Do you belive other gods exist?

[Skadi]

But your posts don’t reflect an accurate understanding of the material you read.

Sorry, but there it is.

Well yes, as I see them differently from my religious perspective . Sense i don’t believe in Christianity and as such refrain from questioning them.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well yes, as I see them differently from my religious perspective . Sense i don’t believe in Christianity and as such refrain from questioning them.

The point I am making (echoed by others) is that while you tell us that you are familiar with Catholic theology, when you post something that we Catholics are supposed to believe, what you write bears little resemblance to actual doctrine.

This leads me to conclude that either you haven’t really read much about Catholicism or you simply haven’t grasped the material that you have read.

This seems to put you into the all-too-common position of having rejected something that you never really knew.

Maybe it’s time you gave the Catholic Church a second look.

 

[Starrsmother]

The First Commandment says that we should have no other gods before/besides God.

So do we as Catholics or even if you are not Catholic do you believe that other gods exist or not?

Pope Francis provided a rather eloquent sermon on this recently. He said that a lot of us are guilty of idolatry even though most “advanced” civilizations no longer would even consider falling down in adoration in front of a golden calf or a statue of a woman with snakes for hair. He points out that if we look within our hearts–especially in the presence of the Holy Eucharist— that we often can determine the idol that we really adore. Anything that prevents us from living as we know we should and devoting ourselves to God is an idol. This would include pride, money–in some cases, even our job or another person.

 

[zippity]

No. There is only one God by whom all things are.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

Well yes, as I see them differently from my religious perspective . Sense i don’t believe in Christianity and as such refrain from questioning them.

I never had the chance to thank you for sharing your story about the challenges presented to Thor and the lesson behind them. I know there are a lot of us Christians, myself included, that come off sounding very arrogant when talking about our God and His Almighty power; yet, I think your story helps me explained why I talk about my God this way and how I’ve come to acknowledge Christ as God.

You could say for the longest time I was like Thor and to be honest I still have my Thor moments. Yet one day a challenge came to me and it came in the form of a little Jewish carpenter. He didn’t look like much and I can remember one day telling Him -while sitting in front of a tabernacle, staring at a crucifix- that He looked ridiculous, pathetic, and stupid. I fought with Him and we went toe to toe (He took it easy on me), and I came out realizing this ordinary carpenter was not so ordinary. In Him was contained He who had created the lands and the seas of my planet; the stars and solar systems and all the universes that exist. In Him was He who is timeless and eternal; the beginning and end of all things. In Him was He who is Perfection itself. Yes my friend I had found that this little Jewish carpenter from Bethlehem is Truth, Love, Goodness, Happiness, Hope, Strength, Wisdom, and Life. He is God and He had put this Thor in his place and He continues to do so with love and mercy.

God Bless.

 

[Lokadottir]

Only if you rejected it knowing it to be true.

I admit that your language about what “works for you” bothers me. But I don’t know your specifics. What I do know is that you say that you have never felt a connection with the divine in Christianity, and you have in paganism. I am in no position to judge what that actually means in your own spiritual life. It is possible that given your perspective and circumstances, becoming a pagan was a move toward God. I am of course not speaking for the Catholic Church (I am myself not yet fully united to the Church, although I have been moving that direction in fits and starts for years and am now convinced that I cannot refuse union with the Church in good conscience), but my position is well within what I’ve read and understood to be the spectrum of orthodox opinion. For instance, one of the most conservative, traditional Catholics I know was very alarmed some years ago when I said that I basically believed what Vatican II taught about the Church. He had known me for years, had known that I knew a lot about the Church, and had known that I frequently considered union with the Church. And yet he obviously had not really worried about my soul very much until that moment. Only when he had reason to think that I was convinced the Church’s teachings about itself were true did he become concerned that I was putting my soul in danger by failing to become Catholic. And that’s pretty typical of the conservative , orthodox Catholics I’ve known. (Liberal Catholics tend to think that no one will go to hell at all.) I don’t know who all these Catholics are that Skadi has been talking to, but they aren’t representative of my experience.

