Ask a Pagan, Part 2

[Bohm_Bawerk]

As for a religion that is concerned more about personal liking than objective truth, we have the witness of the martyrs. People don’t willingly give their lives for childish stories or because being torn apart and eaten by wild animals is to their personal liking.

With all due respect, I disagree with this point. Radical Muslims technically give their lives for their beliefs. Does that make what they believe in “objective truth”?

That said, most atheists do agree with you on the fact that Christianity has more theological soundness than mainstream polytheism. Why else does Richard Dawkins overlook polytheism except in instances to use it as a caricature of the veracity of Christianity?

 

[vsedriver]

I see a distinction…the Gods are part of existence…ALL existence…the Gods themselves are the “Creators”…from the Primordal Existence the Gods “emmanated” and through them our earth was created and formed.

so they can’t conceive of a non-created creator? or is the ‘primordal existence’ not the same concept as a non-created creator?

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

so they can’t conceive of a non-created creator? or is the ‘primordal existence’ not the same concept as a non-created creator?

Hello vsedriver,

I’m a former Catholic, but I strongly agree with you that polytheism is logically unsound. I’m actually glad that the moderators allowed this thread to remain open, because it made me respect Catholic theology a lot more. None of the stuff on this thread “made sense”. Why would you worship something less than perfect? It is in-built in the human psyche, presupposing belief, to worship something that is perfect. If you look throughout history, from Ancient Egypt to the Nazi Era, leaders always attempted to portray themselves as perfect. Artists portrayed Stalin as a tall figure (signifying omnipotence), even though he was an incredibly short man. Artists portrayed Stalin as hugging children (signifying omnibenevolence). Artists overlooked the flaws of Stalin; and rightly so, for why would he be considered worthy of worship? Why else would there be a Stalinist cult personality?

And one distinguishing fact, which can not be denied, between Christianity and paganism is that Jesus actually has a place in history. All historians agree on this. Paganism is ultimately rooted in myth and fables. Nothing is true; why follow a falsehood religiously?

 

[Publisher]

so they can’t conceive of a non-created creator? or is the ‘primordal existence’ not the same concept as a non-created creator?

I personally find conceiving an “eternal” Primortal Stuff of creation just as difficult to conceive in as I would an eternal Creator who existed before our material universe was created…if you can, my hat goes off to you…eternal concepts boggle my mind…I find it difficult to conceive of millions of years back to paleolithic times…let alone eternity past and an infinite and eternal being we call God.

To me God is Mystery and beyond my comprehension…this God was/is made known in Jesus of Nazareth…but even the Incarnation is beyond my understanding…let alone Eternity.

 

[SteveVH]

With all due respect, I disagree with this point. Radical Muslims technically give their lives for their beliefs. Does that make what they believe in “objective truth”?

That said, most atheists do agree with you on the fact that Christianity has more theological soundness than mainstream polytheism. Why else does Richard Dawkins overlook polytheism except in instances to use it as a caricature of the veracity of Christianity?

There is a big difference in one being given the choice to deny their God and live, or refuse to deny Him and die, as in the case of Christian martyrs, as opposed to using one’s life as an instrument of destruction in order to kill those with whom you disagree. There is simply no moral equivalence between the two. I have also not used martyrdom as the sole rule in measuring whether or not one takes into account “objective truth” in forming their beliefs. You chose not to comment on the rest of my statement which is instrumental in making my point.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

I personally find conceiving an “eternal” Primortal Stuff of creation just as difficult to conceive in as I would an eternal Creator who existed before our material universe was created…if you can, my hat goes off to you…eternal concepts boggle my mind…I find it difficult to conceive of millions of years back to paleolithic times…let alone eternity past and an infinite and eternal being we call God.

Although I’m an atheist, one thing I can say about Catholicism is that it makes more theological sense than other belief systems I’ve encountered. You aren’t supposed to be able to conceive of God’s eternal existence. That’s the whole point of “God”: "“As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:9). If you could conceive of God’s actual existence, then he wouldn’t be God. This explains why the Trinity is regarded as a “Mystery”, and to use the words of one man: “**A religion without the element of mystery would not be a religion at all. **” (Edwin Lewis). Philosophers across the board all agree with God’s eternal characteristic. In philosophy, there’s even a debate about whether we can even speak about God at all using language (and here we find the distinction between cataphatic theology and apophatic theology).

