Do you believe the Greek Gods are better than other Gods?

[David19]

This is something I recently heard while I was browsing another Pagan forum. I was looking at this thread, here (http://www.mind-n-magick.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1203366577) and a few others, and some of the posters seemed to be saying they believed the Greek Gods were the "most perfect" representation of the Gods, even though I'm a "hard" polytheist and not a "soft" polytheist (believing there to be only one archetypal pantheon that manifests in different ways), I'm not sure if I agree with that statement, I know I'm not a Hellenic recon either, but I don't even think the Gods I worship (Sumerian) are the "most perfect" representation.

Even though I do think the Greek Gods are quite cool and very interesting (especially Apollo, Hecate, and a few others like Athene and Artemis), I don't see why they'd be the most "perfect", just like I don't think YHWH would be the most perfect God, despite what some of his followers think.

Anyway, I would really like to get some other Hellenic Pagan opinions on this, as I'm really curious about it, also, was this view held in ancient times too?.

Thanks for any help :).

[Theres]

yes, this does sound a bit arrogant. and yet on another level i can see the point.

our Euro-centric western culture is based very heavily upon the Greek prototype. everything from art to law to politics to architecture to philosophy and more can be traced back to ancient Greek roots. even Christianity, which, for better or worse, is the dominant religious paradigm in our culture is rooted deeply in Greek religious and philosophical practice.

this is not something i subscribe to personally, but with all that in mind it's not hard to see how someone could extrapolate a 'dominace theory' out of the raw material provided.

and on a slightly different note, this thread rings strongly to me of deja vu.
have i read this somewhere else recently, or is the brain just sizzling again?

[patch]

Whilst they are my favoruite, I don't see them as any more or less perfect than other gods.

[wintermagick]

Better? I wouldn't say that. The only ones that seem to call to me or that I really use or identify with? Sure.

[Twinkle]

This really isn't anything new...Religio Romana feels the same way about their Gods.

I do feel that the Greek Pantheon is the most perfect representation of the Gods. I have no need to worship Mercury, when Hermes is the most perfect representation of Hermes.

I believe that there is no reason to bring in other gods from other pantheons into my worship, regardless of syncretism, because Zeus is still the most perfect representation of Zeus.

It's not about our Gods being "better". It's about our Gods being the most perfect representation of the Gods in our pantheon. Why would I worship Yaweh when Zeus is the most perfect representation? I could certainly worship Zeus Yaweh (as an epithet), but for a practitioner of Hellenismos....correct practice would be to worship the Greek God.

[Tim]

This is something I recently heard while I was browsing another Pagan forum. I was looking at this thread, here (http://www.mind-n-magick.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1203366577) and a few others, and some of the posters seemed to be saying they believed the Greek Gods were the "most perfect" representation of the Gods, even though I'm a "hard" polytheist and not a "soft" polytheist (believing there to be only one archetypal pantheon that manifests in different ways), I'm not sure if I agree with that statement, I know I'm not a Hellenic recon either, but I don't even think the Gods I worship (Sumerian) are the "most perfect" representation.

Even though I do think the Greek Gods are quite cool and very interesting (especially Apollo, Hecate, and a few others like Athene and Artemis), I don't see why they'd be the most "perfect", just like I don't think YHWH would be the most perfect God, despite what some of his followers think.

Anyway, I would really like to get some other Hellenic Pagan opinions on this, as I'm really curious about it, also, was this view held in ancient times too?.

Thanks for any help :).

This may come from your lack of understanding of the Ancient Greeks and their perception of the Gods. The Greeks believed that every culture worshiped the same Cosmic Gods, just through the veils of different names and different myths, but that their representation of these Gods were the most perfect. This is not soft polytheism in that all Gods are different faces of one God, but a belief that there is only one pantheon or collative of Gods. This concept is what I call Inclusive Polytheism, and you can read a discussion about it here (http://hellenismos.us/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=177).

Therefore, it is not saying that the Greek Gods are better, because the Greek Gods are all there is in actuality, outside of local divinities. It is saying that the Greek perception is the most evolved and most complete perception of the Cosmic Gods. Why would a person be a practitioner of Hellenismos if they did not believe that it provides the most truth? Why would anyone participate in any religion if they did not believe that it provided the most perfect representation of the Divine?

[David19]

This may come from your lack of understanding of the Ancient Greeks and their perception of the Gods. The Greeks believed that every culture worshiped the same Cosmic Gods, just through the veils of different names and different myths, but that their representation of these Gods were the most perfect. This is not soft polytheism in that all Gods are different faces of one God, but a belief that there is only one pantheon or collative of Gods. This concept is what I call Inclusive Polytheism, and you can read a discussion about it here (http://hellenismos.us/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=177).

Therefore, it is not saying that the Greek Gods are better, because the Greek Gods are all there is in actuality, outside of local divinities. It is saying that the Greek perception is the most evolved and most complete perception of the Cosmic Gods. Why would a person be a practitioner of Hellenismos if they did not believe that it provides the most truth? Why would anyone participate in any religion if they did not believe that it provided the most perfect representation of the Divine?

For me personally, I worship my Gods, just 'cause I feel called to them specifically, I don't see that Ereshkigal is the most perfect representation of all underworld Gods or Enlil as being the most perfect representation of all rulers of the pantheon, etc. I see all Gods as equally valid, I may not worship them, but that doesn't stop me from respecting the deity in question and their worship.

It may just be me, but I kind of think, that when you start talking about one set of Gods or one representation being "perfect", it can spiral down to the level of Christian and Muslim fundamentalism, who argue their God or their representation of God is the "most perfect" (like you might get a Christian fundamentalist who says Muslims, Jews, etc all worship the same as God as themselves, but only their representation of God is the most perfect, I hope that made some sense).

[Tim]

For me personally, I worship my Gods, just 'cause I feel called to them specifically, I don't see that Ereshkigal is the most perfect representation of all underworld Gods or Enlil as being the most perfect representation of all rulers of the pantheon, etc. I see all Gods as equally valid, I may not worship them, but that doesn't stop me from respecting the deity in question and their worship.

It may just be me, but I kind of think, that when you start talking about one set of Gods or one representation being "perfect", it can spiral down to the level of Christian and Muslim fundamentalism, who argue their God or their representation of God is the "most perfect" (like you might get a Christian fundamentalist who says Muslims, Jews, etc all worship the same as God as themselves, but only their representation of God is the most perfect, I hope that made some sense).
How do you then rectify the prime flaw with a polytheistic theology? The Greeks believed the Zeus was the king of all Gods, but the Romans believed it was Jupiter. Does this mean the Zeus is only king of the Gods within the boundaries of Greece, and Jupiter limited to only Rome. What of Hades? Are there multiple Underworld Gods, each with charge over multiple systems? Seems like an irrational, iritic, complex, and ultimately implausible system.

And please don't twist my words. I'm not saying the Greek Gods are more perfect then "other" Gods, I am saying that there can only logically be one set of Gods governing the Cosmos, and that I believe the Greek perception is the most complete. This perception also existed within Ancient Greece long before Christianity ever was. What sounds Judeo-Christian is the idea of being "chosen" by a God, much like YHWY supposedly did.

[Twinkle]

I thought like David did at one time, Tim...that somehow it's disrespectful and trampling on another culture to say that Gods from other pantheons are not somehow equally valid as another pantheon.

The thing of it is, it makes no sense to Zeus the King of all the Gods in Greece, and then have it shift to Jupiter in Rome.

Philosophically speaking, the only rational belief is that there is one set of Cosmic gods that animate and harmonize the world.

My belief is that the Greek Gods are the most evolved and perfect representation of those Gods. Of course, I am a Hellenic Recon...I would believe that my pantheon is the most perfect representation.

I would sort of question anyone who didn't feel that their pantheon wasn't the most perfect representation of the Gods....why would they be worshipping that pantheon....

Because you're called to it doesn't seem to have fleshed out the reasons why you believe and practice...at least in my opinion.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

Are there multiple Underworld Gods, each with charge over multiple systems?

Absolutely so...parallel dimensions , with differing pantheons
ruling each one...minor characters , in a large passion play...

Room for all , in a multi - verse of religious diversity...:smile:

[Tim]

Absolutely so...parallel dimensions , with differing pantheons
ruling each one...minor characters , in a large passion play...

Room for all , in a multi - verse of religious diversity...:smile:

Why would you worship Cosmic Gods that make, animate, harmonize, and keep a universe other than your own? ...or do you perceive the Gods as little more than superheroes with superhuman powers?

[Twinkle]

I don't believe ShawBlack Wolf is a Reconstructionist. I think he is a practitioner of Fairy Magick and the Fairy Tradition.

I don't believe his perception or worship of the Gods would fall in line with Reconstructionist belief or methodology.

[Tim]

Regardless of whether he is a Recon or not, his remarks have me wondering about if he is working under a coherent philosophy in creating his personal theology, and what that philosophy is. If we understand what he believes the Gods are, what their relationship to the universe is, what their relationship to humanity is, and why we would worship them, then I think we can rationalize the comment.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

Thank you , Twinkle , for your clarification , and
your respectful statement...

Tim...in answer to your question...and I am sure
this goes against your beliefs , which I am not attacking...

I was just answering your question , with my knowledge ,
and belief , shall I say...

So...

1. We ( humans ) are Gods , with amnesia...come to this
plane of existence , and in the process , lost memory , and
abilities...

2. There are those who kept those abilities , and memory ,
due to their choosing not to enter this dimension...these ,
are the ones , presently known as gods...associates...not
to be worshipped...just reminders , and guides , to our
ancestral heritage...helpers on the path...yet , in their
"exalted" position , many of them have their own form of
amnesia...thinking they are better , than their old friends ,
and associates , just because they did not choose to come
here , in full human form...

3. Gods act as quantum boundary constraints , within
certain parameters...thus , they have certain abilities ,
each fitting within their specific task , in the larger
paradigm...

I am in no sense of the word...a religious person...

Mgieckally oriented...most certainly...I worship nothing ,
and no one...and I am a god , in the process of remembering...

Hope that helps...was not trying to derail your discussion...

Blessings on your path...

[Tim]

So, then, you are an atheist who believes in magic(k)?

[Twinkle]

To be honest, it sounds more like Scientology...they are humans taken over by alien memories...they cannot remember what it's like to be human...so they go through all sorts of stuff to regain their "humanity"....or something like that....and because of that ,Scientologists are the only ones truly "aware" enough to do anything, help anyone in this world.

[Tim]

To be honest, it sounds more like Scientology...they are humans taken over by alien memories...they cannot remember what it's like to be human...so they go through all sorts of stuff to regain their "humanity"....or something like that....and because of that ,Scientologists are the only ones truly "aware" enough to do anything, help anyone in this world.

What do you expect from a religion founded by a science fiction author?:boing:

[Twinkle]

I didn't take into account the whole magick thing, though.

