Finding the Right Deity

[Brass Bell Doll]

Sanguina Cruenta

I have never been able to understand soft polytheism, and continue to be confused wink What I don't get, really, is why people worship false representations instead of seeking the reality of their gods, through gnosis. I realise gnosis isn't for everyone but I still find it confusing.

I think it is likely that they feel Soft Polytheism is supported by their gnosis.

Sanguina Cruenta

The idea was that the gods made a vow to only accept worship from these people.[/quopte]

I would really appreciate any effort put forth to show this vow exists. I am beginning to suspect that it doesn't.

While I understand not being personally concerned with the practices of other religions, I feel that there is an obligation to be responsible for our own claims. Would you agree?

Sanguina Cruenta

As I understand it, the problem with the Irish deities is that the culture is very tied to the land, and it's hard to maintain the culture apart from it for extended periods. I think it's done, just not very often, and if you want to start practising and become a part of the culture it's essential to head to Ireland.

I have read that some of the Irish American communities, like those in New York, are good examples of Irish Culture taken abroad.

Sanguina Cruenta

I don't think it happens often. Even the gods of the Wica are meant to be "the Lord and Lady of the British Isles", which suggests they are very much local gods, and indeed that's the sort of picture Gardner paints when he speaks of the Wica worshipping gods of their own land rather than, for e.g., the Greek or Egyptian deities.

I find this interesting. Some of the work that Gardner's high Priestesses did was to remove the Hellenic flavor from Gardner's earlier writings.

I also feel that Wicca, being practiced in a time that is not a time and a place that is not a place, is not quite practiced "all over the world". But that's more cosmology than geography.

 

[oOGarrettOo]

If you want more information on the Gael and the vows, search out CuAnnan and Scorplett. They'll be able to either fill you in or point you in the right direction.  

[Anorectic-Pandas]

Ok. Since there is so much I need to respond to, I'm just going to start a new post, because if I were to attempt to quote it all, it would be very painful for you and me. C: Just be prepared for a hefty read.

First- my claim that the gods are loving.
In no way shape or form do I believe that all gods are loving.
I have researched other pantheons (and even the Celtic one) enough to know that that is not the case. But from the gods I have worked with (and researched), they are loving enough.

For example- Brighid (the Goddess I think is most connected to me, and may become my patroness if she obliges) is in myth very loving (from my own experience). I would put quotes from mythology, but it seems Google is on it's time of the month, and I no longer have many of my older books.

Second- the whole soft vs. hard polytheism.
I prefer soft. Why? Because through what little religious training I had in Christianity, and from what research I did on other religions, I came to this conclusion.

I struggled with the fact that there was one god, and that I would have to work out which one was right.

And I just sat down one day and thought out what I believe.

Of course, I was a theist (but unsure of what kind).
I knew that nature was in some way connected to this divinity.
And that no one person knows exactly what is out there.

I like the quote from the Baha'i Faith:

Baha'i Religious Education Texts

One of Bahá’u’lláh’s Teachings is about God and our relationship with Him. Bahá’u’lláh teaches us that God is unknowable in His Essence. This means that we should not make images of God in our mind, thinking of Him, for example, as a man. In general, that which has been created cannot understand its creator. For instance, a table cannot understand the nature of the carpenter who made it. The carpenter’s existence is totally incomprehensible to the objects he makes.

Basically that.
This year in high school, I took a class.
Theory of Knowledge it was called; it was all founded on that principle that humans can and will never know anything as pure fact. (It was taught by a devout Episcopalian who, in addition to his history degree, had a (Masters I believe) degree in Theology.)

Every day we asked him some different things.
'Mr. Hollis, does God.........'
And we always got the response that he doesn't know, because he doesn't know God.

So in essence, I find religion as a tool that people use to explain the vast world around them, and to better themselves morally and ethically.
And for me, soft polytheism makes the most sense.

But then the comment of (and I paraphrase) 'why entertain your own wishes over the wishes of the gods?'
Why? Because they are all one part of a bigger and greater God and Goddess.

Third- why I choose to direct worship to a god that personifies the [blank] aspect of the God/dess rather than worshiping that aspect directly.

Ok. I admit it. When I saw this, I really was stumped.
I'm not quite sure.
But I guess, that it helps me better direct that attention.
Like, it would be easier for me personally to pray to 'Brighid, Goddess of light, poetry, inspiration, and feminine energy' than to try to contact just that part of the Goddess.
I guess.