The position that you and Skadi ascribe to Catholics is certainly held by some–it’s the most conservative possible reading of the Church’s teaching, it seems to me. But the learned, orthodox, well-informed Catholics I know take a more generous view.

Edwin

Well to be fair I’m stranded in a very conservative area.

 

[Lokadottir]

Then I don’t understand how your point shows a flaw in my analogy.

I said:

If the law forbade Moslem women from wearing hijabs and they still did, their reasons would obviously override fear of or respect for the state law and be either because:

1. Their fear of supernatural law which supersedes natural law or
2. Their respect for what they perceive as supernatural law.

If you suggest 1) as their motive, that presumes something about Moslem women in the same way that someone (like Skadi, perhaps) assumes Christians act out of fear of hell and that the average citizen acts from fear of punishment. The point I was trying to dispel.

If you suggest 2) then it I would agree that people can and most often do act from motives having to do with truth, rightness or goodness rather than out of fear, which was my point.

The point is someone only abandons the practices they consider a part of them out of fear. I don’t think the fear of hell is the only method used but I think it is used against people who love their religion dearly.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The point is someone only abandons the practices they consider a part of them out of fear. I don’t think the fear of hell is the only method used but I think it is used against people who love their religion dearly.

I disagree. That would entail:

1. You became pagan out of fear.
2. Conversion stories as told by Credo in Deum (and many others) could not be true.
3. Truth or goodness (or any other positive motivator) are simply ineffective.
4. People cannot become dissatisfied with or find the limitations of current practices and become open to deeper truth as a result.

 

[Lokadottir]

I disagree. That would entail:

1. You became pagan out of fear.
2. Conversion stories as told by Credo in Deum (and many others) could not be true.
3. Truth or goodness (or any other positive motivator) are simply ineffective.
4. People cannot become dissatisfied with or find the limitations of current practices and become open to deeper truth as a result.

1. I said when they love their religion dearly I did not love Catholicism.
2. It is when someone loves their religion and the God/s
3. Again I meant that Hell is used when the proper methods fail (some bad Christians still go straight for it though)

 

[Randy_Carson]

1. I said when they love their religion dearly I did not love Catholicism.

That is understandable. It’s not easy to love that which we do not really know.

Fulton Sheen commented on this phenomenon this way:

"There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church—which is, of course, quite a different thing. These millions can hardly be blamed for hating Catholics because Catholics “adore statues;” because they “put the Blessed Mother on the same level with God;” because they “say indulgence is a permission to commit sin;” because the Pope “is a Fascist;” because the Church “is the defender of Capitalism.” If the Church taught or believed any one of these things, it should be hated, but the fact is that the Church does not believe nor teach any one of them. It follows then that the hatred of the millions is directed against error and not against truth. As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do.

If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hates. My reason for doing this would be, that if Christ is in any one of the churches of the world today, He must still be hated as He was when He was on earth in the flesh. If you would find Christ today, then find the Church that does not get along with the world. Look for the Church that is hated by the world, as Christ was hated by the world. Look for the Church which is accused of being behind the times, as Our Lord was accused of being ignorant and never having learned.

Look for the Church which men sneer at as socially inferior, as they sneered at Our Lord because He came from Nazareth. Look for the Church which is accused of having a devil, as Our Lord was accused of being possessed by Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils. Look for the Church which the world rejects because it claims it is infallible, as Pilate rejected Christ because he called Himself the Truth.

Look for the Church which amid the confusion of conflicting opinions, its members love as they love Christ, and respect its voice as the very voice of its Founder, and the suspicion will grow, that if the Church is unpopular with the spirit of the world, then it is unworldly, and if it is unworldly, it is other-worldly. Since it is other-worldly, it is infinitely loved and infinitely hated as was Christ Himself. … the Catholic Church is the only Church existing today which goes back to the time of Christ. History is so very clear on this point, it is curious how many miss its obviousness…"

–Bishop Fulton Sheen

 

[Contarini]

The point is someone only abandons the practices they consider a part of them out of fear.