So...an atheist that believes in magick is the better summary.:smileroll

[Halstrom]

What do you expect from a religion founded by a science fiction author?:boing:

You mean other than being exciting or fascinating and not creepy? :smile:

[Tim]

Oh, I absolutely think it is creepy... and obviously very lucrative.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

No , don't fit either of those descriptions...just what I said...

Not your interpretation of it...you have your way...you choose
to worship...you choose to see the gods your way...I can respect
that...just respect mine...simple enough...

I tried my best to give you a very respectful answer , Tim...

I am a mgieckal worker...not an athiest , not a worshipper...


That is it...as I said...remembering heritage...

[Twinkle]

Well...if you don't believe in or worship any gods, but feel that you are a God, and practice magick....I believe that would actually make you some form of Satanist.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

Do not believe in that paradigm , as espoused , either...but I do
understand why you might think that , given what is espoused
in that tradition...

I don't fit into the pigeonhole complex , nor did I enter the thread
to disrupt...I saw David had posted here...wondered what it was
about...saw Tim's question...had an answer...gave it...

Continue with your thread , with my blessing on your path...:smile:

[Tim]

No , don't fit either of those descriptions...just what I said...

Not your interpretation of it...you have your way...you choose
to worship...you choose to see the gods your way...I can respect
that...just respect mine...simple enough...

I tried my best to give you a very respectful answer , Tim...

I am a mgieckal worker...not an athiest , not a worshipper...


That is it...as I said...remembering heritage...
...respect your perceptions of the Gods? I can most certainly respect your right to believe whatever you want to believe. You injected yourself into this thread, and based on your stated belief of what the Gods are, what you are, and your relationship to them, that would place you in the category of an atheist in my opinion. You just seem to place the Gods on such low level of reality, and your perception of them makes them appear rather insignificant. I'm sorry if you find that offensive, but it is the reality of what you wrote.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

Do not find it offensive , do not find it inoffensive ;

It is your interpretation of the reality of what I wrote ,
that is all ...not the reality of what I wrote...

Try reading Robert Anton Wilson's works , and his
writings , regarding reality tunnels...personal , group ,
religious , social / political...if you choose...

Help you understand how some of us percieve multi -
level reality / realities...we do not need , nor desire...
to pigeonhole...and we most certainly do not fit within them...:lol:

[Tim]

I will say that, in my opinion, inclusive polytheism (at the very least) does not attempt to completely invalidate other religions. What it does is attempt to answer why different polytheistic religions exist, and that answer is Divine Truth becomes interpreted differently based on multiple factors, and in ancient times this was primarily filtered through culture.

People can become offended, if they want, by me stating the Greek Gods are the most perfect and complete representations of the Cosmic Gods, but inclusive polytheism does not state that they are necessarily wrong. I would refer you all to the Eastern parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant.

Shawn, as "respectful" as you claim to be, your personal theology does imply that almost every religion, including polytheistic religions, is absolutely wrong, and only you have the true knowledge of the true truth.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

Not true , in my eyes Tim...go back , to where you were
stating to Twinkle , you wanted to know my views...

Therefore , trying to give you most graciously what you
asked for , I posted my way of seeing it...

Now , another point...Theo - ology , is a word based on a
male oriented belief system...which does not fit my paradigm...

So I do not have a theo - ology , or any ology...:lol:

I keep saying to you , but you won't let it go...Blessings On
Your Path...and that I respected your beliefs...can you not
just accept someone else's view of reality , through their
reality tunnel , without feeling insulted , or invalidated ?

If you ask for someone else's view...be strong enough , and
respectful enough , to accept it , when you get it...that's all...

May your gods you believe in...bless you...:smile:

[Tim]

Why do you insist on continuing to hijack this thread?

You saw my question regarding the major flaw in a polytheistic theology, and answered. I would have never asked you to expand if you never injected yourself into this thread, on a topic you know nothing about. You followed up by stating that all beliefs, in all the Gods, from every pantheon and culture, are wrong. Not only that, you go a step further, describing some Gods as becoming delusional. How you can claim that is not an attempt to invalidate the beliefs and be disrespectful of others is beyond me. You seriously want me to accept your arrogant slap in the face to almost every Pagan on this board as being somehow respectful?

[Shawn Blackwolf]

Why don't you stop the malarkey , Tim ?

I posted in this thread , respecptfully , to answer a question
you posited ; you then asked for a clarification , which I gave ,
respectfully , again...however you just did not like the answer ,
and have continued to post toward me...so I have continued to
answer you...I have offered respect for your views , while holding
my own...if you , or others choose to feel insulted...I can not , nor
shall I try to prevent you...

Again , may the gods you believe in bless you...I am going to
go teach my class , where I do not have to deal with this...

I have tried to gracefully walk away , again and again...

Going to let it happen...this time ?

[Tim]

There is nothing stopping you from walking away... expect maybe my opinion that you shroud arrogant intolerance in a smokescreen of flowery rhetoric about respect and acceptance. Who is spouting malarkey? Do you hear yourself talk?

"Now , another point...Theo - ology , is a word based on a male oriented belief system...which does not fit my paradigm..."

What is that? Is this just an attempt to out talk me by posting a bunch of empty meaningless rhetoric? I know you think you're insightful. If you are trying to get me to think you are insightful too, that is probably not going to happen.

[patch]

. What of Hades? Are there multiple Underworld Gods, each with charge over multiple systems?
I see it like this-
The otherworld is a big place, hades controls one area for example, and another deity may control another.
When I die I go to hades, when a christian dies they go to YHVH.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

I think that the Greek cosmos is the most well known to the average school child, as such it is the most developed within our social perspective. We have reference's to it through our governmental system, our educational system to a degree, our cultural identity via Western Civilization. Even through our collective historical memory passed down generation to generation.

Our mythology as revealed in the media plays to the Greek mythos more than any other. While we see the Romanized gods / goddess our movies and books more so align to the Greek model. We see the stories of Jason and the Golden Fleece, Hercules, the story of Helen of Troy, Alexander the Great.

While the mythos of the other area's are known to people they pale in comparrison to the amount of support the Greek cosmos receives. When in doubt the average person fills in the missing pieces from the movies or tales passed down in school classes.

One facet I think overlooked is the concept of multiple time lines. In each time line any number of actions or developments have occured, could have occured, or might occur, that potentially have created demensions where Rome created the gods / goddess of fame. Points where the Nordic gods / goddess held thier status and the Northern ways influenced the world.

I believe that in our abiity to preceive or imagine the various possibilities that we can touch upon them. If all exist at once and lie in paralell to our known time line that cross overs or connections do occur and can be created. That gods / goddess that hold little sway in our physical universe may hold great power in the time line dedicated to thier mythos.

Sort of like the series Quantum Leap the connections are thier on multiple levels. Of course that is my opinion so others may have a differing view point.

[Tim]

I see it like this-
The otherworld is a big place, hades controls one area for example, and another deity may control another.
When I die I go to hades, when a christian dies they go to YHVH.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but is that a reasoned response based on the systemized theology you developed that addresses metaphysical and cosmological questions, or merely conjecture?

[Tim]

I believe that in our abiity to preceive or imagine the various possibilities that we can touch upon them. If all exist at once and lie in paralell to our known time line that cross overs or connections do occur and can be created. That gods / goddess that hold little sway in our physical universe may hold great power in the time line dedicated to thier mythos.

I really believe you may be over thinking this. I am a practitioner of Hellenismos. This is the Hellenic Recon sub-board of the Recon Path board. The question relates to the beliefs of Ancient Greece, and the beliefs of Hellenic Recons. It makes no difference what possible paradigm exists in some alternate reality, or how developed a perception is of a hypothetical civilization.

The Cosmic Gods are the Cosmic Gods despite what names they are given or what myths they are known by. As a practitioner of Hellenismos, which is a reconstruction of the ancient Greek religion, I espouse within this beliefs system that the Greek Gods are the most perfect and complete representation of those Cosmic Gods. What is going on in a hypothetical parallel reality is of no concern to me.

In fact, it does not concern me if Religio Romana, Kemeticism, or Hinduism see their representation of the Gods as the most perfect. Why? ...because their beliefs do not affect or detract from my own. I do not understand why there must always be an attempt by Neopagans to waterdown every cultural religion.

[Twinkle]

It's watered down so they can assimilate it.

It takes less time to make everyone the same then it does to actually sit down and study an ancient culture.

I would agree with you that hypothetical alternate realities don't mean squat to me, as they don't affect my beliefs, or my practice.

Within Hellenismos...the Greek Gods are the most perfect representation of the Cosmic Gods, and this is why we worship them.

It is why the Greeks in Egypt worshipped Zeus, not Ammon.

It's that simple.

[David19]

How do you then rectify the prime flaw with a polytheistic theology? The Greeks believed the Zeus was the king of all Gods, but the Romans believed it was Jupiter. Does this mean the Zeus is only king of the Gods within the boundaries of Greece, and Jupiter limited to only Rome. What of Hades? Are there multiple Underworld Gods, each with charge over multiple systems? Seems like an irrational, iritic, complex, and ultimately implausible system.

To me, I think Zeus is only ruler of the Olympians, he has no authority over Gods such as Enki, Odin, Thor, The Morrigan, Aset, etc. Same for Jupiter, although whether Jupiter and Zeus are the same, I don't know, although someone who's had experiences with both Zeus and Jupiter tells me they are different.


And please don't twist my words. I'm not saying the Greek Gods are more perfect then "other" Gods, I am saying that there can only logically be one set of Gods governing the Cosmos, and that I believe the Greek perception is the most complete. This perception also existed within Ancient Greece long before Christianity ever was. What sounds Judeo-Christian is the idea of being "chosen" by a God, much like YHWY supposedly did.

I didn't mean to twist you words, but I don't see why there can only be one set of Gods governing the cosmos. I just don't see why the Greek view would be the most "complete", what makes the ancient Greek view so special?.

Also, the idea of getting choosen by a God isn't that unusual, many Gods, throughout history and myth have choosen either individuals or groups, like in the Iliad(sp?), Athena chooses Odysus(sp?) and becomes his patron, in Kemeticism and the Sumerian religion, a God will choose you, or even create your soul (and therefore be your spiritual parent), same with Vodou and Santeria, the Norse Gods (from what I know and have read, the Norse Gods only call those who have their blood), etc.

So, I don't think the idea of YHWH choosing the Jews is really such a wierd idea.

[David19]

Absolutely so...parallel dimensions , with differing pantheons
ruling each one...minor characters , in a large passion play...

Room for all , in a multi - verse of religious diversity...:smile:

I agree with you :).

[David19]

Why would you worship Cosmic Gods that make, animate, harmonize, and keep a universe other than your own? ...or do you perceive the Gods as little more than superheroes with superhuman powers?

