A Christian challenge

[Chancellare]

And I asked you to pick a specific topic if you want to explore this. This list is about dialogue, not monologue, so we both get to work here . I don’t consider any religion to be able to be summed up in a bumper sticker, and I really have neither the time nor inclination to do a core dump of what I understand about Catholicism, nor do I see a point in it.

What truths do you find in Neopaganism that cannot be better explained in Christianity?

 

[KarenNC]

What truths do you find in Neopaganism that cannot be better explained in Christianity?

That the Christian concept of a single, omnipotent, omnisicent and omnibenevolent God is incompatible with my experience of spiritual reality, and, evidently, with that of a very large portion of humanity both currently and historically, including those who have been exposed to the teachings of Christianity.

That’ll do for starters (and realize that this is not necessarily true of all who label themselves Neopagan–there are monotheistic Neopagans, duotheistic ones, etc as well as polytheists like me).

 

[Uranage]

I did not read all of the pages answering your question so forgive me if this is a repeat.

The truth of Christianity hinges on the physical resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. If this event happened, if it is true, then Christianity is true. And since the claims of Christ are mutually exclusive with all other religions, then all other religions, philosophies, and worldviews would be false.

Asking wheather this can be proven without using the bible is assumes that the books that make up the bible do not contain reliable information about Jesus. It’s like a lawyer saying, “Apart from your eyewitnesses, you have a pretty poor case!”

Most of the evidence that would be used to prove the resurrection of Jesus was later placed into the New testament.

 

[Uranage]

This would be a more compelling argument if no religions other than Christianity had members who were viewed by their co-religionists as martyrs.

Karen,

The difference here is that the martyers of other religions are placing their faith in the testimony of others (Such as Muslims who are staking their eternal destiny on the witness of Muhammed or Mormons with the witness of Joseph Smith). So these martyers are certainly sincere but could be mistaken.

The case with the earliest disciples of Jesus was quite different. They were in a position to know, one way or another, if the resurrection was true. This is what makes up the difference between the two. They knew wheather Jesus rose from the dead or if they had come up with a deliberate hoax. Many of them were wiling to die for the belief that Jesus rose. That says a lot. Remember, liars make poor martyers.

 

[KarenNC]

Karen,

The difference here is that the martyers of other religions are placing their faith in the testimony of others (Such as Muslims who are staking their eternal destiny on the witness of Muhammed or Mormons with the witness of Joseph Smith). So these martyers are certainly sincere but could be mistaken.

The case with the earliest disciples of Jesus was quite different. They were in a position to know, one way or another, if the resurrection was true. This is what makes up the difference between the two. They knew wheather Jesus rose from the dead or if they had come up with a deliberate hoax. Many of them were wiling to die for the belief that Jesus rose. That says a lot. Remember, liars make poor martyers.

Only if you start from the premise, which I do not, that all of the events related in the New Testament were literally historically accurate. There is a lot of space between “this literally happened” to “hoax” for other possibilities.

For instance, I do not find it beyond the realm of possibility that such a limited number of people could, in fact, sincerely convince themselves of pretty much anything, even sincerely enough to be willing to die for it. It has certainly happened often enough in human history. I certainly can’t say that it is in fact what did happen, but I can see the possibility. This would not make the Apostles deliberate liars.

Even if all of the outward events of the New Testament were literally historically true ( in the “time travel” meaning of truth that I mentioned before), it is still a far leap for a polytheist to go from Jesus is a God to Jesus is the God.

 

[Chancellare]

That the Christian concept of a single, omnipotent, omnisicent and omnibenevolent God is incompatible with my experience of spiritual reality, and, evidently, with that of a very large portion of humanity both currently and historically, including those who have been exposed to the teachings of Christianity.

That’ll do for starters (and realize that this is not necessarily true of all who label themselves Neopagan–there are monotheistic Neopagans, duotheistic ones, etc as well as polytheists like me).

The Christian concept is one that recognizes an infinite God. The existence of such infinite God does not depend on anyone’s finite experience of spiritual reality.

