Gods in paganism.

Son Goku

Just wondering, what are Gods supposed to be in Paganism?
From the way posters here talk, I get the impression that they are just another form of life/another collection of sentient beings, albeit ones which are innately less material and more powerful(in the original sense of the word).

Would this be right?

Nevyn

what are Gods supposed to be in Paganism

That depends on who you ask and what you define as paganism.

As the abrahamic religions all are devoted to the one god in differing ways it can be said at all Gods other then that one are pagan, usually by them mind

This can cover an awful lot of god from many differing cultures all around the world; so you would need to be a bit more specific.

I get the impression that they are just another form of life/another collection of sentient beings, albeit ones which are innately less material and more powerful(in the original sense of the word).

That would be how I would view it and that for a time they did live on this earth but have stepped to one side for varying reasons.

6th

From my limited experience I see them as guides and gateways to the collective consciousness. To me they are another form of life/another collection of sentient beings but that closeness or similarity to humankind does not make them in any way less 'special' and the idea of Gods as supreme beings. Infact I would say it make me easier to respect and approach them as they can have similar traits to oneself.

I also currently believe that they walk around as we did at one stage and through their own path they came to be as they are seen today ... making me wonder if it is possible for someone from this age to in the future be considered in the same light? With the way the world is I doubt it very much though.

Dontico

in differnet pagan religions its different.

note i'll only talk about celtic ones cause there the only that are actually pagan.

in irish gods.
they have gods that represent nature. also it is posible for a human to eventually become a god for being oh so cool. which is simular to the hare krsnas, though they are not pagans.

note irish pagan gods can be killed. via beheading or spinal severing. then they become fairies.

Nevyn

Dontico wrote:

note i'll only talk about celtic ones cause there the only that are actually pagan.

By who's defination ?

dontico wrote:

they have gods that represent nature. also it is posible for a human to eventually become a god for being oh so cool. which is simular to the hare krsnas, though they are not pagans.

What Humans became irish gods ?
Could you give an few examples please.

dontico wrote:

note irish pagan gods can be killed. via beheading or spinal severing. then they become fairies.

Fairies ?
What types faires ?
And what Gods did this happen to ?

Dontico

Thaedydal wrote:

By who's defination ?




What Humans became irish gods ?
Could you give an few examples please.



Fairies ?
What types faires ?
And what Gods did this happen to ?

1-by the romans. pagan means peasent. thats what they called the celtic peoples religion that they conquered. the romans regard themselves as more military based.

2-this is really up to one interpurates the various texts. the rules arent really writen down. the tuatha de dannan seemed very picky who joined them. in my opinion, as some others as well. lugh was born from both a god an a deamon but still had to prove himself god worthy. which he did.

3-read "the book of invasions".

Asiaprod

Thaedydal wrote:

That would be how I would view it and that for a time they did live on this earth but have stepped to one side for varying reasons.

That interesting, we also in Buddhism have a similar parallel i.e humans that achieved enlightenment but choose to stay around as Buddhist Gods (not to be confused with the abrahamic religions' concept of Gods) to help those who have not yet achieved enlightenment.

akari no ryu

Dontico wrote:

1-by the romans. pagan means peasent. thats what they called the celtic peoples religion that they conquered. the romans regard themselves as more military based.

1) The Latin "paganus" referred to anyone rustic.
I would like to see a historic cite supporting your position that it was used for the Celts exclusively.
2) That would be an appeal to authority. The latin word pagan is not what we use. We use the english word pagan which is easiest defined as "those not following: abrahamic religions; hindi or bhuddism".

Dontico wrote:

2-this is really up to one interpurates the various texts. the rules arent really writen down. the tuatha de dannan seemed very picky who joined them. in my opinion, as some others as well. lugh was born from both a god an a deamon but still had to prove himself god worthy. which he did.

I've been re-reading the Cycles recently.
I can't remember any of that.
Got a cite to support this?

Dontico wrote:

3-read "the book of invasions".

Done it several times.
Read it all the time.
What stanzae do you refer to, exactly, as the Lebhair Gebála Eireann en masse is not enough of a citation.

You'll forgive me for wanting... I don't know... evidence to back up your claims but I find them groundless, to be nice about it, or from fantasy, to be less nice about it.

Son Goku

I don't know much about the general cosmology of paganism, although I know it isn't standardised, so forgive me if these questions don't make sense.

First of all, does the strength of the Gods have a range?
If so what is very strong? What is very weak?

Personality wise is their power not that important to them? Or is it important to some Gods and not to others?

And, possibly a hard question, why did some gods decide to "shack up" and make a pantheon together?

akari no ryu

Son Goku wrote:

First of all, does the strength of the Gods have a range?

Yes.

Son Goku wrote:

If so what is very strong? What is very weak?

Depends on who you ask, really.
Look to me and I'll see the strength of Annan and Ogma, look to another Gaelic pagan and they'll see the strength of Lugh and Eochad Alathair.

Son Goku wrote:

Personality wise is their power not that important to them? Or is it important to some Gods and not to others?

I'd say it's the second.

