Polytheism: how do you view it?

[Pronghorn]

How do you view polytheism? I mean, seriously.

I would like to hear your thoughts.


---
Bring back the Greek gods
Mere mortals had a better life when more than one ruler presided from on high.

By Mary Lefkowitz
October 23, 2007

Prominent secular and atheist commentators have argued lately that religion "poisons" human life and causes endless violence and suffering. But the poison isn't religion; it's monotheism. The polytheistic Greeks didn't advocate killing those who worshiped different gods, and they did not pretend that their religion provided the right answers. Their religion made the ancient Greeks aware of their ignorance and weakness, letting them recognize multiple points of view.

There is much we still can learn from these ancient notions of divinity, even if we can agree that the practices of animal sacrifice, deification of leaders and divining the future through animal entrails and bird flights are well lost.

My Hindu students could always see something many scholars miss: The Greek gods weren't mere representations of forces in nature but independent beings with transcendent powers who controlled the world and everything in it. Some of the gods were strictly local, such as the deities of rivers and forests. Others were universal, such as Zeus, his siblings and his children.

Zeus did not communicate directly with humankind. But his children -- Athena, Apollo and Dionysus -- played active roles in human life. Athena was the closest to Zeus of all the gods; without her aid, none of the great heroes could accomplish anything extraordinary. Apollo could tell mortals what the future had in store for them. Dionysus could alter human perception to make people see what's not really there. He was worshiped in antiquity as the god of the theater and of wine. Today, he would be the god of psychology.

Zeus, the ruler of the gods, retained his power by using his intelligence along with superior force. Unlike his father (whom he deposed), he did not keep all the power for himself but granted rights and privileges to other gods. He was not an autocratic ruler but listened to, and was often persuaded by, the other gods.

Openness to discussion and inquiry is a distinguishing feature of Greek theology. It suggests that collective decisions often lead to a better outcome. Respect for a diversity of viewpoints informs the cooperative system of government the Athenians called democracy.

Unlike the monotheistic traditions, Greco-Roman polytheism was multicultural. The Greeks and Romans did not share the narrow view of the ancient Hebrews that a divinity could only be masculine. Like many other ancient peoples in the eastern Mediterranean, the Greeks recognized female divinities, and they attributed to goddesses almost all of the powers held by the male gods.

The world, as the Greek philosopher Thales wrote, is full of gods, and all deserve respect and honor. Such a generous understanding of the nature of divinity allowed the ancient Greeks and Romans to accept and respect other people's gods and to admire (rather than despise) other nations for their own notions of piety. If the Greeks were in close contact with a particular nation, they gave the foreign gods names of their own gods: the Egyptian goddess Isis was Demeter, Horus was Apollo, and so on. Thus they incorporated other people's gods into their pantheon.

What they did not approve of was atheism, by which they meant refusal to believe in the existence of any gods at all. One reason many Athenians resented Socrates was that he claimed a divinity spoke with him privately, but he could not name it. Similarly, when Christians denied the existence of any gods other than their own, the Romans suspected political or seditious motives and persecuted them as enemies of the state.

The existence of many different gods also offers a more plausible account than monotheism of the presence of evil and confusion in the world. A mortal may have had the support of one god but incur the enmity of another, who could attack when the patron god was away. The goddess Hera hated the hero Heracles and sent the goddess Madness to make him kill his wife and children. Heracles' father, Zeus, did nothing to stop her, although he did in the end make Heracles immortal.

But in the monotheistic traditions, in which God is omnipresent and always good, mortals must take the blame for whatever goes wrong, even though God permits evil to exist in the world he created. In the Old Testament, God takes away Job's family and his wealth but restores him to prosperity after Job acknowledges God's power.

The god of the Hebrews created the Earth for the benefit of humankind. But as the Greeks saw it, the gods made life hard for humans, didn't seek to improve the human condition and allowed people to suffer and die. As a palliative, the gods could offer only to see that great achievement was memorialized. There was no hope of redemption, no promise of a happy life or rewards after death. If things did go wrong, as they inevitably did, humans had to seek comfort not from the gods but from other humans.

The separation between humankind and the gods made it possible for humans to complain to the gods without the guilt or fear of reprisal the deity of the Old Testament inspired. Mortals were free to speculate about the character and intentions of the gods. By allowing mortals to ask hard questions, Greek theology encouraged them to learn, to seek all the possible causes of events. Philosophy -- that characteristically Greek invention -- had its roots in such theological inquiry. As did science.

