Why Neo-Paganism?

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Catholic Monotheism also believes that a dialogue or Union with the Divine can be direct and unmediated, "that I can know even as I am known".

whereas jewish monotheism would add: "...provided I Feel like it and am not Hiding My Face for whatever reason, at least during an era where prophecy exists, otherwise direct communication will be far less obvious and restricted to an élite." and it would take far longer to say so, as well.

Many pagans have argued with me that their love of nature is their religion. My response is that I love nature, but I love more that which moves it ... its Logos, Arche, Principle, Holy Spirit, Christ, Father ... so my answer is often ... why stop where you have stopped ... why not seek beyond the veil?

precisely. i love curry, but i don't seek its guidance in spiritual matters. and the only curry commandment i am aware of is "thou shalt have onion bhajis for starters and thou shalt not overdo it on the beers, unless verily thou wishest to suffer the consequences." slightly more seriously, i love mrs bb, but i don't just love the container - i love the person who lives in the container and who runs the container. it is instructive that the hebrew term for "human " comes from the term for "earth".

Surely if one argues all, then you're bound to run into contradiction? In the end must you not admit that it's all relative, or subjective?

i would agree. in fact, that's kind of the point about the "seven nations of canaan", the religious systems we were commanded to exterminate. these were/are paths which one might call pagan, but i cannot imagine that the sort of behaviour they encouraged (e.g. human sacrifice) would be considered by modern neo-pagans as "valid" ; it is the behaviours we object to, not the contents of people's heads.

According to the Western Esoteric Tradition, National Socialism was inspired and founded on pagan ideals, not a monotheistic vision — indeed Judaism, the Father of Monotheism — was subject to the full brunt of that perverted vision.

perhaps - yet, to be fair, without nearly two millennia of practice in persecuting and hating jews, primarily sponsored by the christian churches, nazism would have had far less appeal. you can't blame the whole thing on paganism any more than you can blame it on christianity or, indeed, on the pseudo-science of social darwinist racism.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

How much of our difference is having no common label to stick on what we're describing?

that is why judaism uses the behavioural paradigm - if people are doing these 7 things, they are OK. if they are not, they are not OK; the question then becomes whether we can agree on what those 7 things are and, by and large, i would argue that we can, something for which i am somewhat grateful.

I always perceived that what some interpret to be this God or that Goddess was really just a way they interfaced with the Divine One. I don't think their interfaces are invalid, but that's why I considered myself a panentheist and not a polytheist. Because I can't think that all those interfaces are the same as the Divine One (God, Spirit, whatever you'd like to call it). The interfaces, or what I've called them, manifestations are part of the One but not the same exact thing in entirety, and yet the One is never diminished.

precisely - the Name is not the Divine. i always like to use my mum in examples like this. the word "mum" is not my mum. it is an interface by which i describe my relationship with this person. my dad calls her by her name, my son calls her "gran-gran" and customer service managers across the country call her by many names, all unprintable. she remains one person, however.

I think what is confusing to me is that soft polytheism seems indistinguishable from panentheism, and then why have the confusion of a new term?

panentheism is historically a tough word to explain. i have heard chassidic groups referred to as "panentheist" and i'm sure they wouldn't recognise the term before it had been explained to them.

Is it so that hard polytheists and soft polytheists, both common in Neo-Pagan groups, feel they can more easily coexist? But at the heart of it, it does seem quite different.

the reason is that people are more comfortable associating with people who wear the same outfits, have the same names, do the same ceremonies and talk about the same stuff - even if they mean totally different things by them. it's a different kind of interaction, but the group identity remains.

My question is always who gets to define what is maximally effective and valid? It seems like what is most effective and valid varies person to person.

i would argue that there's a spectrum, ranging from "stuff we can agree we agree about" to "stuff we totally don't agree about" and that beliefs are more like multi-dimensional venn diagrams. and in the absence of anyone else to define what is maximally effective and valid, i will volunteer. muwahahahahahaaaaaaaa.