Son Goku wrote:

And, possibly a hard question, why did some gods decide to "shack up" and make a pantheon together?

According to whom?
The Gods of the Gaels are family, loosely. They own Their own People. Whether or not they "shack up" with other Pantheons' Gods or not is Their business and not mine.

Son Goku

akari no ryu wrote:

According to whom?
The Gods of the Gaels are family, loosely. They own Their own People. Whether or not they "shack up" with other Pantheons' Gods or not is Their business and not mine.

I more mean why did the Norse Gods decide to be the Norse Gods?
For instance why did Anubis decide to be part of Ra's pantheon, when he originally had nothing to do with him.

Sapien

Son Goku wrote:

I more mean why did the Norse Gods decide to be the Norse Gods?
For instance why did Anubis decide to be part of Ra's pantheon, when he originally had nothing to do with him.

You will find very few pagans who approach their pantheons in such an historical way - unlike adherents to the Abrahamic faiths. Pagans do not feel the need to interpret their myths as being literally factual. Pagans tend to be quite comfortable with the fact that deities developed from more rudimentary ideas, emerging from changing cultural environments and literary works, and occasionally being retrofitted into disparate pantheons.

The difficulty in understanding can occasionally arise from the fact that given this, pagans do not consider their gods to be any less potent.

akari no ryu

Sapien wrote:

Pagans tend to be quite comfortable with the fact that deities developed from more rudimentary ideas, emerging from changing cultural environments and literary works, and occasionally being retrofitted into disparate pantheons.

Who, exactly, authorised you to speak for "most pagans"?
Some of us tend to think the Gods exist independant of our beliefs.

akari no ryu

Son Goku wrote:

I more mean why did the Norse Gods decide to be the Norse Gods?
For instance why did Anubis decide to be part of Ra's pantheon, when he originally had nothing to do with him.

Anubis was, as far as I recall, born to that pantheon.
What you are asking for is an explanation of the motives and reasonings of our Gods, yeah?
Good luck with that.

Sapien

akari no ryu wrote:

Who, exactly, authorised you to speak for "most pagans"?
Some of us tend to think the Gods exist independant of our beliefs.

I am describing my own experience of pagan thinking. You are not, apparently, most pagans. Anyway, the approach to deity that I describe doesn't necessarily preclude the one that you describe.

Talliesin

In my experience most Pagans are very very diverse on the matter, with the view of divinity you've expressed being common but not the majority by a good shot.

Sapien

Talliesin wrote:

In my experience most Pagans are very very diverse on the matter, with the view of divinity you've expressed being common but not the majority by a good shot.

Well let me clarify. The view I am trying to describe is that, however real one considers the gods to be, the events described in the myths concerning them, which is to say births, deaths, marriages, battles et cetera, happened at no time in history or pre-history. I would associate the kind of people who find there way to paganism with a more sophisticated approach to spirituality than one that interprets scriptures as literal fact.

akari no ryu

Sapien wrote:

Well let me clarify. The view I am trying to describe is that, however real one considers the gods to be, the events described in the myths concerning them, which is to say births, deaths, marriages, battles et cetera, happened at no time in history or pre-history.

Again, you are ascribing your views to paganism in general.
Some of us happen to believe that the battle of Moytara, the Battle raid of Cooley, the life and times of Finn Mac Cool, etc happened. Some of us believe that, yes, our Gods were born.
Whether on Earth or not, and within our History or not, is irrelevant.
Please do not ascribe your mythological views on to paganism in general, it's quite frustrating.

Sapien wrote:

I would associate the kind of people who find there way to paganism with a more sophisticated approach to spirituality than one that interprets scriptures as literal fact.

That's poisoning the well. To imply, or as you have done here, outrightly state that the view you are so blithley putting down as spiritually unsophisticated is ignorant and offensive in the extreme.
Who the hell do you think you are to state that your spiritual realities are any better or "more sophisticated" than anyone else's? This kind of self righteous blather is exactly the kind of tripe I hear the pagans cry oppression over every time I log onto Gaia.

Sapien

akari no ryu wrote:

Again, you are ascribing your views to paganism in general.
Some of us happen to believe that the battle of Moytara, the Battle raid of Cooley, the life and times of Finn Mac Cool, etc happened. Some of us believe that, yes, our Gods were born.
Whether on Earth or not, and within our History or not, is irrelevant.
Please do not ascribe your mythological views on to paganism in general, it's quite frustrating.

Please try not to take my comments so personally. This is a belief that I hold, and have in common with most pagans I know. Perhaps my perception of the commonness of these views is skewed by association - I am entirely open to that possibility. Let's not reduce this to some kind of pagan plebiscite.

Whether or not our myths happened "within in our History" may not be a point in which you are interested, but it is the one I am making, and one which is directly pertinent to the question Son Goku asked.

akari no ryu wrote:

That's poisoning the well. To imply, or as you have done here, outrightly state that the view you are so blithley putting down as spiritually unsophisticated is ignorant and offensive in the extreme.
Who the hell do you think you are to state that your spiritual realities are any better or "more sophisticated" than anyone else's? This kind of self righteous blather is exactly the kind of tripe I hear the pagans cry oppression over every time I log onto Gaia.

