How Can We Claim Our Faith as Exclusive?

[Petergee]

I fully understand that you believe all of that. Try to understand that I do not, and that my belief is grounded in thoughtful study, deep soul-searching, much reflection and concrete personal experience. My religion is not a philosophical or mental exercise. It is not a whim, an adolescent cry for attention, something with which to shock my parents (in my mid 40s is a bit late for that ), an attempt to bend reality to my preference, a convenience or a protest against anyone else’s religion. It is a daily reality that sustains me and gives meaning to my life.

I can see that you are more thoughtful and intelligent than 99% of the “neo-pagans” I have come across. However I think you should seriously ask yourself if you aren’t still “rebelling” against your fundamentalist parents. I know quite a few people in their 50s, 60s, even their 70s, who are still stuch in a mindset of adolescent “rebellion” against what they say is the spiritual bullying they suffered from parents, priests and nuns in their youth (and their stories like “I was told I would go to Hell if I missed a comma when writing the Our Father” seem to grow with every telling). In their minds, these people see this bullying as still going on, even in priests who bend over backwards to avoid any suggestion of imposing their spiritual views on anyone.

I too as a child had a fascination with the Greek pagan myths. They are indeed fascinating stories, many with a “message”. But it’s impossible to see them as anything other than stories.

It’s true that many Catholics in western countries say they don’t personally believe that the Bible is inerrant. Just like the majority of Catholics in Western countries miss Mass on any given Sunday although the Church teaches that to deliberately miss Sunday Mass is a mortal sin. But the Catholic church and all of the other major branches of Christianity hold that the Bible IS inerrant. And I’ve never heard of any Christian (or Jew or Moslem) who believes that NOTHING in the Old Testament really happened. I’d be very surprised if any “neo-pagan” would be willing to swear to the truth of, say, the stories of Pandora or Europa or indeed ANY of the pagan myths, or even any individual part of any myth. We KNOW God is real.

It’s great that you get warm fuzzy feelings from telling yourself that the pagan gods are real. But I ask again, where is your evidence? Feelings don’t count.

Yes, converts to Catholicism often say they have the feeling that they have come home. But their feelings are not what makes Catholicism true. Their minds UNDERSTAND that it is true through rational thought.

 

[KarenNC]

No no, I get it. And I respect your faith, although I disagree.

But that statement was so… hmmmm… PC?

If you were running for president and said that statement about your beliefs in a speech, I would automatically not vote for you. I’d really rather you say you were anti-…

Just me I guess.

Well, if I were in the habit of saying something other than I meant just because someone would rather I did, might make a good politician.

 

[Mr.Bee]

Well, if I were in the habit of saying something other than I meant just because someone would rather I did, might make a good politician.

It has nothing to do with honesty, I do not question that. I would not vote for you even if you said you were anti-Catholic, it would just be for another reason.

I realize your intentions. I’m okay with that. Our philosophies are opposed however. Oh well.

 

[KarenNC]

** However I think you should seriously ask yourself if you aren’t still “rebelling” against your fundamentalist parents. …In their minds, these people see this bullying as still going on, even in priests who bend over backwards to avoid any suggestion of imposing their spiritual views on anyone.**

No, don’t think so. I was part of an extremely liberal Episcopal Church for a number of years, and if I could say the Creed honestly, I might still be there. It boils down to I simply cannot truthfully say that I believe that there is only one God and that Jesus is divine. That pretty much lets out Christianity, I would say.

** But it’s impossible to see them as anything other than stories. **

I see them exactly as stories, sacred stories, stories of a people’s encounter with that which is beyond full human comprehension, not as literal historical accounts or inerrant words dictated by a deity.

**But the Catholic church and all of the other major branches of Christianity hold that the Bible IS inerrant. **

Not quite true. see answers.com/topic/inerrancy

"The Wesleyan and Methodist Christian tradition accepts that the Bible is authoritative on matters concerning salvation. But the United Methodist Church does not advocate that the Bible is inerrant, nor does it contend that the Bible is authoritative on all matters…

With this focus on salvation, Wesleyans need not make claims about inerrancy in the original autographs, subsequent translations, or particular interpretations. And yet Wesleyans affirm the Bible to be principally authoritative for faith and practice, and the Bible is often a principle means for God to promote salvation in the world."

“The larger Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada do not officially hold to biblical inerrancy, though there are those within the ELCA and ELCIC who are Inerrantists.”

“Another belief (King James Only) holds that the translators of the King James Version were guided by God, and that the KJV thus is to be taken as authoritative. However, those who hold this opinion do not extend it to the KJV translations of the Apocryphal books, which were produced along with the rest of the Authorized Version. Modern translations differ from the KJV on numerous points, sometimes resulting from access to different early texts. Upholders of the KJV would nevertheless hold that the Protestant canon of KJV is itself an inspired text and therefore remains authoritative. The King James Only movement asserts that the KJV is the sole English translation free from error.”

Regardless of the official teachings of their denomination, I can personally vouch I have encountered numerous Baptists (of the liberal variety) and Episcopalians who do not hold to biblical inerrancy.

