questions?

[Hastrman]

I think it is possible to theorize that there might be at root an underlying “ground of being” for all existence (including that of the Gods) but that if so it is so far removed from our experience as to be irrelevant to that experience.

:clapping:

Now THERE’S an authentically pagan position! All the Romans and Greeks would agree with you–the Romans, for instance, didn’t, much, worship Jupiter, for precisely that reason.

 

[Maxply]

A few more:

In assessing the moral quality of an action, does the pagan define harm as damage to others’ personal autonomy, or is it a utilitarian calculation, e.g., I can do this act, despite collateral damage, since the action may seem to benefit more people’s condition?

Does the individual pagan owe an obligation to the broader society in which he finds himself? Are there any just limitations on the actions of a pagan?

What obligation does a pagan have to thoroughly scout out the moral implications of his action? To what extent is “harm” discerned?

 

[Montalban]

Supreme in what sense?

In any sense

 

[KarenNC]

In any sense

Well, then let’s start by defining terms:

1. Jupiter:
   I am Hellenic, so Jupiter is not the name under which I worship Zeus, so I will assume you mean to ask if I consider Zeus to be “the supreme God” as Zeus stands in the same relationship to the other Hellenic deities that Jupiter does to the Roman ones.
2. the:
   I am presuming here that you mean “the” as in “only.” I am not clear on whether you mean “the supreme God” in my pantheon or “the supreme God” as in the highest or only God, either in existence or worthiness of worship for all of humanity .
3. supreme:
   Merriam Webster definition of “supreme”

1 : highest in rank or authority
2 : highest in degree or quality <supreme endurance in war and in labour – R. W. Emerson>
3 : ULTIMATE, FINAL

Now, on to the discussion.

Yes, Zeus is the supreme God in my pantheon if we are using the first definition of supreme, as in the highest ranking, but not as in the highest in “quality,” whatever that might mean when applied to a God. This is not surprising as he is identified with the generative force without which nothing else exists or continues to exist.

No, I do not believe that Zeus is the ultimate God, as in rendering irrelevant all other Gods, either in the Hellenic pantheon or any other. I do not believe that He is or should be considered as the only God in existence or worthy of worship.

Does that answer your question?

 

[KarenNC]

:clapping:

Now THERE’S an authentically pagan position! All the Romans and Greeks would agree with you–the Romans, for instance, didn’t, much, worship Jupiter, for precisely that reason.

Well, I am a Hellenic Neopagan polytheist, after all.

 

[Hastrman]

Well, then let’s start by defining terms:

1. Jupiter:
   I am Hellenic, so Jupiter is not the name under which I worship Zeus, so I will assume you mean to ask if I consider Zeus to be “the supreme God” as Zeus stands in the same relationship to the other Hellenic deities that Jupiter does to the Roman ones.

Just a minor quibble, but that’s not entirely true. The Romans adopted the Greek pantheon later on, but originally Jupiter was not Zeus–he was closer to the Supreme Being of the philosophers, although he did have elements of a storm god in him.

Similarly, the Roman sun god wasn’t Apollo, it was Mars, and Mars, in Roman mythology, is much more respectable than Ares, in Greek–he’s not such a bully.

But a lot of sincretism seems to be done with a crowbar, if you know what I mean.

 

[KarenNC]

Just a minor quibble, but that’s not entirely true. The Romans adopted the Greek pantheon later on, but originally Jupiter was not Zeus–he was closer to the Supreme Being of the philosophers, although he did have elements of a storm god in him.

Similarly, the Roman sun god wasn’t Apollo, it was Mars, and Mars, in Roman mythology, is much more respectable than Ares, in Greek–he’s not such a bully.

But a lot of sincretism seems to be done with a crowbar, if you know what I mean.

Agreed. I realize that Jupiter and Zeus are not identical, but I didn’t think it worth getting into the nuances of that discussion for the purposes of answering Montalban’s question. I was making the comparison in the roles as “head of the Gods”–the reason I presume that Montalban was asking, given his response to whether I regarded Jupiter as the supreme God was “in any sense.” I felt I could give a more germane answer by discussing Zeus, since He is actually in the pantheon I follow. That’s the reason that I phrased it as I did. Sorry that was not more clear.

As to how I consider Jupiter, well, I don’t really spend that much time thinking about Him, though I probably am more aware of Him because of the link between the Greek and Roman religions, their connection as Indo European religions, and that the two are frequently conflated in Western civilization than, perhaps, Catholics are of Ganesh or Amaterasu.

 

[Montalban]

Well, then let’s start by defining terms:

I am from Australia. I *do *speak English

Now, on to the discussion.

Yes, Zeus is the supreme God in my pantheon if we are using the first definition of supreme, as in the highest ranking, but not as in the highest in “quality,” whatever that might mean when applied to a God. This is not surprising as he is identified with the generative force without which nothing else exists or continues to exist.

No, I do not believe that Zeus is the ultimate God, as in rendering irrelevant all other Gods, either in the Hellenic pantheon or any other. I do not believe that He is or should be considered as the only God in existence or worthy of worship.

Does that answer your question?

How do you account then that another set of deities (pagan) have a different supreme god? Do you *respect *them too?

 

[Hastrman]

Get thee behind me, Satan! If you don’t define your terms, you can’t have a coherent discussion!

 

[KarenNC]

**I am from Australia. I do speak English

There is ample evidence on these boards alone that people who speak English do not always mean the same thing when they use the same word. There are many nuances in the spoken English language in common usage, much less once one wanders into the realm of theological usage in differing religions. That doesn’t even begin to address potential differences between different cultures who speak the same root language, but may have different terms in common usage for the same thing. Anyone who has read both British and American authors, or who has tried to read Shakespeare without some knowledge of the usage of the language in those particular times and/or places will verify this.

Asking for the sense in which one is using a word or phrase that has multiple meanings can sometimes reduce the number of needless misunderstandings and allow us to proceed to a useful discussion much more swiftly.

**How do you account then that another set of deities (pagan) have a different supreme god? Do you respect them too?

There are many different Gods. The existence of such is no threat to the existence of my Gods. The relationship between those Gods and their worshippers is just that—between them and not my concern. What reason would I have to not respect them?

 

[Texan_in_DC]

hey ya’ll, this isn’t the best thread i’ve made but…

if anyone here has a question for me about paganism or wicca i will be happy to answer as long as its a mature question

1. You mentioned that there are many gods and goddeses, and you choose two worship 3 of them.

Is there any importance of 3 vs 1 or even up to 10?

And what is the purpose of all these gods?

Do they get along?

Is there any greed or jealously among them?

which god created us meaning man kind? if one did did that god create other things too?

 

[Montalban]

"Montalban:

I am from Australia. I *do *speak English

There is ample evidence on these boards alone that people who speak English do not always mean the same thing when they use the same word. There are many nuances in the spoken English language in common usage, much less once one wanders into the realm of theological usage in differing religions. That doesn’t even begin to address potential differences between different cultures who speak the same root language, but may have different terms in common usage for the same thing. Anyone who has read both British and American authors, or who has tried to read Shakespeare without some knowledge of the usage of the language in those particular times and/or places will verify this.

Yes, but defining the word ‘the’ is going overboard.

Asking for the sense in which one is using a word or phrase that has multiple meanings can sometimes reduce the number of needless misunderstandings and allow us to proceed to a useful discussion much more swiftly.

But I understand that when you say you believe in a supreme god you believe in a supreme god.
"Montalban:

How do you account then that another set of deities (pagan) have a different supreme god? Do you *respect *

them too?

There are many different Gods. The existence of such is no threat to the existence of my Gods. The relationship between those Gods and their worshippers is just that—between them and not my concern. What reason would I have to not respect them?

Then this does have a problem with the definition of ‘supreme’. One could have a dozen ‘supreme’ gods that are each mutually exclusive.

Jupiter claims to be the supreme god.

So does Odin, and so on.

 

[KarenNC]

Yes, but defining the word ‘the’ is going overboard.

Not when a polytheist is talking to a monotheist, and not based on past experience on this board.

But I understand that when you say you believe in a supreme god you believe in a supreme god.

Then you fail to understand what I have said. Again.

Then this does have a problem with the definition of ‘supreme’. One could have a dozen ‘supreme’ gods that are each mutually exclusive.

Yes, there could be. In fact there are, in the meaning that I use of “supreme.” I am still waiting to learn what you mean by “supreme.”

Jupiter claims to be the supreme god.
So does Odin, and so on.

Evidence?

 

[Montalban]

"Montalban:

Yes, but defining the word ‘the’ is going overboard.

Not when a polytheist is talking to a monotheist, and not based on past experience on this board.

But I understand that when you say you believe in a supreme god you believe in a supreme god.

Then you fail to understand what I have said. Again.

Don’t get angry about it. I don’t claim to be as bright as you.
"Montalban:

Then this does have a problem with the definition of ‘supreme’. One could have a dozen ‘supreme’ gods that are each mutually exclusive.

Yes, there could be. In fact there are, in the meaning that I use of “supreme.” I am still waiting to learn what you mean by “supreme.”

Supreme to me is as you defined it.
"Montalban:

Jupiter claims to be the supreme god.
So does Odin, and so on.

Evidence?

For what? That Jupiter is the supreme god? Or, that Odin makes that claim as well?

I thought it was understood that in the various pantheons there is a deity that is held to be supreme. For Celts, Greco-Romans, Norse, etc.

 

[KarenNC]

But I understand that when you say you believe in a supreme god you believe in a supreme god.
Supreme to me is as you defined it.

Now, here you say “a supreme God” whereas before you said “the supreme God.” Do you see how that would make a difference? It would be the difference between my asking a Christian, “do you believe Jesus is the Son of God?” and asking, “do you believe Jesus is a Son of God?” That is precisely why I went to the trouble to define the ways in which I understood the word “the” to be applicable to this discussion.

Okay, then. I gave you options as to how I might or might not view Zeus as "the supreme God " depending on the way in which one intends that phrase. Which one is relevant to your actual question?

Yes, Zeus is the supreme God in my pantheon if we are using the first definition of supreme, as in the highest ranking, but not as in the highest in “quality,” whatever that might mean when applied to a God. This is not surprising as he is identified with the generative force without which nothing else exists or continues to exist.

No, I do not believe that Zeus is the ultimate God, as in rendering irrelevant all other Gods, either in the Hellenic pantheon or any other. I do not believe that He is or should be considered as the only God in existence or worthy of worship.

I think the root issue here is that polytheists adn monotheists have a very different understanding of what “God” means.

Let’s try this from another tack. Both the United States and Australia have Supreme Courts (though I believe in Australia the equivalent term is High Court for the one that covers the entire country), and those Courts have Chief Justices. Both courts are recognized as the highest legal authority in their respective countries and for the citizens of their countries. It is entirely possible that the High Court of Australia may make a judgement, binding upon its citizens, that is not in exact agreement with and may be diametrically opposed to the judgement of the US Supreme Court on the same issue. Because these courts are recognized as “the supreme court” in their own country, but neither as “the supreme court” for the entire world, this is not an issue.

The Australians are not bound by the judgements of the US Supreme Court and Americans are not bound by the judgements of the Australian Supreme Court. Nor are Australians required to believe that the US Supreme Court does not exist, is demonic, a fantasy or a "false court’ in order to believe that the Australian Supreme Court does exist and has power over Australian citizens (regardless of whether they personally agree with the judgement made by the US Supreme Court ).

**For what? That Jupiter is the supreme god? Or, that Odin makes that claim as well?

I thought it was understood that in the various pantheons there is a deity that is held to be supreme. For Celts, Greco-Romans, Norse, etc.**

Yes, if by supreme one means highest ranking within their own pantheons. I am still not sure that we are talking about apples and apples here, as Christians will also use the phrase “the supreme God” to refer to their own deity.

We can leave this until you can let me know if you mean by this question that Jupiter, Zeus, Odin and others are understood by their worshippers or that they claim to be “the supreme God” in the way that the God of the Hebrews and the Christians does. Based on your comment about exclusivity, I am inclined to think that you mean the latter.

 

[IanCorrigan]

Does wiccan have a set of rules to follow?

And where does one obtain these rules?

Who wrote the rules?

Who interprets them?

Wicca is not a single Church, any more than is Christianity. Wicca is a group of traditions and symbols and rituals, that are implemented locally. So, first, remember that any broad answer will vary in local expression

Wicca has one great ethical principle, commonly called the Witch’s Rede (rede means advice): If it harms none, do what you will. Wiccans are granted freedom to find their own way, as long as they practice the mindfullness of ‘Harm None’.

Wicca is widely taught in books, some better than others. The most traditional way to learn Wicca is to be initiated into a traditional coven, and learn from living teachers. However, probably the majority of people who call themselves wiccans, at this point, have learned from books, and experimentation.

The Rede appeared in the mid 60’s at least in the traditional set of words. Gerald Gardner, who was the first to write publically about Wicca (and who probably wrote a lot of Wicca) dais that witches keep ‘harm none’ as a basic principle.

All interpretation, in Wicca is done locally, even individually. There are traditions and sayings that are passed through wiccan culture and writing, many of which are widely held.

In general, Wicca and neopaganism believe human beings to be pretty good beings, entirely capable of knowing the good intrinsically, and acting on it.

Ian

 

[IanCorrigan]

And within paganism you’ve got different sets of gods each with one or two called the ‘supreme god’

The thing is, ancient Paganism didn’t have the idea of a ‘supreme being’ in the way that monotheism proposes. No Pagan system proposes that one of their Gods is the all-ruler of the cosmos, omnipotent, omniscient, etc. All the Gods are subject to fate, to the wills of other gods, even to their relationship with humankind.

The Gods have Kings, but even the mightiest of the Gods of a polytheistic system shouldn’t be thought of as a ‘supreme being’ in the monotheistic sense. So, just as human tribes have kings, so do the gods. When a Greek visited, say, some Gauls on a wine-selling mission, the Greeks would have found no theological difficulty in honoring their hosts’ deities and spirits. The Greek might speculate on which of their own gods the strangers’ Gods were most like, but that would be a private matter, or beer talk.

Ian

 

[Hastrman]

Wiccans are granted freedom to find their own way, as long as they practice the mindfullness of ‘Harm None’.

‘Practice mindfulness?’ I assume that’s in a different sense from Shingon Buddhist ‘mindfulness’ (as in, "On amirita teizei kara un,’ mantra of mindulfness of the Infinite Light Buddha).

In general, Wicca and neopaganism believe human beings to be pretty good beings, entirely capable of knowing the good intrinsically, and acting on it.

They’re awfully optimistic, then.

 

[IanCorrigan]

I’ve always been curious about this.

good questions…

As a Pagan, do you believe that the God from Catholicism/Christianity, exists?

I don’t believe any one Creator, Owner/Operator of the Universe exists. I suppose that Yahweh was one of the Gods of the Canaanites and Judeans, and that by a political process his prophets imposed their strange monotheism on Judea, sort of, eventually. Then came Rome…

I make nothing of the claims of the Bible, and dismiss monotheism as absurd.

Do you think that Catholics misrepresent our God, and that He never really said there were no other deities or that specifically Catholic/Christian ethics are universal? Or what…? I’m genuinely curious about this, and maybe you can only give me your personal view since Paganism and Wicca don’t necessarily have one set dogma aside from the rede.

If, somehow, the God of Judea decided that he was the all-creator… well, I don’t really have an opinion about that except to say that he’s mistaken.
I think Catholics accurately represent the claims of scripture, but scripture is mistaken. The Bible (and related stuff) represent the winning theological/political positions of the 4th c ad or so. I have no more reason to worry about it than about tribal tales from the amazon. At least the tribal tales would be realistically polytheistic.

I think that the divine is the spiritual component of nature, and that spirit can be plainly understood in its material revelation, which is nature. In nature, all entities have multiple examples - there is never only one of anything. I see no reason at all to assume that Gods would have only one example, and almost all of human history and religion agrees. So I see the divine as present in a multitude of persons, great and small, of every kind. I worship many of them, and never come into contact with lots of them.

Ian

 

[IanCorrigan]

’Practice mindfulness?’ I assume that’s in a different sense from Shingon Buddhist ‘mindfulness’ (as in, "On amirita teizei kara un,’ mantra of mindulfness of the Infinite Light Buddha).

yes, rather. I mean ‘practice paying attention’, which is what the term means on a more basic level in Buddhism, as well.

They’re awfully optimistic, then.

I think Christian pessimism is one of the things Wiccans find distasteful. Wiccans don’t believe that nature is fallen, and tend to view nature as the true and proper image of divine reality.
Ian