PDA

View Full Version : Is it any less fluffy?



ninurta2008
August 13th, 2009, 08:11 PM
Okay, let's say for instance there is an eclectic pagan. Now he would be a recon, but he is not, he chose to be eclectic because he added Thor to his pantheon of greek gods.

Hellenistic pagan recons would call him fluffy, yet they still worship Apollo, Artemis, Adonis, Cybele, and depending on the path also Mithras, and others. But the only difference between that eclectic pagan and the ones that added those gods into the pantheon, is the years in which they live.

Certainly the eclectic pagan is not a recon, no one is suggesting he would be. But would he be fluffy? I think that if he changed the deity yeah, personally, but I would also call people like Herodotus and other ancient greeks who changed deities in which they borrowed fluffy when they change them.

But seriously, how is it any less fluffy? Isn't it less fluffy of the eclectic pagan if he didn't change the deity he borrowed? If not, why?

Twinkle
August 13th, 2009, 09:17 PM
I think you're equating Electic with Fluffy. The two are not interchangeable terms, although there are many fluffies hiding under the term eclectic.

I think you're making a huge leap to assume that a Hellenic Recon would be calling anyone who worshipped Gods from different pantheons a Fluffy.

The only time I know I would cry foul is if a person was trying to connect Thor with the Greek Pantheon and had nothing substantial to back up that claim other than "it's how I feel."....and claim to be practicing Hellenismos.

Eclecticism is a good thing - and I know many Eclectic Pagans that put as much time, study, and effort into their practice as any Recon.

Please don't make assumptions about what a Recon would or would not have to say about anything.

Ask, first. :)

Burning Angel
August 13th, 2009, 10:08 PM
I think you're equating Electic with Fluffy. The two are not interchangeable terms, although there are many fluffies hiding under the term eclectic.

I think you're making a huge leap to assume that a Hellenic Recon would be calling anyone who worshipped Gods from different pantheons a Fluffy.

The only time I know I would cry foul is if a person was trying to connect Thor with the Greek Pantheon and had nothing substantial to back up that claim other than "it's how I feel."....and claim to be practicing Hellenismos.

Eclecticism is a good thing - and I know many Eclectic Pagans that put as much time, study, and effort into their practice as any Recon.

Please don't make assumptions about what a Recon would or would not have to say about anything.

Ask, first. :)

Actually Ninurta himself is an eclectic - I believe he stated as much in Ye Olde Babylonian Wicca thread that you were quite active in :hahugh:

~Jon :boing:

Twinkle
August 13th, 2009, 11:09 PM
I don't understand what that has to do with him saying a Hellenic Recon would say that the hypothetical practice is fluffy?

Burning Angel
August 13th, 2009, 11:40 PM
I don't understand what that has to do with him saying a Hellenic Recon would say that the hypothetical practice is fluffy?

Well my point was that he's an eclectic and isn't fluffy...I'm not entirely sure what he's getting at but it seems to be that eclecticism isn't automatically fluffy, and that the ancients, who Recons specifically try to emulate...were...check this...

Also fluffy. ETA: At times, and obviously not all of them. If all the ancients were fluffy, paganism would have jack to go on :P

Not that Reconstructionism is a bad idea - it's quite awesome - but he's just saying that some ancient religious practices (namely picking, choosing, changing, and basically ripping off gods) were pretty darn fluffy, rather than being an "older is better" ideal :)

~Jon :boing:

Seren_
August 14th, 2009, 03:32 AM
Being fluffy is usually defined as being willfully ignorant; the sort of person that refuses to listen to anyone who tells them otherwise, even with facts to back it up.

Being eclectic doesn't automatically make one fluffy, although the two do get lumped together a lot sometimes. If the person practising in an eclectic way is honest about what they're doing (i.e. not claiming to be reconstructing something when they're clearly not doing that), no matter how much they draw on a reconstructionist path, then I really don't think recons are going to have much to say about it.

ninurta2008
August 14th, 2009, 11:18 AM
I think you're equating Electic with Fluffy. The two are not interchangeable terms, although there are many fluffies hiding under the term eclectic.

I think you're making a huge leap to assume that a Hellenic Recon would be calling anyone who worshipped Gods from different pantheons a Fluffy.

The only time I know I would cry foul is if a person was trying to connect Thor with the Greek Pantheon and had nothing substantial to back up that claim other than "it's how I feel."....and claim to be practicing Hellenismos.

Eclecticism is a good thing - and I know many Eclectic Pagans that put as much time, study, and effort into their practice as any Recon.

