To ALL Recons -- A Question

[Morr]

Am I the only one who grinds her teeth when she reads/hears other people's belief that the Gods were created by our (humans) thoughts? That their form, their personalities, their attributes are all human "designed"?

While I respect everyone's opinion and I would never judge others' religion and spirituality, I dont really see/understand this point of view.

Is it just me personally, or the Recon community as a whole?

I view the Gods as very very old and highly enlightened ancestors. Unique, independent and different all on their own right. Seperate and individual and certainly not a creation of man.

While their histories and myths may have been romanticized by humans, nothing is of course to be taken LITERALLY in every single sense of the word, I still think that they are Deities -- Higher spiritual beings than us.

I was wondering if other recons share this belief or not?

Is trying to put this sort of... logic, I guess, into the Gods a modern thing?

Whats wrong with just believing in their existance, loving them, learning from them, letting them love and teach us, learning from their myths and histories, loving nature and the land?

I sometimes feel like those who put all this logic into how the Gods have formed in a sort of scientific way where the Gods depend on humans to exist or to have been created to begin with, view me as a fool or a "fluff" for simply believing that the Gods are -- Gods. Seperate, unique, powerful, spiritual and Divine beings with their own purpose in this universe. Beings who have earned their right to be Gods, great ancestors and teachers who have evolved through englightment and great deeds to the position of Gods (who to many recons are not JUST Gods, but fathers, mothers, teachers, family, friends)?


I dont know if I'm making sense here... I sure hope I do though! :lol:


Thanks :)

[Agaliha]

_inabox_
Ha. Well this question involves my personal beliefs. ::sigh::
Though I won't take anything said here personally, I can't help but feeling...I don't know. Something. :awilly:

I used to believe in the gods, just like you did Morr...but I can't anymore. I've tried. Doesn't work for me. I've looked into over 11 faiths (besides Paganism) and tons within Paganism itself in about 7 years or more. I can't find a place anywhere.
About 6 months ago I had a crisis of faith and something...snapped. I lost all feeling, bonds and connections with the gods I thought I had.
I'd love to believe in them like you do, I really would...but something won't let me.

I'm an agnostic pantheist with who knows what else in the mix.
I believe in energies and spirits, but not gods.
I see all the known gods as created by humanity to describe various aspects of life on Earth-- from emotions, to nature and animals to the unknown of death and the universe. I see the known gods as symbolic, metaphorical, aychetypes, and personifications. Not real, literal beings.
Oh, I did want to add that I believe in a Source energy, not god...energy. I see it as something so vast we can't experience it...and there fore make gods to compensate.
I see the known gods as being part of us because they were created by us. For example, I see Seshet and Saraswati in every creator, artist, writer, poet...without people that did those things there would be no deity to become those things.
Even though I don't have any gods in my path now, I still look to them-- as role models, symbols, and guides. A lot of mythology has stories that can help people though hard times and can resonate with life experiences.
I love cats, I see Bast as a representation of that.
I love writing, reading, books, libraries and I see Seshet and Saraswati as representations of that.
Most of the gods I was drawn to her just outward representation of myself, interests or things I was lacking and needed.
I don't worship them, I just recognize them in myself and honor those aspects. I still love them for being them and I learn from them all the time...just not like you or other theists do.

I understand you don't agree with it, that's fine. I know your side because I was once there. I'm basing all this off my experiences, the gods proved themself not here to me. I tried and tried and tried. Nothing. Makes me think they were never there.
I just I don't know...right now this is what I believe, I'm open to the possiblity of change and perhaps I was wrong about them and they are there, perhaps I just wasn't looking to the right gods, perhaps they're punishing me and left...I have no idea.

I have an idea what most people replying to this thread will say, I know my views are a minority here. Sucks at times, but oh well. :twitch:

I don't plan on arguing my beliefs, there's no point, people believe what they believe. I just wanted to post...for some reason.

[Morr]

Thats why I posted it in the Recons forum ;)

I just wanted to see if its JUST me, or the nature of my beliefs and spiritual paths.

I dont think you are WRONG. I understand that just as I CANNOT comprehend your point of view of the Gods created by us people, you canot comprehend or feel the Deities as I see them.

Again, this is not bashing anyone who doesnt believe in the Gods as I do. I just wanted to really see if I'm just a crazy fanatic with my devotion to my Gods, or if its a Recon-wide belief (more or less).

[Agaliha]

I know. I just felt the need to post, explain maybe. I don't know.
I'm curious what others will say too, though I do have an idea already.

[ap Dafydd]

Am I the only one who grinds her teeth when she reads/hears other people's belief that the Gods were created by our (humans) thoughts? That their form, their personalities, their attributes are all human "designed"?


I sometimes feel like those who put all this logic into how the Gods have formed in a sort of scientific way where the Gods depend on humans to exist or to have been created to begin with, view me as a fool or a "fluff" for simply believing that the Gods are -- Gods. Seperate, unique, powerful, spiritual and Divine beings with their own purpose in this universe. Beings who have earned their right to be Gods, great ancestors and teachers who have evolved through englightment and great deeds to the position of Gods (who to many recons are not JUST Gods, but fathers, mothers, teachers, family, friends)?



It's not I think a modern view, I remember reading that the ancient Greeks believed that by creating an image of one of the gods, that they called part of that god's divine essence into the image.

But I also don't think that "man created god in his own image" is necessarily the opposite of the way you relate to the Divine: once we take a little part of the greater divinity and delineate it, then we give it existence and autonomy as a god/dess.

What could be more appropriate than to interact with beings who were created by the Ancestors and have been around for thousands of years?

gwyn eich byd

Ffred

[Theres]

Am I the only one who grinds her teeth when she reads/hears other people's belief that the Gods were created by our (humans) thoughts? That their form, their personalities, their attributes are all human "designed"?
while i don't "grind my teeth" over it, i do feel the idea that the gods are mere thoughtforms is ego-driven and somewhat annoying.

and i think "man understands god in his own image" is probably a more accurate statement.

[Arion]

while i don't "grind my teeth" over it, i do feel the idea that the gods are mere thoughtforms is ego-driven and somewhat annoying.
i agree, i don't like the idea that humans can just 'create' Gods, it just doesn't make sense to me.

[fafonen]

I'm in the same boat as Agaliha. I feel the exact same way. I'm kind of in that rut as well.

And, like you, I've tried, but pantheism is what I feel to be plausible right now, and I can't ignore my mind and my logic, no matter how hard I try. No matter how much I'd like to feel that sort of romantic warmth that comes with knowing the Gods exist.

[Athena-Nadine]

No, you're not theonly one. I cringe at all sorts of things--people treating the gods as nothing but tools for their own use, people telling me that my gods are only faces of some Ubergod, people picking and choosing one tiny trait of a god and deciding S/He is truly so simple, the list goes on and on.

But I'm an Evil Fundy Recon who has serious trouble with contemplating much of the Neopagan beliefs that seem to be popular these days. ;) I don't even try to anymore. So much of it smacks of hubris and irreverence to me.

But that's just me, and my views are in the minority here on MW. :)

[Morr]

No, you're not theonly one. I cringe at all sorts of things--people treating the gods as nothing but tools for their own use, people telling me that my gods are only faces of some Ubergod, people picking and choosing one tiny trait of a god and deciding S/He is truly so simple, the list goes on and on.

But I'm an Evil Fundy Recon who has serious trouble with contemplating much of the Neopagan beliefs that seem to be popular these days. ;) I don't even try to anymore. So much of it smacks of hubris and irreverence to me.

But that's just me, and my views are in the minority here on MW. :)


*dances around with you*

Good to know I'm not the only Evil Fundy Recon!! :D

[Agaliha]

I'm in the same boat as Agaliha. I feel the exact same way. I'm kind of in that rut as well.
And, like you, I've tried, but pantheism is what I feel to be plausible right now, and I can't ignore my mind and my logic, no matter how hard I try. No matter how much I'd like to feel that sort of romantic warmth that comes with knowing the Gods exist.

