Are There Any Other Pagans Here Besides Myself?

[vsedriver]

a personification of natural forces.

so you take natural forces and ascribe personalities to them?

is there a difference between a natural force and a natural thing? Is the goddess of the earth a personification of a thing?

I’m only asking so I can understand pagan reasoning. It’s only fair too, that I state my understanding of my God, which is that God IS being and is not a personification of any particular thing since He is the creator of all things and therefore isn’t one of His creations by definition.

 

[Lokabrenna]

so you take natural forces and ascribe personalities to them?

is there a difference between a natural force and a natural thing? Is the goddess of the earth a personification of a thing?

I’m only asking so I can understand pagan reasoning. It’s only fair too, that I state my understanding of my God, which is that God IS being and is not a personification of any particular thing since He is the creator of all things and therefore isn’t one of His creations by definition.

I tend to avoid referring to deities simply as “God/dess of ______” since gods and goddesses are complex beings, but referring to them in those terms makes it easy to explain to others.

As for your question, I think it all depends. Some Pagans see deity as transcendent, others as imminent. I say: “Why not both?” For me, Freyr is the grain in the fields and the (transcendent) king of the light-elves. Many Pagans don’t have this split between creator and creation the way monotheistic traditions do. The gods and goddesses are intimately connected to the land (but they also “move” with their people when they travel from place to place).

Ever considered that your ‘god’s’ are demons?

Ever consider that your “demons” are just gods who became very unpopular? That argument works both ways.

 

[Tomcmaj]

Define “pagan”.

Anyone who puts up a decorated tree around the Winter Solstice!

 

[CatholicFireman]

Gatewood,

So I guess your Devotion to The Infant Jesus of Prague group
is now defunct.

 

[vsedriver]

Anyone who puts up a decorated tree around the Winter Solstice!

well that leaves me out. I put up a Christmas tree at Christmas time.

 

[vsedriver]

I tend to avoid referring to deities simply as “God/dess of ______” since gods and goddesses are complex beings, but referring to them in those terms makes it easy to explain to others.

 

[Lokabrenna]

Either there is a being known as the Goddess of the Earth or there is a personification of the earth. Which concept best illustrates pagan philosophy?

In my experience, many Pagans reject either/or thinking in favour of both/and thinking. An individual may believe that the gods are poetic metaphors, archetypes, or actual beings. Some traditions lean more towards one conception of deity, but such things are generally left to the individual.

In fact, I would say that it’s impossible to determine which example is best because there are so many Pagan traditions! A Celtic reconstructionist is going to have a very different view of deity than a Seax Wiccan.

I’d recommend the Cauldron’s Pagan Primer for more information on specific Pagan traditions:

ecauldron.net/newpagan.php

and the article: “Frequently Asked Questions About Neopaganism”:

ecauldron.net/newpaganfaq1.php

 

[Tyuiop411]

I used to be a pagan, of the Asatru variety to be specific. (which is probably the only pagan faith that is socially conservative.)

 

[edithsteinrocks]

I used to call myself a pagan years ago. Don’t think I truly ever was - it just felt really weird and awkward the whole time. I gave it up soon after I realized I was trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. It just wasn’t “me.”

 

[CompSciGuy]

The more I hear about paganism from people, the more it seems like “paganism” is just another word for “I totally make up my own beliefs based very loosely on some ancient myths.” It seems like it would be hard to take seriously or have a real sense of community or being historically grounded if your beliefs really, in all honesty, start with your own imagination. The way I see it, if god(s) truly exist then chances are I can’t come up with my own version of him/them and expect anything out of it. It’s so relativistic. Maybe I just am not into that sort of stuff but I like Christianity for a number of reasons including 1. It’s based on a historical set of events, 2. It has apologetics, 3. It makes sense, 4. I didn’t make it up, 5. It is rich in history, 6. It has a concrete set of absolute truths that it consistently teaches, 7. There is a large faith community spanning across culture and history and it has significant influence in the world and on society, and many many more.

