Ask a Pagan (Again!)

[PRmerger]

Well, in that case, their right to hunt is trumped by my right to make sure that my offspring is safe.

But, Loka, you said since you’re not sure if it’s human then it’s okay to abort.
Similarly, if you’re not sure if the shadow is human, then you ought to be able to tell your friend, 'Go ahead and shoot!"

But I know that you, as a moral being, would never be able to make yourself tell your hunting friend, “Go ahead. It’s your right to shoot, since I’m not certain that shadow is my son.”

And, it ought to give you pause, too, as a moral being, to tell a person, “Go ahead. It’s your right to abort, since, after all, I’m not certain that shadow is a baby.”

Besides, unless this is the sort of forest where there’s only one deer in the place, there will be plenty more deer where that came from, and more opportunities to hunt. A developing fetus doesn’t have the same rights (if any).

This, Loka, is the most ridiculous thing you’ve said on this thread.

Look at the analog: you’re not sure the shadow in the woods is a person, so you say, “let’s not shoot because we’re not sure.”

You’re not sure the shadow on the ultrasound is a person, so you say, “Well, since I’m not sure, go ahead and shoot.”

Why? Why the disparity in morals?

 

[PRmerger]

Not necessarilly; like now there was give and take. For instance, in modern society it is generally (still) frowned upon to commit adultery. Unless, of course, you happen to be Bill Clinton.

We seem to be talking about 2 different ideas.

Today our objection to adultery comes not from society, but from the Church and God’s revelation.

For even if society were to countenance adultery, it would still be wrong, eh? (Here insert the Church’s/Jesus’ teaching on divorce and re-marriage being adultery, despite the fact that 99.9% of folks today believe it to be just another chance at happiness.)

Ian was saying (I believe) that pagan society’s morality came from society.

I proposed that this seemed to be a dubious method of creating a moral authority as society is no more and no less than “lots of me.” And why must I obey someone who’s just like me?

And you proferred that it actually wasn’t society, but the powerful/monarchy that declared what was moral. Right?

 

[Warrenton]

We seem to be talking about 2 different ideas.

Clearly, and the fault was mine.

I agree with your assessment of the sources of Christian, and by extension, modern morality.

I agree with Ian’s description of pagan morality, with some important reservations.

Here are my qualifications to what Ian said. Pagan society was more democratic in some ways than modern post Christian society. That is to say, many of their moral beliefs reflected a common consensus developed from a very broad base over time. Take, for example, the Spartans. All Spartans agreed that death was preferable to defeat, that rout was immoral. All Spartans held this view for generations. That belief did not come from a church, or a prophet, but from themselves.

In another way, though, pagan morality was less democratic in that some people, like the leaders, were outside the common morality by virtue of their power, which pagans felt was a kind of divine favor. All Christians agree that is immoral for a man to say he is a god. All Greeks believed the same thing (other than for some of the heroes, like Hercules, who were deified in the mythic past). Alexander declared himself a god, as later, Augustus would declare Caesar a god. This offended the public morality, but, because these leaders had such luck, such good fortune, clearly, the gods themselves endorsed their departure from the common morality.

My main premise in this thread is that paganism, if it’s going to be authentic and not just mumbo jumbo, has to take issue with modern society. Paganism must take on the myth that if five people voted for Jones, and only four people favored Smith, therefore everything Jones says is law and true and best. Pagans need to abandon the modern piety that different people can live in harmony.

In short, pagans have to stand for something that is actually pagan.

 

[Lokabrenna]

My main premise in this thread is that paganism, if it’s going to be authentic and not just mumbo jumbo, has to take issue with modern society. Paganism must take on the myth that if five people voted for Jones, and only four people favored Smith, therefore everything Jones says is law and true and best. Pagans need to abandon the modern piety that different people can live in harmony.

In short, pagans have to stand for something that is actually pagan.