Yay. I'm not alone.

As for the other posts...those are what I was expecting.
It's not just a "Evil Fundy Recon Thing" like Morr stated, anyone who stronging believes in their God(s) will dislike the opposition that doesn't see them that way. Even within their own religion (like with the case of Protestants and Catholics, they have many disagreements). ::shrug::

[skilly-nilly]

I view the Gods as very very old and highly enlightened ancestors. Unique, independent and different all on their own right. Seperate and individual and certainly not a creation of man.


I find this statement a little confusing---do you mean to say that the Gods were all once our ancestors?? In which case , they were all human once, neh?

The way I see it, there are the High Ones--Danu, The Morrigan, Bridget, Bel, Manannan, Lugh, et al who live in the Shining Timeless Land. I don't think They are very comprehensible to us, so when they communicate with us our flawed perception 'creates' a Being Who is mildly more compresensible. So our beliefs have an effect on What we 'see', but doesn't really affect the reality of the High God.

Then there's the Heros, who'se stories inspire and teach us. They were human, but I think that they become something more like archtypes by the application of myth to their lives. So we change them to a degree, but they change us too. They, to me, are like the Ancestors in Large--when we remember our own ancestors we give them a kind of 'life' as they listen to us. The Heros are like the ancestors of the Path, there for all of us to interact with.

Then there's the Spirits of the Trees and birds and animals who are both themselves and something larger when they are acted on by the High Ones.
In this same group are all of the little, local Spirits who interact with us and, I think, are changed by those interactions.

[Theres]

*dances around with you*

Good to know I'm not the only Evil Fundy Recon!! :D

cool!
so, can we get our own forum? :lol:

[maiem]

I cringe at all sorts of things--people treating the gods as nothing but tools for their own use, people telling me that my gods are only faces of some Ubergod, people picking and choosing one tiny trait of a god and deciding S/He is truly so simple, the list goes on and on.

Exactly. Even most other people in my religion think that the gods are just manifestations of one big power. Which, personally, makes absolutely no sense to me. I mean, I understand the idea, but my gods have shown me just how They are NOT facets of each other.

So yes, to say it grates me is an understatement. :awilly:

[Rasenna]

I personally am of the opinion that those who think that we create the Gods and Goddesses have yet to experience Their full power.
I think a lot of it is a backlash against the idea of being at the mercy of the monotheistic god having been raised in a Christian society. However, I think the solution that we create the Gods and Goddesses is the antithesis of an elixer--in a sense it is claiming that our polytheistic Gods and Goddesses are somehow not as powerful and awesome as the monotheistic one.
...R

[Hellenic_Witch]

No Morr, it is NOT just you. My feelings about this are very personal and I doubt that I can sum this up as eloquently as I might hope, but I'll try. And probably be long winded in the process.:)

To say that all gods are created by humans is a simple and easy way to sweep a multitude of beliefs aside because it takes too much faith for the nay-sayers to believe. Those of us who believe in our gods do so based on our own personal experiences. Experiences that I will not ignore just because someone who has never experienced it is dismissive enough to think that since something is outside the realm of their own experiences, it is either not true, or it's just the result of naive humans "creating" gods.

This topic comes up at an interesting time for me, a time of change, a time of deepening my relationship with my gods. I have honored, worshipped, followed Hekate willingly and lovingly, and sometimes fearfully (because she has a way of thwapping me upside the head when I really need it, yet never expect it).

From the beginning, I vowed to myself (and to her) that I would study as much as I could so that I could honor her respectfully based on historical accounts of her instead of the 'neo-pagan' or modern view of her.

Though I have never called myself a 'Recon' before, I feel a pull to the Hellenic Reconstructionist path that is quite strong. I have begun to learn about and honor the gods that I feel Hekate has led me to meet. And somewhere along the way, I realized that where I used to do spells and practice magic, I was now spending my time in deep prayer and devotion to my gods, offering daily libations, and adding a new depth to my life.

I would like to say I'm a Reconstructionist, yet I feel unworthy of the term, I guess. It should be used at a much later date, when I've proven myself with study, knowledge, and understanding.

Sorry. Went WAY off topic there.

It is irritating when
1. People say that humans have created the gods and that they are mere archetypes or aspects of a larger god. It is dismissive.

2. I'm so sick of hearing people recommend that you work with a god or goddess, because you want to perform some generic spell, based upon their attributes. What about actually investing the time in getting to know them first? How is that too much to ask?

[Theres]

wow HW, that was very eloquent, and describes my personal belief to a T.

i don't consider myself a true recon either, and yet there is a draw there that i can't describe any other way. perhaps that is just the closest way to define my path.

just maybe part of our frustration stems from the view that too many new age 'witches' and neoPagans tend to bend and twist the gods to fit their needs, re-assigning Them to modern cubby holes and treating Them like so much spiritual building material. it is my belief that we must do the twisting and bending to fit our path to Their tradition. They ARE the gods after all!

nice post... thank you! ;)

[Morr]

I find this statement a little confusing---do you mean to say that the Gods were all once our ancestors?? In which case , they were all human once, neh?



I think they have a sort of Ancestral spirit to them. They are part of the land, part of the people. They are teachers and guides, and family. They have fought and changed the land (for good), they have been loyal and honorable.

I believe they are Divine, yet have ties to the land and the people. A sort of spiritual ancestors.

And I agree about your other statements (heros and land spirits, etc).

Of course when I say land, I speak of Ireland.

[seapearls]

Am I the only one who grinds her teeth when she reads/hears other people's belief that the Gods were created by our (humans) thoughts? That their form, their personalities, their attributes are all human "designed"?

I've been reading this thread since it started and trying to get the time plus figure out how to put my answer but here it is simple. I'm not a strict recon but I can answer here definitely.

I agree the gods were not human invention, although some very well could have been way back when as a nice devious plot to control others and we just don't know anymore.

I view the Gods as very very old and highly enlightened ancestors. Unique, independent and different all on their own right. Seperate and individual and certainly not a creation of man. Now as for saying they were created to explain natural events in their world, that can be debate definitely. Some of it makes sene but then again some of that doesn't.

While their histories and myths may have been romanticized by humans, nothing is of course to be taken LITERALLY in every single sense of the word, I still think that they are Deities -- Higher spiritual beings than us.

I was wondering if other recons share this belief or not?

The ancient Germans believed they descended from the gods so seeing them as ancestors is normal to me although I don't take it too literal. We should always take the myths as being important but not every story is always recorded accurately. But the term "spiritual ancestors" you used, I think fits.


What's wrong with just believing in their existance, loving them, learning from them, letting them love and teach us, learning from their myths and histories, loving nature and the land?

I say nothing. Stop trying to analyze things that cannot be analyzed right.

I sometimes feel like those who put all this logic into how the Gods have formed in a sort of scientific way where the Gods depend on humans to exist or to have been created to begin with, view me as a fool or a "fluff" for simply believing that the Gods are -- Gods. Seperate, unique, powerful, spiritual and Divine beings with their own purpose in this universe. Beings who have earned their right to be Gods, great ancestors and teachers who have evolved through englightment and great deeds to the position of Gods (who to many recons are not JUST Gods, but fathers, mothers, teachers, family, friends)?

Oh no the gods would still live on even if all humans forgot them. I definitlely think of them as "fathers, mothers, teachers, family, friends." I only disagree with those who say the gods speak to them regularly. I think the gods are way busier than that. Once a blue moon or something is believable to me.

[skilly-nilly]

I think they have a sort of Ancestral spirit to them. They are part of the land, part of the people. They are teachers and guides, and family. They have fought and changed the land (for good), they have been loyal and honorable.

I believe they are Divine, yet have ties to the land and the people. A sort of spiritual ancestors.

And I agree about your other statements (heros and land spirits, etc).

Of course when I say land, I speak of Ireland.

Ahhh, I see what you mean now. Not 'ancestors' in the sense of 'forebears' but in the sense of 'those who came before us and formulated our culture'. Ancestral is a more meaningful definition than ancestors, which is more limited.

