Ask a Pagan (Again!)

[PRmerger]

Well, who better to say? You never read my list, or the list of anyone else in the coven. What makes you so sure that we would only give ourselves easy assignments?

Oh, I am quite certain that you and your coven gave yourselves (note the irony in this!) difficult tasks.

But I’m guessing none of you ever said, “I want to divorce my wife and marry my college sweetheart but I cannot because the gods have commanded that I put every effort into fulfilling my vows, and even if I feel that I cannot endure another minute with her, I am bound by my vows because the gods said so.”

Or, “I certainly don’t want to be pregnant so I’m going to abstain from sexual intercourse because the gods have declared that artificial birth control is immoral.”

Maybe some people need an external god cracking the whip to make them tackle the hard stuff, but you can’t just assume that about people you don’t know. A strict reward-punishment paradigm isn’t always the most effective. People with strict parental upbringing often learned a rebellious response during childhood which would kick in at any knee-jerk do this, don’t do that list, but responded very well to love and encouragement.

I don’t disagree with any of this.

But you’ve apparently made up your mind that only external control can be effective, and nothing anyone who actually experienced the process says will change your mind. Duly noted.

I suppose the same could be said about you–you’ve made up your mind about me and nothing will change your mind, eh?

That’s fine, except that it’s a bit hypocritical to object to this characteristic in others, when you’re treading in the same waters, no?

 

[DPaul2]

Well, I don’t really have much to ask. I do apologize for the Catholics/Christians who, with good intentions of course, get in your face about your religion and trying to convert you.

I cannot say much about Christianity that will convince you or any non-Christian to convert. I just read Jesus’ words and am struck by the passionate love within them for every single person that has, had, does, and will ever exist. God’s only Son dying for you. When you just look at it like it’s the first time you’ve heard about it, it’s amazing. And the commandment to love God and others with all your heart, strength, and soul just seems right.

Well, that’s all I have to say. That and to commend you for opening dialogue in a Catholic forum. I know that it can’t have been easy. I of course hope that you accept Christ as your Lord and Savior, but after spending my teenage years with an atheist twin brother, I have learned that only true Christian living can convert people. Just loving God and others does wonders.

Aggressive conversion seems to turn people off, no? Doubt the early Christians did it. Wow, this is long ramble. If you’ve taken the time to read this, then thank you! God bless.

 

[IanCorrigan]

But I’m guessing none of you ever said, “I want to divorce my wife and marry my college sweetheart but I cannot because the gods have commanded that I put every effort into fulfilling my vows, and even if I feel that I cannot endure another minute with her, I am bound by my vows because the gods said so.”

Or, “I certainly don’t want to be pregnant so I’m going to abstain from sexual intercourse because the gods have declared that artificial birth control is immoral.”

Come down to it, the reason that doesn’t happen is that no sane God would ask such things. Lifelong marriage without reference to the actual emotional condition of the members is a foolish idea, that produces no good for individuals or societies. Artificial birth-control is as natural as clothing, and a very sensible technology for any society. If we’re to judge the success of Christian morality by standards like that (there are much better ones…), it is an obvious fail.

The divine is within nature, and nature defines the divine. Human nature is also within the divine. The impulses of human nature are essentially the product of our divine nature. Yes, that includes things we don’t like. So, it is entirely to be expected that real Gods would help us know the divine in ourselves, and express our divine nature in ways that make us happy, relaxed and at peace with the world in which we live. Suffering is evidence of foolishness, and I don’t expect a wise god to ask me to suffer.

In the occult, I have been taught that a spirit who asks me to do strange, unnatural things that would make me unhappy is to be avoided. I’ll stick with that advice.

 

[SGWessells]

The bolded section is a non-sequitur, Wessells.

My point was not about what you “liked or disliked” about your pagan gods. My point was that it is quite curious that these pagan gods never ask/demand/command anything that’s, well, a demand. (And perhaps I did not articulate that as well as I should have.)

And it’s interesting that you commented about never meeting “a* person* like that either.” That prompts the thought—what makes these pagan gods “gods” or “divine” or “deities” rather than simply a dead *person *(or in most cases, not even a person who actually existed by only a character) that you know about through stories and folklore?