I believe that a synthesis of mythology that at once accepts its origins as understood and documented by history, anthropology and psychology and recognises its inherent spiritual worth and magical potential is more sophisticated than one that must hold that a myth cycle is a literal account in order to find it useful.

Please feel free to disagree. Calmly.

akari no ryu

Sapien wrote:

Please try not to take my comments so personally.

I have, as yet, taken nothing personally.

Sapien wrote:

This is a belief that I hold, and have in common with most pagans I know. Perhaps my perception of the commonness of these views is skewed by association - I am entirely open to that possibility. Let's not reduce this to some kind of pagan plebiscite.

The problem, when you speak in tarring generalisations based solely upon your personal experience and upon no scholastic work whatsoever, is that it's not open to plebiscite. It is not polemic or well informed.

Sapien wrote:

Whether or not our myths happened "within in our History" may not be a point in which you are interested, but it is the one I am making, and one which is directly pertinent to the question Son Goku asked.

It is one you are postulating. You are not proving it. You are stating "these things didn't happen, pagans don't believe they happened." The pagans I knwo believe it did happen. What happens here is a conflict of views. I am not stating whether or not it did happen, merely that I believe you're wrong to state that it didn't.

Sapien wrote:

I believe that a synthesis of mythology that at once accepts its origins as understood and documented by history, anthropology and psychology and recognises its inherent spiritual worth and magical potential is more sophisticated than one that must hold that a myth cycle is a literal account in order to find it useful.

That's nice. And I believe that one who throws around terms like sophistication without actually giving context to them should probably refrain from doing so, particularly when the people they are calling unsophisticated post here and that no amount of backpedalling will save you from this, but a simple apology might. Then again, some have different measures of sophistication, neh?

Sapien wrote:

Please feel free to disagree. Calmly.

I have, thus far, kept my calm. Feel free to keep trying to read my emotional status from my typings, it just serves to make you seem more ignorant than broadly generalising pagan belief structures based upon your personal experience.

Sapien

akari no ryu wrote:

I have, as yet, taken nothing personally.

Then perhaps someone else can wade in here and tell me whether my contributions to this thread are really as unreasonable as akari no ryu's demonstrated "frustration" would suggest?

akari no ryu wrote:

The problem, when you speak in tarring generalisations based solely upon your personal experience and upon no scholastic work whatsoever, is that it's not open to plebiscite. It is not polemic or well informed.

If you disagree that the view I describe is shared by "most pagans", as I have contended, fine - you have expressed that more than clearly. Neither of us has the means to gauge the reality, and I certainly feel no need to. This exchange has certainly educated me a little on the matter, and I will be more mindful of the fact that the view you hold is not as uncommon as I might have thought. That does not mean that I concede to having been wrong.

If a failing in scholarship has been made evident by what I have written, please bring it to my attention and we'll see if we can figure it out.

akari no ryu wrote:

It is one you are postulating. You are not proving it.

No, indeed, and I'm not sure how one would.

akari no ryu wrote:

You are stating "these things didn't happen, pagans don't believe they happened."

That is not the case. I am stating that I don't believe that events described in myth occurred in history, and that most pagans I know concur. The only contentious statement I have made is that pagans in general would tend to agree. You believe that most pagans, or at least the ones you know, would disagree. It's really all very simple when you state it civilly.

akari no ryu wrote:

The pagans I knwo believe it did happen. What happens here is a conflict of views. I am not stating whether or not it did happen, merely that I believe you're wrong to state that it didn't.

If you say that I am wrong to state that it did not happen, then you must be saying that it did happen. Do you mean to say, perhaps, that you believe it might have happened, and that an outright dismissal of the historicity of myth is illogical? If so, then I would agree that out of the purest rigour one must remain agnostic, just as one cannot dismiss, with complete certainty, the historicity of the Bible or, for that matter, the Lord of the Rings.

akari no ryu wrote:

That's nice. And I believe that one who throws around terms like sophistication without actually giving context to them should probably refrain from doing so, particularly when the people they are calling unsophisticated post here and that no amount of backpedalling will save you from this, but a simple apology might. Then again, some have different measures of sophistication, neh?

I'm not sure what ways in which a context would clarify the view I am describing. I realise that the views I have expounded will have direct bearing upon the beliefs of other posters, and I am not afraid to challenge such beliefs. Nor indeed am I afraid to meet challenges to my own beliefs, which I try to do with dignity, pause and a respect for the value of reasoned intercourse. I try not to allow my ego to determine how I engage with posters with whom I find I disagree.

akari no ryu wrote:

I have, thus far, kept my calm. Feel free to keep trying to read my emotional status from my typings, it just serves to make you seem more ignorant than broadly generalising pagan belief structures based upon your personal experience.

Indeed. Your calm is palpable.

akari no ryu

Sapien wrote:

If a failing in scholarship has been made evident by what I have written, please bring it to my attention and we'll see if we can figure it out.

Argument from personal experience is scholastically sloppy, at best.

Sapien wrote:

That is not the case. I am stating that I don't believe that events described in myth occurred in history, and that most pagans I know concur.