 

[Tyuiop411]

The more I hear about paganism from people, the more it seems like “paganism” is just another word for “I totally make up my own beliefs based very loosely on some ancient myths.” It seems like it would be hard to take seriously or have a real sense of community or being historically grounded if your beliefs really, in all honesty, start with your own imagination. The way I see it, if god(s) truly exist then chances are I can’t come up with my own version of him/them and expect anything out of it. It’s so relativistic. Maybe I just am not into that sort of stuff but I like Christianity for a number of reasons including 1. It’s based on a historical set of events, 2. It has apologetics, 3. It makes sense, 4. I didn’t make it up, 5. It is rich in history, 6. It has a concrete set of absolute truths that it consistently teaches, 7. There is a large faith community spanning across culture and history and it has significant influence in the world and on society, and many many more.

I agree. In my sojourn as a pagan I generally looked down upon the pagan traditions that for lack of a better phrase just made everything up. Reconstructionists try to avoid this by trying to reconstruct ancient pagan faiths based on writings and archaeological evidence but even they still can’t get it all right.

 

[Lokabrenna]

I used to be a pagan, of the Asatru variety to be specific. (which is probably the only pagan faith that is socially conservative.)

Actually, in Iceland, Asatru is associated with the political left. I recently brought up this subject among some American Asatruar and one said that some call the American version “Vinland Asatru” to distinguish it from the Asatru that’s practiced in Iceland. But yes, it is generally thought of as a conservative movement in North America.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

In my experience, many Pagans reject either/or thinking in favour of both/and thinking. An individual may believe that the gods are poetic metaphors, archetypes, or actual beings. Some traditions lean more towards one conception of deity, but such things are generally left to the individual.

This is interesting, since Catholics often use the “both/and” idea of ourselves, compared to Protestants who are often held to tend more towards “either/or” thinking, emphasizing one truth to the wrongful exclusion of another truth. Perhaps you know this.

What exactly do you personally mean the term? Are you saying that your imminent/transcendent conceptions of the pagan gods are not in fact logically opposed to each other (like the imminence and transcendence of the Christian God, in terms of the two not contradicting each other that is, not that it involves the same exact kinds of imminence and transcendence), or do you mean that you do not feel bound by the law of non-contradiction and so can hold different, mutually exclusive beliefs about your gods at the same time?

 

[Lokabrenna]

What exactly do you personally mean the term? Are you saying that your imminent/transcendent conceptions of the pagan gods are not in fact logically opposed to each other (like the imminence and transcendence of the Christian God, in terms of the two not contradicting each other that is, not that it involves the same exact kinds of imminence and transcendence), or do you mean that you do not feel bound by the law of non-contradiction and so can hold different, mutually exclusive beliefs about your gods at the same time?

I think it’s a different sort of immanence and transcendence. As many have said, there exists a separation between “creator” and “creation” in monotheism, but for many Pagans, there is no such separation (although this is not a universally held tenet). I’ll be honest and say that sometimes I feel that the gods are less “out there” and more “in here” but others have had experiences that definitively point to gods that are “out there”, but that’s their personal experience.

Actually, I think the most pressing debate among Pagans is not whether deity is “out there” or “in here” but whether deities are distinct individuals (“hard” polytheists) or aspects of a single divine source (“soft” polytheists). Paganisms tend to be orthopraxic in nature–belief is secondary to action, that’s why you can have many different conceptions of deity within the same tradition.

I’ll use an example I’ve used before. The goddess Freyja owns a necklace known as Brisingamen (“fire jewel”). Is Brisingamen an actual necklace, or a symbol of Freyja’s sexual prowess? I tend to lean towards the latter explanation, and a less literal interpretation of the myths. (I don’t, for instance, believe that the universe is the result of a sky cow licking a frost giant.) There are Christians who don’t take the Adam and Eve story literally. Does that in any way impact their faith? Not from what I’ve seen.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I think it’s a different sort of immanence and transcendence. As many have said, there exists a separation between “creator” and “creation” in monotheism, but for many Pagans, there is no such separation (although this is not a universally held tenet). I’ll be honest and say that sometimes I feel that the gods are less “out there” and more “in here” but others have had experiences that definitively point to gods that are “out there”, but that’s their personal experience.