** I’d be very surprised if any “neo-pagan” would be willing to swear to the truth of, say, the stories of Pandora or Europa or indeed ANY of the pagan myths. **

So would I if you are using as the measure of truth inerrancy and literal historicity.

**It’s great that you get warm fuzzy feelings from telling yourself that the pagan gods are real. But I ask again, where is your evidence? Feelings don’t count. **

You have a starter list of logical arguments that I have offered to discuss, at your request. We have discussed one. Pick another if you like.

Yes, converts to Catholicism often say they have the feeling that they have come home. But their feelings are not what makes Catholicism true. Their minds UNDERSTAND that it is true through rational thought.

Neither does anyone that I know of worship a God or Gods solely because of logic or rational thought (perhaps your experience is different). Heck, I don’t know anyone who regularly orders lunch solely on the basis of logic and rational thought. Logic without real experience and an emotional connection is hollow.

 

[Petergee]

** However I think you should seriously ask yourself if you aren’t still “rebelling” against your fundamentalist parents. …In their minds, these people see this bullying as still going on, even in priests who bend over backwards to avoid any suggestion of imposing their spiritual views on anyone.**

No, don’t think so. I was part of an extremely liberal Episcopal Church for a number of years, and if I could say the Creed honestly, I might still be there. It boils down to I simply cannot truthfully say that I believe that there is only one God and that Jesus is divine. That pretty much lets out Christianity, I would say.

And the people I mentioned are part of a “liberal” Catholic parish, but they believe that they see intolerable tyrranny which just isn’t there, because of the emotional mindset they have. Often people make decisions based on emotion, then come up with logical reasons afterwards to try to prove that their decision was rational.

** But it’s impossible to see them as anything other than stories. **

I see them exactly as stories, sacred stories, stories of a people’s encounter with that which is beyond full human comprehension, not as literal historical accounts or inerrant words dictated by a deity.

But as these stories (apart from what your gods say to you when they “speak to you”) are your ONLY source of information about who your “gods” are and what their nature is, your casual attitude to them seems to make your “religion” so amorphous as to be almost meaningless.

**But the Catholic church and all of the other major branches of Christianity hold that the Bible IS inerrant. **

Not quite true. see answers.com/topic/inerrancy

"The Wesleyan and Methodist Christian tradition accepts that the Bible is authoritative on matters concerning salvation. But the United Methodist Church does not advocate that the Bible is inerrant, nor does it contend that the Bible is authoritative on all matters…

With this focus on salvation, Wesleyans need not make claims about inerrancy in the original autographs, subsequent translations, or particular interpretations. And yet Wesleyans affirm the Bible to be principally authoritative for faith and practice, and the Bible is often a principle means for God to promote salvation in the world."

“The larger Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada do not officially hold to biblical inerrancy, though there are those within the ELCA and ELCIC who are Inerrantists.”

Wow, I didn’t know this. As these bodies, especially the Lutherans, are the spiritual descendants of those who vehemently insisted on the principle of *Sola Scriptura *when they broke away from the Church in the 16th century, I can only say I’m amazed by just how far people get blown all over the place like a ship without a rudder once they cut themselves off from the True Vine. In this case they’ve abandoned even the principle that they claim caused them to cut themselves off in the first place.

Yes, converts to Catholicism often say they have the feeling that they have come home. But their feelings are not what makes Catholicism true. Their minds UNDERSTAND that it is true through rational thought.

Neither does anyone that I know of worship a God or Gods solely because of logic or rational thought (perhaps your experience is different). Heck, I don’t know anyone who regularly orders lunch solely on the basis of logic and rational thought. Logic without real experience and an emotional connection is hollow.

I’m not suggesting we should approach the subject like Mr Spock. Of course emotions are important. And “experience” includes the objective facts which we have learnt through our eyes and ears, not just our subjective emotions. Christianity and especially Catholicism is a matter of the head AND the heart. You seem to be saying that the head doesn’t matter, only the heart.

 

[DLC]

We can claim Christianity to be exclusive because of who the founder is. If one takes an honest look into who Jesus Christ is, there will only be a few conclusion drawn. He is either a lunatic, a liar, or the person He claims to be.
1 John 5:20
. 20 And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ.** This is the true God and eternal life. **

 

[KarenNC]

**And the people I mentioned are part of a “liberal” Catholic parish, but they believe that they see intolerable tyrranny which just isn’t there, because of the emotional mindset they have. Often people make decisions based on emotion, then come up with logical reasons afterwards to try to prove that their decision was rational. **

Well, if I was claiming that I was no longer Christian because of the evil patriarchal attitude of the church or that it was horribly oppressive/repressive, etc, then you might have a point. Do I believe that parts of the Church are like that? Sure, experience bears me out, but then there are areas that I find just as undesirable in every religion I’ve ever encountered.

Was that the experience that I had in my parish? Not at all. That I left, not in a huff or an emotional tizzy, but because I finally acknowledged that I could no longer honestly accept all the mental gymnastics I had had to do with myself to reconcile experiences and beliefs I had held for over 20 years with any variety of Christianity doesn’t seem to meet that criteria. I went toward, not away, though I admit that at the time I left I did not realize where I was headed. That took a few more years.