Paradoxically, the main advantage of ancient Greek religion lies in this ability to recognize and accept human fallibility. Mortals cannot suppose that they have all the answers. The people most likely to know what to do are prophets directly inspired by a god. Yet prophets inevitably meet resistance, because people hear only what they wish to hear, whether or not it is true. Mortals are particularly prone to error at the moments when they think they know what they are doing. The gods are fully aware of this human weakness. If they choose to communicate with mortals, they tend to do so only indirectly, by signs and portents, which mortals often misinterpret.

Ancient Greek religion gives an account of the world that in many respects is more plausible than that offered by the monotheistic traditions. Greek theology openly discourages blind confidence based on unrealistic hopes that everything will work out in the end. Such healthy skepticism about human intelligence and achievements has never been needed more than it is today.

Mary Lefkowitz is professor emerita at Wellesley College and the author of "Greek Gods, Human Lives" and the forthcoming "History Lesson."

[Boxing Judge]

Belief in the trinity is polytheism, window dressed heavily to look like monotheism.

Blind faith is also polytheism.

[Pronghorn]

^ I don't understand how "blind faith" can be considered polytheism? Care to explain?

[Boxing Judge]

The source of faith is supposed to be God. When you believe whatever the priests, pastors, imams and ministers say without even verifying, questioning or studying what they say, you treat them like gods. It is to them you submit, not to God.

[Pronghorn]

The source of faith is supposed to be God. When you believe whatever the priests, pastors, imams and ministers say without even verifying, questioning or studying what they say, you treat them like gods. It is to them you submit, not to God.

Ah, I see. I understand.

But branding "blind faith" as polytheism sounds as if polytheism is such a *bad* system? I could say "blind faith" is monotheism. Drawing morality from the "Bible" and from the Bible alone without question or verification is like submitting to it.

[Boxing Judge]

You have a very good point Pronghorn.

You could also say blind faith is monotheism.

I realize that I could address my definition of polytheism only to religious people of so-called monotheist faiths.

[Pronghorn]

Any good arguments against polytheism? ASIDE from those coming from the Abrahamic bibles?

[SamLowry]

Any good arguments against polytheism? ASIDE from those coming from the Abrahamic bibles?

Not sure if you are serious with this thread but here is my take:

We've cut down the number of gods from thousands to hundreds to 1 (or 3.5 sa catholics, 1.5 sa protestante ). I think that's progress. Why bring us back to the bronze age?



konti nalang...padadamihin pa uli?

[Pronghorn]

Not sure if you are serious with this thread but here is my take:

We've cut down the number of gods from thousands to hundreds to 1 (or 3.5 sa catholics, 1.5 sa protestante ). I think that's progress. Why bring us back to the bronze age?



konti nalang...padadamihin pa uli?

So from what you're saying, having multiple "gods" makes us primitive?

Yes SamLowry, I happen to be serious.

My theology is largely polytheistic-to-panentheistic. I just wanted to know if other people had something REAL against it other than the usual Christian "my god-which-is-real is better than your god-which-isn't" argument.

It is nice to hear the objections to one's arguments. "St. Thomas Aquinas always said that it is important to know the objections to any teaching that you accept. When you face those objections you can come to know your own position better."

[Pronghorn]

Oh, and Mary Lefkowitz was just as serious with what she wrote. To her, society was better administered with polytheism than monotheism.

[Onomatopoet]

the idea of mono or polytheism doesn't really bother me. whatever floats your ark is fine as long there is NO or minimal evangelism.

[SamLowry]

So from what you're saying, having multiple "gods" makes us primitive?

Yes SamLowry, I happen to be serious.

My theology is largely polytheistic-to-panentheistic. I just wanted to know if other people had something REAL against it other than the usual Christian "my god-which-is-real is better than your god-which-isn't" argument.

It is nice to hear the objections to one's arguments. "St. Thomas Aquinas always said that it is important to know the objections to any teaching that you accept. When you face those objections you can come to know your own position better."

there's hardly any good reason to believe in 1 god... what more for 10-20?

