Neo-Pagan Apologetics

[latin_rite]

**Are there any goods works from Pagan or Wiccan practices? **

.

In the ancient world, such matters were commonly handled by the governments, which were themselves, of course, Pagan insitutions. Ian

Um ancient pagans weren’t known for their charity. All evidence points to the fact that they only took.

**Are there any goods works from Pagan or Wiccan practices? **
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. Ian

In other words you don’t know. Which is the first honest thing you have said so far. And the only way you can claim to know anything is to borrow/steal from another religion ( hindus). Maybe another thing you don’t know, didn’t think about or totaly ignored, is the fact that pagans or true pagans stuck to thier own religion just as Christians do. For example Ancient pagans of rome had little or no time for pagans gods of northern europe.

.

**Are there any goods works from Pagan or Wiccan practices? **
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.Ian

Interesting that Tradtional means “early 20th century” . WHO was the first to see these gods? Andwhere did they first appear? And did thor or athena have much to do with wiccans? would have known what a wiccan was? where and how do you give your donations to thor? he didn’t work for free ya know, No pagan gods did. they demanded gold be given to their temples, animals killed in their names and also the regular sacrifice of humans. both adult and child. (something which “pagans” tend to over look today.

**Are there any goods works from Pagan or Wiccan practices? **
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.Ian

And these “gods” don’t mind you running from one to the other? From what i heard they use to fight like cats and dogs within their own family. how tolerant would they be with “gods” from other religions?

**Are there any goods works from Pagan or Wiccan practices? **
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 - .Ian

Well there seems to be more evidence supporting Jesus than those “gods” that someone discovered or formed in the woods less than a hundred years ago

**Are there any goods works from Pagan or Wiccan practices? **
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.Ian

Of course you do. you have a make it up as you go along religion.

**Are there any goods works from Pagan or Wiccan practices? **
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

You seem to have replaced the sheperd with a commitee.

 

[geraldffff]

I would encourage the pagan reviler to remmber that when attacking a pagan you are attacking one who God the Father loves and God the Son died on the Cross for Christians should pray for…

newadvent.org/cathen/11388a.htm
Whether Paganism made straight a path for Christianity may be considered from two points of view. Speaking from the standpoint of pure history, no one will deny that much in the antecedent or environing aspirations and ideals formed a præparatio evangelica of high value. “Christo jam tum venienti”, sang Prudentius, “crede, parata via est”. The pagan world “saw the road”, Augustine could say, from its hilltop. “Et ipse Pileatus Christianus est” said the priest of Attis; while, of Heraclitus and the old philosophers, Justin avers that they were Christians before Christ. Indeed, in their panegyric of the Platonic philosophy, the earlier Apologists go far beyond anything we should wish to say, and indeed made difficulties for their successors.

 

[johnbres2]

No one is attacking the pagan personally, but rather, his beliefs. Jesus repeatedly attacked invalid beliefs in people. So don’t use this “God loves everyone” argument to suggest that the presence of evil should be tolerated. The confusion on this point has led to the attitude present today that nobody is allowed to attack anyone else’s views, because it is mean to the person whose views are being attacked. It is time for a little intellectual rigor on this point.

Second, whether paganism somehow led to the blessing of Christianity–as if prior error pointed toward truth-- is no reason for someone today in the 21st century to still have these outdated and evil beliefs.

 

[latin_rite]

No one is attacking the pagan personally, but rather, his beliefs. Jesus repeatedly attacked invalid beliefs in people. So don’t use this “God loves everyone” argument to suggest that the presence of evil should be tolerated. The confusion on this point has led to the attitude present today that nobody is allowed to attack anyone else’s views, because it is mean to the person whose views are being attacked. It is time for a little intellectual rigor on this point.

Second, whether paganism somehow led to the blessing of Christianity–as if prior error pointed toward truth-- is no reason for someone today in the 21st century to still have these outdated and evil beliefs.

I Agree. I feel sometimes they use the “God loves everyone” or the “if you don’t support me 100% then you’re not a true Christian” Arguments are just trying to silence the person.

 

[geraldffff]

No one is attacking the pagan personally, but rather, his beliefs. Jesus repeatedly attacked invalid beliefs in people. So don’t use this “God loves everyone” argument to suggest that the presence of evil should be tolerated. The confusion on this point has led to the attitude present today that nobody is allowed to attack anyone else’s views, because it is mean to the person whose views are being attacked. It is time for a little intellectual rigor on this point.

Second, whether paganism somehow led to the blessing of Christianity–as if prior error pointed toward truth-- is no reason for someone today in the 21st century to still have these outdated and evil beliefs.