I think many Neo-Pagans respond negatively to monotheism primarily due to right-wing fundamentalist Christians and Muslims, who generally do think their way is the only way and believe the rest are destined for hell.

groups by their nature are fond of defining themselves in opposition to other groups: "we" are "not them". sometimes this has amusing side-effects, particularly when the idea that "we don't believe in the Big Beard In The Sky" is swiftly followed by: "no, what we believe in are the Big Tits In The Earth".

I've found far more acceptance of diversity among the Jewish peope I've know, who are also typically very respectful of others' belief systems and don't try to convert people.

ok, but to be fair, there are quite a lot of us who are irritatingly smug and chauvinist about the Best Kept Secret Club In Religion. which is, in turn a coping mechanism for finding the whole thing rather too much like hard work.

Polytheism naturally doesn't directly lead to tolerance and peace- the historical Maya and Aztecs were definitely polytheistic and yet there were aspects of society that were quite brutal, and these were justified by religion.

and we have ample evidence of similar tendencies in the assyrians, babylonians, egyptians, greeks, romans and persians.

Generally, all religions create or fabricate a "history" that is wrapped up in mythology- the message is often sound, but the details are hardly accurate on the physical plane. In Druidry, there is a distinction between the scant amount we can know from the archaeological record and historical texts, and what we feel we can know through spiritual practice. That is, we shouldn't confuse history with spiritual insight.

that's rather a pithy way of putting it, which i may use elsewhere. in our case, we are constrained to spend large amounts of time reconciling or defending ourselves against attempts to prove that history contradicts what we know to be the case in terms of our spiritual documentation. i can't think of another religion that has to do this quite so much. historians would presumably conclude that my mum is various different people.

Seems like some monotheists think that as well (panentheist) and others think it's only the everything beyond everything that counts.

actually, each of them are indispensable. the difficulty is coping with maintaining a balanced perspective which embraces both. that's too sophisticated and paradoxical for many, but i would argue that a healthy spiritual outlook requires a mature appreciation of paradox.

I've definitely had moments of contact with spirit beings that were very powerful and might seem like gods if I had never experienced God as I had. I had one vision as a kid that was so mind-blowing and inexplicable, and so beyond expression and understanding, that it sort of became the standard to remind myself that I just am so limited and God is so huge.

for me the question is: but so what? what must one *do*, as a result? what is the right *action*?

What moves Nature is in Nature. So in loving Nature, I love God. There is no distinction for me- I don't love God "more" because God is in Nature. Loving Nature is one way for me to love God, not a separate spiritual thing that I do.

and for me, in *correct action* in relation to nature, i obey Divine Commands - i eat only what i am permitted to eat, i harvest only what i am permitted to harvest and i am accountable for my self-evident stewardship of and responsibility for natural resources.

God at that plane does not need anything from me, for It is already whole.

so is your significant other - they function perfectly well as a human being without a relationship, but existence is simply more meaningful with one.

Most Pagans I know work on becoming more capable of walking between the worlds, so to speak. That is, moving beyond the veil. Not only the veil between God and humanity, but also the veil between the Otherworld(s) and this one.

i've observed that there is a rather large tendency for neo-pagans to get rather caught up in the minutiae of rank and degree and progression. the western mystery tradition is a particular offender here, but i've heard of it in druidry; if i were cynical, i might point out how one of the attractions of wicca, for example, is that anyone can pretty much call them a high priestess of whatever if that is what they fancy; actually, in the case of clergy, the idea of rank is almost universal. the only jews i know of who spend a lot of time "walking between the worlds" are advanced kabbalists who are, by their nature, a small and highly trained élite group.

I would put forth it was a problem of having the church tied to politics, allowing the elite to exploit religion for the sake of their own material advancement, and feel good doing so because it was "done for God."

there are distinct signs of the religious establishment doing this in israel, unfortunately. perhaps this, too, is just something humans do.

Originally Posted by gp1628

There seems to be a central core belief that nature is for man and if we force God to choose (again?) that he will choose man over the rest of nature. That doesnt feel right to me.

our sages said: everyone should carry a piece of paper in his right and left pockets. in one it should say "for my sake was the world Created." in the other it should say "i am dust and ashes". in other words, man is sometimes more important and sometimes not - and sometimes both at the same time. paradox again, d'ye see.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Dream]

Did Neo-paganism start out as a homework assignment in a Philosophy class?

