Ask a Pagan, Part 2

[Angela77]

I’ve got a question.
What brings you to a Catholic forum?

 

[Andromedus]

I’ve got a question.
What brings you to a Catholic forum?

Thinking it is fun or at least interesting to talk with people of another religion perhaps?

 

[Lokabrenna]

Ok, I come up with one more question

Do you believe in fate? I know that some people practicing Asatru (swedish: Asatro, no reason to tell people that but the fun of doing it… or something) believs in destiny or fate to some degree.

I think it all depends on how one defines “fate”. One of the points that is made in the myths is that even the gods can’t fight their fates (although they don’t stop trying), but do I believe, for instance, that someone who develops cancer was somehow “fated” to develop it? It is possible to be born with a genetic predisposition to certain diseases, but there are so many other variables to consider in that scenario.

I recently read an article on the concept of “wyrd”: wyrdwords.vispa.com/heathenry/whatwyrd.html

Wyrd is the term that is commonly translated as “fate” but I think wyrd is a little more nuanced than that. I particularly like this quote from the article:

For example, say I happen to find myself in a situation where someone insults me. I can “freely” choose any one of a number of immediate reactions, from ignoring the person to slapping her. But my choice at that moment is obviously going to be constrained by a number of patterns of wyrd already in place, including my inborn personality characteristics, my social conditioning, my past experiences with being insulted, my relationship with the person who has insulted me, even my hormone levels.

To the extent that my reaction is determined by these patterns, wyrd is shaping my life at that moment, and my reaction may feel to me as though it were predestined (if I want to deny responsibility) or the only “right” choice (if I want to claim responsibility for it). To the extent that I am aware of certain recurring patterns in my life, I might feel as though the person was fated to insult me at that moment. But no matter which way I chose to react to the insult, my reaction will add to the patterns in place and constrain my future actions (if I’m insulted a second time, my reaction will be determined in part by how I behaved when I was insulted the first time.) So, at the same time I am caught up in experiencing certain patterns of wyrd, I am creating them.

I don’t know if you would call that “fate” or not, honestly. I suppose you could look at from multiple perspectives.

 

[vsedriver]

For me, Freyr represents the concept of “frith”: which is something like peace, security, protection, but the sort of peace that one needs to work to obtain, that is worth something to me.

I guess I see no point in worshiping a thing or an idea. I have a lot of things that I value but I guess I see worshiping those things as kind of silly. Why worship creation when you can worship the Creator?

 

[vsedriver]

However, I think there is an element of “perfection” particularly when discussing images of deities. Many cultures (the Greeks, for instance) saw their gods as physically ideal, but as far as perfection is concerned, the gods are not perfect, nor do they expect their followers to be perfect.

In all fairness, the Greeks created gods that were images of themselves. So in essence they worshiped humanity and not anything truly supernatural.

 

[Lokabrenna]

Thinking it is fun or at least interesting to talk with people of another religion perhaps?

This is pretty much what I was going to say. I used to post on Beliefnet back when there actually was a sizable membership, but since then I’ve been going from Pagan forum to Pagan forum where there aren’t many non-Pagans, so I decided to try going someplace where the reverse was true, almost like an experiment of sorts.

 

[LiamQ]

…I’ve been going from Pagan forum to Pagan forum where there aren’t many non-Pagans, so I decided to try going someplace where the reverse was true…

The desire for contrasting opinions to your own is interesting. I wonder whether or not you are curious about what it is that you ultimately do believe, and why it is that you believe it. I will ask you some questions along those lines.

This neo-Pagan movement has so many varying beliefs in it, that it is very difficult to to avoid speaking in the most general of terms. However, one belief which seems quite common, is that each individual has the inherent capacity to understand truth in a way which is peculiar to their own personality. In many ways, this seems like an excuse to believe things which may be just as unreasonable as such an individual might claim Orthodox Christianity to be. For example: ‘knowledge’ of a deity is founded on the same ‘intuition’ that they say the Christian is aware of God because of.

Whose inherent intuition about spirituality is most correct, and what is the methodology by which the answer to this is arrived at? If all have an element of truth in our beliefs, how do we know which elements of our world-views are false? What role does self-deception play in this? Can we arrive at an objective view of spiritual truth, or is spiritual truth always subjective? If it is subjective, then how do we know it exists outside of the activity of the organ of the brain? If we cannot say it exists outside of the brain, why do we not adhere to naturalistic materialism?