The statmentbelow sound like a personal attack to me. This pagan in your house as a guest. Will you give me one scriptual example of when the Lord Jesus treated a gentile like this, please! Read The article at new advent and then claim no pagans did charitable work. I will agree, that the pagan’s statements are total nonsence to me also but he is exersizing his God given right to believe as he pleases. We are obligated to show him fraternal correction without burning him at the stake.

“In other words you don’t know. Which is the first honest thing you have said so far. And the only way you can claim to know anything is to borrow/steal from another religion ( hindus). Maybe another thing you don’t know, didn’t think about or totaly ignored, is the fact that pagans or true pagans stuck to thier own religion just as Christians do. For example Ancient pagans of rome had little or no time for pagans gods of northern europe.”

 

[IanCorrigan]

Um ancient pagans weren’t known for their charity. All evidence points to the fact that they only took.

Well, Rome ran bread-lines and housing laws for its citizens, and pre-christian Ireland probably (since the lore was written down later) operated both medical centers and traveler’s houses, at the expense of the local governments.

It’s true that Pagans weren’t much concerned with charity - they didn’t see the world as a veil of tears, particularly, and expected folks to manage by their strength and skill. Also, many, maybe most, Pagans lived in strong family groups, who held wealth in common, and made it their business to see to the well-being of their folk. Still, many Pagan governments did look after social wlfare in various ways.

Maybe another thing you don’t know, didn’t think about or totaly ignored, is the fact that pagans or true pagans stuck to thier own religion just as Christians do. For example Ancient pagans of rome had little or no time for pagans gods of northern europe.

Not true. The Celtic Goddess Epona was vastly popular with the legions. In Roman Gaul, local Celtic deities were regularly worshipped alongside the Roman pantheon. While Rome didn’t generally pay a huge amount of attention to the Gods of the north, Romans did adopt deities from Persia, Egypt and the Middle East. Generally, Rome’s attitude was that subjects could keep their own religious ways, as long as they made the basic worship of the emperor’s spirit. In polytheism, the idea of ‘jealous gods’ doesn’t occur much. Mostly the Gods all worship one another, and people are free to worship as they will, as long as they maintain their relationships with their primary Gods.

Interesting that Tradtional means “early 20th century” . WHO was the first to see these gods? Andwhere did they first appear? And did thor or athena have much to do with wiccans? would have known what a wiccan was?

The first - not recorded. Where? Among the British neoWitches. Wicca didn’t exist in the days of the first worship of Thor or Athena - it is a new expression of old ideas. So far, the Gods have responded well.

where and how do you give your donations to thor? he didn’t work for free ya know, No pagan gods did.

A number of neopagans are taking up the customs of sacrifice. As I have said elsewhere, neopaganism has ended animal (and human…) sacrifice, following a trend that is seen in both the ancient and modern polytheist worlds. We do make offerings to the Gods, etc - ale and bread, song and poetry, gold and silver, etc.

**they demanded gold be given to their temples, animals killed in their names and also the regular sacrifice of humans. both adult and child. (something which “pagans” tend to over look today. **

Actually, the national Pagan magazine "Pangaia’ just ran a cover story on human sacrifice, it’s meaning in ancient ways, and what that all might mean for modern Pagans. The matter is not overlooked, and has been very consciously dealt with by the modern movement.

And these “gods” don’t mind you running from one to the other? From what i heard they use to fight like cats and dogs within their own family. how tolerant would they be with “gods” from other religions?

The Gods do sometimes fight, just as nature sometimes is in conflict with itself. However there is little evidence that ancient religions practiced exclusivity of worship. People were often members of multiple temples, worshipped multiple gods, without any conflict. The ‘jealous god’ is mainly a monotheist invention.

** Well there seems to be more evidence supporting Jesus than those “gods” that someone discovered or formed in the woods less than a hundred years ago **

Christianity has tried to cast its mythology in historic terms. Generally, Pagans realize(d) that myth does not occur inside of history. It occurs in the realm of dream and spirit, and if it occurs today, that’s as good as anything that occurred in the long-ago. Our evidence is our experience - if it works, it works.

Of course you do. you have a make it up as you go along religion.

We do. Now, some Pagans think our new movement should remain that way for ever, but other Pagans anticipate the formation, over the next generations, of more firm traditions and forms. I think it’s a matter of many ways for many people - some folks like writing new liturgy for every circumstance, others enjoy the familiarity and depth of liturgy repeated and respected over many years. Since Paganism sees no virtue in doctrinal unity, I’m sure there will remain many flavors, just as the Gods would want it.