[Netti-Netti]

Interesting that Neopaganism was a conscious choice for some of you, as though it's defined by a well known set of beliefs.

Based on the "Your beliefs: what are they REALLY?" test, I'm neopagan. But in my case it's not intended at all: in fact my conscious intention is away from it.

Neopaganism includes polytheism, animism, and pantheism: I steer away from those kinds of beliefs and consciously did not endorse any items on having to do with those beliefs when I took the test.

I think what is confusing to me is that soft polytheism seems indistinguishable from panentheism

To me, polytheism is more like an elaborate, mythic and often visualy vivid way of representing the Universe as being pervaded by a Creative Force using modified anthropomorophic or derivative imagery to make the characters more recognizable in human terms but make them fun and funky - like Ganesha the elephant god. By comparison, panentheism seems like more abstract notion of G-d's presence as an amorphous, pervasive energy or consciousness.

Possibly another difference: polytheism (and theism, too) lends itself to divination whereas in panentheism the Divine could be regarded as impersonal and not subject to beig manipulated. Maybe it depends on the variety of panentheism.

Well, God is, ultimately, the Divine One Being who created all other beings. In serving, thanking, and loving all beings... Nature... I am able to show my love for Being Itself in a concrete way.

Yes, very true But I don't know if reverence for nature would define Neopaganism. You can identify with any number of religions and have that appreciation.

Now if you're a bit of a NeoPlatonist, you may just be learning to appreciate the The One based on appreciation to the forms that point to the One. In fact, In Plotinus' aesthetics, Beauty is a derivative or emanation from the Good. The implication there is that an artistic experience is a moral experience of an orderly universe that has an element of moral perfection. This is actually very close to my own personal thinking and IMHO it is far removed from polytheism, animism, and pantheism . So why do I score so high on the Neopagan scale? Dunno.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

whereas jewish monotheism would add: "...provided I Feel like it and am not Hiding My Face for whatever reason, at least during an era where prophecy exists, otherwise direct communication will be far less obvious and restricted to an élite." and it would take far longer to say so, as well.

precisely. i love curry, but i don't seek its guidance in spiritual matters. and the only curry commandment i am aware of is "thou shalt have onion bhajis for starters and thou shalt not overdo it on the beers, unless verily thou wishest to suffer the consequences."

LOL! BB, you always bring such a great humerous way of looking at your beliefs. It's awesome.

it is the behaviours we object to, not the contents of people's heads.

I think this is what may have been lost somewhat with Christianity. It became more doctrine-oriented and less about action. Thus, all of the Pagan peoples at one point were more or less equally condemned and expected to convert pronto. I think, though, that this was because the church and the governments were lining each other's pockets during the age of empires and colonization.

precisely - the Name is not the Divine. i always like to use my mum in examples like this. the word "mum" is not my mum. it is an interface by which i describe my relationship with this person. my dad calls her by her name, my son calls her "gran-gran" and customer service managers across the country call her by many names, all unprintable. she remains one person, however.

That is precisely how I've explained it to me. I'm a sister, a daughter, a technical writer, a professor, a researcher, a wife, etc. etc. but I'm all still me. If that's how I work, how much more must the Infinite One be that way?

As for trinitarianism, I hold the paradox that it is both/and. There is a truthfulness is three-ness- there is a truth I think the concept holds. But the truth in it is not the same as the Divine actuality to me. It is a message for us, not a definition. At least, that is how I see it. But I'm kind of an oddball type of Christian.

Sometimes I think I would have been more comfortable in Judaism, to be honest. But then I'd still have my neo-Pagan stuff about wanting to go out and worship in a grove of trees and thank the earth and talk to the elements. And I can't let go of Christ. It makes it hard to fit into any category completely. Too independent of doctrine to fit in most Christian churches, most of my Biblically-based concepts seem to end up resembling Judaism more than Christianity. Too in love with Christ to let him go. Too in love with the spirits of the earth to give up Druidry. So I just try to hold it all loosely in one bag, I suppose.

panentheism is historically a tough word to explain.