I think that's where we differ, I don't view the Gods as animating and harmonizing the world, like I've heard one example of someone who was an inclusive polytheist who said they didn't believe Zeus would command a thunder storm then as soon as it passed to Rome, Jupiter took over, but to me, I don't see the Gods as being responsible for natural phenomena, I don't see as every rainfall being sent by the Gods, I don't see the sun rising as the work of a God, etc.

In my religion (Sumerian), Utu is a sun God, among other things, but I don't believe he is the sun, I don't believe that Utu is responsible for making it rise or set, and I don't believe that if Utu were to disappear somehow (not sure he can, but let's speak hypothetically), the sun would stop spinning and vice-versa (e.g. that if the sun stopped, Utu would be gone, etc). Maybe the ancients believed that the Gods sent every natural phenomena or used the Gods as a way of explaining things, but with science, we know why things happen now, we know that the sun doesn't rise 'cause of a God pulling it across the sky, etc. To use the Utu example again, I think him being associated with the sun tells us about what kind of God he is, it's used symbollicaly, like he's also a God of law (and the laws of hospitality were very very important in Sumer and the religion), he watches over those who keep and violate those laws like the sun, he is like the light of the sun - can be good but also can burn you, etc (I'm not sure if I've explained that right, I should come up with more detailed views).

If the Gods suddenly stopped and went away, the universe/multiverse would continue spinning and doing its work. I don't think the Gods are just concerned with making sure the universe runs, they do afterall have a life of their own, in their own realms or maybe this one.

Maybe they are connected in some metaphysical way to the cosmos, or maybe they keep some kind of balance in the universe/multiverse, I'm not too sure, I think maybe some or all of them might keep a balance between destruction (the kind personified by Isfet in Kemetic thought, needless destruction) and order, like my Gods are Gods of civilization, among other things, and, IMO, would be opposed to needless destruction (some of them are for destruction, but there's always a purpose for it), etc.

Hope that made some sense.

[Twinkle]

David, I think you're missing the point. We don't recognize, Odin, Enki, or Thor. Our gods are the most perfect representation of the Gods...so therefore Odin, Enki, or Thor are really the Greek Gods...the people of different different cultures are seeing our Gods by those names.

It's not a new concept....and the Ancient Greeks felt the same. When they went to a new place they asked: "How is Zeus worshipped here?"

We worship the Greek pantheon...we feel that our Gods are the most perfect and evolved pantheon...why else would we worship them? That's what makes them so special to us. The Romans feel there Gods are most perfect...so be it. It doesn't effect my practice...they can believe what they want. You don't have to believe the Greek Gods are the most perfect...worship your Gods. We just don't see it that way.

There's a difference between being called to a pantheon or god, and being "chosen". Now...if you're talking about being "chosen" to spread the word of the Gods...then I would ask that one take a look at Hellenic thought and see if that matches up with Judeo-Christian prophets.

[David19]

So, then, you are an atheist who believes in magic(k)?

To be honest, it sounds more like Scientology...they are humans taken over by alien memories...they cannot remember what it's like to be human...so they go through all sorts of stuff to regain their "humanity"....or something like that....and because of that ,Scientologists are the only ones truly "aware" enough to do anything, help anyone in this world.

Actually, and Shawn can correct me if I'm wrong or way off, but I think his post is more Gnostic, it's about remembering you're a God, (in Gnosticism, at least from what I've learnt, the basic plot is humanity existed in the Pleroma, something happened, it differs what, but some say the Demiurge captured sparks of light and trapped them in matter, and the goal is to remember our existence in the Pleroma, and free ourself from the control of the Demiurge). That's what I've got from Gnosticism anyway, Shawn's system may be different to that, I just think his is more Gnostic in some sense anyway.

[David19]

Well...if you don't believe in or worship any gods, but feel that you are a God, and practice magick....I believe that would actually make you some form of Satanist.

Maybe kind of OT, but quite a few Satanists do worship a God (Satan), and not all practice or believe in magic.

[David19]

I will say that, in my opinion, inclusive polytheism (at the very least) does not attempt to completely invalidate other religions. What it does is attempt to answer why different polytheistic religions exist, and that answer is Divine Truth becomes interpreted differently based on multiple factors, and in ancient times this was primarily filtered through culture.

People can become offended, if they want, by me stating the Greek Gods are the most perfect and complete representations of the Cosmic Gods, but inclusive polytheism does not state that they are necessarily wrong. I would refer you all to the Eastern parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant.

But, inclusive polytheism does seem to say some people are wrong, like, take the Greek Gods, they are called the Immortals, and death doesn't affect them, and while that's true for most Gods, the Norse Gods can and will die (their prophecised to at Ragnarok). Also, some of the Sumerian Gods can "die", although, IMO, death for them isn't the same as death for mortals. If you read the Descent of Inanna, Inanna is killed by Ereshkigal, or more specifically impaled and turned into rotting flesh, etc.

[Theres]

But, inclusive polytheism does seem to say some people are wrong, like, take the Greek Gods, they are called the Immortals, and death doesn't affect them, and while that's true for most Gods, the Norse Gods can and will die (their prophecised to at Ragnarok). Also, some of the Sumerian Gods can "die", although, IMO, death for them isn't the same as death for mortals. If you read the Descent of Inanna, Inanna is killed by Ereshkigal, or more specifically impaled and turned into rotting flesh, etc.
i think you may be falling into that old trap of confusing mythology with religion.

[Tim]

I think that is it exactly. I don’t know how many times (not just here on MW) I have had to state that the Gods are not their myths.

David19 seems to think I am saying the Greek Gods are better then other Gods, or that the Gods of other cultures are subservient to them, which I am not. All I am saying is that there can only be one set of Cosmic Gods. From a Hellenic perspective, the Greek Gods are the most complete and perfect representation (or maybe interpretation would be better) of those Cosmic Gods.

Another problem, I think, is that David19 does not see the Cosmic Gods as Cosmic. From my perspective, the Gods are inseparable from the universe. They "make" and make up all that exist in the Cosmos, at the same time being part of the multiplicity which is the Unity of the One. David19 sees them much more mundanely, and probably not anything I would even consider to be a God.

[David19]

I think that is it exactly. I don’t know how many times (not just here on MW) I have had to state that the Gods are not their myths.

Maybe that's where we differ, 'cause I see the myths as being important, to learning about the Gods, not the sole source of knowledge, but they are important (that's why I like Joseph Campbell and Jung, and other mythologists they don't disregard the myths).

David19 seems to think I am saying the Greek Gods are better then other Gods, or that the Gods of other cultures are subservient to them, which I am not. All I am saying is that there can only be one set of Cosmic Gods. From a Hellenic perspective, the Greek Gods are the most complete and perfect representation (or maybe interpretation would be better) of those Cosmic Gods.

But, why can there be only one set of Gods, that's what I don't understand. The thing I don't like about the saying one interpretation is more "complete" or "perfect" is 'cause it creates an "us vs. them" situation, I think that while many ancient people probably felt that way, may ancient people were also very xenophobic (the Sumerians definantly were, the Greeks were famous for it, the early Jews were, same with the ancient Egyptians, etc). I think it was more done to champion their specific culture, in our modern age of interconnectedness, I don't see the need to champion one culture's view as more "perfect".

For example, I worship Ereshkigal, and in the Greco-Egyptian religion (http://neosalexandria.org/) (of which Sannion, and various others, is a recon of), she was sometimes equated with Hecate, but I wouldn't tell someone who worshipped Hecate, "I respect your position but my interpretation is more perfect", that just sounds arrogant to me, it seems just to champion a cultural view, and not a God (and IMO, a religion should be about the God or Gods, not a culture).

Another problem, I think, is that David19 does not see the Cosmic Gods as Cosmic. From my perspective, the Gods are inseparable from the universe. They "make" and make up all that exist in the Cosmos, at the same time being part of the multiplicity which is the Unity of the One. David19 sees them much more mundanely, and probably not anything I would even consider to be a God.

That's 'cause I've seen no evidence that the sun rises 'cause of a God or that every rainfall falls 'cause of a archetypal rain God, etc. IMO, ancient people may have thought that, but that was in the age of pre-scientific thinking. If anyone can provide any evidence as to why the Gods do these things, well, talk to Richard Dawkins.

Also, we may differ on seeing the Gods as making up "the One".

And, I don't see how my view of my Gods makes them any less divine.

I just don't see how the Gods could all be the same set of Gods, like, and I know you say other peoples conceptions don't matter from a Hellenic perspective, but the Aztec Gods want blood sacrifice, that's expected of any worshipper (in modern times, they obvously don't get human sacrifice, but they do get auto sacrifice of blood lettigns and other things), but, some pantheons don't like blood at all, for example, the Kemetic Gods, if the Hellenic view is right, then one of those conceptions is probably wrong, etc.

[Tim]

Maybe that's where we differ, 'cause I see the myths as being important, to learning about the Gods, not the sole source of knowledge, but they are important (that's why I like Joseph Campbell and Jung, and other mythologists they don't disregard the myths).

Jung and Campbell discuss psychological and literary archetypes, not the Gods. There have been a number of discussions regarding how and why the Greek religion was not defined by myth. Feel free to look back over the old threads. The fact is that a person who bases their perceptions of the Greek religion on myth, will not get an accurate view of practices and beliefs. One must make use of the best available evidence from a variety of fields including historical literary research, anthropology, religious history, political history, archeology, forensic anthropology, historical sociology, el al.

But, why can there be only one set of Gods, that's what I don't understand. The thing I don't like about the saying one interpretation is more "complete" or "perfect" is 'cause it creates an "us vs. them" situation, I think that while many ancient people probably felt that way, may ancient people were also very xenophobic (the Sumerians definantly were, the Greeks were famous for it, the early Jews were, same with the ancient Egyptians, etc). I think it was more done to champion their specific culture, in our modern age of interconnectedness, I don't see the need to champion one culture's view as more "perfect".

With your perception of the Gods not playing any role in the universe, and being basically super-beings, then there can be. With my perceptions of the Gods, if you take away the Gods then the universe ceases to exist. As I stated before, from my perspective, the Gods "make" and make up all that exist in the Cosmos, at the same time being part of the multiplicity which is the Unity of the One. I simply believe your mundane perception of the Gods is unworthy of them.

For example, I worship Ereshkigal, and in the Greco-Egyptian religion (http://neosalexandria.org/) (of which Sannion, and various others, is a recon of), she was sometimes equated with Hecate, but I wouldn't tell someone who worshipped Hecate, "I respect your position but my interpretation is more perfect", that just sounds arrogant to me, it seems just to champion a cultural view, and not a God (and IMO, a religion should be about the God or Gods, not a culture).

Sannion abandoned reconstruction a long time ago. More to the point, if you believe Ereshkigal and Hecate are the same, why would you choose one over the other? If you don't see them as the same, then there is nothing to discuss on this, is there?

