How Can We Claim Our Faith as Exclusive?

[Mr.Bee]

** 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.**

Well gosh Karen, I don’t know what to say. Obviously God was pleased, (Pardon me if I credit my one God) even though your offerings were not to Him directly.

I’m not much of a believer in coincidence too, no such thing in my book. So any extraordinary experience I have had, or even the ordinary experiences, I give credit where credit is due.

Peace be with you.

 

[KarenNC]

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

There was not a single “restarter” who started all the various Neopagan religions. You have to realize that when one uses the term Neopagan, one is describing a broad category of religions loosely grouped under one umbrella rather than sects of a single religion. The beliefs of some Neopagan religions are as far apart, if not farther, as Jainism and Judaism, much less Catholic and Baptist. If you would like a basic intro to the primary ones, I would recommend either “Paganism: an introduction to Earth-centered religions,” by Joyce and River Higginbotham or (and don’t snort, I am told it is very good, though I haven’t read it myself yet) “The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Paganism,” by Carl McColman. They are both survey books rather than how-to books for a specific tradition, and the Higginbotham’s book, at least, gets into some of the more common philosophical and theological similarities between many of the Neopagan religions. Both are in print.

Wicca is probably the single most widely known and practiced (in some form or other, some very different from the original form) of the religions grouped under this general term. It began in the early to mid 20th century in Great Britian, came to America and mixed with radical feminism which changed it in many ways and was reimported to Britain to change the face of Wicca there. The vast majority of folks who describe themselves as Pagan or Neopagan practice some form of Wicca (yes, I am even fringe in the Neopagan community for many reasons ). Chas Clifton has written a book on the Wiccan movement in the US (Hutton focuses on Britain) called “Her Hidden Children: the rise of Wicca and Paganism in America” that has been recommended to me, but I have not read it yet.

If you would like to know more about the history of it and its founder, Gerald Gardner, I would refer you to the book, “Triumph of the Moon,” by British historian Ronald Hutton. It is still in print and examines the societal and philosophical trends of the 18th and 19th centuries that set the stage for the success of Wicca and other Neopagan religions in the 20th century as well as a detailed account of the beginnings of Wicca.

As for Hellenic Neopaganism (and realize that we aren’t necessarily mainstream in that either ), a few sites would be
ecauldron.com/dc-faq.php
winterscapes.com/sannion/hellenic_polytheism.htm
hellenion.org/

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

Hard to say, really, as I am not that familiar with the details of the founders of all the various Neopagan religions. If you mean those who were not practicing Christians at some point, I suppose some may have been atheist or agnostic or non-religious or Jewish or other, I really don’t know. If you mean that had absolutely no exposure to Christianity in any form, I would say none, since I believe they all came out of Western countries.

Do note that many groups who are not Christian and not monotheistic do not consider themselves to fall under the umbrella of Neopaganism to my knowledge. This would include Hindus, Buddhists, most of the religions of Asia and Africa, most indigenous religions such as that of the various Native American tribes (as distinguished from the New Age groups that claim to be authentic Native American spirituality but are in fact a mishmash of romanticized practices and beliefs from various tribes–there was never a pan-North American Native American spirituality any more than there was a pan-European Neolithic matriarchal society of Goddess worshippers).

 

[KarenNC]

There was not a single “restarter” who started all the various Neopagan religions

To clarify, since Neopagan religions are by definition new, not identical with the pre-Christian religions that inspire them to one extent or another, “restarter” is not really an accurate term. I think you are asking for the founders of these new religions and that is the question I answered.

To add to the question of Christian influence, I firmly believe that the modern Neopagan movement owes a very great deal to Protestant Christianity and the concept of the priesthood of the individual believer. This is a huge part of Neopaganism, and quite different than the beliefs and attitudes of any pre-Christian religion of which I am aware.

 

[KarenNC]

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?

No. They clearly exist to a degree within time if the mythology is correct and They came just after the initial creation of the universe, but They are to the best of our knowledge immortal. Having come into existence, They will not go out of existence.