Please don't make assumptions about what a Recon would or would not have to say about anything.

Ask, first. :)
This is understandable here, and I agree with you.



Actually Ninurta himself is an eclectic - I believe he stated as much in Ye Olde Babylonian Wicca thread that you were quite active in :hahugh:

~Jon :boing:
She knows.


Well my point was that he's an eclectic and isn't fluffy...I'm not entirely sure what he's getting at but it seems to be that eclecticism isn't automatically fluffy, and that the ancients, who Recons specifically try to emulate...were...check this...

Also fluffy. ETA: At times, and obviously not all of them. If all the ancients were fluffy, paganism would have jack to go on :P

Not that Reconstructionism is a bad idea - it's quite awesome - but he's just saying that some ancient religious practices (namely picking, choosing, changing, and basically ripping off gods) were pretty darn fluffy, rather than being an "older is better" ideal :)

~Jon :boing:
What I'm getting at is that some ancient writers who wrote about foreign gods, who even adopted many, were no less fluffy than the eclectic pagans who are fluffy.

My point was a build off of the statement made that the ancient hellenes borrowed deities from other cultures, changed them a little, then kept them and kept them by the same name. Which at least in how I view it, it is fluffy, and its something that is annoying, and recons hate it when modern eclectics do it but don't think the same thing was fluffy because it happened in ancient days.



Being fluffy is usually defined as being willfully ignorant; the sort of person that refuses to listen to anyone who tells them otherwise, even with facts to back it up.

yes, but that includes ancient pagans as well. Which is my point. My point was, does it make it any less fluffy if you were fluffy in 500-30 BCE or 2009 CE?

Twinkle
August 14th, 2009, 11:22 AM
I'm not sure we could say that ancients were fluffy. They were living their lives and their culture - which most of the time was intertwined with the religion.

In the Hellenistic period there was a veritable smorgasboard of beliefs. What each citizen chose to believe and practice doesn't equate to Fluffy.

I think the sort of fluffiness we've got going now is as Seren stated - willful ignorance.

Maybe we should clarify what you mean by Fluffy, perhaps that will help us be able to communicate better.

ninurta2008
August 14th, 2009, 03:08 PM
Fluffy is taking beliefs and deities to mean something they do not. That is a form of fluffy practice, that they do willfully change the deities to mean whatever suits their fancy, with no respect to the actual culture, the beliefs nor deities nor what they mean. For example,

Someone said that Lilith was a goddess of love, birth and sexuality if ancient mesopotamia that the jews demonized. And this wasn't on this forum, but when I tried to correct them, they then stretched it further and further to say "what if the mesopotamians demonized her", even though she was a demon to begin with.

Besides her hatred of the family, her killing babies and in jewish lore (or where ever) raping men in their sleep, there is nothing to suggest her as being anything else.

In mesopotamian lore, the most i found of her was charms agaisnt her and an instance where she was a nusance to Ishtar in the huluppu tree.

Twinkle
August 14th, 2009, 03:51 PM
OK.

Well - I don't know how to help you, and I wish I could. :(

Cinnamon1991
August 14th, 2009, 04:03 PM
I'd like to add that, if you're a Hellenic Recon living, for instance, in Sweden, honoring Thor wouldn't be *really* eclectic; in ancient Greece people also honored their local divinities that were tied to the place and not worshipped some miles further.
The blending of Thor in the pantheon may not be historically accurate, but the practice sure would be.
Though I don't think it would be smart to invite Thor in ritual with any Hellenic deity.

That's what I think anyway :).

(I had the same problems with being drawn to Hellenic Reconstructionism but at the same time I didn't want to give up honoring Nehalennia, a local goddess)

Twinkle
August 14th, 2009, 04:06 PM
I'd like to add that, if you're a Hellenic Recon living, for instance, in Sweden, honoring Thor wouldn't be *really* eclectic; in ancient Greece people also honored their local divinities that were tied to the place and not worshipped some miles further.
The blending of Thor in the pantheon may not be historically accurate, but the practice sure would be.
Though I don't think it would be smart to invite Thor in ritual with any Hellenic deity.

That's what I think anyway :).

(I had the same problems with being drawn to Hellenic Reconstructionism but at the same time I didn't want to give up honoring Nehalennia, a local goddess)

Actually I don't think worshipping local divinities is incorrect in terms of practice. I think for Hellenic Reconstruction it falls right in line.

ninurta2008
August 14th, 2009, 09:25 PM
OK.

