Religion, old or new?

[Cat]

Reading some of the discussions lately about Wicca has got me thinking. To what extent do you believe that a religion has to do things the traditional way--whether that tradition was originally its own or not--to be valid?

Such conversations always remind me of the quote by Ezra Pound about poetry, "make it new."

I see validity in both of these extremes; I also see the ability to extend either attitude too far. As is often true for me, I try to strike a balance. I am curious what the rest of you think.

[Xirian]

Well, I think in some cases it's ethically wrong to practice some religions as they were traditionally practiced. What comes to mind is animal sacrifice due to current laws and ways of thinking in some areas. Also the reasoning for practicing some religions is not and cannot be the same as the traditional reasonings for practicing a certain religion, simply because times have changed.

I think there should be a balance when it comes to the physical acts of practicing a religion. I also believe there should be an understanding of the reasonings why religions were practiced a particular way and why changes have or need to be made. I also feel that what is most important is the spiritual connection one feels or gains from practicing or having faith in a religion, which in many cases would not be completely in line with some of the traditional reasons for practicing. Just my two cents. :D

[Shadow Dreamer]

...

[Cat]

and before him guy who started the Mormons (any mormons out there who can fill in the blank?).

I'm not LDS, but IIRC his name was Joseph Smith.

[Shadow Dreamer]

...

[Greybird]

IIRC = If I Remember Correctly.

I sometimes think that 'valid' has become a buzzword. Anything that works is 'valid', but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea to do it. There are things in my secular life that might work better if I were willing to accept anything that worked to 'get the job done', but I choose to balance those things with respect, ethics, and forethought. Sometimes I choose to do things the hard way because to avoid inconveniencing or hurting others on my behalf.

A balance between the two is necessary.

[sarabethv]

let's be honest, we aren't the barbarians we once were, worshipping fire because we hit two rocks together, are we?

Are you sure about that?

[Cat]

The practice of religion should be a living thing, a growing thing...let's be honest, we aren't the barbarians we once were, worshipping fire because we hit two rocks together, are we?

Agreed. Like language, religion has to change over time. Our lives aren't the same as they were in the Neolithic, or even in the Middle Ages. But people find change scary and unsettling, so I suppose its a checks-and-balances situation.

There are those who want to follow a founder and a sacred text, and figure that they have to do everything the way its always been done and anyone who makes an unapproved change is no longer a member of the group. Obviously, the value of that level of dogmatism is lost on me. But its clearly what many folks choose.

[cheddarsox]

I think that we have certain things that "turn us on" religiously, that is hardwired into most human brains. So, those elements will keep showing up, reguardless of the theology or dogma, because they are what "work" for us.

We repackage them according to our current beliefs, culture, and the materials available to us.

For instance...currently on a Catholic forum I frequent, people have been up in arms over "liturgical dance" saying how disrespectful it is and how it has no place in the church etc. etc.

But, they have very specific choreographed gestures, physical responses, etc that they use in the context of their worship. They can't see that for some people the "dance" is the same thing. It is their sacred choreography. Humans recognize that certain movements, positions, etc, have an effect on us spiritually. In some cultures, it comes out as a dance, in others, a slow march, in others, bowing, beating the chest, kneeling, at certain times.

Some cultures see dancing as outrageous and uncontrolled, others see posturing and gesturing as too stiff and logical to be showing true worship...but really, they are all on the same spectrum of using body language to play out our relationship with the Divine.

We do the same with fire, sacrafice, prayer, etc. We all have versions...but the mechanics differ according to our cultural temperments and belief systems.

cheddar

[Elderbush]

All religious practices are meant to do is trigger a particular emotional state within the individual and the dance example is a perfect example. To some people religious dancing triggers the emotional state, to other's it triggers an emotional response of outrage. It rests for the most part on cultural conditioning. The other part of it is personal responses, why change happens within a religion or why someone leaves a religion for one that touches them emotionally. If a certain practice does nothing for an individual, they don't tend to continue it, at least privately.

