Recognition of Paganism

[hp]

Quoting Frank from 15:53, 21st Jun 2006

Now the real trick is to see if we can get "EvolutionSoc" or "There-is-no-GodSoc" into the building...

Frank

[hr]

"There is only ever one truth. Things are always black or white, there's no such thing as a shade of grey. If you think that something is a shade of grey it simply means that you don't fully understand the situation. The truth is narrow and the path of the pursuit of truth is similarly narrow."

isn't that where oneworld comes in...?

[thePontificator]

Would now be a good time to point out smugly that St Andrews' 'Christian Legacy' is mainly that two sects of Christians killed each other a lot around here because they couldn't tolerate each other?
Seriously, 'Juxtaposed With U' should be a hymn.

[Arashi]

Quoting Julie from 22:29, 20th Jun 2006
Like rufus said, Christianity itself has changed considerably from its original form and practice and has had a number of upheavals, revolutions, and re-writings almost since its inception. Would Jesus have supported the practices of the politically entrenched, wealthy Mediaeval church? Wouldn't someone from the mediaeval church consider all forms of modern Protestantism profoundly heretical?

I'm so glad you've already addressed this subject, Julie, because I was about to get ranty about the implications made about this matter. What I see in this thread is a whole lot of misinformation being thrown about as fact, with a bit of assumption tossed in for flavour.

The biggest problem in I see here, is the mass generalisation of 'paganism' to define all sorts of barely related belief systems. Not to mention, why exactly this debate has sprung up over the validity of a religion based on its translation over the years. Time changes languages and societies, so why refuse to awknowledge its effect on religions? Should we say that because English is a bastardation of German, French, and Anglo-Saxon that it shouldn't be given credit as a valid language?

Because Paganism doesn't have the same sort of centrality of belief that many major religions have, with their defined places of worship and religious texts, almost every pagan will have a different view on their faith. I can't recall just how many times I've been asked to explain just what exactly it was I believed in, and every time I've had to give an unsatisfactory answer. But isn't that what religion and faith is all about? Believing in something that can't truly be explained or understood, just felt? Isn't that what a Christian would say when explaining his or her relationship with Jesus Christ?

As a good friend, and theologian, said to me, 'all forms of religion are like facets of a diamond; we each see a different side of the same truth'. Unlike the experience of someone else in this thread, it has always been my absolute pleasure to discuss and debate religion with people of different faith. The only time I refrain from mentioning the subject is when I know I'm in the company of someone who can't listen to,and consider, all facets of the religion diamond. Accepting that someone else has a diffent, yet valid, view doesn't have to mean that your own view is wrong. And having an open mind doesn't mean that you've abandoned your own personal thoughts and beliefs.

If anyone wants to talk to me about Paganism, why I believe it, what I believe, and how I go about it (I promise there aren't any headless chickens), feel free to send me a message.

[Arashi]

Quoting Arashi from 23:13, 22nd Jun 2006

Quoting Julie from 22:29, 20th Jun 2006
Like rufus said, Christianity itself has changed considerably from its original form and practice and has had a number of upheavals, revolutions, and re-writings almost since its inception. Would Jesus have supported the practices of the politically entrenched, wealthy Mediaeval church? Wouldn't someone from the mediaeval church consider all forms of modern Protestantism profoundly heretical?

I'm so glad you've already addressed this subject, Julie, because I was about to get ranty about the implications made about this matter. What I see in this thread is a whole lot of misinformation being thrown about as fact, with a bit of assumption tossed in for flavour.

The biggest problem in I see here, is the mass generalisation of 'paganism' to define all sorts of barely related belief systems. Not to mention, why exactly this debate has sprung up over the validity of a religion based on its translation over the years. Time changes languages and societies, so why refuse to awknowledge its effect on religions? Should we say that because English is a bastardation of German, French, and Anglo-Saxon that it shouldn't be given credit as a valid language?

Because Paganism doesn't have the same sort of centrality of belief that many major religions have, with their defined places of worship and religious texts, almost every pagan will have a different view on their faith. I can't recall just how many times I've been asked to explain just what exactly it was I believed in, and every time I've had to give an unsatisfactory answer. But isn't that what religion and faith is all about? Believing in something that can't truly be explained or understood, just felt? Isn't that what a Christian would say when explaining his or her relationship with Jesus Christ?

As a good friend, and theologian, said to me, 'all forms of religion are like facets of a diamond; we each see a different side of the same truth'. Unlike the experience of someone else in this thread, it has always been my absolute pleasure to discuss and debate religion with people of different faith. The only time I refrain from mentioning the subject is when I know I'm in the company of someone who can't listen to,and consider, all facets of the religion diamond. Accepting that someone else has a different, yet valid, view doesn't have to mean that your own view is wrong. And having an open mind doesn't mean that you've abandoned your own personal thoughts and beliefs.