**You seem to have replaced the sheperd with a commitee/B]

the world makes so much more sense when one thinks of it as run by committee ; )

Ian**

 

[IanCorrigan]

**No one is attacking the pagan personally, but rather, his beliefs. **

Just for the record, I don’t feel personally, attacked. You lot have been good, though a bit of heat and smoke does occasionally muddy up the light of reasoned discussion. I’m here to sharpen up my own apologetics - I’m not a candidate for conversion, any more than i expect you folks to be.

Ian

 

[IanCorrigan]

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 fifth:

**3. A theory advanced by some is that the gods are in some sense projections of or creations of their worshipers. If the gods were projections, then today of all days the gods would seem to have only tiny power because of tiny number of their followers. It would be difficult to imagine such beings as worthy of worship. **

Any being that blesses us is worthy of worship. The conceit that worship is to be reserved for the highest and mightiest is one of the great failings of monotheism.

The time of the Gods does not seem to be the same as mortal time. The ancient Gods, and the land-spirits and ancestors, were worshipped for many millennia. A break of one millennium is hardly enough to make them unavailable to their modern worshippers.

It also should also be noted that no historic pagans seem to have held this view of their deities. It would seem to be a modern idea—some might even say an intellectually desperate, last-ditch idea—introduced to insulate polytheism from the intellectual problems that otherwise arise for it.

I agree that this is a modern idea. Many Neopagans are rejecting this, along with Jungian and archetypal definitions of deity, in favor of a more personal relationship with real spiritual being. However one may be, in fact, a materialist and participate whole-heartedly in Pagan ways. If the Gods exist only in our minds, and religion is a structure of mind that helps us gain surprising results from our minds, then it’s worth doing.

 

[IanCorrigan]

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 sixth and last:

**4. Finally, some suppose that the gods do not have independent, objective reality but are just symbols. The question is: symbols of what? **

It is a symptom of the disease of modernism to use the phrase ‘just symbols’. Symbols frequently have more objective, independent effect than trucks or stones. The Gods are symbols – they are persons who are symbols. Their symbolic nature is one of their great spiritual powers, and Pagans honor that, even as we work personally with the spirits. They are symbols of the highest aspects of ourselves, of the inner spiritual reality behind material life, of the inspiration from and aspiration toward the divine.

**On the one hand, if they are symbols of nature and natural forces, then it is difficult to see why they should be worshiped. Electricity is part of nature, but if one does not worship it when it comes from a light socket, it is difficult to see why one should worship it when one imagines and names a symbolic thunder god to represent it. **

Worship means ritualized respect. To learn to respect and honor the natural world that sustains and supports us seems only wise. The western idea of dead matter has lead only to ill, and neopagans hope to cure those ills with an organic spirituality that recognizes the animistic spiritual presence within matter itself.

**Further, the empirical evidence seems to show that the universe itself does not have a mind or a personality. Only by looking beyond nature—to the God who designed nature—can one find transcendent value worthy of worship. **

Polytheism would agree that the universe does not have a mind – it has many minds, all working together to make the great pattern that is existence. Ancient Pagan creation tales never describe one creator of all things. Even when there is a Prime Mover, that Mover is never the all-powerful owner-operator-creator of the Whole Deal. Different deities and spirits create different things, from animals to local land-features to cities and temples.

Again, the notion that only the transcendent is worthy of worship is unique to monotheism, and poisonous to a natural relationship with the spiritual world. Pagans learn to respect the spirit in all things, and the spirits of all things, and the Gods and Goddesses who are the mightiest of the spirits. It’s worship all the way down…

**On the other hand, if the answer is given that the gods are symbols of a fundamental spiritual reality that transcends the physical world, then it would seem (since all independent status already has been denied to the gods by rejecting the three alternatives just considered) that one is left with a form of fundamental monotheism that is only cloaked with polytheistic symbols. **

Nature transcends local manifestation in some ways, but in practice it is the local manifestation of nature that we deal with. Spiritual matters are likewise. Paganism has often speculated about the Oneness of all things. However this has never lead Pagan philosophers to propose that there is only One Person who is worthy of worship. If there is an all-one reality, it transcends personhood, or good and ill, or male and female, or being and nonbeing. Such an existence is not related in any way to the monotheist notion of ‘God’.

That being the case, why should one use the symbols? Why not worship the Creator directly and explore the question of whether he cares for and has spoken to man, as monotheism has historically claimed?

Mainly because the claims made for the ‘creator’ of the various monotheisms don’t hold water. Most notably, the various monotheisms do not, themselves, agree on the name, nature, deeds or desires of their alleged ‘one god’. Starting there, and with the plain failure of monotheism to describe religous experience as humans know it, there seems no reason to accept monotheism’s assertions.