Well, that’s assuming that every pre-Christian society was the same. There’s a lot of variation there. Also, within that same society, which time period are we talking about? I know Pagans who take inspiration from Classical Greece while others focus more on the Hellenistic period.

Seriously, even the most hardcore reconstructionists (as in, the sort of recon who will eat you alive if you don’t have a PhD. thesis in your topic of discussion) realize that we can’t go back to How Things Were Done Back Then (no matter how much we might want to) because it just won’t work. We don’t have city-states where everyone practices the same religion (which makes city-wide festivals possible), let alone an actual state religion. We’ve since switched from a largely agriculturally-based society to one that is more service-based, we no longer need to go raiding simply to survive, I could go on, but my point is that society has changed so much, and I honestly don’t know a single person who would want to go back to the good old days where life was Nasty, Brutish, and Short.

Okay, that was a bit of a rant, so I’ll use an example I saw recently:

There’s a group on a forum that I frequent that honours Brighid. Specifically, they honour her by “keeping her flame” (lighting a candle for a certain amount of time). Someone posts in their space complaining that she (paraphrased) “couldn’t imagine a great Irish goddess requesting chocolate and popping in to remind someone to do the dishes” adding that if they wanted to worship her properly they would throw a valuable item into a boggy area, the way the Irish did historically.

The response was, in effect: “This is how we believe Brighid wants us to worship her, based on our own experiences. You are free to comment on how you believe it should be done, but you will refrain from telling anyone that their devotional practices are somehow incorrect.”

Are their practices historically accurate? No, not really.
Do they derive some benefit from them, despite the fact that they don’t do things the exact way the pre-Christian Irish did? Obviously, or why bother?

The second is what’s more important, not trying to exactly replicate the past (which, as I said, even the one’s who are really into reconstruction realize).

 

[PRmerger]

Clearly, and the fault was mine.

I agree with your assessment of the sources of Christian, and by extension, modern morality.

I agree with Ian’s description of pagan morality, with some important reservations.

Here are my qualifications to what Ian said. Pagan society was more democratic in some ways than modern post Christian society. That is to say, many of their moral beliefs reflected a common consensus developed from a very broad base over time. Take, for example, the Spartans. All Spartans agreed that death was preferable to defeat, that rout was immoral. All Spartans held this view for generations. That belief did not come from a church, or a prophet, but from themselves.

In another way, though, pagan morality was less democratic in that some people, like the leaders, were outside the common morality by virtue of their power, which pagans felt was a kind of divine favor. All Christians agree that is immoral for a man to say he is a god. All Greeks believed the same thing (other than for some of the heroes, like Hercules, who were deified in the mythic past). Alexander declared himself a god, as later, Augustus would declare Caesar a god. This offended the public morality, but, because these leaders had such luck, such good fortune, clearly, the gods themselves endorsed their departure from the common morality.

My main premise in this thread is that paganism, if it’s going to be authentic and not just mumbo jumbo, has to take issue with modern society. Paganism must take on the myth that if five people voted for Jones, and only four people favored Smith, therefore everything Jones says is law and true and best. Pagans need to abandon the modern piety that different people can live in harmony.

In short, pagans have to stand for something that is actually pagan.

 

[CompSciGuy]

From reading through many of the posts it seems that there is so much variation from pagan to pagan that, from the OP’s own words, there are few pagans that you can get to agree on any particular issue. So I wonder whether the title of the thread ought to be “Ask a Pagan,” or “Ask Lokabrena.”

 

[Lokabrenna]

From reading through many of the posts it seems that there is so much variation from pagan to pagan that, from the OP’s own words, there are few pagans that you can get to agree on any particular issue. So I wonder whether the title of the thread ought to be “Ask a Pagan,” or “Ask Lokabrena.”

It is titled “Ask A Pagan” not “Ask Twenty Pagans” Honestly, if we all had a spokesperson to speak for us, some sort of Pagan pope, I’d probably just keep referring you to them, but being a very independent sort, we don’t, so you’re stuck with those of us who are on this board (and we all have very different traditions).