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

There is a big difference in one being given the choice to deny their God and live, or refuse to deny Him and die, as in the case of Christian martyrs, as opposed to using one’s life as an instrument of destruction in order to kill those with whom you disagree. There is simply no moral equivalence between the two. I have also not used martyrdom as the sole rule in measuring whether or not one takes into account “objective truth” in forming their beliefs. You chose not to comment on the rest of my statement which is instrumental in making my point.

I didn’t comment on the rest of your statement because I had no problem with it.

 

[Lokabrenna]

so they can’t conceive of a non-created creator? or is the ‘primordal existence’ not the same concept as a non-created creator?

I would say that the “primordial essence” (in my tradition, I suppose that would be Ginnungagap) isn’t a “creator”, it’s more of a space where creation happens, as it does when primordial fire meets primordial ice. It’s not worshiped or honoured because it isn’t really a being in itself. For me, the idea that gods come out of “something” makes way more sense than a God who is “just there” (as one of my elementary school teachers put it) although technically the gods we Norse Pagans/Heathens know and love didn’t just rise out of the abyss.

 

[SteveVH]

Although I’m an atheist, one thing I can say about Catholicism is that it makes more theological sense than other belief systems I’ve encountered. You aren’t supposed to be able to conceive of God’s eternal existence. That’s the whole point of “God”: "“As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:9). If you could conceive of God’s actual existence, then he wouldn’t be God. This explains why the Trinity is regarded as a “Mystery”, and to use the words of one man: “**A religion without the element of mystery would not be a religion at all. **” (Edwin Lewis). Philosophers across the board all agree with God’s eternal characteristic. In philosophy, there’s even a debate about whether we can even speak about God at all using language (and here we find the distinction between cataphatic theology and apophatic theology).

Very well said. It is difficult for me to imagine that you are now an atheist and even more difficult for me to believe that you will remain an atheist. You seem to have a fairly firm grasp of Christianity. In any event, I do appreciate your intellectual honesty.

 

[SteveVH]

I didn’t comment on the rest of your statement because I had no problem with it.

 

[AnAtheist]

And one distinguishing fact, which can not be denied, between Christianity and paganism is that Jesus actually has a place in history. All historians agree on this. Paganism is ultimately rooted in myth and fables. Nothing is true; why follow a falsehood religiously?

Even if Jesus was a historical person the events told in the gospels are clearly mythological. Historical people don’t perform miracles and do not raise from the dead. Mythological people do that stuff all the time.
Pagan religions have no founder (well, except for Wicca perhaps), so they were not invented at a particular point in time but have gradually developed over time along with the culture. Paganism has its roots in the culture and the people, and the myths are an expression of that development and the deepest feelings of the people. So myths are not just fairy tales. (That applies to the Christians myths too of course.)

 

[SteveVH]

Even if Jesus was a historical person the events told in the gospels are clearly mythological. Historical people don’t perform miracles and do not raise from the dead. Mythological people do that stuff all the time.

You completely ignore even the possiblility that Jesus was, in fact, God. That would certainly explain the miracles. What you also ignore are the witnesses to these miracles who can be historically documented as real people. Paul, for instance, was a well known Jew who relentlessly persecuted Christians. What happened to this man? One day he is persecuting Christians, the next day he is willing to defend the Christian faith even at the cost of his life. You have approached the situation with the preconceived notion that, because God does not exist, then there is no possibility that Jesus performed miracles. Sorry, but that is nothing but circular reasoning.

But we are digressing from the topic of this thread so I will refrain from expanding my thoughts.

God bless you.

 

[AnAtheist]

You completely ignore even the possiblility that Jesus was, in fact, God. That would certainly explain the miracles.

You don’t say.
And I also completely ignore the following possibilities that would “explain” the miracles:

• Jesus was a demon
• Jesus was a very powerful magician
• Jesus was a sophisticated holographic projection from outer space

But I consider:

• the entire Jesus story is a myth
• Jesus was a historical person who appears in a myth

 

[samiam1611]

Is this how you picture Freyr and Freya?

 

[Lokabrenna]

Is this how you picture Freyr and Freya?

I can never seem to find a Freyr statue I like, but I love that one of Freya. The horned helmets are bothering me, though. The vikings never wore horned helmets.

This is the one of Freya that I was thinking of getting:



I would say there probably isn’t an image that perfectly captures the image I have of the gods in my head, but some come closer than others.

 

[samiam1611]

check out abaxion.com/statue.htm They have several of Freya (including the one you attached), Freyr, Loki, Tyr, and maybe others.