Personally, I do not now believe that any pagan deities are real gods, or real entities at all, with their own wishes, desires, or self-awareness. I was writing from memories of my experiences as a pagan years ago. That being said, I don’t think your implicit assumption that “making demands” is a necessary attribute of a god is valid, though I do agree that it would make it less likely (though not impossible) that the deity is just made up.
I do think that the relation pagans have with their deities is more complex than that of a child with an imaginary friend. However, when I was a pagan, I was never able to define that relationship, or the nature of the “gods”, with any precision, and I have no interest in attempting it now. Loka or Amber have already given answers to that question.
For the record, I don’t believe in the Christian god either, although I used to.

 

[SGWessells]

I suppose the same could be said about you–you’ve made up your mind about me and nothing will change your mind, eh?

The difference is that, first, you are one person, while “pagans” number in the millions; second, I have concrete evidence from your posts on which to make a judgment, while the pagans here have explicitly said they do not speak for all pagans, only for themselves, which leaves millions of people you know nothing about, yet are judging. When
evidence of your state of mind changes, so will my evaluation thereof.

 

[Teresara]

As a cradle Catholic, to general philosopher, to Wiccan, to atheist, to Buddhist, to agnostic, and back to Mass again . . . this is great. And being new, I think I’ll keep my mouth shut though – not brave enough to venture an opinion. Just posting this is my big, brave step into the community.

Good reading though.

God bless
Happy Advent

 

[reinamaria]

Well, I don’t really have much to ask. I do apologize for the Catholics/Christians who, with good intentions of course, get in your face about your religion and trying to convert you.

I cannot say much about Christianity that will convince you or any non-Christian to convert. I just read Jesus’ words and am struck by the passionate love within them for every single person that has, had, does, and will ever exist. God’s only Son dying for you. When you just look at it like it’s the first time you’ve heard about it, it’s amazing. And the commandment to love God and others with all your heart, strength, and soul just seems right.

Well, that’s all I have to say. That and to commend you for opening dialogue in a Catholic forum. I know that it can’t have been easy. I of course hope that you accept Christ as your Lord and Savior, but after spending my teenage years with an atheist twin brother, I have learned that only true Christian living can convert people. Just loving God and others does wonders.

Aggressive conversion seems to turn people off, no? Doubt the early Christians did it. Wow, this is long ramble. If you’ve taken the time to read this, then thank you! God bless.

complete agreement with this. one of the things i vaue about christianity as a catholic and something that more people on this site need to realize, the intolerance to people from different backgrounds is quite a problem here. we need to value each other as human beings as jesus did, because acting aggressive really is a turnoff, and i am speaking as a cradle catholic.

 

[Lokabrenna]

Aggressive conversion seems to turn people off, no? Doubt the early Christians did it. Wow, this is long ramble. If you’ve taken the time to read this, then thank you! God bless.

Well, as the saying goes: “You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.”

 

[John7]

Lokabrenna,
what do you as a pagan think about Jesus: did he exist, deceiver, crazy, good man?

 

[PRmerger]

The difference is that, first, you are one person, while “pagans” number in the millions; second, I have concrete evidence from your posts on which to make a judgment, while the pagans here have explicitly said they do not speak for all pagans, only for themselves, which leaves millions of people you know nothing about, yet are judging.

So I am judging on the concrete evidence of the pagans here. What’s the diff? You judge. I judge. That’s what a discerning person does.

When evidence of your state of mind changes, so will my evaluation thereof.

Fair enough.

 

[PRmerger]

That being said, I don’t think your implicit assumption that “making demands” is a necessary attribute of a god is valid, though I do agree that it would make it less likely (though not impossible) that the deity is just made up.

Actually, it makes it MORE likely that the deity is just made up, no?

I do think that the relation pagans have with their deities is more complex than that of a child with an imaginary friend.

Heh. I never thought of this metaphor. I like it.

 

[PRmerger]

Come down to it, the reason that doesn’t happen is that no sane God would ask such things.

This is begging the question, Ian.

Lifelong marriage without reference to the actual emotional condition of the members is a foolish idea, that produces no good for individuals or societies.