Lastly: there is a complete lack of philosophical material to be found in neo-Paganism, as it is mostly mere New Age spirituality with different language attached to it. Is this a lamentable fact, or is it irrelevant? Are there any ancient polytheistic schools of philosophy you have looked into? If so, did you find their arguments and reasoning convincing?

 

[Lokabrenna]

The desire for contrasting opinions to your own is interesting. I wonder whether or not you are curious about what it is that you ultimately do believe, and why it is that you believe it. I will ask you some questions along those lines.

…

Whose inherent intuition about spirituality is most correct, and what is the methodology by which the answer to this is arrived at? If all have an element of truth in our beliefs, how do we know which elements of our world-views are false? What role does self-deception play in this? Can we arrive at an objective view of spiritual truth, or is spiritual truth always subjective? If it is subjective, then how do we know it exists outside of the activity of the organ of the brain? If we cannot say it exists outside of the brain, why do we not adhere to naturalistic materialism?

I would say that the individual’s intuition is most correct for that individual, based on their experiences. For certain faith communities (particularly those of the reconstructionist variety) place an even greater emphasis on textual sources. What one intuits, in this case, should “mesh” with the written sources in some way. In my tradition, we call things that are intuitively known “UPG” (Unverified Personal Gnosis) and UPG that has been experienced by several members of the same group is referred to as “PCPG” (Peer-Corroborated Personal Gnosis), the extent to which groups will accept UPG/PCPG as authoritative is a matter of debate.

For instance, it’s commonly accepted that the god Thor has red hair. If you examine the eddas and the sagas (what we call “the lore”), you will find that there is almost nothing said about a god’s general appearance. However, so many people have had an experience (a dream, a vision, insights gained through meditation and ritual, etc.) in which Thor has appeared to them with red hair, so it’s been adopted by the community at large, that doesn’t mean that Thor might appear as a blond or black haired man, just (for whatever reason) he seems to prefer red.

As for “how we know”, awhile ago there was a discussion on a message board where someone said: “Do you ever wonder if you’re not just pretending to believe in the gods because it’s something you want to believe?” As is usual for these sorts of discussions, there was no consensus, other than “It’s normal to question your beliefs”. Some said: “Does it really matter? My religion helps me live a better life, regardless of the experiences that I have had which confirm that the gods are a reality.”

Lastly: there is a complete lack of philosophical material to be found in neo-Paganism, as it is mostly mere New Age spirituality with different language attached to it. Is this a lamentable fact, or is it irrelevant? Are there any ancient polytheistic schools of philosophy you have looked into? If so, did you find their arguments and reasoning convincing?

I wouldn’t say there’s a complete lack of philosophical material, just that its probably scattered across multiple publications. I know of at least one Pagan who claimed to be a stoic, and there are many (Pagan and non-Pagan alike) who find ancient philosophy interesting. For me personally, my exposure to polytheistic schools of philosophy is limited to one “Philosophy of Religion” course and a brief mention of philosophical schools in other religion courses. To be completely honest, I find philosophy in general to be a complete snorefest, but I also had friends who majored in it. I think every religion tries to answer philosophical conundrums to some extent, but I don’t see the value in sitting there reflecting on the mysteries of the universe when I could be DOING something!

 

[LiamQ]

Thank you for taking a moment or three to respond, Lokabrenna.

I had to split my responses into two posts.

Part I

I would say that the individual’s intuition is most correct for that individual, based on their experiences.

Does this mean to insinuate that a person may have certain intuitions, and that these intuitions are always in some way objective? For example: let’s say that I believe, by intuition, that the twelve Olympians are in fact the highest order of all gods, not merely for ancient Greek cultures, but for all men; and that all other gods are either incomplete representations of them, or else some other, lesser god. Suppose, again, that I believe them all to be separate personalities. To what extent does my intuition reflect a reality outside of my own brain, and how do I become aware of this?

Indeed, if our method for understanding objective spiritual realities is based on subjective intuition, and if the intuition of many leads to mutually exclusive beliefs amongst a group who hold to this methodology, then what is the source of disagreement?

If all men are ‘given’ what they are to believe, from whom do they get this, and for what purpose? If there is a great deal of discord, would it follow that the source seeks such discord? Or shall we simply say they disagree because their views are a reflection of merely themselves, and of perhaps nothing outside?

Lokabrenna:

For certain faith communities (particularly those of the reconstructionist variety) place an even greater emphasis on textual sources. What one intuits, in this case, should “mesh” with the written sources in some way.