IanCorrigan also started a great thread, entitled “Neo-Pagan Apologetics”, and while I’m not one for apologetics in general, he knows his stuff.

 

[CompSciGuy]

It is titled “Ask A Pagan” not “Ask Twenty Pagans” Honestly, if we all had a spokesperson to speak for us, some sort of Pagan pope, I’d probably just keep referring you to them, but being a very independent sort, we don’t, so you’re stuck with those of us who are on this board (and we all have very different traditions).

IanCorrigan also started a great thread, entitled “Neo-Pagan Apologetics”, and while I’m not one for apologetics in general, he knows his stuff.

What I mean is, anytime you have a thread, organization, etc. called “Ask a X” usually it’s intended to clear up misconceptions and inform society about a group of people. Like how they have “Ask a Catholic” on campuses in the United States, it is intended to clear up misconceptions and inform society about Catholics as a whole. But in terms of paganism it really seems like 90 percent of it is on a person-to-person basis, very individualistic, so it doesn’t seem like the term “Pagan” carries much meaning as far representing a group of people, if only like 10 percent of what you’re saying applies to pagans as a people group.

 

[Lokabrenna]

What I mean is, anytime you have a thread, organization, etc. called “Ask a X” usually it’s intended to clear up misconceptions and inform society about a group of people. Like how they have “Ask a Catholic” on campuses in the United States, it is intended to clear up misconceptions and inform society about Catholics as a whole. But in terms of paganism it really seems like 90 percent of it is on a person-to-person basis, very individualistic, so it doesn’t seem like the term “Pagan” carries much meaning as far representing a group of people, if only like 10 percent of what you’re saying applies to pagans as a people group.

Well, there are still general misconceptions, things like: “All Pagans believe in ‘harm none’,” or “All Pagans practice magic,” neither of which are true. I suppose I could have said “Ask a Reconstructionist-Derived Vanic Pagan” or even “Ask a Norse Pagan” which are more specific to my particular path, but seeing as there are so many misconceptions re: Paganism(s) in general, I thought it would be best to start generally, best not to throw too many unfamiliar terms out there at first.

 

[Andromedus]

Hmmm can you actually talk about traditions in neo-paganism? I mean, most ‘‘traditions’’ is not old right? So can you really talk about traditions? Of course I can see that it might be easier to say tradition when you are trying to explain something but to me it seems a bit strange if a 30 years old religious group talks about traditions. But I suppose it depends on how you define the word. After all, I have heard some families say ‘‘this and this is a tradition in our family’’ but it is a thing which is only a few years old, however I really don’t think one can say that it is the same thing, it doesn’t feel so to me at least.

Sure, some neo-pagan groups have seen more than 100 years (or something near that number) pass so when it comes to them it is a bit different. You could say this about other new religions of course, but ‘‘older new religions’’, as I have already said, can definitely be said to be religious traditions, like the bahá’í faith. But if ‘‘Heavens Gate’’ would have called themselves a tradition when they were still around it would have been a bit weird right? But, again, it depends on how you define the word, and there are some traditions which are only 50 years old or younger I would never hesitate to call traditions, even if I perhaps would say that they are young ones. So this was really only my personal opinions. hehe just kidding, what I say is a scientific fact But even if I perhaps could change my mind on this I will never call Heavens gate a dead religious tradition, that would just be weird to me.

 

[Andromedus]

Well, there are still general misconceptions, things like: “All Pagans believe in ‘harm none’,” or “All Pagans practice magic,” neither of which are true. I suppose I could have said “Ask a Reconstructionist-Derived Vanic Pagan” or even “Ask a Norse Pagan” which are more specific to my particular path, but seeing as there are so many misconceptions re: Paganism(s) in general, I thought it would be best to start generally, best not to throw too many unfamiliar terms out there at first.