If anyone wants to talk to me about Paganism, why I believe it, what I believe, and how I go about it (I promise there aren't any headless chickens), feel free to send me a message.

(Edited for typos - Thursday is the end of my work week and it shows!)

Hahaha, I meant to edit, but I really replied.... See what I meant about it showing?? >.<;;;

[exnihilo]

But that's the whole point. Time has NOT changed Paganism. Time wiped it out and then it was reinvented. As I've already said, I don't question the legitimacy of your beliefs (much) but I do question the lineage of them. Modern pagans are not the heirs to centuries of tradition, however changed, they're the heirs to at most a century of tradition cobbled together and embelished by modern minds. It's a very different proposition.

[novium]

Zeus and Jupiter are not exactly the same. It was a handy thing in the ancient world, to match up dieties, but as I recall, roman gods were not really gods as much as we think of them...and most of the mythology etc was in fact adopted from the greeks. iT's not that the worship was tied into civic duty- it was that the whole thing WAS about civic duty. It wasn't so much belief in the 'gods' as much as a belief in processes human beings weren't aware of, but that if you did the right things, you'd get the right result. It's very complicated to explain because it is so very different from our conceptions of religion.

No matter what happened under chritian rome, ancient roman religion was not an issue of the state being wrapped around religion or vice versa. They were one and the same. To the extent that such thing as theocracy couldn't really exist, as religion was not...well...religion. not as we define it.

Quoting LonelyPilgrim from 08:55, 22nd Jun 2006
I still think you're failing to seperate the religion aspect - the 'how we worship' - from the divine aspect - the 'what we worship'. Yes, ancient Roman religion was tied up into civic duties and the semi-mythical perceptions of the State. But that doesn't mean that the diety in question can only be worshipped that way. If so, how could Jupiter every have been worshiped as Zeus before Rome existed?

The Roman state used religion in order to bolster the power of the state. They did it with the ancient gods and they did it with Christianity. I think, novium, that you really really really ought to at least take a bit of a look at the late Empire sometime. Look at how Christianity was manipulated by the Roman state after Constantine's conversion. It became just as wrapped up in the SPQR and the glory of the Empire et al. Christianity was Rome's bitch for a few hundred years.

But the point is that just because someone today isn't worshipping Minerva in the same fashion that someone 1600 years ago would have, does not mean that they are worshipping fundamentally different dieties. After all, I can worship my God without having to say "Hail Caesar!" today.

As for the Old Ways lacking philosophical legitimacy, that's rather the point. Paganism, at least in my contact with it, has been partly predicated on the idea that religion does not need complex theological constructs to define it. The gods preside directly over the natural rythyms of the world and human social life. They can be seen in the changing of the seasons, in the attraction between man and woman, in the clashing of a violent thunderstorm. No need to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

In short, in paganism, the gods are real and immediate. Not off in some metaphysical ether. Hailstorm destroy your crops, burn an offering for x. Bugs infesting your root cellar, pray to y. Want to know what the future holds, burn some mandrake as incense and ask z for guidance.

So in conclusion, I don't see how the gods being worshipped today can't be the same gods being worshipped in ancient times, especially since the worshippers perceive them to be the same. After all, the US Postal Service isn't delivering the prayers, so they probably do get to whomever they are ment for.

Quoting novium from 08:28, 22nd Jun 2006
How can you worship the ancient roman gods when ancient roman religion was completely wrapped around things that have long since gone to dust? The people and the senate of rome? the spirit of the emperor? How about the cycles of life of the soldier-farmer, campaigning when not harvesting or planting?

You'll notice I have no similar criticisms for hinduism, which does have continuity, and which is a lot more tied to philosophy (as most relgions are, at least now) than the ancient ways we are discussing.

[hr]

I sing of arms, and the man...

[hr]

sed tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.

[novium]

the word I kept reaching for is polydaemonism

Quoting LonelyPilgrim from 08:55, 22nd Jun 2006

[hr]

I sing of arms, and the man...[/quote]

[hr]

sed tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.

[novium]

We're not questioning it's validity as a religion; just its historical roots. Unlike christianity, et al, they don't have a historical tradition and evolution over the centuries. That is all. It is a debate over the "reclaiming" thing.