That's 'cause I've seen no evidence that the sun rises 'cause of a God or that every rainfall falls 'cause of a archetypal rain God, etc. IMO, ancient people may have thought that, but that was in the age of pre-scientific thinking. If anyone can provide any evidence as to why the Gods do these things, well, talk to Richard Dawkins.

See my previous statement. The Gods are inseparable from nature. Does a God make it rain? Of course, there is no super being flipping the rain switch, but without the Gods, there would be no rain, no sun, no earth, and no anything else.

And, I don't see how my view of my Gods makes them any less divine.

The perception you stated may make for a good comic or Disney cartoon, but not anything I would call a God. Will you worship aliens if they ever land one day?

I just don't see how the Gods could all be the same set of Gods, like, and I know you say other peoples conceptions don't matter from a Hellenic perspective, but the Aztec Gods want blood sacrifice, that's expected of any worshipper (in modern times, they obvously don't get human sacrifice, but they do get auto sacrifice of blood lettigns and other things), but, some pantheons don't like blood at all, for example, the Kemetic Gods, if the Hellenic view is right, then one of those conceptions is probably wrong, etc.

Well, if the Greeks believed their's were the most perfect and complete representation of the Gods, and perception of the Gods can be based on culture, then other cultural perceptions would have been seen as less perfect and complete.... therefore less correct. As I stated before, Divine Truth is interpreted differently based on multiple factors, and can become distorted. Why is it a stretch of the imagination to say different cultures perceive the Gods differently?

[Agaliha]

David, I think you're missing the point. We don't recognize, Odin, Enki, or Thor. Our gods are the most perfect representation of the Gods...so therefore Odin, Enki, or Thor are really the Greek Gods...the people of different different cultures are seeing our Gods by those names.

It's not a new concept....and the Ancient Greeks felt the same. When they went to a new place they asked: "How is Zeus worshipped here?"

We worship the Greek pantheon...we feel that our Gods are the most perfect and evolved pantheon...why else would we worship them? That's what makes them so special to us. The Romans feel there Gods are most perfect...so be it. It doesn't effect my practice...they can believe what they want. You don't have to believe the Greek Gods are the most perfect...worship your Gods. We just don't see it that way.

I see, makes more sense to me now.
I actually wasn't aware of this aspect of Hellenismos.

So, for clarification the Greeks if they went to India would see Lakshmi as the Indian form of say Aphrodite or something like that?

Also what of the non-Hellenistic gods that don't have a Hellenistic god to represent? Not all deities have a Hellenistic counterpart. Just curious how that works.

_inabox_

[Twinkle]

If the Greeks went to Egypt and saw a temple to Ammon...and that he was worshipped as the King of the Gods....they would see it as Ammon being their representation of Zeus.

When they worshipped at the temple, they did not worship Ammon...they worshipped their most perfect representation of Zeus...Zeus.

[Agaliha]

If the Greeks went to Egypt and saw a temple to Ammon...and that he was worshipped as the King of the Gods....they would see it as Ammon being their representation of Zeus.
When they worshipped at the temple, they did not worship Ammon...they worshipped their most perfect representation of Zeus...Zeus.

Got it. ;)

[Tim]

So, for clarification the Greeks if they went to India would see Lakshmi as the Indian form of say Aphrodite or something like that?

Yes, something like that. It is also on of the practice that really does not require reconstruction because the Greek Gods are the Greek Gods period. The need to make these associations no longer exists.

Also what of the non-Hellenistic gods that don't have a Hellenistic god to represent? Not all deities have a Hellenistic counterpart. Just curious how that works.

There were Gods that did not get associated with Greek ones. The Greeks did recognize that while their's may have been the most complete, it was not absolutely complete. There are also Gods that were strictly local. The God of a particular forest or river, outside of Greece, would not have a Greek God associated with them. They also had the Altar to the Unknown God, which served to make sacrifices to all Gods that were unknown to them, but were worthy of worship.

[David19]

Jung and Campbell discuss psychological and literary archetypes, not the Gods. There have been a number of discussions regarding how and why the Greek religion was not defined by myth. Feel free to look back over the old threads. The fact is that a person who bases their perceptions of the Greek religion on myth, will not get an accurate view of practices and beliefs. One must make use of the best available evidence from a variety of fields including historical literary research, anthropology, religious history, political history, archeology, forensic anthropology, historical sociology, el al.

And, those tell you how worship was done, among other things, but it doesn't give you a clue into the personality of the God, IMO, the Gods do have personalities, they feel love, they feel hate, they're feel similar emotions and feelings to humans, only they are better, stronger, more powerful, more intelligent than mortals, etc.

I see myths as expressions of the human soul, and I see the soul as connected to the Gods and divinity.


With your perception of the Gods not playing any role in the universe, and being basically super-beings, then there can be. With my perceptions of the Gods, if you take away the Gods then the universe ceases to exist. As I stated before, from my perspective, the Gods "make" and make up all that exist in the Cosmos, at the same time being part of the multiplicity which is the Unity of the One. I simply believe your mundane perception of the Gods is unworthy of them.

So, I'm unworthy of the Gods?, well, Ereshkigal choose me, and I'm going to trust her opinion and her judgement over yours, being that she is a God, and, IMO, one of the greatest.


Sannion abandoned reconstruction a long time ago. More to the point, if you believe Ereshkigal and Hecate are the same, why would you choose one over the other? If you don't see them as the same, then there is nothing to discuss on this, is there?

I don't see how Sannion abandoned reconstructionism a long time ago, I've spoken with him and he's very cool, he knows a lot, and I love his articles, and, while I'm not on the same religion as he is, I find I can adapt his practices and suggestions for myself and to serve my God and Gods.

And, I wasn't talking about choosing over God over the other, but you seem to be saying there's only one set of Gods, but the Greek perception is the best, I was saying I could never think that, even if there were only "one set" of archetypal Gods, I wouldn't say my perception is "more perfect" or "better" (better is another word perfect).


See my previous statement. The Gods are inseparable from nature. Does a God make it rain? Of course, there is no super being flipping the rain switch, but without the Gods, there would be no rain, no sun, no earth, and no anything else.

But, exactly how do you come to that conclusion, I'm not being rude or disrespectful, I'm generally curious why you think that (I've seen others hold that view, but I just don't understand it myself).


The perception you stated may make for a good comic or Disney cartoon, but not anything I would call a God. Will you worship aliens if they ever land one day?

What would you call a God then, and how did I make them seem like "cartoons"?.

And, if aliens landed one day, would you tell them your perception of the divine was more perfect, even though they were way more advanced than you (I'd imagine an alien species who can get to this world would be more advanced).

Well, if the Greeks believed their's were the most perfect and complete representation of the Gods, and perception of the Gods can be based on culture, then other cultural perceptions would have been seen as less perfect and complete.... therefore less correct. As I stated before, Divine Truth is interpreted differently based on multiple factors, and can become distorted. Why is it a stretch of the imagination to say different cultures perceive the Gods differently?

It's not the part about different cultures interpreting the divine differently that's difficult for me to comprehend, even though I don't share that belief, it's the part about the Greek perspective being "more perfect", I just don't get why that would be, or why a Roman perspective might be "more perfect" (according to Roman recons), etc. Maybe the Aztec perspective is how the Gods truly are, maybe if there's only one set of Gods, then they want blood and we've been worshipping them all wrong except the Aztecs and Mayans, etc.

[Tim]

And, those tell you how worship was done, among other things, but it doesn't give you a clue into the personality of the God, IMO, the Gods do have personalities, they feel love, they feel hate, they're feel similar emotions and feelings to humans, only they are better, stronger, more powerful, more intelligent than mortals, etc.

Well, again, this comes from you perceiving the Gods as super beings rather than Gods. I believe the Gods to be good, free from passion, and free from change. For the Gods to be made agree, appeased, or whatever would demonstrate a lack of perfection. If a presumed perfect thing was able to be changed, for better or worse, then it cannot be perfect.

So, I'm unworthy of the Gods?, well, Ereshkigal choose me, and I'm going to trust her opinion and her judgement over yours, being that she is a God, and, IMO, one of the greatest.

No. Go back an reread what I wrote. I wrote, "I simply believe your mundane perception of the Gods is unworthy of them." You quoted it. Why would you then claim I said something I did not?

I don't see how Sannion abandoned reconstructionism a long time ago, I've spoken with him and he's very cool, he knows a lot, and I love his articles, and, while I'm not on the same religion as he is, I find I can adapt his practices and suggestions for myself and to serve my God and Gods.

...and you having a man crush on Sannion makes him a Reconstructionist how?

And, I wasn't talking about choosing over God over the other, but you seem to be saying there's only one set of Gods, but the Greek perception is the best, I was saying I could never think that, even if there were only "one set" of archetypal Gods, I wouldn't say my perception is "more perfect" or "better" (better is another word perfect).

I think you are starting to confuse yourself talking in circles. First off, the Gods are the Gods, not simple archetypes, but since you are a big fan of Campbell, then you know he does reduce all cultural myths to a single set of archetypal figures. What are you arguing? Is it just that I believe the Greek representation of the Gods are the most perfect? ...that's it? ...or are you just pissy because I'm not of weak faith like you? ...or that I'm not some kind of Universalist Pagan who reduces everything down to the lowest common denominator in some lukewarm and watered down practice?

What would you call a God then, and how did I make them seem like "cartoons"?.

I have stated that in this thread. Go back and read it. I'm not going to talk circles with you. Please tell me if this conversation is going to turn into you asking the same questions a hundred differed ways.

And, if aliens landed one day, would you tell them your perception of the divine was more perfect, even though they were way more advanced than you (I'd imagine an alien species who can get to this world would be more advanced).

Reread what I wrote. You stated that the Gods are advanced beings that have no real influence on the universe... well, that kinda fits into the Stargate SG1 category of aliens masquerading as Gods.

It's not the part about different cultures interpreting the divine differently that's difficult for me to comprehend, even though I don't share that belief, it's the part about the Greek perspective being "more perfect", I just don't get why that would be, or why a Roman perspective might be "more perfect" (according to Roman recons), etc. Maybe the Aztec perspective is how the Gods truly are, maybe if there's only one set of Gods, then they want blood and we've been worshipping them all wrong except the Aztecs and Mayans, etc.
Because you can't comprehend why I would, I'm wondering why you would not of your own, and do you actually believe anything? You are a polytheist, right? Don't you believe that polytheism provides a more perfect representation of the Divine than does monotheism? Why else be a polytheist, right? ...or is it because you think it is cool?

[Xentor]

Admin mode

Tim, David, behave.

[Agaliha]

So not sure if this will work, or makes sense but if not just ignore!

_inabox_

This reminds me of people's names.
There are many names translated into other languages that carry the same/similar meaning, but the person in question probably feels that their name in their language (or the language it's given) is the best version of their name.

So take Ekaterina of Russia, say a person has this name (and likes it, loves being called Ekaterina). She would probably perfer this to, say the Hawaiian form: Kakalina. Or to plain Catherine. Or to the Finnish Kaarina. Or the Polish Katarzyna.