 

[dessert]

Can’t a moderator cleanse this evil nonsense off of this site?

I believe that many are praying and aggreeing together in the spirit against the evil in the name of our God Jesus Christ. return

 

[dessert]

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

I will try to instruct you as best I know how and anyone who wants to jump in and correct me please do so. Thanks
Chapter 19 thru 24 are called the covenant chapters at Mount Sinai according to my NAB The Ten Commandments were kind of considered ONE, but the last is divided into two. So you have read them?
It was a covenant that our God was offering and that is described as a binding agreement. If you only believe in a only things that are relative to your person I guess you can’t see this clearly.

I don’t believe that you could get out of your group even if you tried. 30 years is loong

I think moral and ethical decisions effect or affect yourself and others all the time no matter what you chose, not to give you fear but just caution carefull decions making needs good judgement govern by a fruit of the spirit of truth. Now who is getting into big theological words huh?

I was away from the RCC for 40 years. Do you want to know how I got back? return

 

[dessert]

Now the New Testament covenant is with Jesus Christ and what did He do, he shed His blood for my sin!
For the New Jerusalem
return from the desert

 

[whosebob]

I am a devout Pagan, but also rather a hobbyist of religion and theology. Unlike many modern Pagans I actually enjoy theological reasoning, and the work of apologetics …

JMJ + OBT​

Here are a few more on-line resources I thought you might enjoy tackling, Ian, as you continue your dialog with Christians:

Paganism and the Conversion of C.S. Lewis

The God in the Cave by G.K. Chesterton
read the whole book on-line: The Everlasting Man

Who Do You Say I Am? Excellent well-researched free audio series on the New Age by Fr. Mitch Pacwa, S.J. (13 hours total!)

I hope you find them interesting and/or helpful.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

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

Ian, you’ve taken the first step --recognizing one thing is not another thing–which in my experience puts you apart from 95%+ of the neopagans and newagers I’ve encountered in person or online.

 

[latin_rite]

Well, Rome ran bread-lines and housing laws for its citizensIan

Rome might of, But the relgious cults it is unknown…well unknown leaning to very unlikely,

and pre-christian Ireland probably (since the lore was written down later) operated both medical centers and traveler’s houses, at the expense of the local governments.

Probably, might of, maybe, perhaps. mean one thing. You don’t know. Well it is known. And again all veiws point to no they didn’t. Btw pre-Christian Ireland was a feudal system. No local goverments. but hey as long as you use words like Probably,maybe, perhaps, might of’s you can claim anything you want.

The first - not recorded. Where? Among the British neoWitches. Wicca didn’t exist in the days of the first worship of Thor or Athena - it is a new expression of old ideas. So far, the Gods have responded well.Ian

Experession of old ideas means “Lets make something up and name it something that people used thousands of years ago to give it some credibilty” If thor and athena were real which they aren’t. If they saw you doing your prayer thing. They’ll say to each other “what the hell are they doing?”

A number of neopagans are taking up the customs of sacrifice. As I have said elsewhere, neopaganism has ended animal (and human…) sacrifice, following a trend that is seen in both the ancient and modern polytheist worlds. We do make offerings to the Gods, etc - ale and bread, song and poetry, gold and silver, etc.

Customs? how can something so new be a Custom? Maybe you mean “habit”? neo paganism didn’t end human or animal scarifice amongst the true Pagans of europe. the Christians did.

Actually, the national Pagan magazine "Pangaia’ just ran a cover story on human sacrifice, it’s meaning in ancient ways, and what that all might mean for modern Pagans. The matter is not overlooked, and has been very consciously dealt with by the modern movement.

Good to see you don’t try and ignore the fact that pagans fertilized their feilds with the blood of the innocent

The Gods do sometimes fight, just as nature sometimes is in conflict with itself. However there is little evidence that ancient religions practiced exclusivity of worship. People were often members of multiple temples, worshipped multiple gods, without any conflict. The ‘jealous god’ is mainly a monotheist invention.

Really. I recall hearing tales that those myths er… i mean gods got jealous of other gods. Even from ancient writers say this. (And they should know they lived with and were real pagans

Christianity has tried to cast its mythology in historic terms. Generally, Pagans realize(d) that myth does not occur inside of history. It occurs in the realm of dream and spirit, and if it occurs today, that’s as good as anything that occurred in the long-ago. Our evidence is our experience - if it works, it works.