I really don't have a good answer, other than it just the way I choose to worship. :

Whooo. I'm done. If I've missed any of your questions, please tell me. C:

 

[Brass Bell Doll]

oOGarrettOo

If you want more information on the Gael and the vows, search out CuAnnan and Scorplett. They'll be able to either fill you in or point you in the right direction.

This is largely part of what confuses me.
When I read Cu's responses here, he was not able to provide the vow, and my understanding was that the section quoted was from Scorplett. This suggests that neither of them have the ability to explain this claim with evidence.

Anorectic-Pandas

Ok. Since there is so much I need to respond to, I'm just going to start a new post, because if I were to attempt to quote it all, it would be very painful for you and me. C: Just be prepared for a hefty read.

First- my claim that the gods are loving.
In no way shape or form do I believe that all gods are loving.
I have researched other pantheons (and even the Celtic one) enough to know that that is not the case. But from the gods I have worked with (and researched), they are loving enough.

I feel this is a contradiction to what you said earlier. When you claim that all these gods are the same being, but then claim that not all gods are loving, but claim to believe in loving gods as a reason that they would accept you- you create a circular reasoning.

Anorectic-Pandas

For example- Brighid (the Goddess I think is most connected to me, and may become my patroness if she obliges) is in myth very loving (from my own experience). I would put quotes from mythology, but it seems Google is on it's time of the month, and I no longer have many of my older books.

I do not feel there is any urgency, and would be happy to wait for google to produce the results you are searching for.

Would it be okay for me to check in on this later?

Anorectic-Pandas

Second- the whole soft vs. hard polytheism.
I prefer soft. Why? Because through what little religious training I had in Christianity, and from what research I did on other religions, I came to this conclusion.

I struggled with the fact that there was one god, and that I would have to work out which one was right.

And I just sat down one day and thought out what I believe.

Of course, I was a theist (but unsure of what kind).
I knew that nature was in some way connected to this divinity.
And that no one person knows exactly what is out there.

Based on this description, it seems like you made an intellectual decision based on what you believed, rather than exploring the relationship with the gods and allowing them to explain who they are and what their nature is- gnosis as was mentioned earlier. Would you say this is fair?

Anorectic-Pandas

I like the quote from the Baha'i Faith:

Baha'i Religious Education Texts

One of Bahá’u’lláh’s Teachings is about God and our relationship with Him. Bahá’u’lláh teaches us that God is unknowable in His Essence. This means that we should not make images of God in our mind, thinking of Him, for example, as a man. In general, that which has been created cannot understand its creator. For instance, a table cannot understand the nature of the carpenter who made it. The carpenter’s existence is totally incomprehensible to the objects he makes.

Basically that.
This year in high school, I took a class.
Theory of Knowledge it was called; it was all founded on that principle that humans can and will never know anything as pure fact. (It was taught by a devout Episcopalian who, in addition to his history degree, had a (Masters I believe) degree in Theology.)

Philosophical Nihilism is an interesting school of thought- unfortunately, I feel it lacks consistency and reason. It assumes that if nothing can be known, then you have to be able to know for sure that nothing can be known, which means something can be known which demonstrates that it is a false line of reasoning. Alternatively, it suggests that our current inability to know something means it cannot be known and relies on a lack of evidence to support the claim, which is another line of false reasoning, since our inability to understand something at a given stage of development is not evidence that it will always be the case.

Anorectic-Pandas

So in essence, I find religion as a tool that people use to explain the vast world around them, and to better themselves morally and ethically.
And for me, soft polytheism makes the most sense.

I feel there is not enough credit due to religion with this perspective. Many people have religions that do not center on cosmology or provide moral standards. While it is true that some utilize religion for this, I think the exceptions make it unfair to claim this is what religion is.

Anorectic-Pandas

But then the comment of (and I paraphrase) 'why entertain your own wishes over the wishes of the gods?'
Why? Because they are all one part of a bigger and greater God and Goddess.

I feel this is a very self-involved response. It stems from what has previously been described as an intellectual reasoning that supports a conclusion, rather than something that has been developed by virtue of gnosis.

Please understand this doesn't mean it is wrong, but it makes me uncomfortable. My discomfort comes from this:
When we make up a decision and then seek support, we are more likely to infuse bias into our perspective than if we seek an answer to a question without an opinion already formed.

Another position that doesn't completely make sense stems from the reasoning as to why we would place our desires above that of the Gods. If the reasoning is that the "gods" are lesser forms of the "Gods", then I would see a parallel between individual people and Humanity. Because of this, I would not consider disregarding individual's desires on the grounds that being people, they deserve less consideration than Humanity.