I think perhaps, following my Greek model above, the only real Western community who can claim this are those who adhere to Hellenismos or the Religio Romana. Other communities respond to cultures whose written record is incredibly lacking; and so, they must turn to scholars to explain for them what those cultures believed. Scholars can help to explain what an ancient society did, but often can be of little help to explain the why and wherefore of belief. Beliefs are therefore largely viewed as being far less important in the grand scheme of things, which is itself further cause to adhere to our personal intuition model.

Nonetheless, our original problem does not go away for them; for how do they determine the validity of textual sources for objective spiritual truth? I have found, in those movement, a great deal of information about the structure of ancient religions, but yet very little in terms of knowing whether or not such beliefs are, once again, objective reality. To adhere only to personal intuition in this case, provides us again with the problem that there is vast disagreement.

This problem of confusion and mutual exclusivity does not go away, but is merely ignored, as we will see you admit in a moment.

In my tradition, we call things that are intuitively known “UPG” (Unverified Personal Gnosis) and UPG that has been experienced by several members of the same group is referred to as “PCPG” (Peer-Corroborated Personal Gnosis), the extent to which groups will accept UPG/PCPG as authoritative is a matter of debate.

And so, subjectivity triumphs yet again, with no way to deal with disagreement or with discord. Since this is a Catholic forum, let’s draw a conclusion for other Catholics who are reading this: neo-Paganism is heavily pregnant with confusion, and in fact, by its own nature must necessarily lead to confusion. The Christian model explains why this is, as it understands the source of such confusion.

For instance, it’s commonly accepted that the god Thor has red hair. If you examine the eddas and the sagas (what we call “the lore”), you will find that there is almost nothing said about a god’s general appearance. However, so many people have had an experience (a dream, a vision, insights gained through meditation and ritual, etc.) in which Thor has appeared to them with red hair, so it’s been adopted by the community at large, that doesn’t mean that Thor might appear as a blond or black haired man, just (for whatever reason) he seems to prefer red.

But in all sincerity, this is a triviality. There is not a commonly accepted view as to who or what Thor is, or to what extent Lore is valid or invalid. As with so many other cases, we are again told that the things which we might view as being important – such as the nature of deity, or its inherent interest in men, or whether or not it is real in any sense outside of fantasy – is simply a matter for each person to discover for themselves, regardless of whether or not such conclusions leads to vast disagreements.

 

[LiamQ]

Part II

As for “how we know”, awhile ago there was a discussion on a message board where someone said: “Do you ever wonder if you’re not just pretending to believe in the gods because it’s something you want to believe?” As is usual for these sorts of discussions, there was no consensus, other than “It’s normal to question your beliefs”. Some said: “Does it really matter? My religion helps me live a better life, regardless of the experiences that I have had which confirm that the gods are a reality.”

I have experienced this as well. But please allow me to paraphrase this line of thought.

“It is not important what I believe, because I derive pleasure and enjoyment from it. You say you understand the gods to be archetypes and utterly unreal? You say we can never know anything about deity? I say that my life and how it is lived is more important than your views, and the fact that I believe what I believe is enough to show that it is true in some sense. To go beyond this is unnecessary, for joy is more important than precision, or even an ‘obsession’ with what is true or false. Can these things even be known?”

As I have thought so many times before: Paganism is largely an agnosticism, utterly bereft of the idea that a person could be ‘wrong’ about something or other, for how can we know what another does? After all, they say, spirituality is vague and unknowable, and it is completely personal. Why believe anything at all, then? On the other hand, why believe nothing? In Paganism’s model, we can approach Tolkien as a mystic, and his mythos as revelation; and who can tell us we are wrong, for what is knowable, and what is truth?

I wouldn’t say there’s a complete lack of philosophical material, just that its probably scattered across multiple publications.

Paganism, by its very nature, is the antithesis of philosophy, for ecstasy, and not reason, is its guiding force.

I know of at least one Pagan who claimed to be a stoic, and there are many (Pagan and non-Pagan alike) who find ancient philosophy interesting. For me personally, my exposure to polytheistic schools of philosophy is limited to one “Philosophy of Religion” course and a brief mention of philosophical schools in other religion courses. To be completely honest, I find philosophy in general to be a complete snorefest, but I also had friends who majored in it. I think every religion tries to answer philosophical conundrums to some extent, but I don’t see the value in sitting there reflecting on the mysteries of the universe when I could be DOING something!