It's not that these beliefs are benign that we can just let it go. People die and civil liberties are trampled on in the name of Faith. having as few baseless and unreasonable beliefs as possible would be better for the world.

So my objection is that it is a regression to our path to REASON. It's faith x 10. It's hard enough to have to tread on eggshells just to accomodate beliefs based on silly writings, multiplying it by 100 is just insane. would we now try to limit the use of fire as it displeases some gods? would sea travel be curtailed in certain months because poseidon is taking his beauty sleep? we could go on and on and end up with silly restrictions in reverence to gods that don't even exist.


Btw, why are you leaning towards the greek gods? why not just become hindu?

[Pronghorn]

there's hardly any good reason to believe in 1 god... what more for 10-20?

It's not that these beliefs are benign that we can just let it go. People die and civil liberties are trampled on in the name of Faith. having as few baseless and unreasonable beliefs as possible would be better for the world.

So my objection is that it is a regression to our path to REASON. It's faith x 10.

This isn't about "faith". I hardly have faith that the death god will spare me if I "pray" to him. I don't think he cares about me at all. Not all religious thinkers live by blind faith and/or crude logic. Rather what we (most modern polytheists/animists/panentheists) have (ideally) is acknowledgment...and relationship. That yes, the force of death exists and that there is a need to ackowledge its awesome power: mortality. That perhaps by building a "relationship" with it will help us understand our existence more and serve society better. By respecting one's life and that of others - are we not doing 'good' things? There are other examples. Art, science, beauty, health, marine life, etc. We live in a god-ingested world. They animate the universe.

It's hard enough to have to tread on eggshells to just to accomodate beliefs based on silly writings, multiplying it by 100 is just insane. would we now try to limit the use of fire as it displeases some gods? would sea travel be curtailed in certain months because poseidon is taking his beauty sleep? we could go on and on and end up with silly restrictions in reverence to gods that don't even exist.

I guess the problem with a lot of people today is that they limit themselves to the pictures and stories in commercial mythology books when they hear 'gods'. Read about modern polytheism. Gods are forces. The stories and personalities we attribute to these natural and societal forces are simply our artistic/philosophical interpretations to their nature. And these interpretations change and evolve. People seem to need images to relate to the abstract. Familiar things. In classical Greece, the cultivated earth was depicted in art as a compassionate mother with golden locks. Of course the cultivated earth is actually dark and smelly! But they needed a face to the earth they so loved. And I don't see anything wrong with that. No sane Hellenist today would claim that Zeus is a ruggedly handsome king above the clouds with the hots for human babes. They'd be facing the same ridicule from their peers would they have seriously thought so.

Simply put, there is no question to the existence of the gods I speak of. The process through which rain is transformed from vapour to separate drops of water is an undoubted fact. It's just that some people like to relate to the whole thing in "human" terms. People like drama.

Btw, why are you leaning towards the greek gods? why not just become hindu?

I'm not really leaning towards the Greek shells. Just for the most part. My religious system is ancestrally patterned. Since I'm a mix of Mediterranean, Central European, Chinese, and Austronesian ethnic strains - my practice follows.

I think there's a lot about being Indian in Hinduism (like being Japanese in Shinto), so I wouldn't really feel at home with it.


...
We're not so different you and I, SamLowry. We seem to believe in the same modern principles of science and history. You seem to detest evangelical creationism as much as I do. I think Moses (should an historical Moses exist at all) took hashish while on Sinai, do you too?

You deal with life's forces everyday just as I do. The only difference is that I acknowledge those forces as personalities, and to you they are just that - forces. And there is nothing wrong with either outlook.

Peace.

[rickym]

bold is mine

Rather what we (most modern polytheists/animists/panentheteists) have (ideally) is acknowledgment...and relationship. That yes, the force of death exists and that there is a need to ackowledge its awesome power: mortality. That perhaps by building a "relationship" with it will help us understand our existence more and serve society better. By respecting one's life and that of others - are we not doing 'good' things? There are other examples. Art, science, beauty, health, marine life, etc. We live in a god-ingested world. They animate the universe.