I never had a term to describe how I thought about God until I learned that one in religious studies in college. I was like, "Oh! They have a word for that!" But most people have never heard of it.

the reason is that people are more comfortable associating with people who wear the same outfits, have the same names, do the same ceremonies and talk about the same stuff - even if they mean totally different things by them. it's a different kind of interaction, but the group identity remains.

I agree. I think there is a lot of that going on in all religions. Some religions have doctrines that are more open in their discussion of it than others (I'm thinking Hinduism), but it seems that when you really talk to any group of folks from any single religion (even single churches) you get answers from all over the place unless they spit out rote memorized lines.

groups by their nature are fond of defining themselves in opposition to other groups: "we" are "not them". sometimes this has amusing side-effects, particularly when the idea that "we don't believe in the Big Beard In The Sky" is swiftly followed by: "no, what we believe in are the Big Tits In The Earth".

Too true, too true. I think my issue is that I, by nature, are fond of not defining myself at all, and upon investigation, I see myself in all other groups, and all other groups in myself. So it appears I am a buffet-line religious person, but I'm really not. I try hard to study history and context and I've tried in the past to pick and choose, but I just can't logically ditch certain elements of my spiritual experience in order to blend in well with any single group. This might be because exclusionary thinking (us vs. them) has never made sense to me in the least. Seems natural for most humans and I find it totally foreign.

Oh, and does it help any that the Druids think the Big Beard in the Sky meets up with the Big Tits in the Earth??? Do we get bonus points for having both?

ok, but to be fair, there are quite a lot of us who are irritatingly smug and chauvinist about the Best Kept Secret Club In Religion. which is, in turn a coping mechanism for finding the whole thing rather too much like hard work.

We all have our coping mechanisms, I'd wager. To be fair, when I ponder Judaism, it *is* a ton of hard work. Being a Christian, in my opinion, has always been a cakewalk in terms of what is required. I mean, you can add all kinds of things, but most denominations basically just ask you to show up once a week, try to love others, and read your Bible. Some ask you to do some sort of service or missionary stuff. But none of that is particularly difficult on a daily basis. At least, I find it easy to love other people, serve others in various ways, and read. But all the many, many rules about every aspect of life? Wow! That is a lot to do! Plus, there is still the equivalent of church, of loving others, of service, and of reading and study. And more, because most of the practicing Jews I know have learned Hebrew. I don't know too many Christians who learned Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic.

historians would presumably conclude that my mum is various different people.

Mmmm... I think sometimes what historians and archaeologists conclude is way off base, because I can imagine all sorts of interesting and totally valid conclusions when I think of what future historians and archaeologists could find in our archives and trash heaps.

actually, each of them are indispensable. the difficulty is coping with maintaining a balanced perspective which embraces both. that's too sophisticated and paradoxical for many, but i would argue that a healthy spiritual outlook requires a mature appreciation of paradox.

I couldn't agree more. Probably because I am big on paradoxes. Normally, I deeply deeply feel that the answer is "both/and". Or that it depends on context.

for me the question is: but so what? what must one *do*, as a result? what is the right *action*?

Well, in my case, I feel the answer is pretty simple; I'll try to frame the sensation into words: "Love, forgive, heal, live with joy, be thankful. And always remember- you are tiny, but significant to me." That about sums it up.

and for me, in *correct action* in relation to nature, i obey Divine Commands - i eat only what i am permitted to eat, i harvest only what i am permitted to harvest and i am accountable for my self-evident stewardship of and responsibility for natural resources.

Makes sense to me.

i've observed that there is a rather large tendency for neo-pagans to get rather caught up in the minutiae of rank and degree and progression. the western mystery tradition is a particular offender here, but i've heard of it in druidry; if i were cynical, i might point out how one of the attractions of wicca, for example, is that anyone can pretty much call them a high priestess of whatever if that is what they fancy; actually, in the case of clergy, the idea of rank is almost universal.

Yeah, I notice it too. And it bugs me. LOL Which is probably why I stick with an Order that has the same courses and workshops open to everyone. And they don't see the three courses as any better/worse than anything else. Three different areas of study; not three different "degrees" so to speak.

I think it's kind of a human thing on two levels. First, for religious orgs (as in the case of my order) to want to be sure that people leading org-affiliated groups aren't way off base from the religious org itself. Second, that many individuals feel they need some sort of title to feel superior or enlightened or important... or, I hate to say it but will, able to make more money.

