Ask a Pagan

[mlamg]

It should be noted Hellenic mythology is allegorical with the purpose of representing the nature of Man and his propensity for love, conflict, other foibles, etc. I.e., the myths are not literal and are meant to teach man lessons, in short to a life of virtue and piety over weakness and flaws. The gods’ roles in them is not dissimilar to that of a parent telling a child a story seemingly unrelated to a lesson they want their child to learn, as a way to convey understanding which the child doesn’t yet grasp the magnitude or meaning.

Great explanation. The same goes for Celtic/Druidic.

See, this is what I don’t understand about some people’s views of Christianity. Seems like they try and force people to believe it’s literal/historical truth, as if there is something wrong with mythology. In reality, most religions are mythological (non-“revealed” religions, I mean). Just because something is mythological does NOT mean it’s any less “real” to its practitioners/adherents, or that the faces and spirit of God are any less present.

Really, most of my disbelief of Christianity is due to my having to believe that it’s historical truth. If that wasn’t part of its practice, I’d be perfectly fine with Christianity. I think it’s a GREAT mythology. I just don’t believe it’s historical fact.

With all its mysteries and unknowns, Christianity works waaayyyyy better, IMHO, mythologically.

 

[Brendan_64]

See, this is what I don’t understand about some people’s views of Christianity. Seems like they try and force people to believe it’s literal/historical truth, as if there is something wrong with mythology.

The Catholic Church does not insist that all books of the Bible are literal.

Although there are many Christian denominations that do. At an ecumenical Bible study group that I sometimes attend we were discussing the story of Abraham in Genesis and one of the Methodist members of the group was trying to explain reasons why Abraham lived to the age of 175 (as in the account in Genesis). The Catholic members of the group looked at each other and chose to keep a respectful silence, rather than upset our Methodist friends.

 

[mlamg]

The Catholic Church does not insist that all books of the Bible are literal.

Although there are many Christian denominations that do. At an ecumenical Bible study group that I sometimes attend we were discussing the story of Abraham in Genesis and one of the Methodist members of the group was trying to explain reasons why Abraham lived to the age of 175 (as in the account in Genesis). The Catholic members of the group looked at each other and chose to keep a respectful silence, rather than upset our Methodist friends.

I didn’t know this! But do you believe in the actual death and resurrection of Jesus, or is this also allowed to not be taken literally? That he actually lived and events played out historically, and that he actually died and resurrected is a requirement, I thought.

Very interesting indeed!

 

[joe371]

“People failed to see the miracle of the sun” p. 356.

I no longer have the book, it came out several years ago, and I’m pulling from notes I’ve kept of past discussions elsewhere. As others suggested, it’s possible to purchase the book. Addedly I would be quite surprised that an internet search would not bring up results in which it’s noted Jaki mentioned that his research found that not all individuals saw the same thing or that there were those who saw nothing. As I recall, Jaki examined the event from believer and non-believer assertions alike and noted when something didn’t support belief in the event.

No, I don’t agree that Meesen’s argument falls apart.

However I’m not interested in having an in-depth discussion on Fatima or the research on either stance. Nor is such the purpose of this thread. The point was that whether one believes in miracles is just that, something of belief. You surveying people of other religions you’ve encountered as to whether they’ve experienced “miracles” is not evidence to determine whether they do or don’t exist in any religion, including your own. First, most people, of any belief, have not personally experienced what Catholics define as “miracle”, including Catholics. So there’s a stronger likelihood to encounter individuals who haven’t experienced something miraculous than those who have. Second, the role of miracles in religions differs so the importance (or lack thereof) in Judaism or Islam or Buddhism vs. Catholicism will differ.

Fatima discussion over. If you know of any other verifiable miracles from other religions be sure to let me know if you wouldn’t mind. Other than doing google searches I really don’t have the time, which is why I am hoping that you know of some. I believe you did say they exist?

 

[joe371]

I’m curious as to why this is believed. God of the bible killed all of his creation, including innocent animals, because he was angry. I don’t see that as perfect love, it seems more like an imperfect human emotion and reaction, to me.

Here is a whole list of not very loving things that the god the bible did. How do you reconcile this and still call that god pure and perfect love?