I guess the problem with a lot of people today is that they limit themselves to the pictures and stories in commercial mythology books when they hear 'gods'. Read about modern polytheism. Gods are forces. The stories and personalities we attribute to these natural and societal forces are simply our artistic/philosophical interpretations to their nature. And these interpretations change and evolve. People seem to need images to relate to the abstract. Familiar things. In classical Greece, the cultivated earth was depicted in art as a compassionate mother with golden locks. Of course the cultivated earth is actually dark and smelly in reality! But they needed a face to the earth they so loved. And I don't see anything wrong with that. No sane Hellenist today would claim that Zeus is a ruggedly handsome king above the clouds with the hots for human babes. They'd be facing the same ridicule from their peers would they have seriously thought so.

Simply put, there is no question to the existence of the gods I speak of. The process through which rain is transformed from vapour to separate drops of water is an undoubted fact. It's just that some people like to relate to the whole thing in "human" terms. People like drama.

You deal with life's forces everyday just as I do. The only difference is that I acknowledge those forces as personalities, and to you they are just that - forces. And there is nothing wrong with either outlook.

interesting read. i've noticed that also. if that is true, then do you think that what that belief system wanted to do was to personify the force by giving him a 'human appearance'? if that is true, then what is the real nature of that god? what emotions which are attributed to them are true and what are overly done? just how impersonall are the gods anyway?

[Pronghorn]

bold is mine






interesting read. i've noticed that also. if that is true, then do you think that what that belief system wanted to do was to personify the force by giving him a 'human appearance'? if that is true, then what is the real nature of that god? what emotions which are attributed to them are true and what are overly done? just how impersonall are the gods anyway?

1. Anthropomorphism seems to be a common and natural tendency. The abstract is made more accessible and familiar.

2. The "actual" nature of the gods will always be a mystery to me. I cannot answer you beyond personal opinion and experience.

My stand on this is that since they are concentrations of fundamental energy, their natures should be obvious. Beauty is beauty, war is war, the rain is the rain. They manifest what they are. No lies, all raw power. It's just that we interpret their actions in human terms. Angry storms, bloodthirsty wars, merciless winters. It's the way we convey things, it's the way our language works.

Perhaps 'Hermes' doesn't really care when I whistle a thank you to him every time I get home safely. It doesn't matter. I'm human, I thank people when they do good to me, and so I thank the god that has kept me safe in these human ways.

Prayer to me is not faith. But acknowledgement. The gods will not do for us what we cannot do for ourselves. By praying for safety everytime I commute from my place to the office, I'm not throwing the responsibility to some external force - I'm acknowledging the fact that it is a dangerous world beyond my home and that I have to be extra alert; and practise cunning wit to ensure my safety. Hermes protects those who keep their senses open on the road.

[Pronghorn]

Cross-posting from this thread to here in response to SamLowry here. Perhaps this is the right thread, hehe.


How is my theism different from traditional theism?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'traditional theism'. I know for one that belief patterns can be extremely complex, that they cannot be so easily boxed as to how they should be be practised by individuals. But I suppose my theism is different from Mainstream Christian theism in the sense that I don't believe in the "supernatural". Everything that happens is natural. Everything has a rational explanation in nature. However, this is not to say that rational experiences are to be devoid of "spirituality". Thunder and lightning are natural phenomena with obvious rational explanations to us modern folk but at the same time a paganus like myself would certainly find something spiritual in watching them 'work it'.

On Greek Gods.

I worship the Gods in a Greek approach amongst many understandings (I will explain more of this later). But they're not really Greek. The Gods are the Gods. Raw forces of the universe. The only difference between my stand and that of the conventional western atheist's is that I try to build personal relationships with these forces and that I anthromorphise them freely i.e. human language used on non-humans.

My Nicene Creed.

To borrow words from a Hellenistai colleague, "[my religion] isn't a credal religion. Hellenismos (will also explain later) varies from city to city, and from era to era, over at least hundreds of cities and 1500 years. This creates a need for experience, for experiment. Instead of creed, Hellenismos has philosophy, myth, and prophecy - each of which requires interpretation. This process is the prehistory of modern science."

This works the same for other modern polytheistic religions like Kemeticism, Celtic Reconstructionism, Canaanite Recon, etc.

Belief and practice for many modern pagans are not credal. Most of "us" believe that religion is experiential, experimental, and philosophical. Continuous thought, analysis, evaluation, and scrutiny of what one believes in is greatly encouraged.

Are my gods sentient?
I would believe so swearing by personal experience but I might find difficulty in proving that to the lot, so I won't. The non-human sentience of gods are entirely through personal interpretation.