You stated that most pagans concur.

Sapien wrote:

You believe that most pagans, or at least the ones you know, would disagree.

I do not state that most pagans do anything. That would be ignorant of me.

Sapien wrote:

It's really all very simple when you state it civilly.

We have differing views on civility. Yours seems to be the use of nice words where mine includes "not making blanket statements about things like sophistication".

Sapien wrote:

If you say that I am wrong to state that it did not happen, then you must be saying that it did happen.

False dichotomy.
I state that you are wrong to state that it did not happen. That means that I am stating that you are wrong in your stating of it, not whether or not you are correct.

Sapien wrote:

Do you mean to say, perhaps, that you believe it might have happened, and that an outright dismissal of the historicity of myth is illogical?

No. I said what I meant to say.

Sapien wrote:

If so, then I would agree that out of the purest rigour one must remain agnostic, just as one cannot dismiss, with complete certainty, the historicity of the Bible or, for that matter, the Lord of the Rings.

Have you seen me dismiss the Bible? As for the Lord of the Rings, there was no divine inspiration claimed by the author. His words claimed that he was writing a story.

Sapien wrote:

Indeed. Your calm is palpable.

Yes. It is.
I'm currently wrapped in a blanket in front of a fire watching movies.
I am calm and serene.

Sapien

akari no ryu wrote:

Argument from personal experience is scholastically sloppy, at best.

I was describing my impression of the views held by the pagan community. I think, in the absence of a survey of some kind, personal experience is where it's at. What other kind of scholarly investigation would you suggest?

akari no ryu wrote:

You stated that most pagans concur.

I also said that, yes:

sapien wrote:

The only contentious statement I have made is that pagans in general would tend to agree.

akari no ryu wrote:

I do not state that most pagans do anything. That would be ignorant of me.

Then I don't really understand what it is you dispute. I said that most pagans share the view I describe. I did not say all pagans. You do not share it. This would, in the context of my statement, place you in the minority of pagans who do not share the view, the existence of which was implicit. You did not simply say this, rather you disparaged my statement that my view is shared by the majority of pagans. I have taken this to mean that you do not believe that my view is shared by the majority. If that is incorrect, then surely you don't feel strongly one way or another, in which case I do not understand why you are "frustrated".

If you condemn any attempt to convey to a non-pagan the kind of views that are held by pagans, whether you agree with those views or not, I do not understand why. I am comfortable conveying my impressions of pagans without having to feel absolutely confident that those impressions are universally accurate. Perhaps you're taking this too seriously. If you were worried that I was giving an inaccurate impression of pagans, it would have sufficed to say something along the lines of: "Actually Son Goku, I would disagree with Sapien in that regard, or at least would be cautious of generalising the character of pagan beliefs on this point."

akari no ryu wrote:

We have differing views on civility. Yours seems to be the use of nice words where mine includes "not making blanket statements about things like sophistication".

Perhaps we do have different interpretations of the word. I reserve the right to decide that a particular belief is more or less sophisticated, or interesting, or learned, or original than another. And I am prepared to discuss these beliefs with the people who hold them in a civil manner.

akari no ryu wrote:

False dichotomy.
I state that you are wrong to state that it did not happen. That means that I am stating that you are wrong in your stating of it, not whether or not you are correct.

So you mean wrong in the moral sense, as opposed to the sense meaning incorrect? If so, why?

akari no ryu wrote:

Have you seen me dismiss the Bible? As for the Lord of the Rings, there was no divine inspiration claimed by the author. His words claimed that he was writing a story.

Are your beliefs regarding the Celtic myth cycles compatible with the Bible? And whether or not Tolkien claimed to be a prophet makes little difference to whether or not his work represents a plausible history of the world.

akari no ryu wrote:

Yes. It is.
I'm currently wrapped in a blanket in front of a fire watching movies.
I am calm and serene.

That sounds far more enjoyable than this thread.

scorplett

sapien wrote:

Then perhaps someone else can wade in here and tell me whether my contributions to this thread are really as unreasonable as akari no ryu's demonstrated "frustration" would suggest?

OK I’ll bite....wade in or whatever!!!

I will not consider any posts that have gone back and forth between yourself and akari no ryu, as you are answering each others questions of clarification etc and as such are hardly contributions to the OP’s question and hence the thread To clarify,

Your ‘contribution to the original poster went as such;
In reply to Son Goku saying;

son goku wrote:

“I more mean why did the Norse Gods decide to be the Norse Gods?
For instance why did Anubis decide to be part of Ra's pantheon, when he originally had nothing to do with him.

You wrote;

sapien wrote:

You will find very few pagans who approach their pantheons in such an historical way - unlike adherents to the Abrahamic faiths. Pagans do not feel the need to interpret their myths as being literally factual. Pagans tend to be quite comfortable with the fact that deities developed from more rudimentary ideas, emerging from changing cultural environments and literary works, and occasionally being retrofitted into disparate pantheons.

The difficulty in understanding can occasionally arise from the fact that given this, pagans do not consider their gods to be any less potent.