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

I don’t know. I know that They exist now and interact with me here. I know that there are stories from time immemorial that They existed and were known by people in the Mediterranean and European areas. I know that in the intervening centuries between their active religious worship They were never forgotten and in fact were constant presences in our Western societies. Did They leave Greece and come with us? Are They here and there? I don’t know. If I am to believe others who have said that they have had experiences with Them, then I have to accept that They are not geographically limited in the way that humans are.

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

Your scriptures say that your God is eternal. I find no compelling reason to believe that they are superior to the stories other religions tell simply because they say so. Outside of those scriptures I see nothing that indicates to me that the God of the Christians is qualitatively different than the Gods of any other religion.

The claim that a God is either eternal or singular is something that can only be taken on faith as there is no way to objectively verify such a claim. Likewise, I can offer no proof that your God is not eternal, but I do see compelling evidence that He is not singular. I cannot offer concrete proof that my Gods are immortal, either, other than that the stories say They are. It is a matter of faith. I can say that based on the evidence of the experiences that followers claim, They are certainly much longer lived than humans at minimum.

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

Good.

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

Well, I call them Gods. The way in which you choose to classify my Gods really has no more impact on my spirituality than I believe the way in which I classify your God impacts yours. The value I see in defining the classifications is primarily so that we both have at least a chance of trying to understand the source of each other’s worldview so that a dialog can occur rather than simply talking at crosspurposes by using the same words to mean vastly different things.

**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.

My response was to Mr. Bee’s statement that he felt it was not that I didn’t believe in a single God but that I didn’t “want” to do so. I don’t dispute that the two beliefs are incompatible. That is why I do not call myself a Christian. I have already answered this in an earlier recent post , so will leave it for now.

You certainly can believe as you like

Thank you.

, but your gods are not God(s),… and are only angels and demons as we see it.

You may choose to define Them in any way that you like. It does not alter the reality of Them. They are what They are and not dependent upon human belief.

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

As you define your God, correct.

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

Okay.

You’re asking us to do the impossible…

I don’t believe I’ve asked for anything more than that you attempt to have an accurate understanding of my beliefs if you are going to try to convert me away from them rather than perpetuating some insulting and demeaning false stereotype. Surely that is not impossible.

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

Not impossible for me to believe that He might exist, just impossible for me to believe that He exists with all the attributes that your religion gives to Him.**

 

[Petergee]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.

Or Jesus may have truly believed He was who He said He was and simply been wrong.

That would mean he was so extremely deluded that “lunatic” is a fair description.

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.

These 2 boil down to the same thing: “His followers just made up a whole lot of utterly outrageous claims about Him and fraudulently put words into His mouth to support them.” Anyone who made even a little objective study of the Gospels and how they came to be written, and the history of the first generation of Christians, would see that this is incredible.

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.

“Doctrine” has nothing to do with it. Lewis was framing the question using objective logic which can be used by anyone of any religion or none.

 

[Petergee]

**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) **
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.

No. You’re making a false comparison there. If a Christian was building a shrine and happened to find just the piece of material he needed lying around, he might whisper a quick “Thank you, God.”; but he certainly wouldn’t see it as a “personal encounter with God” which is a proof of the truth of his faith, and tell people that this is the most solid evidence he has that God is real. Our faith does not depend on personal experiences. It does not even depend on the many scientifically authenticated miracles at lourdes, Fatima, etc. It’s supported by rational consideration of both naturally apparent and revealed truths.

 

[KarenNC]

No. You’re making a false comparison there. If a Christian was building a shrine and happened to find just the piece of material he needed lying around, he might whisper a quick “Thank you, God.”; but he certainly wouldn’t see it as a “personal encounter with God” which is a proof of the truth of his faith, and tell people that this is the most solid evidence he has that God is real. Our faith does not depend on personal experiences. It does not even depend on the many scientifically authenticated miracles at lourdes, Fatima, etc. It’s supported by rational consideration of both naturally apparent and revealed truths.

I did not say that this was the “most solid evidence that I have” of my Gods. It was a single incident, striking to me and perhaps having no meaning to others, but a single incident among many others. BTW, I am indeed a firm believer in coincidence (sometimes stuff just happens ), but sometimes things are a little too coincidental, if you know what I mean.

I do have to disagree with you and say that at least some Christians do indeed see such occurrences as precisely “personal encounters with God” and proofs of their faith. Perhaps a Catholic may not, you certainly know more of them than I do, but I can personally vouch that many Christians do indeed do so. There are Christians who see getting a parking space at the mall after praying for one as compelling evidence that Jesus listens to them. I’m related to some of them, so I speak from personal experience.

You keep throwing out the objection that my faith does not fit rational criteria, but, after discussing the ontological argument, which I believe we can safely say your own Church believes is a poor attempt at “proving” theism of any kind, I can’t help but notice that you don’t seem interested in actually discussing the positive points of your rational argument.

So far I can gather that:

1. you don’t consider personal experience a valid argument (agreed, it cannot be independently verified)
2. that you don’t consider miracles a valid argument (agreed, all religions can and do claim miracles and to try to prove “my miracle(s) is/are bigger or more numerous than your miracles” is pointless).
3. I have said that I don’t consider revealed truth to be a compelling argument for anyone other than the one to whom such is revealed because it boils down to “because God said so.” There is no way to objectively examine such a claim, and you have agreed that you do not consider the claims of revelation for other religions to be on par with the claims of revelation for your religion, and so it is something that can only be taken on faith. Basing an argument on criteria that you do not believe applies equally to the other party is special pleading, not proof.
4. We have established, correctly, I believe, that to try to argue the objective existence of a deity based on the number of believers is fruitless. I would go further and say that an argument of “who believes more” is also not exactly a rational one as there is no way to objectively measure the intensity of a single person’s belief, much less that of an entire group.

We can go on to discuss the “naturally apparent truths” if you like.

 

[Petergee]

I did not say that this was the “most solid evidence that I have” of my Gods.

It’s the most solid evidence you’ve produced here despite I and others repeatedly asking you to produce evidence. If you have anything more convincing, here’s your chance. Most of us here are honestly looking for the truth. We believe Catholicism is the truth, but if there is evidence to the contrary we would be more than willing to examine it.

It was a single incident, striking to me and perhaps having no meaning to others, but a single incident among many others. BTW, I am indeed a firm believer in coincidence (sometimes stuff just happens ), but sometimes things are a little too coincidental, if you know what I mean.

I do have to disagree with you and say that at least some Christians do indeed see such occurrences as precisely “personal encounters with God” and proofs of their faith. Perhaps a Catholic may not, you certainly know more of them than I do, but I can personally vouch that many Christians do indeed do so. There are Christians who see getting a parking space at the mall after praying for one as compelling evidence that Jesus listens to them. I’m related to some of them, so I speak from personal experience.

We certainly see such things as signs of God’s omnipresent care for us. But I would be utterly shocked if I ever heard a Christian say “I doubted it before, but now I KNOW God is real because I got a parking space after praying to Him.”

You keep throwing out the objection that my faith does not fit rational criteria, but, after discussing the ontological argument, which I believe we can safely say your own Church believes is a poor attempt at “proving” theism of any kind, I can’t help but notice that you don’t seem interested in actually discussing the positive points of your rational argument.

There are innumerable books written about the rational proofs for the reality of God. You had asserted, I thought, that there was a book purporting to rationally prove polytheism. I asked you to show me your most persuasive proof for polytheism. In reply you then told me that in fact all you were saying is that these proofs, or at least one them, is a weak argument and so polytheism doesn’t need to consider such proofs.

So far I can gather that:

1. you don’t consider personal experience a valid argument (agreed, it cannot be independently verified)

1. that you don’t consider miracles a valid argument (agreed, all religions can and do claim miracles and to try to prove “my miracle(s) is/are bigger or more numerous than your miracles” is pointless).

No, that’s not true. Only Christianity, and probably only Catholicism, has produced evidence of numerous miracles which have been authenticated by rigorous objective scientific investigation. Miracles do support the truth of Christianity. All I said was that Christianity does not DEPEND upon them for proof of its truth.

1. I have said that I don’t consider revealed truth to be a compelling argument for anyone other than the one to whom such is revealed because it boils down to “because God said so.” There is no way to objectively examine such a claim, and you have agreed that you do not consider the claims of revelation for other religions to be on par with the claims of revelation for your religion, and so it is something that can only be taken on faith. Basing an argument on criteria that you do not believe applies equally to the other party is special pleading, not proof.

Again, there are numerous books and articles available, which examine the historicity and reliability of the revelations God has made to the Jews and to the Apostles. See e.g. catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0407fea3.asp AFAIK the myths and scriptures of all other religions fail to withstand such analysis.

1. We have established, correctly, I believe, that to try to argue the objective existence of a deity based on the number of believers is fruitless. I would go further and say that an argument of “who believes more” is also not exactly a rational one as there is no way to objectively measure the intensity of a single person’s belief, much less that of an entire group.

I wasn’t suggesting such a thing. You are misinterpreting, I think, my statement that there are multiple sources of support for the truth of Christianity from various fields of study.

 

[Petergee]

As for the “intolerant” attitude displayed by your Christian neighbours, try to see it from their position. If they let their kids go to the beach with yours, they might see you and your kids building an altar to Athena or pouring a libation to Poseidon.

For centuries Christians suffered the most horrific and murderous persecution at the hand of polytheists, simply because they refused to worship polytheist “gods”. And this is still going on today in some parts of the world. It was the followers of the particular “gods” you have chosen, who were the worst offenders who tried mightily to strangle Christianity in its cradle. By “reviving” worship of these gods, you are essentially saying to Christians that things in the Mediterranean world were just fine and dandy before Christianity came along and convinced everyone to believe its “lies” instead of the “truth” of polytheism. So yes, your religion is by its nature anti-Christian. Christians are very nervous about the rise of neo-paganism for the same reason that Jews are very nervous about the rise of neo-Nazis, no matter how apparently small and insignificant they seem at present.

 

[Keikiolu]

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

Very good then…!

We agree that you can’t bring yourself (ie “simply don’t”) believe in the possibility of a single God.

That’s fine, and is the very definition of a TRUE polytheist,… and not one of those namby-pamby ill informed agnostics-cum-polytheists, who can’t even be bothered with making a decision about what they actually believe.

The interesting part about your belief system, to me, is that while you can accept that all sorts of different gods have been experienced by thousands of human groups over untold millenia, and that those gods REALLY exist as “supernatural beings”,…

…you can only not accept that one “type” of God exists.

Ours.

And why?

Because accepting His existence does, by definition, relegate your “believable” gods to the status of angels (unlikely as angels tend to tell you they are from God) or demons.

In other words, you have proven to yourself that God (the Christian one) CAN’T exist…!

Congratulations!

…or have you proven it?

You have good intentions in your beliefs, I’m sure. Your morals and ethics are most likely pretty good. If you are a “good person”, you will likely be “well treated” in your “afterlife”.

The question is, where did you get your ethics and morals?

The Christian (Catholic) belief is that we have been given the “natural law” (basic human goodness via a “conscience”) by God (or in your terms by “nature”) and that even if you don’t “find God” you can still “get the rewards of being good” by simply following your conscience.

So, even if you don’t believe in Him, you might still “be saved”.

Here’s hoping you have fun with your plaything beliefs, your gods, and don’t suffer too many negative effects from them.

Love your neighbor as yourself, and love “that on which the whole universe depends” even more, and you’ll be fine, perhaps, …if you haven’t been prohibited from cartying out either of those “commandments” by worshipping, and listening to, some plaything.



(( Yeah,… I’m a bit harsh on [mdern] polytheists. But only because they are really only closet atheists, who like to play “spiritualist”. That doesn’t describe “real” aboriginal polytheists, of course, which is why it’s so easy to convert REAL polytheists to Christianity. The real ones know a better way when they see it, and history shows how wise they are in their choices once they are shown the truth of the matter. ))

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

 

[Keikiolu]

Very good then…!

We agree that you can’t bring…{blah blah blah}…

OK. I really shouldn’t respond to postings late’ish in the evening…!!

I admit it. I’m a goof…!

Not that I don’t actually believe what I said I believe, but I could have expressed it a bit better, to say the least.