Just like the existence of the ant and man. Man does not need an ant’s experience of reality in order to exist. But from the ant’s point of view, the only experiential reality he has of man is that of an over-grown foot and sometimes that of an overgrown hand or a hard stick. After a series of experiences, the ant may decide to worship 3 gods that look like a foot, a hand and a stick. And when another ant says there is a creature that has 2 hands, 2 feet and carries a stick, the first ant will proudly declare that that theory is incompatible with his experience of reality. Both ants are talking about the same truth but one of them is nearer to the Truth.

One can only choose which ant is nearer to the Truth.

 

[KarenNC]

**The existence of such infinite God does not depend on anyone’s finite experience of spiritual reality. **

The existence of any God is not dependent on anyone’s experience. The Gods are. End of statement.

**Just like the existence of the ant and man. Man does not need an ant’s experience of reality in order to exist. But from the ant’s point of view, the only experiential reality he has of man is that of an over-grown foot and sometimes that of an overgrown hand or a hard stick. After a series of experiences, the ant may decide to worship 3 gods that look like a foot, a hand and a stick. And when another ant says there is a creature that has 2 hands, 2 feet and carries a stick, the first ant will proudly declare that that theory is incompatible with his experience of reality. Both ants are talking about the same truth but one of them is nearer to the Truth.

One can only choose which ant is nearer to the Truth.**

Then they meet ant C, from the next yard, which abuts a sidewalk rather than the single backyard where ants A and B live. Ant C has encountered a high-heeled shoe, the workboot and a child’s sneaker on a regular basis. Though she has not personally encountered such, she has met other ants who have told her of their experiences with slippers, moccasins, roller skates, paws, flippers, rain boots and many more.

She has seen that the beings who wear the different footwear interact with her in very different ways, if they chose to do so at all (and she is aware that there is the possibility that not all do, as she does not believe her experience must of necessity encompass all possible experiences). She does not buy the argument that all of the different types of beings she and the other ants have encountered that do not wear workboots are really just different shoes attached to the same feet, as that is patently out of sync with her experience.

She has realized that just because Ant A or B has only encountered the foot in the workboot, it does not mean that that is the only type of shoe that exists and the only being with a foot that exists or the only one with hands or a stick. It does not mean that she is fantasizing, lying or delusional when she explains her experiences with the beings in other shoes. She did not go out and make the other shoes herself just to rebel against her parents, be different or because she was unhappy with the being who wears the workboots or the ants who believe in him. She knows that the different footwear can and, in fact do, belong to different, independent beings, who may share some qualities and abilities with the workboot/hand/stick being that ants B and C have encountered, but are not, by any criteria that she can identify, identical.

The being with the two feet, two hands and stick that lives in the house attached to the yard where ants A and B live may indeed claim that this is his yard and his are the only boots and stick allowed in it, and he may feel he has justification to do so. He may take or purchase additional property that used to belong to other beings in different footgear and declare that it only belongs to him now. He may put up no trespassing signs and threaten any other beings with shoes and sticks that try to step into his yard or deal with his ants. He may seek to protect his ants from interacting with those other beings that he believes will do them harm (other than the potential harm of his boots stepping on them or hitting them with his stick for his own reasons). He may choose to do things to his yard that are, from the ant’s point of view, either beneficial or detrimental to the ant, but which are beyond the ant’s control. That does not mean that the other beings who wear the other shoes cease to exist or never existed in the first place, nor that they have never interacted with other ants on their own terms, whether from that yard or elsewhere.

This does not mean that the being in the workboots is the only one to have ever possibly in the past crossed that yard and interacted with the ancestors of ants A and B, regardless of how long a period it may have been since such may have occurred. The lifespan and interactions of the beings in the shoes is not necessarily on the same time table as that of the ants. That many ant generations may have passed since those other feet in other shoes came through the yard does not mean that the beings with the other feet no longer exist and may not come back into the yard at some point for their own purposes.