About ‘‘harm none’’ and the abortion discussion some posts above this one, I remember a blog owned by a Norse Pagan priest (he did not call himself a priest but I think thats the best word to describe what he was) where he said that he only thought it was Christian nonsense that a human life is inviolable, but he said however that all life should be respected and therefore it can never be a ‘‘right’’ to kill an unborn child. His argument was that since this life had done nothing wrong and it is also a gift given by the ‘‘powers of life’’ it is wrong to kill it, or something like that if I remember correct. He also wrote in the beginning of the post that it was time for a Pagan to fight for the Christians, or something like it, it was a while since I read it. Just thought it was interesting.

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=617681

You might want to weigh in on this thread: I’ve been trying to dispell someone’s fears that a shop featuring witchcraft items might also have items that are cursed, but I don’t think I did a very good job about it.

 

[Lokabrenna]

Hmmm can you actually talk about traditions in neo-paganism? I mean, most ‘‘traditions’’ is not old right? So can you really talk about traditions? Of course I can see that it might be easier to say tradition when you are trying to explain something but to me it seems a bit strange if a 30 years old religious group talks about traditions. But I suppose it depends on how you define the word. After all, I have heard some families say ‘‘this and this is a tradition in our family’’ but it is a thing which is only a few years old, however I really don’t think one can say that it is the same thing, it doesn’t feel so to me at least.

I should clarify. In my religious studies classes in university, my professors used the term the same way we might use the term “religion”. As in “their tradition does not allow them to eat meat”. Wiccans will refer to different “denominations” of Wicca as “traditions” as well. Sometimes the word “path” is also used, I just use tradition because I’m comfortable with it.

As you’ve said, some traditions aren’t that old. I know a family who has a Christmas tradition now that they only buy each other gifts that they can get at the dollar store. They tried it three years ago and loved it so much it’s now part of the celebration for them.

Sure, some neo-pagan groups have seen more than 100 years (or something near that number) pass so when it comes to them it is a bit different. You could say this about other new religions of course, but ‘‘older new religions’’, as I have already said, can definitely be said to be religious traditions, like the bahá’í faith. But if ‘‘Heavens Gate’’ would have called themselves a tradition when they were still around it would have been a bit weird right? But, again, it depends on how you define the word, and there are some traditions which are only 50 years old or younger I would never hesitate to call traditions, even if I perhaps would say that they are young ones. So this was really only my personal opinions. hehe just kidding, what I say is a scientific fact But even if I perhaps could change my mind on this I will never call Heavens gate a dead religious tradition, that would just be weird to me.

You could also call them a defunct new religious movement, which would be the same sort of thing.

About ‘‘harm none’’ and the abortion discussion some posts above this one, I remember a blog owned by a Norse Pagan priest (he did not call himself a priest but I think thats the best word to describe what he was) where he said that he only thought it was Christian nonsense that a human life is inviolable, but he said however that all life should be respected and therefore it can never be a ‘‘right’’ to kill an unborn child. His argument was that since this life had done nothing wrong and it is also a gift given by the ‘‘powers of life’’ it is wrong to kill it, or something like that if I remember correct. He also wrote in the beginning of the post that it was time for a Pagan to fight for the Christians, or something like it, it was a while since I read it. Just thought it was interesting.

As I’ve said, we have Pagans on all sides of every debate: pro-life and pro-choice, for and against the death penalty, liberals, conservatives, independents. It’s pretty much what you get when everyone is autonomous and there’s no central authority telling anyone what to do.

 

[Lokabrenna]

forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=617681

You might want to weigh in on this thread: I’ve been trying to dispell someone’s fears that a shop featuring witchcraft items might also have items that are cursed, but I don’t think I did a very good job about it.