Influence the earth today?
Yes, of course, as they have always had - don't (e.g.) thunder and lightning influence the earth today? Think of god as a synonym of force.

Answers prayers?
Prayer isn't always about "asking something". In fact, to me, prayer is more of reflection, meditation, focus, grounding. Asking for something would be a petition, one form of prayer/ritual. I don't always believe in asking external forces for desires. I still believe in what I said here: "Prayer to me is not faith. But acknowledgment. The gods will not do for us what we cannot do for ourselves. By praying for safety everytime I commute from my place to the office, I'm not throwing the responsibility to some external force - I'm acknowledging the fact that it is a dangerous world beyond my home and that I have to be extra alert; and practise cunning wit to ensure my safety. Hermes protects those who keep their senses open on the road."

Makes themselves known to men and women?

Yes, they make themselves known day by day. At every point in our lives. They are there. But whether one translates their presence as sentient or not or what-have-you is subject to personal interpretation (yet again). If my history is correct, Yahweh was originally a storm (Canaanite) god. He was vengeful and arrogant to some people, but could've been compassionate to others. No one can say for sure whether the storm is vengeful or compassionate of course, in the human sense that is. He's just the way he is. Yahweh has probably suffered much under his self-proclaimed spokes-people who claim loads of different stuff.

What makes me think they exist instead of say, Hindu gods?

I'll let another colleague answer this:
You're probably expressing this in Abrahamic formulas. The ancients, whether Hellenic, Egyptian, Indian or other, did not understand themselves as "following different religions" or even, necessarily following different Gods. It was always understood that the God spoken of as Dionysos in Hellas might be known under other names elsewhere.

And it was always understood that when one experiences the presence of a God and names that God Apollon, one is being only relatively accurate; the Gods cannot be fully known. So that Hellenismos means not yielding to a dogma - on faith - but walking into a vocabulary, inserting oneself into that vocabulary.

Are they gods in the traditional sense?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Is my belief system deistic?

"Deism is the belief that there is a God that created the physical universe but does not interfere with it. "

If this is what you mean by deism then, no, my belief system contains very little deism.

"Interfere" would be an unfair word though. IMO they are part of the world, not unlike us. They don't stand outside of nature, like a divine watchmaker. They grow out of it, just as we do. And when they act, they act through the laws of nature, not against them. For just about any phenomenon that a polytheist might express in divine terms, there can likely be found a "natural" or "scientific" explanation, without reference to deity. The difference IMO is what happens to the polytheist as a result of his/her working with divine terms--the "powerful response" mentioned above. This, in polytheist terms, is a divine blessing received, the power of communion.

---
That is all I have in response to his questions. If there's anything that is confusing or unclear, please ask away. Always happy to clarify.

If you want to learn more about Hellenismos or indigenous European polytheism/reconstructionism, my friend Sannion has a site that is happy to give insight: http://www.winterscapes.com/sannion/...polytheism.htm.

---
Those are not my best answers up there, but I tried.

Anyway, here's another source on Ethnic Reconstructionist religion: http://www.wcer.org

[aida]

The source of faith is supposed to be God. When you believe whatever the priests, pastors, imams and ministers say without even verifying, questioning or studying what they say, you treat them like gods. It is to them you submit, not to God.

The story in the Garden of Eden is an illustration of how people sin to God.

GENESIS 16:17 "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

GENESIS 3:4-5 "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

God commanded the man not to eat the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The serpent tempted Eve and she succumbed to the temptation and disobeyed God.

GENESIS 2:9 "And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil."

On careful scrunity, there are three kinds of trees growing on the
ground. Ang lupa ay sumisimbolo sa tao:

JEREMIAH 22:29 "O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD."

Sa tao, kung gayon, pinatubo ng Dios ang tatlong uri ng punong kahoy. Here are the kinds of tree and their equivalent:

1. Tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food - BODY
2. Tree of life - SPIRIT
3. Tree of Knowledge of good and evil - SOUL

GENESIS 3:3 "But of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

Take note that the forbidden tree is in the midst of the garden. Truly so, the SOUL, which is the forbidden tree, is in the midst of our body and spirit. Dito pumapasok na ang buhay natin ay nahahati sa dalawang uri: buhay-espirituwal at buhay-pisikal. Sa pisikal at espirituwal nating buhay, may linyang nagpapahiwalay sa gitna nito at ito ay ang ating KALULUWA na nakapagitan. Sa bahaging pisikal, ang ating pinagagana ay ang KALULUWA at KATAWAN, at sa espirituwal naman ay ang KALULUWA at ESPIRITU.