Actually, I think the most pressing debate among Pagans is not whether deity is “out there” or “in here” but whether deities are distinct individuals (“hard” polytheists) or aspects of a single divine source (“soft” polytheists). Paganisms tend to be orthopraxic in nature–belief is secondary to action, that’s why you can have many different conceptions of deity within the same tradition.

I’ll use an example I’ve used before. The goddess Freyja owns a necklace known as Brisingamen (“fire jewel”). Is Brisingamen an actual necklace, or a symbol of Freyja’s sexual prowess? I tend to lean towards the latter explanation, and a less literal interpretation of the myths. (I don’t, for instance, believe that the universe is the result of a sky cow licking a frost giant.) There are Christians who don’t take the Adam and Eve story literally. Does that in any way impact their faith? Not from what I’ve seen.

To be clear, are you then speaking exclusively about disagreements between individuals within the same tradition (or, of course, between different Pagan traditions) or do you also mean different beliefs held by the same person?

To use the example of Frayr, which of these (perhaps more than one) would be an example of the “both/and” thinking you expressed before?

1. Some pagans believe Frayr is the actual grain growing in the fields, while others disagree, believing he is a transcendent spirit in some way connected to the grain.
2. Frayr is the actual grain in one sense, but is also a transcendent spirit in a different sense.
3. Frayr does not transcend the grain and does transcend the grain, at the same time and in the same sense of the word “transcend.”
4. Frayr does not have objective existence outside our minds, therefore however he is felt/thought of by someone is the way he is for that person.
5. (For good measure, even though this does not seem to be your thinking) The statements that Frayr is transcendent and that Frayr is imminent are both meaningless.

I realize that there could be other options and that some of the five don’t exclude others, but still, perhaps you could clarify what you mean. The main thing I’m looking to understand is the role of reason in the sorts of pagan traditions you are speaking of.

 

[Lokabrenna]

To be clear, are you then speaking exclusively about disagreements between individuals within the same tradition (or, of course, between different Pagan traditions) or do you also mean different beliefs held by the same person?

I’m speaking exclusively about differing opinions between individuals within the same tradition. What I might believe about the gods and goddesses may be different from another Vanic Pagan who believes in the same gods.

To use the example of Frayr, which of these (perhaps more than one) would be an example of the “both/and” thinking you expressed before?

1. Some pagans believe Frayr is the actual grain growing in the fields, while others disagree, believing he is a transcendent spirit in some way connected to the grain.

1. Frayr is the actual grain in one sense, but is also a transcendent spirit in a different sense.

1. Frayr does not transcend the grain and does transcend the grain, at the same time and in the same sense of the word “transcend.”

1. Frayr does not have objective existence outside our minds, therefore however he is felt/thought of by someone is the way he is for that person.

1. (For good measure, even though this does not seem to be your thinking) The statements that Frayr is transcendent and that Frayr is imminent are both meaningless.

I realize that there could be other options and that some of the five don’t exclude others, but still, perhaps you could clarify what you mean. The main thing I’m looking to understand is the role of reason in the sorts of pagan traditions you are speaking of.

An individual may hold any single one of those points outlined above. My line of thinking would be somewhere between one and two, at times, I wonder if four is correct, and I think five is actually true, in a sense. Others will say: “Freyr is definitely NOT in the grain, but he does control the grain.” Still others will say: “Freyr represents the fertility of the fields.”

What I mean is that I see no inherent contradiction between these two conceptions of deity, although, in practice, people tend to lean more towards one than the other. I also think that some gods are more intimately connected to the land than others.

However (and this is where number five comes in), I think what really matters is not whether X god or Y goddess is transcendent, immanent, or whether it’s “all in one’s head”. There are no Pagan “heretics” in that sense.

 

[vsedriver]

I’m speaking exclusively about differing opinions between individuals within the same tradition. What I might believe about the gods and goddesses may be different from another Vanic Pagan who believes in the same gods.

