Port Alberni Pagans?

[Sweetbub]

Originally Posted by lookie48

It's not so much offend as disagree. If someone disagrees with you, you simply put them on your ignore list. That's very open minded of you! Ha! Ha! A good debate is a good thing for both parties.

That's not what Hedgehog said at all. There is a big difference between disagreeing with someone and being offended by someone.

Shouldn't put words into other people's mouths, you never know what will come back to be put in yours.

[Artichoke]

What a fascinating discussion! And civil, too.

I've read a few books about paganism, joined in groups that were interested in paganism, and with some of my friends, have experimented with pagan-like rituals around the solstices and equinoxes - all very innocuous, not involving anything ressembling sacrifice, unless you count the dead wood for the bonfire - and rather light-hearted, positive, and fun. Christians joined in without any apparent damage to their immortal souls and said they had a good time. But I haven't ever joined a serious coven or gotten into it in any kind of deep way. I kind of practice on my own, honoring nature, seeking and trying to generate healing and positive energy. So I wouldn't really call myself a pagan.

My deeply held belief is that there is such an entity as a God, or universal consciousness that includes and also transcends human beings, and that all religions and philosophies understand and reflect that entity in different ways. In my world view, there are many paths to God. Ultimately, all paths lead to God, including paths that seem to take a very different direction. In my personal life and practice I explore the many different paths. Paganism is a path, so is Christianity. So is Islam. And Buddhism. And Hinduism. And even atheism.

If you look at all the world's major religions and spiritual movements, and look at what the founders actually said and what the mystics of each faith believe and practice, the foundations are basically identical - honor God or whatever you call the entity, don't lie, cheat, steal or kill, help the poor, etc. The differences - and the conflicts - come in when people take a particular ritual too literally and say this is the ONLY way to worship, this is the ONLY attribute of God. God is male, patriarchial, and vengeful, period. Or God is female, nurturing and kind, period. Or God says you have to wear blue on Tuesdays or else he says its ok for us to burn you at the stake - that sort of thing. It always puzzles me to see different religious traditions fighting over the same sacred site. Why not accept that yes, this site is sacred, let's all worship here each in our own way? Did not Jesus say that the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life? The spirit is universal. Sadly, so is the tendency to insist that there be a letter and that the letter is immovable and cause to hurt people with a different letter. I don't think these impulses have much to do with God, myself. More like - I want that guy's stuff and if I can convince myself and others that he's worshipping the wrong God, it will be ok for us to kill him and take it.

A few comments on things people have said:

Pen said: "After deep consideration, the notion of a Wiccan Christian makes about as much sense as a liberal feminist -- like none, whatever."

What's that supposed to mean? That anyone promoting women's rights is somehow conservative and rigid?

"The world view of the two philosophies is simply too diverse for cohabitation in one human mind."

I don't see why that would be the case if the mind is open. Christianity, particularly in its Catholic version, simply adopted, lock, stock, and barrel, the entire paraphernalia of paganism - virgin birth, saints, much of the language and ritual. All of these things are part of pre-Christian religions in the middle east, where Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all originated. I saw an exhibit once at the ROM of religious imagery from 2500-3500 BC from Egypt, Sumeria, and Assyria. When I walked in the room I thought it was medieval Catholic imagery until I looked at the labels - it was all there - nativity scenes complete with wise men, pietas. All created before Christ. The names were different. The Goddess Ishtar and her son/consort Damuzzi, the Goddess Isis and her son/consort Osiris. The great goddess and original supreme being conceived a son and mated with him to bring forth the universe, hence the nativity. And she mourns him when his enemies kill him, hence the pieta. And he dies every fall and is reborn in the spring - hence the ressurrection. All based on the cycles of the seasons, like paganism is. And the Blessed Virgin is none other than the great mother goddess with a different name and a lesser role in the patriarchal system.

A few years ago the Catholic church decided to go through all the saints they had on the books to check out if they really existed, did what people believed they had done, etc. They discovered, to their horror, that many of them were not human saints at all, but pagan gods and goddesses that were simply incorporated into the church. Become a Christian, it's ok, you can still worship your gods and goddesses. Only instead of the goddess Bridget you now have Saint Bridget. I'm not sure what they did about it. I don't know how willing the Irish Catholics would be to give up Saint Bridget, aka the goddess Bridget, their original creator goddess.

"Ultimately, humans sift through all incoming data, accept some and reject the rest . . . against the litmus of their personal world view. You might enjoy bread and wine with a Christian but only so long as the bread and wine remains food and drink with no strings attached, so to speak."