Untrue. Their understanding of who they are and what is a “part of them” may change.

And another possibility is that they may find a practice that expresses what the previous practice did, but in a greater degree.

Which is why (yes, I’m a broken record again) I think it’s important to discuss who or what the “gods” are and how they relate to reality as a whole.

For instance, growing up in a non-denominational evangelical context in which true faith was seen as a purely internal matter and a relationship with God was all about hearing Jesus speak in your heart, I eventually had to grapple with the fact that what I called the voice of Jesus was probably my own feelings. I came to put my “personal” relationship with Jesus in the context of the Church and the sacraments. I would say that my relationship with Jesus has been strengthened by doing this–that the “Jesus” I worship now is a lot more connected to something real, and a lot less the product of my own thoughts and feelings, than the “Jesus” I used to worship.

In other words, our sense of having a relationship with the divine always has a lot that is psychological and cultural in it. From my perspective as a Christian, your relationship with the gods (or, if you insist, the Gods, though I still think that leads to confusion) undoubtedly has some relationship to what I would call God–the ultimate source of all being and all goodness. After all, everything does. If you ever do return to Christianity, it will presumably and hopefully be because you have learned to reconnect what you have experienced of goodness and beauty in paganism with Christianity. This may never happen, but it has happened for other people. You are assuming that it’s all about fear, and that just isn’t true.

Edwin

 

[Peter_Plato]

1. I said when they love their religion dearly I did not love Catholicism.
2. It is when someone loves their religion and the God/s
3. Again I meant that Hell is used when the proper methods fail (some bad Christians still go straight for it though)

Thanks for clarifying, but your initial statement did not say “dearly love” but merely “a part of them.” Your second statement about “dearly love” seemed to stipulate rather than deny the first one.

The point is someone only abandons the practices they consider a part of them out of fear. [Emphasis mine]

This entails that any time anyone abandons beliefs (including, but not limited to, when they deeply love them ) they do so from fear.

 

[Lokadottir]

Thanks for clarifying, but your initial statement did not say “dearly love” but merely “a part of them.” Your second statement about “dearly love” seemed to stipulate rather than deny the first one.

This entails that any time anyone abandons beliefs (including, but not limited to, when they deeply love them ) they do so from fear.

I do mean when they dearly love their beliefs and this excludes when they cease to love them. When you cease to love them, its not out of fear.
I apologize. I worship Loki, the Slippery Tongue. But I can’t speak well to save my life! Ah, irony.
It’s why we have to grow I suppose.

 

[Cider]

It’s not “whatever.” I would like to hear your point, if I missed it.

We got off on the wrong foot in the earlier exchange about Judaism. Of course I didn’t know that you had personal experience, but I’m still puzzled by your statement about Jews explicitly worshiping a “tribal god.” Possibly you meant something different by it than I understood. I wish you would clarify your meaning and provide support instead of taking offense. Same here. I understand that you have issues with Catholicism and that a doctrine-based approach frustrates you, and that makes me understand your posts better.

YHVH is the tribal God of the Jews, because he revealed himself as such and made a covenant with Jews ( specifically the descendants of Abraham, Issac and Jacob) that he would be their God if they kept his commandments. This is where their chosen people concept comes from. They have special responsibilities as Gods’ people.

Even today the tribal nature of the religion is obvious, it’s not a belief only religion, it’s primarily one of blood, although you can be adopted into the tribe. If you are born of a Jewish mother you are a Jew, period. There is a method of being adopted into the tribe but they are skeptical of potential converts.

They are called the 12 tribes of Israel ( Jacob is called Israel) for a reason but even today religious duties are still divided into tribal affiliation. For example the Pidyon HaBen or redemption of the first born is given to a Kohen ( a descendent of Aaron) and Kohanim are given the first aliah ( reading) of the Torah if one is present at services, Levites the second and finally Israelites ( in this case everyone who isn’t a kohen or levite) Your tribal affiliation as a Kohen or Levite is part of your name written on any religious documents, such as your marriage certificate. Moshe ben Schlomo ha Kohan for example ( Moses son of Soloman the Kohan).