This is to my estimation the sum of your ‘contributions’ to the thread and to them these are my opinions.

sapien wrote:

You will find very few pagans who approach their pantheons in such an historical way

You have interpreted a question on pantheon as being one of a historical nature and have done so without due consideration of any context other than your own.

Ok the issue is pantheons
Pantheon, from the Greek word pantheios meaning of (all) the Gods.
What is historical about all the Gods? I say nothing, maybe in an anthropological context but anthropology and history have entirely different objectives and meanings and history is but a flavour of what is considered within an anthropological viewpoint.
Are Gods only historical beings? I say absolutely not.
Do they not exist now? I think they most certainly do exist in every time and place and do most certainly exist in my life in an active communicative and immanent way.
Do pagans not interact with divinity? Yes, some do and No, some don’t. That depends on how you interpret what a pagan is. If you see it as one who follows an earth based spirituality or simply those who do not follow the Abrahamic faiths or even as simple as those who do not have any religion… the term has been used for these beliefs and more. Which leads me to ask, what is your definition of Pagan in order for this statement to be grounded in the understanding of those on this forum? The charter relates that within the context of this forum ‘Paganism is defined as a collection of spiritual and religious practices with a strong focus on nature’ so we may have to go with an approximation of the Yes reasons.
What is in this that is exclusive to non Abrahamic Gods? Pagans can believe in Abrahamic Gods too, just not usually exclusively ie duo or polytheism etc.

sapien wrote:

Pagans do not feel the need to interpret their myths as being literally factual.

A plural noun followed three verbs negative simple and active, then possessive plural… need I go on…THIS IS A BLANKET STATMENT and as such, would be false by its very nature.
Personally, I would always interweave the words Myth with Legend as the Irish stories are in Legend format and not per-se Myth until they were written down by those who did not understand the oral cultural traditions.
My own thoughts as a Pagan in the context of this forums charter is that while I do not literally interpret myth and legend I do, from experiences of a personal nature which, backed by the consensus of many who I have learned from, taught and shared with, are grounded and common to that contextual peer group, understand myth/legend as segmentally factual although not literally or exactly as according to literature and document. The names of those Gods and their histories are documented in those texts and Gods are truth within an individual. Particularly so for a Pagan individual. There are other aspects of the same tombs that are known to have historically happened and objects and places that actually exist therefore they are fact.
A word of advance warning; According to the dictionary (chambers) Fact is a truth or reality, a thing known to be true, exist or to have happened. To people who commune with deity in a way that is similar to having a conversation with any other human being, it is down right rude to say that the resulting knowledge from these conversations are not fact. Their conversations are unproven, but something does not need to be proven publicly or scientifically in order to be fact.

sapien wrote:

Pagans tend to be quite comfortable with the fact that deities developed from more rudimentary ideas, emerging from changing cultural environments and literary works, and occasionally being retrofitted into disparate pantheons.

again a BLANKET STATEMENT!!! You seem quite fond of these.
I personally am very very very uncomfortable with this statement and cannot see how Deities ‘developed from more rudimentary ideas’. This is an appalling, disturbing concept in the extreme and to me is like saying that a foetus develops from a ‘more rudimentary idea’. I can however, when I get over my disgust at this statement, understand where you may get the perception but have just worded it badly.
If it is understood that those Deities that many see as having been in human form, a commonality with pretty much every religious path pagan or otherwise, sure they develop personalities, traits and such as they go through the world and the ages. Who wouldn’t, that’s like living your life blindfolded in a soundproof box.

sapien wrote:

The difficulty in understanding can occasionally arise from the fact that given this, pagans do not consider their gods to be any less potent.

if we can take out everything you wrote before saying this and hence the ‘given’ this would not be in reference to a few blanket statements, then I would have no problem with what you have said.

I hope my biting didn’t hurt… lol

akari no ryu

Sapien wrote:

I was describing my impression of the views held by the pagan community. I think, in the absence of a survey of some kind, personal experience is where it's at. What other kind of scholarly investigation would you suggest?

Not making blanket statements when you don't have statistic evidence to back it up would be a good idea.

Sapien wrote:

Then I don't really understand what it is you dispute. I said that most pagans share the view I describe. I did not say all pagans.

You didn't back this up with any kind of evidence other than personal experience.
Lacking evidence to back it up, I would never have made such a blanket statement to begin with.

Sapien wrote:

in the context of my statement

Ah... in the context of your statement.
Which is an appeal to personal experience. A logical fallacy if memory serves.

Sapien wrote:

I have taken this to mean that you do not believe that my view is shared by the majority. If that is incorrect, then surely you don't feel strongly one way or another, in which case I do not understand why you are "frustrated".

I am frustrated by the ignorance of the blanket statement and the adherance to it, even though it is ignorant.

Sapien wrote:

I am comfortable conveying my impressions of pagans without having to feel absolutely confident that those impressions are universally accurate.

So you're comfortable spreading misinformation?
You are quite possibly wrong.
It is entirely possible that the majority of pagans do not believe Gods to be little more than thought forms, created by mankind, that arose from our understanding of the universe.

Sapien wrote:

Perhaps you're taking this too seriously.