[AussiePagan]

Reading some of the discussions lately about Wicca has got me thinking. To what extent do you believe that a religion has to do things the traditional way--whether that tradition was originally its own or not--to be valid?

Such conversations always remind me of the quote by Ezra Pound about poetry, "make it new."

I see validity in both of these extremes; I also see the ability to extend either attitude too far. As is often true for me, I try to strike a balance. I am curious what the rest of you think.

Traditions shouldn't be what validates a particular belief system. Why ? Because all traditions were started by someone, somewhere. 2000 year old fluff, is still fluff. I believe it's the spirituality behind a religion's rites and rituals that makes it valid. I don't care if you need to spin around naked 3 times and do the chicken dance before you can pray/connect to the divine/do magic, so long as the thing you are doing actually works, and isn't just your imagination. Working out that last bit can send you a bit :awilly: at times :hehehehe:.

[Cat]

I don't care if you need to spin around naked 3 times and do the chicken dance .

You've been watching me!!

[sari0009]

To what extent do you believe that a religion has to do things the traditional way

To the extent that it works.

Validity (heh) doesn't come from repetition alone (and sometimes not/hardly at all).


--whether that tradition was originally its own or not--to be valid?

Unless they totally reinvented the wheel, no religion is totally original. Religion is not owned, it's practiced.:hahugh:

Nearly all religions appropriated, often quite a bit. Religious systems that work can be tweaked/changed...sometimes quite a bit...and sometimes the tweaks are not improvements. It depends.


...to extend either attitude too far. As is often true for me, I try to strike a balance.

I'd pick balance over being overly rigid any day.

[AussiePagan]

You've been watching me!!

:uhhuhuh:

[Meadhbh]

The age of what you believe shouldn't matter. If it works for you then it works for you. It shouldn't matter how long a belief as been going on as long as it works for you. A belief system has to change with the times or it will out grow people. If it does that then people will go looking for something else that they can believe in.

[HadouKen24]

Tradition is important. It binds us back to our families, to our heritage (both heritage of descent and cultural heritage). Thus, traditions can give us a place in this world. Through tradition, we can find where we came from--crucial if we are to know where we are going. It's for this reason that I seriously considered becoming Asatru over the last summer; it is a retrieval of the way of life of many of my ancestors. Celtic reconstructionism, too, was an option. I eventually decided against either one, since neither path does justice to the great cultural heritage of the West which comes from the Greeks and Romans. (Mostly by way of Islam, by the by) My path must reflect the enormous influence that heritage has on my mental upbringing.

I disagree with the common notion that people are born and raised in a vacuum, autonomous and practically gods unto themselves. While no one will admit to themselves that they believe this, people often act like it. I believe that one must recognize and respect where one has come from before one can begin to move forward. To do otherwise is to risk making the same mistakes as those who come before.

It is rather ironic that I would espouse this mode of thought, when I am more solitary and independent in lifestyle than most of those who espouse the other way of thinking. I suppose that distance from my peers and family has made it easier to see how much influence they've had on me. And, too, I've read books by great modern and anti-modern thinkers which have helped elucidate the bankruptcy of the modern idea of radical autonomy.

At the same time, the past is not something merely to be recognized and respected, but also overcome. I am very much my father's son, but I no longer practice the religion of the rest of my family. I have abandoned their ethical system, and adopted one I believe to be much more human. I do not worship their Christ.

There must be a balance. Traditions can meaning and power by being practiced for generations; a new ritual made up just last week may be magickally effective, but an old one will solidify your place in the world. But old traditions can become harmful and stunt one's growth. These must be pruned away. As in other things, a person's proper growth and flourishing depends on achieving the proper balance.