Jews do not have an evangelical nature inherent to their faith like Christians do. They basically just want to be left alone to do their thing and are willing to grant others the same. Judaism is not all about spreading the word and getting converts. They are not concerned with conquering the world but of doing Gods will as he has revealed it to them.

But the foundation of what makes it a tribal faith is the covenant that Jews believe they have with God.

 

[Cider]

That is understandable. It’s not easy to love that which we do not really know.

Do you really think that these kind of statements are helpful to your cause? They aren’t.

If you use logic that statement could be easily turned around on you and we could say that you only reject paganism because you really don’t understand it. After all as you said, it’s not easy to love that which you do you not really know.

You’d be better serving your cause if you dropped this kind of stuff.

 

[Lokadottir]

Jews do not have an evangelical nature inherent to their faith like Christians do. They basically just want to be left alone to do their thing and are willing to grant others the same. Judaism is not all about spreading the word and getting converts. They are not concerned with conquering the world but of doing Gods will as he has revealed it to them.

:newidea:
Theology class connection! That may be another reason the Romans let the Jews be as opposed to the early Christians. (I’m too stoked I’m such a nerd )

 

[Contarini]

YHVH is the tribal God of the Jews, because he revealed himself as such and made a covenant with Jews ( specifically the descendants of Abraham, Issac and Jacob) that he would be their God if they kept his commandments. This is where their chosen people concept comes from. They have special responsibilities as Gods’ people.

Even today the tribal nature of the religion is obvious, it’s not a belief only religion, it’s primarily one of blood, although you can be adopted into the tribe. If you are born of a Jewish mother you are a Jew, period. There is a method of being adopted into the tribe but they are skeptical of potential converts.

Yes, I get what you are saying. But Jews do believe that YHVH (not a term I have ever seen a practicing Jew use in writing, including on the Internet) created the heavens and earth, right? That was the problem I had with your original comment (apart from the use of “YHWH”). A “tribal god” in my way of thinking is just one being among many. If Genesis 1 describes the activities of YHWH, as its juxtaposition with Genesis 2 implies, canonically, then YHWH can’t be merely a tribal god, even though (as you point out very clearly and cogently) the relationship of Jews with Him continues to be “tribal” in many ways. Probably we are meaning different things by “tribal god” in the first place.

As I see it, “orthopraxy” doesn’t mean that a tradition lacks beliefs, but that the primary boundary markers of the tradition are practices rather than beliefs. It surely doesn’t mean that members of the tradition don’t think about the ontological grounding of those beliefs, and there’s certainly a long tradition of Jews doing that. I know that there’s been a reaction against a philosophical approach to Judaism in recent decades, and in fact the one class I took on Judaism when in grad school was taught by a Reform rabbi with a very “postmodern” approach, who shocked the [mostly Jewish] students in the class on a regular basis.

The way I used to explain the orthodoxy/orthopraxy thing to my students was like this:
If a college student raised as a Christian (particularly talking about evangelical Protestants here–Catholics are kind of in the middle on this one) came home and told his parents, “I’ve
stopped going to church,” the parents would be concerned but would take it in stride. If he told them, “I don’t believe in God any more” they would be horrified. If a Jewish kid told his parents, “I don’t believe in God any more” they would be concerned. If he told them “I don’t keep kosher any more” (talking about observant, traditional Jews of course) they would be horrified. (This was in the context of discussing the Talmudic passage which has God saying, “Oh that they had abandoned me but kept my Torah–then the Torah would bring them back to me.”)

Did I get it more or less right, or are there better ways of thinking about it?

I’m very sorry for the pontifical tone I used in my first post when I didn’t know you were a convert from Judaism. I should have qualified what I was saying regardless of your background. I am often dogmatic and obnoxious, but I’m trying to become less so by the grace of God . . .

I do understand something of where you are coming from, and I am very grateful that you have given me (and the rest of the forum) this very clear and helpful explanation of the Jewish perspective.

