairness, respect, self-confidence…
Perseverance: Drive; the motivation to pursue goals even when that pursuit becomes difficult
Hospitality: Acting as both a gracious host and an appreciative guest, involving benevolence, friendliness, humor, and the honoring of “a gift for a gift”
Moderation: Cultivating one’s appetites so that one is neither a slave to them nor driven to ill health, (mental or physical), through excess or deficiency
Fertility: Bounty of mind, body and spirit, involving creativity, production of objects, food, works of art, etc., an appreciation of the physical, sensual, nurturing…
This is as expressed by a Dedicant Priest in ADF, a group in which we are members. Also some info on more specifically Hellenic takes and sources on ethics
ecauldron.com/greekethics.php
The Tenets of Solon
home.pon.net/rhinoceroslodge/solonstenets.htm
The works of the philosophers–Epicurious, Aristotle, the Stoics, etc
Here’s a nice article: winterscapes.com/sannion/hellenismos.htm
I would say we craft our ethical and moral understanding from a mix of these sources.
K
KarenNC
Guest
I believe for that you would have to specify which time period you would choose to use as the snapshot of “what Greeks believed.” The religion certainly changed over the centuries and the understanding of the Gods varied as evidenced by the varying stories (as you have pointed out). It would be more useful to talk of Ovid’s understanding, Plato’s understanding, Aristotle’s understanding, Homer’s understanding, etc.
As to the passage in Ovid, Ovid is addressing Cupid, who is one of the Gods, complaining about Cupid trying to tell him in what way to write as it is not as Ovid thinks should traditionally be. Note that Cupid laughs at his protestations, and Ovid must bow to what the God intends, not his own interpretation of the boxes in which such should be confined.
To me this indicates the opposite of “the absulrdity of the notion that any of the Hellenic gods or goddesses could fulfill any role other than that which is commonly assigned to them” by humans.
david-drake.com/ovid/amoresI-1.html
I-1: I started to write of arms and bloody wars in hexameters, suiting my subject to the meter, but each second verse came out crippled: Cupid had laughed and snatched away one foot.
“Who are you, unruly boy, to tell me what to write? We bards are subject to the Muses, not to you!” I cried.
"What if Venus snatched the weapons from blond Minerva and blond Minerva waved the torches of passion? Who would want Ceres to rule in the mountain glades while the fields lay under the laws of quiver-bearing Diana? Who would array shining Phoebus with a spear and give Mars an Aonian lyre to play?
“These subjects are too great for you, boy! Why do you get in over your head? Or–is everything subject to you? Do you also rule Helicon in Tempe? Is not even Phoebus’ lyre safe from you? For when I start a new page, the first verse is fine but the next forces me to write it shorter–and my subject isn’t suitable for lighter meters! I’m not writing about a boy nor a girl dressing her long hair.”
Thus I complained, but Cupid chose from his quiver the shaft that doomed me. Curving his bow he cried, “Here is the work I give you to sing, bard!”
Poor me. Cupid’s arrows are certain. I am afire, and Love rules my empty breast. My verses start on six feet but end in five.
Farewell, iron war and war’s meters. Bind my temples with white flowering the seashore’s myrtle, Muse who must be sung on eleven feet.
If you look at www.theoi.com, you can see the variety of epithets and cult roles the Greeks saw as part of the Gods and can also notice that many of the epithets and roles were shared by more than one God.
M
Morning_Star15
Guest
This passage doesn’t appear to you to present the notion of the gods being anything other than how they are traditionally represented as absurd?
The understanding of the gods may have changed slightly during ancient times, but they maintained their standard designation, some of which is evidenced by the quote from Ovid above, as well as in other sources, both ancient Greek and Roman. The gods all have similar characteristics and behave in similar ways in all of the poetry, plays, and mythology I’ve read, both on the Greek and Roman side. And don’t forget there was a considerable time span between Homer and Ovid, and yet interpretations of deities remained more or less constant. Nowhere did I get the impression that either culture allowed for an “anything goes” interpretation of who these deities were.
If what you mean is that these interpretations changed between ancient times and now, then are you worshipping these ancient Hellenic deities, or your own modern interpretation of who they were?
Maybe the tone comes across more strongly in the original Latin that I read it in, but I still get that impression reading the translation you provided.
The understanding of the gods may have changed slightly during ancient times, but they maintained their standard designation, some of which is evidenced by the quote from Ovid above, as well as in other sources, both ancient Greek and Roman. The gods all have similar characteristics and behave in similar ways in all of the poetry, plays, and mythology I’ve read, both on the Greek and Roman side. And don’t forget there was a considerable time span between Homer and Ovid, and yet interpretations of deities remained more or less constant. Nowhere did I get the impression that either culture allowed for an “anything goes” interpretation of who these deities were.
