L
- Status
G
geraldffff
Guest
K
Karianne
Guest
He started it!Hey Karianne & Latin rite add to this discussion or get of the pot and take your argument somewhere else! you are totally off topic.
Don’t amke me come over there!
(said in my threatening Dad’s voice!)
Peace!
I
IanCorrigan
Guest
I am constantly amazed by the number of the Aesir worshippers who see old One Eye as a benign force.
As I have observed, the longer the asatru movement has persisted, the less important ‘Odinism’ has become. Odin is, as you clearly know, a difficult fellow, called ‘oath-breaker’ and a variety of other dangerous names in what we have of the lore. These days, odin seems the be the provenance of runesters, galdrfolk and warriors. There is rather a lot more focus on Thor, on the Vanir Lord and Lady, and on the Goddesses among asatruar.
Plainly, not all the Gods are particularly benign, just as not all of nature is benign. One deals with the world one has.
As for the druidic element, do they honestly have any understanding of the mnemonic training that bard, brehon and druid received?
Surely, we do. Caesar tells us it took 20 years. Now, mind you, most moderns have some dozen years of schooling, putting us well ahead of the average iron-age Gael, but there’s still plenty of catching up to do.
And that with the exception of some ogham inscriptions, none of it was written down. Or that Stonehenge didn’t have anything to do with the Celts.
That latter we recite constantly, though ‘nothing’ may be an exagerration - the last stages of Stonehenge’s construction (which went on for hundreds of years) may have been done by the first waves of Celtic-speaking incomers.
There is a good bit of Irish poetic teaching preserved in the medieval poetic schools. For instance, we have lists of the various dozens of oghams and stories memorized by the filidh at various stages. As with all written Gaelic material, this is post-Christianization, but most scholars think it preserves pre-Christian elements.
**The same thing is happening with the Aesir and Druid variants of this. It is not based in fact, it is based in romanticism. **
There is undoubtedly a great deal of romantic impulse in the entire Neopagan movement. Can there be any religious impulse without romanticism? What would the point be?
**As an ex-member of the Society for Creative Anachronism, it is the Middle Ages as it ought to have been not as it was. **
You mean the Iron Age - the Middle Ages were Christian.
**That’s why I’m not comfortable with the neo-pagan title. Where is the blood eagle? Where is the strangled male bog burials? **
That’s the Neo part. The move away from blood sacrifice was happening in the Indo-European world of the 1st century ad, and it seems reasonable to assume that it might have happened on its own.
In the group I work with, we practice sacrifice regularly, but never the sacrifice of living things - like much of Hinduism, we have replaced animal offerings with gifts of flowers, incense, milk, bread, poetry and song. So far, the Gods seem pleased.
The underlying assumption with this title is that “Hey, we know there is a God but we reject this concept in favor of adopting what we think our ancestors believed”.
More specifically, we know there is a divine, and we think our ancestors understood it better than the prophets of revealed monotheism. We are working to revive that understanding in a way that suits moderns.
**Or to put it another way…the Hindus have never stopped believing in the original Indo-European gods. **
Sort of. Indra doesn’t get much attention these days, and Shiva and Vishnu and Brahma never appear in the Vedas. Hinduism is a post-Vedic religion that preserves some ritual and theological ideas from the earlier Vedic ways.
The Bhagavad Gita is an ancient Sanskrit text. If one were to acknowledge and accept that the twelve gods of our Indo-European past were Indo-European, wouldn’t this be the best place to start?
The Bhagavad Gita is part of the Mahabharata, not a part of the Vedas. Some of our scholars are interested in the 33 Gods of the Vedic system as a starting outline for re-imagining the Gods today, but we must also deal with the bits of lore we have from our European sources. It’s a complex business, that will not be finished in my generation.
Ian
As I have observed, the longer the asatru movement has persisted, the less important ‘Odinism’ has become. Odin is, as you clearly know, a difficult fellow, called ‘oath-breaker’ and a variety of other dangerous names in what we have of the lore. These days, odin seems the be the provenance of runesters, galdrfolk and warriors. There is rather a lot more focus on Thor, on the Vanir Lord and Lady, and on the Goddesses among asatruar.
Plainly, not all the Gods are particularly benign, just as not all of nature is benign. One deals with the world one has.
As for the druidic element, do they honestly have any understanding of the mnemonic training that bard, brehon and druid received?
Surely, we do. Caesar tells us it took 20 years. Now, mind you, most moderns have some dozen years of schooling, putting us well ahead of the average iron-age Gael, but there’s still plenty of catching up to do.
And that with the exception of some ogham inscriptions, none of it was written down. Or that Stonehenge didn’t have anything to do with the Celts.
That latter we recite constantly, though ‘nothing’ may be an exagerration - the last stages of Stonehenge’s construction (which went on for hundreds of years) may have been done by the first waves of Celtic-speaking incomers.
There is a good bit of Irish poetic teaching preserved in the medieval poetic schools. For instance, we have lists of the various dozens of oghams and stories memorized by the filidh at various stages. As with all written Gaelic material, this is post-Christianization, but most scholars think it preserves pre-Christian elements.
