Ask a Pagan, Part 2

[Warrenton]

This goes to the ‘neo’ in Neopaganism…For modern Pagans, we try to consider the ‘virtues’ of the various ways of life. … We teach ourselves that in modern times we must each be our own druid, our own guardian, our own provider. We find that the gods like to see our striving, and we do our best to avoid turning it into strife.

Thank you for this explanation. It raises a question that is similar to the one I just put to Brenna: to what extent is the old paganism the desideratum?

I will state readily that I like the old paganism. I like its sense of loyalty, propriety, honor. I can’t think of any European religions that did not have this, and one could include many of the American Indians and Shinto also. As to south Asian pagans, I don’t know much about them, but it would not surprise me if they shared them too, albeit in a less developed way.

But paganism underwent a change that I think can be traced even in its artifacts. When one reads Hesiod, or the Illiad, anyone attuned to art at all is struck by the freshness of these works. They are nigh three thousand years old, but seem to have been written yesterday. The best Egyptian art gives the same sense.

By the time one arrives at Marcus Aurelius, or Lucretius even, the freshness is gone. They still throw people to the lions in the Coloseum, but they don’t believe it delights the lares or the genii of the illustrious dead. Some may differ, but one gets a similar feeling of ennui in some passages of Beowulf and other Anglo Saxon poems. The Icelandic chronicles of the foundation of the community (someone help me with the title!!!) are interesting - indeed, addicting - like the Archers with weapons - but the society is noticeably “joyless.” I don’t mean miserable, or wretched, but there is nothing remotely like the spirit one finds in the Canterbury Tales. Something happened.

Do pagans recognise what I’m trying to describe, and if so, how do pagans propose to “breath the life” back into the people?

 

[Lokabrenna]

The difference is that the Greek gods told the Greeks to colonize Sicily. The gods did not tell the vast majority of Europeans to colonize the new world.

Perhaps our gods didn’t, but the colonizers certainly thought the Christian god had something to do with it. Some cultures were much more mobile than others, though. The Romans and the Germanic tribes certainly liked to travel around, starting colonies, not on the massive scale that their descendents did, though.

You and Buddha raise a interesting point about the possibility of being adopted into an American Indian tribe that remains pagan. That would entail a rejection of modern, western lifestyle. The Indian gods are never going to forgive or forget the rape of this land by the Europeans.

I agree with you, but that doesn’t change the fact that some have chosen to adopt Europeans as their own. Fortunately, there are more gods in this world than the native North American ones, and they seem more than happy to snap up followers.

By the same toke, modern western people are never going to stop destroying the environment for profit.

A little pessimistic, are we? It’s true that if we want to reduce our impact on the environment, a shift in our thinking needs to happen, and old habits die hard. It’s definitely not going to happen overnight, if it’s going to happen at all.

From a pagan perspective, is it the desired end to undo modern civilization, and return to the tribal past, where most people lived in close harmony with nature?

The thing is that our ancestors weren’t great environmentalists: they still clear-cut forests and let animals over-graze on the available land. The idea that all Pagan cultures lived “in harmony with nature” is false. The difference, I would argue, is that these cultures saw nature as inherently sacred, instead of being “dead” matter that was put there by a Creator for humans to use.

As for modern civilization, I know of Pagans who try to live “off the grid” as much as possible. Others like their lattes and cars and all the comforts of modern civilization. I don’t know of a single woman who wants to go back to the days when it was quite possible that you would die in childbirth. I certainly wouldn’t give up hospitals for all the herbal medicine in the world.

 

[Warrenton]

Perhaps our gods didn’t, but the colonizers certainly thought the Christian god had something to do with it.

 

[antihippy79]

CAF should close this thread as it is encouraging the exploration and unheathy curiosity into demonic worship. Paganism is demonic in nature and should be rebuked by Christ’s followers.

At best paganism is silly tribalism mixed with superstition, and at worst it is the subjugation of poor sinners to the whims of the enemies of our Father in heaven.

Christ have mercy on us and bring all lost souls into your flock.

 

[Lokabrenna]

Lokabrenna;8394366:

But aren’t you saying there is no Christian God? How could a god that does not exist have anything to do with it?

I suspect that when some say that Pagan faiths were really demonic deception, someone could counter with “Well, perhaps what the colonizers thought was God speaking to them was really a delusion.” I for one think that it’s hypocritical to believe in multiple deities that can’t be proven to exist and then to turn around and say: “But your God doesn’t exist.” I disagree that he’s the only deity out there, and reject the the notion that he’s a universal deity, but I do think he exists.

Of course, but we’re taking about masses of people. Does the god make a place holy, or does the person? Why would the Indian gods permit a German god to make something in North America holy? Do the different gods know about each other? Does an Iroquois god know that a German god exists?

