Neo-Pagan Apologetics

[Dawnpiper]

“Plainly, there are many Gods worshipped by humans, so there’s no reason to accept the Bible’s claim that only one of them is worthy.”

I think this argument is missing something.

1. Many gods are worshipped by humans.
   Conclusion: The Bible does not have to be accepted.

What’s missing is the recognition that you stretched Ian’s particular comment further than it was intended to go… but I think you know that.

Otherwise:

1. Many shoes are worn by humans.
   Conclusion: Mountain climbers can wear high heels if they want to.

I don’t think so.

Actually, given that example, the polytheist would conclude that

(A) a mountain climber could wear high heels, but if they did a little rudimentary research into the nature and function of high heeled shoes they would see it would likely be ineffective; and

(B) since it is obvious to anyone who is paying attention that there are different kinds of shoes that serve different fuctions, it would not make sense to try to go mountain climbing, bowling and ballroom dancing in sneakers, even though that is the only kind of shoe sold in your store.

 

[Paganus]

I compare what the Bible claims with what I plainly observe in the world - if the Bible doesn’t meet that standard, I reject it.
Example, please.****

The obvious example - the Bible claims there is only one true god, observation clearly shows many gods that answer man’s worship. Therefore I reject the Bible’s claim.
Ian

What do you consider “answering” man’s worship? Does any passing spirit that “answers” your worship deserve your worship? Certainly you have observed malevolent people - do you deny the existence of malevolent spirits?

 

[Paganus]

Given the greater reasonableness that you have experienced with polytheism: how do you feel about someone’s wife being tossed onto her late husband’s funeral pyre, should he happen to reincarnate before her? Good or bad? Why or why not?

The ancient world was full of customs that moderns consider unpleasant. Animal sacrifice, child marriage, military conquest with the taking of slaves, etc have all fallen out of fashion.

Personally, I disapprove of suttee, just as I disapprove of the death penalty for heresy.
Ian

On what grounds do you disapprove? Personal taste only? Should the fashion return, as fashions tend to do, is that okay? Are human rights only a fashion to you? Is there nothing in your religion that condemns these outrages?

 

[Paganus]

What’s missing is the recognition that you stretched Ian’s particular comment further than it was intended to go… but I think you know that.

Actually, given that example, the polytheist would conclude that

(A) a mountain climber could wear high heels, but if they did a little rudimentary research into the nature and function of high heeled shoes they would see it would likely be ineffective; and

(B) since it is obvious to anyone who is paying attention that there are different kinds of shoes that serve different fuctions, it would not make sense to try to go mountain climbing, bowling and ballroom dancing in sneakers, even though that is the only kind of shoe sold in your store.

Taking that example even further, we might conclude that: Europeans tried worshipping many gods and found invariably that this led to poverty, illiteracy, and endless warfare. After many centuries, they found themselves far behind other civilizations, on every level measurable.

When they tried Christianity, they found that it brought with it the literacy, ancient knowledge, self-discipline, and social stability that led to the rise of the university, modern science, and sophisticated legal and economic systems that propelled their barbaric culture into an unprecedented position of global supremacy and influence.

What does polytheism really offer these people today?

 

[Paganus]

While we are settling things: what do you think? Can you
bring prosperity to your people by ritually killing one of the men of your group and burying him in a peat bog? Or does this technique require further testing?

Modern life has solved many of the problems that the ancients tried to solve with religious and magical methods. If I were an iron age religious specialist, without access to fertiliser, big plows, commercial harvesting, etc, I hesitate to say that I wouldn’t resort to bog-man type sacrifice. Nor do I assume that those sacrifices were in vain - we have no detail on any such tale, but I do assume that the Gods respond to sacrifices.

So you think it might work - and there is nothing in your religion forbidding human sacrifice in the absence of the scientific methods that you prefer?

 

[Dawnpiper]

…there is nothing in your religion forbidding human sacrifice…?

I can’t answer for Ian, but I can certainly say that in the mythology of my tradition the Gods are clearly seen as rejecting human sacrifice. The entire tragic history of the House of Atreus begins with such a sacrifice, and all that follows after - including the events leading to the Trojan War, and those depicted in the Oresteia - is divine retribution for that impiety.

 

[Dawnpiper]

What does polytheism really offer these people today?

Right now I don’t have the time to give this post the full attention it deserves; I’ll try this evening (gotta make a living ). For the moment, I will say that polytheism offers me (the only person I can answer for) a truer understanding of divine reality, and a closer relationship to my Gods than I ever could have imagined.

Also, you seem to be more stuck on history than is strictly necessary; perhaps you are not aware - or don’t believe - that most of us come to pagan religions not to recreate some ancient fantasy world (like the SCA or a Renaissance Faire), but to enter into a living relationship with our Gods. It would be rather like me asking you why you choose to be monotheist when so many have been killed over the last 3000 years because of differences in belief about some aspect of monotheist doctrine… there is a kernel of truth to the question, but it would completely ignore both the non-religious factors that influence the course of history and the fact that your religion is about you and your God, here today in the real world.

 

[Paganus]

I can’t answer for Ian, but I can certainly say that in the mythology of my tradition the Gods are clearly seen as rejecting human sacrifice. The entire tragic history of the House of Atreus begins with such a sacrifice, and all that follows after - including the events leading to the Trojan War, and those depicted in the Oresteia - is divine retribution for that impiety.

I can’t answer for Ian, either. But I can state that if your religion is opposed to human sacrifice and his religion is not opposed to human sacrifice than these are two distinct religions.

 

[KarenNC]

But I can state that if your religion is opposed to human sacrifice and his religion is not opposed to human sacrifice than these are two distinct religions.

Hi, this is Dawnpiper’s wife, joining in the discussion.

Paganism is even less a monolithic term than Christianity is. There are many distinct religions (not just sects) within that broad descriptive, even when it is limited to America. The distinctions are often more pronounced between Pagan or Neopagan religions than they are between Christianity and Islam, for instance, rather than between Catholic and Presbyterian or Methodist and Assembly of God. Just as within Roman Catholicism, there is also a wide spectrum of theological expression, worship practice and individual interpretation within any individual religion or sect thereof (probably more so since, as Ian pointed out, there is not usually a single credo). It so happens that we are part of a sect, if you will, of the same organization to which Ian belongs, but our pantheons are quite different. Different gods, potentially different desires for worship from those gods–all part of polytheism .

Since you consider Christianity to be an extension and fulfillment of Judaism (though Jews would disagree with you) and the Hebrew Scriptures to be sacred guiding texts, look at the Christian Bible for similar context. The ancient Hebrews sacrificed animals regularly as part of their religious rituals. Abraham himself was willing to perform a human sacrifice of Isaac because he heard God tell him to do so. Obviously he thought that it would work. Jepthah and Josiah performed human sacrifices, and there are several specific incidents of God commanding the Hebrews to kill unbelievers or their enemies.

Jesus was raised as an observant Jew of his time, so it is expected that he participated in animal sacrifice. The Bible records that Mary and Joseph made a sacrifice to celebrate the birth of Jesus and that Jesus instructed the man he cured of leprosy to go to make a sacrifice at the Temple. My religious instruction (albeit in the Protestant and Episcopalian churches) was that Jesus was the ultimate and last human sacrifice. The practice of animal and human sacrifice as acceptable or desirable to God eventually changed within both the Jewish and Christian religions. Are we to say based on these examples that modern Jews and Christians advocate animal or human sacrifice as part of their religion? I think that would be disingenuous.

Religious practice does change with societal change. The Christian Bible, both in the Old and New Testaments, give explicit instructions on how ones’ slaves are to be treated and the proper behavior of a Christian who is a slave. Slavery was a common and accepted practice in those time periods. Today, all the Christians that I know would consider the practice of slavery morally repugnant and contrary to the will of God and teachings of their religion.

 

[KarenNC]

Taking that example even further, we might conclude that: Europeans tried worshipping many gods and found invariably that this led to poverty, illiteracy, and endless warfare. After many centuries, they found themselves far behind other civilizations, on every level measurable.

Which specific other civilizations? If you mean Roman, I don’t think one can honestly claim that Rome was nothing before it became Christian. We actually have Islam to thank for the preservation of much of the knowledge and advances made by the Greeks and Romans. Much of that knowledge did not return to Europe until after the Crusades.

Also, many countries in which a majority of the citizens are monotheistic today are dealing with poverty, illiteracy and endless warfare. That is, I am afraid, more of a statement about the human condition and the mess human beings can make of a world than it is about the number of one’s gods.

 

[KarenNC]

Remember that Christianity was also once the “new kid on the (religious) block” and no older than any of the Neopagan religions today. If the only criterion used to determine the validity of a religion (or of a deity) is simple age or length of continuous worship, well, let’s just say there are many that have been running that race longer than Christianity (Orthodox Judaism, for instance, or Shinto, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc).

Remember as well that the early Christian Church was not even as cohesive theologically as it is today (by this I mean all of Christianity, not just Roman Catholicism). Look at www.earlychristianwritings.com for an example of the multiplicity of teachings and writings that were extant at any given time. The theology shown in writings of 60 CE is not exactly the same as that considered orthodox (small “o” g) in 325 CE or 1965 CE. The Christian Church today is a result of long debate and religious evolution. There was no centralized uniform Christian doctrine until the Council of Nicea in 325 CE. The very natures of God and Jesus were not exempt from these debates.

A couple of book recommendations if anyone is interested in delving further (both are still in print):

The Christians as the Romans Saw Them by Robert Louis Wilken, ISBN 0300098391. Wilken pulls the writings of Roman authors contemporary to the early Christian Church to look at the ways in which the established Roman society viewed this new religion. Some of the examples come from fragments that were preserved in the writings of early Christians as they answered the Roman criticisms, since many of the full original works were regrettably lost to us. Very interesting, especially to compare these with other writings from within the early Christian community at the same periods.

A World Full of Gods: An Inquiry into Polytheism by John Michael Greer ISBN 0976568101. The author takes the classical philosophical and theological arguments supporting monotheism and applies those same arguments to polytheism. Wonderful book, very thought-provoking and, as he gives background and explanations of theological terms, accessible to a wide variety of readers.

 

[Paganus]

It so happens that we are part of a sect, if you will, of the same organization to which Ian belongs, but our pantheons are quite different. Different gods, potentially different desires for worship from those gods–all part of polytheism .

Neat - what is Ian’s religion called and what is your religion called? How are they similar and how are they different?

Thanks.

 

[IanCorrigan]

Do you mind if I ask: do you prefer the paintings of Alex Grey or Nybor? Just curious.

Me, I’m a Nybor fan. Lovely women…

Also, have you ever tried to make one of those mandalas out of colored sand like the Buddhist monks do, or is that a little too disciplined for Neo-Pagans, what with the chaos and all?

I know Pagans who use ground-drawings of various kinds - not on the scale of detail of the sand-paintings. If/when Neopagans develop full-time monastic life, we may find time for such activities.

In fact, I would greatly appreciate some information about what you actually believe and practice in real life, if that’s not too much to ask.

I hope I have tried to be respectful here, and I hope that members of this forum don’t view my efforts as harrasment. That said, I can post some URLs with texts and pictures of the kind of Pagan things I get up to. I hope it doesn’t result in a lot of ‘turn back’ exhortation-type posts.

I work with ADF - Ar nDraiocht Fein, a US-originated neopagan Druid group… See them at www.adf.org, and see my local congregation at www.stonecreed.org. My personal practice includes daily meditation/devotion and various relations with the spirits on the land where I live, as well as my work as clergy.
Ian

 

[IanCorrigan]

there is nothing in your religion forbidding human sacrifice in the absence of the scientific methods that you prefer?

Yes, our modern Pagan religion specifically forbids animal and human sacrifice. I was speaking theoretically.
Ian

 

[IanCorrigan]

**Taking that example even further, we might conclude that: Europeans tried worshipping many gods and found invariably that this led to poverty, illiteracy, and endless warfare. After many centuries, they found themselves far behind other civilizations, on every level measurable. **

This assertion is just hilarious. Which ancient civilizations do you think were subject to those things? The Celts, with their unparalleled goldworking and vast corpus of oral literature? The mighty nations of Yoruba in west Africa? Hellenic Greece? And which ancient divilizations do you think they lagged behind? All ancient civilizations apart from Judea and the persians (after zoroaster) were polytheistic, so if there was literacy and wealth, it was in places where they worshipped many Gods.

When they tried Christianity, they found that it brought with it the literacy, ancient knowledge, self-discipline, and social stability that led to the rise of the university, modern science, and sophisticated legal and economic systems that propelled their barbaric culture into an unprecedented position of global supremacy and influence.

Astounding revision of history - Christianity brought book-burning, violence in the streets of roman provinces andpreachments against science. Trying to claim “literacy, ancient knowledge, self-discipline, and social stability” for early christianity is just nonsense.

Ian

 

[IanCorrigan]

What do you consider “answering” man’s worship? Does any passing spirit that “answers” your worship deserve your worship? Certainly you have observed malevolent people - do you deny the existence of malevolent spirits?

No. Since all things have/are souls/spirits, there must surely be a spirit of cholera as surely as there is of artistic inspiration. Just as nature contains dangers, so does the divine world.

The Gods of polytheism are, generally, those spirits that have established long relationships of mutual good with humans. When we encounter new spirits, we try to approach them respectfully (even predators are best treated with respect - ask any hunter). Some such spirits will end up allies, others may have to be opposed - we must deal with such questions on a case-by-case basis.

In general, Paganism does not assume that there are ‘two sides’ in the spiritual world, at war with one another. All the world is the divine, though not all of it may be friendly to humans.
Ian

 

[Dawnpiper]

Neat - what is Ian’s religion called and what is your religion called? How are they similar and how are they different?

Thanks.

To the extent that we all (Ian, my wife and I, along with 1,000 or so other people across North America and maybe(?) a handful overseas) belong to the same religious organization, ADF (see link in Ian’s post just above), we are all “Neopagan Druids” - although the term “druid” is used pretty loosely and more in reference to what we understand to have been the role of the ancient Druids in their society (priests, keepers of religious knowledge and tradition, bards) than to an actual link with the ancient Druids per se.

ADF is pan-Indo-European in focus, which means that within our organizational structure there is officially room for the worship of Gods from any of the pre-Christian pantheons worshipped by members of the Indo-European cultural/linguistic family - Greek, Roman, Norse, Vedic, Celtic, etc.

That said, ADF is not the whole of the religious life of our family, and I’d be surprised if that is not true for Ian as well (Ian and I have met once in person but don’t really know each other except online). As Karen said, our family is primarily devoted to the Hellenic pantheon, and I think Ian’s focus is Celtic (by far the most common in ADF, perhaps not surprisingly).

 

[latin_rite]

I can’t answer for Ian, but I can certainly say that in the mythology of my tradition the Gods are clearly seen as rejecting human sacrifice. The entire tragic history of the House of Atreus begins with such a sacrifice, and all that follows after - including the events leading to the Trojan War, and those depicted in the Oresteia - is divine retribution for that impiety.

the reasons these sacrifice’s went unanswered was not because these offerings were rejected by simply because those gods don’t excist. And you do realise that the trojan war and Oresteia are both just myths… You do realize this don’t you?

 

[latin_rite]

there is nothing in your religion forbidding human sacrifice in the absence of the scientific methods that you prefer?

Yes, our modern Pagan religion specifically forbids animal and human sacrifice. I was speaking theoretically.
Ian

Interesting ancient pagans who had a living intimate unbroken working knowledge of their gods (these same gods you claim to worship) were wrong on those things… yet you, someone with only tid bits fragments of knowledge which may or probably not be true are right?

 

[latin_rite]

This assertion is just hilarious. Which ancient civilizations do you think were subject to those things? The Celts, with their unparalleled goldworking and vast corpus of oral literature? The mighty nations of Yoruba in west Africa? Hellenic Greece? And which ancient divilizations do you think they lagged behind? All ancient civilizations apart from Judea and the persians (after zoroaster) were polytheistic, so if there was literacy and wealth, it was in places where they worshipped many Gods.

I Believe he was talking about europeans i.e germany, britian etc. And yes pre christianity those people were almost stone age> it’s good you said they had a vast corpus of
oral literature. Because yes those people were too stupid to write.

When they tried Christianity, they found that it brought with it the literacy, ancient knowledge, self-discipline, and social stability that led to the rise of the university, modern science, and sophisticated legal and economic systems that propelled their barbaric culture into an unprecedented position of global supremacy and influence.

Astounding

revision of history - Christianity brought book-burning, violence in the streets of roman provinces andpreachments against science. Trying to claim “literacy, ancient knowledge, self-discipline, and social stability” for early christianity is just nonsense…

Yes Christianity did bring violence to the streets of roman provinces, but unfortunatly for them it was brought down onto them by the roman pagans. And if you would like to compare scienctific discoveries, inventions etc. you list what pagans invented. And i’ll list Christians have invented discovered. and what book durning. (hopefully you wont mention the book burning done by hitler and the nazis since they were pagans.) And lest not forget all those impeachments against science A one armed man could count those on his fingers.