I agree that they have ties to the land and people, but that's often 2 different things. Historically, it's Ireland but as the aftereffects of the Post-Famine Diaspora

(an gorta mór/cuimhuim ar)

I think the disbursement of Irish culture to everywhere and the persistence of Irishness must also be celebrated by honouring 'where you are' and 'what is' (as per Finn) as well as were we were and what was.

As the teaching question says:

"What is the 5th direction?"
or
"Where is the center of the world?"

"Not hard to say, where I am is the fifth direction."


So I feel strongly that C-R has to incorporate the Land Spirits of where we live as well as those of Ireland.

[Morr]

Yeah. Not blood ancestors.

When I say "people" I mean the ones who worship them, their children. And of course, the ancient Irish pre-Christian society. Seeing as nowadays they have a rather small place in moden Irish society, as over 90% of the population there (more or less) are Catholic. But their spirits still roam through the Saints (Brigid, for example).

[Rick]

...the Gods were created by our (humans) thoughts? That their form, their personalities, their attributes are all human "designed"?
Absolutely
...the Gods are very very old and highly enlightened ancestors. Unique, independent and different all on their own right. Seperate and individual and certainly not a creation of man.
Absolutely

[Eldred Grimm]

Originally Posted by Morr
...the Gods are very very old and highly enlightened ancestors. Unique, independent and different all on their own right. Seperate and individual and certainly not a creation of man.

I to believe that the Gods are my family and they live not only in me but there are real and live just beyond the bounders of this reality when I call them they energize me calling Wodanaz makes me ecstatic calling Sunna at dawn I feel her gentle healing touch And if for those of you who cannot or will not You are missing out

[Grimr]

I believe the Gods to be powerful forces of nature and cosmic forms beyond the human mind.

I also believe that since man has limited perception and reasoning as of our own existence that man made symbols of the divine and the sacred.

It is my belief that since man retains some divinity in himself since he is a creation of the divine that with this the divine gave man the power of understanding the very creation which he came from.


Sure man created elaborate systems and symbols of the Gods , but if it was not for the Gods that helped the great spirit to form man then man would be entirely lost.

It's not I think a modern view, I remember reading that the ancient Greeks believed that by creating an image of one of the gods, that they called part of that god's divine essence into the image.

But I also don't think that "man created god in his own image" is necessarily the opposite of the way you relate to the Divine: once we take a little part of the greater divinity and delineate it, then we give it existence and autonomy as a god/dess.

What could be more appropriate than to interact with beings who were created by the Ancestors and have been around for thousands of years?

gwyn eich byd

Ffred

Agreed.

[Grimr]

while i don't "grind my teeth" over it, i do feel the idea that the gods are mere thoughtforms is ego-driven and somewhat annoying.

and i think "man understands god in his own image" is probably a more accurate statement.

Agreed.

[Grimr]

http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/2923/sallustius1.html <H1>SALLUSTIUS: ON THE GODS AND THE WORLD


Translation by Gilbert Murray in Five Stages of Greek Religion
I. What the disciple should be; and concerning Common Conceptions
Those who wish to hear about the Gods should have been well guided from childhood, and not habituated to foolish beliefs. They should also be in disposition good and sensible, that they may properly attend to the teaching.
They ought also to know the common conceptions. Common conceptions are those to which all men agree as soon as they are asked; for instance, that all god [here and elsewhere, = godhood, divine nature] is good, free from passion, free from change. For whatever suffers change does so for the worse or the better; if for the worse, it is made bad; if for the better, it must have been bad at first.


II. That god is unchanging, unbegotten, eternal, incorporeal, and not in space.
Let the disciple be thus. Let the teachings be of the following sort. The essences of the Gods never came into existence (for that which always is never comes into existence; and that exists for ever which possesses primary force and by nature suffers nothing): neither do they consist of bodies; for even in bodies the powers are incorporeal. Neither are they contained by space; for that is a property of bodies. Neither are they separate from the first cause nor from one another, just as thoughts are not separate from mind nor acts of knowledge from the soul.


III. Concerning myths; that they are divine, and why.
We may well inquire, then, why the ancients forsook these doctrines and made use of myths. There is this first benefit from myths, that we have to search and do not have our minds idle.
That the myths are divine can be seen from those who have used them. Myths have been used by inspired poets, by the best of philosophers, by those who established the mysteries, and by the Gods themselves in oracles. But why the myths are divine it is the duty of philosophy to inquire. Since all existing things rejoice in that which is like them and reject that which is unlike, the stories about the Gods ought to be like the Gods, so that they may both be worthy of the divine essence and make the Gods well disposed to those who speak of them: which could only be done by means of myths.
Now the myths represent the Gods themselves and the goodness of the Gods - subject always to the distinction of the speakable and the unspeakable, the revealed and the unrevealed, that which is clear and that which is hidden: since, just as the Gods have made the goods of sense common to all, but those of intellect only to the wise, so the myths state the existence of Gods to all, but who and what they are only to those who can understand.
They also represent the activities of the Gods. For one may call the world a myth, in which bodies and things are visible, but souls and minds hidden. Besides, to wish to teach the whole truth about the Gods to all produces contempt in the foolish, because they cannot understand, and lack of zeal in the good, whereas to conceal the truth by myths prevents the contempt of the foolish, and compels the good to practice philosophy.
But why have they put in the myths stories of adultery, robbery, father-binding, and all the other absurdity? Is not that perhaps a thing worthy of admiration, done so that by means of the visible absurdity the soul may immediately feel that the words are veils and believe the truth to be a mystery?


IV. That the species of myth are five, with examples of each.
Of myths some are theological, some physical, some psychic, and again some material, and some mixed from these last two. The theological are those myths which use no bodily form but contemplate the very essence of the Gods: e.g., Kronos swallowing his children. Since god is intellectual, and all intellect returns into itself, this myth expresses in allegory the essence of god.
Myths may be regarded physically when they express the activities of the Gods in the world: e.g., people before now have regarded Kronos as time, and calling the divisions of time his sons say that the sons are swallowed by the father.
The psychic way is to regard the activities of the soul itself; the soul's acts of thought, though they pass on to other objects, nevertheless remain inside their begetters.
The material and last is that which the Egyptians have mostly used, owing to their ignorance, believing material objects actually to be Gods, and so calling them: e.g., they call the earth Isis, moisture Osiris, heat Typhon, or again, water Kronos, the fruits of the earth Adonis, and wine Dionysus.
To say that these objects are sacred to the Gods, like various herbs and stones and animals, is possible to sensible men, but to say that they are Gods is the notion of madmen - except, perhaps, in the sense in which both the orb of the sun and the ray which comes from the orb are colloquially called 'the sun'.
The mixed kind of myth may be seen in many instances: for example they say that in a banquet of the Gods Discord threw down a golden apple; the Goddesses contended for it, and were sent by Zeus to Paris to be judged. Paris saw Aphrodite to be beautiful and gave her the apple. Here the banquet signifies the hypercosmic powers of the Gods; that is why they are all together. The golden apple is the world, which being formed out of opposites, is naturally said to be 'thrown by Discord'. The different Gods bestow different gifts upon the world, and are thus said to 'contend for the apple'. And the soul which lives according to sense - for that is what Paris is - not seeing the other powers in the world but only beauty, declares that the apple belongs to Aphrodite.
Theological myths suit philosophers, physical and psychic suit poets, mixed suit religious initiations, since every initiation aims at uniting us with the world and the Gods.
To take another myth, they say that the Mother of the Gods seeing Attis lying by the river Gallus fell in love with him, took him, crowned him with her cap of stars, and thereafter kept him with her. He fell in love with a nymph and left the Mother to live with her. For this the Mother of the Gods made Attis go mad and cut off his genital organs and leave them with the nymph, and then return and dwell with her.
Now the Mother of the Gods is the principle that generates life; that is why she is called Mother. Attis is the creator of all things which are born and die; that is why he is said to have been found by the river Gallus. For Gallus signifies the Galaxy, or Milky Way, the point at which body subject to passion begins. Now as the primary gods make perfect the secondary, the Mother loves Attis and gives him celestial powers. That is what the cap means. Attis loves a nymph: the nymphs preside over generation, since all that is generated is fluid. But since the process of generation must be stopped somewhere, and not allowed to generate something worse than the worst, the creator who makes these things casts away his generative powers into the creation and is joined to the Gods again. Now these things never happened, but always are. And mind sees all things at once, but reason (or speech) expresses some first and others after. Thus, as the myth is in accord with the cosmos, we for that reason keep a festival imitating the cosmos, for how could we attain higher order?
And at first we ourselves, having fallen from heaven and living with the nymph, are in despondency, and abstain from corn and all rich and unclean food, for both are hostile to the soul. Then comes the cutting of the tree and the fast, as though we also were cutting off the further process of generation. After that the feeding on milk, as though we were being born again; after which come rejoicings and garlands and, as it were, a return up to the Gods.
The season of the ritual is evidence to the truth of these explanations. The rites are performed about the Vernal equinox, when the fruits of the earth are ceasing to be produced, and day is becoming longer than night, which applies well to spirits rising higher. (At least, the other equinox is in mythology the time of the rape of Kore, which is the descent of the souls.)
May these explanations of the myths find favour in the eyes of the Gods themselves and the souls of those who wrote the myths.