[Faol-chù]

Tradition is important. It binds us back to our families, to our heritage (both heritage of descent and cultural heritage). Thus, traditions can give us a place in this world. Through tradition, we can find where we came from--crucial if we are to know where we are going. It's for this reason that I seriously considered becoming Asatru over the last summer; it is a retrieval of the way of life of many of my ancestors. Celtic reconstructionism, too, was an option. I eventually decided against either one, since neither path does justice to the great cultural heritage of the West which comes from the Greeks and Romans.


Celts and Germanic tribes were (are!) further west than the Greeks and Romans...

Seems to me that THEY are a large part of the "great cultural heritage of the West"....if nota larger part than that of Greece and Rome...

[HadouKen24]

Celts and Germanic tribes were (are!) further west than the Greeks and Romans...

Seems to me that THEY are a large part of the "great cultural heritage of the West"....if nota larger part than that of Greece and Rome...

I was not speaking of the West in geographical terms.

The very mindsets of the Celtic and Germanic tribes are alien to most moderns. For hundreds of years, it has been the classical heritage of Greece and Rome which has laid the groundwork for cultural understanding in most of the West. (There are, of course, exceptions.) Look at the Romantic poets, who laud Pan far more often than Frey or Thor. The loss of the richness of the Germanic and Celtic myths from the culture of the West is indeed something worth correcting, but that does not change how history turned out.

[Faol-chù]

I was not speaking of the West in geographical terms.

The very mindsets of the Celtic and Germanic tribes are alien to most moderns. For hundreds of years, it has been the classical heritage of Greece and Rome which has laid the groundwork for cultural understanding in most of the West. (There are, of course, exceptions.) Look at the Romantic poets, who laud Pan far more often than Frey or Thor. The loss of the richness of the Germanic and Celtic myths from the culture of the West is indeed something worth correcting, but that does not change how history turned out.

But of course the Romantic poets laud Pan more often than Frey or Thor...Pan is from a "classical" culture...Frey and Thor...are not...

And, I propose to you that, if one is interested in "correcting" the loss of richness of the Germanic and Celtic myths from the culture of the West, that it can, in the future change how history turns out.

[Greybird]

Roman culture ended up as far west as they could find any west to conquer.

[skilly-nilly]

Roman culture ended up as far west as they could find any west to conquer.

Not Ireland nor Scotland.

In fact, they build a big wall to mark the end of the Empire:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrians_Wall


and Ireland's entirely surrounded by water.

[Cat]

Interesting point, HadauKen. If you live, as I do, in the USA, you'd probably find more people with Germanic and Celtic ancestry than Greco-Roman. And if you speak English, that language has roots in both Latin and Anglo-Saxon. So if anything I'd think the Germanic/Celtic traditions would have more blood ties here than the Greco-Roman.

[Greybird]

Not Ireland nor Scotland.

In fact, they build a big wall to mark the end of the Empire:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrians_Wall


and Ireland's entirely surrounded by water.

Oh, I Know - my point was more to illustrate that much of what we consider to be western culture has is as much Roman as it is 'western', and that the chances are that anyone with any western european ancestry probably has a hint of Roman blood somewhere in there, too. There are exceptions, of course. ;)

[Faol-chù]

Roman culture ended up as far west as they could find any west to conquer.


Rome never conquered Northern Scotland...Nor did they conquer Ireland. (Ever heard of Hadrian's wall?)
That's about as far west as one can get and still be in Europe.

oops...I see that's already been mentioned...:)

[_Banbha_]

Throughout history, there have been examples of "prophets" who have opened new doors in almost every religion. As far as I know, the most recent was Gardner, and before him guy who started the Mormons (any mormons out there who can fill in the blank?). These prophets have brought new meaning to each of us and affected out lives in one way or another.

Not everyone finds religious "prophets" creditable, palatable or even necessary. Some think they can do harm. I don't need a prophet to convene, communicate, connect to or interpret mysteries.



The practice of religion should be a living thing, a growing thing...let's be honest, we aren't the barbarians we once were, worshipping fire because we hit two rocks together, are we?