Yours truly,

Edwin

 

[LivingWaters7]

I see that the Ask a Pagan thread is closed (darn), and I have a question for the Pagan posters. I was wondering, what do you believe the purpose of life is? Why did the Gods create us? Also, how do you view the role of Jesus Christ in Christianity, i.e. a divine Savior, God, who came to earth, showed us the way to live, and suffered and died for our sins, and that we receive eternal life only through Him? Is there a similar concept in your Pagan faith?

Thanks!

 

[dshix]

I see that the Ask a Pagan thread is closed (darn), and I have a question for the Pagan posters. I was wondering, what do you believe the purpose of life is? Why did the Gods create us? Also, how do you view the role of Jesus Christ in Christianity, i.e. a divine Savior, God, who came to earth, showed us the way to live, and suffered and died for our sins, and that we receive eternal life only through Him? Is there a similar concept in your Pagan faith?

Thanks!

That question is off topic for this thread. Please don’t hijack this thread to ask your question.

Further, when a thread is closed, it is for a reason, and you should not circumvent the closing of a thread and ask your question elsewhere.

 

[Cider]

Yes, I get what you are saying. But Jews do believe that YHVH (not a term I have ever seen a practicing Jew use in writing, including on the Internet) created the heavens and earth, right? That was the problem I had with your original comment (apart from the use of “YHWH”). A “tribal god” in my way of thinking is just one being among many. If Genesis 1 describes the activities of YHWH, as its juxtaposition with Genesis 2 implies, canonically, then YHWH can’t be merely a tribal god, even though (as you point out very clearly and cogently) the relationship of Jews with Him continues to be “tribal” in many ways. Probably we are meaning different things by “tribal god” in the first place.

As I see it, “orthopraxy” doesn’t mean that a tradition lacks beliefs, but that the primary boundary markers of the tradition are practices rather than beliefs. It surely doesn’t mean that members of the tradition don’t think about the ontological grounding of those beliefs, and there’s certainly a long tradition of Jews doing that. I know that there’s been a reaction against a philosophical approach to Judaism in recent decades, and in fact the one class I took on Judaism when in grad school was taught by a Reform rabbi with a very “postmodern” approach, who shocked the [mostly Jewish] students in the class on a regular basis.

The way I used to explain the orthodoxy/orthopraxy thing to my students was like this:
If a college student raised as a Christian (particularly talking about evangelical Protestants here–Catholics are kind of in the middle on this one) came home and told his parents, “I’ve
stopped going to church,” the parents would be concerned but would take it in stride. If he told them, “I don’t believe in God any more” they would be horrified. If a Jewish kid told his parents, “I don’t believe in God any more” they would be concerned. If he told them “I don’t keep kosher any more” (talking about observant, traditional Jews of course) they would be horrified. (This was in the context of discussing the Talmudic passage which has God saying, “Oh that they had abandoned me but kept my Torah–then the Torah would bring them back to me.”)

Did I get it more or less right, or are there better ways of thinking about it?

I’m very sorry for the pontifical tone I used in my first post when I didn’t know you were a convert from Judaism. I should have qualified what I was saying regardless of your background. I am often dogmatic and obnoxious, but I’m trying to become less so by the grace of God . . .

I do understand something of where you are coming from, and I am very grateful that you have given me (and the rest of the forum) this very clear and helpful explanation of the Jewish perspective.

Yours truly,

Edwin

YHVH are the four Hebrew letters ( yod, hay, vav and hay) used in to refer to God in the Tanakh. They are written thousands of times there. While I’ve lost a lot of Hebrew from lack of use I still maintain this term for God just out of habit although I only use it when talking about Judaism. I’m not saying as Yaweh, I actually say the four letters by name. Ok well occasionally when I’m repeatedly using it when talking to my husband about God I’ll say Yaweh sometimes just because I get tired of spelling out the letters.

The orthopraxy comment I made was originally on a separate post regarding reconstructionist pagan religions and wasn’t in reference to Judiasm.

Anyway, I’ve tried writing out further explanation but my brain is tired and I haven’t had breakfast yet.