V. On the First Cause
Next in order comes knowledge of the first cause and the subsequent orders of the Gods, then the nature of the world, the essence of intellect and of soul, then providence, fate, and fortune, then to see virtue and formed from them, and from what possible source evil came into the world.
Each of these subjects needs many long discussions; but there is perhaps no harm in stating them briefly, so that a disciple may not be completely ignorant about them.
It is proper to the first cause to be one - for unity precedes multitude - and to surpass all things in power and goodness. Consequently all things must partake of it. For owing to its power nothing else can hinder it, and owing to its goodness it will not hold itself apart.
If the first cause were soul, all things would possess soul. If it were mind, all things would possess mind. If it were being, all things would partake of being. And seeing this quality in all things, some men have thought that it was being. Now if things simply were, without being good, this argument would be true, but if things that are _are_ because of their goodness, and partake in the good, the first thing must needs be both beyond-being and good. It is strong evidence of this that noble souls despise being for the sake of the good, when they face death for their country or friends or for the sake of virtue. - After this inexpressible country or friends or for the sake of virtue. - After this inexpressible power come the orders of the Gods.



VI. On Gods Cosmic and Hypercosmic.
Of the Gods some are of the world, cosmic, and some above the world, hypercosmic. By the cosmic I mean those who make the cosmos. Of the hypercosmic Gods some create essence, some mind, and some soul. Thus they have three orders; all of which may be found in treatises on the subject.
Of the cosmic Gods some make the world be, others animate it, others harmonize it, consisting as it does of different elements; the fourth class keep it when harmonized.
These are four actions, each of which has a beginning, middle, and end, consequently there must be twelve Gods governing the world.
Those who make the world are Zeus, Poseidon, and Hephaistos; those who animate it are Demeter, Hera, and Artemis; those who harmonize it are Apollo, Aphrodite, and Hermes; those who watch over it are Hestia, Athena, and Ares.
One can see secret suggestions of this in their images. Apollo tunes a lyre; Athena is armed; Aphrodite is naked (because harmony creates beauty, and beauty in things seen is not covered).
While these twelve in the primary sense possess the world, we should consider that the other Gods are contained in these. Dionysus in Zeus, for instance, Asklepios in Apollo, the Charites in Aphrodite.
We can also discern their various spheres: to Hestia belongs the earth, to Poseidon water, to Hera air, to Hephaistos fire. And the six superior spheres to the Gods to whom they are usually attributed. For Apollo and Artemis are to be taken for the Sun and Moon, the sphere of Kronos should be attributed to Demeter, the ether to Athena, while the heaven is common to all. Thus the orders, powers, and spheres of the twelve Gods have been explained and celebrated in hymns.



VII. On the Nature of the World and its Eternity.
The cosmos itself must of necessity be indestructible and uncreated. Indestructible because, suppose it destroyed: the only possibility is to make one better than this or worse or the same or a chaos. If worse, the power which out of the better makes the worse must be bad. If better, the maker who did not make the better at first must be imperfect in power. If the same, there will be no use in making it; if a chaos... it is impious even to hear such a thing suggested. These reasons would suffice to show that the world is also uncreated: for if not destroyed, neither is it created. Everything that is created is subject to destruction. And further, since the cosmos exists by the goodness of god, if follows that god must always be good and the world exist. Just as light coexists with the sun and with fire, and shadow coexists with a body.
Of the bodies in the cosmos, some imitate mind and move in orbits; some imitate soul and move in a straight line, fire and air upward, earth and water downward. Of those that move in orbits the fixed sphere goes from the east, the seven [planets] from the west (This is so for various causes, especially lest the creation should be imperfect owing to the rapid circuit of the spheres.)
The movement being different, the nature of the bodies must also be different; hence the celestial body does not burn or freeze what it touches, or do anything else that pertains to the four elements.
And since the Cosmos is a sphere - the zodiac proves that - and in every sphere 'down' means 'toward the center', for the center is furthest distant from every point, and heavy things fall 'down' and fall to the earth .
All these things are made by the Gods, ordered by mind, moved by soul. About the Gods we have spoken already.



VIII. On Mind and Soul, and that the latter is immortal.
There is a certain force, less primary than being but more primary than the soul, which draws its existence from being and completes the soul as the sun completes the eyes. Of souls some are rational and immortal, some irrational and mortal. The former are derived from the first Gods, the latter from the secondary.
First, we must consider what soul is. It is, then, that by which the animate differs from the inanimate. The difference lies in motion, sensation, imagination, intelligence. Soul therefore, when irrational, is the life of sense and imagination; when rational, it is the life which controls sense and imagination and uses reason. The irrational soul depends on the affections of the body; it feels desire and anger irrationally. The rational soul both, with the help of reason, despises the body, and, fighting against the irrational soul, produces either virtue or vice, according as it is victorious or defeated.
It must be immortal, both because it knows the Gods (and nothing mortal knows what is immortal), it looks down upon human affairs as though it stood outside them, and like an unbodied thing, it is affected in the opposite way to the body. For while the body is young and fine, the soul blunders, but as the body grows old it attains its highest power. Again, every good soul uses mind; but no body can produce mind: for how should that which is without mind produce mind? Again, while the soul uses the body as an instrument, it is not in it; just as the engineer is not in his engines (although many engines move without being touched by any one). And if the soul is often made to err by the body, that is not surprising. For the arts cannot perform their work when their instruments are spoilt.