Ang ipinagbabawal na puno ay ang KALULUWA at ang mga bunga nito. Ito ay ang mga "bunga ng tao" na kabaligtaran ng sa "Bunga ng Espiritu."

GALATIANS 5:22 "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law."

Let me illustrate the difference on a particular fruit, say, TEMPERANCE or self-control. In the perception of many, SELF-CONTROL is attained through the words of God with will power and mind conditioning. This is what every religion and religious sect teach using philosophy. To follow the comamandment of "Thou shalt not commit adultery," the people control themselves by conditioning their minds that to commit adultery is a sin that will bring them to hell. It is immoral that will ostracize them before their peer and the people.That it will result in many more unfavorable consequences, such us imprisonment or even death in the hands of the aggrieved party. They may succeed controlling themselves from the commandment. But without the deterrent factors mentioned, it is still easy for them to violate the commandment. The sweetness of the sin is still in them. Therefore, given the opportunity to commit it, sans the drawback factors, their bannered self-control is already out of control. This is the "fruit of man."

God is our spiritual husband. In our union with Him, He plants His "seeds" to us (the seeds are his words Luke 8:11) of which the children are the fruits of the Spirit. If we are faithful to Him, we only accept His words. Our union wih God now produces this fruit of SELF-CONTROL, which is not the result of will power or mind-conditoning and self-discipline. Rather, we follow "Thou shalt not commit adultery" because the sin ceases to be attractive to us.

Actually, ang espirituwal na pangangalunya ay pagkakaroon ng ibang espirituwal na asawa liban sa Dios.

AMOS 3:3 "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?"

Makalalakad ba ang espirituwal nating buhay ng hindi maayos ang pisikal nating buhay? Magpaka espirituwal muna tayo at umasa sa Dios sa bahaging espirituwal para ang pisikal nating buhay ay umayos din naman.

1 TIMOTHY 2:14-15 "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."

"Childbearing" means the fruitfulness of man (o pagkakaroon ng lahat na bunga ng Espiritu), in union with God.

Sina Eva at Adan, matapos mapaghulo ang kanilang kasalanan (o mapagalamang sila'y mga espirituwal na patay) at mapagkilalang sila’y hubad o walang damit ng kaligtasan, sila ay tumahi ng mga “dahon ng igos" bilang panapi. Ito ay nagbabadya ng kanilang pagnanais na muling makamtan ang “sa pagkalalang na kaligtasan” na sa kanila ay nawala dala ng pagsuway sa Dios. Sa kahulihulihan ang kanilang mga kasuotan ay pinalitan ng Panginoon ng “kasuutang balat” at sila’y dinamitan.28 Ang “kasuutang balat,” ito ang tunay na DAMIT NG KALIGTASAN (Isaias 61:10) sapagka’t sa Dios nagmula, at Siya ang nagbihis. Ang mga ipinahayag, ito ang kahulugan ng pamamagasa sa Dios (lamang) ukol sa kaligtasan. Dalawang bagay lang: Makinig tao sa Dios o sa mga "bulaang Cristo."

[rickym]

The source of faith is supposed to be God. When you believe whatever the priests, pastors, imams and ministers say without even verifying, questioning or studying what they say, you treat them like gods. It is to them you submit, not to God.

so exactly what has god said? the whole bible is not exactly written by god. it has been written by men who claim that it is inspired by god.

[SamLowry]

Cross-posting from this thread to here in response to SamLowry here. Perhaps this is the right thread, hehe.


How is my theism different from traditional theism?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'traditional theism'. I know for one that belief patterns can be extremely complex, that they cannot be so easily boxed as to how they should be be practised by individuals. But I suppose my theism is different from Mainstream Christian theism in the sense that I don't believe in the "supernatural". Everything that happens is natural. Everything has a rational explanation in nature. However, this is not to say that rational experiences are to be devoid of "spirituality". Thunder and lightning are natural phenomena with obvious rational explanations to us modern folk but at the same time a paganus like myself would certainly find something spiritual in watching them 'work it'.