I would say that the land itself possesses an inherent sacredness, but human actions set apart particular bits of land as sacred sites.

Whether different gods interact with each other depends on your point of view. I think that the pantheons are aware of each other, but someone who believes that all gods are manifestations of a single Godhead would probably say that all gods are, at their core, the same, so it wouldn’t matter if a particular deity disliked another.

There we will have to differ. Demonstrably, their system lasted much longer than our system is lasting. One of the reasons it did is because they were not sentimental about chasing people off of the land. Which gets back to my question about ultimate ends: what kind of ethic would replace the modern ethic in a repaganised world. Would it be the old pagan ethic, or a new pagan ethic? If a new one, is this something the gods are telling people?

As I said, even if Pagans did rule the world, I don’t foresee anyone bringing back blood feuds and cattle raids, but I don’t think it’s about trying to exactly recreate what people did way back then. The strength of these religions is being able to take the best of the old Pagan traditions and bring it into the modern day (or, in the case of Wicca, to create new traditions with bits of the old). It would also depend on what sort of “ethic” we’re talking about, different Pagan cultures valued different things.

You’re hanging around too many Christians. Don’t the gods say that it is good to be strong?

Different gods value different traits. The Norse gods are very appreciative of strength, but they’re not big fans one of their followers dying by childbirth when current technology can prevent such things. There’s a difference between being strong and needlessly suffering.

 

[Warrenton]

CAF should close this thread as it is encouraging the exploration and unheathy curiosity into demonic worship. Paganism is demonic in nature and should be rebuked by Christ’s followers.

At best paganism is silly tribalism mixed with superstition, and at worst it is the subjugation of poor sinners to the whims of the enemies of our Father in heaven.

Christ have mercy on us and bring all lost souls into your flock.

I disagree that it is inherently unhealthy. Most of what we know about paganism in the West, and in the Americas, we know because Catholic monks took pains to preserve it.
It is worthwhile to ask why the did so.

Paganism, after a long sleep, is returning. We should seek to understand it. We have some participants on our forum who are willing to provide us their ideas and experiences.

I assure you, friend, I for one am not in any danger of abjuring in favor of Ceasar.

 

[Warrenton]

I suspect that when some say that Pagan faiths were really demonic deception, someone could counter with “Well, perhaps what the colonizers thought was God speaking to them was really a delusion.”

This is interesting, Brenna. If I say that paganism was demonic (it’s more complicated than that, and St. Paul’s letter to the Romans pretty much sums it up), then I admit the objective reality of the gods. The person who says Christians are deluded, denies (implicitly) the reality.

That is why I would disagree with your statement:

I for one think that it’s hypocritical to believe in multiple deities that can’t be proven to exist and then to turn around and say: “But your God doesn’t exist.”

A believer in Thor, or Ceasar, could say that Christ simply does not exist, nor his Father. And in fact, that is what many of the Romans said when they accused Christians of being atheists and haters of men. They were not being hypocrites, they were responding accurately to the monotheistic contention of the Church, and said either is was deluded or a perversion.

I would say that the land itself possesses an inherent sacredness, but human actions set apart particular bits of land as sacred sites.

With some adjustments, this is potentially consistent with Catholic cult devotion.

Whether different gods interact with each other depends on your point of view.

This, again, is difficult for some Catholics to understand. We would respond that whether they interact is an objective fact. Now, we would agree that because of the disparity in power, intellect, dimension, or space, that it might be practically difficult to know the fact, but as a matter of reason, we would insist that it potentially knowable, and that one’s point of view has nothing to do with the truth of the fact.

Someone who believes that all gods are manifestations of a single Godhead would probably say that all gods are, at their core, the same

,

I think that this is the direction that paganism took at the close of the classical period. I see it as a decay, and would be interested in your view. It is related to my last question for you, which is why select something like Norse or German polytheism, instead of one that remains fully intact, like Hinduism. The food would be better, unless one just has a hankering for ludifisk!

There’s a difference between being strong and needlessly suffering.

I wonder about this , and tend to think Xanthus was more accurate. But like Gulliver, I think most horses have more horse sense than many people do.

Thank you very much for a most enjoyable and informative chat.

Cheers!

 

[Lokabrenna]

This is interesting, Brenna. If I say that paganism was demonic (it’s more complicated than that, and St. Paul’s letter to the Romans pretty much sums it up), then I admit the objective reality of the gods. The person who says Christians are deluded, denies (implicitly) the reality.

…

A believer in Thor, or Ceasar, could say that Christ simply does not exist, nor his Father. And in fact, that is what many of the Romans said when they accused Christians of being atheists and haters of men. They were not being hypocrites, they were responding accurately to the monotheistic contention of the Church, and said either is was deluded or a perversion.