Third- why I choose to direct worship to a god that personifies the [blank] aspect of the God/dess rather than worshiping that aspect directly.

Anorectic-Pandas

Ok. I admit it. When I saw this, I really was stumped.
I'm not quite sure.
But I guess, that it helps me better direct that attention.
Like, it would be easier for me personally to pray to 'Brighid, Goddess of light, poetry, inspiration, and feminine energy' than to try to contact just that part of the Goddess.
I guess.

I really don't have a good answer, other than it just the way I choose to worship. :

Whooo. I'm done. If I've missed any of your questions, please tell me. C:

If you're selecting names based on a list of interests, could you not just as easily make up names?  

[Anorectic-Pandas]

Brass Bell Doll

I feel this is a contradiction to what you said earlier. When you claim that all these gods are the same being, but then claim that not all gods are loving, but claim to believe in loving gods as a reason that they would accept you- you create a circular reasoning.

This is a good response, but it overlooks the fact that a god can be loving and unloving at the same time.

For sake of argument, I'm going to create two gods, so that we can have some examples that make for an argument that is not subjective, or biased by any present opinions.

God 1 is a female goddess; she is the patroness of the people in the northernmost part of the nation, and she has control over weather. She loves all people, and takes care of anyone who asks for assistance.

God two is again a female goddess, with control over the dead and the afterlife. Unlike God 1, she only loves her people (those whom have sworn allegiance only to her) and accepts no worship outside of these people.

Is it inconceivable that these two deities are part of the same ultimate Goddess? I don't believe so.

I know it sounds confusing, but as a soft polytheist, I do believe all represent the one. So a god that rejects other peoples / lands still represent the God/dess they are an aspect of.

I really don't know of any better examples, and as I've stated before, I haven't personally in any of my education read or been taught that certain gods are unloving or have take vows to only be help and worshiped by [insert whomever].

Brass Bell Doll

I do not feel there is any urgency, and would be happy to wait for google to produce the results you are searching for.

Would it be okay for me to check in on this later?

No urgency, it's just I would really like to put in the sources from where I have drawn many of my conclusions.
It would be ok with me. C:

Bass Bell Doll

Based on this description, it seems like you made an intellectual decision based on what you believed, rather than exploring the relationship with the gods and allowing them to explain who they are and what their nature is- gnosis as was mentioned earlier. Would you say this is fair?

You know, I did check with the gods. I never make any big religious decision without checking with them. I meditate and pray on it for some time. (Most of the time every decision I make, religious or not, is prayed upon.)
I have received nothing but love, kindness, and acceptance from them.

But if one day, I am told that they are in fact separate deities, they do not represent anything higher, and the many pantheons and gods are separate and different entities, you can believe that I would change my belief system. If I am truly told that.
But as I said, up to this point I haven't been told anything of that sort.

Brass Bell Doll

Philosophical Nihilism is an interesting school of thought- unfortunately, I feel it lacks consistency and reason. It assumes that if nothing can be known, then you have to be able to know for sure that nothing can be known, which means something can be known which demonstrates that it is a false line of reasoning. Alternatively, it suggests that our current inability to know something means it cannot be known and relies on a lack of evidence to support the claim, which is another line of false reasoning, since our inability to understand something at a given stage of development is not evidence that it will always be the case.

It says that humans are creatures created by something higher, and that since this being is higher and a state above us, that it is impossible for our minds to comprehend it, and make accurate conclusions 100% of the time.

Say that the truth is the Catholic faith. Well, then every Catholic in the world is correct, and every other faith is wrong.

But we don't know either way, and we can pray and meditate all we want, but we will never truly know the entire entity.

And say you pray and meditate and ask this force for assistance, and ask for its name. Then you get the name Odin.
I don't believe you should assume that Odin really is all that force is, that one should still assume that Odin is a force and holy being that is still outside of our comprehension.

Brass Bell Doll

I feel there is not enough credit due to religion with this perspective. Many people have religions that do not center on cosmology or provide moral standards. While it is true that some utilize religion for this, I think the exceptions make it unfair to claim this is what religion is.

When I said that, I meant in the optimal conditions.
My religion explains what I see the world as being, and puts in place certain guidelines for being a better person.

But there are those people who have detrimental faiths, and ones that are for show (i.e, the 'gothic' / punk kids in high school who become 'Wiccan' because it's soooooo cool / fluffy bunnies).

In the optimal condition, religion is good (which I admit is subjective), that best explains the world, and allows a person to live a better life and be a good person (again subjective).