On Greek Gods.

I worship the Gods in a Greek approach amongst many understandings (I will explain more of this later). But they're not really Greek. The Gods are the Gods. Raw forces of the universe. The only difference between my stand and that of the conventional western atheist's is that I try to build personal relationships with these forces and that I anthromorphise them freely i.e. human language used on non-humans.

My Nicene Creed.

To borrow words from a Hellenistai colleague, "[my religion] isn't a credal religion. Hellenismos (will also explain later) varies from city to city, and from era to era, over at least hundreds of cities and 1500 years. This creates a need for experience, for experiment. Instead of creed, Hellenismos has philosophy, myth, and prophecy - each of which requires interpretation. This process is the prehistory of modern science."

This works the same for other modern polytheistic religions like Kemeticism, Celtic Reconstructionism, Canaanite Recon, etc.

Belief and practice for many modern pagans are not credal. Most of "us" believe that religion is experiential, experimental, and philosophical. Continuous thought, analysis, evaluation, and scrutiny of what one believes in is greatly encouraged.

Are my gods sentient?
I would believe so swearing by personal experience but I might find difficulty in proving that to the lot, so I won't. The non-human sentience of gods are entirely through personal interpretation.

Influence the earth today?
Yes, of course, as they have always had - don't (e.g.) thunder and lightning influence the earth today? Think of god as a synonym of force.

Answers prayers?
Prayer isn't always about "asking something". In fact, to me, prayer is more of reflection, meditation, focus, grounding. Asking for something would be a petition, one form of prayer/ritual. I don't always believe in asking external forces for desires. I still believe in what I said here: "Prayer to me is not faith. But acknowledgment. The gods will not do for us what we cannot do for ourselves. By praying for safety everytime I commute from my place to the office, I'm not throwing the responsibility to some external force - I'm acknowledging the fact that it is a dangerous world beyond my home and that I have to be extra alert; and practise cunning wit to ensure my safety. Hermes protects those who keep their senses open on the road."

Makes themselves known to men and women?

Yes, they make themselves known day by day. At every point in our lives. They are there. But whether one translates their presence as sentient or not or what-have-you is subject to personal interpretation (yet again). If my history is correct, Yahweh was originally a storm (Canaanite) god. He was vengeful and arrogant to some people, but could've been compassionate to others. No one can say for sure whether the storm is vengeful or compassionate of course, in the human sense that is. He's just the way he is. Yahweh has probably suffered much under his self-proclaimed spokes-people who claim loads of different stuff.

What makes me think they exist instead of say, Hindu gods?

I'll let another colleague answer this:
You're probably expressing this in Abrahamic formulas. The ancients, whether Hellenic, Egyptian, Indian or other, did not understand themselves as "following different religions" or even, necessarily following different Gods. It was always understood that the God spoken of as Dionysos in Hellas might be known under other names elsewhere.

And it was always understood that when one experiences the presence of a God and names that God Apollon, one is being only relatively accurate; the Gods cannot be fully known. So that Hellenismos means not yielding to a dogma - on faith - but walking into a vocabulary, inserting oneself into that vocabulary.

Are they gods in the traditional sense?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Is my belief system deistic?

"Deism is the belief that there is a God that created the physical universe but does not interfere with it. "

If this is what you mean by deism then, no, my belief system contains very little deism.

"Interfere" would be an unfair word though. IMO they are part of the world, not unlike us. They don't stand outside of nature, like a divine watchmaker. They grow out of it, just as we do. And when they act, they act through the laws of nature, not against them. For just about any phenomenon that a polytheist might express in divine terms, there can likely be found a "natural" or "scientific" explanation, without reference to deity. The difference IMO is what happens to the polytheist as a result of his/her working with divine terms--the "powerful response" mentioned above. This, in polytheist terms, is a divine blessing received, the power of communion.

---
That is all I have in response to his questions. If there's anything that is confusing or unclear, please ask away. Always happy to clarify.

If you want to learn more about Hellenismos or indigenous European polytheism/reconstructionism, my friend Sannion has a site that is happy to give insight: http://www.winterscapes.com/sannion/...polytheism.htm.

---
Those are not my best answers up there, but I tried.