No, not really. I'm just being polemic about this. I am observing the logical value of your post and commenting on the innaccuracies and blanket statements.

Sapien wrote:

If you were worried that I was giving an inaccurate impression of pagans, it would have sufficed to say something along the lines of: "Actually Son Goku, I would disagree with Sapien in that regard, or at least would be cautious of generalising the character of pagan beliefs on this point."

No. It wouldn't. You did something I find morally reprehensible. You categorised an umbrella of religions with your personal experience.
Let's lay our cards out on the table, shall we?
I know Hellenics, Wiccans, AsatruaR, Didikai Domari, Celtic Recons, Zoroastrians and ecclectic pagans.
Of the cross section of paganism that I am either aquanted with or know intimately, they would be disgusted (and barring one of the Asatruar and two of the Wiccans, I've asked them all) by
a) your having blanket statement covered all of paganism
b) misrepresenting their beliefs
based on nothing more than personal experience.

Sapien wrote:

Perhaps we do have different interpretations of the word. I reserve the right to decide that a particular belief is more or less sophisticated, or interesting, or learned, or original than another.

And what means are you using to measure sophistication?

Sapien wrote:

And I am prepared to discuss these beliefs with the people who hold them in a civil manner.

Again, we come down to the use of the word civil to cover your ignorance on this matter. What you are doing is offensive. It is not civil to call someone a ****ing gob****e if you use nice words instead of **** and gob****e. Ignorance is ignorance regardless of how nice your words are.

Sapien wrote:

Are your beliefs regarding the Celtic myth cycles compatible with the Bible?

That would depend on interpeting them.
In that I take the old testament to be the discussions and descriptions of the Jewish people and not the world en masse, then yes.

Sapien wrote:

And whether or not Tolkien claimed to be a prophet makes little difference to whether or not his work represents a plausible history of the world.

Paraphrasing tolkein: "I'm making this up because we don't have a collected unique collection comparable to the Irish or French mythologies".
Paraphrasing Celtic mythos: "this all happened"
Yes. Yes it does.

Sapien wrote:

That sounds far more enjoyable than this thread.

Again, false dichotomy. There's nothing to stop me doing whatever I'm doing in the waking world while posting here. I don't know about you, but I can sit in front of a fire and type at the same time.

Dontico

I'm probably the best celtic god. although i get little worship, thus i'm a cranky god.

Talliesin

You'll be a crankier god now you're banned for trolling.

Son Goku

Even if it isn't standardised I think you guys have answered me with the two most common points of view. I actually wasn't expecting Sapien's response, seems like an interesting position.

Sapien wrote:

The difficulty in understanding can occasionally arise from the fact that given this, pagans do not consider their gods to be any less potent.

This kind of answers my question, some people recognize the Gods as having a social context, but that doesn't lessen the Gods in any way.

Another question, how much of a hierarchy is there? For instance are there Gods who are "near-human", at least in terms of personality? Are there very removed powerful Gods who we can't understand?

Nevyn

See those questions would presume that pagans that post here have an intimate personal knowledge of ALL the pagan Gods.

There are gods who are considered pagan some of this land some not that I have no interatcion with either directly or through one of thier devotees or priesthood and I have no intrest in having such interactions either.

Any information you will get will either be specultive from the mangled stories of vairious gods from various lands mishanded down, mistranlated and in many cased severly slanted by who ever re wrote them be it the removing of Set from temple walls and scrolls 3,000 years ago to the demonising of celtic diety by christainity and the reworking of the oral tradtion into the 'Books" we have today;
or it will be subjective from people who have a close relationship with diety sometimes one sometimes more and who have looked byeond the lie and fiction and half truths.

The true understanding of the nature of a god and thier stories is somthing that usually has to be learned as part of working with that god.

I have meet those who have such relationship with diety and with certain gods there are certain tells as to wether you a dealing with someone who choose thier deity for what ever reason ( cos they are cool :rolleyes: ) and
those that were choosen by diety and have been shown the truer god and the truer meaning of thier lives/myths/stories.

For me the gods I work with are close kin, family and friends and after a getting to know each other we work together,

I would not presume to pull the name of a god out of a hat and look them up on the internet and expect them to listen to me or heed anything I had to say.

Sapien

I think there's something of a herd mentality at work here...

scorplett wrote:

You have interpreted a question on pantheon as being one of a historical nature and have done so without due consideration of any context other than your own.

The context for this statement was the following question from Son Goku, which I quoted, rather helpfully I think, in the very same post.

Son Goku wrote:

I more mean why did the Norse Gods decide to be the Norse Gods?
For instance why did Anubis decide to be part of Ra's pantheon, when he originally had nothing to do with him.

Can you see why I might describe these questions as presuming a certain historical approach to mythology?

scorplett wrote:

Ok the issue is pantheons
Pantheon, from the Greek word pantheios meaning of (all) the Gods.
What is historical about all the Gods? I say nothing, maybe in an anthropological context but anthropology and history have entirely different objectives and meanings and history is but a flavour of what is considered within an anthropological viewpoint.

Agreed.

scorplett wrote:

Are Gods only historical beings? I say absolutely not.