Oh yes, I posted there, but I think your response pretty much covered what I wanted to say. The idea that a witch might curse items in her shop is just…very bad business practices–especially considering some of the items you need to pull off some of the more basic traditional curses: graveyard dirt, anyone? Or the hand of a hanged criminal, cut off at midnight by a cross-eyed person in total silence?

 

[mwok]

You’re telling me you can’t make a distinction between a clump of cells that has the potential to be a human being and the billions of cells that make up an actual human being? This is a zygote, this is a newborn baby. I wouldn’t call the former “human” anymore than I would call one of my brain cells or a cancerous tumor a “human”, apples and oranges. Someday, it will be a baby, though, and will be able to exist independently of someone else’s body, but not yet.

Well, we can’t see you… so how do we know you’re a human being?

 

[amber_lux]

But if ‘‘Heavens Gate’’ would have called themselves a tradition when they were still around it would have been a bit weird right?

The roots of Heaven’s Gate can be found in a Christian organization that dates to at least 1965. I’ll grant that it was a very strange type of Christianity.

Amber

 

[amber_lux]

Think of all the money society could make by just taxing sex services! Good bye deficit!

Prior to 1900, most towns in the western USA balanced their budget on revenue from prostitution.

So you are fine with people choosing to live as drug addicts or alcoholics? It is a personal choice to abuse one’s body if one desires.

On a personal level, drug addiction is not an acceptable life style.

The current fad in the medical world is treating things. To turn the individual into a drug addict, with no hope of ever coming off of the drugs that they are prescribed. To cure the problem is something that is not considered.

The choice is simple: Treat a symptom that turns the person into a drug addict, or not treat the symptom, and watch the person fade away.

The third option, use things that cure the ailment, is ethically the best choice. However, research is not focused upon cures, but upon symptom suppression, because life long drug addiction returns more money than cures do.

Do you support someone having the right to sell his kidney if he chooses? Isn’t that a personal choice?

If that person understands the consequences of their choice, and gives their informed consent, then it is ethically acceptable.

Key phrases:

• Understands the consequences;
• Informed Consent;

Amber

 

[amber_lux]

I guess what I’m trying to determine is at what point does a pagan get involved in society’s legal system which involves moral behavior?

One of the issues in paganism, is that it was designed, and evolved around a community. A community in which everybody knew what everybody else looked like, who they were related to, and their reputation. The legal system grew from enforcement of the community norms. The beliefs — both religious and otherwise — influenced both the legal system and moral behaviour. This doesn’t scale.

You can’t enforce morality through a legal system. You can’t enforce self-responsibility through the legal system.

Pagan theology stresses self-responsibility. To live and die by your moral code, regardless of any material benefits that violating that moral code might bring.

The poster child of that being * the Law of Thelema*.

Amber

 

[amber_lux]

since Pagans come from all walks of life, here are those who work to help people with mental health issues.

They probably got their PSyD from JFK University in Berkley. Specialty is either Clinical Psychology or Consciousness.

I would say that many would say there is such a thing, but leave the question of who is and is not mentally ill to the professionals.

Israel Regardie recommended that people spend at least in intensive psychotherapy prior to doing their first ritual in ceremonial magick.

are saying that “professionals” can determine that a persons reality is skewed and therefore can’t be true.

“Reality” is defined as being that hallucination in which everybody has a shared experience. That shared hallucination is pragmatically defined as “truth”.

Amber

 

[Andromedus]

The roots of Heaven’s Gate can be found in a Christian organization that dates to at least 1965. I’ll grant that it was a very strange type of Christianity.

Amber

But Heaven’s Gate had already been founded in the 1970s, so they departed from their roots quite fast then. However, what Christian organisation? Were they also some sort of Christianity mixed with Aliens etc?. There are more than one ufo-religion so I would not be surprised, in Raëlianism I think they also have some belief in Jesus as an alien, or something like it, and I hope I spelled the name right. Personally I have never seen the appeal of religions like that, but that is of course me, obviously some do since these sects and religions do exist after all.