**But as these stories (apart from what your gods say to you when they “speak to you”) are your ONLY source of information about who your “gods” are and what their nature is, your casual attitude to them seems to make your “religion” so amorphous as to be almost meaningless. **

No, they aren’t my only source. My current personal experience as well as the experiences of others also factor in. I don’t have a casual attitude toward the myths. Quite the opposite. I give them too much importance to relegate them to the same classification as an article in today’s newspaper.

I’m not suggesting we should approach the subject like Mr Spock. Of course emotions are important. And “experience” includes the objective facts which we have learnt through our eyes and ears, not just our subjective emotions. Christianity and especially Catholicism is a matter of the head AND the heart. You seem to be saying that the head doesn’t matter, only the heart.

No, it is a matter of the entire being or it is worthless. I came to a point where I could no longer deny that the experiences I had were something other than they really were…encounters with the Hellenic Gods.

 

[KarenNC]

We can claim Christianity to be exclusive because of who the founder is. If one takes an honest look into who Jesus Christ is, there will only be a few conclusion drawn. He is either a lunatic, a liar, or the person He claims to be.

Or Jesus may have truly believed He was who He said He was and simply been wrong. Many others who have made similar claims (or whose followers have made them for the person) have been.
conncoll.edu/academics/departments/relstudies/290/judaism/jesus.html

Or He may never have actually said He was who His followers said He was.

Or His followers may have morphed His actual claims into something He never intended.

Or any combination of the above.

I understand that this is not standard Christian doctrine, nor the belief of C. S. Lewis, who was a great writer, but that doesn’t mean it is not what may possibly have happened. Lunatic, liar or Lord are not the only possible conclusions.

 

[KarenNC]

**I’d be very surprised if any “neo-pagan” would be willing to swear to the truth of, say, the stories of Pandora or Europa or indeed ANY of the pagan myths, or even any individual part of any myth. **

I do need to contradict myself here when I said that I would also be surprised. I glossed over the “any individual part of any myth” bit in looking at the larger picture. If Schliemann’s discovery truly was the city of Troy, it would show that there was probably some historical basis rather than simply a religious one for something in one of Homer’s myths.

However, if it is, that does not mean that I then automatically believe that they would find the footprints of Athena there or that every element of the story was therefore literally true in a time machine way nor that that meant that everything else attributed to Homer was likewise literally true. Also, if it were proved not to be Troy, it would not destroy my belief that the story of the Trojan War has a great deal of spiritual significance to say to me in the current day.

 

[Mr.Bee]

I fully understand that you believe all of that. Try to understand that I do not, and that my belief is grounded in thoughtful study, deep soul-searching, much reflection and concrete personal experience. My religion is not a philosophical or mental exercise. It is not a whim, an adolescent cry for attention, something with which to shock my parents (in my mid 40s is a bit late for that ), an attempt to bend reality to my preference, a convenience or a protest against anyone else’s religion. It is a daily reality that sustains me and gives meaning to my life.

Karen, (sorry, but I’m coming back to this conversation)

I’m not fully accepting is the notion that the pagan gods were not born from an intelligent source. From my understanding, all of these gods were created, born, “came onto the scene” in a typically tangible, and very anthropomorphic in quality. These creation stories are mythical, beautiful, inspiring and easy to understand, but it doesn’t explain their origin, only their creation here on Earth.

“Father Raven created the world, but the little bird was here first”
- Inuit

Even though the raven had made the world, he did not know everything there was to know. the native Americans understood this. If one does not accept the existance of an intelligent, omnipresent entity, then where did these intelligent gods get their intelligence?

So where did your gods come from? And where are they now?

I can’t help but feel that it’s not that you don’t believe in one God, it’s that you don’t want to believe.

 

[KarenNC]

Karen, (sorry, but I’m coming back to this conversation)

I’m not fully accepting is the notion that the pagan gods were not born from an intelligent source. From my understanding, all of these gods were created, born, “came onto the scene” in a typically tangible, and very anthropomorphic in quality. These creation stories are mythical, beautiful, inspiring and easy to understand, but it doesn’t explain their origin, only their creation here on Earth.

So where did your gods come from? And where are they now?

I can’t help but feel that it’s not that you don’t believe in one God, it’s that you don’t want to believe.

Back in post #169, I said
“I do believe that it is possible that there is some ultimate ground of being in the universe from which everything, including the Gods came, but that that ground of being is not a sentient entity and has about as much relationship with us and our lives as the Horsehead Nebula has with the ant in my yard.”

Where did my Gods come from? I don’t know, I simply know they are here. Where did your God come from?

Where are they now? Please tell me you are not simply reiterating eliaspha’s assertion that I have to either believe that They have a verifiable address on the top of Mount Olympus to which I can send Solstice cards or not believe They exist at all. My Gods are not corporate physical beings, so the “where” is not something I can take one to.