Anyway, here's another source on Ethnic Reconstructionist religion: http://www.wcer.org

thanks for addressing my questions, Pronghorn. I have to admit, I totally don't get the reason why we have to "reconstruct ethnic beliefs" when anthropology has a simpler, more elegant answer: Scared, superstitious people trying their best to make sense of the world without scientific knowledge. Sun was once worshipped and we thanked it for being faithful and never failing to rise. We now know it's a ball of gas that has no choice in the matter. What compels you to think it is sentient and could be conversed with? Hate to use the "e" word but... is there evidence that they talk back?

Well, there's global warming, you may be our only hope

Will try to read up on it so I may then attack it with fervor and fulfill my anti-theist mission here in ROT.

[Pronghorn]

thanks for addressing my questions, Pronghorn. I have to admit, I totally don't get the reason why we have to "reconstruct ethnic beliefs" when anthropology has a simpler, more elegant answer: Scared, superstitious people trying their best to make sense of the world without scientific knowledge. Sun was once worshipped and we thanked it for being faithful and never failing to rise. We now know it's a ball of gas that has no choice in the matter. What compels you to think it is sentient and could be conversed with? Hate to use the "e" word but... is there evidence that they talk back?

Well, there's global warming, you may be our only hope

Will try to read up on it so I may then attack it with fervor and fulfill my anti-theist mission here in ROT.

You're welcome.

I understand that Ethnic Reconstructionism may be new to you. I suggest that you read more about it (take note to read from the more sane writers, though) before you "attack," as you can attack all you want afterwards. I am always open to argument as long as it is promisingly productive. Like I said, I believe continuous evaluation of one's beliefs and practices should be greatly encouraged.


Anyway, I have a "few" points to raise:

1. You are probably right that the Paleolithic peoples were scared, superstitious people trying their best to make sense of the world with little or no scientific knowledge. We all know that. I know my anthropology. (Heck, many Recons are anthropologists themselves!)

But we are just NOT those people anymore, Sam. We haven't been for a very, very long time. The same way that you (if you're Filipino) aren't your boat-trading Proto-Malay ancestor that settled south of Formosa many millenia ago.

You are terribly mistaken if you're thinking that 'Ethnic Reconstructionism' is about restoring the EXACT ways of life our ancestors had and forgetting everything else that's happened in the past thousand years. Whilst SOME Reconstructionists can certainly try to do that, most don't and won't. Majority of them are primarily concerned with adapting ancient practice to life in the modern world (which IMO has been culturally retarded for too long!). All the ideological, philosophical progress and scientific understandings we've 'attained' are most certainly retained if not tried to improve. Hellenic Recons should know. The ancient Greeks started the whole argue-philosophy and pursue-science trend!

Again, it would be helpful to read about it more. Wiki can give you a start: recon article

2. Remember what I said about thanking at post#15? It doesn't matter if the sun cares we thank it/him/her for rising each morning. We know it doesn't have the same qualities we humans utilise to recognise gratitude! But we just thank him. It's a human act to thank, it's part of our sentience. Offering a bowl of rice to one's dead ancestors doesn't mean that they'll physically ingest it or that they need it for sustenance. It's a gesture. A human gesture. Things that WE do as living human beings as part of our culture.

3.1 No sane Hellenist today would dare claim that the Sun is not the ball of burning gas that we know by science! Again, please do not confuse us with our Paleolith ancestors. We have certainly progressed like everybody else (well, maybe not everybody's progressed ).

3.2 No need for sarcasm. My proposed solutions to global warming will probably be very similar to yours.

4. If you are arguing for proof for the sentience of the protogenoi (sun, moon, sea, air, moisture), I can offer you NONE beyond personal experience. I THINK they're sentient. Not in the human sense of course. But they have their own qualities that we can relate to in human terms IMO.

And I didn't say they could "talk" back. Not in the human sense. Like I always say, we just interpret things in human terms. That's how our language works. The thunderstorm is just doing what it's supposed to do, like everytime. We just use the word "angry" and "ravaging" to relate to it, and that's pretty much it.

5. You once mentioned that you're only against religions that may or have been affecting your life. I dare say that most of Ethnic Reconstructionism, like most of Buddhism, has very little negative impact on the world. Heck, with people respecting the powers of the nature, we'll have less pollutant drivers!


Peace, neighbour.