Well - I don't know how to help you, and I wish I could. :(
It's all good.:uhhuhuh:


Actually I don't think worshipping local divinities is incorrect in terms of practice. I think for Hellenic Reconstruction it falls right in line.
Isn't that pretty much the same for most recon religions? I mean the same goes for Asatru/germanic paganism, babylonian paganism and alot of others.

David19
August 14th, 2009, 09:37 PM
I stated this in the other thread, but, I guess, I should have posted it here.

Here's my post from the other thread (http://mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?p=4014071#post4014071):


I don't think what the ancient Hellenes did is the same as what modern fluffy Pagans are doing now, as the ancient Hellenes really investigated a God, they learnt about them, and they found a way to fit a God into their Pantheon, or to equate 2 deities into one (for example, Inanna and Aphrodite, etc). Now, I'm not sure if I believe they'd be the same, but, I kind of like the Kemetic view, which is, as far as I know, Gods can merge into each other, yet still remain distinct, for example, Amun and Ra merged into each other, and became Amun-Ra, but, Amun and Ra are still seperate beings, and now there's a new being in existence - Amun-Ra (I probably, hopelessly, muddled that completely up, so, I'm hoping it made some sense, and, if there are any Kemetic's viewing this, please correct me :)), I kind of think the same things happen with other Gods, they can merge, and a new God comes into existence, e.g. Aset and Demeter (and Aphrodite?) merged to become the Roman Isis, yet Demeter, Aset (as well as maybe Aphrodite?) are still there.

I definitely wouldn't call what the ancient Hellenes did "fluffy", I'd say they, or, at least, most of them had great respect for other Gods, for example, Alexander the Great, if my memory is correct, attributed his victory or some of them to YHWH, the Jewish God (apparantly, YHWH came to Alexander in a dream, and, also, the Jews welcomed Alexander the Great, even today, that traditions continues, with Alexander being a favoured named for Jewish boys (of course, not as great as David ;) !)). I'm reading 'Alexander the Great' by Robin Lane Fox now (well, trying too, I keep getting distracted), and, I have to say, I really admire Alexander, if I ever do decide the Hellenic religion is for me, I think I'd focus on the Hellenistic age, where I could honour Alexander.

ninurta2008
August 15th, 2009, 10:43 PM
I stated this in the other thread, but, I guess, I should have posted it here.

Here's my post from the other thread (http://mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?p=4014071#post4014071):
Though it didn't quote the other part of the quote, Great point!

But there were some that were less interested in actually knowing anything about the deity. Like Herodotus, he equated the persian god Mitra to Aphrodite for example. However you draw that conclusion is beyond comprehension to me.

whats worse? He made up a story on how the pyramids were built. There was no slaves that we know of, though from what we know it was freemen who built them. As slaves aren't pampered and given such great burials.

Haerfest Leah
September 28th, 2009, 07:49 PM
My point was a build off of the statement made that the ancient hellenes borrowed deities from other cultures, changed them a little, then kept them and kept them by the same name. Which at least in how I view it, it is fluffy, and its something that is annoying, and recons hate it when modern eclectics do it but don't think the same thing was fluffy because it happened in ancient days.


yes, but that includes ancient pagans as well. Which is my point. My point was, does it make it any less fluffy if you were fluffy in 500-30 BCE or 2009 CE?

Thank you for reading your history, if everyone else would do this one tiny step it would save a lot in arguments. From a scholarly POV, I would say the ancients in their borrowing were not fluffy as they did it as a serious part of their beliefs or lifestyle, not as today as so many people take up Paganism (or religion in general) now more as a hobby. The ancients needed to believe in different deities because they had no other way to explain the world around them and in some instances, depending whose control they were under, if they did not believe in a certain deity it was the worse for them. They mixed geographically related deities how they saw fit, like if they saw results being gained with one of a similarly related pantheon versus another of their own pantheon.

Today we do not have this absolute need for religion as they world around us can be explained with science, technology & history, so people just mix what they think is cool. That is fluffy.




whats worse? He made up a story on how the pyramids were built. There was no slaves that we know of, though from what we know it was freemen who built them. As slaves aren't pampered and given such great burials.

Correct, the pyramids were built as sort of a community project where cities rotated voluntarily to supply the manpower.

ninurta2008
September 30th, 2009, 11:04 PM
Good point Hærfest Leah, though also I wanted to add that it isn't necessary to change a deity because unlike in 100 CE, we can choose from any pantheon from around the world, there is no need to change deities.

Though I wouldn't say it is less fluffy, I do agree that they had more of a reason then to do so.