I do not believe that They somehow exist outside of the universe and the natural world. They, and we, are part and parcel of the universe.

Short answer, I don’t know. Sometimes They respond to me, sometimes not (or at least not in ways I can detect), so I have to believe that Their existence at least at points intersects with mine. Possible it could always do so and there are simply times in which Their interests and mine do not intersect.

As to whether I don’t believe vs don’t “want” to believe, what would you think if I said that I can’t help but feel it’s not that you don’t believe that there are actually multiple Gods and your God is one of Them, but that you don’t want to believe it? It seems more a matter of you not wanting to believe that anyone who was raised in a Christian society and was once a Christian could really and truly believe that multiple Gods exist and have had real experiences with them.

 

[Mr.Bee]

Back in post #169, I said
“I do believe that it is possible that there is some ultimate ground of being in the universe from which everything, including the Gods came, but that that ground of being is not a sentient entity and has about as much relationship with us and our lives as the Horsehead Nebula has with the ant in my yard.”

Where did my Gods come from? I don’t know, I simply know they are here. Where did your God come from?

Where are they now? Please tell me you are not simply reiterating eliaspha’s assertion that I have to either believe that They have a verifiable address on the top of Mount Olympus to which I can send Solstice cards or not believe They exist at all. My Gods are not corporate physical beings, so the “where” is not something I can take one to.

I do not believe that They somehow exist outside of the universe and the natural world. They, and we, are part and parcel of the universe.

Short answer, I don’t know. Sometimes They respond to me, sometimes not (or at least not in ways I can detect), so I have to believe that Their existence at least at points intersects with mine. Possible it could always do so and there are simply times in which Their interests and mine do not intersect.

As to whether I don’t believe vs don’t “want” to believe, what would you think if I said that I can’t help but feel it’s not that you don’t believe that there are actually multiple Gods and your God is one of Them, but that you don’t want to believe it? It seems more a matter of you not wanting to believe that anyone who was raised in a Christian society and was once a Christian could really and truly believe that multiple Gods exist and have had real experiences with them.

You are right, I don’t want to believe my one God is part of a group of many gods, to me that make Him weak.

What I don’t understand is why you give power and intelligence to the many things that surround us, but not to the universe as a whole? Paganism seems to give credit to the individual things in creation, but not creation itself.

If you don’t mind me asking, could you share an experience you have had with your gods? (it’s okay if you don’t want to, I’ll understand)

For me: Sometimes, I’m being told things, getting answers from somewhere, or something, it’s that “little voice” for lack of a better term (no, I’m not schitzo… shutup… ) The ocean tide, the weather, or even the general behavior of the people around me, might be trying to tell me something, these are specific, yet to me it all comes from one God. For me, answered prayers are never obvious.

So to answer my own question I posed to you: The experience I have with God is that my family and I are alive and love each other right now. I know Venus, Zeus, or Mars had nothing to do with it.

 

[Keikiolu]

** You believe in people (characters) who are “personifications of principles” (derived personalities).**

No, I don’t believe that my Gods are “personifications of principles,” “derived personalities” nor that they are merely aspects of a single God or imperfect attempts at describing the Christian God. They are real, discrete entities. Now I do not dispute that there are many Neopagans whose beliefs about their deities are different than mine.

OK. If you say so.

I do actually agree with you that your gods are “real discrete entities”. They are created “entities” from human personality, which each represent some “mystery” of human and physical nature. They are “idols”, in the classic sense.

We can probably agree on those terms.

As I said, even it you understand the basic nature of God, as the singular creator of the universe, which by definition can only be singular, you can still “deny” that such a thing is possible, which is what you do,… otherwise you’d see that the “one” God simply can’t have any “peers”.

I believe you understand the concept of our God. You simply deny that He can be real, to you, because doing so would trump a belief in your polytheism, unless you subsume your gods to THE God as “demons” or “angels”.

You put your gods on the same “level” as our God, as if our God were just one of the gods that “achieved primacy”.

I don’t believe that your God achieved primacy.

Our God doesn’t HAVE to achieve anything, much less “primacy”, as by definition He is THE ONE God.

What you really believe is that our God doesn’t exist.

That is a basic misunderstanding of our faith.

No, I fully understand that you believe that your God is not only primary, but the only one there is. I do not agree.

That’s fine,… but what you propose (in your writing) is that our God is just another one of “the gods”, and doesn’t deserve to be treated specially any more than anyone else’s gods.

What you won’t grant is that WE (Christians/Monotheists) simply CAN’T agree with you that a God like our ONE God CAN POSSIBLY have other gods on His level.

Or perhaps you do…?

(( I suspect that if you’re intellectually honest, you WILL in fact agree with that. ))

Your quality of belief is of the order of belief in the tooth-fairy. I actually do believe in the tooth-fairy, … the mystery … childhood.

No, I’m perfectly capable of distinguishing between stories for children and the Gods whose reality I experience. For the record, I don’t believe that the tooth-fairy is anything but a pleasant fiction and game, certainly not the “personification of parental love.”

