Archetypes and spirits

[Sage Rainsong]

Okay I don't know if anyone has noticed this and I'm sorry if this sounds like a rant. When I read about certain authors talk about the Gods, they speak of them as archetypes, then they seem to talk about various spirits as if they are literally real. Am I the only one who thinks this way? Why believe in spirits but not Gods? Are they really that different? If so how? My view is that they are really not so different the Gods are just bigger.

[Simply Puzzled]

When I read about certain authors talk about the Gods, they speak of them as archetypes, then they seem to talk about various spirits as if they are literally real. Am I the only one who thinks this way? Why believe in spirits but not Gods? Are they really that different? If so how? My view is that they are really not so different the Gods are just bigger.

I don't know the authors in question, but I can think of a few popular writers that you might be refering to. Care to post names?

Anywho, I strongly agree with you, and I think this reflects an incoherent worldview on the part of the author. When people convert to paganism, they tend to form worldviews that contain a lot of dissonant parts without necessarily thinking about how they go together. Most of the time these eventually work themselves out, but sometimes, unfortunately, books get written before that happens. I'm not saying that our worldviews should remain static, far from it. But when you write a book, it should outline a system that is fairly consistent within itself. You can't simply say "Oh, I like the work of these people who have trashed Jung's theories all to hell to create archetypes" and then "oh, and I like these other peoples thoughts on spirits" followed by "oh yeah, I need to throw Chakras in there somewhere too."

Sorry, ending ranting on bad authors. And any good energy thoughts before this final I'm about to take would be much appreciated. :-)

[Sage Rainsong]

I don't know the authors in question, but I can think of a few popular writers that you might be refering to. Care to post names?

Anywho, I strongly agree with you, and I think this reflects an incoherent worldview on the part of the author. When people convert to paganism, they tend to form worldviews that contain a lot of dissonant parts without necessarily thinking about how they go together. Most of the time these eventually work themselves out, but sometimes, unfortunately, books get written before that happens. I'm not saying that our worldviews should remain static, far from it. But when you write a book, it should outline a system that is fairly consistent within itself. You can't simply say "Oh, I like the work of these people who have trashed Jung's theories all to hell to create archetypes" and then "oh, and I like these other peoples thoughts on spirits" followed by "oh yeah, I need to throw Chakras in there somewhere too."

Sorry, ending ranting on bad authors. And any good energy thoughts before this final I'm about to take would be much appreciated. :-)

Yeah I think that you are right. Maybe it's just a sign of shallow thinking( which happens all too often). They seem to just incorporate whetever feels good, while ignoring the obvious contradictions with these theories. Maybe it's the psychological effect of the word God that makes people cringe a little bit, especially if they came from oppressive religious environments.

[Xentor]

Let me get this straight:
1) An author states Gods are archetypes;
2) The same author states spirits are real;
3) You state Gods are spirits;
4) Ergo either Gods are real, spirits are archetypes, or both;
5) You have a problem with #4.

Solution:
1) Stop reading books from that author;
2) Stop applying your own theology to someone else's untill after you're done reading their book;
3) Inform the author that your view conflicts with theirs and ask them to write about your views instead.

[Philosophia]

Okay I don't know if anyone has noticed this and I'm sorry if this sounds like a rant. When I read about certain authors talk about the Gods, they speak of them as archetypes, then they seem to talk about various spirits as if they are literally real. Am I the only one who thinks this way? Why believe in spirits but not Gods? Are they really that different? If so how? My view is that they are really not so different the Gods are just bigger.

What is wrong in believing in archetypes?

[Agaliha]

What is wrong in believing in archetypes?

Exactly. It's a valid belief. I understand why many don't agree with it though.
Personally I see the gods as archetypes, metaphors and symbols to explain/describe/understand the world and universe. Not cookie-cutter though, I see them as very complex ones. Not necessarly literal. My view of the gods as more detailed than what I summerized, but the basic point is there.

Oh and I believe in spirits, but not gods either. Spirits are different than gods, in my view.