…or simply have kept my trap shut, and nodded politely.

Oh well,… mea culpa. It’s OK to hit me with the big stick now…

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

 

[mmortal03]

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.

What were the mental gymnastics that you had to go through to reconcile your thoughts with [what your concept of] Christianity [was then] that you eventually didn’t, and now don’t, have to do with Neopaganism? What were you originally sensing about Christianity that you couldn’t agree with, but when you finally found Neopaganism you didn’t have this same problem?

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.

How were you introduced to Neopaganism, and what about it made you like it or agree with it more than Christianity? There had to have been a point when you didn’t completely believe in it, and then you finally were convinced. What was this occurrence?

**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.

But you ARE claiming that the basis for your belief in Their existence is a combination of your own experiences with the stories about Them being congruent with these experiences, correct? Or is there other evidence that you have as well, besides your mind just working well with Their stories making you feel comfortable?

 

[Valke2]

However, it is Christianity that teaches that the life of every man is valuable. That is where our collective understanding of the wrong we have done comes from. Other religions don’t teach this.

I could have sworn Judaism had something to say about that as well.

 

[KarenNC]

Well, Petergee, I’ve read the books (or a great many of them at least, one can never read all the books no matter how much one tries) so evidently we no longer have much to discuss, since you have consistently avoided choosing any further of the arguments that I have offered to discuss. If you would like to re-read my posts, you might eventually read what I have actually said, rather than what you think I have.

I never described the incident on the beach as a conversion experience. It was not.

I wish you well in your efforts to keep any current or future children you may have totally isolated from anything that may differ from Catholicism–I suppose it is theoretically possible, though I have my doubts that it is desirable or particularly healthy in the long run.

I will be sure to keep your email in case we ever plan to come to Australia so that you can clear the area of any innocent babes that might be scarred forever by playing with my 6 year old. Interesting that you apparently wouldn’t consider having a non-Christian child being exposed to the Christian child perhaps playing with a nativity scene, wearing a crucifix or mentioning Jesus as problematic for the non-Christian.

For the record, I don’t particularly either in most circumstances. It only becomes an issue for me when it is done in a condemnatory way or someone tries to coerce her into acting as if or professing that she follows Christianity when she does not. We actually own a children’s bible and she knows many of the major stories, etc. She is allowed to play with the children of Christians (and Buddhists and Jews and agnostics and atheists and etc), at least those whose parents do not fear that a small, blond haired, beautiful little girl with a bedraggled stuffed puppy who likes ponies and princesses and just wants to play in the sandbox or on the swings as a major threat to their world.

In that case you will also be welcome to alert the authorities to the presence of the dangerous, vandalizing middle-aged suburban American Neopagan couple who are terrorizing, persecuting and intimidating the locals with threats of bodily harm and extensive property damage by pouring some wine on the ground.

I bid you good day.

 

[KarenNC]

I admit it. I’m a goof…!

Well, the extremely backhanded apology is at least novel on these boards where few have the grace to do even that much.

So, which is it? Am I “true polytheist” (in which case I should be so easy to convert?) or a “closet atheist playing at being spiritualist” with my “plaything” deities?

you can only not accept that one “type” of God exists. Ours. And why?

Because I have seen no compelling proof that your God is indeed a different “type” of God. “He says so” is not sufficient for me.

Maybe I am a true polytheist after all, as I did “know a better way when * it”, and am quite happy with it, thank you.*

 

[KarenNC]

What were the mental gymnastics that you had to go through to reconcile your thoughts with [what your concept of] Christianity [was then] that you eventually didn’t, and now don’t, have to do with Neopaganism? What were you originally sensing about Christianity that you couldn’t agree with, but when you finally found Neopaganism you didn’t have this same problem?

In a nutshell, believing in a religion founded on the concept that God had to sacrifice Himself to Himself in order to save from Himself the creatures that He created who contravened laws that He set up, knowing when He created them that they were susceptible to doing so and, indeed would inevitably do so, then damning them to eternal torment for such? That will do for starters.