IX. On Providence, Fate, and Fortune.
This is enough to show the Providence of the Gods. For whence comes the ordering of the world, if there is no ordering power? And whence comes the fact that all things are for a purpose: e.g. irrational soul that there may be sensation, and rational that the earth may be set in order?
But one can deduce the same result from the evidences of providence in nature: e.g., the eyes have been made transparent with a view to seeing; the nostrils are above the mouth to distinguish bad-smelling foods; the front teeth are sharp to cut food, the back teeth broad to grind it. And we find every part of every object arranged on a similar principle. It is impossible that there should be so much providence in the last details, and none in the first principles. Then the arts of prophecy and of healing, which are part of the cosmos, come of the good providence of the Gods.
All this care for the world, we must believe, is taken by the Gods without any act of will or labor. As bodies which possess some power produce their effects by merely existing: e.g. the sun gives light and heat by merely existing; so, and far more so, the providence of the Gods acts without effort to itself and for the good of the objects of its forethought. This solves the problems of the Epicureans, who argue that what is divine neither has trouble itself nor gives trouble to others.
The incorporeal providence of the Gods, both for bodies and for souls, is of this sort; but that which is of bodies and in bodies is different from this, and is called fate, Heimarmene, because the chain of causes (Heirmos) is more visible in the case of bodies; and it is for dealing with this fate that the science of Mathematic [=Astrology] has been discovered.
Therefore, to believe that human things, especially their material constitution, are ordered not only by celestial beings but by the celestial bodies is a reasonable and true belief. Reason shows that health and sickness, good fortune and bad fortune, arise according to our deserts from that source. But to attribute men's acts of injustice and lust to fate, is to make ourselves good and the Gods bad. Unless by chance a man meant by such a statement that in general all things are for the good of the world and for those who are in a natural state, but that bad education or weakness of nature changes the goods of Fate for the worse. Just as it happens that the Sun, which is good for all, may be injurious to persons with ophthalmia or fever. Else why do the Massagetae eat their fathers, the Hebrews practice circumcision, and the Persians preserve rules of rank? Why do astrologers, while calling Saturn and Mars 'malignant' proceed to make them good, attributing to them philosophy and royalty, generalships and treasures? And if they are going to talk of triangles and squares, it is absurd that Gods should change their natures according to their position in space, while human virtue remains the same everywhere. Also the fact that the stars predict high or low rank for the father of the person whose horoscope is taken, teaches that they do not always make things happen but sometimes only indicate things. For how could things which preceded the birth depend upon the birth?
Further, as there is providence and fate concerned with nations and cities, and also concerned with each individual, so there is also fortune, which should next be treated. That power of the Gods which orders for the good things which are not uniform, and which happen contrary to expectation, is commonly called Fortune, and it is for this reason that the Goddess is especially worshipped in public by cities; for every city consists of elements which are not uniform. Fortune has power beneath the moon, since above the moon no single thing can happen by fortune.
If fortune makes a wicked man prosperous and a good man poor, there is no need to wonder. For the wicked regard wealth as everything, the good as nothing. And the good fortune of the bad cannot take away their badness, while virtue alone will be enough for the good.



X. Concerning Virtue and Vice.
The doctrine of virtue and vice depends on that of the soul. When the irrational soul enters into the body and immediately produces fight and desire, the rational soul, put in authority over all these, makes the soul tripartite, composed of reason, fight, and desire. Virtue in the region of reason is wisdom, in the region of fight is courage, in the region of desire is temperance; the virtue of the whole soul is righteousness. It is for reason to judge what is right, for fight in obedience to reason to despise things that appear terrible, for desire to pursue not the apparently desirable, but, that which is with reason desirable. When these things are so, we have a righteous life; for righteousness in matters of property is but a small part of virtue. And thus we shall find all four virtues in properly trained men, but among the untrained one may be brave and unjust, another temperate and stupid, another prudent and unprincipled. Indeed, these qualities should not be called virtues when they are devoid of reason and imperfect and found in irrational beings. Vice should be regarded as consisting of the opposite elements. In reason it is folly, in fight, cowardice, in desire, intemperance, in the whole soul, unrighteousness.
The virtues are produced by the right social organization and by good rearing and education, the vices by the opposite.



XI. Concerning right and wrong Social Organization.
Constitutions also depend on the tripartite nature of the soul. The rulers are analogous to reason, the soldiers to fight, the common folk to desires.
Where all things are done according to reason and the best man in the nation rules, it is a kingdom; where more than one rule according to reason and fight, it is an aristocracy; where the government is according to desire and offices depend on money, that constitution is called a timocracy. The contraries are: to kingdom, tyranny, for kingdom does all things with the guidance of reason and tyranny nothing; to aristocracy, oligarchy, when not the best people but a few of the worst are rulers; to timocracy, democracy, when not the rich but the common folk possess the whole power.



XII. The origin of evil things; and that there is no positive evil.
The Gods being good and making all things, how do evils exist in the world? Or perhaps it is better first to state the fact that, the Gods being good and making all things, there is no positive evil, it only comes by absence of good; just as darkness itself does not exist, but only comes about by absence of light.
If evil exists it must exist either in Gods or minds or souls or bodies. It does not exist in any God, for all god is good. If anyone speaks of a 'bad mind' he means a mind without mind. If of a bad soul, he will make the soul inferior to body, for no body in itself is evil. If he says that evil is made up of soul and body together, it is absurd that separately they should not be evil, but joined should create evil.
Suppose it is said that there are evil spirits: - if they have their power from the Gods, they cannot be evil; if from elsewhere, the Gods do not make all things. If they do not make all things, then either they wish to or cannot, or they can and do not wish; neither of which is consistent with the idea of god. We may see, therefore, from these arguments, that there is no positive evil in the world.
It is in the activities of men that the evils appear, and that not of all men nor always. And as to these, if men sinned for the sake of evil, nature itself would be evil. But if the adulterer thinks his adultery bad but his pleasure good, and the murderer thinks the murder bad but the money he gets by it good, and the man who does evil to an enemy thinks that to do evil is bad but to punish his enemy good, and if the soul commits all its sins in that way, then the evils are done for the sake of goodness. (In the same way, because in a given place light does not exist, there comes darkness, which has no positive existence.) The soul sins therefore because, while aiming at good, it makes mistakes about the good, because it is not primary essence. And we see many things done by the Gods to prevent it from making mistakes and to heal it when it has made them. Arts and sciences, curses and prayers, sacrifices and initiations, laws and constitutions, judgments and punishments, all came into existence for the sake of preventing souls from sinning; and when they are gone forth from the body, Gods and spirits of purification cleanse them of their sins.



XIII. How things eternal are said to be made.
Concerning the Gods and the world and human things this account will suffice for those who are not able to go through the whole course of philosophy but yet have not souls beyond help.
It remains to explain how these objects were never made and are never separated one from another, since we ourselves have said above that the secondary substances were 'made' by the first.
Everything made is made either by art or by a physical process or according to some power. Now in art or nature the maker must needs be prior to the made: but the maker, according to power, constitutes the made absolutely together with itself, since its power is inseparable from it; as the sun makes light, fire makes heat, snow makes cold.
Now if the Gods make the world by art, they do not make it be, they make it be such as it is. For all art makes the form of the object. What therefore makes it to be?
If by a physical process, how in that case can the maker help giving pat of himself to the made? As the Gods are incorporeal, the world ought to be incorporeal too. If it were argued that the Gods were bodies, then where would the power of incorporeal things come from? And if we were to admit it, it would follow that when the world decays, its maker must be decaying too, if he is a maker by physical process.
If the Gods make the world neither by art nor by physical process, it only remains that they make it by power. Everything so made subsists together with that which possesses the power. Neither can things so made be destroyed, except the power of the maker be taken away: so that those who believe in the destruction of the world, either deny the existence of the Gods, or, while admitting it, deny God's power.
Therefore he who makes all things by his own power makes all things subsist together with himself. And since his power is the greatest power he must needs be the maker not only of men and animals, but of Gods, men, and spirits. And the further removed the first God is from our nature, the more powers there must be between us and him. For all things that are very far apart have many intermediate points between them.



XIV. In what sense, though the Gods never change, they are said to be made angry and appeased.
If any one thinks the doctrine of the unchangeableness of the Gods is reasonable and true, and then wonders how it is that they rejoice in the good and reject the bad, are angry with sinners and become propitious when appeased, the answer is as follows: god does not rejoice - for that which rejoices also grieves; nor is he angered - for to be angered is a passion; nor is he appeased by gifts - if he were, he would be conquered by pleasure.
It is impious to suppose that the divine is affected for good or ill by human things. The Gods are always good and always do good and never harm, being always in the same state and like themselves. The truth simply is that, when we are good, we are joined to the Gods by our likeness to live according to virtue we cling to the Gods, and when we become evil we make the Gods our enemies - not because they are angered against us, but because our sins prevent the light of the Gods from shining upon us, and put us in communion with spirits of punishment. And if by prayers and sacrifices we find forgiveness of sins, we do not appease or change the Gods, but by what we do and by our turning toward the divine we heal our own badness and so enjoy again the goodness of the Gods. To say that god turns away from the evil is like saying that the sun hides himself from the blind.