**The same thing is happening with the Aesir and Druid variants of this. It is not based in fact, it is based in romanticism. **
There is undoubtedly a great deal of romantic impulse in the entire Neopagan movement. Can there be any religious impulse without romanticism? What would the point be?
**As an ex-member of the Society for Creative Anachronism, it is the Middle Ages as it ought to have been not as it was. **
You mean the Iron Age - the Middle Ages were Christian.
**That’s why I’m not comfortable with the neo-pagan title. Where is the blood eagle? Where is the strangled male bog burials? **
That’s the Neo part. The move away from blood sacrifice was happening in the Indo-European world of the 1st century ad, and it seems reasonable to assume that it might have happened on its own.
In the group I work with, we practice sacrifice regularly, but never the sacrifice of living things - like much of Hinduism, we have replaced animal offerings with gifts of flowers, incense, milk, bread, poetry and song. So far, the Gods seem pleased.
The underlying assumption with this title is that “Hey, we know there is a God but we reject this concept in favor of adopting what we think our ancestors believed”.
More specifically, we know there is a divine, and we think our ancestors understood it better than the prophets of revealed monotheism. We are working to revive that understanding in a way that suits moderns.
**Or to put it another way…the Hindus have never stopped believing in the original Indo-European gods. **
Sort of. Indra doesn’t get much attention these days, and Shiva and Vishnu and Brahma never appear in the Vedas. Hinduism is a post-Vedic religion that preserves some ritual and theological ideas from the earlier Vedic ways.
The Bhagavad Gita is an ancient Sanskrit text. If one were to acknowledge and accept that the twelve gods of our Indo-European past were Indo-European, wouldn’t this be the best place to start?
The Bhagavad Gita is part of the Mahabharata, not a part of the Vedas. Some of our scholars are interested in the 33 Gods of the Vedic system as a starting outline for re-imagining the Gods today, but we must also deal with the bits of lore we have from our European sources. It’s a complex business, that will not be finished in my generation.
Ian
I
IanCorrigan
Guest
It’s all "interacting wills and deeds of the many beings."
Attributing will to particles does move us into the metaphorical.
You are proselytizing in violation of rule 6 of the Forum. You have found a soapbox and so you spout the vague semi-literacy of the New Ager.
I hope you’ll forgive me for sounding preachy. Pagans don’t proselytise, generally, and I know this is not going to be a forum in which to seek new membership. I’ll try stick to philosophy, and try to refrain from poetic statements of my theology.
you haven’t answered any of the points in the article.
I rather think I have. Examples?
Ian
Attributing will to particles does move us into the metaphorical.
You are proselytizing in violation of rule 6 of the Forum. You have found a soapbox and so you spout the vague semi-literacy of the New Ager.
I hope you’ll forgive me for sounding preachy. Pagans don’t proselytise, generally, and I know this is not going to be a forum in which to seek new membership. I’ll try stick to philosophy, and try to refrain from poetic statements of my theology.
you haven’t answered any of the points in the article.
I rather think I have. Examples?
Ian
I
IanCorrigan
Guest
**Everything you have posted has been unbiased and reasonable and has truly been a great read. **
Kind of you to say so. Thanks
**Surely he would not condemn you, for you have come with reverence and respect rather than viciously attacking the church. **
Unlike many Pagans, I rather prefer the Roman Churches’ doctrines to those of the reformation and its inheritors. For instance, if one had to be tried as a ‘witch’ in the renaissance, one was a great deal better off in a church court, where real rules of evidence and logic were applied, than in the courts of local Nobles, where mere village spite sent many to their deaths. And heaven ; ) help those accused who ended up tried by Luther, a great witch-hunter. Also, Catholics have a real tradition of enjoying honest intellectual debate.
I do have a question though.Where do the beliefs of Adolf Hitler fall into the form of “paganism” you practice?
I think that connecting Hitler to 20th c. Neopaganism, at least in the English-speaking world, is entirely a straw-man. There were some occultists in Hitler’s gang, but the influence of esoterica on him seems to have been minimal. Hitler did try to use the impulse toward nationalistic folklore that had swept Europe in the Late 19th and early 20th centuries to bind his German nationalism together, but he made really no effort to encourage the worship of the Old Gods.
Hitler is the classic boogie-man of our time. Anti-Catholic writers have made a great deal of the church’s connections with the reich, and some anti-Pagan writers have tried to harness him to that rig, too. In my form of Paganism, in Wicca, and in most of Norse Paganism, Hitler and his misunderstanding of aryanism has had exactly zero influence.
I know he believed he was the incarnation of a great knight. is any of the aryan belief structure a part of this paganism?
The term ‘aryan’ has been nearly ruined by the nazis. It is a sanskrit word, meaning ‘noble’, and the writers of the Vedas (ancient Indo-European scriptures) used it to refer to themselves. It is now used interchangably with ‘Indo-European’, the latter being much less prejudicial. I’d suggest a web-search on it, rather than me attenpting to summarize a huge body of lore.
Ian
Kind of you to say so. Thanks
**Surely he would not condemn you, for you have come with reverence and respect rather than viciously attacking the church. **
Unlike many Pagans, I rather prefer the Roman Churches’ doctrines to those of the reformation and its inheritors. For instance, if one had to be tried as a ‘witch’ in the renaissance, one was a great deal better off in a church court, where real rules of evidence and logic were applied, than in the courts of local Nobles, where mere village spite sent many to their deaths. And heaven ; ) help those accused who ended up tried by Luther, a great witch-hunter. Also, Catholics have a real tradition of enjoying honest intellectual debate.