The reality that ant C has encountered the being who wears the high heeled shoe, the being that wears the child’s sneaker and the being that wears the workboot does not mean that the one with the workboot also encountered by ants A and B does not exist, but it does mean that there is no compelling evidence apparent to ant C that the one with the workboot is the only or even best or highest example (by whatever measure) possible of such a being.

 

[Chancellare]

**The existence of such infinite God does not depend on anyone’s finite experience of spiritual reality. **

The existence of any God is not dependent on anyone’s experience. The Gods are. End of statement.

**Just like the existence of the ant and man. Man does not need an ant’s experience of reality in order to exist. But from the ant’s point of view, the only experiential reality he has of man is that of an over-grown foot and sometimes that of an overgrown hand or a hard stick. After a series of experiences, the ant may decide to worship 3 gods that look like a foot, a hand and a stick. And when another ant says there is a creature that has 2 hands, 2 feet and carries a stick, the first ant will proudly declare that that theory is incompatible with his experience of reality. Both ants are talking about the same truth but one of them is nearer to the Truth.

One can only choose which ant is nearer to the Truth.**

Then they meet ant C, from the next yard, which abuts a sidewalk rather than the single backyard where ants A and B live. Ant C has encountered a high-heeled shoe, the workboot and a child’s sneaker on a regular basis. Though she has not personally encountered such, she has met other ants who have told her of their experiences with slippers, moccasins, roller skates, paws, flippers, rain boots and many more.

She has seen that the beings who wear the different footwear interact with her in very different ways, if they chose to do so at all (and she is aware that there is the possibility that not all do, as she does not believe her experience must of necessity encompass all possible experiences).
She has realized that just because Ant A or B has only encountered the foot in the workboot, it does not mean that that is the only type of shoe that exists and the only being with a foot that exists or the only one with hands or a stick. It does not mean that she is fantasizing, lying or delusional when she explains her experiences with the beings in other shoes. She did not go out and make the other shoes herself just to rebel against her parents, be different or because she was unhappy with the being who wears the workboots or the ants who believe in him. She knows that the different footwear can and, in fact do, belong to different, independent beings, who may share some qualities and abilities with the workboot/hand/stick being that ants B and C have encountered, but are not, by any criteria that she can identify, identical.

The being with the two feet, two hands and stick that lives in the house attached to the yard where ants A and B live may indeed claim that this is his yard and his are the only boots and stick allowed in it, and he may feel he has justification to do so. He may take or purchase additional property that used to belong to other beings in different footgear and declare that it only belongs to him now. He may put up no trespassing signs and threaten any other beings with shoes and sticks that try to step into his yard or deal with his ants. He may seek to protect his ants from interacting with those other beings that he believes will do them harm (other than the potential harm of his boots stepping on them or hitting them with his stick for his own reasons). He may choose to do things to his yard that are, from the ant’s point of view, either beneficial or detrimental to the ant, but which are beyond the ant’s control. That does not mean that the other beings who wear the other shoes cease to exist or never existed in the first place, nor that they have never interacted with other ants on their own terms, whether from that yard or elsewhere.

This does not mean that the being in the workboots is the only one to have ever possibly in the past crossed that yard and interacted with the ancestors of ants A and B, regardless of how long a period it may have been since such may have occurred. The lifespan and interactions of the beings in the shoes is not necessarily on the same time table as that of the ants. That many ant generations may have passed since those other feet in other shoes came through the yard does not mean that the beings with the other feet no longer exist and may not come back into the yard at some point for their own purposes.

The reality that ant C has encountered the being who wears the high heeled shoe, the being that wears the child’s sneaker and the being that wears the workboot does not mean that the one with the workboot also encountered by ants A and B does not exist, but it does mean that there is no compelling evidence apparent to ant C that the one with the workboot is the only or even best or highest example (by whatever measure) possible of such a being.

So how many Gods do the ants need to worship?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

reborn_pagan:

One word…fanaticism…It’s in almost every relgion

reborn_pagan:

muslim extremist (the suicide bombings)

Likely the fanatics are those send others into fruit markets with bombs strapped to their backs. The fanatics don’t go themselves.