Throughout millenia there has been no better way to raise children and produce a good society without marriage. Period. No. better. way.

Artificial birth-control is as natural as clothing, and a very sensible technology for any society. If we’re to judge the success of Christian morality by standards like that (there are much better ones…), it is an obvious fail.

Interesting. Has it proven to be good for marriages do you think?

The divine is within nature, and nature defines the divine. Human nature is also within the divine. The impulses of human nature are essentially the product of our divine nature. Yes, that includes things we don’t like. So, it is entirely to be expected that real Gods would help us know the divine in ourselves, and express our divine nature in ways that make us happy, relaxed and at peace with the world in which we live.

This is a perfect reflection of Chesterton’s “that Jones shall worship the god within…”

Suffering is evidence of foolishness, and I don’t expect a wise god to ask me to suffer.

You don’t think it’s suffering to offer your cloak to a man who has none?

Is this not in a pagan paradigm to assist the needy? Or do you only offer from your surplus where it causes you no suffering?

In the occult, I have been taught that a spirit who asks me to do strange, unnatural things that would make me unhappy is to be avoided. I’ll stick with that advice.

If you say so. And I don’t disagree with this. Strange and unnatural is definitely not the way to go! I dunno, I would think it’s unnatural to introduce a metal contraption into one’s uterus. Or synthetic hormones to stifle one’s fertility. But maybe that’s just me.

Good point, actually. Perhaps those synthetic hormones that cause you to get bloated and not want sex are indeed from a spirit. A bad one indeed.

 

[Lokabrenna]

Lokabrenna,
what do you as a pagan think about Jesus: did he exist, deceiver, crazy, good man?

I answered that question in this post (at the bottom), but, to sum it up:

Lokabrenna:

I suppose my thoughts on the matter are that perhaps Jesus did exist, but I don’t think what’s been written about him is entirely accurate.

 

[PRmerger]

I suppose my thoughts on the matter are that perhaps Jesus did exist, but I don’t think what’s been written about him is entirely accurate.

Fair enough. If we take just the NT accounts (discounting all the apocrypha), why do you think the authors erred? Do you think they intentionally *lied *about what they saw/experienced, or were they *deceived *by their experiences?

 

[Lokabrenna]

Fair enough. If we take just the NT accounts (discounting all the apocrypha), why do you think the authors erred? Do you think they intentionally *lied *about what they saw/experienced, or were they *deceived *by their experiences?

I personally think that a historical Jesus did exist (it was a popular name at the time), but it’s been embellished to the point that he’s unrecognizable, that is, of course, assuming that every apostle actually wrote what’s been attributed to them. (It was quite common in those days to claim that your work was actually written by someone who was more well-known than you, all the “Homeric” hymns probably weren’t all written by one guy named Homer, for example.) It sounds better to say: “This gospel was written by Matthew,” than to say “This gospel was actually copied from another gospel that might have been written by one of Matthew’s disciples,” for instance.

Let’s face it: “The Romans executed a Jewish rebel for being an upstart,” isn’t as exciting as “The Romans killed the Messiah–but don’t worry, he’ll be back in three days.”

 

[PRmerger]

I personally think that a historical Jesus did exist (it was a popular name at the time), but it’s been embellished to the point that he’s unrecognizable, that is, of course, assuming that every apostle actually wrote what’s been attributed to them. (It was quite common in those days to claim that your work was actually written by someone who was more well-known than you, all the “Homeric” hymns probably weren’t all written by one guy named Homer, for example.) It sounds better to say: “This gospel was written by Matthew,” than to say “This gospel was actually copied from another gospel that might have been written by one of Matthew’s disciples,” for instance.

Let’s face it: “The Romans executed a Jewish rebel for being an upstart,” isn’t as exciting as “The Romans killed the Messiah–but don’t worry, he’ll be back in three days.”

Fair enough.

So you’re saying the lied (“embellished” is a euphemism for lying, right?).

Why would they go to horrific, tortured, limb-tearing, bloody, mind-boggling deaths in the name of a lie? They knew it was a lie; they knew that if they only retracted the lie they would be saved from the jaws of the lion; they knew that this was, really, a meaningless paradigm they were proferring…yet not a single author of the NT is ever on record as retracting.