I do have a question though.Where do the beliefs of Adolf Hitler fall into the form of “paganism” you practice?
I think that connecting Hitler to 20th c. Neopaganism, at least in the English-speaking world, is entirely a straw-man. There were some occultists in Hitler’s gang, but the influence of esoterica on him seems to have been minimal. Hitler did try to use the impulse toward nationalistic folklore that had swept Europe in the Late 19th and early 20th centuries to bind his German nationalism together, but he made really no effort to encourage the worship of the Old Gods.
Hitler is the classic boogie-man of our time. Anti-Catholic writers have made a great deal of the church’s connections with the reich, and some anti-Pagan writers have tried to harness him to that rig, too. In my form of Paganism, in Wicca, and in most of Norse Paganism, Hitler and his misunderstanding of aryanism has had exactly zero influence.
I know he believed he was the incarnation of a great knight. is any of the aryan belief structure a part of this paganism?
The term ‘aryan’ has been nearly ruined by the nazis. It is a sanskrit word, meaning ‘noble’, and the writers of the Vedas (ancient Indo-European scriptures) used it to refer to themselves. It is now used interchangably with ‘Indo-European’, the latter being much less prejudicial. I’d suggest a web-search on it, rather than me attenpting to summarize a huge body of lore.
Ian
I
IanCorrigan
Guest
Well, here I draw on my very wide knowledge of the movement in North America. Forgive me if I brag (not a sin in many Pagan ways…), but I’ve been a part of the movement since the middle seventies. I attend a half-dozen national and regional pagan “festivals” (think seminars with bonfires) in an average year and have sat on the Boards of a couple of organizations. I am capable of describing how the Neopagan movement behaves from wide personal observation, and even wider first-person report from associates.
If you want corroboration, there are a good number of participant-pbserver studies of the movement in the UK and N America. None of them have found charismatic cults of personality, attempts to control the lives or thoughts of members, authoritarian leadership or hierarchies, etc, to be the norm, or even to be visible in most cases.
Back in the 70s, when Neopagan Witchcraft (Wicca) was almost entirely a matter of secret, oath-bound small groups (covens), there were occasional problems with autocratic and unethical leadership. There probably still are, as there are in Christian systems as well. But the consensus of the movement is that these things have no place in what adherents understand as Neopagan ways.
You can take my word for it, or do the research yourself.
Ian
I
IanCorrigan
Guest
HI all - thanks for finding a place for this material. I’ll post my answers to the anti-neo-pagan apologetics article in bits, so they’ll fit.
here’s the third:
**1. If the gods of different religions are to be identified with each other, then it would not seem that there are meant to be different religions among peoples but only different rites used to worship the same set of gods.
This would be especially problematic for Asatruers, who often wish to view their gods as distinct from the gods of other people. A problem for all neo-pagans would be that it is highly implausible that the deities of many pantheons can be identified with each other. **
The study of mythography and lore is pretty specialized in Paganism, as the province those few who really concern themselves with it. Most Pagans are concerned with their relationship with specific personal and local forms of the Gods. In ancient days even the deities with broad cultural presence were usually addressed in their specific and local forms, often involving attaching a place-name to the big name – Diana of Ephesus, a figure quite different from the ‘Diana’ one might read of in a primer of Greek myth, is an example.
There are some schools of reconstructionist Paganism that try to find in local deities specific and distinct individual deities in every case. There is little reason, in examining the scraps of thought we have from the ancient Pagans, to agree with this notion. The ancients clearly speculated on how many Gods there might be (‘one’ wasn’t on the list of options), and whether (for example) the Gods of Rome were the same persons as those of the Gauls or Germans. Since Paganism does not depend on having proven answers to such questions, no attention was paid to reaching agreement on the answer.
here’s the third:
**1. If the gods of different religions are to be identified with each other, then it would not seem that there are meant to be different religions among peoples but only different rites used to worship the same set of gods.
This would be especially problematic for Asatruers, who often wish to view their gods as distinct from the gods of other people. A problem for all neo-pagans would be that it is highly implausible that the deities of many pantheons can be identified with each other. **
The study of mythography and lore is pretty specialized in Paganism, as the province those few who really concern themselves with it. Most Pagans are concerned with their relationship with specific personal and local forms of the Gods. In ancient days even the deities with broad cultural presence were usually addressed in their specific and local forms, often involving attaching a place-name to the big name – Diana of Ephesus, a figure quite different from the ‘Diana’ one might read of in a primer of Greek myth, is an example.
There are some schools of reconstructionist Paganism that try to find in local deities specific and distinct individual deities in every case. There is little reason, in examining the scraps of thought we have from the ancient Pagans, to agree with this notion. The ancients clearly speculated on how many Gods there might be (‘one’ wasn’t on the list of options), and whether (for example) the Gods of Rome were the same persons as those of the Gauls or Germans. Since Paganism does not depend on having proven answers to such questions, no attention was paid to reaching agreement on the answer.
I
IanCorrigan
Guest
HI all - thanks for finding a place for this material. I’ll post my answers to the anti-neo-pagan apologetics article in bits, so they’ll fit.
here’s the fourth:
For example, in Greek and Roman paganism, the kings of the gods (Zeus and Jupiter) are in control of thunder, but the thunder god in Germanic paganism is Thor, who is not the king of the gods (that would be Odin). Similarly, in Indo-European paganisms, the sky god tends to be masculine and the earth goddess feminine, but this is reversed in Egyptian mythology. It seems impossible to establish a universal paganism treating each individual pantheon as merely a different expression of the same set of independently real, non-symbolic beings.
Conveniently, the closer together peoples dwell, the more likely their Gods are to resemble one another, both individually and in organization. So, among the Hellenes and Latins, whose histories were entwined so tightly we find the thunder-king, while in the north, among the Celts and Germans we find the power of magic and wisdom – in Wodan and Lugos – on the throne. It is these very differences that have lead Pagan thinkers to suspect that the Gods are very numerous indeed.
The desire for ‘universal’ religion is a monotheist thing. In Neopaganism, no deity is or can be universal – divinity’s manifestations are local. The Earth and the Sky are not the same around the world – one place moist, another, dry, fertile or barren, safe or dangerous. There is no reason to think that divine manifestation would be any more homogenous.
**2. If the gods of each paganism aren’t to be identified, then there would seem to be multiple deities for every aspect of nature. **
There are multiple material manifestations of every aspect of nature. Why wouldn’t there be multiple spiritual ones as well?
**Each people will have its own thunder god, its own vegetation god, et cetera. This leads to an implausible situation in many cases. **
Implausible compared to what? It is only the rote assumption that ‘spiritual reality’ must transcend the local that brings up any problem.
If Thor controls the thunder in Scandinavia, why should neo-pagans of Norse descent in America pray to him? Why shouldn’t they pray to an American Indian thunder deity who controls the local thunder? Further, our solar system has only one sun. Just how many sun gods can there be?
All these questions have been asked by ancient Pagans as well. Again, observation shows that it is simply so – explaining it is an ongoing task.
One of the core principles of Pagan theology is that spiritual reality is symbolic reality, by definition. Truths about spiritual things are seldom, maybe never, literal truths. All spiritual manifestation is symbolic – it can vary at the will of the being involved, or vary depending on the ability or inclination of the human who perceives it. So, whether the deities are vastly many or fewer, they will appear in local fashion as proper to the time and place.
here’s the fourth:
For example, in Greek and Roman paganism, the kings of the gods (Zeus and Jupiter) are in control of thunder, but the thunder god in Germanic paganism is Thor, who is not the king of the gods (that would be Odin). Similarly, in Indo-European paganisms, the sky god tends to be masculine and the earth goddess feminine, but this is reversed in Egyptian mythology. It seems impossible to establish a universal paganism treating each individual pantheon as merely a different expression of the same set of independently real, non-symbolic beings.
Conveniently, the closer together peoples dwell, the more likely their Gods are to resemble one another, both individually and in organization. So, among the Hellenes and Latins, whose histories were entwined so tightly we find the thunder-king, while in the north, among the Celts and Germans we find the power of magic and wisdom – in Wodan and Lugos – on the throne. It is these very differences that have lead Pagan thinkers to suspect that the Gods are very numerous indeed.
The desire for ‘universal’ religion is a monotheist thing. In Neopaganism, no deity is or can be universal – divinity’s manifestations are local. The Earth and the Sky are not the same around the world – one place moist, another, dry, fertile or barren, safe or dangerous. There is no reason to think that divine manifestation would be any more homogenous.
**2. If the gods of each paganism aren’t to be identified, then there would seem to be multiple deities for every aspect of nature. **
There are multiple material manifestations of every aspect of nature. Why wouldn’t there be multiple spiritual ones as well?
**Each people will have its own thunder god, its own vegetation god, et cetera. This leads to an implausible situation in many cases. **
Implausible compared to what? It is only the rote assumption that ‘spiritual reality’ must transcend the local that brings up any problem.
If Thor controls the thunder in Scandinavia, why should neo-pagans of Norse descent in America pray to him? Why shouldn’t they pray to an American Indian thunder deity who controls the local thunder? Further, our solar system has only one sun. Just how many sun gods can there be?
All these questions have been asked by ancient Pagans as well. Again, observation shows that it is simply so – explaining it is an ongoing task.
One of the core principles of Pagan theology is that spiritual reality is symbolic reality, by definition. Truths about spiritual things are seldom, maybe never, literal truths. All spiritual manifestation is symbolic – it can vary at the will of the being involved, or vary depending on the ability or inclination of the human who perceives it. So, whether the deities are vastly many or fewer, they will appear in local fashion as proper to the time and place.
L
Lion_of_Narnia
Guest
I’ve scanned Ian’s postings, and come to the conclusion this is the increasly educated neopagan presentation–which is far better than the tripe of some prominent popularizers (yep, Starhawk, Z. Budapest, Adler, etc…)
I think any educated (and believing) Christian and Jew HAS to admit the origins of Abrahmic Monotheism came out of the context of a polytheistic Semitic culture. Being born in that context does NOT exclude the possibility of actual revelation that DID exclude the polytheistic belief–but it took a LONG time in taking hold, and the OT is rife with backslidding Hebrews who were attracted to the polytheims of neighbors and conquerors. It can even be argued the ONE God had to work with (and against) the early Hebrew’s ingrained cultural mindset–at FIRST saying “No other gods for you”–and after that was somewaht accepted, revealing “the reason for that command is there are NO other gods!”…and finaly, “eventually all the world will recognize it’s just ME, the ONE God”
From the pagan Greeks, we inherit the tools of logic and reason–and primary among them is “non-contradiction”–two mutually exclusive propositions cannot both be valid at the same time. Among many neopagans, there is an explicit rejection of this princible–an attitude borrowed from the Eastern faiths, who as the late Mortimer Adler pointed out, keep their religious beliefs in “logic proof compartments”
In short:
You can have a multiplicy of “gods”, that interact with their believers as they understand them–including ethical standards–and these "gods’ are actually just “part of everything”
OR
You can ONE God, utterly different from creation, not part of creation enen thoush he is the source of creation, who is one way and not the other, and from whom all standards of ethics and behavior derive.
But you cant have BOTH
I think any educated (and believing) Christian and Jew HAS to admit the origins of Abrahmic Monotheism came out of the context of a polytheistic Semitic culture. Being born in that context does NOT exclude the possibility of actual revelation that DID exclude the polytheistic belief–but it took a LONG time in taking hold, and the OT is rife with backslidding Hebrews who were attracted to the polytheims of neighbors and conquerors. It can even be argued the ONE God had to work with (and against) the early Hebrew’s ingrained cultural mindset–at FIRST saying “No other gods for you”–and after that was somewaht accepted, revealing “the reason for that command is there are NO other gods!”…and finaly, “eventually all the world will recognize it’s just ME, the ONE God”
From the pagan Greeks, we inherit the tools of logic and reason–and primary among them is “non-contradiction”–two mutually exclusive propositions cannot both be valid at the same time. Among many neopagans, there is an explicit rejection of this princible–an attitude borrowed from the Eastern faiths, who as the late Mortimer Adler pointed out, keep their religious beliefs in “logic proof compartments”
In short:
You can have a multiplicy of “gods”, that interact with their believers as they understand them–including ethical standards–and these "gods’ are actually just “part of everything”
OR
You can ONE God, utterly different from creation, not part of creation enen thoush he is the source of creation, who is one way and not the other, and from whom all standards of ethics and behavior derive.
But you cant have BOTH
D
dessert
Guest
And what about the Ten Commandments? Do they fit into your very complicated life and all those bigs words? return from the desert
PSALM 1; True Happiness inGod’s Law NAB CE
Happy those…;
Nor go the …;
Rather the…;
They are like a tree…;
…whatever they do …;
But not the…;
…chaff driven…;
…will not survive judgement,
nor will…;
the Lord watches …;
…leads to . . . . !!!
“Lord, I know that I am but one light shining in the darkness. But I also know that you can take this light and join it with the others who are trying too follow you.Together, may our light banish all darkness, so that Isaiah’s promise will finnally come true. Jesus, let your kingdom come through us to transform this earth!” word among us publ. return
Amen
PSALM 1; True Happiness inGod’s Law NAB CE
Happy those…;
Nor go the …;
Rather the…;
They are like a tree…;
…whatever they do …;
But not the…;
…chaff driven…;
…will not survive judgement,
nor will…;
the Lord watches …;
…leads to . . . . !!!
“Lord, I know that I am but one light shining in the darkness. But I also know that you can take this light and join it with the others who are trying too follow you.Together, may our light banish all darkness, so that Isaiah’s promise will finnally come true. Jesus, let your kingdom come through us to transform this earth!” word among us publ. return
Amen
D
dessert
Guest
In another short; you notice how he is not attacking the catholic directly as being so polite about it because I think in my opinion his god (god’s) do fear our one true God, Jesus Christ! He is not acknowledging any existence of the bible or scripture, and states we are all on the same planet at least.
Although he may still be back in the 70’s?
Isn’t that when star trek was so pop.
Ian, I don’t really understan alot of what you are saying and I don’t really think I want to, I’m getting a headache already. sorry! return
I
IanCorrigan
Guest
With this, I agree, entirely.
I think the Neopagan unwillingness to say ‘this is true, this other is false’ is more a result of timidity and a desire to avoid dogmatism at any cost than of any real intellectual conviction. One thing which seems to be difficult for humans is for reasonable people to disagree on fundamental things, and not decide to really fight about it. Neopagans are often disgusted with the history of religious movements of the last 1500 years or so, and desperate to arrive at a position that will prevent tham from becoming dogmatists as they (we) build our new Old Ways.
Here in our little apologetics corner, apart from socio-political needs, let us be logical, as we can. I agree - there cannot be both the One God of Abrahamic scripture, and the Many Gods as understood by the Athenians or Shinto. I hold with Many Gods
Ian
I
IanCorrigan
Guest
Of the ten commandments, the first 4 are purely theological, yes? No moral or ethical content at all. The rest are common-sense advice, that any traditional culture would agree with.
Ian
W
whosebob
Guest
JMJ + OBT
Dear Ian, thank you for you for taking the time and having the patience to converse with us here at CAF. May Our Lord bless you and may the prayers of the Blessed Virgin help to draw you to the flames of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and to all Truth.
Have you had an opportunity to review the following article in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia?
Paganism
Since it was published in 1913, it’s obviously dated … and yet I think it’s relevant to this discussion.
Your feedback is most welcome. I’m praying for you, and so is the Blessed Virgin Mary (alive and bodily present in Heaven) at my request.In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.
IC XC NIKA
A
Adamma
Guest
Are there any goods works from Pagan or Wiccan practices? Do you go somewhere or live again in spirit after you die or such? If so what is your future gig or doings? Also if a Wiccan person has needs to pray or such for a family member or themselves, to whom would answer such prayers (non-evil intentions of course)?
Christ was here and dwelt amongest us and many witnesses saw and attested to those works through oral tradition which came way before written traditions within the bible. Our culture wishes to embrace easy paths and “church of what’s happening now” concepts and anyone can start up a new church after filling out some paperwork. Events with Mother Mary are continuing throughout time do not appear to be phony: such as Our Lady of Guadalupe(tilma is on display and tests reveal alot about it) , Our Lady of Lourdes, Our Lady of Fatima, (Medjoujgre-time may tell on that one?). Can other religions claim such? Why does she come to us and reveal things to people, like at Fatima and told them of some future events, that did happen as told???
The bible foretold the coming of Moses and of Jesus and other persons and events, that happpened accordingly, way after it was written about. Perhaps we should seriously look at the book of revelations and its purest meanings, as it could easily be the next fulfilled event, perhaps sooner than we may wish too. I don’t think sola scriptura is the way to interpret anything as it does not take into account the thoughts of the author, cultural influences and sayings-meanings (like it is raining cats and dogs etc.). You need handed down tradition and a magistarium that has studied the theology and traditions through time and kept a deposit of the faith basically intact over about 2000 years almost. Then you could get the closest actual meanings of these books.
We have free will and given some intellect (we are of course not that smart, we still kill each other). Some like to believe they are all encompassing in knowledge and can easily know what to believe in or discount or through away. Some saw and believed, some never saw and believed and some saw and rejected. Where do you stand or where will you eventually stand. Life is like a see-saw and you are teetering back and forth, just don’t let your butt smack the ground.
Brothers you can choose (it was a free gift)
Christ was here and dwelt amongest us and many witnesses saw and attested to those works through oral tradition which came way before written traditions within the bible. Our culture wishes to embrace easy paths and “church of what’s happening now” concepts and anyone can start up a new church after filling out some paperwork. Events with Mother Mary are continuing throughout time do not appear to be phony: such as Our Lady of Guadalupe(tilma is on display and tests reveal alot about it) , Our Lady of Lourdes, Our Lady of Fatima, (Medjoujgre-time may tell on that one?). Can other religions claim such? Why does she come to us and reveal things to people, like at Fatima and told them of some future events, that did happen as told???
The bible foretold the coming of Moses and of Jesus and other persons and events, that happpened accordingly, way after it was written about. Perhaps we should seriously look at the book of revelations and its purest meanings, as it could easily be the next fulfilled event, perhaps sooner than we may wish too. I don’t think sola scriptura is the way to interpret anything as it does not take into account the thoughts of the author, cultural influences and sayings-meanings (like it is raining cats and dogs etc.). You need handed down tradition and a magistarium that has studied the theology and traditions through time and kept a deposit of the faith basically intact over about 2000 years almost. Then you could get the closest actual meanings of these books.
We have free will and given some intellect (we are of course not that smart, we still kill each other). Some like to believe they are all encompassing in knowledge and can easily know what to believe in or discount or through away. Some saw and believed, some never saw and believed and some saw and rejected. Where do you stand or where will you eventually stand. Life is like a see-saw and you are teetering back and forth, just don’t let your butt smack the ground.
Brothers you can choose (it was a free gift)
I
IanCorrigan
Guest
**Are there any goods works from Pagan or Wiccan practices? **
Some. Most Pagans don’t have much in the way of institutional resources (yet) for things such as shelters, hospices, etc. The little sect to which I belong has a requirement that each of our local congregations perform at least quarterly public service efforts, and many Groves develop ongoing partnerships with other non-profits.
In the ancient world, such matters were commonly handled by the governments, which were themselves, of course, Pagan insitutions. Christianity’s several centuries out of the halls of power as it grew helped it begin a tradition of caring for the bretheren, who would have been unwilling to accept the healing offices of, say Roman priests of their healing Gods.
Spiritual healing is one of the main works of many Pagan groups. Beginning with healing the souls of members, Pagans often work for the increased health and well-being of individuals and the world.
**Do you go somewhere or live again in spirit after you die or such? If so what is your future gig or doings? **
The most common idea about the afterlife in neopaganism is reincarnation. Those of us who take a more scholastic bent realise that universal, hindu-style reincarnation may not have been a feature of much of European pre-Christian religion. It’s entirely possible that there are multiple options for the Dead.