Okey-doke. I was simply describing my opinion of the type of belief that polytheists exhibit. That is what I believe.

You can not believe as we believe in our God, simply because you can’t accept the validity that there IS only one God, and that acceptance is required to possess that form of belief.

This is not a difference in quality of belief. It is a difference in focus of worship and the attendant strictures that a particular focus requires.

To be explicit then,… Do you believe that it is possible that there IS a single God?

(( NOT that it’s possible that a person could BELIEVE that a single God exists,… that there really IS only one God. ))

You can’t drive a car, if you don’t have a car.
You have only a bunch of bicycles. You drive bicycles, not a car.

A more apt analogy would be that you claim that a car is not only the best, but in fact the only, way in which one can move about (and a particular make and model of car at that). That only that car really exists and that trains, planes, … , tricycles, etc do not exist, but are only delusions, despite the fact that other people claim to have used these for transportation on a daily basis.

I love analogies! People will always stretch them into the most grotesque shapes to suit their needs…!!

My point wasn’t that non-cars don’t exist, as I granted that you drive a bicycle,…

…the point is that you can’t drive a car unless you have a car to drive.

My contention is that neo-paganism is simply (or complexly) a counter reaction to Christianity.

And I disagree.

That’s cool…!

“Neo” means “new”, which implies there was an “old”. What is it that seperates the “new” version from the “old” version?

What existed (as the “religion”) between the “new” and the “old”?

Where, and by whom, was “neopaganism” RE-STARTED?

I’d really love for you to tell me of any non-christian-influenced “starters” of neopaganism?

I’m not going to change your mind. You’re not ging to change mine. So it’s best that we just live with our basic premises.

Likely true.

cont.

Yeah…!

 

[Keikiolu]

**What society did you grow up in? (country and time period). If you grew up in a “western counrty” within the last 50 years, your societal milieu was Christian. **

Neopaganism is a juvenile rebellion against one’s social milieu, and most likely against the perceived “oppression” (parentalness) of “the patriarchy” (dominant society) and/or actual parents.

Once again, that is my belief, which you won’t change, and which I don’t expect you to agree with.

True, I am not likely to change the opinion of someone who has no interest in hearing the experiences of a person who is actually involved in a different situation with the idea that s/he may learn something one did not know before.

I actually came from exactly where you are now. I was quite the “gods (polytheistic) exist because they beautifully serve the purpose of conceptualizing things that are VERY important to the human psyche” person.

You are an incredibly strong intellectual person, which is a GREAT thing, and will eventually lead you to the REAL truth, as opposed to the “logical” truths of “polytheism” (or atheism, pantheism, or deism).

You are EXACTLY the type of person that exhibits that “Tibetan-ridge” behavior of either falling hard on one side of the continent or the other.

I have to say that I have learned an incredible amount about Catholicism from my time here (I have only known a handful of Catholics before to the.extent of having religious conversations of this depth). I can’t say that I have ever before encountered Catholics in real life or in my reading quite like those here. It certainly has cemented my opinion that I would not fit in well .

Awwwhhh,… We love 'ya buches and bunches my dear…!!

However, for anyone who might be interested in learning about an actual Neopagan’s views (which is, as I understand it, the purpose of this particular portion of the forum), I will expand.

I grew up in the …{smip}…

I am not attempting to rebel against my social milieu. It would be infinitely easier if I could simply “pass” as a Christian and I wish I could do so. In retrospect, I realize that I actually did this for many years and achieved nothing but spiritual emptiness. This would be much easier to do if I was neither utterly convinced of the reality of my religious experiences nor cared about being intellectually and emotionally honest. Neither is the case, so we simply try to get along. I am not a proselytizer for my faith, but neither am I interested in remaining silent in the face of misinformation. I don’t believe that that does either party any good.

Excellent…! It’s a massive pleasure to know you (in the ludicrously limited way that I do).

It would be fascinating to know about what these experiences are that lead you to your polytheism…!

Also, what are the “benefits” of your religion, and how do you actually “do” the communal (if any), or private, activities of your religion?

I ask that because it might uncover some links between our faiths.

As Catholics, we actually consider EVERY HUMAN BEING to be a “Catholic who doesn’t realize it”, and as such a brother/sister in God whom we are to talk with.

For me, as a former polytheist (to Christianity via the poly, atheism, pantheism, deism trail), the entire NEED for “many gods” was obliterated and ameliorated by angels (and demons!), for example.

If you’re getting a taste of the truth via your religion, then I invite you to check out the depth of learning and “humanity” best indexed-into via the Catholic Catechism:

scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm
scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc2.htm
scborromeo.org/ccc/index/a.htm

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Keikiolu]

By definition, anyone who promotes idol worship (gods) is anti-Christian.

People are not an anti-Christian simply because they aren’t Christians,… they are only anti-Christian if they exhibit behaviors that are utterly opposed by Christianity.

Well, then, if you are going to classify all non-Christians as anti-Christians, I guess I am in good company with the Hindus, Buddhists, etc. Sounds disturbingly reminiscent of the arguments that I hear from the local fundamentalist Protestants–“if you aren’t just like us, you are automatically actively against us and our enemies rather than simply different.”