If what you mean is that these interpretations changed between ancient times and now, then are you worshipping these ancient Hellenic deities, or your own modern interpretation of who they were?
K
KarenNC
Guest
I have never said that I believe that “anything goes,” either in ancient or modern times. I said “No, there is not a central dogmatic understanding of who a God is or is not. There is definitely room in my religion for personal gnosis as a way to learn more about a deity. If Aphrodite chooses to show herself to someone as a Goddess of War, then I can not point to a central authority and say “no, you are not encountering Aphrodite because She can only be encountered in thus and such a way.” As a Goddess, Aphrodite is certainly able to show Herself as She pleases. I can, however, say that that interpretation is certainly at odds with the way in which the majority of individuals, both ancient and modern, have expressed that they have encountered Her and that that encounter does not, then, mean that the ancients of necessity encountered Her in that way, nor that I am bound to now see that as the “correct” interpretation of Her nature.”
Someone else’s personal gnosis is not binding upon me, nor am I apt to view such, when it is at odds with everything else known about the Goddess, without a heavy dose of skepticism. My understanding of the Gods is grounded in the sacred stories of the ancients.
I do claim that the ancients worshipped the Gods in many aspects, and altars/shrines were often set up or offerings given to a God iin one particular aspect rather than always to every aspect, depending on the intent of the worshipper—to Zeus of the Marriage Rites (in which His “function” overlaps Hera’s) say rather than Zeus of Hospitality, in which His "function"overlasp with Athena’s).
K
Keikiolu
Guest
Me too. My powers of constraint are truly miraculous…!!So you’re seeking after super-friends?
I’d LIKE to say something clever like, “So do little children on saturday mornings watching cartoons!”,… but that would be “annoying”…
…so I won’t.
So glad you were able to restrain yourself.
The basis of non-monotheistic ethics relies on the premise that the world is as it’s always been and will forever be.
In other words, that it doesn’t fundamentally change in nature.
This is most exemplified in the scientific premise that the laws of nature are completely fixed, have always been as they are now, and will forever be as they now are, even though we can’t COMPLETELY know what these laws are, and can be “surprised” by the effects of laws we didn’t know were their.
That’s fine, for descriptive and predictive purposes, for most “mundane” (normal) situations, as well as for some “amazing” (emergent) situations.
And it’s a valid way to operate.
But, the radical “progressiveness” of Christian ethics, which proposes that the world came from a Creator and will return (progresses) to That Creator, give us some “odd” characteristics.
The Christians rebelled against the ages old tradition that the only thing that mattered is that the individual’s/community’s survival is stiven for, and any “ethic”/tactic, most “moderately implemented”, could be used to achieve that survival.
That “ethos” makes ENORMOUS sense. Survival is good, but the Christian is more concerned with his progress toward the “end product”, which derives from where he came.
I’m not going to argue that good can’t come from following the ethical/moral system of “survival”, but that it’s implementation goes nowhere other than human factionalization in every aspect of human life.
You could argue that any monotheism creates nothing but conflict, because it ALWAYS pits the members of non-monotheistic cultures against the (various versions of) the monotheistic culture in a battle for survival.
True CATHOLIC (universal) understanding of Christianity actually eliminates this supposedly-inherent conflict, but true Catholic Christianity is very seldom understood by either the non-monotheists (why should they?!), or by the supposed Christians who do a ****** job of informing the “uneducated in Christ” of that understanding.
Everyone wants grand results and they want them NOW…!!
…and those simultaneous conditions are a really bad way to implement Christianity.
So,…
…disallusioned ex-quasi-Christians rebel into “I’ll do Christ my way!”,… which is protestantism.
…other disallusioned ex-quasi-Christians rebel into “I’ll re-invent my own religion!”,… which are the various reconstructed religions.
…other disallusioned ex-quasi-Christians rebel into “I’ll flip Christianity on it’s head, because this nonsense is just as valid upside down as right side up!”,… which is “Satanism” and it’s variants, which are actually licentious atheism.
…other ex-quasi-Christians rebel into “This is unecessary nonsense and doesn’t deserve my time!”,… which is atheism (and it’s indecisive wimpy mouse-like cousin agnosticism).
…non-Christians are amused, or horrified, as to why they should believe this incomprehesible “Christian” stuff, and remain trapped in their prejudices which could have been transformed into more fullness of belief and “expanded” their particularly beautiful culture (those parts worth keeping).
But,… I’m not gonna convince anyone of anything here that they don’t already believe, so I’ll just tell you where I’m coming from, and you can tell me from whence you come, if you want.
It all boils down to where you believe you’ve come from, where you believe you’re going to, and Who you believe is your loving Creator.
If you don’t need one of the above, then so be it. From nowhere, to nowhere, without loving creation,… so be it.
Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaika
i ia oe. Aloha nui.- Status