** How were you introduced to Neopaganism, and what about it made you like it or agree with it more than Christianity? There had to have been a point when you didn’t completely believe in it, and then you finally were convinced. What was this occurrence?**

There was no “Damascus Road” experience. I was introduced to my Gods by reading the stories about Them in my childhood and by the myriad and rich tapestry in which They have persisted in our culture. I was leaving offerings for the land and nature spirits when I was 10 years old and totally immersed in a very practicing Christian family and culture, decades before I ever encountered anyone who described themselves as Neopagan. I realized at about the same point that I simply did not believe in the teachings that were being preached.

For a long time I thought that if I found a different denomination, a different way of thinking about it that it would work, if I studied more, read more widely, looked at the mystics, looked at the contemplatives, read the original Church Fathers, etc I would find peace. I did not.

I did not leave Christianity for Neopaganism, as I have said. I left Christianity because I did not believe in its core teachings.

But you ARE claiming that the basis for your belief in Their existence is a combination of your own experiences with the stories about Them being congruent with these experiences, correct? Or is there other evidence that you have as well, besides your mind just working well with Their stories making you feel comfortable?

The experiences of others who have found the same to be true is definitely reinforcing. And to be precise, I said it was my “soul” not my “mind” that was at peace. A bit of a difference, I would say.

So let’s sum it up by tradition, reason and experience.

 

[Petergee]

Well, Petergee, I’ve read the books (or a great many of them at least, one can never read all the books no matter how much one tries) so evidently we no longer have much to discuss, since you have consistently avoided choosing any further of the arguments that I have offered to discuss.

I repeat, choose any one you like and let’s discuss it. The only one avoiding discussion of anything here seems to be you.

If you would like to re-read my posts, you might eventually read what I have actually said, rather than what you think I have.

If I have misinterpreted what you said, please point out where I misunderstood you.

I never described the incident on the beach as a conversion experience. It was not.

I never said it was, I pointed out it is the strongest “evidence/proof” you have adduced here for your beliefs.

I wish you well in your efforts to keep any current or future children you may have totally isolated from anything that may differ from Catholicism–I suppose it is theoretically possible, though I have my doubts that it is desirable or particularly healthy in the long run.

I will be sure to keep your email in case we ever plan to come to Australia so that you can clear the area of any innocent babes that might be scarred forever by playing with my 6 year old. Interesting that you apparently wouldn’t consider having a non-Christian child being exposed to the Christian child perhaps playing with a nativity scene, wearing a crucifix or mentioning Jesus as problematic for the non-Christian.

For the record, I don’t particularly either in most circumstances. It only becomes an issue for me when it is done in a condemnatory way or someone tries to coerce her into acting as if or professing that she follows Christianity when she does not. We actually own a children’s bible and she knows many of the major stories, etc. She is allowed to play with the children of Christians (and Buddhists and Jews and agnostics and atheists and etc), at least those whose parents do not fear that a small, blond haired, beautiful little girl with a bedraggled stuffed puppy who likes ponies and princesses and just wants to play in the sandbox or on the swings as a major threat to their world.

In that case you will also be welcome to alert the authorities to the presence of the dangerous, vandalizing middle-aged suburban American Neopagan couple who are terrorizing, persecuting and intimidating the locals with threats of bodily harm and extensive property damage by pouring some wine on the ground.

I bid you good day.

I’m sorry you have adopted such a snarky attitude. I never said I would not let my children play with yours, I merely suggested you consider reasons why some Christians might have genuine feelings of trepidation about neopaganism. I had thought we could have an honest rational discussion of our respective religious beliefs. It appears that despite your protests to the contrary you are not interested in this, merely in slagging off Christians. Objective observers might reasonably conclude that you are angry because the fact that you cannot rationally justify your professed beliefs has been publicly exposed.

 

[AKG]

I wouldn’t claim our faith as exclusive if exclusive means that only those who are practicing Catholics can go to heaven et al.

As Catholics we understand our faith as gift. Because this gift brings us the joy of fellowship with Christ and with one another, we naturally want to share this gift with others. Likewise, we recognize how very precious and valuable a gift it is.