(( Classifying all non-Christians as anti-Christians, which I didn’t do actually, is hyperbole,… but in a way a sorta-correct view in a very limited way,… which the Church will utterly disassociate itself with, as it should. ))

Fortunately, as REAL Christians, we are obliged to observe the law of charity,… which states that we must love our neighbors as ourselves, after loving God most of all.

YOU, as a person, are not to be attacked for being “anti-Christian”, but rather what it is that makes you an anti-Christian.

Hindus certainly DO attack their “enemies”.

Buddhists have been known to attack their enemies (Tibet, et al).

Christianity teaches not to attack our enemies, but to “persuade” them.

What do you believe?

Read back over any number of posts, if you like, or, if you would like to actually have a discussion on this, we need to break it down into “what do you believe about…” I think you can get a fairly good start from this thread alone. If not, you can always check my other posts by clicking on my profile.

I’m likin’ you more and more and more…!!

Thank you SO much for your beautiful giving heart. I’m hot really as surly as I seem,… I just start off somewhat ludicrously “combative” to establish the “maturity” of my conversation mates.

I know,… I’m a brat. (And 47ish years old, which makes me a bit goofy.)

"Neopagan" simply means "new pagan"

Hey, you found a better dictionary!

Yeah…! That’s from my “Dictionary for the Less Annoying”,
(( ISBN-10: 1425464092 ))

pagans were the uneducated (through no fault of their own) who haven’t come to believe the truth.

Well, Í can’t say I am ashamed to join the “uneducated” ranks of the ancient Greeks and Romans, as well as folks like Gandhi, the Dalia Lama, etc.

That’s good. They were/are only “uneducated” in one particular area,… and bound by “social pressure” in the latter two cases you mentioned.

The Greeks and Romans got “educated” real good, don’cha think…?

**Best of luck to you in your “freaky” religious journey (I like to “jab” folks that I respect for their intellectual prowess), and we’ll always be here when you grow up. **

Thanks. Feel free to get back to me when you begin to realize the circularity of the basis of your religion and we can talk further.

You’re absolutely right…! Christianity IS perfectly circular (logically) because of it’s utterly linearity basis…!

That’s the “MYSTERY” part of Christianity,… which defies human logic,… and nearly always appears either non-sequitur or circular.

The problem is that your religion is just as “circular” if you trace back the BASIS of it’s beliefs.

Firstly,… where do you see the circularity of Christianity?

Secondly,… how is your own religion not in the same way circular?

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Keikiolu]

…{snip}…
I don’t see why I should not expect civility or the respect to at least acknowledge that I have a “real” religion and reasons for the beliefs I have, since I give that to Christians.

You know you have a “real” religion, correct?

Then why does it matter what anyone else thinks?

The validity of your religion to you is not based on whether others agree,… and that would only bother you if you have doubts, or are feeling persecuted.

I don’t think you are feeling persecuted.

(( I do, actually, think you have doubts, but only because any “religious doctrine” [religious system] which states that it’s not the ONLY true religious doctrine MUST have insecurity built into it, as some other system MIGHT “better”. ))

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Keikiolu]

Back in post #169, I said
“I do believe that it is possible that there is some ultimate ground of being in the universe from which everything, including the Gods came, but that that ground of being is not a sentient entity and has about as much relationship with us and our lives as the Horsehead Nebula has with the ant in my yard.”

The Horsehead Nebula is a tiny little creation within the BIG BIG universe, correct?

The ant is yet another creation, right?

God is not a creation, but THE CREATOR. The relationship between one tiny creation of God and another even tinier creation of God doesn’t tell us anything about the relationship between THE CREATOR and any particular tiny creation.

Where did my Gods come from? I don’t know, I simply know they are here. Where did your God come from?

God is eternally omnipresent. Eternal means outside of time, such that they have always existed and will forever exist.

None of your gods claim to be eternal. Or do they?

Where are they now? Please tell me you are not simply reiterating eliaspha’s assertion that I have to either believe that They have a verifiable address on the top of Mount Olympus to which I can send Solstice cards or not believe They exist at all. My Gods are not corporate physical beings, so the “where” is not something I can take one to.

And of course your gods are where they always have been. Right?

I do not believe that They somehow exist outside of the universe and the natural world. They, and we, are part and parcel of the universe.

Which simply defers answering the question as to their creation. If they are part of the world, and ANY creation myth is even quasi-accurate, then they were created.

If they were created, then our God is “superior” to them, as our God is eternal.

Short answer, I don’t know. Sometimes They respond to me, sometimes not (or at least not in ways I can detect), so I have to believe that Their existence at least at points intersects with mine. Possible it could always do so and there are simply times in which Their interests and mine do not intersect.

We would agree that your gods respond to you, and you to them.

The question is how you “classify” your gods? We call them either angelic or demonic.

As to whether I don’t believe vs don’t “want” to believe, what would you think if I said that I can’t help but feel it’s not that you don’t believe that there are actually multiple Gods and your God is one of Them, but that you don’t want to believe it?