The Romans had more of an issue with Christians because Christians refused to offer sacrifices to the deified emperors. They didn’t have as much of an issue with Jews because a) they recognized that Judaism was ancient, and old things deserved respect, and b) the Jews were happy to offer sacrifices to God for the Emperor’s/Empire’s health. Christians were very counter-cultural in that respect.

We would respond that whether they interact is an objective fact. Now, we would agree that because of the disparity in power, intellect, dimension, or space, that it might be practically difficult to know the fact, but as a matter of reason, we would insist that it potentially knowable, and that one’s point of view has nothing to do with the truth of the fact.

That’s one point in your favour, Catholics (and Christians in general) can generally agree on the basics of their faith, but it’s not as important to orthopraxic traditions. Now, getting the rituals right is another story.

I think that this is the direction that paganism took at the close of the classical period. I see it as a decay, and would be interested in your view. It is related to my last question for you, which is why select something like Norse or German polytheism, instead of one that remains fully intact, like Hinduism. The food would be better, unless one just has a hankering for ludifisk!

I don’t like Indian food, actually. They say it’s spicy but the only Indian food I’ve tried has been…bland. Give me Westernized Chinese food or Japanese cuisine any day of the week!

As for why this pantheon and not that one, most will tell you that it’s the gods who choose the follower, not the other way around. For me, the Norse gods scratch an itch that no other pantheon has managed to do (although I do have a soft spot for Sumero-Akkadian religion and other religions of the Ancient Near East). The Egyptian pantheon seems very popular, but when I first read actual translations of the myths, I couldn’t understand why anyone found those gods appealing. Sometimes I wish I did find more literate cultures appealing, but it just didn’t work out that way.

Thank you very much for a most enjoyable and informative chat.

Cheers!

Thanks for not throwing holy water on me and being all: “AWAY WITH YOU! DEVIL WORSHIPING SATAN SPAWN! BLARG!”

 

[jam070406]

The Romans had more of an issue with Christians because Christians refused to offer sacrifices to the deified emperors. They didn’t have as much of an issue with Jews because a) they recognized that Judaism was ancient, and old things deserved respect, and b) the Jews were happy to offer sacrifices to God for the Emperor’s/Empire’s health. Christians were very counter-cultural in that respect.

That’s one point in your favour, Catholics (and Christians in general) can generally agree on the basics of their faith, but it’s not as important to orthopraxic traditions. Now, getting the rituals right is another story.

I don’t like Indian food, actually. They say it’s spicy but the only Indian food I’ve tried has been…bland. Give me Westernized Chinese food or Japanese cuisine any day of the week!

As for why this pantheon and not that one, most will tell you that it’s the gods who choose the follower, not the other way around. For me, the Norse gods scratch an itch that no other pantheon has managed to do (although I do have a soft spot for Sumero-Akkadian religion and other religions of the Ancient Near East). The Egyptian pantheon seems very popular, but when I first read actual translations of the myths, I couldn’t understand why anyone found those gods appealing. Sometimes I wish I did find more literate cultures appealing, but it just didn’t work out that way.

Thanks for not throwing holy water on me and being all: “AWAY WITH YOU! DEVIL WORSHIPING SATAN SPAWN! BLARG!”

I haven’t read through all of this thread but I was just curious how old you are?

 

[Lokabrenna]

I haven’t read through all of this thread but I was just curious how old you are?

I turned twenty-five in January, so I haven’t been Pagan for very long, and I definitely don’t have the breadth and depth of experience that someone like Ian (who is an Archdruid Emeritus in the ADF). Why? I won’t be offended if you say I seem older or younger than I actually am, I get mistaken for being either in real life.

 

[jam070406]

I turned twenty-five in January, so I haven’t been Pagan for very long, and I definitely don’t have the breadth and depth of experience that someone like Ian (who is an Archdruid Emeritus in the ADF). Why? I won’t be offended if you say I seem older or younger than I actually am, I get mistaken for being either in real life.

I was just curious. I assumed you were probably younger. No intent to offend.

 

[amber_lux]

can generally agree on the basics of their faith, but it’s not as important to orthopraxic traditions. Now, getting the rituals right is another story.

That would be arguments about whether the sword represents fire, air, or earth.

I don’t like Indian food, actually. They say it’s spicy but the only Indian food I’ve tried has been…bland.

How spicy the food is, depends upon which part of India the recipes are from. The spiciest food I’ve ever had, was from a Gujurati whose ancestors lived in South Africa.

As for why this pantheon and not that one, most will tell you that it’s the gods who choose the follower, not the other way around.

Calvin was right. The Gods and Goddesses select who is to follow them, and who is not to follow them.

Amber

 

[AnAtheist]

The Icelandic chronicles of the foundation of the community (someone help me with the title!!!)

Landnámabók

?