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Examples_of_God_personally_killing_people

Mercy and justice…Not sure what else to say. Since you do not believe in sin and the fact that it offends God a great deal, there is nothing more to say on the subject.

 

[Kallisto]

Fatima discussion over. If you know of any other verifiable miracles from other religions be sure to let me know if you wouldn’t mind. Other than doing google searches I really don’t have the time, which is why I am hoping that you know of some. I believe you did say they exist?

I said a few things, like profound divine experiences aren’t limited to Christianity, nor do Judaism, Islam or Buddhism address “miracles” the same as Catholics. Do these and other religions’ experiences “qualify as verifiable” miracles per Catholic view? Shrug, but then that’s sort of the point - they don’t have to any more than Catholics want their miracles to be held to criteria asserted by outside scrutiny. Suffice to say if other religions were void of individuals ever having profound divine experiences that they would not continue to be practiced given religions typically facilitate one’s relationship with his god(s) (see below).

Not to sound snarky, as I don’t mean to be, but why should I spend the time compiling specific examples when it’s something in which you seem to have an interest?

Perhaps this would be of interest: The Book of Miracles: The Meaning of the Miracle Stories in Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam by Kenneth L. Woodward

You can read his introduction here:
nytimes.com/books/first/w/woodward-miracles.html

He defines a miracle as:

“A miracle is an unusual or extraordinary event that is in principle perceivable by others, that finds no reasonable explanation in ordinary human abilities or in other known forces that operate in the world of time and space, and that is the result of a special act of God or the gods or of human beings transformed by efforts of their own through asceticism and meditation.”

That’s not something limited to one religion.

 

[joe371]

Kallisto;
Not to sound snarky, as I don’t mean to be, but why should I spend the time compiling specific examples when it’s something in which you seem to have an interest?

Makes sense. I had thought you…well it doesn’t matter…

Perhaps this would be of interest: The Book of Miracles: The Meaning of the Miracle Stories in Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam by Kenneth L. Woodward

You can read his introduction here:
nytimes.com/books/first/w/woodward-miracles.html

He defines a miracle as:

“A miracle is an unusual or extraordinary event that is in principle perceivable by others, that finds no reasonable explanation in ordinary human abilities or in other known forces that operate in the world of time and space, and that is the result of a special act of God or the gods or of human beings transformed by efforts of their own through asceticism and meditation.”

That’s not something limited to one religion.

 

[jerry_joseph]

.

Your right, there is no sin because sin does not exist.

If there is no sin, that means Virtues also does not exists… As there is no difference between Good and bad deeds. Then what is the logic in asking a person to lead a moral and an ideal life, if there is no Sin or Virtue.

Well firstly, if it is for survival, then you cant blame the second man. There is good and evil, but evil is devoid of reason. If I slay a deer to eat, or because it is eating my crops, it is fine, circle of life. But if i kill a deer simply to kill it, to torture it and mame its body, well that is wrong.

So theft, burglary all can be justified with your belief. There is no difference between a hardworking man and a thief. As there is no sin or virtue , all depends upon circumstances. Then there is no requirement for justice. Courts, Police all are waste.

I cannot agree with you in this, as it is against my concept about morality.

 

[Micosil]

Why would you feel the need to say this? Who said anything about blind faith?

The statement “You believe what you believe, I believe what I believe. Yours is right for you, mine is right for me.” is nice and dandy if you mean any random belief, but the fact of the matter is, Catholicism places a lot of emphasis on faith coupled with reason.

This goes waaaay back to the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine, and it is nothing new; various Popes have also dwelled on this important issue, in particular Pope John Paul II released Fides et Ratio, and Pope Benedict XVI’s 2006 Regensburg Lecture was on faith and reason.

I’m not sure I understand your question. What exactly do you want evidence of? Many spiritual paths are experiential or mystical, eg. the practitioner has an actual experience of God that convinces them that the path is the right one for them. I’m not sure what you’re asking me.

What core tenants are you referring to, and how would you say that they are “proven”? Proven to be what?

I didn’t know this! But do you believe in the actual death and resurrection of Jesus, or is this also allowed to not be taken literally? That he actually lived and events played out historically, and that he actually died and resurrected is a requirement, I thought.

Very interesting indeed!