Pretty much. But I can see how food and drink can be imbued with a higher meaning. I just might not experience it in quite the same way. That, too, by the way, is a pagan ritual only it was originally practiced somewhat more literally. In the Christian version, you don't actually kill and eat a living creature or person. You break bread and say this has magically become the flesh and blood of the God. Rather less violent and thus an improvement, especially if you happen to be the one on the sacrificial table <g>.

Brackchhp said: "What many of us believe is that the mind, body and soul are all one, rather than separate entities."

That's a basic tenet of Taoism as well.

Tekwiz said: "Unfortunately, most behavior codes are also based on what one doesn't want other people to do."

Ain't that the truth?

[_pen_]

Originally Posted by Artichoke

What a fascinating discussion! And civil, too.


A few comments on things people have said:

Pen said: "After deep consideration, the notion of a Wiccan Christian makes about as much sense as a liberal feminist -- like none, whatever."

What's that supposed to mean? That anyone promoting women's rights is somehow conservative and rigid?

"The world view of the two philosophies is simply too diverse for cohabitation in one human mind."

I don't see why that would be the case if the mind is open. Christianity, particularly in its Catholic version, simply adopted, lock, stock, and barrel, the entire paraphernalia of paganism - virgin birth, saints, much of the language and ritual. All of these things are part of pre-Christian religions in the middle east, where Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all originated. I saw an exhibit once at the ROM of religious imagery from 2500-3500 BC from Egypt, Sumeria, and Assyria. When I walked in the room I thought it was medieval Catholic imagery until I looked at the labels - it was all there - nativity scenes complete with wise men, pietas. All created before Christ. The names were different. The Goddess Ishtar and her son/consort Damuzzi, the Goddess Isis and her son/consort Osiris. The great goddess and original supreme being conceived a son and mated with him to bring forth the universe, hence the nativity. And she mourns him when his enemies kill him, hence the pieta. And he dies every fall and is reborn in the spring - hence the ressurrection. All based on the cycles of the seasons, like paganism is. And the Blessed Virgin is none other than the great mother goddess with a different name and a lesser role in the patriarchal system.

A few years ago the Catholic church decided to go through all the saints they had on the books to check out if they really existed, did what people believed they had done, etc. They discovered, to their horror, that many of them were not human saints at all, but pagan gods and goddesses that were simply incorporated into the church. Become a Christian, it's ok, you can still worship your gods and goddesses. Only instead of the goddess Bridget you now have Saint Bridget. I'm not sure what they did about it. I don't know how willing the Irish Catholics would be to give up Saint Bridget, aka the goddess Bridget, their original creator goddess.

"Ultimately, humans sift through all incoming data, accept some and reject the rest . . . against the litmus of their personal world view. You might enjoy bread and wine with a Christian but only so long as the bread and wine remains food and drink with no strings attached, so to speak."

Pretty much. But I can see how food and drink can be imbued with a higher meaning. I just might not experience it in quite the same way. That, too, by the way, is a pagan ritual only it was originally practiced somewhat more literally. In the Christian version, you don't actually kill and eat a living creature or person. You break bread and say this has magically become the flesh and blood of the God. Rather less violent and thus an improvement, especially if you happen to be the one on the sacrificial table <g>.

Brackchhp said: "What many of us believe is that the mind, body and soul are all one, rather than separate entities."

That's a basic tenet of Taoism as well.

Tekwiz said: "Unfortunately, most behavior codes are also based on what one doesn't want other people to do."

Ain't that the truth?

What a thoughtful post, Artichoke. The dicussion did give us all a reason to do some reflection, didn't it?

The trouble is, even after deep reflection I realize that the understandings of faith that were on offer here aren't really the deep stuff of theologies. They're more the take of the lay person . . . which I believe in this discussion we all are. Point being, we aren't all aware of what informs the other posters' rationales.

For example, where I compared the chance of being a Pagan Christian as being about as likely as being a Liberal Feminist, you read that as though feminism was about promoting women's rights. Actually, the theory of feminism is a critique of liberalism.

Similarly, you've posted that much of Christianity comes from paganism and other earlier religions. Nope. The Christian Faith by definition is: a belief in Jesus Christ as the son of God and savior of all souls.

Some Christian rituals are similar to pagan and other previous existing rituals. That doesn't make them the core beliefs of a Christian. These are only things Christians do while reflecting on the meaning of their belief in Jesus Christ as the son of God and savior of all souls.