Those with the bombs strapped to their backs volunteer in order to obtain a paradise with special perks for martyrs or to obtain a pension for their families or to gain immortality in the memories of an esteemed peer group or more recently because they believe the propagation of their faith to be more important than their own individual lives.

Most notably Wahabism and Salafism are gnostic belief systems wrapped up in ‘specialness,’ elitism, and secret knowledge which posits that earthly existence is an evil to be shucked off like an old coat. These are death culture beliefs that are not necessarily the beliefs of Muslims Although they claim to be Muslims, the teachings of Wahabists and Salafists differ from those of Muhammed pbuh.

Unlike Islamic suicide bombers, Christian martyrs only sacrificed their own lives. They did not sacrifice the lives of others. Their beliefs were not gnostic. They were not looking for a paradise with special perks for martyrs. They simply loved Jesus and His Church and would not betray them.

reborn_pagan:

japanese who fallowed bushido (killed themselves for there failure)

While it is true that there was an element of redeeming oneself from shame (not guilt), the main reason for sepukko was to prevent strategic information from being extracted by the enemy by means of torture. This too was a death culture belief system which posited that life was an illusion and attachment to life was a source of pain and sorrow.

Christianity was neither a shame culture nor a death culture. It operated on the notion of guilt – not shame – and was life centred.

reborn_pagan:

its all fanaticism.

The designation ‘fanaticism’ is extraordinarily unhelpful. It tells us nothing about the groups you oppose other than that you condemn them for presumably not paddling with both oars in the water.

After all, does a child say “I want to be a fanatic when I grow up”? No a child may have many all manner of hopes and dreams – logical or illogical – but merely to be the target of someone’s contempt is not one of them.

But perhaps, since you have made the claim that “its all fanaticism,” a definition of fanaticism might be in order so that we can understand the point you are trying to make? Would you be so kind then as to provide one?


By the way you claim that fanaticism is “in almost every religion.” Is it in neo-paganism?

 

[KarenNC]

So how many Gods do the ants need to worship?

That’s between the ants and the Gods. Depends on the ant’s life situation. I don’t know of anyone who claims to have a worship relationship with every possible God that might exist.

I’ll borrow a post from my husband’s blog (executivepagan.wordpress.com) (since he’s already written this answer )

"So what’s up with all those Gods, anyway?

For a non-believer raised in our monotheism-dominant culture, real live polytheism can be a stumper. I’ve seen the above question phrased a hundred different ways - and surprisingly often, the second question is something like “How do you decide which ones to worship? Do you just pray to whoever you feel like that day, or draw names out of a hat, or what?” If the person asking is Catholic, I usually answer by asking how they decide which saints to pray to… and they usually get it. Everyone else gets a version of this. (NB: The use of “us” and “we” below refers specifically to my family.)

First and foremost, we honor Hestia. As the hymn says, “Hestia, in the high dwellings of all, both deathless gods and men who walk on earth, you have gained an everlasting abode and highest honor: glorious is your portion and your right. For without you mortals hold no banquet, where one does not duly pour sweet wine in offering to Hestia both first and last.” (Homeric Hymn XXIX, tx. Hugh G. Evelyn-White, Loeb Classical Library vol. 57. Copied from the Perseus Project website.)

As a married couple, we honor Hera - we’re currently looking for just the right items to establish a shrine for Her.

All of us have a special devotion to Athena - there’s not a specific external reason for this, it’s purely an offering of the heart. Our daughter in particular seems to be developing quite the relationship with Her. My wife and I both do various types of crafts, and so sometimes will remember Her in that way as well. Last year we made a pilgrimage to the Nashville Parthenon, and it was an amazing experience. It may not have been intended as a temple when it was built, but She has plainly made it Her own.

I have already mentioned Hermes, whom I honor as my professional Patronnote that we also honor Hermes when we travel–K]; we also have an Ancestor shrine, where we light candles and also make offerings to Hades and Persephone.