Philosophy can be boring, I quite agree! lol.

But let’s note something, because I think it is common in neo-Paganism: thought is far less important than action, because belief is far less important than practice.

But nonetheless, neo-Paganism is based on a certain philosophy: that impulse and personal desire are the mechanisms through which we have knowledge, even if knowledge is not an end, as spiritual truth is ultimately unknowable in its purest form. Therefore, says this philosophy, act on your impulses and desires, as most of them are healthy and lead to things which are good. If you do not ‘know’ today, perhaps you will in another time; but for today, you must do the things which will make you happy.

How can we discuss your beliefs, when such beliefs have little merit in your eyes for other people? Will we not ever see things in your way, as we are not you, and thus cannot see with your eyes? Is not your quality of life more important than your beliefs, and will this not always trump all disagreement or differing perspective?

Paganism is very clearly understood by the Church: that it is a theory of pleasure built up from personal authority and individual desire, and that it rests on assumptions that there is no objective truth, but only opinion.

You have shown nothing else here, but merely that you do not acquiesce to the notion that such views have an origin in chaos, which itself is a breach of the logic of the universe.

 

[Lokabrenna]

Thank you for taking a moment or three to respond, Lokabrenna.

I had to split my responses into two posts.

Part I
Does this mean to insinuate that a person may have certain intuitions, and that these intuitions are always in some way objective? For example: let’s say that I believe, by intuition, that the twelve Olympians are in fact the highest order of all gods, not merely for ancient Greek cultures, but for all men; and that all other gods are either incomplete representations of them, or else some other, lesser god. Suppose, again, that I believe them all to be separate personalities. To what extent does my intuition reflect a reality outside of my own brain, and how do I become aware of this?

I think it would depend where you choose to voice your opinions. I also think this is where it’s important to “check” your intuition against textual and archaeological evidence. A Hellenistic reconstructionist would be quick to point out that the Greeks themselves worshiped a variety of deities who are not considered Olympian, some of whom were simply “darker” aspects of Olympian deities (‘chthonic Zeus’, 'chthonic Hermes) others who fit in several categories (Hekate, for instance). Others will say that it’s fine that you believe that, but don’t claim that a) the ancients believed it, or b) everyone should believe it.

As for how you would become aware of it, perhaps you had an experience during meditation where Zeus, or some other deity (or even told you such a thing. I personally know someone who claims that Loki told her he invented gravity! (She promptly told him to stop jerking her chain.) I’m grateful for communities like the Cauldron forum, which is a community that is very critical of this sort of UPG. In a nutshell, if you put a belief out there, expect it to be picked apart mercilessly!

I think perhaps, following my Greek model above, the only real Western community who can claim this are those who adhere to Hellenismos or the Religio Romana. Other communities respond to cultures whose written record is incredibly lacking; and so, they must turn to scholars to explain for them what those cultures believed. Scholars can help to explain what an ancient society did, but often can be of little help to explain the why and wherefore of belief. Beliefs are therefore largely viewed as being far less important in the grand scheme of things, which is itself further cause to adhere to our personal intuition model.

The Sumerians and Egyptians also wrote things down in a script that we can translate (a professor at my university thought about offering to teach students how to speak Sumerian, which would have been cool but impractical for me). Still, this is definitely an issue for recon communities (especially of the Celtic and Germanic variety) who relied exclusively on oral transmission of teachings.

Nonetheless, our original problem does not go away for them; for how do they determine the validity of textual sources for objective spiritual truth? I have found, in those movement, a great deal of information about the structure of ancient religions, but yet very little in terms of knowing whether or not such beliefs are, once again, objective reality. To adhere only to personal intuition in this case, provides us again with the problem that there is vast disagreement.

And so, subjectivity triumphs yet again, with no way to deal with disagreement or with discord. Since this is a Catholic forum, let’s draw a conclusion for other Catholics who are reading this: neo-Paganism is heavily pregnant with confusion, and in fact, by its own nature must necessarily lead to confusion. The Christian model explains why this is, as it understands the source of such confusion.

I don’t think we necessarily need to agree on every single point for something to be valid, diversity in opinion is both a strength and a weakness in Paganism. I think it’s only “confusing” if you go into it expecting to be told what to believe. Many traditions will give you the tools (standard rituals, recommended reading, requirements for membership in a group, if applicable) but it’s up to you to determine how it all fits together.