When asked what her name is she'd say Ekaterina because to her, that's the perfect representation of her name-- not any of the other forms of it. Not any other versions in other languages (like the many pantheons of gods, like Ammon), but hers (like the Greek pantheon).

This isn't saying that people named Catherine or those named Kakalina or Katarzyna are wrong, it's just saying from Ekaterina's POV (like the Hellenismos view) her name in that form and language is the preferred and perfect version of the name for her. She doesn't need to call herself Kaarina, she's Ekaterina. She doesn't need to be called Catalina, she's Ekaterina.

If she goes to Spain, she'd probably correct them as to the spelling and pronunciation of her name even though for the people there she is Catalina (the Spanish variant) and might call her as such. This reminds me of the Greeks going to Egypt and in the temples of Ammon, but worshiping Zeus. In Spain, though they see her and her name as Catalina (like Ammon), she is still Ekaterina (ie Zeus) and she continues to keep her name, spelling and pronunciation because for her it's the preferred and best sound/spelling of what makes her her.

Hope that makes sense.
And if it doesn't...just ignore :2G:

[Twinkle]

A quick couple of things:

Sannions articles are a log of his spiritual journey, and no longer what he believes now...

He no longer identifies as a Recon, what he is is multireligious. He has a personal pantheon, is a self proclaimed oracle, and no longer uses the term Reconstructionist to identify himself. What's confusing about it is that he leaves his winterscapes website up, so everyone *thinks* he is still Recon. He once was, but now is not.

Any advice that he gives is based on his own perspective, not as a Recon...but what he believes from his own multireligious perspective. Being well read does not a Recon make.

So...using Sannion to back up your point won't hold much water with Recons like myself and Tim, David.

Your personal theology is your own David. What Tim is attempting to get you to do is flesh out *why* you believe what you do. He's asking the questions, and you're not really providing anything in terms of answers.

[Twinkle]

So not sure if this will work, or makes sense but if not just ignore!

_inabox_

This reminds me of people's names.
There are many names translated into other languages that carry the same/similar meaning, but the person in question probably feels that their name in their language (or the language it's given) is the best version of their name.

So take Ekaterina of Russia, say a person has this name (and likes it, loves being called Ekaterina). She would probably perfer this to, say the Hawaiian form: Kakalina. Or to plain Catherine. Or to the Finnish Kaarina. Or the Polish Katarzyna.

When asked what her name is she'd say Ekaterina because to her, that's the perfect representation of her name-- not any of the other forms of it. Not any other versions in other languages (like the many pantheons of gods, like Ammon), but hers (like the Greek pantheon).

This isn't saying that people named Catherine or those named Kakalina or Katarzyna are wrong, it's just saying from Ekaterina's POV (like the Hellenismos view) her name in that form and language is the preferred and perfect version of the name for her. She doesn't need to call herself Kaarina, she's Ekaterina. She doesn't need to be called Catalina, she's Ekaterina.

If she goes to Spain, she'd probably correct them as to the spelling and pronunciation of her name even though for the people there she is Catalina (the Spanish variant) and might call her as such. This reminds me of the Greeks going to Egypt and in the temples of Ammon, but worshiping Zeus. In Spain, though they see her and her name as Catalina (like Ammon), she is still Ekaterina (ie Zeus) and she continues to keep her name, spelling and pronunciation because for her it's the preferred and best sound/spelling of what makes her her.

Hope that makes sense.
And if it doesn't...just ignore :2G:



From my perspective, you're pretty close. I believe an Ancient Greek would have said that the Romans were mistakenly worshipping Mercury as Hermes. In any event, they would have accepted that Mercury was seen as Hermes in Rome, but would have continued to worship Hermes.

In the case of Ammon in Egypt...The Greeks thought that Zeus was being worshipped as Ammon. The Greeks did worship in the Temple of Ammon, but they still worshipped Zeus...their perfect representation of their God. He was worshipped under the name of Zeus, with the epithet of Ammon.

Zeus-Ammon.

[Agaliha]

From my perspective, you're pretty close. I believe an Ancient Greek would have said that the Romans were mistakenly worshipping Mercury as Hermes. In any event, they would have accepted that Mercury was seen as Hermes in Rome, but would have continued to worship Hermes.
In the case of Ammon in Egypt...The Greeks thought that Zeus was being worshipped as Ammon. The Greeks did worship in the Temple of Ammon, but they still worshipped Zeus...their perfect representation of their God. He was worshipped under the name of Zeus, with the epithet of Ammon.
Zeus-Ammon.

Makes sense. :)

Maybe my little name example will help others understand the view you are presenting, which was my goal. Sometimes it's easier to understand things when you look at them in another way...

[Tim]

@Agaliha

That was a very good analogy. Thanks for the help.

[Agaliha]

@Agaliha
That was a very good analogy. Thanks for the help.

:)

[David19]

Well, again, this comes from you perceiving the Gods as super beings rather than Gods. I believe the Gods to be good, free from passion, and free from change. For the Gods to be made agree, appeased, or whatever would demonstrate a lack of perfection. If a presumed perfect thing was able to be changed, for better or worse, then it cannot be perfect.

I don't think the Gods are perfect in that sense, 'cause if they never changed, then that just leads to stagnation, and it's a fact that when things stagnate, it leads to death.

In the Sumerian religion, the Gods are a force for change.

Also, how do you define "good", that's a subective word.


...and you having a man crush on Sannion makes him a Reconstructionist how?

Ok, several questions here, how do I have a "crush" on Sannion, why use the term "man crush" (why not just the word crush) and how is Sannion not a recon, you still haven't explained.


I think you are starting to confuse yourself talking in circles. First off, the Gods are the Gods, not simple archetypes, but since you are a big fan of Campbell, then you know he does reduce all cultural myths to a single set of archetypal figures. What are you arguing? Is it just that I believe the Greek representation of the Gods are the most perfect? ...that's it? ...or are you just pissy because I'm not of weak faith like you? ...or that I'm not some kind of Universalist Pagan who reduces everything down to the lowest common denominator in some lukewarm and watered down practice?

Actually you are a universalist, you're saying everyone worships the same Gods, that's a tenet of what universalist Pagans believe.

And how am I of weak faith, I know that my Gods are real. Also, when I refered to archetypes, I was refering to how seem to believe there are a set of Gods that manifest in different ways, so in a sense a set of archetypal Gods (a rain God, love God, etc). Archetype only means original or something similar.


Reread what I wrote. You stated that the Gods are advanced beings that have no real influence on the universe... well, that kinda fits into the Stargate SG1 category of aliens masquerading as Gods.

And, when I see proof that natural phenomena is caused by Gods, and not science, then I'll agree with you, but as of yet, I haven't seen any proof that rain is sent by some rain God (I'm not going go into a science discussion, but you must have done geography or science in school, so you should know how rain is formed, and it sure doesn't have anything to do with anything spiritual).

Because you can't comprehend why I would, I'm wondering why you would not of your own, and do you actually believe anything? You are a polytheist, right? Don't you believe that polytheism provides a more perfect representation of the Divine than does monotheism? Why else be a polytheist, right? ...or is it because you think it is cool?

Actually, I don't think any way is better (and "more perfect" does mean better), people have different needs, and there's no one size fits all way to believe, some people believe in only one God, and for them, that makes sense to them, some people believe in many Gods that are seperate from each other, like me, some believe in only a finite set of Gods, like you, etc. None of those ways are "more perfect"/better than the other. It depends on what makes the most sense and feels right to you.

[Tim]

I don't think the Gods are perfect in that sense, 'cause if they never changed, then that just leads to stagnation, and it's a fact that when things stagnate, it leads to death.
The Gods would be beyond such things.

Also, how do you define "good", that's a subective word.
I suggest to read Plato.

Ok, several questions here, how do I have a "crush" on Sannion, why use the term "man crush" (why not just the word crush) and how is Sannion not a recon, you still haven't explained.
A "man crush" is not a "in love" of sexual kinda thing. It is a man being in awe of another man's perceived awesomeness... a groupie. Anyway, he is not a recon because he is not reconstructing anything. He is eclectic. I think we cleared that up on the other thread.

Actually you are a universalist, you're saying everyone worships the same Gods, that's a tenet of what universalist Pagans believe.
A Universalist would also perceive all religions as equal and work within a perceived universal doctrine, I do not.

And how am I of weak faith, I know that my Gods are real. Also, when I refered to archetypes, I was refering to how seem to believe there are a set of Gods that manifest in different ways, so in a sense a set of archetypal Gods (a rain God, love God, etc). Archetype only means original or something similar.
I don't get the sense that you do.

And, when I see proof that natural phenomena is caused by Gods, and not science, then I'll agree with you, but as of yet, I haven't seen any proof that rain is sent by some rain God (I'm not going go into a science discussion, but you must have done geography or science in school, so you should know how rain is formed, and it sure doesn't have anything to do with anything spiritual).
Perceiving that the Gods exist as in integral part of nature, and not separate from it (see previous comments), would mean all things exist within nature... therefore science and religion do not conflict, and there is a scientific explanation for EVERYTHING.

Actually, I don't think any way is better (and "more perfect" does mean better), people have different needs, and there's no one size fits all way to believe, some people believe in only one God, and for them, that makes sense to them, some people believe in many Gods that are seperate from each other, like me, some believe in only a finite set of Gods, like you, etc. None of those ways are "more perfect"/better than the other. It depends on what makes the most sense and feels right to you.
So, you chose your religion because you liked the flavor?

[Twinkle]

I think he said in an earlier post that he was called to his Gods. And that's actually a fair place to start. What it sounds like now is that he has yet to reason *why* he is worshipping and *what* that means for him.

Hopefully now David understands the concept of Cosmic Gods, what that means and how it equates to Hellenic belief.

Socratic questioning is a very good tool in getting you to flesh your thoughts out, and see if that is rational or not. I'm really enjoying watching the lightbulbs come on for David19.

[David19]

The Gods would be beyond such things.


I suggest to read Plato.

I will, which of his works do you think is the best to start with?.

But, I'll also keep in mind, he was just one man giving his opinion.

A Universalist would also perceive all religions as equal and work within a perceived universal doctrine, I do not.

I guess that's where me and you differ, I do see other religions as being equal, not all of them, but most of them, like I have no problem with Christianity, Wicca, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Asatru, etc, they all answer peoples specific spiritual needs. The "religions" I have a problem with are the cult-like ones (e.g. Scientology is perhaps the most famous example of that).

I don't get the sense that you do.

Well, I do.

Perceiving that the Gods exist as in integral part of nature, and not separate from it (see previous comments), would mean all things exist within nature... therefore science and religion do not conflict, and there is a scientific explanation for EVERYTHING.