We don’t really have ongoing relationships with the other Gods, for the most part, but can certainly pray to them as need or opportunity arises. When we go to the beach, for instance, we always take some wine and pour a libation into the ocean to thank Poseidon for His hospitality.

I think it’s important to note that, contrary to what most monotheists seem to think, most of these prayers are not petitionary; we really don’t ask the Gods for all that much, other than to remember us with kindness for our past offerings to Them, and to be present to us in our lives. Sometimes, prayer is as simple as lighting a candle at a shrine and just resting in their Presence; in fact, that can be the most powerful prayer of all."

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Prove to me beyond any and I mean any shadow of a doubt that mines are false and yours arn’t. without using one word of christianity.

You are changing your terms. At first you asked us not to use the Bible. Now you are asking us not to use what we know. This is unreasonable.

 

[Morning_Star15]

That’s between the ants and the Gods. Depends on the ant’s life situation. I don’t know of anyone who claims to have a worship relationship with every possible God that might exist.

I’ll borrow a post from my husband’s blog (executivepagan.wordpress.com) (since he’s already written this answer )

"So what’s up with all those Gods, anyway?

For a non-believer raised in our monotheism-dominant culture, real live polytheism can be a stumper. I’ve seen the above question phrased a hundred different ways - and surprisingly often, the second question is something like “How do you decide which ones to worship? Do you just pray to whoever you feel like that day, or draw names out of a hat, or what?” If the person asking is Catholic, I usually answer by asking how they decide which saints to pray to… and they usually get it. Everyone else gets a version of this. (NB: The use of “us” and “we” below refers specifically to my family.)

First and foremost, we honor Hestia. As the hymn says, “Hestia, in the high dwellings of all, both deathless gods and men who walk on earth, you have gained an everlasting abode and highest honor: glorious is your portion and your right. For without you mortals hold no banquet, where one does not duly pour sweet wine in offering to Hestia both first and last.” (Homeric Hymn XXIX, tx. Hugh G. Evelyn-White, Loeb Classical Library vol. 57. Copied from the Perseus Project website.)

As a married couple, we honor Hera - we’re currently looking for just the right items to establish a shrine for Her.

All of us have a special devotion to Athena - there’s not a specific external reason for this, it’s purely an offering of the heart. Our daughter in particular seems to be developing quite the relationship with Her. My wife and I both do various types of crafts, and so sometimes will remember Her in that way as well. Last year we made a pilgrimage to the Nashville Parthenon, and it was an amazing experience. It may not have been intended as a temple when it was built, but She has plainly made it Her own.

I have already mentioned Hermes, whom I honor as my professional Patronnote that we also honor Hermes when we travel–K]; we also have an Ancestor shrine, where we light candles and also make offerings to Hades and Persephone.

We don’t really have ongoing relationships with the other Gods, for the most part, but can certainly pray to them as need or opportunity arises. When we go to the beach, for instance, we always take some wine and pour a libation into the ocean to thank Poseidon for His hospitality.

I think it’s important to note that, contrary to what most monotheists seem to think, most of these prayers are not petitionary; we really don’t ask the Gods for all that much, other than to remember us with kindness for our past offerings to Them, and to be present to us in our lives. Sometimes, prayer is as simple as lighting a candle at a shrine and just resting in their Presence; in fact, that can be the most powerful prayer of all."

Even 5th century BC philosophers like Socrates recognized the flaws in worshipping pagan gods like Hera and Athena, at least in the way they were in Greek beliefs. Hera, for example, was an angry, jealous wife who randomly cursed women whom her husband Zeus had raped for coming between her and her husband. The others weren’t much better. In fact, I’ve studied other ancient pagan pantheons (Egyptian, Babylonian, Celtic, etc.) and have yet to find a god that is as wonderful as the Christian God (is there any pagan god that died for the sins of humanity?).

Why anyone would choose to worship a bunch of gods (some, if not most, of whom behave worse than any humans I’ve met) rather than an all-loving and all-good God is beyond me. If these people’s personal spiritual experience of the divine contains gods such as Hera, and not gods who are truly good and love us humans, then I’ll pray that they’ll have an encounter with the True God, who is Love.