If we DID believe that there were actually multiple gods, then we would be prohibited from believing that there COULD POSSIBLY BE only one God…!

One can’t hold both beliefs, because they are incompatible.

What you CAN’T believe is that OUR God can possible exist, because His existence prohibits gods who are “peers” of His.

It seems more a matter of you not wanting to believe that anyone who was raised in a Christian society and was once a Christian could really and truly believe that multiple Gods exist and have had real experiences with them.

You certainly can believe as you like, but your gods are not God(s),… and are only angels and demons as we see it.

You may believe in gods only if you don’t believe in our God.

We can’t believe in your gods, as God(s), because we simply can’t.

You’re asking us to do the impossible…

…while we are merely asking you to admit that our God is impossible for you to believe exists.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[KarenNC]

**What I don’t understand is why you give power and intelligence to the many things that surround us, but not to the universe as a whole? Paganism seems to give credit to the individual things in creation, but not creation itself. **

I have had neither an experience with "creation itself’ speaking to me nor convincing evidence of a singular deity. I have had and heard, from people I know and trust, of experiences such as mine with various Gods (including those identified as polytheistic and monotheistic). I see no compelling reason to believe that they are lying to me about having those experiences, including Christians, but I also see no compelling evidence that the experiences the monotheists relate are in any way qualitatively different from those of the polytheists or unique, so that gives more weight, to me, to the argument for polytheism rather than monotheism.

**If you don’t mind me asking, could you share an experience you have had with your gods? (it’s okay if you don’t want to, I’ll understand)

For me: Sometimes, I’m being told things, getting answers from somewhere, or something, it’s that “little voice” for lack of a better term (no, I’m not schitzo… shutup… ) The ocean tide, the weather, or even the general behavior of the people around me, might be trying to tell me something, these are specific, yet to me it all comes from one God. For me, answered prayers are never obvious.

So to answer my own question I posed to you: The experience I have with God is that my family and I are alive and love each other right now. I know Venus, Zeus, or Mars had nothing to do with it.**

My answers are very similar. Nothing spectacular (frankly, I am always a bit skeptical of claims of huge spectacular miracles, etc from anyone, and, yes, that definitely includes other Neopagans --I’m probably harder on them in these terms than I am on those from the more established religions). No flashing lights, no parting of the heavens, no physical manifestations.

I imagine that most folks have similar stories–the experience of a feeling of Presence, of power at various times in specific places associated with the Gods, things running more smoothly after pouring libations to Hermes for a journey, experiences of an understanding of peace and support. Life simply runs better, and I am a better, stronger person in my interactions with others. Things happening or appearing just when I need them, sometimes after having prayed about them or performed libations.

One in particular that struck me–we were at the beach about 3 years ago and, after we had poured our customary libation to Poseidon, my daughter, age 3, wanted to build an altar to Athena in the tall grass at the edge of the sand (she has always had an affinity to Athena, which surprised us a bit as it is usually Artemis who is associated with the protection of children). She did so and happily visited it with shells, etc during the next couple of days as well as reveling in the water. The next day, while she was playing in the surf, a black shell with a hole in it perfect for stringing as a necklace washed up at her feet. She was very excited and we talked about being grateful to Poseidon and saying thank you for the gift. We told her we would go and get some cording at the store so that she could wear it. As we walked back, we passed her Athena shrine and, laying in front of it was a black cord of just the right size and length to be a necklace for our daughter. It had not been there an hour before, as we had stopped by on our way to the beach.

I could probably do some sort of statistical analysis of the likelihood of a particular shell of this type washing up on this beach and of the likelihood of someone dropping just such a particular cord in that particular spot at that particular time if I were so inclined, but I am not. Was this coincidence? Possibly, but in the framework of my religious belief, it was, and we treated it as, a rare gift from the Gods. I found it particularly striking as the stories are definitely not filled with examples of cooperation between Athena and Poseidon, so this is not something we would have expected at all.

Would a Christian have a similar experience (within their own framework, I’m not saying I would expect that they are out building altars to Athena or pouring libations to Poseidon )and credit it to their God? Probably. Much of our experience of the miraculous is in the noticing of everyday things. Life itself is miraculous and so much of interpretation depends upon the framework one puts upon experience.

 

[KarenNC]

Let’s see how much of this I can answer in the time I have this evening. After this evening, I will be offline until at least Sunday afternoon, so I won’t be ducking answering questions, simply not available. Isn’t it inconvenient how life interferes with a good debate?

I do actually agree with you that your gods are “real discrete entities”. They are created “entities” from human personality, which each represent some “mystery” of human and physical nature. They are “idols”, in the classic sense.
We can probably agree on those terms.

Nope, sorry. Firstly, I do not believe that my Gods are human creations and They are much more than representations of human and physical nature. They exist. In what exact way were They created? I don’t know. Of what exact substance? I don’t know. That They exist is sufficient.

I can’t accept the label of “idols.” Idol carries with it too much connotation of “false object of worship” or “object unworthy of worship” and I certainly don’t define my Gods in that way. Now, I can agree that you view them as idols and as human-created entities, but I do not.