I don't agree with that, as science and religion do conflict. Religion deals with the irrational/the supernatural, science deals with the physical world, the things that can be proven (take, for example, spiritual experiences, you probably have had quite a few spiritual experiences, but those are all subjective, they can't be proven or reproduced, so I respectfully disagree that science and religion are always compatiable).

So, you chose your religion because you liked the flavor?

Like Twinkle said, I was drawn to the religion 'cause I felt it matched me, I felt called to it, so to speak, the Gods, the beliefs, the mythology, the philosophy, etc all felt right for me. I'm sure you must have felt the same way about the Hellenic religion, otherwise you wouldn't have felt it was right for you.

[Tim]

I will, which of his works do you think is the best to start with?.

But, I'll also keep in mind, he was just one man giving his opinion.
On second thought, start with Sallustius' On the Gods and the Cosmos, and then work you way backwards to Plato. Sallustius provides a nice summation of thought. Though not very detailed, it does provide a base of understanding with which to work.

I guess that's where me and you differ, I do see other religions as being equal, not all of them, but most of them, like I have no problem with Christianity, Wicca, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Asatru, etc, they all answer peoples specific spiritual needs. The "religions" I have a problem with are the cult-like ones (e.g. Scientology is perhaps the most famous example of that).
There is the saying, "There are many paths to the top of the mountain." This is true, but some paths are a better choice than others are... and "many paths to the top of the mountain" does not mean "all paths."

I don't agree with that, as science and religion do conflict. Religion deals with the irrational/the supernatural, science deals with the physical world, the things that can be proven (take, for example, spiritual experiences, you probably have had quite a few spiritual experiences, but those are all subjective, they can't be proven or reproduced, so I respectfully disagree that science and religion are always compatiable).
No, I'm sorry, I disagree. This was not at all the case in Ancient Greece, or within modern Hellenismos. The irrational is seen man's primal ego self. Intelligence, wisdom, and understanding come from the Divine. Science and religious thought always moved through history in unison until the advent of Christianity.

Like Twinkle said, I was drawn to the religion 'cause I felt it matched me, I felt called to it, so to speak, the Gods, the beliefs, the mythology, the philosophy, etc all felt right for me. I'm sure you must have felt the same way about the Hellenic religion, otherwise you wouldn't have felt it was right for you.
I can understand "drawn to" but "stay with" or "dedicated to" are different. There is "feels right" and then there "is right." Do you seek wisdom and truth, or do you seek comfort? There is just no way I could have stayed with Hellenismos if it did not provide for a reasoned understanding of the Gods and the universe.

[Twinkle]

There is "feels right" and then there "is right." Do you seek wisdom and truth, or do you seek comfort? There is just no way I could have stayed with Hellenismos if it did not provide for a reasoned understanding of the Gods and the universe.


I think that's a really good point, and I wanted to expand on it a little bit. Religion shouldn't be *too* comfortable. (imo). I think that we should always be working to improve ourselves, understand the world around us, understand who we are and what we do, and work on being the best person we can be.

It's not enough to be drawn to the Gods or feel that the religion is a match. To stay in that space will eventually lead to a sort of spiritual stagnation.

[Tim]

I think that's a really good point, and I wanted to expand on it a little bit. Religion shouldn't be *too* comfortable. (imo). I think that we should always be working to improve ourselves, understand the world around us, understand who we are and what we do, and work on being the best person we can be.

It's not enough to be drawn to the Gods or feel that the religion is a match. To stay in that space will eventually lead to a sort of spiritual stagnation.

Excellent point!! Religious practice must have a point and a purpose. If it means becoming close to or in harmony with the Gods... what does that mean? How does the practice provide tangible results. If your life is in disarray, things don't every seem to be going your way, everything is a consistent struggle... then there may be something wrong with your connection to the Gods. One either walks with the Gods or they do not, and how your life "is" is a reflection of that walk.

[YoungSoulRebel]

Why do you insist on continuing to hijack this thread?

You saw my question regarding the major flaw in a polytheistic theology, and answered. I would have never asked you to expand if you never injected yourself into this thread, on a topic you know nothing about. You followed up by stating that all beliefs, in all the Gods, from every pantheon and culture, are wrong. Not only that, you go a step further, describing some Gods as becoming delusional. How you can claim that is not an attempt to invalidate the beliefs and be disrespectful of others is beyond me. You seriously want me to accept your arrogant slap in the face to almost every Pagan on this board as being somehow respectful?

Actually, that's not what he said. Not in his view, anyway, and reiterating that such "is what he said" is just inviting a cyclical argument that is going ten ways to nowhere.

I know that Shawn is using fringe logic here, so that is almost definitely where the "confusion" he says you're finding in what he's saying is coming from.

OK, what Shawn is saying in a flowery version of webspeak is ... OK, what you know as reality is only one view of reality and that basically everybody's reality somehow differs from everybody else's. This argument in this particular form of fringe logic is supported by the fact that no two people can, without a doubt, experience any one incident in exactly the same way. They may experience, say, eating a pint of Ben & Jerry's Americone Dream on the same date, at the same time, same location, and with spoons crated to be otherwise identical to the other, very similarly in that both parties may find said experience pleasurable and an experience that they shall attempt to replicate in the future, but the fact that both parties are, in fact, different people, means that ultimately both experiences were, in fact, different, and in such a way that neither party can 100% convey the full scope of their experience to the other.

Now that I've explained the logic Shawn is using, it therefore begs to reason, in this kind of fringe logic at least, that your perception of reality is not his, nor Twinkle's, nor David's, nor mine, nor anybody else's. Because your reality is ultimately different, Shawn's words are, thus, respecting your interpretation of reality by stating that Shawn is allowing you to maintain your own personal view of reality without a fight. You may still find this "disrespectful", but you're also not using the same kind of logic that he's using, so naturally, you'll find his words disrespectful, even "kooky".

Now, I myself do not subscribe to said form of fringe logic. I find it interesting and I can see how another person can make sense of it. At times, I find it comforting to think that way, even; though only temporarily. If one wishes to subscribe to said form of fringe logic, then I will not tell that person that their logic is wrong because it will just result in cyclical arguments that ultimately go no-where. Debate can only progress from a certain point when both parties are using the same form of logic to come to two different conclusions -- this is not the case, here. Here there are two incompatible forms of logic going back and forth like children on a playground saying "Nuh-uh!" "Yuh-huh!" for hours.


I see it like this-
The otherworld is a big place, hades controls one area for example, and another deity may control another.
When I die I go to hades, when a christian dies they go to YHVH.

This is more or less how I see it. I can see similarities between, say, Brighid and Hestia, but I can see similarities between Brighid and Minerva, as well. To say that Brighid is a Gaelig interpretation of either Hestia or Minerva is not just ignoring the cultural differences between the Gaelig Keltoi and the Hellenes or the Gaelig Keltoi and the Romans, but it ignores the mythological differences that make Brighid, well, Brighid.

I also see no other logical explanation for why some people feel an affinity toward, say, the Irish Brighid but toward neither the Greek Hestia nor the Roman Minerva other than the three simply being Goddesses of three altogether different pantheons and They just happen to have some points in common with each-Other. Now, all of these pantheons I feel almost definitely come from ultimately the same place, uniting all Gods and Goddesses in one great Cosmic Otherworld, but for a modern worshipper to say that Brighid is "the Irish interpretation of Hestia" essentially grasps at straws to connect the two in an attempt to support the argument of "different cultural interpretations of what's basically the same pantheon" -- and in doing such, it both oversimplifies who Brighid is and ignores the fact that the ancient Romans compared Her to Minerva.

Zeus is thus the King of the Hellenic Pantheon, and so on. Why He and the Hellenic Pantheon were chosen by ancient Hellas, or vice-versa, then and why worshippers seem unconcerned with geographical barriers (or even "ethnic" barriers) now is simple -- people, in general, travelled less than they do now and knowledge is more freely spread now versus then. To try and answer it further than that is obviously something that has neither been made apparent to myself nor others (and even if it were, the likeliness of such an explanation being believed by others is quite slim, to say the least).

But, for one reason or another, They either "resonate with" or "have chosen" who They do to form reciprocal relations with. We scratch their backs, they'll scratch ours, sort of thing. Giving Them worship is part of the deal, but why, say, A worships Hestia while B worships Brighid is simply not something that we, as humans, need to know just yet, if ever.


But, inclusive polytheism does seem to say some people are wrong, like, take the Greek Gods, they are called the Immortals, and death doesn't affect them, and while that's true for most Gods, the Norse Gods can and will die (their prophecised to at Ragnarok). Also, some of the Sumerian Gods can "die", although, IMO, death for them isn't the same as death for mortals. If you read the Descent of Inanna, Inanna is killed by Ereshkigal, or more specifically impaled and turned into rotting flesh, etc.

This is exactly why I see what's being defined here as "Inclusive Polytheism", at the very least, can't be entirely right. There is just too much conflict between the mythos of Hellas, versus the Norse, versus the Keltoi, versus Hinduism, and so forth. It can't all be "different cultural interpretations of the same thing" because there are just some points that cannot logically be resolved in that manner -- and the "culture" hasn't much to do with it. If it was all the same thing, there wouldn't be all these inconsistencies when comparing mythologies -- and for this reason, I simply can't believe that Minerva is Brighid, is Hestia, and so forth.


i think you may be falling into that old trap of confusing mythology with religion.

But mythology is part of the religion and plays an important part in the understanding of whatever religion it's associated with. It's far from the end-all-be-all of any religion or even said religion's understanding of Divinity, but it is an important tool for understanding what the Gods meant to the ancient peoples and who wrote said mythos, and how the Gods can relate to future generations as well as our own.

The Gods may not be Their mythos, but there are, in fact, truths about the Gods contained within the mythos, and through study of the mythos, those truths become apparent.


That's 'cause I've seen no evidence that the sun rises 'cause of a God or that every rainfall falls 'cause of a archetypal rain God, etc. IMO, ancient people may have thought that, but that was in the age of pre-scientific thinking. If anyone can provide any evidence as to why the Gods do these things, well, talk to Richard Dawkins.

Actually, "scientific method" as it is known today, is of Greek origin. And not all ancient Greeks were theistic -- some were very vocally atheistic, and it's a fallacy to assume otherwise. Check out the old PBS series Cosmos -- there's an episode where Sagan has an, umm, intriguing rant about Pythagoreas.


I just don't see how the Gods could all be the same set of Gods, like, and I know you say other peoples conceptions don't matter from a Hellenic perspective, but the Aztec Gods want blood sacrifice, that's expected of any worshipper (in modern times, they obvously don't get human sacrifice, but they do get auto sacrifice of blood lettigns and other things), but, some pantheons don't like blood at all, for example, the Kemetic Gods, if the Hellenic view is right, then one of those conceptions is probably wrong, etc.

That is, essentially, what's being said. X-Culture believes X-practise is "the most perfect" way to honour Cosmic Gods, whereas Y-Culture believes that Y-practise is. Do I agree with it? Not totally, though I do understand the logic used to make that statement.