Brass Bell Doll

Please understand this doesn't mean it is wrong, but it makes me uncomfortable. My discomfort comes from this:
When we make up a decision and then seek support, we are more likely to infuse bias into our perspective than if we seek an answer to a question without an opinion already formed.

Another position that doesn't completely make sense stems from the reasoning as to why we would place our desires above that of the Gods. If the reasoning is that the "gods" are lesser forms of the "Gods", then I would see a parallel between individual people and Humanity. Because of this, I would not consider disregarding individual's desires on the grounds that being people, they deserve less consideration than Humanity.

Back up to what I stated before, I did check with the gods I believe in, and haven't received any opposition up to this point.

I made a decision to worship certain gods, and asked them if it was ok. As it was, I followed through with it.

Brass Bell Doll

If you're selecting names based on a list of interests, could you not just as easily make up names?

Because these gods have already shown themselves to people, and have been doing so for hundreds/thousands of year.

Because my family history is connected to it.

Because my brain better comprehends these aspects and these ways of explaining divinity over say the Norse or Roman ways. It's easier for me to understand.


Please tell me if I'm explaining something weird.
I have this fear that I'm not getting my point across as best I could.  

[Brass Bell Doll]

Anorectic-Pandas

This is a good response, but it overlooks the fact that a god can be loving and unloving at the same time.

It did, but it was because the alternative assumes that even if a god is loving and unloving at the same time, the innate response to someone under the way your position was presented was that their actions would be loving.

Anorectic-Pandas

For sake of argument, I'm going to create two gods, so that we can have some examples that make for an argument that is not subjective, or biased by any present opinions.

God 1 is a female goddess; she is the patroness of the people in the northernmost part of the nation, and she has control over weather. She loves all people, and takes care of anyone who asks for assistance.

God two is again a female goddess, with control over the dead and the afterlife. Unlike God 1, she only loves her people (those whom have sworn allegiance only to her) and accepts no worship outside of these people.

Is it inconceivable that these two deities are part of the same ultimate Goddess? I don't believe so.

If we are using this example, to have it reflect what is being discussed, not only are these two goddesses are as described, but they have also stated that they hate one another, are not associated with the other and will slay each other on sight.

Examples of any one of these can be found in myths from around the world. I feel that because these claims are part of their mythology, we have a few possibilities when speaking about these deities.

The first is one that supports a variation on Soft Polytheism. In the same sense that we are both people, and thus are a part of humanity at large, we can be said to be part of something larger than ourselves- at the same time, that does not mean we are not our own people- deserving of treatment that reflects our unique essence.

It is possible that those who recorded the legends messed up or intentionally reproduced the lore with bias that does not reflect any divine truth. If this is the case, then I feel that we could just as easily worship beings out of fantasy novels for all the accuracy the lore reflects.

The third possibility is that this one goddess did make these claims and intentionally deceived her followers- sewing strife by setting enmity amongst us non-omniscient mortals. However, this intentional manipulation would make her unfit for worship in my eyes.

Anorectic-Pandas

I know it sounds confusing,

I do not view your statements as confusing at all.

Anorectic-Pandas

but as a soft polytheist, I do believe all represent the one. So a god that rejects other peoples / lands still represent the God/dess they are an aspect of.

Some of the earliest responses to monotheism were how do we come to terms with the fact that the same deity that blesses us is also the one who curses us. How can we serve a loving God that will turn around and bring evil into our lives? How do we serve a god who would intentionally mislead us or torture us? It is very challenging to understand how we can worship a god that is benevolent towards us, but instructs our neighbor under a different visage to beat their children and spouse.

Do you feel that a god who instructs us to bring devastating harm to others is deserving of worship?

Anorectic-Pandas

I really don't know of any better examples, and as I've stated before, I haven't personally in any of my education read or been taught that certain gods are unloving or have take vows to only be help and worshiped by [insert whomever].

I think the examples of gods who are expressly stated as being unloving are much easier to come across. Ate is one that comes to mind from the Greeks.

I feel it is a mistake for any of us to draw conclusions without enough information. If you agree, do you think it may be useful to reevaluate your beliefs with the new information on gods who are unloving?

Anorectic-Pandas

You know, I did check with the gods. I never make any big religious decision without checking with them. I meditate and pray on it for some time. (Most of the time every decision I make, religious or not, is prayed upon.)
I have received nothing but love, kindness, and acceptance from them.

May I ask what methods you use to distinguish divine revelation from internal self-talk?