 

[exoflare]

Okay this I have been going from site to site asking and have not gotten a single answer, this challange isn’t anything bad, its just a question

can you prove…without using the Bible, that paganism and anyother relgion is wrong?

blessed be,
cody

I’m not familiar with the basic beliefs of Paganism, much less what your individual interpretation of “Pagan” beliefs might be… so I wouldn’t be sure what I’m even supposed to prove wrong?

 

[CCM08]

The problems with neopaganism are really very simple, it’s modern people infusing political ideology to reinvent ancient pagan gods and goddesses in a form more to their liking. It in no way resembles the gods in questions, the religions as they were actually practiced, and in short is merely dishonest modern invention.

 

[KarenNC]

Even 5th century BC philosophers like Socrates recognized the flaws in worshipping pagan gods like Hera and Athena, at least in the way they were in Greek beliefs. Hera, for example, was an angry, jealous wife who randomly cursed women whom her husband Zeus had raped for coming between her and her husband. The others weren’t much better. In fact, I’ve studied other ancient pagan pantheons (Egyptian, Babylonian, Celtic, etc.) and have yet to find a god that is as wonderful as the Christian God (is there any pagan god that died for the sins of humanity?).

Why anyone would choose to worship a bunch of gods (some, if not most, of whom behave worse than any humans I’ve met) rather than an all-loving and all-good God is beyond me. If these people’s personal spiritual experience of the divine contains gods such as Hera, and not gods who are truly good and love us humans, then I’ll pray that they’ll have an encounter with the True God, who is Love.

It is risky to apply the standards of human behavior to the Gods. What of a God who casually allows to be destroyed with His blessing the life a man who has done nothing but extreme good in God’s eyes, taking away his livelihood and killing his children and animals for the purpose of proving a point to one of God’s underlings (essentially to settle a bet)? Who sends a bear to maul 42 children for calling His prophet “Baldy?” Who curses a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season for his convenience (when He created the fig tree and the season)? Who impregnates another’s betrothed wife, but condemns to death by His own revealed law any human who would do the same? Who specifically causes a ruler to refuse to do as God desires then kills the firstborn of the king and all his subjects and destroys them for not doing what God desires? There are unflattering words that would be applied to a human who did any of these things. Are we to understand and judge the actions of the Christian God by human standards? No, or at least I have never encountered that particular theology.

Neither are the Hellenic Gods bound by human morals and ethics. There is not even an *imitatio dei *teaching in Hellenism as there is in Christianity. In fact, to consider that we could be like the Gods is hubris and a specific religious prohibition. The Gods are not behavioral or moral pattern-cards for humanity. They are Gods. One of the most famous of the Delphic Maxims is “Know Thyself”–know who you are and your place in the universe, that you are humans and not Gods.

As to whether you would find a Pagan God who died to save humanity from sin, well, one needs to look at who decided what sin was (in this case, as I understand it, primarily original sin) and that humanity then needed to be “saved” from it. It was not the Pagan Gods. That particular piece of theology belongs solely to the Christians–they didn’t get it from the Jews, either. No theology of original sin = no need for a Savior to save us from the consequences of original sin.

(cont)

 

[KarenNC]

We also are not bound to understand the myths literally and only literally. They are not revealed truth, as the Christian or Jewish Bible are. They are poetic attempts by humans to express their interactions with their deities. They are sacred stories, important, but not dogma. I know of few Catholics who cannot and do not understand the Christian stories as having multiple layers of meaning and rewarding deeper exploration for the underlying messages they teach. The sacred stories of any religion also reward such exploration.

Do I believe that Zeus actually seduced all those girls as a swan, a bull, a shower of gold, and so on and that Hera cursed the wpmen? Not necessarily… although as They are Gods, of course, anything is possible. What I do believe is that whether these things “actually happened”, the stories themselves have something important to tell us. In this particular example, what I gain from these stories is a sense of Zeus’ role as “Father of Gods and Men” (remembering that the name the Greeks called Him is descended from the indo-European *dyeus pater, roughly “sky father”), and how important that aspect was to the ancient Greeks.