My issue is this: many people, both ancient and modern, have said at various points and in so many words that their religion's practises have come directly from the Gods as what said Gods demand or request of said peoples. Why, then, would a universal Cosmic Pantheon request human sacrifice from the Aztecs, the blood of goats from Athens, the blood of "only the most perfect goat" from Sparta, and so on and so forth? Why does the God of Abraham demand penile mutilation whereas Zeus seems to prefer leaving your son's weiner alone? Either this "unifying cosmic pantheon" has a real twisted sense of humour or, simply, all pantheons are different, but united collectively as Deities that all have a part to play in keeping the universe from collapsing on itself. I personally see all pantheons as being multiple tribes of one "cosmic pantheon", but not in the same way Tim does. All pantheons are collectively one pantheon -- not ultimately one pantheon.

This does not mean that They somehow do not have a hand in creation and "harmony within the universe", scientific explanations are simply one way that mortals are allowed to see things. And perhaps "tribal gods" is another way mortals are permitted to see things -- but as one who practises Hellenismos, I came to this religion after searching, including a couple of years in high school where I tried desperately to connect to the Irish pantheon and came up with nothing. I received a message not of "you're doing it wrong", but more "this is not for you", and since essentially "coming home" to Hellenismos, I've seen no reason to believe that such an experience is because what I "interpreted as Lugh" at the time "was actually Mercury (an ancient Roman connection to the Gaelig Lugh) or Apollon (a modern connection) in interpretation of one tribe of the Keltoi" (after all, Welsh deities are, in fact, different and their names involve covering everything in spittle to pronounce -- and Gaulish and Cornish deities are also different, as are Pictish, though the Picts technically aren't Keltoi). At the age of fourteen and fifteen, it made sense -- I'm of largely Irish extraction, therefore I "should" worship Irish deities. As somebody much older than that, call it being "chosen" or being "called to", but this is simply the Pantheon I'm supposed to worship; and while I have my own explanation of why that is, I shall also take a note from Socrates and state that "all I know is that I know nothing", id est, my explanation of different tribal pantheons united as one collective pantheon is one way to interpret the evidence and answer the question of "why", and as much as it makes sense to me, it would be foolish to say anything more than that. Tim sees one universal pantheon interpreted differently through different cultures, and I'm sure his experiences cause that belief to make sense to him -- but he can't prove that belief, beyond a shadow of a doubt, any more concretely than I can mine.


And, if aliens landed one day, would you tell them your perception of the divine was more perfect, even though they were way more advanced than you (I'd imagine an alien species who can get to this world would be more advanced).

OK, this... offends me. On a very basic level. It shouldn't matter if an alien race is more technologically advanced than this one, but one's belief in Divinity in any form that's diminished by technology is a belief that doesn't seem very strong in the first place. If one's spiritual beliefs aren't at least jostled to the point of examination, I can't see how one can become spiritually stronger; but giving things a little shake-up every now and again is very different from allowing one's beliefs to become diminished by the presence of external beings or forces or what-not. I mean, technology has made it so that I can replicate the sound of certain instruments at almost any computer with enough processing power and some basic software -- this does not lessen the fact that I believe that music is a gift from certain Gods and that the ability to perform and create it well is a personal blessing from those Gods. I may not need a lute, a lyre, and a pan-pipe -- hell, I may not need a full symphony orchestra -- as technology has made it much simpler, but music itself is a gift from the Divine. There may be scientific explanations for why certain instruments sound certain ways -- and yes, even the ancient Greeks were aware of the sciences of how a harp or panpipe sounded the way they did -- but the music itself is a Divine gift, and technology can't take away my belief in that. Certain advances in technology may prompt me to examine the relationship between certain Gods and music, but if I were to cease placing the importance of the Gods in the creation of music, I would cease being spiritual and be little more than an atheist who thinks the Gods are a good idea.


It's not the part about different cultures interpreting the divine differently that's difficult for me to comprehend, even though I don't share that belief, it's the part about the Greek perspective being "more perfect", I just don't get why that would be, or why a Roman perspective might be "more perfect" (according to Roman recons), etc. Maybe the Aztec perspective is how the Gods truly are, maybe if there's only one set of Gods, then they want blood and we've been worshipping them all wrong except the Aztecs and Mayans, etc.

Well, that's not exactly what Tim and others are saying -- I just don't think he's wording it in a way that you like.

He's saying, as an Hellenic Recon, the Gods of Hellas are the best Gods and Goddesses for him to worship; they are and thus should be the "most perfect" to any other Hellenic Recon. Likewise, a Keltic Recon should feel that the Keltic pantheons are the best, or "most perfect" Gods to worship.

He's not saying that the Hellenic pantheon is ultimately the "most perfect" for anybody, except for Hellenic Recons. In that sense, I agree. For whatever reasons, these are the Gods that are the best for me and other Hellenists to worship. Unlike Tim and certain vocal ancient Hellenes whose writings have been preserved, I'm open to interpretation for why that is, and my experiences have shaped my beliefs so that the idea of "all Pantheons are ultimately one Pantheon" makes less sense than "all Pantheons are collectively one Pantheon" -- if my experiences shape my perceptions to see it in a decidedly different way later, I'm open to that. But at the end of the day, the Gods of Hellas are those that are the best for me to worship, and I feel other Hellenic Recons should feel similarly about their relationship to the Hellenic Pantheon. Likewise, a Keltic Recon should feel that way about the Keltic Pantheon which they honour. Likewise, a Hindu should feel that way about the Hindu Gods and Goddesses. And so on. It's not that one Pantheon is ultimately the "most perfect", it's that one Pantheon is "most perfect" for certain worshippers whereas another Pantheon is "most perfect" for others, and so on.


And, when I see proof that natural phenomena is caused by Gods, and not science, then I'll agree with you, but as of yet, I haven't seen any proof that rain is sent by some rain God (I'm not going go into a science discussion, but you must have done geography or science in school, so you should know how rain is formed, and it sure doesn't have anything to do with anything spiritual).

Technically, "science" does cause it, either. Science is merely an explanation of how things work. Science answers the question of "how" -- not the question of "why". Science and religion are not concepts which are mutually exclusive of and at odds with each-other. Intelligent Design and Evolutionary Theory are not concepts where a belief in one negates the possibility of belief in the other. Evolutionary Theory explains how things became as they are and Intelligent Design explains why -- two very different questions answered in two very different ways. Taking creation mythos as literal truth, on the other hand, is something totally different, and it's unfortunate that such is what most people think of when they think of "Intelligent Design".


No, I'm sorry, I disagree. This was not at all the case in Ancient Greece, or within modern Hellenismos. The irrational is seen man's primal ego self. Intelligence, wisdom, and understanding come from the Divine. Science and religious thought always moved through history in unison until the advent of Christianity.

Too true.


I can understand "drawn to" but "stay with" or "dedicated to" are different. There is "feels right" and then there "is right." Do you seek wisdom and truth, or do you seek comfort? There is just no way I could have stayed with Hellenismos if it did not provide for a reasoned understanding of the Gods and the universe.

Well, technically, both are necessary.

Let me offer an analogy:

In the mid-20th Century, there were many exposes of orphanages. One thing that was discovered was many orphanages, even in the U$, had these rooms that were basically "storage warehouses" for babies. And when the records of these babies were examined, it was discovered that all of them were much older than they appeared to be. This then prompted scientific studies of chimpanzees. Scientists would make a pair of sort of wire frame "mothers", one which was just a basic wire frame with a bottle sticking out at about where a mother chimp's breast would be, and another that was simply a wire frame covered in a fur pelt to vaguely look more "chimp-like" (and, of course, a control group offring the infant chimpanzees both food and comfort). It was quickly discovered that infants will ultimately choose comfort over food, even if more than adequate nutrition is provided but without comfort. Despite only getting the scantest nutrition, infants that were offered comfort thrived far greater than the infants that weren't offered comfort.

Now, we are not chimps. And as reasonably rational adults, we'll probably pick food before comfort until we reached a point of going stir-crazy, if only given the choice of one or the other. But if given the choice of both good nutrition and comfort/socialisation? Oh, hands down, I don't think you would even choose the option of "just food" if the third option of "both" was offered (though you're more than welcome to say otherwise, if I'm guessing you wrong).

I honour and worship the Divine for the truths they offer, but also because I feel "at home" with worshipping this pantheon. The Gods of the Keltoi also offer another path to truth, but the fact that I don't have that "at home" feeling with Them is what turned me away from Them after desperate attempts to gat that sort of "connection" to them. I'm human, not Divine, and as a human, the truth is that I need not only honesty and wisdom but a sense of, well, comfort -- if I were to lack a sense of "this is for your own good" I just wouldn't thrive, spiritually.


I think that's a really good point, and I wanted to expand on it a little bit. Religion shouldn't be *too* comfortable. (imo). I think that we should always be working to improve ourselves, understand the world around us, understand who we are and what we do, and work on being the best person we can be.

It's not enough to be drawn to the Gods or feel that the religion is a match. To stay in that space will eventually lead to a sort of spiritual stagnation.

This is pretty much exactly how I would have followed up my previous paragraph. A balance is necessary for spiritual growth. Infant chimps getting more than adequate comfort but only "survival" levels of nutrition may have gotten larger, faster, but had other, less visible, health problems. Similarly, a person who's only having the need for "comfort" met by their religious practises may be happy and seemingly content, but a simple conversation would prove that, even after years with said religion, they just haven't had any genuine spiritual growth, just a mere ego-stroke.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

Young Soul Rebel :
_handclapp_handclapp_handclapp_handclapp_handclapp_handclapp_handclapp_handclapp_handclapp_handclapp _handclapp_handclapp_handclapp

:fpraiseyo:yourock:...Not just what you said , regarding me...I have been
following the discussions , going on in the two threads...I must say
overall , you are one of the best and smartest , among all those , I
have ever seen , on this site...

For whatever it is worth...you have truly earned my respect...

I am pleased , to know you are a member of MW...please stay
within the rules , just enough to stay here...at least...:lol:...

Blessings...keep it up...:boing:...:abanana:...:veryweird...:fpraise:...:smile:...

[Theres]

But mythology is part of the religion and plays an important part in the understanding of whatever religion it's associated with. It's far from the end-all-be-all of any religion or even said religion's understanding of Divinity, but it is an important tool for understanding what the Gods meant to the ancient peoples and who wrote said mythos, and how the Gods can relate to future generations as well as our own.

