Pagans, especially Wiccans....

[Lion_of_Narnia]

I beg to differ, at least in my own case. I worship the Gods of the Greeks, the ancestral Gods who live at the fons et origo of our civilization, and who, I believe, have always been here for those with eyes to see… and there are entire university departments devoted to studying the evidence of the faith in and works of my Gods.

That there are actual academics who devote their lives to studing the Hellene mythos, granted. I admit the possibility of a individual academic here and there bing a believer in the Hellene gods, yeah But actual “departments” dedicated to proving their objective existence I would have to see. Also, Western civilization also derives from Hebrew, Celtic, & Scandinavian-German sources–especially the Hebrew in regards to religion and morality. The greek gods & religion thereof were like all the other Indo-European mythos fairly regional–with no indicationn they were to be applied or understood outside the culture. Odin is NOT Zeus (can be argued Jupiter is NOT Zeus either). Caesar’s Gallic Wars is a sometimes laughable early ethnocentric idea to force the Celtic gods into Roman labels… In contrast, even before the actual Incarnation, Jewish messianic prophecies indicated the worship of the ONE God would be eventually understood and undertaken by the gentiles (non jewish world). Christianity, especially the Catholic (“Universal”) Church is the on-going fullfillment of this promise.

Of course, when I had my synagogue experiences, I had already been actively pagan for a number of years, and was visiting the synagogue more out of my longstanding interest in comparative religion… And in all my years of intense Christian preparation, I never had a Christian mystical experience. But maybe thisis the infamous exception that somehow “proves” the rule?

Perhaps a knock on the door, through an unexpected and therefore, less-guarded position. Myself, I had to return to the faith through the influence of fantasy literature–especially Tolkien & Lewis (natch )

Exactly. Taking that to the next logical step, I take the “classical” deist position that all religious experience is ultimately subjective, and your experience - or the experience of the Biblical authors, or of the writers of Greek myth if it comes to that - should not be, indeed CANnot be, taken as absolutely authoritative.

The classic “deist” position is monotheism–and that His existence is verifiable by an examination of the natural world. What you seem to be re-stating is the post-modern religion as “personal mythic truth” position–or the “god” of psychology—in which wiccan Ronald Hutton as an anthropologist can call Wicca “valid” while recognizing it’s roots in the late 19th century, only coalesing after WWII.

Which leads me to the obvious question - if you reject personal spiritual experience as insufficient, what is the basis on which you personally choose to accept Catholic teaching as authoritative?

1. As author, former atheist Anne Rice put it in her afterword to Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt the case for a “mythological” Jesus was a thin one, full of contradictions, buttressed by bias and suppositions of academics who attacked the claims of the Gospels for reasons that had little or nothing to do with their autheniticity and reliability. An honest examination of the texts indicates they were written VERY close to the period described; 200+ years of linguistic and comparitive text ananlysis shows a reliablecopying so we can be darn certain we have the words REALLY close to how they were first written and the original writing was far too soon to be “mythologized”

More later…

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

1. Jesus was a Jew. His first followers were Jews. Most of the “pagan” converts in the first 20 years of the Church were “God-fearers” (gentiles already interested in Judaism; ie ethical monotheism). The pre-disposition of the early Church’s members was overwelmingly monotheistic. There is NO evidence that the church departed from Jewish monotheism, only now understood it better in the context of the Incarnation.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

1. The gospels are written in style of eyewitness accounts–not in the “mythic” pattern at all. They are utterly unlike the gnostic texts in format or intent–and despite some academic claims, the “Appolonias” (spell?) literature is pretty typical mythic-religious fiction, very unlike the gospels. The epistles are written in a context of believers in the Incarnation, largely taught by oral testimony well before the gospels were written. The pre-disposed bias of the textual critics for rejecting the supernatural & miraculous is just that, a materialist-prejudgice.
2. What possible benefit could anyone get for claiming the things the NT claims if they had made it up? From the start, the believers in Jesus were persecuted by the Jewish authorities (from shunning up to execution), said persecution tolerated by the Romans even before the Romans realized that Christianity was a threat to their Emperor worship. If there HAD been a “Jesus was just a man” original belief, the pragmatic Romans would have brought it up.
3. The empty tomb. When arrested, Jesus’s closest followers abandoned him—John and a few women (including the BVM) alone had the guts to stick around. The Ressurection, by parsinomy, is the clearest explanation of why these peasants and fishermen (and one former collaberatot–Matthew) faced the world and proclaimed Jesus Lord and Messiah.
4. The Catholic Church itself. Jesus said he found a Church, gave it it’s leaders (Peter & the Apostles) and despite everything, it’s still around and can trace it’s authority and descent back to the Apostles