Quoting Julie from 22:29, 20th Jun 2006
Thank god (whichever one you prefer) someone pointed out the Picts and Mucross. I am rather tired of these news articles insinuating that St Andrews' 'Christian legacy' is a viable excuse for undermining the legitimacy of other religions on campus. It's an important part of the town and nation's history and nothing more. Like rufus said, Christianity itself has changed considerably from its original form and practice and has had a number of upheavals, revolutions, and re-writings almost since its inception. Would Jesus have supported the practices of the politically entrenched, wealthy Mediaeval church? Wouldn't someone from the mediaeval church consider all forms of modern Protestantism profoundly heretical? Actual spiritual experience is not legitimized by majority religious tradition. Just because neo-paganism is a minority religion and does not have an unbroken lineage from pre-Christian times, it is no less legitimate a path as any major world religion, all of which had to start small themselves, and most of which relied heavily on politics and extensive conquest and conversion to get their point across to populations, not always necessarily the profundity of their beliefs.

[hr]

sed tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.

[Arashi]

Quoting exnihilo from 23:46, 22nd Jun 2006
But that's the whole point. Time has NOT changed Paganism. Time wiped it out and then it was reinvented. As I've already said, I don't question the legitimacy of your beliefs (much) but I do question the lineage of them. Modern pagans are not the heirs to centuries of tradition, however changed, they're the heirs to at most a century of tradition cobbled together and embelished by modern minds. It's a very different proposition.

Why is that the point? Does it really make a difference if a religion has direct lineage? I always thought religion was about belief, not direct bloodlines. That's the whole reason I'm pagan today instead of adhering to my Jewish roots, which do indeed trace all the way back to the Kohein tribe.

But it seems strange that this is the point of contention. I can't contend with your statement, for I'm not a historian, but I don't see the relevance in the age or lineage of a religion, in regards to its validity.

And in terms of your '(much)' comment... I'm surprised to hear it coming from you. I don't know why exactly, it's not like I know you, but I've been reading this board for a few years and you always seemed religiously tolerant, and I've always respected what you said (even when I didn't 100% agree). It seemed a bit snide, but I'm probably just reading into it.

[exnihilo]

You are. I am a religiously tolerant person, but the (much) is to say that there are some aspects of some pagans 'belief systems' that owe more to Buffy and to a need to feel all rebellious and dark than they do to any sense of deep spirituality. I have no problem with people having a personal belief system, I have a problem with poseurs, inconsistency and false claims.

The point is not the validity of anyone's personal beliefs; the point is the validity of the claim to be practicing the old faiths. You're not, you're practicing a modern, invented faith using old names and cobbled together bits of old rituals, which is all you can be due to the paucity of detail about most of the old religions and their mysteries.

For example, I defy any pagan who employs Isis as a totem to tell me the mysteries of her temple. You simply can't. Any more than I know what went on in the Holy of Holies in the Temple, but I don't claim to be following the rituals of the Holy of Holies in an unbroken line since before the time of Christ.

[sejanus]

Of course, all this talk of pagan continuity/discontinuity is made much more interesting by the decision of a court in Athens to lift the ban on worship of the ancient Greek gods - adherents there certainly seem to see themselves as part of a continuous pagan tradition:

Quoting the grauniad from 5th May 2006
"What we want, now, is for the government to fully recognise our religion," Vasillis Tsantilas told the Guardian. "We will petition the Greek parliament, and the EU if that fails, for access to worship in places like the Acropolis, for permission to have our own cemeteries and, where necessary, to re-bury the [ancient] bones of the dead.

Personally, I'm inclined to agree with Novium and Exnihilo that there is no true continuity there; paganism as it's understood now has very little in common with the way it worked in antiquity. To be honest, there's a growing number of ancient historians taking exception to use of the term 'pagan', given that it tends to conflate a number of ancient religions that did not necessarily have much in common (i.e. ancient Greek religion and Norse religion, for instance).

Having said that, there can't be any objections to anyone who follows a Pagan belief system today - or to their use of the Mansfield building (although I draw the line at anyone using the Parthenon or interfering with archeology!)

As an aside, Novium, just to make you jealous - I was recently allowed into the Parthenon, and had the opportunity to go up the surviving staircase that was added when it was turned into a Christian Church. Fabulous views of the Acropolis, Athens and the Parthenon reconstruction work...!

Edited because I'm unable to use punctuation.

[Arashi]

Quoting exnihilo from 05:51, 23rd Jun 2006
For example, I defy any pagan who employs Isis as a totem to tell me the mysteries of her temple. You simply can't. Any more than I know what went on in the Holy of Holies in the Temple, but I don't claim to be following the rituals of the Holy of Holies in an unbroken line since before the time of Christ.

And herein lies the misconception, for that is not what the majority of Paganism is about. I have never met a pagan who claimed ancient Isis as a totem, or Athena as her guiding light (although I'm sure there are people who believe that, and trust me I'd be just as unconvinced as you are). Mostly, we adhere to our basic principles of the Three-Fold Law - whatever you do comes back to you, times three - and a reverence for the natural cycle of life. Have you actually been to the St Andrews PaganSoc website? Take a look around, and visit our online forum. I trust you'd find more recipes for tasty baked goods than you'd expect, for one thing!