In general we don’t worry much about afterlife punishment and reward. The afterlife is a continuation of existence - it probably won’t be any more ‘perfect’ (or any less) than the material world. We don’t believe in the depravity of humanity, and most of us would probably say that most people do more good than ill in their lives, and end their lives with the balance sheet in the black, if you will.
Neopaganism is much more about this life than the next. We live well today, and let tomorrow bring what it brings.
**Also if a Wiccan person has needs to pray or such for a family member or themselves, to whom would answer such prayers (non-evil intentions of course)? **
We have many Gods. A ‘Traditional’ Wiccan mainly works with the Triple Lady of the Moon & Earth, and the Horned Lord of the Forest and the Corn. These forms manifested in the first decades of the 20th century, as the Wiccan system resolved. A more eclectic Wiccan might conceive the divine in a more new-agey “all-one-everything-power”, though she might still invoke a specific cultural form, such as Athena for wisdom or Thor for strength.
Many neopagans work with the Gods of one cultural pantheon as their main path, and would choose who they work with from that pantheon, whether greek, norse, gaelic, egyptian, etc.
**Christ was here and dwelt amongest us and many witnesses saw and attested to those works through oral tradition which came way before written traditions within the bible. **
Personally, I tend to think there was a historical Judean wonder-working rabbi called Jesus, about whom the gospel stories came to be told. He seems a recognisable historical type - the ascetic-yet-popular preacher, exorcist and healer who expounded his doctrines while working his stuff. Since I don’t believe in a single creator/owner/operator of the cosmos, I can’t believe we need to be saved from its wrath, or that a perfect sacrifice of himself to himself (cool as that is, mythically) has any relevance for my spirituality.
We have free will and given some intellect (we are of course not that smart, we still kill each other). Some like to believe they are all encompassing in knowledge and can easily know what to believe in or discount or through away.
Neopagans tend to think that we have the divine in our own souls, by nature. Since the divine always manifests as the multitude of forms and beings, it manifests as us. Since it is manifest in and as us (and therefor as me) I have in me a spark of the divine will. I have, in my small way, the divine ability to know, to shape, to choose - not just to submit to some greater will.
So, yes, we assume that we are able, in ourselves to perceive and respond to truth, to make choices, and to live well, as we will, without a shepherd.
Ian
Some. Most Pagans don’t have much in the way of institutional resources (yet) for things such as shelters, hospices, etc. The little sect to which I belong has a requirement that each of our local congregations perform at least quarterly public service efforts, and many Groves develop ongoing partnerships with other non-profits.
In the ancient world, such matters were commonly handled by the governments, which were themselves, of course, Pagan insitutions. Christianity’s several centuries out of the halls of power as it grew helped it begin a tradition of caring for the bretheren, who would have been unwilling to accept the healing offices of, say Roman priests of their healing Gods.
Spiritual healing is one of the main works of many Pagan groups. Beginning with healing the souls of members, Pagans often work for the increased health and well-being of individuals and the world.
**Do you go somewhere or live again in spirit after you die or such? If so what is your future gig or doings? **
The most common idea about the afterlife in neopaganism is reincarnation. Those of us who take a more scholastic bent realise that universal, hindu-style reincarnation may not have been a feature of much of European pre-Christian religion. It’s entirely possible that there are multiple options for the Dead.
In general we don’t worry much about afterlife punishment and reward. The afterlife is a continuation of existence - it probably won’t be any more ‘perfect’ (or any less) than the material world. We don’t believe in the depravity of humanity, and most of us would probably say that most people do more good than ill in their lives, and end their lives with the balance sheet in the black, if you will.
Neopaganism is much more about this life than the next. We live well today, and let tomorrow bring what it brings.
**Also if a Wiccan person has needs to pray or such for a family member or themselves, to whom would answer such prayers (non-evil intentions of course)? **
We have many Gods. A ‘Traditional’ Wiccan mainly works with the Triple Lady of the Moon & Earth, and the Horned Lord of the Forest and the Corn. These forms manifested in the first decades of the 20th century, as the Wiccan system resolved. A more eclectic Wiccan might conceive the divine in a more new-agey “all-one-everything-power”, though she might still invoke a specific cultural form, such as Athena for wisdom or Thor for strength.
Many neopagans work with the Gods of one cultural pantheon as their main path, and would choose who they work with from that pantheon, whether greek, norse, gaelic, egyptian, etc.
**Christ was here and dwelt amongest us and many witnesses saw and attested to those works through oral tradition which came way before written traditions within the bible. **
Personally, I tend to think there was a historical Judean wonder-working rabbi called Jesus, about whom the gospel stories came to be told. He seems a recognisable historical type - the ascetic-yet-popular preacher, exorcist and healer who expounded his doctrines while working his stuff. Since I don’t believe in a single creator/owner/operator of the cosmos, I can’t believe we need to be saved from its wrath, or that a perfect sacrifice of himself to himself (cool as that is, mythically) has any relevance for my spirituality.
We have free will and given some intellect (we are of course not that smart, we still kill each other). Some like to believe they are all encompassing in knowledge and can easily know what to believe in or discount or through away.
Neopagans tend to think that we have the divine in our own souls, by nature. Since the divine always manifests as the multitude of forms and beings, it manifests as us. Since it is manifest in and as us (and therefor as me) I have in me a spark of the divine will. I have, in my small way, the divine ability to know, to shape, to choose - not just to submit to some greater will.