Of course we say what happened, happened. Others wise we wouldn’t take our religion so serious. It isn’t us that go around trying to dissprove jesus useing historical evidence only to have it proved. It’s Historians both Christian andotherwise

We do. Now, some Pagans think our new movement should remain that way for ever, but other Pagans anticipate the formation, over the next generations, of more firm traditions and forms. I think it’s a matter of many ways for many people - some folks like writing new liturgy for every circumstance, others enjoy the familiarity and depth of liturgy repeated and respected over many years. Since Paganism sees no virtue in doctrinal unity, I’m sure there will remain many flavors, just as the Gods would want it.

You do now? so you agree your “religion” is a make it up as you go along?

**You seem to have replaced the sheperd with a commitee/B]

the world makes so much more sense when one thinks of it as run by committee ; )

Ian

now i know you’re crazy.**

 

[cocot]

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.

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. Certainty is usually the door to error.

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

So why is religion like art - all personal preference and not like math or physics?

There is truth in science then but not in art (religion)?

 

[dessert]

Exodus 3;13-15 NAB
“But,” said Moses to God, " when I go to the Israelites and say to them, the God of your fathers has sent me to you, if they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what am I to tell them?"
God replied, “I am who I am” Then he added, " this is what you shall tell the Israelites; I AM sent me to you."
God spoke further to Moses, " thus shall you say to the Israelites; The Lord the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Issac, the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is my name forever; this is my title for ALL generations; Yahweh

I did not start this post with the creation because you have heard it before I sense and you seem like a very intelligent person but to the heart of the matter, my God had a covenant with Moses and all generations so that is all I need to believe.

return from the desert
as the Israelites in Exodus

and the New Testament New Covenant with the body and blood of Jesus Christ

PSALM 71; 16 NAB

I will speak of the mighty works of the Lord;
Oh God I will tell of your Singular justice.

 

[chrisb]

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

Grace and Peace be with you IanCorrigan,

The first four Commandments are exhortations to what our Lord and Saviour taught in positive form here:

Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and with thy whole soul and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. - Matthew 22:37-38 DRB

I believe it is our obligation to recognize and give praise and worship the One True God. I’m not sure if you would equate this to a ‘moral’ obligation but I would humbly say that I do.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel. For it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth: to the Jew first and to the Greek. For the justice of God is revealed therein, from faith unto faith, as it is written: The just man liveth by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. His eternal power also and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God or given thanks: but became vain in their thoughts. And their foolish heart was darkened. For, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts and of creeping things. - Romans 1:16-23 DRB

Now, I know you are not a believer in the validity of Sacred Scripture but I offer this to simply illuminate why ‘we’ believe what we believe.

The last six Commandments are exhortations to what our Lord and Saviour taught in positive form here:

And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets. - Matthew 22:39-40 DRB

Before I depart, I would like to recognize your kindness in your posts. It is appreciated.

May God bless us and have mercy on us. Amen.

 

[IanCorrigan]

So why is religion like art - all personal preference and not like math or physics?

There is truth in science then but not in art (religion)?

Religion is like art because all different kinds of religion work for some people. What seems base to one person is sublime to another, and no logic can prove that the thing is ‘truly’ one or the other. Hinduism, Voodoo, Methodism, even weird little sects, all work for some people. If a system succeeds in bringing the individual into contact with the divine (and only the worshipper can say whether it has) then it is ‘true’, in the sense of ‘operative’.

Now, it is quite possible to construct a system that works pretty well on bad data. For instance, ptolemaic astronomy did a pretty good job of predicting planetary locations, eclipses, etc, but it was based on an earth-centered model of the solar system. In the same way, either monotheism or polytheism might be false, and still produce methods of spiritual practice that bring contact with the divine.

We can work by observation and logic to try to more clearly understand the ‘laws’ of the spiritual world, and what they mean for our efforts at religion, but actually doing religion is always an on-the-fly, work-by-feel sort of thing. The work of bringing the individual into contact with the divine has so many variables that it can’t be tightly controlled.

I hope I’m clear - by ‘religion’ I refer mainly to the actual practices that any system teaches to bring the person into contact with the divine. In religious theory, we can seek to develop sound opinions on what’s ‘really’ going on in the spiritual world. In practice, religion is an art - one works with the canvas of one’s own soul…
Ian

 

[cocot]

So the practice of religion is a subjective truth then?
again I ask you: Does truth exists in math or physics?

We can work by observation and logic to try to more clearly understand the ‘laws’ of the spiritual world
Ian

Are there any absolutes in these “observable and logical laws” ?

What do you make of the observation that the majority of the world 's population believe in one god while you are in the minority?