A point in every direction is the same as no point at all.

so essentially you can’t know anything ‘true’ about your gods because your truth wouldn’t match someone else’s truth. Therefore your gods are made in your image. The only reality your gods can have would be what you give them. In a sense, you are your god.

 

[vsedriver]

I think it’s a different sort of immanence and transcendence. As many have said, there exists a separation between “creator” and “creation” in monotheism, but for many Pagans, there is no such separation (although this is not a universally held tenet).

I’m having real difficulty with this concept that ‘creator’ and ‘creation’ are not separated. They are separated by definition. To define them any other way is to have to use a different naming concept. Otherwise you are telling me you believe stuff makes itself.

I’ll be honest and say that sometimes I feel that the gods are less “out there” and more “in here” but others have had experiences that definitively point to gods that are “out there”, but that’s their personal experience.

So you are thinking that ‘gods’ are in you? or produced by you? How does a pagan know what they know about a god? How do they know which gods are real and which are imagination run wild? Is Zeus real?

How does a pagan know what is Truth?

 

[Lokabrenna]

So you are thinking that ‘gods’ are in you? or produced by you? How does a pagan know what they know about a god?

…

How does a pagan know what is Truth?

It really depends on the Pagan. Reconstructionists will look to the written records that the cultures who worshiped the deities left behind, archaeological evidence, accounts of rituals that were performed (if possible), and will attempt to reconstruct (not the same as reenact, by the way) those rituals. Sometimes, the gods themselves come to them and pass on useful information.

In my tradition, there is a separation between what is “lore”–that is, what is found in the eddas, the archaeological evidence, and scholarly works on the subject–and what is UPG (Unverified Personal Gnosis). UPG is broadly defined as “things that aren’t in the lore but have been generally accepted as true about the gods”. There is nothing in the surviving lore to indicate that Thor has red hair or that Freyja likes strawberries (which aren’t native to the North) but since so many people have experienced a red-haired Thor or a strawberry-loving Freyja, it gets adopted into the “canon” so to speak. In Catholicism, I suppose a comparison could be made between what is in the Bible (the lore) and what is church tradition (UPG). I often see Protestants reject church tradition because “it’s not in the Bible”, and it’s the same sort of argument I see among my fellow Norse Pagans/Heathens. However, I should emphasize here that ideally, UPG should have a basis in the lore. This means no honouring Odin with a pink tablecloth and ritual tools decorated with plastic eggs.

As for capital “T” Truth, in my experience, Pagans reject the notion that there is a “universal Truth” that applies to everyone. Wiccans generally accept that the Wiccan rede is true, but for other Pagans, the concept doesn’t exist in their cosmology. In my tradition, it is expected that if you give your oath that you will do something, you will do it, no question. Therefore, think about what you are saying before you say it. Other traditions don’t place such a high value on oaths (although, it is generally considered wrong to break promises).

How do they know which gods are real and which are imagination run wild?

Some would say that all gods are real. The real debate is whether or not X figure is a god. A good example is Lilith. Goddess worshipers (especially of the feminist variety) see Lilith as a goddess who was demonized in Jewish tradition. Canaanite reconstructionists, however, generally see her as a demon who was never worshiped as a goddess. Anya Kless, who is a priestess of Lilith, experiences her as a goddess who has a “demonic” side.

I realize this probably sounds very confusing, and you might be wondering which view is “correct”, and there really is no consensus among Pagans. Some have suggested that that the Powers That Be “latch on” to human expectations: if someone goes in thinking that Lilith is a demon, then that’s how she’ll appear to them. For me personally, having done the research, I find it unlikely/impossible that she was ever worshiped as a goddess, but it doesn’t affect me if someone believes differently.

Is Zeus real?

I would say so. He doesn’t personally call to me, but my Hellenic friends seem to be doing okay.

 

[KathleenGee]

has anyone studied Zeus, know where his altar was built, and what was done to it, and who used it??? Pergamum…