The Gods may not be Their mythos, but there are, in fact, truths about the Gods contained within the mythos, and through study of the mythos, those truths become apparent.
sorry, but this seems little more than an ambiguous slippery slope.

which mythology defines the gods' truths? from which era? from which author?

moderns tend to the rather bad habit of seeing 'mythology' as complete and comprehensive, but it is neither.
the 'truths' of Hesiod are pretty far removed from the 'truths' of Ovid, but to lump them together as some kind of unified mythology results in a tenuous connection at best, and complete nonsense at worst.

so while all of this might give us some insight into the literary accomplishments of ancient Greece, and perhaps even some of the folklore (which may not be without aetiological advantages, i'll grant), how can this artificial mish-mosh give us much in depth information about the religious practices of the average Achaean beyond the sacrificing of hecatombs?
i doubt that Joe Blowicles related very much to Jason's quest for the fleece, or Atalanta's hunting prowess, if he was even aware of these myths. but his libations to Hestia and monthly sweeping out of the old were vital to his religion, and yet you won't find these practice's in Bullfinch.

[YoungSoulRebel]

sorry, but this seems little more than an ambiguous slippery slope.

which mythology defines the gods' truths? from which era? from which author?

If this is how you see what i said, it's not what I meant.

OK, how to re-phrase this....

OK, When I see the word "myth" in a religious context, I go back to the meaning of its origin/root: "sacred texts", but more casually, as narrative tales that have certain points important to the religion which the Gods described in said mythos are sacred to.

It is within the sacred texts of Hellenismos, for example, that it is said Zeus and Hera and King and Queen of the Gods. Among Hellenic Recons, I see that belief, that Zeus and Hera are, respectfully, King and Queen of the Gods. It is part of how those deities are defined. It is part of what many many people see Them as being syncretic to Jupiter and Juno, or Thor and Freya(?), and so on. So it is therefore within the mythos, id est, the sacred texts of Hellenismos where this truth of Zeus and Hera being King and Queen, son and daughter of Kronos and Rhea, is learned.

Now, is Hera the "bitter shrew" that Homer describes Her as? Well, evidence of ancient cultus, at the very least, says "probably not" and most likely "definitely no" -- but even in this unfavourable description, it can be concluded that she is not just the Queen of the Hellenic Pantheon, but a protector of wives and a deity of marriage rites.


moderns tend to the rather bad habit of seeing 'mythology' as complete and comprehensive, but it is neither.
the 'truths' of Hesiod are pretty far removed from the 'truths' of Ovid, but to lump them together as some kind of unified mythology results in a tenuous connection at best, and complete nonsense at worst.

I never said it was complete or comprehensive, and if you feel that I did, then take this as a clarification.

This is where study of the mythos is necessary. Careful study. They're not meant to be taken absolutely literally, but they're meant to be studied and examined and learned from. There is wisdom in them, but no, you're right, it's not universally present, and yes, there are points which seem contradictory -- but are the contradictions complimentary of each-other and ofering some wisdom that way? Or are the contradictions apparently serving no other purpose than entertaining stories about the Divine? Still, to dismiss the mythos completely on that unfortunate fact alone is tantamount to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I will agree that the study of ancient practises are definitely more important than collecting books of mythology, but there is, doubtless, some spiritual value in the study of the mythologies of ancient Hellas. It may not be apparent to everybody, but dismissing it as useless just because one lacks the ability to see, or even lacks the need for seeking such value is just as bad as dismissing any practise on the fact that it's "modern", regardless of the fact that said "modern" practise falls in line with the patterns or reasoning of Reconstructionism.

[YoungSoulRebel]

Young Soul Rebel :
_handclapp_handclapp_handclapp_handclapp_handclapp_handclapp_handclapp_handclapp_handclapp_handclapp _handclapp_handclapp_handclapp

:fpraiseyo:yourock:...Not just what you said , regarding me...I have been
following the discussions , going on in the two threads...I must say
overall , you are one of the best and smartest , among all those , I
have ever seen , on this site...

For whatever it is worth...you have truly earned my respect...

I am pleased , to know you are a member of MW...please stay
within the rules , just enough to stay here...at least...:lol:...

Blessings...keep it up...:boing:...:abanana:...:veryweird...:fpraise:...:smile:...

o.O

If you say so.

Don't take offence to this, but despite my tendencies to run my mouth, I'm here to learn and offer whatever insight I might have -- on occasion, I've been messaged or responded to with somebody stating such was offered when, in my head, I was just running my mouth. I admit that I may come off as a wise-ass, even a weiner at times, but it's a bit of a defence mechanism from being on the tubes about ten years and being on the receiving end genuine hostility and e-bullying. I do take into consideration what people I disagree with say, if only just to see where they're coming from -- I may not agree, but I can often see the logic they're using to support their argument, and that's all I really want other people to see with what I say; nay, I think that's all most (though hardly all) people on the tubes want.

I'm not trying to be seen as "one of the smartest" on any on-line forum. I'm just an outspoken guy who's trying to make sense of it all, and who (from time to time) comes off as a typical obnoxious Gael with nothing better to do.

Here? I see the value in studying mythos. Other people don't. According to social anthropologists, situations like this one are hardly a modern phenomenon. C'est la vie -- one big cyclical argument that's constantly repeating itself with different words in an effort to clarify its positions.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

No offense taken...and , it was not just any one post...

I myself , am loved and hated , here , and elsewhere...
how I define smart...is basically what you said...and
have epitomized...speaking one's truth , listening , if
those who speak , are willing to put it in a way one
can hear it , or at least try , learning the new...

It is also , being willing to see beyond one's box , even
when it seems to go against everything one believes...

That , is why I said what I said...best to you...

And yes...we Irish , do tend to speak up...even if it gets
others up in arms...:lol:

May the Gods you worship...bless you...

[David19]

On second thought, start with Sallustius' On the Gods and the Cosmos, and then work you way backwards to Plato. Sallustius provides a nice summation of thought. Though not very detailed, it does provide a base of understanding with which to work.

Thanks, I've actually read him already, although it was kind of short. He seemed like he had some cool ideas.


There is the saying, "There are many paths to the top of the mountain." This is true, but some paths are a better choice than others are... and "many paths to the top of the mountain" does not mean "all paths."

I'd agree with this, and if it's a path like Scientology, then I'd agree that's the wrong path (I may seem anti-Scientology, but I've seen a lot of evidence that shows they've basically driven people to death and also are just out for money).

No, I'm sorry, I disagree. This was not at all the case in Ancient Greece, or within modern Hellenismos. The irrational is seen man's primal ego self. Intelligence, wisdom, and understanding come from the Divine. Science and religious thought always moved through history in unison until the advent of Christianity.

Well, I've downloaded 'The Greeks and the Irrational' so maybe I'll understand that concept a bit better once I've read it (would recommend that book, BTW?).

I can understand "drawn to" but "stay with" or "dedicated to" are different. There is "feels right" and then there "is right." Do you seek wisdom and truth, or do you seek comfort? There is just no way I could have stayed with Hellenismos if it did not provide for a reasoned understanding of the Gods and the universe.

I stay with my Goddess 'cause it just is right for me, at this present stage in my life anyway (I'm only 21, so you never know what Fate will bring (Fate is big in my religion)). I got some great advice once from a Cochrane witch (a witch derived from Robert Cochrane traditions), who I truly respect, and it was, when you find the religion or tradition/coven that is right for you, you will know it, it will scream "you're home", or something like that, and that's what the Sumerian religion feels like to me. I'm not sure if you'd agree with that same advice, but I think it's great advice, a religion, again IMO, should be about feeling "at home" so to speak.

Also, BTW, I wanted to go back to my perspective on myths, 'cause I don't think I explained it very well, or what the Sumerian view on them is. We don't see them as literal or Gospel like some (though not all) Christians might see the Bible, but we do see them as relevant to the Gods. To understand this, I'll just explain something about Sumerian philosophy, on our altars, everything will take on a spiritual reality, like the carving I've got of Ereshkigal, once I've performed the Opening of the Mouth ritual anyway, will become, in a sense, Ereshkigal, the statues of worshippers (that's a feature of Sumerian altars) will be real in the spiritual realm, it's like they take on a sort of alternate reality.

Here's an article (http://templeofsumer.org/share2.html), from the Temple I'm associated with, that might explain it better:

This bit is the relevant section:

3) Idolatry: It is hard for people today to understand the purpose and symbolism behind idolatry. Even the term idolatry has taken on bad connotations due to the Judao-Christian commandment against the worship of false idols.

Who wants to be thought of as the guy that worships statues? This would be the same as asking why a Christian would worship crossed sticks. Idolaters are not actually worshiping the statues that they appear to be worshiping. They are actually worshiping the god represented by the statue.

In Sumerian religion, as in many religions where idolatry is practiced, the statues represent a connection between the physical world and the spiritual world. A votive statue of a man worshiping a votive statue of a god IS the same as a man worshiping the god in person. The statue of the worshiper is acting as a vessel for the spiritual essence of the worshiper just as the statue of the god is a vessel for the actual god.

People in the Christian religion go to church and commune with their god but they are not in the physical presence of their god per se. They are symbolically in the presence of their god. If a statue of the virgin Mary begins to bleed it is not the wood or the stone that is bleeding, but rather a spiritual manifestation through an appropriate vessel. The Sumerians are doing no less than this when it appears that one is worshiping statues.

Everything on a Sumerian's altar exists and is real in the spiritual realm. When the statue of a worshiper is placed on an altar in a position where it is worshiping the gods it begins to show devotion to the gods continually every moment of the day.

Not every statue represents a physical person. Some statues are votive worshipers or servants that exist entirely on the spiritual realm. These votive statues serve various functions depending on their form.

Also, a Babylonian recon who's a member of MW probably explained it better than I could:

From here (http://mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=182641):

1. Sacred Space: A special room with a central altar table and images or symbols of a particular deity or deities. In ancient Mesopotamia symbols and metaphors have an alternate reality, in that it is believed these representations can manifest and be evoked by the certain ritual actions. This includes the image of the god and the psychological nature of each metaphor. Even as mythology is metaphorical, it also was understood as being reality to the world of the gods though we may not fully grasp their world ourselves.

I hope that explained it a little more, the myths are "literal", but we do see them as being real/true, if that makes any sense.

Hopefully, the articles and the post by Babylon should explain it a lot clearer than I have, and hopefully, I haven't got you too lost.

[Theres]

If this is how you see what i said, it's not what I meant.
i really don't want to take this thread any further off topic, but...

i didn't mean to suggest there was no religious value in mythology.
what i meant was that mythology is a bogus teacher of religion, if that is where one begins and ends. and the proof of that is in the context of David's confusion... hence my remark.

when people see the gods only as they are defined in myth then they are not going to have a very satisfying relationship with Them.
imo.

okay, now you can all get back to arguing over which side of the egg to open.

[Twinkle]

Theres:

It may sound like a silly argument, because we all love the Gods, right?

Well...in the grand scheme of things, it's a big deal because without a clear dividing line between what is Hellenismos, and what is not....we'll have things that are utterly fraudulent...like the Church of Thessaly....claiming to be the "true" Ancient Religion of Greece.

I realize that that our truly educated and well read people out there...and I respect t