 

[KarenNC]

Ok, but actually anthropological & ethnographical research seems to indicate monotheism of sorts (one real big God, sort of distant, with lots of little “god” helpers and subsidiary spirits) is the actual “default”–something Margot Adler mentioned in Drawing Down the Moon

I believe this is more properly termed “monism” --1 a : a view that there is only one kind of ultimate substance b : the view that reality is one unitary organic whole with no independent parts–rather than “monotheism”–the doctrine or belief that there is but one God (from Merriam Webster).

I do not see that monism (the idea that there is an underlying unifying structure to the universe) is necessarily in conflict with polytheism. Even the gods are bound to nature (by which I mean all that exists, whether we can directly sense it or not), not separate from it. However, this “ground of being,” if you will, is so impossibly distant from my daily life that I can have no more meaningful interaction or relationship with it than I can with the Horsehead Nebula. Nice to think and theorize about, and maybe I can deduce something about it indirectly, but functionally irrelevant to my spiritual life

Part of the problem with the discussion may be that the term “god” from a polytheistic is not used interchangably with “God” as monotheists understand it. The gods of polytheism are not necessarily omnipotent, omniscient, omnipotent, etc all at the same time–in fact they pretty much can’t be by definition.

It may also be helpful to know that I personally see the gods as actual individual beings rather than as some form of Jungian archetypes. Not all Neopagans share this view.

 

[KarenNC]

Ok, but actually anthropological & ethnographical research seems to indicate monotheism of sorts (one real big God, sort of distant, with lots of little “god” helpers and subsidiary spirits) is the actual “default”–something Margot Adler mentioned in Drawing Down the Moon

Also, if you can give me more detail on the citation from Adler, I will be glad to explore this further with you. I haven’t found it yet in my copy, so I am not sure of the actual phrasing which makes it a bit more difficult.

Do note that I have the 1986 edition, not the most recent one, which I believe was supposed to be revised and updated. I don’t know where any significant changes between the editions were made and not sure which one you have.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

I believe this is more properly termed “monism” --1 a : a view that there is only one kind of ultimate substance b : the view that reality is one unitary organic whole with no independent parts–rather than “monotheism”–the doctrine or belief that there is but one God (from Merriam Webster).

I do not see that monism (the idea that there is an underlying unifying structure to the universe) is necessarily in conflict with polytheism. Even the gods are bound to nature (by which I mean all that exists, whether we can directly sense it or not), not separate from it. However, this “ground of being,” if you will, is so impossibly distant from my daily life that I can have no more meaningful interaction or relationship with it than I can with the Horsehead Nebula. Nice to think and theorize about, and maybe I can deduce something about it indirectly, but functionally irrelevant to my spiritual life

Part of the problem with the discussion may be that the term “god” from a polytheistic is not used interchangably with “God” as monotheists understand it. The gods of polytheism are not necessarily omnipotent, omniscient, omnipotent, etc all at the same time–in fact they pretty much can’t be by definition.

It may also be helpful to know that I personally see the gods as actual individual beings rather than as some form of Jungian archetypes. Not all Neopagans share this view.

Actually, Monism is not what I meant at all–though it’s possible Margot may have meant that–it’s been years since I read her text for an anthropology class Magic, witchcraft, & religion and the book is tucked away in storage.

The “default monotheism” I mentioned is fairly common among many American Indian tribes–A “Grandfather” who started everything but has left the authority of day to day running to lesser spirits–like Tolkien’s Illuvatar (God) and the Valar (Seraphim)

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Anyway back to why Christianity does not rely upon subjective-internal validation:

1. From the begining the Church claimed something “real” happened in the everyday world of being. The ressurected Christ, NOT the resurection of “faith”. In the earliest epistles, even before the gospels, Christ preached raised from the dead–and if not so, then Christianity would be a sham. NO wriggle room on that one. Jesus rose from the dead, appeared before the apostles and disciples many times–and was taken to Heaven before their eyes
2. Related to 6: The Church’s continued existence, despite all it’s internal and external enemies. As one cardinal replied to a Napoleon’s boast he would destroy the CC, “We have not managed to do it to ourselves”

 

[Dawnpiper]

Lion,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply - it’s always interesting to know where the other person is coming from!

 

[Dawnpiper]

either: Monotheism is right and polytheism is wrong.
or: Polytheism is right and monotheism is wrong.
Or: Both monotheism and polytheism are wrong.
No fourth alternative.

Obviously, I hold to the second alternative, although I am willing to give the third some thought. However, that’s not quite what I originally said - I said that as one who believes in the existence of many Gods, I have no problem accepting that yours could be one of them. That has no bearing on what YOU believe about your God being the only one; on that point I believe monotheists are simply mistaken.

I also believe that in the end,
(A) there’s no real harm in your being wrong, unless it leads (as it sometimes does) to actions harmful to others who do not share your beliefs; and
(B) even if option 3 is correct, in the end the Divine is whatever it is, our opinions about it notwithstanding.

 

[dessert]

I believe this is more properly termed “monism” --1 a : a view that there is only one kind of ultimate substance b : the view that reality is one unitary organic whole with no independent parts–rather than “monotheism”–the doctrine or belief that there is but one God (from Merriam Webster).

I do not see that monism (the idea that there is an underlying unifying structure to the universe) is necessarily in conflict with polytheism. Even the gods are bound to nature (by which I mean all that exists, whether we can directly sense it or not), not separate from it. However, this “ground of being,” if you will, is so impossibly distant from my daily life that I can have no more meaningful interaction or relationship with it than I can with the Horsehead Nebula. Nice to think and theorize about, and maybe I can deduce something about it indirectly, but functionally irrelevant to my spiritual life

Part of the problem with the discussion may be that the term “god” from a polytheistic is not used interchangably with “God” as monotheists understand it. The gods of polytheism are not necessarily omnipotent, omniscient, omnipotent, etc all at the same time–in fact they pretty much can’t be by definition.

It may also be helpful to know that I personally see the gods as actual individual beings rather than as some form of Jungian archetypes. Not all Neopagans share this view.

All gods and beings will bow their knee to the one true God on judgement day. May I suggest a site that you might find interesting The Saint Charbel Family just .com I think will take you there. He was a mystic turned monk from lebonanon don’t think I spelled it right. Thank you for capitalizing our one God and I’m not trying to be mean. There is another name for divine prescence, Shekinah. return

 

[dessert]

I was into Wicca for a while. I had left the Catholic Church and was seeking a spiritual fulfillment. The thing I loved about Wicca is that it helped to ground me and tie me to nature. I lived in Chicago at the time, in a 4th floor flat and all the days flowed together such that I never knew when the solstices were or the equinoxes or the full and new moons. Living Wicca gave me an opportunity to notice these happenings and to appreciate our grand planet Earth. I also liked the concept of a Goddess. Christianity, relying as heavily as it does on Judaism, lacks a feminine aspect. There is no female God, in Catholicism I found no female priests or bishops. Wicca gave me a religion that didn’t marginalize me or people like me.

I have nothing but fond memories of my Wicca past. I still note when the solstices and equinoxes occur. What made me give it up? I practised a Celtic (like most) path in Wicca with Brigid as my Goddess. One night I had a dream in which St. Brigid upbraided me for abandoning a faith that she had welcomed to her island. So I returned to Catholicism temporarily, until finding my way to the Episcopal Church.

My time with Wicca changed how I do Christianity though. I revere Our Lady as the Queen of Heaven in order to have that feminine aspect in my religious life. I still meditate, now upon the mysteries of the Rosary instead of the emptying meditation I used to do. I prefer a mass with all the smells and bells available as I learned to worship with all the senses during my pagan time.

I am newly back to the catholic faith and I too have a better experience now with the realness of Jesus the church the pope and all. I was not into the mystics or other things but was somewhat a lost spirit. I feel the rosary has more meaning to me also and Mary is special, I light candles agin with a new intention and my meditation is for other soouls and has pulled me out of me and caring for others. i appreciate yoour testimony . desert