Pagans do not believe Jesus Christ was the son of God nor do they accept Him as their personal Savior. Christians do. It's simply not possible to be both at the same time. It's also not possible to be maintain that liberal theory makes sense and the same time as claiming that feminist critique does. That's like saying you can be George W. Bush and Barrack Obama at the same time.

But all that said, I see no reason not to enjoy friendship and peace amongst all faiths (and all who claim not to have any) . . . because I also believe all paths lead onward.

Great, great thread this has been. Too bad the pagans abandoned us!

[RosyPetal]

What I don't understand is why some people will associate themselves with some religion and then immediately negate certain aspects of it saying they don't practice this or that. If you are not following the "religion" as it is defined then I don't see why one would give themselves that label since most folks are going to believe you do.

I remember doing enumeration for an election or something a long time ago and one of the questions asked was what your religious affiliation was? (Hey I didn't make up the questions) Anyway, I was amazed because about 80% of the people I asked would say they were Christian, RC, JW, Morman etc., and then add that they were not practicing it. They basically only went to church for weddings and funerals or other unavoidable situations. Most just associated with the religion because that's what their parents or spouses were.

I personally really don't care what another believes in as they have the right to have their own beliefs. I just find it confusing when you ask someone some things about their beliefs and they cannot even answer the most basic of questions.

I don't know for sure but I don't think that lying about ones religious affiliation is a good way to make those heavenly brownie points.

[hedgehog]

Originally Posted by RosyPetal

What I don't understand is why some people will associate themselves with some religion and then immediately negate certain aspects of it saying they don't practice this or that. If you are not following the "religion" as it is defined then I don't see why one would give themselves that label since most folks are going to believe you do.

I remember doing enumeration for an election or something a long time ago and one of the questions asked was what your religious affiliation was? (Hey I didn't make up the questions) Anyway, I was amazed because about 80% of the people I asked would say they were Christian, RC, JW, Morman etc., and then add that they were not practicing it. They basically only went to church for weddings and funerals or other unavoidable situations. Most just associated with the religion because that's what their parents or spouses were.

I personally really don't care what another believes in as they have the right to have their own beliefs. I just find it confusing when you ask someone some things about their beliefs and they cannot even answer the most basic of questions.

I don't know for sure but I don't think that lying about ones religious affiliation is a good way to make those heavenly brownie points.

I thought those types of questions were in contravention of the Charter of Rights. However, regardless, anyone can answer Protestant to the question because no matter what your religion is you are in protest against all others.

[Artichoke]

Originally Posted by _pen_

where I compared the chance of being a Pagan Christian as being about as likely as being a Liberal Feminist, you read that as though feminism was about promoting women's rights. Actually, the theory of feminism is a critique of liberalism.

Well yes, I do believe that feminism is about promoting women's rights. Now explain to me why you think it's a critique of liberalism.

[_pen_]

Originally Posted by Artichoke

Well yes, I do believe that feminism is about promoting women's rights. Now explain to me why you think it's a critique of liberalism.

Could have something to do with formal studies on the topic, LOL. Popular thinking is that feminism is about women's rights. It is in part, but it's a lot more than that. Feminism is political theory found in a number of disciplines like poli sci, sociology, humanities, education, literary critique and so forth. (I think it's even found in maths and engineering but I don't have any first hand knowledge there, so I could be mistaken.)

Essentially, feminist theory is a critique of modernity, and modernity was informed and shaped by liberalism.

Sorry I didn't state that clearly when I said it wasn't likely one could be a Feminist Liberal.

Though I admire some feminist thinking, in general I don't tend to embrace it if only because it lacks rigor in my opinion. It also can't claim to be a political movement because there are so many variants and stripes of feminism and doesn't have a cohesive platform. You may find elements of feminist critique in the Green Pary and to a lesser degree, the New Democratic Party, but you won't find a Feminist Party per se.

Anyway, even though I'm a liberal thinker, I recognize some good arguments in feminist critique and find food for thought there. The 'Do Me Feminists' make good reading and a nice break from the gynosaurs, the angsty marxist feminist treatises and radical feminist rants.

[Artichoke]

Originally Posted by _pen_

Could have something to do with formal studies on the topic, LOL.

What formal studies would these be?

[_pen_]

Originally Posted by Artichoke

What formal studies would these be?

Sending you a PM.

[mmjxmt]

Would'nt mind seeing those myself. Just to see who they were written by and such, ya know, general interest.
People rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a God superior to themselves. Most Gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.

Originally Posted by _pen_

Sending you a PM.