That is precisely what I was saying, and suggesting most pagans believe.

scorplett wrote:

Do they not exist now? I think they most certainly do exist in every time and place and do most certainly exist in my life in an active communicative and immanent way.

I would agree.

scorplett wrote:

Do pagans not interact with divinity? Yes, some do and No, some don’t. That depends on how you interpret what a pagan is. If you see it as one who follows an earth based spirituality or simply those who do not follow the Abrahamic faiths or even as simple as those who do not have any religion… the term has been used for these beliefs and more. Which leads me to ask, what is your definition of Pagan in order for this statement to be grounded in the understanding of those on this forum?

I would use it to refer to Earth based spiritualities, generally. In this context we are talking about ancient polytheistic religions, which broadens the definition, but not to the extent that it includes all religions outside of the Abrahamic branch.

scorplett wrote:

What is in this that is exclusive to non Abrahamic Gods? Pagans can believe in Abrahamic Gods too, just not usually exclusively ie duo or polytheism etc.

Simply put, the Children of Abraham pretty much have a monopoly on monotheism, if you'll excuse the wordplay, and modern adherents to the Abrahamic religions demonstrate a greater tendency to posit the contents of their scriptures as historical record than, I would have thought, modern pagans. Have you ever heard of a pagan Creationist?

scorplett wrote:

A plural noun followed three verbs negative simple and active, then possessive plural… need I go on…THIS IS A BLANKET STATMENT and as such, would be false by its very nature.

Yes, I omitted to couch this sentence with some kind of general or conditional
modifier to convey to the reader that I do not in fact claim to know the mind of every pagan on the planet. Of course, at the time of writing it, I presumed that people would understand that, and, at the time, I wasn't aware that informal generalisations had become such a heinous sin.

scorplett wrote:

Personally, I would always interweave the words Myth with Legend as the Irish stories are in Legend format and not per-se Myth until they were written down by those who did not understand the oral cultural traditions.
My own thoughts as a Pagan in the context of this forums charter is that while I do not literally interpret myth and legend I do, from experiences of a personal nature which, backed by the consensus of many who I have learned from, taught and shared with, are grounded and common to that contextual peer group, understand myth/legend as segmentally factual although not literally or exactly as according to literature and document.

That is very well put, and entirely in accordance with the "blanket statement" for which I am now being bafflingly lambasted.

scorplett wrote:

The names of those Gods and their histories are documented in those texts and Gods are truth within an individual. Particularly so for a Pagan individual. There are other aspects of the same tombs that are known to have historically happened and objects and places that actually exist therefore they are fact.

Just as the Trojan War almost certainly happened, in some way or another, though almost certainly because of economic or territorial reasons, and not because of the meddling of the goddess Eris. Nevertheless I am quite certain that the goddess Eris exists. With mischievous gusto.

scorplett wrote:

A word of advance warning; According to the dictionary (chambers) Fact is a truth or reality, a thing known to be true, exist or to have happened. To people who commune with deity in a way that is similar to having a conversation with any other human being, it is down right rude to say that the resulting knowledge from these conversations are not fact. Their conversations are unproven, but something does not need to be proven publicly or scientifically in order to be fact.

Your warning seems particularly foolish, given that you seem to have completely misinterpreted what I have said.

scorplett wrote:

again a BLANKET STATEMENT!!!

Oh dear gods.

scorplett wrote:

I personally am very very very uncomfortable with this statement and cannot see how Deities ‘developed from more rudimentary ideas’. This is an appalling, disturbing concept in the extreme and to me is like saying that a foetus develops from a ‘more rudimentary idea’.

This being one of the ways in which gods and human beings are different - no.

scorplett wrote:

I can however, when I get over my disgust at this statement, understand where you may get the perception but have just worded it badly.

I assure you, that is extremely unlikely.

scorplett wrote:

If it is understood that those Deities that many see as having been in human form, a commonality with pretty much every religious path pagan or otherwise, sure they develop personalities, traits and such as they go through the world and the ages.

*boggle*
So you agree with me?

scorplett wrote:

I hope my biting didn’t hurt… lol

I have a headache - does that count?

akari no ryu wrote:

Not making blanket statements when you don't have statistic evidence to back it up would be a good idea.

Yes, you definitely are taking this far too seriously.

akari no ryu wrote:

You didn't back this up with any kind of evidence other than personal experience.
Lacking evidence to back it up, I would never have made such a blanket statement to begin with.

Once again, in the absence of relevant statistics, the only available evidence is my own testament of my experiences of pagan attitudes. And if, as it seems to be the case, you believe that my experiences have not given me a representative impression, you could just say so. No?

akari no ryu wrote:

Ah... in the context of your statement.
Which is an appeal to personal experience. A logical fallacy if memory serves.

I'm not sure what it is you find wrong with what I have written, but it certainly isn't a logical fallacy.

akari no ryu wrote:

I am frustrated by the ignorance of the blanket statement and the adherance to it, even though it is ignorant.