Anorectic-Pandas

But if one day, I am told that they are in fact separate deities, they do not represent anything higher, and the many pantheons and gods are separate and different entities, you can believe that I would change my belief system. If I am truly told that.

I feel there is a small unfair dichotomy here. They can be individuals, and still represent something higher. The scope of our perception could be limited and while that would not mean they are the same deity, it is possible they could be more than our perception accounts for. (More than possible, I'd say likely- but that has a lot to do with personal experiences over myths)

Anorectic-Pandas

It says that humans are creatures created by something higher, and that since this being is higher and a state above us, that it is impossible for our minds to comprehend it, and make accurate conclusions 100% of the time.

I do not feel that Philosophical Nihilism says this at all, since to know that we are created by something higher is to have knowledge.

Anorectic-Pandas

Say that the truth is the Catholic faith. Well, then every Catholic in the world is correct, and every other faith is wrong.

But we don't know either way, and we can pray and meditate all we want, but we will never truly know the entire entity.

I feel the largest flaw in this is that Catholics do not even agree on their faith. Having said that- the problems I mentioned earlier remain- our current inability to know is not the impossibility of knowledge. Does that make sense?

Anorectic-Pandas

And say you pray and meditate and ask this force for assistance, and ask for its name. Then you get the name Odin.
I don't believe you should assume that Odin really is all that force is, that one should still assume that Odin is a force and holy being that is still outside of our comprehension.

This brings us back to the earlier problem. If the Catholic faith is correct, and this force tells you it's name is Odin, it has intentionally mislead you. Alternatively, you could be deceiving yourself. If this is the case, it would be detectable under certain circumstances. I feel not having the tools needed to detect the truth of this would not demonstrate we cannot know, nor would it demonstrate that someone who manipulated and lied to us would be deserving of a relationship with us.

Anorectic-Pandas

When I said that, I meant in the optimal conditions.
My religion explains what I see the world as being, and puts in place certain guidelines for being a better person.

Why do you feel that other religious models are not optimal?

Anorectic-Pandas

But there are those people who have detrimental faiths, and ones that are for show (i.e, the 'gothic' / punk kids in high school who become 'Wiccan' because it's soooooo cool / fluffy bunnies).

Could you help me understand why you feel young people becoming "Wiccan" is not optimal?
And how would you classify a "detrimental" faith?

Anorectic-Pandas

In the optimal condition, religion is good (which I admit is subjective), that best explains the world, and allows a person to live a better life and be a good person (again subjective).

I'm sorry, I find this confusing and almost upsetting. I do not see why religion needs to involve cosmology and morality in order to be optimal. I feel religion can have neither of these, and instead reflect a spiritual contract between the gods and their followers and be valuable for that. I also feel that some people turn to religious imagery and cosmology and turn away from truths (like those who say evolution is against the Bible). I feel that religions whose focus is a moral system and adherence to that system are often abusive forms of social contracts- like how some Norse Pagans state racism and homophobia as moral imperatives.

I feel that what makes a religion a good religion is how True it is, not how it creates social pressures to conform to what it's founders call "moral" or how it describes the world around us outside of those truths.

Anorectic-Pandas

Back up to what I stated before, I did check with the gods I believe in, and haven't received any opposition up to this point.

I made a decision to worship certain gods, and asked them if it was ok. As it was, I followed through with it.

I would feel more comfortable with your reasoning if I understood how you distinguished between yourself and them.

Anorectic-Pandas

Because these gods have already shown themselves to people, and have been doing so for hundreds/thousands of year.

Could you expand upon this. I'm not sure I understand why the historical precedent makes it a good reason to continue to do it. There are lots of things our ancestors were familiar with that are best left in the past.

Anorectic-Pandas

Because my family history is connected to it.

From a purely statistical perspective, your family history likely also incorporates Christianity, which would show that there is a selection process between what parts of your family history you choose. Could you explain why you select some and not others?

Anorectic-Pandas

Because my brain better comprehends these aspects and these ways of explaining divinity over say the Norse or Roman ways. It's easier for me to understand.

With no disrespect intended, how much of the myths are being comprehended? How accurate is the understanding? I ask because Irish is a very difficult language to master for people who speak English- and a lot of the essence of these legends are tied up in very specific social customs and elements of language that do not translate well at all.

What if your understanding of your God and Goddess through these names does not accurately reflect the gods and goddesses, but instead reflects a list of adjectives in English?

Anorectic-Pandas

Please tell me if I'm explaining something weird.
I have this fear that I'm not getting my point across as best I could.

I feel you are explaining it very well, and discussion is a process. We don't need to get it 100% correct the first time.