Some examples of spirits that aren't gods:
A ghost is a spirit, not a god. Angels are sometimes seen as spirits and they're not gods. Many paths and cultures believe in various spirits that aren't linked to the godly realm. One can also be an animist and believe everything has a spirit, but not believe those spirits are gods (and not all animists are theistic!). And though not exactly the best example for this, Buddha is not seen as a god, but is honored as an enlightened man/being-- that could be likened to the spirit not god thing. Then there's the other uses of the word like "spirit of spring" which I've heard said in regard to the flowers and landscape---which isn't a deity. On and on. I don't see how it's incompatible.



spir·it
1.the principle of conscious life; the vital principle in humans, animating the body or mediating between body and soul.
2.the incorporeal part of humans: present in spirit though absent in body.
3.the soul regarded as separating from the body at death.
4.conscious, incorporeal being, as opposed to matter: the world of spirit.
5.a supernatural, incorporeal being, esp. one inhabiting a place, object, etc., or having a particular character: evil spirits.
6.a fairy, sprite, or elf.
7.an angel or demon.
8.an attitude or principle that inspires, animates, or pervades thought, feeling, or action: the spirit of reform.
9.(initial capital letterhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) the divine influence as an agency working in the human heart.
10.a divine, inspiring, or animating being or influence. Num. 11:25; Is. 32:15.




God
1.the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2.the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.
3.(lowercasehttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4.(often lowercasehttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
5.Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
6.(lowercasehttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) an image of a deity; an idol.


There is a difference.
A god/dess could be classifed as a spirit, but not all spirts (in fact most it seems) are not gods. Others might disagree. *shrug*



Yeah I think that you are right. Maybe it's just a sign of shallow thinking (which happens all too often). They seem to just incorporate whetever feels good, while ignoring the obvious contradictions with these theories. Maybe it's the psychological effect of the word God that makes people cringe a little bit, especially if they came from oppressive religious environments.

I know this isn't directed at me personally, but seeing as I see gods as archetypes and believe in spirits, I'm going to reply... (and no, I'm not offended or pissed in case you might think I am)
Uh, I'm not shallow in my thinking. I've been obsessing about religion and spirituality half my life, no joke. I've looked into and tried out more paths than anyone I know. It's something I've spent a lot of time experiencing and thinking about. And no, I'm not just incorporating whatever I want to, I only do what makes sense to me and I feel comfortable doing. I believe what I believe because I've either thought it out fully or experienced it-- or both. Mostly both. And the word God doesn't make me cringe, God god god god. I have no problem saying any of the others. Or "worship" or any other words. I used to be a theist, but crap happens. Now I'm agnostic and pantheist. With lingering theistic tendenies ( :2G: ). And I haven't come from any opressive religion, in fact it was very open. So wrong on all fronts. Heh. I know there are others on here that share my view of the gods, a lot of pantheists do as well. *shrug* It's not for everyone though. As far as spirits, I believe in ghosts and energy that can manifest as "spirits", oh and souls which are often called someone's spirit. Not demons or anything like that.

As for the book, if it's not your cup of tea just don't read it. I've come across tons of crap, not just in spiritual books, but all genres. Lucky I get my books from the library and don't waste my money.

:spaceman: Yup.

[Sage Rainsong]

Solution:
1) Stop reading books from that author;
2) Stop applying your own theology to someone else's untill after you're done reading their book;
3) Inform the author that your view conflicts with theirs and ask them to write about your views instead.


I didn't ask for a solution, nor was I trying to impose my beliefs on anyone. By the way I'm well aware that I didn't have to read the book thanks.



What is wrong in believing in archetypes?

Nothing is wrong with that view at all, it just doesn't make sense to me that they can believe in all manner of spirits from all kinds of systems, from the goetic spirits to the acended masters of the fifth ray of existence, to everyone having like seven spirit guides and thoes are seen as real but if attach the word god to their title all of a sudden they are just archetypes (this all came from a particular book that I was reading.) I would think that people who take the archtypical view would believe that these spirits are archetypes as well. It was simply a question of consistency. Then I simply stated what I believed the gods to be.That is my point. I am sorry if that was confusing and I wasn't trying to impose my beliefs on anyone nor was I insulting the view. I just found it a little bizzare thats' all.

[Athena-Nadine]

Thread closed per originator's request.