 

[Lokabrenna]

Cont’d from last post

Part II
As I have thought so many times before: Paganism is largely an agnosticism, utterly bereft of the idea that a person could be ‘wrong’ about something or other, for how can we know what another does? After all, they say, spirituality is vague and unknowable, and it is completely personal. Why believe anything at all, then? On the other hand, why believe nothing? In Paganism’s model, we can approach Tolkien as a mystic, and his mythos as revelation; and who can tell us we are wrong, for what is knowable, and what is truth?"

I don’t know of a single Pagan who accepts Tolkien’s writing as revealed truth, but they may acknowledge that his works contain many truths that they find relevant to their lives. I myself have been inspired by D’Angeline religion in the Kushiel’s Legacy books, but I wouldn’t say that Elua and His Companions are real in the sense that I believe Freyr, Freyja, and Njord are real. I have heard of some Pagans who see fictional characters as archetypes that can be called upon in ritual, but a hard polytheist would definitely draw a line in the sand there.

Paganism, by its very nature, is the antithesis of philosophy, for ecstasy, and not reason, is its guiding force.

Personally, I think the world could use a little more ecstasy, but some of the stuff I saw that passed as “reason” in the aforementioned philosophy class didn’t seem that reasonable to me.

But let’s note something, because I think it is common in neo-Paganism: thought is far less important than action, because belief is far less important than practice.

This is basically orthopraxy in a nutshell.

How can we discuss your beliefs, when such beliefs have little merit in your eyes for other people? Will we not ever see things in your way, as we are not you, and thus cannot see with your eyes? Is not your quality of life more important than your beliefs, and will this not always trump all disagreement or differing perspective?

I’m not interested in convincing anyone to “see things my way”, that’s proselytizing and it’s not terribly effective as a recruiting tool, IMHO, especially when the term “neopagan” can be applied to many different religions, not just one. The gods are perfectly capable of making themselves known to someone if they so choose, but no Pagan tradition has ever made the claim that they are the best way for everyone. When people disagree with me, I handle it the way I would a non-religious opinion: Does their assertion match up with my personal experience? If they reference a text, what does that text say? Are they in good standing in their faith community? If its an author, am I actually reading earlier material that they’ve since expanded on or retracted?

You have shown nothing else here, but merely that you do not acquiesce to the notion that such views have an origin in chaos, which itself is a breach of the logic of the universe.

I would question the assertion that the universe possesses “logic” that can be breached in the first place. It is quite a big place.

 

[fred_conty]

It was mentioned, “What Pagans don’t expect is that their gods be paragons of virtue.”
But isn’t purfect beauty and power the nature of God?

 

[fred_conty]

cont.

It was said, “no Pagan tradition has ever made the claim that they are the best way for everyone.”

And that is precisely the hole in the dam.
What is it that a person wants if not the best? The worst? The imperfect?
What this expresses is complete indifference. “I don’t care what you do.”
"Go do whatever it is you want to do, just don’t bother me and “don’t interrupt my fun.”
The first obligation, I say obligation, is to know God, not to be indifferent or that
he is not important. This is written on the human heart (self evident).
If there is a God, and he is all powerful, then shouldn’t a person d-rn well find out?
I personally wouldn’t want to wake up too late and find out I was on the worng
side of a volcano.
One of these guy-girl gods has to be the one. Which one? And Why?
And if I can’t answer that, I would head back to the library and do more
homework. We are talking about a life in another world after this one is finished
in this one, -maybe-. All kinds of these girl-guy gods make different promises and
it is obvious all of them can’t be right. Shall we just flip a coin to determine
which one is my special god of today? And if I get bored with this girl-guy god
and knows what guy-girl god I will be dancing before tomorrow, or the day after,
or the next day, or the one next month, next year, next decade…
Dosen"t this sound sort of iffy? fanceful? unimportant? illogical? chasing the wind?
I have read all your posts, and I give you credit for knowing a lot about this
girl-guy god business, but nothing really about God.
The real God of love, beauty, goodness, power and might who is seen in his
magnificent creation and above all his crucified love. He didn’t throw his crossdown for your sake. Pick yours back up and you will feel and think so much
better. He is waiting for you patiently with open arms. He will forgive you all
of this and more. Just come back to him because he loves you and wants
to make you happier than you could ever be. We all love you and are
concerned for you. Why do you think he directed you back to this website!