Why? Do you have an explanation for this, Loka?

 

[SGWessells]

Fair enough.

So you’re saying the lied (“embellished” is a euphemism for lying, right?).

Why would they go to horrific, tortured, limb-tearing, bloody, mind-boggling deaths in the name of a lie? They knew it was a lie; they knew that if they only retracted the lie they would be saved from the jaws of the lion; they knew that this was, really, a meaningless paradigm they were proferring…yet not a single author of the NT is ever on record as retracting.

Why? Do you have an explanation for this, Loka?

Who says they lied? They could have been sincere believers in events they did not know to be falsehoods. You Catholics believe that to be the case for most of the world’s population, right? I mean those who believe in a different religion. Perhaps the apostles were sincerely mistaken, or deluded… Perhaps they believed Jesus would restore the kingdom of Israel, as the walkers to Emmaus said, and had to come up with an alternate explanation when he was crucified. People belonging to other obscure, apocalyptic cults have been known to do the same – look at the Jehovah’s Witnesses; when Jesus didn’t appear bodily in 1914 as predicted, they didn’t just chuck the whole thing and sheepishly go home, they swallowed the excuse that he had indeed returned, but only “spiritually” (that useful word). And here they are to this day.
In short, you resort to that popular apologetic tactic of leaving out alternatives which are inconvenient for your argument. If you can narrow down the possibilities to only two, one of which is obviously improbable, you strengthen the case for the one you believe. Unfortunately, liar and martyr are not the only possibilities.

What historical evidence is there that the 12 apostles all suffered gruesome deaths? There are only traditions written later, which is natural; people wanted them to be heroes. But we don’t actually know their fates, for the most part, do we?

At any rate, the contradictions in the Gospels indicate that their authors were, at best, careless historians, and evidently not above making up details, or repeating oral tales with more credulity than skepticism, to throw in a biblical prophecy or two, such as the “flight into Egypt.” There’s a large gray area between truth and lies.

 

[Lokabrenna]

Fair enough.

So you’re saying the lied (“embellished” is a euphemism for lying, right?).

Why would they go to horrific, tortured, limb-tearing, bloody, mind-boggling deaths in the name of a lie? They knew it was a lie; they knew that if they only retracted the lie they would be saved from the jaws of the lion; they knew that this was, really, a meaningless paradigm they were proferring…yet not a single author of the NT is ever on record as retracting.

Why? Do you have an explanation for this, Loka?

I think that most of them died sincerely believing in their cause, just as the Cathars went singing to their deaths, not to mention all the other heretics, or the pagans who would have rather died than converted. People are willing to die (sometimes en masse) for all sorts of causes: a suffragette was willing to fling herself in front of the king’s horse so that women would be given the vote, Buddhist monks were willing to immolate themselves to protest Catholics persecuting Buddhists in Vietnam. I suspect whether you believe their deaths were in vain or not depends on where your sympathies lie.

 

[PRmerger]

I think that most of them died sincerely believing in their cause, just as the Cathars went singing to their deaths, not to mention all the other heretics, or the pagans who would have rather died than converted. People are willing to die (sometimes en masse) for all sorts of causes: a suffragette was willing to fling herself in front of the king’s horse so that women would be given the vote, Buddhist monks were willing to immolate themselves to protest Catholics persecuting Buddhists in Vietnam. I suspect whether you believe their deaths were in vain or not depends on where your sympathies lie.

Ah. So they didn’t lie, or “embellish”, but were deceived.

Firstly, to your point regarding the 'embellishment": who did that, and when did it start?

Secondly, are you of the opinion (someone else here suggested that? or was it you?) that it’s possible to have “mass hallucinations”?

If not, how do you propose that all of these guys were deceived? Who was the Big Deceiver in the Christian story?

 

[PRmerger]

People are willing to die (sometimes en masse) for all sorts of causes:

Of this I have no doubt.

But those who maintain (not you apparently) that they lied must answer the question: has anybody ever endured horrific torture for the sake of a lie?

Of that, I have great doubts. :tsktsk: