Why Paganism ?

mountainyman

Talliesin wrote:

Why?

There are plenty of westerners with such beliefs. Why not believe what we say about our beliefs? I see little point in our lying about it.

A very valid point. I am certain that you are not lying. That I find it hard to belive is my problem not yours. Nevertheless I remain skeptical.

Talliesin wrote:

That obviously is not the same as an Indian peasants, and my relationship with my gods is not the same as any Indian peasants - or indeed exactly the same as anyone but myself, it is a personal thing - so not knowing exactly what degree of similarity you would accept as "polytheist in the same way" I'm not at all sure whether I should say I do or do not hold the same views.

Again completely valid and I am certainly not judging the level of your religious belief (or even if I am doing so I accept that I have no right to do so, if you follow me) however I really do wonder about the utility of defining oneself as a pagan in the modern age. However because I am unable to accept the validity of your spiritual path does not mean it is not valid the problem is more likely to be mine than yours.

MM

Nevyn

mountainyman wrote:

however I really do wonder about the utility of defining oneself as a pagan in the modern age.

Well what is the advantage of any religion then in a modren age ?

Schuhart

Thaedydal wrote:

Well what is the advantage of any religion then in a modren age ?

My mind just cut to a scene of tumbleweed blowing down an empty street.

MeditationMom

This image holds truth, indeed.
As the Dalai Lama said - "My religion is kindness" - what more is needed?

Nevyn

Why paganism ?
Becasue it fits, it makes sense for me in my life and my world views and my interactions with deity.
My 'declare" it ?
Depends on what you mean by declare it ?
Why should I not speak about my beliefs when asked or not take part in discussions or not seek out those who have simular belifs to have discussions or those that have different beliefs to have discussions with as well.

Schuhart

Thaedydal wrote:

Why should I not speak about my beliefs when asked or not take part in discussions or not seek out those who have simular belifs to have discussions or those that have different beliefs to have discussions with as well.

That’s not really at issue. I think in similar discussions people have distinguished between respecting the right of individuals to practice the faith of their choice and respecting the faith itself. Theists can do their thing and I can say the Pope has no franchise from God, the doctrine of Islam is medieval and Paganism is for dilettantes.

Thaedydal wrote:

Why paganism ? Because it fits, it makes sense for me in my life and my world views and my interactions with deity.

I think the point builds on from MeditationMom. You have whatever qualities you have as a person. Why the need to alienate them onto some illusionary deit(y/ies)?

Nevyn

Oh really Schuhart please do explain how all those that follow a pagan path are dabblers, superfical and amateur.

I am not a pagan for my own amusement maybe that of my gods but not for my own sense of giggles.

Talliesin

Schuhart wrote:

the Pope has no franchise from God

I'm not sure "franchise" is quite how Catholic doctrine describes his position.

Schuhart wrote:

the doctrine of Islam is medieval

Well, it began just a couple of decades before the time most commonly used to delimit the Mediæval period. Borderline call, though of course using the term "Mediæval" had nuances of how Europe was during that period which has little bearing upon how the Islamic world was at the same point.

Schuhart wrote:

and Paganism is for dilettantes

Religious dilettantes will flutter around whatever religion appeals to them at the time. Sure there are dilettante "Pagans" but they'll eventually either get serious or find something else to pretend to be. Hardly much bearing on a discussion about acual Paganism (though the reasons why some religions attract more dilettantes than others is an interesting question for another thread).

Schuhart wrote:

I think the point builds on from MeditationMom.

MeditationMom's post raises quite a few ways of thinking about this question. I don't see how it relates to anything you've said.

So far you've just dropped in a few poorly-suited sloganing instead of anything actually thoughtful.

Schuhart wrote:

You have whatever qualities you have as a person. Why the need to alienate them onto some illusionary deit(y/ies)?

For me, because they're not illusionary.
For those who believe the gods really are nothing more than archetypes, because they believe they still hold an immense amount of power.
For those Pagans that aren't polytheist, irrelevant.

Asiaprod

Thaedydal wrote:

Why paganism ?
Becasue it fits, it makes sense for me in my life and my world views and my interactions with deity.

And no other explanation is necessary. You are what you should be, as I am what I should to be. We live according to our chosen paths and, I believe, greatly express the kindness mentioned in MeditationMom's post

Schuhart

Thaedydal wrote:

Oh really Schuhart please do explain how all those that follow a pagan path are dabblers, superfical and amateur.

Any convert from one faith must, of necessity, have figured out that their religion of birth is all my eye and Betty Martin. This makes their adoption of a new faith suspect, as in the process of leaving their native faith they must surely have wondered at what validity any faith can have in the cosmic scheme of things.

Consider the position of someone raised in a faith. Everyone they know and trust tells them such and such is a holy book. That is a block to someone changing their world view because they have to get out of the mindset that not believing it’s a holy book means devils will persecute you for all eternity.

A convert, on the other hand, is some who takes a conscious decision to be irrational and follow beliefs that they simply must know at the outset are false. Perhaps habit makes the adopted illusion seem real – I don’t know.

Someone raised in Paganism is in the same position as someone raised in any faith. People they trust have told them all this stuff, so there’s no particular need to question it. My picture is that Paganism is rarely inherited in this way – it’s a faith that consists largely of converts. To me, that raises a suspicion of dilettantism.

It really comes back to the question I posed above. You are whatever you are. Why the need to make your very being into something external to yourself and project it onto an illusion? (Which, picking up Taillesin's use of the word 'archetype' half suggests at least some practioners would acknowledge is what they are doing)

Talliesin

Schuhart wrote:

A convert, on the other hand, is some who takes a conscious decision to be irrational and follow beliefs that they simply must know at the outset are false.

It's ironic that you speak of irrationality, and yet cannot make rational arguments.

I do not "follow beliefs that simply must know at the outset are false". I hold beliefs that I believe are true.

You're talking as if we all hold an atheistic or perhaps monotheistic viewpoint in common. We don't. You can't even make that assumption on the atheist/agnostic forum, though it would at least make some sense there, where the bias is towards that viewpoint.

You are at worse trolling and at best trying to argue rationally from an irrational viewpoint (the gods are not real) as if it was commonly shared (this is a forum focusing on Paganism, a rational person would expect it to probably be in the minority, and certainly not be the concensus).

Nevyn

Schuhart wrote:

Any convert from one faith must, of necessity, have figured out that their religion of birth is all my eye and Betty Martin.

Nope.

I did see that memebers of my family particularly my mother had a connection to her god and that she gained a strength and peace of mind from her faith.

I didn't get anything from living that faith, it did not touch me or resonate with me I had no connection there so after much searching with in the faith I ws brought up in ( which lead me to be a minster of the euchrist ) I went looking for what works for me.

Schuhart wrote:

This makes their adoption of a new faith suspect, as in the process of leaving their native faith they must surely have wondered at what validity any faith can have in the cosmic scheme of things.

I never questioned that there was a god only that the one I was raised to try and interact with wasn't for me.

Schuhart wrote:

Consider the position of someone raised in a faith. Everyone they know and trust tells them such and such is a holy book. That is a block to someone changing their world view because they have to get out of the mindset that not believing it’s a holy book means devils will persecute you for all eternity.

That depends on how a person is raised and educated.
I was tought that the faith I was raised in was right for my parents, they had hoped it was right for me but to respect other peoples beliefs as they maybe right for them and how they live thier lives.
There should be a time of questioning and seek for everyone as they look at the values they were raised with and choose to keep what fits with them.

Schuhart wrote:

A convert, on the other hand, is some who takes a conscious decision to be irrational and follow beliefs that they simply must know at the outset are false. Perhaps habit makes the adopted illusion seem real – I don’t know.

Irrational to whom's standards ? Yours ?

Schuhart wrote:

Someone raised in Paganism is in the same position as someone raised in any faith. People they trust have told them all this stuff, so there’s no particular need to question it. My picture is that Paganism is rarely inherited in this way – it’s a faith that consists largely of converts. To me, that raises a suspicion of dilettantism.

Clearly you don't know many pagans or know them well enough to talk to them and thier familes.

Schuhart

Talliesin wrote:

this is a forum focusing on Paganism, a rational person would expect it to probably be in the minority, and certainly not be the concensus).

First, to put a context on this, what pulled me in here was a question to the effect of what was the point of religion at all in the modern world. If you’d rather I shagged off and left you to it, grand.

Talliesin wrote:

You are at worse trolling and at best trying to argue rationally from an irrational viewpoint (the gods are not real) as if it was commonly shared

Discussion of the rationality or otherwise of belief in god occupies acres of paper. If you really want, we can reproduce it all here but I don’t think either of us really deems that to be necessary.

I do regard it as pretty obvious that belief in a god and in particular belief that a particular religion holds any status with that god is not rational. In the final analysis, theists do seem to accept that their beliefs are just that – beliefs based on faith, not reason. Anticipating from your posts that your pattern will be to try to describe this as an assertion, it certainly is an assertion in this individual post – but as I said I don’t think either you or I want to engage in that well worn dialogue as if neither of us had seen it before.

Thaedydal wrote:

There should be a time of questioning and seek for everyone as they look at the values they were raised with and choose to keep what fits with them.

This is pretty much the attitude I have in mind. It’s that idea of entering the religion supermarket and choosing the brand you like. It’s religion as consumer good, an amusement that comforts and maybe even an opportunity to meet compatable people. Some people join Macra for much the same reasons, others restore traction engines.

Thaedydal wrote:

Irrational to whom's standards ? Yours ?

As above. Theists might describe their beliefs in many positive terms, but rational isn’t one of them.

Thaedydal wrote:

Clearly you don't know many pagans or know them well enough to talk to them and thier familes.

Does this mean you are suggesting that most practicing pagans are following a religion that their families practice before them in recent times – as in the last 50 years, say? (pick a short or longer period if its material to you). Its just I get all suspicious whenever I get a ‘you obviously know nothing’ answer giving no indication of what might fill this knowledge gap.

Nevyn

There are people who have been brought up as pagans and with pagan beliefs not my problem if you have not meet any.

It was not for me choosing a 'brand' it was a long process of sorting out what I did believe in, what is instictive to me and then eventually seeing that it was paganism and then struggling to accept it.

You seem to be of the opinion all religion is a load of hooey and you are certainly entitle to it but you are not re the charter for this forum allowed to disrespectful to those who live thier lifes differentlty to you.

The only persons who whom my beliefs need to be rational for is myself and my gods. As long as I am not breaking any laws of the country I reside in then it is of no one elses concern.

Talliesin

Schuhart wrote:

Anticipating from your posts that your pattern will be to try to describe this as an assertion, it certainly is an assertion in this individual post – but as I said I don’t think either you or I want to engage in that well worn dialogue as if neither of us had seen it before.

Nope, that's grand. It's your claiming that we "know" there are no gods that made me suspect you were trolling. Of course I don't "know" anything of the sort, I strongly believe otherwise.

Schuhart wrote:

This is pretty much the attitude I have in mind. It’s that idea of entering the religion supermarket and choosing the brand you like. It’s religion as consumer good, an amusement that comforts and maybe even an opportunity to meet compatable people.

I certainly agree that this attitude exists. I'll also state flat-out that yes, quite a few Pagans enter into it for exactly that reason or for other reasons that are superficial (e.g. wanting to work in some magical tradition, because they think it'll give them quick-fix solutions to life's problems). There are also superficial reasons for practicing any religion (someone you fancy goes to a given church so you do too, you think atheism == science and science == intelligent and want to seem intelligent so you become an atheist, as two examples). This is a big part of what in Pagan circles gets termed "fluffy" though that's a whole other bunch of questions.

I don't think that superficial reasons are the only reasons for any path being followed.

Schuhart wrote:

As above. Theists might describe their beliefs in many positive terms, but rational isn’t one of them.

No. Neither is atheism. We can discuss irrational beliefs in a rational manner, we can say flat-out "I believe ...", we can say (as mountainyman did starting this discussion) "I don't get how you can believe..." but once we start stating irrational beliefs as fact, as you did in claiming we know our beliefs are false, then there's no actual discussion, just rhetoric.

Schuhart wrote:

Does this mean you are suggesting that most practicing pagans are following a religion that their families practice before them in recent times – as in the last 50 years, say? (pick a short or longer period if its material to you).

I think she was referring more to the fact that most Pagans do not expect their children to necessarily follow the same path as themselves (some paths more than others, some people within those paths more than others). Though maybe I'm wrong.

Schuhart wrote:

Its just I get all suspicious whenever I get a ‘you obviously know nothing’ answer giving no indication of what might fill this knowledge gap.

I got suspicious when you seemed to be able to tell me what I knew, when you have very little to base it on, and what you were saying was contrary to what information you do have available on what I think.

Schuhart

Thaedydal wrote:

There are people who have been brought up as pagans and with pagan beliefs not my problem if you have not meet any.

This is the old ‘all, some, many or most’ question. You enquired as to what’s behind my ‘dilettante’ comment. I’ve explained, and won’t repeat all the detail, that it relates to converts. I’m looking for some view on whether ‘many’, or even ‘most’, pagans are converts. I’m clearly not suggesting ‘all’ are converts. You are responding that ‘some’ pagans are not converts and seem to be avoiding a direct answer to the question I posed. There’s no reason for you to feel obliged to provide an answer, but clearly I’ll draw the reasonably clear inference to be taken from this.

Thaedydal wrote:

It was not for me choosing a 'brand' it was a long process of sorting out what I did believe in, what is instictive to me and then eventually seeing that it was paganism and then struggling to accept it.

Giving your life over to restoring traction engines can equally involve a massive personal commitment. As for Macra….

Thaedydal wrote:

You seem to be of the opinion all religion is a load of hooey and you are certainly entitle to it but you are not re the charter for this forum allowed to disrespectful to those who live thier lifes differentlty to you.

I won’t repeat what I’ve already said on the topic of respect. As to the appropriateness of the discussion, why split off a thread on the topic of ‘why paganism’ at all? It seems to be to discuss its validity as a spiritual path to use the term in the first post.

Thaedydal wrote:

The only persons who whom my beliefs need to be rational for is myself and my gods. As long as I am not breaking any laws of the country I reside in then it is of no one elses concern.

Indeed, but if the only people your beliefs are rational to is you and your gods they are not rational as that word is commonly understood. That said, I'm not particulary singling out paganism. As far as I can see religion is hooey, and paganism just one shade of hooeyness.

Talliesin wrote:

No. Neither is atheism.

I’m not sure that atheism requires the same leap of faith as a religion in any form (which is another way of saying I’m sure that it doesn’t). By and large, religions require certain things to taken as true – Ireland is at war because some goddess is mourning, or the mother of god was assumed into heaven or Mohammed visited heaven and met the earlier prophets, whatever. I’m not aware of any equivalent belief required of an atheist. For example, an atheist does not ‘believe’ in evolution. They just generally accept that all we have to go on is our own reason, and evolution is the explanation that best seems to match the facts as we know them.

To regard atheism as irrational in the same sense as theism, I would want to see evidence of many unproven beliefs that atheists hold. I mean more than just stating there is no god - I mean the atheist equivalent of saying the Quran was recited to Mohammed by an angel or that Moses parted the sea, or whatever specific belief you choose to mention.

dr.bollocko

Surely atheism is a rejection of the religious "hooey" and therefore a rational choice rather than a faith or belief based choice?
Atheism is just as layered a belief system as christianity or even paganism
And despite the original simple context of the question, the only arguments here are about the nature of paganists being potentially easily swayed, or more casual observers of a religion than strictly religious. And you have to concede to Schuharts point that paganism is largely not an inherited religion in the modern world. Very few are raised into Paganism, that has to be accepted. So based on the threads actual title, im still intrigued and waiting for one compelling answer. Why paganism?
the touted answer above seems to be "Becasue it fits, it makes sense for me in my life and my world views and my interactions with deity."

Thats a cop out of an answer. In fact its not any sort of answer, because one could say the exact same about Naziism, mass murder, anti-semitism, sceintology, end-timers and zealots.
I am not trying to tread on anybody's toes, or to be disrespectful at all.
As everyone probably already knows I am an atheist, purely because I cant see any rational explanation that could indicate the existence of any god. On a sliding scale I dont see paganism as any "schlockier" or having any less merit than catholicism in terms of doctrine, each to his own and all that, I just guess I hold a view of paganism based on meetings with pagan societys and the occasional gathering, so that would be a small straw poll of the population, but while these people seemed knowledgeable about the scope of their beliefs, they didnt seem to have any idea of why they feel such heat for their convictions. Plus its a "What can my religion do for me?" type scenario for some of those that i have talked to, ref magic, rites etc.

Nevyn

dr.bollocko wrote:

the only arguments here are about the nature of paganists being potentially easily swayed, or more casual observers of a religion than strictly religious.

Having your gods talk to you is pretty convinving eventually.

What makes you think that pagans are less observant religiously ?

dr.bollocko wrote:

And you have to concede to Schuharts point that paganism is largely not an inherited religion in the modern world.

For a lot of people it is not, that is why it is refered to as a path and a journey of learning about yourself.

dr.bollocko wrote:

Thats a cop out of an answer.

That is my answer you will have to wait and see if other people grace the thread with thiers.
just guess I hold a view of paganism based on meetings with pagan societys and the occasional gathering, so that would be a small straw poll of the population, but while these people seemed knowledgeable about the scope of their beliefs, they didnt seem to have any idea of why they feel such heat for their convictions.[/quote]

A lot of pagans don't wear their religious beliefs on thier sleves and are happy
not needing public acknowledgement or notice.

Those that tend to be more public are those that are either new to the ideas and searching out others to bounce things off or else have something to gain by being publically known ( even if it is only an ego boost ).

dr.bollocko wrote:

Plus its a "What can my religion do for me?" type scenario for some of those that i have talked to, ref magic, rites etc.

You don't have to be a pagan to do any of those things there are christain witches and ritual magicains and those of many other reiligions.

dr.bollocko

I didnt say at any stage that pagans are less strict observers of religion at all. In fact if you read my quote, that you quoted above, even in that quote I didnt state that pagans are less observant of their religions. I said that the general conversation on this thread seems to be focusing on that and whether or not it is true.

Thaedydal wrote:

Having your gods talk to you is pretty convincing eventually.

Again, thats not something I can really take on board, being an atheist. God talks to people all the time. So does satan, whether he in fact does or not is a personal conviction and not one I can insult, but not one that can be in any way relevant to me as an atheist unfortunately, or anybody questioning paganism.

Thaedydal wrote:

that is why it is refered to as a path and a journey of learning about yourself.

I've never heard anybody refer to it like that personally, but spirituality, religion and self awareness are mutually exclusive for a lot of people, and I start internally on my journeys of self-awareness, because I dont believe in a deity that has the answers. (Again, a depressing thought when you take it in isolation, but I attach no negativity to my beliefs, though they are lonely ones.)

Thaedydal wrote:

You don't have to be a pagan to do any of those things there are christain witches and ritual magicains and those of many other reiligions.

Again thats not really relevant to what I said at all. I didnt say only Pagans did this.

scorplett

Any convert from one faith must, of necessity, have figured out that their religion of birth is all my eye and Betty Martin. This makes their adoption of a new faith suspect, as in the process of leaving their native faith they must surely have wondered at what validity any faith can have in the cosmic scheme of things.

I personally do not believe myself to be a 'convert' to or from anything. Yes I was raised in a typical Irish Catholic home and am now a practicing Wiccan Priestess for more almost more of my life than I have not, but I never converted to anything... I do not reject any faith system, including that of what I was raised in. I do not reject it, but I do not accept all of its teachings in the way it is taught.
I have sought the truth as I see it and understood that in a way that makes sense to me, and that has oft been based on academic study rather than pure belief but at the end of the day is predominantly faith based. This is something that would be quite common within many Pagan’s worldviews.
I have come to understand each belief system I am aware of in ways that resonate personally, neither fully accepting them in the dogmatic way nor discrediting them. For example, I believe in Jesus. I believe he was a man who walked this earth and gave a positive message to those who would listen, I believe he was a healer and a holy man. I believe that those who were motivated to write of him were truly inspired to do so and I would look upon their work with respect and reverance. I will also accept that man and that book to be things of profound importance to other people in this world and that it can and often does give tremendous strength to those who have a deep faith in all, part or most of what it says. However, I would also hold a polythiesit viewpoint and therefore cannot accept that the father of Jusus is the one true god.

Atheism is just as layered a belief system as christianity or even paganism

How so? How can ‘I believe in no God’, ‘I believe in the one true God’, and ‘I believe in many God’s and Goddesses/ one God and one Goddess/just one God or just one Goddess or a different/personal interpretation of God/dess, be similarly layered belief systems?

And you have to concede to Schuharts point that paganism is largely not an inherited religion in the modern world. Very few are raised into Paganism, that has to be accepted. So based on the threads actual title, im still intrigued and waiting for one compelling answer.

That is quite a misconception because even within the Wiccan context I am aquainted with six families within which there are at least three generations of practicing pagans. I would be aware of many more. In the broader context of Paganism I would know somewhere about the 50 mark of families with two or more generations who have acknowledged themselves to be pagan of some description. Then if you want to talk about people who are raising or have raised a second generation you could multiply that further.
As I have said in other posts, the majority of Pagans see no need to declare their beliefs to the world. Just as the majority of people of any faith don’t see the need to declare themselves to be x, y or z. You don’t meet someone in a bar and introduce yourself as joe bloggs who lives here, works there and worships here. If it happens to come up in conversation that’s another story but it’s not often something people offer unprovoked. The truth is that no one knows for sure how many people have been raised and continued to follow any given path or tradition.

I am not trying to tread on anybody's toes, or to be disrespectful at all.

I think you can try harder not to tread on peoples toes or to be disrespectful, if it is truly not your intention that is. How can you state this immediately after having said that someone’s answer to the question which was their articulation of something deeply personal was invalid!!! Try harder please or else don’t say you’re trying to be inoffensive just to quantify the fact that you are being deeply offensive.

everyone probably already knows I am an atheist, purely because I cant see any rational explanation that could indicate the existence of any god.

Nor can most people. The point of faith is not rational and if it becomes rational then it is hardly faith, is it?

I dont believe in a deity that has the answers.

Neither do I… most of the time. Or at least no more so than a very close friend or family member. It is not about getting the ‘answers’, but more about the interaction and the persuasion, coercion or challenge from deity to do the things we need to do for our own development and betterment.

God talks to people all the time. So does satan, whether he in fact does or not is a personal conviction and not one I can insult, but not one that can be in any way relevant to me as an atheist unfortunately, or anybody questioning paganism.

Firstly, God, He, Satan… can we broaden our perspectives here??? The God that relates to Satan is one who according to the doctrine of those faiths only ‘speaks’ to their representatives ie the pope and therefore by those using Judeo/Christian forms as reference would imply that someone who ‘hears and speaks to God’ is schizophrenic or suffering similar psychosis’. Within Paganism however it is par for the course to have personal relationship with deity and that deity is part of you and everything around you and can be conceived in direct or indirect ways.

Why paganism?

This is a question that only each individual can answer for themselves and as such each and every explination that anyone may be able or wish to articulate to you is their own.
That is an aspect of one of the things that I hold to be one of the most fulfilling aspects of my religion. The fact that it is so deeply personal, more so than any other that I have come across.
One of the cornerstones of most if not all pagan practices is that of the immanent nature of divinity. This is a personal embodiment of divinity and a personal communion with deity. I recognize that divine is in and of everything and everyone and as such there is an unavoidable relationship in every moment of every day. When deep in prayer or worship be it internalized thought or extravagant ritual that becomes an obvious embodiment of this belief.
Within Wicca particularly, there are many forms and practices whereby this communion is received in a formal manner. A priest or priestess may have deity drawn down into or upon them which can be as simple as a connection of minds or as complex as a step-in or possession. I find that this immanent personal relationship with deity is the most unique drive toward anyone immersing themselves in any pagan tradition.
For many this takes a much simpler form, such as the prominent reverence for nature and all living things. But still remains a close relationship to deity.

dr.bollocko

scorplett wrote:

How so? How can ‘I believe in no God’, ‘I believe in the one true God’, and ‘I believe in many God’s and Goddesses/ one God and one Goddess/just one God or just one Goddess or a different/personal interpretation of God/dess, be similarly layered belief systems?

You see atheism as "I believe in no god." It doesnt mean that our spiritual souls are dead. Nor does it mean that we have closed our eyes to all the inexplicable crazy that holds this universe together. I dont believe in and God this is true, but the possibilities of the forces of creation behind this universe are not closed to me, and I often end up afraid and wide-eyed with awe just contemplating of what there might be as an answer, and how our actions in this world can effect ourselves and others. Thats my viewpoint. Some atheists shut it all out in a "god is dead" style, others are cold scientists. There are many atheistic variants.

scorplett wrote:

I think you can try harder not to tread on peoples toes or to be disrespectful, if it is truly not your intention that is. How can you state this immediately after having said that someone’s answer to the question which was their articulation of something deeply personal was invalid!!! Try harder please or else don’t say you’re trying to be inoffensive just to quantify the fact that you are being deeply offensive.

I wasnt being deeply offensive at all. I was just questioning another persons explanation of their faith. OK that does sound offensive, but in the context of a thread specifically designed to test faith you cant take what I say as offensive. If you read it, I was simply negating a poster's point because it was too broad. I did not intend to offend at all, merely open up a discussion.

scorplett wrote:

Firstly, God, He, Satan… can we broaden our perspectives here??? The God that relates to Satan is one who according to the doctrine of those faiths only ‘speaks’ to their representatives ie the pope and therefore by those using Judeo/Christian forms as reference would imply that someone who ‘hears and speaks to God’ is schizophrenic or suffering similar psychosis’. Within Paganism however it is par for the course to have personal relationship with deity and that deity is part of you and everything around you and can be conceived in direct or indirect ways.

I think your "broadening of terms" here is picking hairs, in all fairness, god, He, She, any God, they, whoever. People have claimed contact with God on a daily basis. Some are martyrs, prophets, some in insane asylums, some regular joe's. In the absence of the cold hard though, it still doesnt help me on my spiritual journey, and I think you can understand that.

scorplett wrote:

This is a question that only each individual can answer for themselves and as such each and every explination that anyone may be able or wish to articulate to you is their own.
That is an aspect of one of the things that I hold to be one of the most fulfilling aspects of my religion. The fact that it is so deeply personal, more so than any other that I have come across.
One of the cornerstones of most if not all pagan practices is that of the immanent nature of divinity. This is a personal embodiment of divinity and a personal communion with deity. I recognize that divine is in and of everything and everyone and as such there is an unavoidable relationship in every moment of every day. When deep in prayer or worship be it internalized thought or extravagant ritual that becomes an obvious embodiment of this belief.
Within Wicca particularly, there are many forms and practices whereby this communion is received in a formal manner. A priest or priestess may have deity drawn down into or upon them which can be as simple as a connection of minds or as complex as a step-in or possession. I find that this immanent personal relationship with deity is the most unique drive toward anyone immersing themselves in any pagan tradition.
For many this takes a much simpler form, such as the prominent reverence for nature and all living things. But still remains a close relationship to deity.

You are right here and I thank you for a really excellent response. I guess you cannot question a faith or ask to define any religion in such ridiculous terms as I am on this thread. Again I do apologise for any offence caused. Please try to understand I am a curious party not a sceptical one, and if I am ignorant of facts about paganism, please know i have taken time to study and ask questions and I do wish to treat it as every bit as valid as any other belief system.

Schuhart

scorplett wrote:

However, I would also hold a polythiesit viewpoint and therefore cannot accept that the father of Jusus is the one true god.

As they say, most communication is non-verbal so I just want to make it plain I’m not being ironic in anything I say in this post. I think you have a very fluid and fresh way of expressing your view. But you will understand that suggesting Jesus is just another holy man is departing quite a distance from what we both would have been raised to believe.

We can use language in whatever way we like, to mean all kinds of things. If for some reason you don’t like to use the word ‘convert’ in this context, that’s fine. But however you want to describe that change, it is something of substance that requires a word to cover it if a discussion is to take place. For my own part, I don’t see the need to avoid calling a conversion what it is. Anything along the lines of “I discovered what my true faith was meant to be all along” sounds to me like a poetic way of saying ‘conversion’.

scorplett wrote:

The truth is that no one knows for sure how many people have been raised and continued to follow any given path or tradition.

To my ears, that still sounds like ‘some’ and possibly ‘many’ pagans are second (or more) generation. I still have that feeling of ‘many’ and possibly ‘most’ of its adherents being converts. I can appreciate that in previous decades people may have typically hidden their faith, but at the same time is it fair to say that your Roman Catholic upbringing would not be uncommon among the current generation of Irish pagans. I’m not expecting a census, or a firm fact – just whatever anecdotal feeling people have about the incidence of conversion (or whatever word you’d prefer to cover the same concept).

scorplett wrote:

Try harder please or else don’t say you’re trying to be inoffensive just to quantify the fact that you are being deeply offensive.

For what its worth, I actually don’t think its possible to have this kind of discussion without being offensive. Its just part of life’s rich tapestry. At the end of day, the atheist viewpoint boils down to ‘Sure, you feel that way. But its just a little mind game you’re playing with yourself. You’re not communicating with god, you’re communicating with a projection you created yourself.’ I don’t know any way of saying that while still pretending to have a respect for a faith.

Nevyn

dr.bollocko wrote:

I wasnt being deeply offensive at all. I was just questioning another persons explanation of their faith. OK that does sound offensive,

It was.

dr.bollocko wrote:

but in the context of a thread specifically designed to test faith you cant take what I say as offensive.

This thread was not set up for anyone to test anyones faith.
This thread was set up for people to discuss why they choose paganism,
even if you are brought up as a pagan there comes a turning point where as an adult conciously you accept it as being for you for your own reasons not
for anyone else or because you have been told to.

This thread was set up to promote understanding and explain those who posts here point of view about thier beliefs and what led them to them.

This thread was not set up so that pagans could have pot shots aimed at them and be told your conculsions are not logical.

dr.bollocko wrote:

If you read it, I was simply negating a poster's point because it was too broad.

lol

A statement about my life, life's journey and beliefs has to be broad,
I am not inclinded to share intimate details with strangers here and to be googled by the world.

dr.bollocko wrote:

People have claimed contact with God on a daily basis. Some are martyrs, prophets, some in insane asylums, some regular joe's. In the absence of the cold hard though, it still doesnt help me on my spiritual journey, and I think you can understand that.

True interaction with diety is personal and maybe one day you will know it,
if not in this life time maybe in the next.

dr.bollocko wrote:

Again I do apologise for any offence caused. Please try to understand I am a curious party not a sceptical one, and if I am ignorant of facts about paganism, please know i have taken time to study and ask questions and I do wish to treat it as every bit as valid as any other belief system.

Well there are stickies at the top of the forum and well mannered and well intended questions do usaully get a response in this forum.
And don't forget Paganism is an umbrella term for several belief systems.

Nevyn

Schuhart wrote:

As they say, most communication is non-verbal so I just want to make it plain I’m not being ironic in anything I say in this post. I think you have a very fluid and fresh way of expressing your view. But you will understand that suggesting Jesus is just another holy man is departing quite a distance from what we both would have been raised to believe.

Many of us were also raised to believe in the tooth fairy and Santa.

Schuhart wrote:

We can use language in whatever way we like, to mean all kinds of things. If for some reason you don’t like to use the word ‘convert’ in this context, that’s fine. But however you want to describe that change, it is something of substance that requires a word to cover it if a discussion is to take place. For my own part, I don’t see the need to avoid calling a conversion what it is. Anything along the lines of “I discovered what my true faith was meant to be all along” sounds to me like a poetic way of saying ‘conversion’. To my ears, that still sounds like ‘some’ and possibly ‘many’ pagans are second (or more) generation. I still have that feeling of ‘many’ and possibly ‘most’ of its adherents being converts. I can appreciate that in previous decades people may have typically hidden their faith, but at the same time is it fair to say that your Roman Catholic upbringing would not be uncommon among the current generation of Irish pagans. I’m not expecting a census, or a firm fact – just whatever anecdotal feeling people have about the incidence of conversion (or whatever word you’d prefer to cover the same concept).

Well you see for those of us who believe in reincaration it is a return a renewal and finding this path this set of beliefs again.

Schuhart

Thaedydal wrote:

Many of us were also raised to believe in the tooth fairy and Santa.

Leave Santa alone. Is nothing sacred.

scorplett

Schuhart wrote:

But you will understand that suggesting Jesus is just another holy man is departing quite a distance from what we both would have been raised to believe.

Not so, I was raised to see him as such.. Sure the priest told us that he was the saviour of mankind, but at home he was 'just a holy man who did nice things'. Because this is how my parents raised me and because I still believe that statment to be the case is more why I would not consider myself to have converted to or from anything.

For my own part, I don’t see the need to avoid calling a conversion what it is. Anything along the lines of “I discovered what my true faith was meant to be all along” sounds to me like a poetic way of saying ‘conversion’.

I understand the need to find a common language to hold such a conversation and have no problem if you want to use that term in the broader sense for the sake of wider comprehension. However, I wished to have it known that I would not consider it an appropriate term for myself. Mainly because of the reasons I have already stated but also because to convert takes a concious decision to change from one thing into another. For those who walk away from the faith of their childhood and into what can be termed Pagan, It is a process. Even while on the pagan path (notice how many people say 'path') it is a process and therefore change is more appropriate than convert.
That said I do have a habbit of testing the bounds of my pedantic nature!

To my ears, that still sounds like ‘some’ and possibly ‘many’ pagans are second (or more) generation. I still have that feeling of ‘many’ and possibly ‘most’ of its adherents being converts.

What is the relevance of your wanting to know if it is some many or whatever? What you can or cannot say of anyone following the faith or path of their parents in the pagan context is also true for any other.

at the same time is it fair to say that your Roman Catholic upbringing would not be uncommon among the current generation of Irish pagans.

True it would not be uncommon but it is not predominant either. There is more than catholocism in the irish demographic and tbh, in a gestimation of percentage of people who are now pagan based on a ratio of how many people of the persons original faith there are in this country I would say that the larger majority have been protestant or jewish. But that is based on the size of those communities based roughly on census figures.

Schuhart

scorplett wrote:

What is the relevance of your wanting to know if it is some many or whatever?

I know we've ended up giving it far more attention than it deserves. Without rehashing the thread, it grew out of me explaining that I attach a particular significance to conversion.

scorplett wrote:

What you can or cannot say of anyone following the faith or path of their parents in the pagan context is also true for any other.

At the level of an individual, I agree. I don't think a person who, say, converts from Catholicism to Islam or a Jew that becomes a Jehovah's Witness is essentially any different to a person converting to Paganism.

What's on my mind is that modern day Paganism appears to be a sort of pastiche of ancient practices. I'm not claiming any particular expertise on the topic. But when you mentioned that many practicioners tended to have non-Catholic backgrounds, I sort of dimly thought of the name 'Aleister Crowley' and went looking on the ever helpful wikipedia for some quick-and-dirty information. You'll likely known all this stuff intimately. But essentially modern Paganism seemed to have grown out of an upper class fad of the 19th century, judging from this article on the Golden Dawn.

You'll understand, I'm not condemning anyone for exercising freedom of thought. Far from it. That's what its for, and I'm far more worried about movements that would seek to restrict our freedom to enquire where our natures lead us. But, from my perspective, you'll understand I simply see this as the religious equivalent of building a mock Tudor house because they look kind of cute.

scorplett

Schuhart wrote:

What's on my mind is that modern day Paganism appears to be a sort of pastiche of ancient practices….
I'm not claiming any particular expertise on the topic. But when you mentioned that many practicioners tended to have non-Catholic backgrounds, I sort of dimly thought of the name 'Aleister Crowley' and went looking on the ever helpful wikipedia for some quick-and-dirty information. You'll likely known all this stuff intimately. But essentially modern Paganism seemed to have grown out of an upper class fad of the 19th century, judging from this article on the Golden Dawn …
But, from my perspective, you'll understand I simply see this as the religious equivalent of building a mock Tudor house because they look kind of cute.

Yes it would be true for some of the practices of certain traditions of paganism that they would be something of a pastiche of other practices but not necessarily ancient and those that would follow ancient ways are not much more ancient than any other path. It would be fair to say that the Gods that are most often worshiped are indeed ancient ones but then the God of the Abrahamist faiths is also ancient, as are many of the beliefs and practices.
There are some who strive to reconstruct ancient systems of worship. Megaliths, rock art and hieroglyphs can only give us bare concepts of what went on thousands of years ago. The papyrus, vellum and parchments tell us many things but not everything we would want them to, so there will never be a true way to seek out and understand what truly were ancient practices.
That said I do understand where you are coming from on this. I myself am no expert on this but do have an understanding and personal interpretation of where these borrowed aspects have play. There are elements of modern Wiccan practice that lend heavily from some of the offshoots of the Golden Dawn movement being Thelma and Rosicrucian, there are also heavy influences of masonry. All of these sects are interlinked of course and by some would lumped together into the pigeon hole of ‘magickal practices’, or indeed ritual magick. Pagan practices can very much be a pick and mix of this and that. One of the core principles of my tradition is that if it works, use it. It is adaptation to personal need, therefore it is inevitable that even if Gardner and Sanders had not included ceremonial material borrowed heavily from Crowley and from the Rosicrucian’s they would eventually have been adopted by those who found them useful. That said there is also the opposite effect where if those systems are not useful to a person or group they will not use it.
The primary elements taken from those traditions are well known and generally accepted. A common element of Wicca in the form that Gerald Gardner would have taught it would include ritual formats such as the lesser banishing ritual of the pentagram which is obviously a golden dawn concept in its origin. There are many such processes of ‘high magick’ or ceremonial ritual that follow this example. However, Wicca then also encompasses other elements which are often, and furthermore as the craft has grown and evolved over the last half century in particular worship of and commune with divine and traditional crafts such as the healing arts and divination have become equally important as ritual to its practice. The worship of Divine is more prominent and personal and of a definite religious nature whereas golden dawn and its offshoots were not overtly religious and their members often remained devout to their original faith path.
I suppose that you could use the statement of the mock tudor house, but it wouldn’t be because its cute. It would be because those are the plans that we have and the architect and builder can just about interpret them but need to fill in the gaps with other materials and as the person paying to have it built know that no matter if the roof falls in we still have to live in the place.

Schuhart

scorplett wrote:

It would be because those are the plans that we have and the architect and builder can just about interpret them but need to fill in the gaps with other materials and as the person paying to have it built know that no matter if the roof falls in we still have to live in the place.

Good reply. This is pretty much were we all are, in a sense.

mountainyman

This is a variation from the original theme and may meander slightly (because though I find this interesting it is quite 'deep')

Anyway:

Does religious experience require the suspension of disbelief? For example, it seems unlikely that Ireland's unhappily violent history is the result of the Morrigan's mourning or that the torture and execution of an obscure rabbi two thousand years ago is the most important event in the history of mankind.

Now for some people these things don't seem unlikely. The most obvious example I can think of is the 'hindu peasant' example that I gave before. A hindu peasant in say the rann of Kutch or western Nepal might understand that Hanuman quite literally went to Sri Lanka across a bridge made of monkeys. Can a western moder (or an indian modern) beleive this in the same way?

That's the first part of this rambling.

Also are some people naturally polytheistic and others naturally monotheistic.

For example when Islam and Sikhism came to India alot of people converted to those religions. Was a monotheistic approach to God more meaningful for those people (of course social factors played a role) than a polytheistic one?

Many people did not convert one could ask why not. was a polytheistic approach more meaningful for these people. Catholicism is montheistic, but we have the saints and our lady. Is Catholicism the perfect fusion of mono and poly theism?

Are there other personality factors that make one polytheistic or monotheistic by nature?

MM

mountainyman

Come on Pagans the post above can't be that trite (or is it).

EDIT: OBVIOUSLY

MM