We're not all crazies and delusional hippies. We're people, just like you, who simply feel a connection with nature which translates into faith and reverence.

Just as any Christian would ask not to be judged by the ravings of fanatical street-corner preachers, I ask you not to judge us by the delusions of 'Wiccans' and 'Pagans' who treat religion more like a role-playing game than a belief system.

[Colin]

Unfortunately it is the case that all religions, of all sizes, are judged in the eyes of others based on the nutter element within them. Mainly because it is the crazy ones who shout loudest and go out of their way to antagonise others. It is the extremists whose behaviour and opinions end up defining the religion to the outside oberver.

[LonelyPilgrim]

novium: Stop arguing with me about the lack of continuity. The lack of continuity was in my first post for crying out loud. I've never said there was religious continuity.

What I have been saying is that the lack of religious continuity does not undermine the legitimacy of a pagan's belief that they are worshipping the same diety from 2000 years ago or more.

Is it really that hard to seperate human religion and the divine?

[hr]

I sing of arms, and the man...

[novium]

Oh, count me as green with envy. Additionally, I completely agree about the archaeology thing!

Quoting sejanus from 10:36, 23rd Jun 2006


Having said that, there can't be any objections to anyone who follows a Pagan belief system today - or to their use of the Mansfield building (although I draw the line at anyone using the Parthenon or interfering with archeology!)

As an aside, Novium, just to make you jealous - I was recently allowed into the Parthenon, and had the opportunity to go up the surviving staircase that was added when it was turned into a Christian Church. Fabulous views of the Acropolis, Athens and the Parthenon reconstruction work...!

Edited because I'm unable to use punctuation.

[hr]

sed tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.

[novium]

but lack of continuity is my ONLY real argument. People can believe whatever they want to. I'm not one to argue the validity of THAT, only the validity of claiming ancient roots. And that is where the issue of the divine etc comes in, because of the ancient conceptions and modern constructions.

Quoting LonelyPilgrim from 19:41, 23rd Jun 2006
novium: Stop arguing with me about the lack of continuity. The lack of continuity was in my first post for crying out loud. I've never said there was religious continuity.

What I have been saying is that the lack of religious continuity does not undermine the legitimacy of a pagan's belief that they are worshipping the same diety from 2000 years ago or more.

Is it really that hard to seperate human religion and the divine?

[hr]

I sing of arms, and the man...

[hr]

sed tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.

[novium]

And I am arguing that at the very least the lack of continuity does make it a different deity.
compare mars as sort of not a deity as much as the spirit of the fields with someone today deciding to worship mars as an all powerful god who demands a certain code of conduct/philosophy. But has nothing to do with crops, or sacrifices.

Same deity? I don't think so. Modern construction? Yes, I think so.
It's really no different than looking at an ancient building and deciding to rebuild it. What is rebuilt is *not* the ancient building. it is the modern construction of it, strained through our own biases and etc.

Quoting LonelyPilgrim from 19:41, 23rd Jun 2006


What I have been saying is that the lack of religious continuity does not undermine the legitimacy of a pagan's belief that they are worshipping the same diety from 2000 years ago or more.

Is it really that hard to seperate human religion and the divine?

[hr]

I sing of arms, and the man...

[hr]

sed tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.

[Bitterandtwisted]

Quoting novium from 05:29, 24th Jun 2006
And I am arguing that at the very least the lack of continuity does make it a different deity.
compare mars as sort of not a deity as much as the spirit of the fields with someone today deciding to worship mars as an all powerful god who demands a certain code of conduct/philosophy. But has nothing to do with crops, or sacrifices.

Same deity? I don't think so. Modern construction? Yes, I think so.
It's really no different than looking at an ancient building and deciding to rebuild it. What is rebuilt is *not* the ancient building. it is the modern construction of it, strained through our own biases and etc.

There's always the wacky notion that gods exist. If they were real, surely it would be the same god that was being worshipped?

[hr]

Look at that. Look at that. "Accident Blackspot"? These aren't accidents. They're throwing themselves into the road gladly. Throwing themselves into the road to escape all this hideousness. Throw yourself into the road, darling - you haven't got a chance.

[ezra]

or a third option, which nobody has yet considered, is that there's no such thing as an identity condition for fictitious characters

unlike in the case of ordinary reference, where you might think that we refer to whatever is causally responsible for our use of the term (or somesuch; there are other analyses), we simply lack references in the case of fictitious characters, such as deities. so the debate over whether or not we're referring to the same deity is a waste of time; there's simply no fact of the matter to be had.

E

[Cain]

welcome back Ezra.

For the benefits of windowlickers like myself, what's an identity condition, and why don't fictional characters have them?

[hr]

I hold an element of surprise