XV. Why we give worship to the Gods when they need nothing.
This solves the question about sacrifices and other rites performed to the Gods. The divine itself is without needs, and the worship is paid for our own benefit. The providence of the Gods reaches everywhere and needs only some congruity for its reception. All congruity comes about by representation and likeness; for which reason the temples are made in representation of heaven, the altar of earth, the images of life (that is why they are made like living things), the prayers of the element of though, the mystic letters of the unspeakable celestial forces, the herbs and stones of matter, and the sacrificial animals of the irrational life in us. From all these things the Gods gain nothing; what gain could there be to God? It is we who gain some communion with them.
</H1>

[Grimr]

I very much like Sallustius' and his views of the Gods.

He was a late Neo-Platonic thinker.

You will have to forgive his harsh criticism on Egyptian practices.

It is most likely he understood little of their beliefs in that one sentence under the first section of his writing.

[Grimr]

<H1>Part II of Sallustius' On the Gods and the World


XVI. Concerning sacrifices and other worships, that we benefit man by them, but not the Gods.
I think it well to add some remarks about sacrifices. In the first place, since we have received everything from the Gods, and it is right to pay the giver some tithe of his gifts, we pay such a tithe of possessions in votive offering, of bodies in gifts of (hair and) adornment, and of life in sacrifices. Then secondly, prayers without sacrifices are only words, with sacrifices they are live words; the word gives meaning to the life, while the life animates the word. Thirdly, the happiness of every object is its own perfection; and perfection for each is communion with its own cause. For this reason we pray for communion with the Gods. Since, therefore, the first life is the life of the Gods, but human life is also life of a kind, and human life wishes for communion with divine life, a mean term is needed. For things very far apart cannot have communion without a mean term, and the mean term must be like the things joined; therefore the mean term between life and life must be life. That is why men sacrifice animals; only the rich do so now, but in old days everybody did, and that not indiscriminately, but giving the suitable offerings to each god together with a great deal of other worship. Enough of this subject.


XVII. That the World is by nature Eternal.
We have shown above that the Gods will not destroy the world. It remains to show that its nature is indestructible.
Everything that is destroyed is either destroyed by itself or by something else. If the world is destroyed by itself, fire must needs burn of itself and water dry itself. If by something else, it must be either by a body or by something incorporeal. By something incorporeal is impossible; for incorporeal things preserve bodies - nature, for instance, and soul - and nothing is destroyed by a cause whose nature is to preserve it. If it is destroyed by some body, it must be either by those which exist or by others.
If by those which exist: then either those moving in a straight line must be destroyed by those that revolve, or vice versa. But those that revolve have no destructive nature; else, why do we never see anything destroyed from that cause? Nor yet can those which are moving straight touch the others; else, why have they never been able to do so yet?
But neither can those moving straight be destroyed by one another: for the destruction of one is the creation of another; and that is not to be destroyed but to change.
But if the world is to be destroyed by other bodies than these it is impossible to say where such bodies are or whence they are to arise.
Again, everything destroyed is destroyed either in form or matter. (Form is the shape of a thing, matter is the body.) Now if the form is destroyed and the matter remains, we see other things come into being. If matter is destroyed, how is it that the supply has not failed in all these years?
If when matter is destroyed other matter takes its place, the new matter must come either from something that is or from something that is not. If from that-which-is, as long as that-which-is always remains, matter always remains. But if that-which-is is destroyed, such a theory means that not the world only but everything in the universe is destroyed.
If again matter comes from that-which-is-not: in the first place, it is impossible for anything to come from that which is not; but suppose it to happen, and that matter did arise from that which is not; then, as long as there are things which are not, matter will exist. For I presume there can never be an end of things which are not.
If they say that matter formless: in the first place, why does this happen to the world as a whole when it does not happen to any part? Secondly, by this hypothesis they do not destroy the being of bodies but only their beauty.
Further, everything destroyed is either resolved into the elements from which it came, or else vanishes into not-being. If things are resolved into the elements from which they came, then there will be others: else how did they come into being at all? If that-which-is is to depart into not-being, what prevents that happening to god himself? (Which is absurd.) Or if god's power prevents that, it is not a mark of power to be able to save nothing but oneself. And it is equally impossible for that-which-is to come out of nothing and to depart into nothing.
Again, if the world is destroyed, it must needs either be destroyed according to nature or against nature. Against nature is impossible, for that which is against nature is not stronger than nature. If according to nature, there must be another nature which changes the nature of the world: which does not appear.
Again, anything that is naturally destructible we can ourselves destroy. But no one has ever destroyed or altered the round body of the world. And the elements, though they can be changed, cannot be destroyed. Again, everything destructible is changed by time and grows old. But the world through all these years has remained utterly unchanged.
Having said so much for the help of those who feel the need of very strong demonstration, I pray the world himself to be gracious to me.



XVIII. Why there are rejections of god, and that god is not injured.
Nor need the fact that rejections of god have taken place in certain parts of the earth and will often take place hereafter, disturb the mind of the wise: both because these things do not affect the Gods, just as we saw that worship did not benefit them; and because the soul, being of middle essence, cannot be always right; and because the whole world cannot enjoy the providence of the Gods equally, but some parts may partake of it eternally, some at certain times, some in the primal manner, some in the secondary. Just as the head enjoys all the senses, but the rest of the body only one.
For this reason, it seems, those who ordained festivals ordained also forbidden days, in which some temples lay idle, some were shut, some had their adornments removed, in expiation of the weakness of our nature.
It is not unlikely, too, that the rejection of god is a kind of punishment: we may well believe that those who knew the Gods and neglected them in one life may in another life be deprived of the knowledge of them altogether. Also those who have worshipped their own kings as gods have deserved as their punishment to lose all knowledge of god.



XIX. Why sinners are not punished at once.
There is no need to be surprised if neither these sins nor yet others bring immediate punishment upon sinners. For it is not only spirits who punish the evil, the soul brings itself to judgment: and also it is not right for those who endure for ever to attain everything in a short time: and also, there is need of human virtue. If punishment followed instantly upon sin, men would act justly from fear and have no virtue.
Souls are punished when they have gone forth from the body, some wandering among us, some going to hot or cold places of the earth, some harassed by spirits. Under all circumstances they suffer with the irrational part of their nature, with which they also sinned. For its sake there subsists that shadowy body which is seen about graves, especially the graves of evil livers.



XX. On Transmigration of Souls, and how Souls are said to migrate into brute beasts.
If the transmigration of a soul takes place into a rational being, it simply becomes the soul of that body. But if the soul migrates into a brute beast, it follows the body outside, as a guardian spirit follows a man. For there could never be a rational soul in an irrational being.
The transmigration of souls can be proved from the congenital afflictions of persons. For why are some born blind, others paralytic, others with some sickness in the soul itself? Again, it is the natural duty of souls to do their work in the body; are we to suppose that when once they leave the body they spend all eternity in idleness? Again, if the souls did not again enter into bodies, they must either be infinite in number or god must constantly be making new ones. But there is nothing infinite in the world; for in a finite whole there cannot be an infinite part. Neither can others be made; for everything in which something new goes on being created, must be imperfect. And the world, being made by a perfect author, ought naturally to be perfect.


XXI. That the Good are happy, both living and dead. Souls that have lived in virtue are in general happy, and when separated from the irrational part of their nature, and made clean from all matter, have communion with the gods and join them in the governing of the whole world. Yet even if none of this happiness fell to their lot, virtue itself, and the joy and glory of virtue, and the life that is subject to no grief and no master are enough to make happy those who have set themselves to live according to virtue and have achieved it.

</H1>

[Morr]

I hated reading him in Latin.

Grr.

[Grimr]

I hated reading him in Latin.

Grr.


Latin is nice.

I am currently trying to learn ancient and mordern Greek.

Now there is a hard language to learn.

[_Banbha_]

Am I the only one who grinds her teeth when she reads/hears other people's belief that the Gods were created by our (humans) thoughts? That their form, their personalities, their attributes are all human "designed"?