Hera’s role is shown by her epithets:
Hera Zygia–Hera, protector of lawful marriage (Burkert 184)
Hera Gamelios–Hera, protector of marriage rituals (Burkert 184)
Hera Teleia–Hera as watcher over the ultimate goal of marriage (Burkert 184)

To me the stories of the conflicts between Zeus and Hera are at root about the struggles of humans between the desire for sexual satisfaction and procreation that can tear relationships and communities apart if not reined in and the desire for the stability and community/relationship-building of commitment and marriage that allows civilization to flourish—two very different, powerful, important and also usually opposing forces. Is Zeus only the sex drive and Hera only the marriage bond? No.

I’m sure that’s not the only possible meaning in these stories, but that’s what I get from them right now. When one approaches the sacred stories of any religion as merely and purely literal, time- travel-viewable fact, they all can look fairly ridiculous–yours and mine.

 

[KarenNC]

The problems with neopaganism are really very simple, it’s modern people infusing political ideology to reinvent ancient pagan gods and goddesses in a form more to their liking. It in no way resembles the gods in questions, the religions as they were actually practiced, and in short is merely dishonest modern invention.

If you would like to give some specific examples of how I do this (based on the information I have provided at numerous points in this thread), I will be glad to discuss them with you.

 

[Morning_Star15]

We also are not bound to understand the myths literally and only literally. They are not revealed truth, as the Christian or Jewish Bible are. They are poetic attempts by humans to express their interactions with their deities. They are sacred stories, important, but not dogma. I know of few Catholics who cannot and do not understand the Christian stories as having multiple layers of meaning and rewarding deeper exploration for the underlying messages they teach. The sacred stories of any religion also reward such exploration.

Do I believe that Zeus actually seduced all those girls as a swan, a bull, a shower of gold, and so on and that Hera cursed the wpmen? Not necessarily… although as They are Gods, of course, anything is possible. What I do believe is that whether these things “actually happened”, the stories themselves have something important to tell us. In this particular example, what I gain from these stories is a sense of Zeus’ role as “Father of Gods and Men” (remembering that the name the Greeks called Him is descended from the indo-European *dyeus pater, roughly “sky father”), and how important that aspect was to the ancient Greeks.

Hera’s role is shown by her epithets:
Hera Zygia–Hera, protector of lawful marriage (Burkert 184)
Hera Gamelios–Hera, protector of marriage rituals (Burkert 184)
Hera Teleia–Hera as watcher over the ultimate goal of marriage (Burkert 184)

To me the stories of the conflicts between Zeus and Hera are at root about the struggles of humans between the desire for sexual satisfaction and procreation that can tear relationships and communities apart if not reined in and the desire for the stability and community/relationship-building of commitment and marriage that allows civilization to flourish—two very different, powerful, important and also usually opposing forces. Is Zeus only the sex drive and Hera only the marriage bond? No.

I’m sure that’s not the only possible meaning in these stories, but that’s what I get from them right now. When one approaches the sacred stories of any religion as merely and purely literal, time- travel-viewable fact, they all can look fairly ridiculous–yours and mine.

These stories told of the Hellenic gods, although I agree that they may not be literally true, illustrate the nature of these gods, how they relate to humans and how we relate to them. That, to me, is the purpose of myths and legends concerning the divine.

So I am not judging them by their actions but by their nature, as revealed by the beliefs held about them by their original adherents. If you believe that these gods are different in nature than they are presented by the ancients, then how do you know that they are how you perceive them and not how those who initiated the worship of these gods perceived them? Would you really be worshipping Hellenic gods or gods that you created for yourself and gave the names of Hellenic gods to in order to legitimize this? I’m not assuming that you actually do this, just staing that it would be problematic if you did.

You can choose to see the myths about Zeus and Hera as being symbolic of sexual relationships in general, but to me it seems much more obvious that stories told about specific people (or gods in this case) reveal aspects of those specific people or gods. If these stories reveal nothing about the gods themselves, then how did the Greeks know who they were worshipping or for what purpose?