Let me explain a bit of background, enough to not stray too off-topic. I was an agnostic/atheist for the vast majority of my life, but then I started to research the historical claims of the Church, including the Resurrection. There is ample evidence to suggest that such an event did happen, such as the dramatic change the Apostles experienced as they went about to spread the Good News.

Why did all of the Apostles (except John) abandon Christ when he was sentenced to death, yet experienced later such an extreme change that they happily had themselves martyred (except John) as they preached the Gospel of Christ? If it were all hooey, why would the Biblical authors feel the need to include the figure of Doubting Thomas? Surely if you wanted to hoodwink someone, you’d leave out doubting figures.

These are the kinds of things I am talking about, the reactions of people surrounding the life, death and Resurrection of Christ seem natural and it doesn’t seem like “acting”.

You do realize that 85% of the world’s population is NOT Catholic, right? If there was proven evidence that it was the only one true faith, you’d think more people would be practicing it.

Close, but no cigar.

“The CIA’s World Factbook gives the world population as 7,021,836,029 (July 2012 est.) and the distribution of religions as Christian 33.39% (of which Roman Catholic 18.85%, Protestant 8.15%, Orthodox 4.96%, Anglican 1.26%), Muslim 22.74%, Hindu 10.8%, Buddhist 6.77%, Sikh 0.35%, Jewish 0.22%, Baha’i 0.11%, other religions 10.95%, non-religious 9.66%, atheists 2.01%. (2010 est.).[1]”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations

100-18.85 = 81.15%.

But, since you’re so adamant on quoting figures, you’ll notice “other religions” is 10.95%, among which I assume Paganism is included (it’s not anywhere else in the census). What does that tell us, according to your logic?

Truth isn’t measured with census and statistics, what matters is, is it true or not? And this can only be seen by opening your mind, being honest with yourself, and using proper sources.

 

[Micosil]

Since the forum won’t let me edit my last message, I think this ties in wonderfully with what I was discussing before…

“Christ said, “I am the Truth”; he did not say “I am the custom.”
-St. Toribio

 

[Brendan_64]

I didn’t know this! But do you believe in the actual death and resurrection of Jesus, or is this also allowed to not be taken literally? That he actually lived and events played out historically, and that he actually died and resurrected is a requirement, I thought.

Of course the death and resurrection of Jesus is to be taken literally. The Bible is made of many books of different genres, as individuals we do not decide which books we may take as allegorical and which books we may not. The Gospels are most certainly literal texts.

We are not free as individuals simply to choose which bits we may view as literal, we rely on the Magesterium of our Church which is divinely guided and directed through the power of the Holy Spirit. As individuals it is not within our remit to decide such things.

There is a big difference in mind-set between our Church and that of pagans. Paganism is, in my experience (and I speak as one who drifted into paganism, before returning home) very much centred on the individual and what he/she wishes to believe or even how he/she wishes to behave. Catholicism is centred on the concept of a community of believers following a concrete Truth. It is not about what each individual may wish to believe, there can only be one Truth. Truth is not relative, it is absolute. We cannot be free to follow different truths (based on our own experiences, desires etc), we can follow only one Truth and that Truth is determined by the one true God, operating through the Magesterium of our Church. It is not about what we each may decide to believe.

Faiths that allow people to believe in different versions of truth are theologically unsound. Man cannot invent Truth. Truth comes from God and there can only be one version of it.

 

[onenow1]

God is so far above us!! So as this is being discussed let us not forget this one truth I think all can agree on.

1. Truth belongs to God after all He is God !
2. Jesus is a distinct part of the Triune God, separate but yet the same God.
3. It is not for us to understand this for if we did we would be on the same level with God.

The Christian view is the most logical, for just a cursury look at life itself; only Jesus had the foresight in the new testament when he prayed that we may all come to believe through the Apostles that He was sent by God as God to speak only the word of God. I’m not that familiar with mythical gods,but it seems to me none of them spoke so eloquently of the human condition. It also seems to me with so many mythical deities self absorbed it certainly would be chaos as some movies portray.

God Bless

 

[Kallisto]

The statement “You believe what you believe, I believe what I believe. Yours is right for you, mine is right for me.” is nice and dandy if you mean any random belief, but the fact of the matter is, Catholicism places a lot of emphasis on faith coupled with reason.