** as the singular creator of the universe, which by definition can only be singular,**

Why?

you can still “deny” that such a thing is possible, which is what you do,… otherwise you’d see that the “one” God simply can’t have any “peers”.

If I accepted the premise that there was only one God and that that one God had the attributes that monotheism ascribes to Him, then I would admit that such an entity had no peers. I don’t accept that premise.

I believe you understand the concept of our God.

If I don’t, over thirty years of diligent effort on the part of numerous people including myself was woefully wasted .

** You simply deny that He can be real, to you, because doing so would trump a belief in your polytheism, unless you subsume your gods to THE God as “demons” or “angels”.**

I have seen no compelling evidence that there is such an entity as the monotheistic God, in any of the forms in which such is described (as they are radically different).

Our God doesn’t HAVE to achieve anything, much less “primacy”, as by definition He is THE ONE God.

By your defnition, yes. It is not mine nor is it the only definition in the world or in most of human history for “God.”

What you really believe is that our God doesn’t exist.

I am perfectly willing to believe that a God exists who is worshipped by the Jews, one that is worshipped by the Christians and one that is worshipped by the Muslims, as I see no compelling reason to doubt that the people who describe interactions with this deity/these deities are lying when they say they have encountered a deity.

Further, I am willing to entertain the idea (though I am very far from convinced) that all three of these may indeed be the same entity despite the radically different descriptions, attributes, requirements of followers, etc.

I do not believe that such an entity is the only being in the classification “God.”

**What you won’t grant is that WE (Christians/Monotheists) simply CAN’T agree with you that a God like our ONE God CAN POSSIBLY have other gods on His level. Or perhaps you do…? **

Of course I grant that. I am not an absolute idiot . I have stated over and over in this and other threads that I understand that you do not agree with me. You could not do so and remain a monotheist and I have no reason to believe that any of you would be that hypocritical.

However, I do not grant that your belief in such compells me to alter mine or makes my experiences and belief invalid simply because your belief exists.

I am not asking for agreement or for anyone on this board to change his or her religion. If the Gods desire that for some reason, They are perfectly capable of handling that Themselves . My purpose on these boards is to explain my religious views to those interested and to enter into serious, civil discussion on comparative religion (as the purpose of the board states), because, for some deluded reason, I think comparative religion is fun . It is also my opinion that if one wants to discuss comparative religion, it is more productive to actually talk to someone who holds those beliefs than to just sit around and talk among one’s co-religionists, simply reinforcing one’s existing stereotypes of such. My goal is to hopefully convince at least a couple of the folks here that not all Neopagans are juvenile rebellious fruitcakes playing dress up or some sort of real-life extended game of D&D .

To be explicit then,… Do you believe that it is possible that there IS a single God?,… that there really IS only one God. ))

I have seen no compelling evidence for such, so, no, at this point and unless such evidence were forthcoming, I do not believe that there is a single God.

(cont)

 

[KarenNC]

"Neo" means “new”, which implies there was an “old”. What is it that seperates the “new” version from the “old” version?

While there are groups out there who seek to actually reconstruct the worship of the ancient Gods as authentically as possible given what we know and continue to learn about the actual worship practices of the societies who first worshipped Them, I am not of that group and am not qualified to defend their position.

There are also those who very freely admit that they are making it up as they go along, basing their practice entirely on their own experiences. I am also not of that group and will leave them to speak for themselves.

We are more revivalist in our approach to religion. I will steal a post from my husband’s blog:

"The other day I posted my favorite line from the Japanese writer Basho - I do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; I seek the things they sought. Surely this is a contradiction, coming from someone who worships ancient Gods and follows a path based at least in part on ancient practices? Maybe; but not, I believe, completely. I do seek what the Ancients sought - to come into relationship with my Gods, which were also their Gods - but I do not feel constrained to do this always the way they did. The answer lies in the difference between reconstruction and revival.

Speaking again in very broad terms, Reconstructionists try, wherever possible, to celebrate our religion in ways as close to the ancients as can be done; for them, the old ways are generally the best, and the act of reconstruction is itself a form of piety. That said, of course, complete reconstruction is impossible, and even the most hard-core Recon recognizes this. In cases where innovation is required, especially in public ritual, Reconstructionists will generally try to innovate as little as possible, and make clear where the new bits are.

And I’m very glad they do! Their research is invaluable, and there certainly is something special about knowing that the words and actions you are using in worship are virtually the same as those done 3,000 years ago… but it’s not as vital to my personal practice, which I think of as more Revivalist than Reconstructionist. A sort of “Reform Hellenismos”, if you will - like Reform Judaism, I believe that the old ways have inherent value, but that for individual worshippers they are only essential to the degree that they make us more receptive to the presence of the Gods and foster kharis (relationship or reciprocity)."

What existed (as the “religion”) between the “new” and the “old”?

Depends on the area. For Western Europe, and, subsequently, those areas colonized by those countries, it was primarily some form or another of Christianity.

cont.