 

[Lokabrenna]

It was mentioned, “What Pagans don’t expect is that their gods be paragons of virtue.”
But isn’t purfect beauty and power the nature of God?

That’s assuming that there is one deity and their nature can be known as such. The idea that deity must be perfect is more of a concern to monotheists than polytheists. Personally, I find it easier to relate to a family of deities who squabble amongst themselves.

 

[Lokabrenna]

cont.

It was said, “no Pagan tradition has ever made the claim that they are the best way for everyone.”

And that is precisely the hole in the dam.
What is it that a person wants if not the best? The worst? The imperfect?
What this expresses is complete indifference. “I don’t care what you do.”
"Go do whatever it is you want to do, just don’t bother me and “don’t interrupt my fun.”
The first obligation, I say obligation, is to know God, not to be indifferent or that
he is not important. This is written on the human heart (self evident).
If there is a God, and he is all powerful, then shouldn’t a person d-rn well find out?
I personally wouldn’t want to wake up too late and find out I was on the worng
side of a volcano.
One of these guy-girl gods has to be the one. Which one? And Why?
And if I can’t answer that, I would head back to the library and do more
homework. We are talking about a life in another world after this one is finished
in this one, -maybe-. All kinds of these girl-guy gods make different promises and
it is obvious all of them can’t be right. Shall we just flip a coin to determine
which one is my special god of today? And if I get bored with this girl-guy god
and knows what guy-girl god I will be dancing before tomorrow, or the day after,
or the next day, or the one next month, next year, next decade…
Dosen"t this sound sort of iffy? fanceful? unimportant? illogical? chasing the wind?
I have read all your posts, and I give you credit for knowing a lot about this
girl-guy god business, but nothing really about God.
The real God of love, beauty, goodness, power and might who is seen in his
magnificent creation and above all his crucified love. He didn’t throw his cross down for your sake. Pick yours back up and you will feel and think so much
better. He is waiting for you patiently with open arms. He will forgive you all
of this and more. Just come back to him because he loves you and wants
to make you happier than you could ever be. We all love you and are
concerned for you. Why do you think he directed you back to this website!

Wow, there’s a lot in this post, so I will try to respond as best I can.
Leaving aside the assumption that there’s only one deity out there–which is something that many Pagans, being polytheists, don’t believe. Many Pagans find themselves cultivating close relationships with a few deities that last a lifetime. For some, it might be a matter of invoking a certain deity on a certain day, others may decide to cultivate a relationship with one or two deities. I know many hard polytheists would actually be offended by such a flippant view of their gods (soft polytheists, not so much). I’m sure some Catholics would be offended if I recommended picking a saint by coin toss.

As for which god/dess is “right” that again assumes that there is only one deity out there, or only one who is worthy of worship. The very nature of polytheism is that no one god/dess will be “right” for everyone, that’s specifically a monotheistic issue. As for my knowing anything about God, I never claimed to know anything about God, probably because I don’t believe in a singular Deity (capital “D” deity).

Your third paragraph sounds suspiciously like proselytizing, so I’m just going to stop here.

 

[amber_lux]

cont.

It was said, “no Pagan tradition has ever made the claim that they are the best way for everyone.”

It is a recognition that people are different. That they have different needs, physically, psychologically, and spiritually.

What is it that a person wants if not the best? The worst? The imperfect?

The way that works the best for me, may by the way that damages you the most.

The first obligation, I say obligation, is to know God, not to be indifferent or that
he is not important. This is written on the human heart (self evident).

The Pirahãs tribe demonstrates the cultural bias in that claim.

Bracketing the Pirahã, the quest for God is the result of looking for an explanation of why things happen, or to seek an appeal to a higher authority.

On a strictly objective basis, there is no proof that any diety exists, much less than any single diety holds dominion over other dieties.

If there is a God, and he is all powerful, then shouldn’t a person d-rn well find out?

First, you have to determine what your definition of God, or Goddess, is.

A theological issue found in all religions.

Then you have to determine which God, or Goddess, meet the criteria laid out by the definition that is used.

Then you have to sort out the impersonators from the real mccoy.

One of these guy-girl gods has to be the one. Which one? And Why?

Most neo-pagans are polytheistic. The rest tend to be athiests. Athiests as is “there are no dieties, period.”

One of the virtues of polytheism is that it allows for any number of dieties, without requiring any specific diety to be worshipped, or even acknowledged.