Biblical stories reveal aspects of God and our relationship with Him. They reveal a God who is merciful and just - showing His mercy to those who seek it, and justice to those who harden their hearts. Killing people who disobey Him or mistreat His prophets can be seen as an act of mercy, because that keeps them from continuing down that road and committing further sins. There is life after death, and those people were probably better off going to the afterlife than sticking around the earth causing trouble for those who were seeking to do God’s Will.

Everything in the Bible is the story of human salvation, and everything told in it contributes to this salvation. And if you believe that sin is just a Christian invention, take a look around, at fallen human nature, and you’ll see the results of sin.

 

[Bennie_P]

If you would like to give some specific examples of how I do this (based on the information I have provided at numerous points in this thread), I will be glad to discuss them with you.

As a neopagan what is your stand on the morality of Abortion?

Morality on Same Sex Marriage?

Morality of divorce?

Is not neo-paganism a way to reject the Judea-Christian stand on these issues, therefore, politically neutralize traditional ideas and values of morality and the value of the traditional family?

 

[KarenNC]

As a neopagan what is your stand on the morality of Abortion?
Morality on Same Sex Marriage?
Morality of divorce?
Is not neo-paganism a way to reject the Judea-Christian stand on these issues, therefore, politically neutralize traditional ideas and values of morality and the value of the traditional family?

It is hard to have a productive conversation if the two parties do not share the same understanding of the terms used. Please give me what you mean by the official Jewish and Christian stands on these topics, those which are held by all Jews and Christians regardless of denomination (btw, the term Judeo-Christian implies that Judaism only exists as a precursor and modifier to Christianity rather than a separate religion in its own right). This will let me know where I stand in relationship to what you mean by the terms so that I can more usefully respond to your question. I know too many Jews and Christians who are at all points along the continuum on these issues to be able to pick and choose which one is “the stand.”

Let’s also define the terms “traditional ideas and values of morality” and the “traditional family.” Whose tradition are we using as the standard and from which time period?

My religion is not about negating the political stands of anyone else. It is not about being “not-Christian.” It is not about politics. It is about my relationship with my Gods. Period.

The original question was “it’s modern people infusing political ideology to reinvent ancient pagan gods and goddesses in a form more to their liking. It in no way resembles the gods in questions, the religions as they were actually practiced, and in short is merely dishonest modern invention.”

Therefore, does it not make much more sense to ask whether my stances on such are in line with those of the ancient Greeks than those of Jews or Christians? Actually, my opinions on those issues are the same as they were when I was still trying to fit into a Christian mold, so to some extent, yes, I admit that I am not of the exact same opinion on these matters as an ancient Athenian, for example.

With the exception of our religion, we embody the “traditional American family.” We are a nuclear family, living close to extended family, very active in our faith and suburban community. We have a traditional, monogamous marriage, with very traditional gender roles (I am a stay at home, homeschooling mom). My husband has been my only sexual partner, and this is our only marriage. We work hard to teach our daughter to behave and dress modestly and be respectful to her elders. Heck, could pose for Norman Rockwell . Not sure how that would equal trying to “neutralize the value of morality or traditional family values.”

I am firmly in favor of traditional family values—love, respect, commitment, fidelity, monogamy, personal responsibility. I see no way in which same sex marriage threatens any of these. Rather I see that legal same sex civil marriage strengthens the presence of those values in our community. A family is a stabilizing influence on a community, whether it is made up of a male and female with their biological children or exists in some other configuration.

I am not actively in favor of divorce, but I recognize (as Judaism does, btw) that there are occasions when marriages are better ended. A way in which my view is more “modernized” is that I do not believe only the husband should be allowed to initiate divorce.

I am not in favor of abortion, but I likewise recognize that there may be occasions when it is the least harmful option. I am, however, against exposing children on hillsides if they are unwanted or have birth defects. I suppose that could be interpreted as “modernizing” my religion.