I don't think there was a lack the sophistication among the the ancients because they did not have technologies we take for granted. They were as fully intelligent and human as we are. Perhaps they had to be smarter in many ways than most modern humans do on a daily basis with all our "stuff" and conveniences. :)



The very mindsets of the Celtic and Germanic tribes are alien to most moderns. For hundreds of years, it has been the classical heritage of Greece and Rome which has laid the groundwork for cultural understanding in most of the West.

Not where I'm from. I think there is more a combination of both. You might have to look closely in some places but it's there. It just depends on what you value. I submit they are not mutually exclusive in modern culture in any case.

[HadouKen24]

Just to correct any misunderstandings, I'm not saying that one should ignore the Celtic and Germanic culture. They are important to me because of ancestral ties back to those traditions, and I've put effort into reclaiming them for myself in my own life. Even though I don't consider myself Asatru, I have deep respect for many of its traditions, and have adopted Asatru practices for myself. I make offerings to the local landwights and the hearthwights. I am moved deeply by the myths of the gods of the North, even though I may not actively worship them.

However, I can't call myself Asatru because I don't believe I can restrict to merely trying to reconstruct one aspect of my heritage. I was raised Christian, and my parents tried to educate me to a reasonable degree about the Greeks and the Romans to make sure that I was culturally literate. The tales of the Greek gods, as well as Aristotelian and Platonic ideas filtered through Christianity, helped establish my outlook from an early age. I've found that I've had to reject Christianity almost in its entirety, but the rest of my upbringing continues to have an overt influence on my outlook. To become a Germanic or Celtic reconstructionist would require cutting off much of who I am.

That does, of course, leave me in a bit of a pickle. Integrating these two influences--along with a host of others, including both Enlightenment thinkers and critics of Enlightenment thought--is something that I suspect will take me a great deal of time and study. Understanding and integrating my heritage with regard to the present and future is a project not to be taken lightly.

As far as I'm concerned, understanding one's place in the world is a pursuit that takes a lifetime to work through.

Of course, it has to be balanced with the rest of one's life. Where that balance lies is a question whose answer is different from person to person.

[Shanti]

To what extent do you believe that a religion has to do things the traditional way--whether that tradition was originally its own or not--to be valid?

I see validity in both of these extremes; I also see the ability to extend either attitude too far. As is often true for me, I try to strike a balance. I am curious what the rest of you think.
Religion, Faith.
Being true to yourself is what matters. Whether your following ancient tradition exactly as it was a long time ago or changing a lot of a path, IMO, all that truly matters is that you are following what you feel is right for you.
If your spirit is allowed to be your guide, and not others, you wont be steered wrong. You will learn. Sometimes the lessons seem all messed up and sometimes its all clear. Just listen to your own heart. Be true to yourself. Your spirit knows where you are going even if you cross many roads and walk many paths, your spirit isn't ever lost, it knows the way!
Validity comes from being true to you. You know whats true for you and that is the validation! Trust yourself.

My 2 cents for the mix. :)

[wolfjan1]

While I agree that the basic tenets of MOST "religions" are basically to harm none, I have been the recipient many times of Radical right wing cultists "nuke a gay whale for Jesus" attitudes. Thus my severe phobia of "organized religion."
As intelligent people, aren't we responsible to discuss "new" ideas and try to make a modernistic understanding of the dogma surrounding ANY religion/path?

[sarabethv]

Hey leave the chicken dance and the Great Pumpkin out of this - they are sacred.

I don't think age is a component of validity. (I love that word, its soooo valid). However, we would then have to define valid. Is it valid if someone believes they must kill someone each day in order to apease their particular gods? How about killing virgins until their blood runs down the altar steps? (Seriously, I could see that practice resulting in very early sex). OOOPS sorry priest, can't sacrifice me, did it with my boyfriend last night. From what I see, each belief system, not to mention religion has good points and bad points. Would it then be wrong to let those bad points go simply because they were traditional?