I like this one of an earth goddess (tasteful partial nudity so I won’t attach the image)

I collect fairy statues though so I don’t want to break the theme! Are there any fairies in Norse mythology? (I don’t know what to call it. What’s the noun version of your religion? Vanic is an adjective right?) A book I have on faeries talks about Norse and Germanic lore, the Light and Dark elves transforming from Ymir, and they live in the land of Faerie. But they’re not like “real” fairies cuz they don’t have wings. My book is mostly about Irish, Welsh, Scottish, and British faerie lore. It only mentions Norse ones in the introduction.

 

[Lokabrenna]

check out abaxion.com. abaxion.com/statue.htm They have several of Freya (including the one you attached), Freyr, Loki, Tyr, and maybe others.

I like this one of an earth goddess (tasteful partial nudity so I won’t attach the image)

I collect fairy statues though so I don’t want to break the theme! Are there any fairies in Norse mythology? (I don’t know what to call it. What’s the noun version of your religion? Vanic is an adjective right?)

Oh, woooow! What a cool site, and they have a statue of Lilith that’s based on the painting by Collier! I LOVE that painting!

You can just call it Norse mythology if you like. My tradition is also known as “Vanatru” (followers are known as Vanatruar), but other people call themselves “Norse Pagans”, “Heathens” (Asatru, which you might be familiar with, is one branch of Heathenry), or “Northern polytheists”. I don’t use “Heathen” because it implies a certain way of thinking, but “Northern polytheist”, “Norse Pagan”, “Vanic Pagan” or “Vanatruar” could all be used to describe me with varying degrees of accuracy.

The wikipedia page lists a lot of different groups under “Germanic neopaganism”, I’d recommend giving it a look see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_Neopaganism

Now to your question. We don’t really have fairies, per se, although some may see the alfar (elves) as a fairy-like being. The wights are usually seen as “land spirits”, but my impression is that they’re more like a genius loci than beings who play pranks on people and abduct children. There are also etins (giants) who have a habit of marrying mortals (not all giants are necessarily destructive), but there’s no one being that does all the things that faeries traditionally do in Celtic lore. Sometimes it gets confusing because the term “alfar” is also used to refer collectively to one’s male ancestors. You might see the term “ljosalfar” (light-elf) to refer to the being and plain “alfar” to refer to male ancestors (female ancestors are known as disir).

There’s actually a book that’s been written on this subject from a Heathen perspective. It is Elves, Wights, and Trolls: Studies Towards the Practice of Germanic Heathenry by Kvedulf Gundarsson which goes through the primary sources and points out all the references to these beings. I’m told it’s written in a very “academic” style, but it’s one of those books that’s on every recommended reading list for Heathenry/Norse Paganism.

 

[SteveVH]

You don’t say.
And I also completely ignore the following possibilities that would “explain” the miracles:

• Jesus was a demon
• Jesus was a very powerful magician
• Jesus was a sophisticated holographic projection from outer space

But I consider:

• the entire Jesus story is a myth
• Jesus was a historical person who appears in a myth

So, rather than arriving at your beliefs (Jesus is a myth) by examining all the possibilities, you begin with a pre-conceived notion of truth (there is no God) upon which all possibilities are then subject. Do you not see the fallacy of that argument?

 

[AnAtheist]

So, rather than arriving at your beliefs (Jesus is a myth) by examining all the possibilities, you begin with a pre-conceived notion of truth (there is no God) upon which all possibilities are then subject. Do you not see the fallacy of that argument?

There is no fallacy.

This is a fallacy:
If Jesus is God, then he can perform miracles. There are stories about Jesus performing miracles, therefore he is God.

With that kind of logic one can prove that Harry Potter is a real magician.

 

[SteveVH]

There is no fallacy.

This is a fallacy:
If Jesus is God, then he can perform miracles. There are stories about Jesus performing miracles, therefore he is God.

With that kind of logic one can prove that Harry Potter is a real magician.

Well, that is cute, but false and certainly not logical. First of all, that is not the logic we use in arriving at our beliefs. That Christ lived and was crucified is verified by sources outside of Christian Scripture. He was a real man (and we believe, true God). We have credible witnesses to the life of Christ. When we examine his life, his words, his miracles, we come to the conclusion that he was who he claimed to be; the Son of the living God. You are free to decide otherwise, but to make the comparison to an imaginary character is just silly and has nothing to do with logic.

Why are you so afraid to even consider the possiblity? I have certainly considered the possiblility that God does not exist and have come to the conclusion that his non-existence is, in itself, an impossibility. That is a conclusion I have come to through reason alone. If you would like to get into this in more depth I am more than willing, but again, this is probably not the thread in which this should be discussed.