So what are you saying, basically any religion, including other Christian denominations are “random beliefs” but, somehow, only Catholicism emphasizes faith + reason?

100-18.85 = 81.15%.

Really? Isn’t that playing a numbers game as well? 3.85% isn’t a big enough difference to change the gist of the comment which was over 80% of the world population is not Catholic (and 66% of the world population is not Christian). So are you implying 80-plus percent of the world’s population is ignorant because only Catholicism emphasizes faith + reason?

But, since you’re so adamant on quoting figures, you’ll notice “other religions” is 10.95%, among which I assume Paganism is included (it’s not anywhere else in the census). What does that tell us, according to your logic?

People who practice non-Abrahamic religions are still discriminated against and persecuted. And, certainly in the case of Pagans, continue not to disclose their religious affiliations publicly or even to family. In other countries, folk and pagan practices still suffer under the threat of physical violence and vigilante death including being burnt alive for witchcraft. So numbers regarding such practices are going to fall rather short on accuracy.

Truth isn’t measured with census and statistics, what matters is, is it true or not? And this can only be seen by opening your mind, being honest with yourself, and using proper sources.

It’s not measured by religious bias and conceit either. You seem to be implying that people are only opening their mind and being honest when they buy your religion’s brand of truth.

 

[Kallisto]

let us not forget this one truth I think all can agree on.

Not everyone agrees with your version of truth.

 

[Brendan_64]

So what are you saying, basically any religion, including other Christian denominations are “random beliefs” but, somehow, only Catholicism emphasizes faith + reason?

I wouldn’t necessarily call them random, but they are misguided beliefs. As to other Christian denomination, the fullness of Truth lies within the Catholic Church (as the only Church established by God on Earth). The faiths of our separated Christian brothers and sisters of other Christian denominations contain elements of the Truth, but not the fullness of Truth.

People who practice non-Abrahamic religions are still discriminated against and persecuted. And, certainly in the case of Pagans, continue not to disclose their religious affiliations publicly or even to family. In other countries, folk and pagan practices still suffer under the threat of physical violence and vigilante death including being burnt alive for witchcraft.

Playing the pagan ‘victim card’? Pagans are no more discriminated against than any other religious group. Christians face persecution and death in many parts of the world. pagans are certainly not discriminated against in the West at least.

You seem to be implying that people are only opening their mind and being honest when they buy your religion’s brand of truth.

There are no ‘brands’ of Truth. You don’t roll up to the supermarket and choose a brand of Truth, like you’d choose a brand of cereal. There is only one Truth.

Not everyone agrees with your version of truth.

Not everybody is right. To hold a view which is counter to the truth is to hold a view that is false. There cannot be any other logical conclusion.

 

[Kallisto]

There is a big difference in mind-set between our Church and that of pagans. Paganism is, in my experience (and I speak as one who drifted into paganism, before returning home) very much centred on the individual and what he/she wishes to believe or even how he/she wishes to behave.

What you’re describing are a couple of overlapping segments within Neopaganism referred to as Eclecticism and Solitary. These practices are highly individualized and do focus primarily on what is called UPG (Unverified Personal Gnosis). However, this isn’t the case with tradition-oriented practices, such as Trad Wicca (also quite different from “eclectic/solitary Wicca”), certain Witchcraft Traditions and Reconstructionist religions (which reconstruct/revive ancient popular/folk religions). These practices are very much community-oriented (“community” as in family and/or gathering of many adherents).

Faiths that allow people to believe in different versions of truth are theologically unsound. Man cannot invent Truth. Truth comes from God and there can only be one version of it.

Yet don’t the Christian denominations differ in their interpretations of this one truth?

 

[Kallisto]

I wouldn’t necessarily call them random, but they are misguided beliefs. As to other Christian denomination, the fullness of Truth lies within the Catholic Church (as the only Church established by God on Earth). The faiths of our separated Christian brothers and sisters of other Christian denominations contain elements of the Truth, but not the fullness of Truth.

Which is merely your version of truth. Other religions are no more misguided than you would admit yours to be.

Playing the pagan ‘victim card’? Pagans are no more discriminated against than any other religious group. Christians face persecution and death in many parts of the world. pagans are certainly not discriminated against in the West at least.