In terms of which diety, or group of dieties is worshiped, that depends upon the specific individual, and which diety called the individual.

We are talking about a life in another world after this one is finished
in this one, -maybe-.

Going by majority vote, the next life is a re-incarnated life.

All kinds of these girl-guy gods make different promises and
it is obvious all of them can’t be right.

Tis only the dieties of the Abrahamic religions that make promises.

The dieties of the other religions wander in awe of the multiverse.

Doesn’t this sound sort of iffy? fanceful? unimportant? illogical? chasing the wind?

The “heresy” of Gnostic Christianity was that they did not believe in God, precisely becuase they knew God.

Neo-pagans, or at least those that aren’t fuzzy-bunny wabbits, directly experience their specific Goddess and God. They know — gnosis — the dieties that they worship.

The real God of love, beauty, goodness, power and might who is seen in his
magnificent creation and above all his crucified love.

I see that you are a devotee of Krishna.

amber

 

[fred_conty]

That’s assuming that there is one deity and their nature can be known as such. The idea that deity must be perfect is more of a concern to monotheists than polytheists. Personally, I find it easier to relate to a family of deities who squabble amongst themselves.

The reason it is easier to relate to a family of deities is that the responsibility of responding
is over since they are man-like who are no better than men, and therefore real men don’t
have to respond to them who are no better than men. I can ignore them all together and
there is no worry about being accountable to anyone, and therefore I can do whatever I
please without worry. In essence, non of them are gods because they are all equal and
without perfection but only tripsing around like people in a 10 cent novel. That is very
convenient for those who want no responsibility and accountability for their actions.
Because as soon as one picks a supreme being, then and then only are they accountable
for what they do, for they now are accountable to ONE, not to several imperfect man
behaving beings who really don’t give off the image of god at all.

Come back Lokabrenna to the ONE WHO LOVES YOU. Not those who could care less!

 

[HeatherMc]

Hi Lokabrenna! Even though I’ve been Catholic my whole life, I’ve been curious about Paganism as a whole for quite a few years. If you don’t mind a few more questions on top of the pile you’ve already got, I have a few more of my own:

1.) A subject that kind of interests me is divination. I know many different Pagans practice it in many different forms (ie Tarot, scrying, dowsing and others). Can you explain it in greater detail? I’d like to have a better understanding of it.

2.) As you may know, in the Catholic Church we have the concept of redemptive suffering. While I’m pretty sure most Pagans don’t think of redemption in the same light as do Catholics/Christians, what would you say is the common concept of suffering among Pagans? How do they view it (the will of the Gods? no explanation at all? necessary for growth?)

3.) One thing I’ve learned is that most Pagans don’t believe in a supernatural source of Supreme Evil. Can you explain what a Pagan concept of evil would be and where it comes from and why there’s so much of it in our world?

Thanks in advance!

 

[fred_conty]

Lokabrenna you mentioned, “Leaving aside the assumption that there’s only one deity out there–which is something that many Pagans, being polytheists, don’t believe.”

Why? that is, why leave it aside? It’s important. Which of the so called gods came first?
Were they born? Did they create themselves? Where did they come from? Why are
they there at all? Or are they there at all or a figment of the imagination? They just
don’t seem to make any sense - and I’m not trying to pick on you, really! I’m just saying
it makes no sense to say something just popped up out of nowhere just because it did for no good reason other than I think its nice or I want to think of it that way.

Also if they are fighting among one another, why? and who will win? and will some die?
and will some live? and for how long? Sine they are not perfect as you say, then there
are always going to be jealousy, murder, stealing, anger, and in general every ungliness
under the dark moon and then some. Dosen’t it sound a little bit unhealthy and going
nowhere? Is that what it really is about? Vieing for man’s attention? Playing with man in
an uncaring way? just for the sport of it to fill in their time. And if we do give them the
attention they seem so desperately to need, what does that say about them?

Now if there were just one, that might be handled. But so many! One is eventually
is going to be the champ.

So why do you say there are a bunch of them, and can you give their exact number and
names? And will there be more tomorrow? the day after? And why will there be more?
or less? or any? and whose to say? by what authority?

Now I have been reading almost everything you have written in this thread and so far
the most important questions have not been answered. I only have heard things, from
I don’t know where, about beings that are vaguely and somehow gods, that don’t have
a place to exist, no source, not perfect, assigned to different jobs, but no proof of any
thing.

We all are praying for you. and we love you. and Someone else says I love you.