 

[Ahimsa]

Calvin was right. The Gods and Goddesses select who is to follow them, and who is not to follow them.

Calvin got a lot of things right: the Gods do the choosing, ultimately. (However, it does not follow from that, that if God A doesn’t choose person B, that person B will be damned forever. Person B might simply be chosen by God Z, rather than God A.)

 

[Lokabrenna]

That would be arguments about whether the sword represents fire, air, or earth.

I was always a sword/fire person, swords are forged in fire and cut through air, wands are (usually) made of wood, which comes from a tree, and tree branches sway in the wind and burn up in fire, but I know the majority likes the reverse.

How spicy the food is, depends upon which part of India the recipes are from. The spiciest food I’ve ever had, was from a Gujurati whose ancestors lived in South Africa.

Maybe they just served bland food at school so no one went home being unable to taste anything!

Calvin was right. The Gods and Goddesses select who is to follow them, and who is not to follow them.

Too true, even gods in the same pantheon might not like an individual.

 

[Contarini]

I think that this is the direction that paganism took at the close of the classical period. I see it as a decay

Decay of what?

and would be interested in your view. It is related to my last question for you, which is why select something like Norse or German polytheism, instead of one that remains fully intact, like Hinduism.

Well, Hinduism is a more fully developed example of what you call a “decay” in the Greco-Roman case. In both cases I see no basis for calling it a “decay” (I’m not sure in what sense one can meaningfully use such language about a religious tradition to which one does not adhere). And the tension between the culturally limited nature of Hinduism and the philosophical lack of development in European paganism is one reason why, if I ever abandoned Christianity, I’d be more likely to become a Buddhist (also, Buddhists have a more otherworldly ethical tradition–I find the extent to which pagan ethics simply underwrite cultural norms deeply disturbing). But it would certainly be interesting to try to develop European paganism along the lines Hinduism followed, making allowances for cultural differences. Perhaps only a curiosity, but interesting.

Historically, the development of European paganism led to Christianity. I recognize that there was a sharp break and in many cases actual violence involved, but still, much of paganism passed into Christianity and in many ways Christianity played the kind of role with regard to pagan ritual and philosophy that theistic Hinduism played with regard to Vedic ritual and Upanashadic philosophy.

Edwin

 

[Warrenton]

Decay of what?

The decay of classical paganism.

Well, Hinduism is a more fully developed example of what you call a “decay” in the Greco-Roman case.

I’m not saying that, because Hinduism is more complex, and quite evidently, still viable.

I’m not sure in what sense one can meaningfully use such language about a religious tradition to which one does not adhere).

We can say it decayed because we know that classical culture did not survive, and its beliefs were replaced.

But it would certainly be interesting to try to develop European paganism along the lines Hinduism followed, making allowances for cultural differences. Perhaps only a curiosity, but interesting.

This is not likely to occur because the history of India is so different from Europe. But if it did, it would end up being pantheism.

the development of European paganism led to Christianity.

What happened is that European people adopted a different religion. European paganism did not morph into Christianity.

Christianity played the kind of role with regard to pagan ritual and philosophy that theistic Hinduism played with regard to Vedic ritual and Upanashadic philosophy.

You’ll need to help me out with what exactly that role was.

 

[Night_Walker]

1. Why be a pagan when you can be a monotheist (Christian, Jew, Muslim)?
2. How sure are you of your faith?
3. What do you find appealing in paganism that you do not find in Christianity?
4. How do you feel when monotheists claim that any worship not directed to the One Living God is worship of the devil?
5. If enlightened by the truth of monotheism, especially the Truth that is Christ, are you prepared to leave your traditions and pagan beliefs (in this regard, are you open-mined enough to consider Christianity)?

1. I grow up a Christian and was a Muslim for ten years.
2. Sveinbjörn Beinteinsson said it best, I feel the same way.

My faith is based on a constant search but I don’t search frantically. It’s no use to rush out into space to search for some gods there, if they want to have anything to do with me, they will come. I have often become aware of them, but I don’t rush after them or shout at them. I have gotten to know them a bit in myself and also in other people. … Primarily it is the effects of the great force felt by everyone that make me religious. … The most remarkable thing about faith is that it gives us growth, the possibility to grow and thrive. And humility cannot be neglected. Without it we cannot live to any useful degree, though of course it has its particular place. But a man who is completely without it is a madman.

1. I don’t like the word pagan, don’t ask why.
2. I don’t care what monotheists think about what I believe, why should I care?
3. I’m not open-mined, most people are not open-mined. I’m honest with myself, I’m also very blut and rude at times.

 

[Ahimsa]

I’m also very blut and rude at times.

Blut, or blot?

 

[Lokabrenna]

Blut, or blot?

I believe they meant ‘blunt’, but your post made me chuckle.