Hardly. You asked a question, I gave you an answer. And yes, Pagans are most certainly discriminated against in the West. Individuals are marginalized at work, by community, by family. Yes, these events still happen. It took a decade of legal battles to allow a Wiccan soldier who died in the line of duty to have a pentagram on his headstone while fallen Christian, Jewish and Muslim were allowed their religious symbols on theirs. Don’t negate something you don’t know anything about.

There are no ‘brands’ of Truth. You don’t roll up to the supermarket and choose a brand of Truth, like you’d choose a brand of cereal. There is only one Truth.

And yet your brand differs from others.

Not everybody is right. To hold a view which is counter to the truth is to hold a view that is false. There cannot be any other logical conclusion.

Yet there’s nothing to substantiate that any particular religion has cornered the market on truth. There’s just adherents who believe theirs to be “the” truth, that includes Catholicism.

 

[Kallisto]

If there is no sin, that means Virtues also does not exists… As there is no difference between Good and bad deeds. Then what is the logic in asking a person to lead a moral and an ideal life, if there is no Sin or Virtue.

Not so. In Greek religion there is no original sin, however there is Virtue or Areté, which in short means striving for spiritual excellence. That in itself fosters morality, as it eschews baneful practices which pollutes one’s self and causes a distance between the person and the gods.

 

[Brendan_64]

What you’re describing are a couple of overlapping segments within Neopaganism referred to as Eclecticism and Solitary. These practices are highly individualized and do focus primarily on what is called UPG (Unverified Personal Gnosis). However, this isn’t the case with tradition-oriented practices, such as Trad Wicca (also quite different from “eclectic/solitary Wicca”), certain Witchcraft Traditions and Reconstructionist religions (which reconstruct/revive ancient popular/folk religions). These practices are very much community-oriented (“community” as in family and/or gathering of many adherents).

My experience of Wiccans, Druids and Germanic recons (of which I was one once) is that it is very much a case of, “Here’s what we base our belief system on, now go interpret it as you see fit” and then you end up with individuals, claiming to be of the same religious grouping as others, believing different, and often opposing things. I’ve heard Germanic recons claiming that you cannot have an afterlife unless you have children. I’ve heard them argue about whether or not you can be a Germanic recon unless you have Germanic ancestry. In fact in all my time as a pagan, I never actually found two pagans that held the same beliefs. I also found it to be very self-centred, all about the individual.

Yet don’t the Christian denominations differ in their interpretations of this one truth?

As I have said in my previous post, not all Christian denominations contain the fullness of Truth. The fullness of Truth lies only within he Catholic Church, however other Christian denominations can contain elements of the Truth. They also, by their very nature (and reasons for separation) contain heretical beliefs.

 

[Kallisto]

My experience of Wiccans, Druids and Germanic recons (of which I was one once) is that it is very much a case of, “Here’s what we base our belief system on, now go interpret it as you see fit” and then you end up with individuals, claiming to be of the same religious grouping as others, believing different, and often opposing things. I’ve heard Germanic recons claiming that you cannot have an afterlife unless you have children. I’ve heard them argue about whether or not you can be a Germanic recon unless you have Germanic ancestry. In fact in all my time as a pagan, I never actually found two pagans that held the same beliefs. I also found it to be very self-centred, all about the individual.

You’re not describing anything differently than what Christians and Catholics do - “this is what the/“our” Church says (the Bible says)…” and then there will be discourse and debate with individuals taking “conservative” or “liberal” stances both within a denomination and among multiple ones.

Noting different sects within Heathenry is no different than noting sects of another religion, including Christianity. And Traditional Wicca (again, not the same thing as eclectic/solitary) is specifically a priesthood of specific deities.

As I have said in my previous post, not all Christian denominations contain the fullness of Truth. The fullness of Truth lies only within he Catholic Church, however other Christian denominations can contain elements of the Truth. They also, by their very nature (and reasons for separation) contain heretical beliefs.

Well you’re missing the point which is as much as you deny selectivity is part of ALL religions, it is and you’re demonstrating just that. Nothing has proven that one Christian denomination has the one sole correct version of Truth. You call other denominations heresies, they call you pagan. Each thinks the other is anything from misguided to corrupt. Either way, ultimately, there is no one version of the Truth. There’s just yours and every other denominations’ interpretations.