Among other gifts, the Holy Spirit gives us the gifts of understanding and forbearance. We understand that each person is at a different place in their relationship with God and with others at particular moments of time. We are called to respect each person that we meet, and to be wise as serpents, yet meek as doves as we share the gift of faith in Christ Jesus that has been handed down and entrusted to us.

Prayer, careful examination of and meditation upon the scriptures, and the practice of walking in obedient discipleship are absolutely essential elements of living out our faith.

 

[KarenNC]

I’m sorry you have adopted such a snarky attitude.

The following is not addressed exclusively to Petergee (and I will say in advance that I have actually found that there are some on these boards who do not fit the following description, but you are unfortunately in the minority in my experience. I do appreciate you and that is why I am still here):

You are right. I should be stronger and avoid being led by example. Usually I do a better job of it, but there are simply days in which my tolerance for such is very low and I respond in kind–yesterday was one of them. My apologies and I promise all I will strive to do better in such discussions.

I have been on these boards for somewhere around three months now and it still astounds me that the folks here choose to persist in telling me what I believe. Do you not realize that you are actually being given a gift? Why choose to slap it out of the giver’s hands?

If the goal of your religion is to evangelize to those of other religions, don’t you think you would stand a better chance of your efforts working if you actually understood what the other person believed or means when he says “_____” rather than continually telling him what you think he believes?

If I were for some unknown reason inclined to try to proselytize to Catholics in hopes of converting them, don’t you think I would stand a better chance of getting the Catholic to at least listen for a minute if I could discuss actual Catholic beliefs and practices? Would the Catholic not dismiss me out of hand if I kept insisting that my religion was superior because we don’t practice ritual cannibalism like you Catholics? Because we aren’t instructed to tie blue ducks to our heads and dance a hornpipe on the church lawn on alternate Tuesdays like you Catholics?

If, when the Catholic tries to correct my misinformation, I listen rather than continually insist that, whatever the Catholic says, that I know that they “really do” believe such or do such because I read it in my anti-Catholic apologetics magazine or books, so it must be true, even if the person is the first actual Catholic that I have met or talked to about such issues? Or because I once passed a Catholic church and saw someone with a blue duck on his head dancing a hornpipe, so all Catholics must do so (rather than presume that the person had mental issues)?

Take advantage of the gift offered to you by those who are non-Catholic and are willing to attempt to discuss things rationally with you rather than simply throw up their hands and leaving at the snarkiness, snide comments, demeaning and insulting language, being accused of being infantile, insane, pretending, lying, or demonic. I really cannot fathom why anyone would consider that such behavior presents one’s religion in a positive or desirable light.

You can’t witness to someone who is trying to avoid you like the plague because you are obnoxious! It does not make you look smarter, more educated, superior or more confident in your faith–in fact the exact opposite. I have to remind myself that one merely reinforces every negative stereotype that that person has ever heard when I slip and fall prey to the temptation to do such (and I have so failed more often than I would like). Not only that, they will then go around telling their friends that, yes, it is true that anyone decribing themselves as the follower of that particular religion really is (insert negative stereotype) and should be avoided.

Who knows, you might even introduce some new ones. This board has done that for me. The impressions of both myself and my husband of the Catholic Church, which were initially in the neutral to somewhat positive range on most things though I disagree with the theology, has not been changed for the better overall. He refused to have anything to do with the board after about a week of attempting to have actual theological discussions (and he is much more fond of such than I am) and was appalled that it was as bad or worse than encounters he has had with the worst of the Evangelicals. He had expected a much higher standard among Catholics.

It has become obvious to me that I must have simply been incredibly fortunate before this to meet only Catholics in real life and to read Catholic writers who were actually interested in and capable of having a true civil dialogue, even with those who were in almost complete disagreement. Not that such discussions did not get intense, but they did not sink to the level I have witnessed here.

Ask questions, and be willing to actually listen to the answers. You don’t have to believe something to attempt to understand that someone else does. You don’t have to convert to have a discussion comparing differences. This board’s entire purpose for existence is " to compare and contrast beliefs." If you don’t want to at least attempt such discussions in a civil manner, why come here at all?

 

[Valke2]

Which God or goddess do you have a preference for?