A statement that you do not actually opine is incorrect. I do not, as it happens, agree that it is ignorant. I believe that my personal experience is of a certain worth, and I think it is fitting to bring it to bear on relevant discussions, as it would be for other people, even, nay, especially when their experiences yield differing perspectives to my own. This is how we learn. Do you see?

akari no ryu wrote:

So you're comfortable spreading misinformation?

I am comfortable communicating my opinion.

akari no ryu wrote:

You are quite possibly wrong.

Absolutely. I am always quite possibly wrong. I assume most people know that.

akari no ryu wrote:

It is entirely possible that the majority of pagans do not believe Gods to be little more than thought forms, created by mankind, that arose from our understanding of the universe.

Indeed. Though I don't happen to believe that that is the case.

akari no ryu wrote:

No, not really. I'm just being polemic about this. I am observing the logical value of your post and commenting on the inaccuracies and blanket statements.

Polemical.

akari no ryu wrote:

No. It wouldn't. You did something I find morally reprehensible. You categorised an umbrella of religions with your personal experience.
Let's lay our cards out on the table, shall we?
I know Hellenics, Wiccans, AsatruaR, Didikai Domari, Celtic Recons, Zoroastrians and ecclectic pagans.
Of the cross section of paganism that I am either aquanted with or know intimately, they would be disgusted (and barring one of the Asatruar and two of the Wiccans, I've asked them all) by
a) your having blanket statement covered all of paganism
b) misrepresenting their beliefs
based on nothing more than personal experience.

I can quite plainly state that yes, you are taking this too seriously. The idea that an impression of the beliefs of others ingenuously communicated in direct answer to a question could be morally reprehensible is, well, ludicrous. I did categorise an umbrella of religions, yes. That is because I believe that all varieties of paganism, or New Age, or revived spiritualities, including all of those you have mentioned, have something in common. They are not, in the vast majority of cases, inherited or passed on, but are discovered by people seeking a spiritual path more suited to themselves. This necessitates an openness of mind and a flexibility of belief that I find, in most of the practitioners of magick and paganism I know, leads to a more coherent relationship with the new belief system than one finds in the indoctrinated adherents of, say, the Abrahamic faiths. This is why I am quite comfortable in making what you have melodramatically dubbed "blanket statements" in this specific regard.

Once again, if you believed that I had misrepresented someone's beliefs, you could simply have said so, and given Son Goku more balanced, you might feel, information. But this would have been to base a statement on personal experience. I'm okay with that, but apparently it is not done. Not sure why.

akari no ryu wrote:

And what means are you using to measure sophistication?

My own intellectual discernment, and something along the lines of...

akari no ryu wrote:

observing the logical value

In this case, having ones understanding square comfortably with documented fact about the history and prehistory of the Earth and its inhabitants, while still finding deep value in wildly fantastical, highly implausible mythological accounts about the creation of the Universe and the human race. Something like that.

akari no ryu wrote:

Again, we come down to the use of the word civil to cover your ignorance on this matter. What you are doing is offensive. It is not civil to call someone a ****ing gob****e if you use nice words instead of **** and gob****e. Ignorance is ignorance regardless of how nice your words are.

And now we differ on the meaning of the word offensive too. Also, you seem to be using the word "ignorance" in that particularly meaningless sense popularised by Michael Jackson.

akari no ryu wrote:

That would depend on interpeting them.
In that I take the old testament to be the discussions and descriptions of the Jewish people and not the world en masse, then yes.

Well then, according to many millions of adherents to Judaism and Christianity, you have in fact dismissed their sacred text. A blanket statement, I suppose, but you can be pretty certain it's true.

akari no ryu wrote:

Paraphrasing tolkein: "I'm making this up because we don't have a collected unique collection comparable to the Irish or French mythologies".
Paraphrasing Celtic mythos: "this all happened"
Yes. Yes it does.

No, it doesn't. You have not understood what I have said.

akari no ryu wrote:

Again, false dichotomy. There's nothing to stop me doing whatever I'm doing in the waking world while posting here. I don't know about you, but I can sit in front of a fire and type at the same time.

While comprehensively canvassing your arcipluvian array of pagan peers. You have described a number of times being "offended" or "frustrated" by my "morally reprehensible" actions - sounds like the kind of thing that might sour a quiet night in.

Relax, man.

Son Goku wrote:

This kind of answers my question, some people recognize the Gods as having a social context, but that doesn't lessen the Gods in any way.

Yes, quite. I thought it might. I trust, Son Goku, that you understood that I was communicating my own impressions, and not absolute fact?

Sapien

Son Goku wrote:

Another question, how much of a hierarchy is there? For instance are there Gods who are "near-human", at least in terms of personality? Are there very removed powerful Gods who we can't understand?

Many pantheons have what are broadly termed "Elder Gods" - gods who feature in the creation mythology, or act as progenitors of the more commonly worshipped pantheon, but who enter into daily life and spiritual practice very rarely. Examples would include Chaos of Greek myth and his direct offspring, or Tiamat in Babylonian myth. They are distant, remote, often abstract, and certainly mysterious. They are not necessarily considered more powerful however, often being believed to be deceased, such as in the case of Tiamat - from whose body the cosmos was fashioned.