So, yes, we assume that we are able, in ourselves to perceive and respond to truth, to make choices, and to live well, as we will, without a shepherd.
Ian
C
cocot
Guest
Are all groups of Neo-pagans beliefs equally valid?
Is it a “Free-for-All” of truth? in the sense that there is not one specific group of Neo-pagans that have a monopoly on the truth?
Is there such thing as “Truth” to Neo-pagans? or is it all subjective and truth is a word that can be interchanged with some other word.
Lastly, as you admit (I think) there is not really a tremendous amout of written history of the “Old Ways” So who ever re-invents the wheel (much like a protestant) of the Old Ways has a valid belief system equal to yours?
Is it a “Free-for-All” of truth? in the sense that there is not one specific group of Neo-pagans that have a monopoly on the truth?
Is there such thing as “Truth” to Neo-pagans? or is it all subjective and truth is a word that can be interchanged with some other word.
Lastly, as you admit (I think) there is not really a tremendous amout of written history of the “Old Ways” So who ever re-invents the wheel (much like a protestant) of the Old Ways has a valid belief system equal to yours?
I
IanCorrigan
Guest
Are all groups of Neo-pagans beliefs equally valid?
Is it a “Free-for-All” of truth? in the sense that there is not one specific group of Neo-pagans that have a monopoly on the truth?
Neopaganism isn’t based on beliefs, it’s based on practices, techniques and results. The larger traditions of Paganism, such as Wicca, share a variety of ritual forms and traditional language centered around ritual. The goal is to produce experiences of the presence of the Gods and Spirits, and of the union ofthe individual spirit with the greater pattern of the divine.
If a local circle (congregation) is good at doing that, they will get membership, and grow. Inside such a circle there will likely be a variety of theological explabnations for what is going on. We make no requirement that everyone ‘believe’ the same way, as long as everyone can practice together to produce the desired effects.
Experience tells us that different methods work for different people. Religion is like art - some like it one way, some another. Expressionism isn’t more ‘true’ than cubism.
As far as what’s ‘really’ going on, most Pagans are satisfied to admit that we can only take our best guess. We do not seek to have a ‘certain faith’ about any given explanation of how the Gods work - we only know that they do work, because we see it happen.
Is there such thing as “Truth” to Neo-pagans? or is it all subjective and truth is a word that can be interchanged with some other word.
Truth is important - we teach ourselves to speak true, be true to our word, not speak falsely, etc. As to whether or not some cosmic or ultimate sort of ‘truth’ can be known, many Pagans are sceptical. Personally, I doubt the human mind is capable of really comprehending how the cosmos works, at least on a day to day basis. We live inside our lives, and do our best to live well. Certainty is usually the door to error.
Lastly, as you admit (I think) there is not really a tremendous amout of written history of the “Old Ways” So who ever re-invents the wheel (much like a protestant) of the Old Ways has a valid belief system equal to yours?
We test our ideas in practice. Some ideas work and are kept, others are discarded. In some cases, systems that I might find illogical or unattractive will call profoundly to someone else. In such cases I value the results more than I value the need to make all ideas conform to some pre-existent model of truth.
Ian
Is it a “Free-for-All” of truth? in the sense that there is not one specific group of Neo-pagans that have a monopoly on the truth?
Neopaganism isn’t based on beliefs, it’s based on practices, techniques and results. The larger traditions of Paganism, such as Wicca, share a variety of ritual forms and traditional language centered around ritual. The goal is to produce experiences of the presence of the Gods and Spirits, and of the union ofthe individual spirit with the greater pattern of the divine.
If a local circle (congregation) is good at doing that, they will get membership, and grow. Inside such a circle there will likely be a variety of theological explabnations for what is going on. We make no requirement that everyone ‘believe’ the same way, as long as everyone can practice together to produce the desired effects.
Experience tells us that different methods work for different people. Religion is like art - some like it one way, some another. Expressionism isn’t more ‘true’ than cubism.
As far as what’s ‘really’ going on, most Pagans are satisfied to admit that we can only take our best guess. We do not seek to have a ‘certain faith’ about any given explanation of how the Gods work - we only know that they do work, because we see it happen.
Is there such thing as “Truth” to Neo-pagans? or is it all subjective and truth is a word that can be interchanged with some other word.
Truth is important - we teach ourselves to speak true, be true to our word, not speak falsely, etc. As to whether or not some cosmic or ultimate sort of ‘truth’ can be known, many Pagans are sceptical. Personally, I doubt the human mind is capable of really comprehending how the cosmos works, at least on a day to day basis. We live inside our lives, and do our best to live well. Certainty is usually the door to error.
Lastly, as you admit (I think) there is not really a tremendous amout of written history of the “Old Ways” So who ever re-invents the wheel (much like a protestant) of the Old Ways has a valid belief system equal to yours?
We test our ideas in practice. Some ideas work and are kept, others are discarded. In some cases, systems that I might find illogical or unattractive will call profoundly to someone else. In such cases I value the results more than I value the need to make all ideas conform to some pre-existent model of truth.
Ian
J
johnbres2
Guest
Can’t a moderator cleanse this evil nonsense off of this site?
- Status