Well, No, I don't grind my teeth in the types of discussions you mention. It really doesn't matter to me what other people think or say in the end; but I do respect some's opinions over others.

I don't because that's rational thought and it is my nature always to question or consider all possibilities. I hope always to learn something from it whether I agree or disagree.

While I respect everyone's opinion and I would never judge others' religion and spirituality, I dont really see/understand this point of view.

Is it just me personally, or the Recon community as a whole?

I think there is a range of belief within the community. Some really enjoy debating the fine points of history vs. myth, etc. Some are ritualists. Some are into the communial and cultural aspects of say, Pre-Christian Ireland, for example and don't focus as much on the religious aspect at all. They leave it for the Druids.

I like the variety of opinions as it is more a community than a religion.

I view the Gods as very very old and highly enlightened ancestors. Unique, independent and different all on their own right. Seperate and individual and certainly not a creation of man.

While their histories and myths may have been romanticized by humans, nothing is of course to be taken LITERALLY in every single sense of the word, I still think that they are Deities -- Higher spiritual beings than us.

I was wondering if other recons share this belief or not?


In the sense that humans didn't create the Earth and sky, no.

I do not share your certainty though on all counts. I am not a Fundimentalist in any sense of the word.

My readings of gods in the Celtic pantheon (and Irish specifically) would not lead me to believe they were all higher or enlightened beings. Ancient certainly. I'm not sure how I within the Irish Tribal overlappings of many similar goddesses (in particuliar) could claim each as separate and not expressions of one with different names, though I'm pretty clear on the seperatness within the triads. I would feel I was missing out on the big picture. But this is just a technical point in the context of this discussion.

It's unnatural for me (PERSONALLY) to put anyone or anything on a pedistal. To worship. It's just not in the scheme of things for me, it lacks balance and integrity. That's not to say I am judging others with my own standards and views, far from it. I'm weird. :uhhuhuh: :p

It's not to say I don't have respect. I respect lightening in an open field, I respect the power of the tides and storm, I would never turn my back to a lion, tiger or bear either. That's respect to me.

I was wondering...How do you determine to what point the tales have been romaticized? If not to be taken literally in every sense of the word...when and where do you start?

Is trying to put this sort of... logic, I guess, into the Gods a modern thing?

I'd say despite how the Enlightenment and modern pyschiatry have influenced us in our understanding, Human nature now vs. say 3,000 years ago? My opinion is we have not evolved so much. :hahugh:

Whats wrong with just believing in their existance, loving them, learning from them, letting them love and teach us, learning from their myths and histories, loving nature and the land? NOTHING! If that's your pleasure. :cheers:

I sometimes feel like those who put all this logic into how the Gods have formed in a sort of scientific way where the Gods depend on humans to exist or to have been created to begin with, view me as a fool or a "fluff" for simply believing that the Gods are -- Gods.

I don't know the <exact> kind of opinion your talking about...I have an idea...but you cannot prove faith as it's subjective and sometimes even to those who believe in the gods, a bird is just bird, being a bird. That in itself is quite something (to me anyway). It's hard to offer an opinion if you don't live nearby and know the local birds and environment. It's also highly personal;as it's about belief and faith.

In a sense you feel your not being taken seriously or being judged as fluff because someone else is simply expressing his or her opinion? I honestly don't understand that point of veiw. Just because I don't understand it doesn't mean it has no value. :) I am more in line of thinking the 'rationalists,' for lack of a better word, are the ones almost always in the minority in any case. Maybe I'm misunderstanding. But, why should it matter?


Separate, unique, powerful, spiritual and Divine beings with their own purpose in this universe. Beings who have earned their right to be Gods, great ancestors and teachers who have evolved through englightment and great deeds to the position of Gods (who to many recons are not JUST Gods, but fathers, mothers, teachers, family, friends)?


I dont know if I'm making sense here... I sure hope I do though! :lol:


Thanks :)

[Morr]

I dont know how to determine to what exact point the myths and folklore have been romanticized.

All legends and stories, first passed by oral tradition, are polished and changed here and there. Its inevitable.

Take the story of The Dagda and The Morrigan mating/marrying on Samhain night. Did they REALLY mate? Did they REALLY get married? We dont know that, each of us can decide for themselves what they feel really happened that night between them (for all we know they could have just sat there and chit chatted). But the lesson of this story, or the social, spiritual and cultural value we draw from this is the fact that the King has to show loyalty to the land. He becomes one with her, and she in return gives him fertility and a sucessful reign. He has to promise to protect the land and the people and do only whats good to them. He has to be loyal, honorable, truthful and hospitable. In return, she (the land, sovreignty) provides for him and will secure him as the position of king.

In the case of The Dagda and The Morrigan, this also leads to The Morrigan aiding the Tuatha Dé in a few battles later on.

The Dagda = The king/leader of the Tuatha Dé.
The Morrigan = Sovreignty.

This is actually a theme that runs through Irish myths quite a few times, and is a very central one.

[Xirian]

I see the deities as more of an energy that can reside where it likes and has the ability to enable us spiritually and in other ways as well. I believe this can exist within a person or outside of them. Possibly, it is the energy from physical entities that once lived, or energy from something that isn’t human or from this world at all, and has grown stronger through the years, which would explain its/their power. This goes along with my views on reincarnation.

I do not believe this energy was created by us. Therefore, I cannot concede to the idea that humans created Gods, but simply created the idea of Gods through stories, based on these energy entities and their powerful nature.

Whats wrong with just believing in their existance, loving them, learning from them, letting them love and teach us, learning from their myths and histories, loving nature and the land?
I don’t feel that anything is wrong with believing in their existence or any of the other things you mentioned. But it wouldn’t be one’s own spiritual path if they believed everything exactly as someone else believed. I feel that people can learn completely different things from the same information and will apply that information differently to suit their needs at the time. I don’t see anything different when discussing the topic of Gods either. Some people might simply need to believe that the Gods exist without question, as you do, in order to grow on their path and others may need only to believe in a divine-like energy, to grow on their paths.

I believe people should see things in only the way their mind can comprehend what they are seeing, in relation to what they are in need of, in relation to their experiences, and in relation to what will allow them to grow, and I’m under the assumption in this case, to grow spiritually.

Am I the only one who grinds her teeth when she reads/hears other people's belief that the Gods were created by our (humans) thoughts? That their form, their personalities, their attributes are all human "designed"?
I’m sure that many people do grind their teeth about this. But I personally don't see the need to do this, because we are talking about what people believe, which is mostly based on perception, subjectivity, emotions, and past experiences. How can this bother you? Do you really want others believing exactly as you do all the time? I believe we get upset with things we don’t understand. But how can one ever understand someone else’s belief system, completely, without having lived exactly as they've lived and seeing the exact same things they’ve seen and doing the exact same things they’ve done?

[Agaliha]

I do not believe this energy was created by us. Therefore, I cannot concede to the idea that humans created Gods, but simply created the idea of Gods through stories, based on these energy entities and their powerful nature.


Well I am one that believes the gods are created by people as I explained in my first page here.

I just wanted to clarify that I believe there is an energy that is vast and powerful that we can't fully comprehend and know.

I don't believe we created this energy. I don't see it as higher than us, but it's part of us, nature and the universe. I don't believe it is a god or goddess either.

What I see is humans in attempts to understand this energy and connect created the known gods and goddesses to make it easier to see this energy. To interact. To make it more like us so we can undestand it. Eventually myths, images and the whole complexity of a god or goddess eventually becomes it's own entity.
I see these as our attempts to make sense of that which cannot be made sense of.
If I were more theistically inclined like I was some months ago I would consider myself a henotheist. Now I'm not sure what I am.
I don't see anything wrong with honoring these gods, just for me personally I don't see the point as in my view they all are subjective and our opinions and views of what this energy is, but they can never be the energy.

Oh and here is a case of people creating a goddess:
The Hinbdue AIDS-Goddess... (http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=131078)
I find it interesting.

[Xirian]

That is interesting. However, I do not believe these people are actually creating Gods or the energy that makes up a God, in my book. I believe these energies already existed and they are or we are just tacking on names, in the case of the article link "to make people aware of AIDS" and to "put the fear of God" into them. I do not believe we can create them, but instead, think of different energy entities as Gods, give them a purpose, once again, in order to suit our needs, perspective and learning at that time. I'm sure some catch on and some don't.

[_Banbha_]

I dont know how to determine to what exact point the myths and folklore have been romanticized.That was point I was making with the question. Who knows really. This does not lessen it's value to me and below you touch on a favorite. :cheers:

Myths, legends and stories first passed by oral tradition, are polished and changed here and there. Its inevitable. And we can debate them but why get upset if some come to differing conclusions.

Take the story of The Dagda and The Morrigan mating/marrying on Samhain night. Did they REALLY mate? Did they REALLY get married? We dont know that, each of us can decide for themselves what they feel really happened that night between them (for all we know they could have just sat there and chit chatted). But the lesson of this story, or the social, spiritual and cultural value we draw from this is the fact that the King has to show loyalty to the land. He becomes one with her, and she in return gives him fertility and a sucessful reign. He has to promise to protect the land and the people and do only whats good to them. He has to be loyal, honorable, truthful and hospitable. In return, she (the land, sovreignty) provides for him and will secure him as the position of king.

In the case of The Dagda and The Morrigan, this also leads to The Morrigan aiding the Tuatha Dé in a few battles later on.

The Dagda = The king/leader of the Tuatha Dé.
The Morrigan = Sovreignty.

This is actually a theme that runs through Irish myths quite a few times, and is a very central one.

Is it a political mataphor though of a newer people using a more ancient Goddess of the land to prove legitimacy? Everyone can have a different perspective on the same story. Irish Myth resonates in my spirit and soul, but they are not my religion. I find about who our ancestors were and who we are now. Because the myths travelled through time with us. And if the myths have adapted and changed over time the nature of the gods within those stories have too. Does that mean the Gods as told in the tales are in fact in part, perhaps large part are a creation of humans? If you are a fundimentalist perhaps not, I don't know. I see the hand of man in much of it. It's still a rich legacy for all that. I see the rements of who the Gods were in myth but I also see some politics and psuedo-history. It has a "neo" feel, to ignore that aspect exsists, imo.

In the end what does it matter? I'm relieved we don't all think alike. I learn and experience more in a diverse environment within the Recon community. :)

[Grimr]

Well I am one that believes the gods are created by people as I explained in my first page here.

I just wanted to clarify that I believe there is an energy that is vast and powerful that we can't fully comprehend and know.

I don't believe we created this energy. I don't see it as higher than us, but it's part of us, nature and the universe. I don't believe it is a god or goddess either.

What I see is humans in attempts to understand this energy and connect created the known gods and goddesses to make it easier to see this energy. To interact. To make it more like us so we can undestand it. Eventually myths, images and the whole complexity of a god or goddess eventually becomes it's own entity.
I see these as our attempts to make sense of that which cannot be made sense of.
If I were more theistically inclined like I was some months ago I would consider myself a henotheist. Now I'm not sure what I am.
I don't see anything wrong with honoring these gods, just for me personally I don't see the point as in my view they all are subjective and our opinions and views of what this energy is, but they can never be the energy.

Oh and here is a case of people creating a goddess:
The Hinbdue AIDS-Goddess... (http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=131078)
I find it interesting.


I consider myself a Henotheist after our great talks. ;)

[amunakht]

I see the deities as more of an energy that can reside where it likes and has the ability to enable us spiritually and in other ways as well. I believe this can exist within a person or outside of them.

I agree with Xirian. God are forces. People create stories of them to understand them. The gods are forces and so they are not material beings but they are beings that can take forms. People in different cultures also have their own interpritations of these holy forces, and so they give them different names and such, but they are still essentially the same gods.

[Xirian]

I think you explained it much better than me, but that is what I was trying to say. Good post amunakht.

[David19]

I'm not sure if i 'grind my teeth' but i do find it annoying when people say the gods are just 'thought forms' or 'archetypes' or 'manifestations or 'aspects' of one god', etc.

To me, the gods are individual beings, i haven't had many experiences with gods, but it's just a general feeling i get, i feel that all the gods exist and are independent with their own motives, desires, plans, etc (e.g. i don't believe Yahweh and Zeus are the same deities, etc).

[Theres]

To me, the gods are individual beings, i haven't had many experiences with gods, but it's just a general feeling i get, i feel that all the gods exist and are independent with their own motives, desires, plans, etc (e.g. i don't believe Yahweh and Zeus are the same deities, etc).
i agree completely (as i have stated), however it's funny that you should use that particular example, as there WAS an 'aspect' of Zeus worshipped by the Jews at Alexandria which was identified as Hellenized form of Yahweh.

i'll have to find the epithet, if you're interested.

[David19]

i agree completely (as i have stated), however it's funny that you should use that particular example, as there WAS an 'aspect' of Zeus worshipped by the Jews at Alexandria which was identified as Hellenized form of Yahweh.

i'll have to find the epithet, if you're interested.

That'd be interesting to find out, if you don't mind, did Jew's in Alexandria actually worship Zeus or was Zeus and Yahweh considered the same (or did they worship them both or something).

I hope that last bit made some sense.

[Theres]

okay, it took me awhile to remember which book i'd read this in. and it can be complicated, so i'll keep it as simple as possible.

the quote will be from Jon D. Mikalson's 'Ancient Greek Religion' (recommended), but let me preface it by stating that the discussion is about the homogenization of many Mediterranean dieties after the death of Alexander, and the rise of the "Ruler Cults" in the subsequent Macedonian Kingdoms.
The Ptolemaic faction ruled Egypt, and even managed to get the body of Alexander buried within the city. Alexandria had become a very cosmopolitan center, and many different cultures flourished there.

from the book (bold mine);

Few non-Greek, non-Egyptian deities are attested for Alexandria in the Hellenistic period, but they include the important Zeus Hypsistos (Highest) = Jahweh of the Jewish community. Ptolemy I had brought 30,000 Jewish colonists to Egypt, and by the mid second century Jews held important roles in the Ptolemaic administration. The Jews were concentrated in one quarter of the city, and they represent the earliest Jewish community among the Hellenistic cities. These Jews spoke Greek and were highly Hellenized, and and it was at this time and place that the Torah was translated into Greek as the Septuagint, the completion of which the Jews celebrated with a festival that became annual. The Jews of Alexandria were able to accomodate themselves to the ruler cult of the Ptolemies by making their dedications in synagogues to Zeus Hypsistos "on behalf" of the ruling Ptolemy and his wife, not "to" them, a formula which, in fact, was common in all dedications of the Hellenistic period in Alexandria.

[David19]

okay, it took me awhile to remember which book i'd read this in. and it can be complicated, so i'll keep it as simple as possible.

the quote will be from Jon D. Mikalson's 'Ancient Greek Religion' (recommended), but let me preface it by stating that the discussion is about the homogenization of many Mediterranean dieties after the death of Alexander, and the rise of the "Ruler Cults" in the subsequent Macedonian Kingdoms.
The Ptolemaic faction ruled Egypt, and even managed to get the body of Alexander buried within the city. Alexandria had become a very cosmopolitan center, and many different cultures flourished there.

from the book (bold mine);

Thanks for that, i'll try and get that book, so would that 'aspect' have been considered Zeus or Yahweh (like were they considered the same deity or still different)?.

But again, thanks, it the book sounds interesting.

[Theres]

i believe it is Yahweh.
these Jews may have been "highly Hellenized", but i don't think they were worshipping foriegn deities, even in a progressive city like Alexandria.
Hypsistos meaning "Highest" is a pretty good clue too, i think.

but it is interesting that the name Zeus had by that time become almost universal for supreme deity (apparently).

But again, thanks, it the book sounds interesting.
yeah, you should... it's a gooder!