In Neo-Paganism, because there is no centralized authority, anyone can start a group and then name themselves whatever title they want. I guess I could be Bardic High Priestess Path of One. ROTFLMAO! I tend to go in the opposite direction- the fewer the labels, the greater the naked truthfulness of what and who I am. I shouldn't need a "degree" or "title" to justify my own spiritual experiences, shamanic or otherwise.

perhaps this, too, is just something humans do.

I think that hit the nail on the head.

our sages said: everyone should carry a piece of paper in his right and left pockets. in one it should say "for my sake was the world Created." in the other it should say "i am dust and ashes". in other words, man is sometimes more important and sometimes not - and sometimes both at the same time. paradox again, d'ye see.

I like that.

[bgruagach]

I think what is confusing to me is that soft polytheism seems indistinguishable from panentheism

I'm not sure anyone was saying they were not one and the same thing. (I consider both terms to refer to the same idea.)

[Dream]

Originally Posted by Dream

Did Neo-paganism start out as a homework assignment in a Philosophy class?

I seems I've found part of the answer to my own question in an unusual thread. ( http://www.comparative-religion.com/...html#post60313 )

Originally Posted by bgruagach

The current historical research (accepted by many many Wiccans) indicates that Wicca was really started by a man named Gerald Gardner in the 1950s, maybe going back to the 1940s or possibly late 1930s if we're being really generous.

Wicca is based on ideas and practices that are drawn from a wide variety of sources, many which do trace clearly back thousands of years. Wicca itself as a coherent system though isn't a hundred years old yet.

And if we count people like Sir Francis Dashwood's "hellfire club" (not its actual name, but the name most people today use to refer to it) as being Satanists, then Satanism is clearly older than Wicca because Sir Francis was doing his thing back in the 1700s.

Getting back to NoName's question though about whether Pagans are inherently anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, or anti-Muslim the answer is no. There are certainly some who are but Pagan religions in general are not about being anti-anything. Just like it's not accurate to claim that Christianity is about being anti-Jewish, although there are certainly some anti-Jewish Christians out there.

Was Gerald Gardner in a Philosophy class at the time?

[bgruagach]

Originally Posted by Dream

Was Gerald Gardner in a Philosophy class at the time?

Not that I'm aware of. I don't think he ever went to school. (He was home-schooled and largely self-taught.)

[path_of_one]

My own shift to being a practicing Druid came as a result of research I was doing for a university course I was teaching on earth-based religions. Does that count? Close enough?

[Dream]

Originally Posted by Path of one

My own shift to being a practicing Druid came as a result of research I was doing for a university course I was teaching on earth-based religions. Does that count?

Your opinion counts, Path. I would take your guesses over most men's facts any day.

[sherry]

If it is all right, I would like to take this back to the original post- why neo-paganism? I am an infant in this world, I literally started down this path a few weeks ago and I am still feeling my way.

What started me down this path is very simple. During one of my arguments with my estranged husband (very southern baptist) where once again I'm being bashed over my head with "the proper place and duties of a wife as per the bible" I rebelled by stating "I don't believe in hell. You can't hold that over my head. Hell is just something that was created as a means to control people and threatening them to make them conform to a specific standard". I said it amidst a struggle against our continual fight of "man rules the house, his word is the law and will be obeyed by all" and my response of "I'ma big girl, I'm intelligent, I can think for myself, and you're in my life because I let you be not because I need you". But as soon as I said it outloud "hell is just a threat to control people" something released inside of me. All of the years of feeling "off" when I heard him and his family be so negative of everyone else who was not them whether it be because they were a different race, social status, or religion. All the times I argued that you should do what's right because it's the right thing to do, NOT because you're threatened with hell if you don't. All the years of double-standards of what's ok for men is not ok for women, etc etc.

Of course I immediately get thrown back in my face that "I'm just floundering for excuses to justify not following the bible because I don't like the role that is spelled out for me" (did I mention that what I've done wrong is NOT accept that it was ok for my husband to have a girlfriend even though it shouldn't matter because as long as he kept a roof over my and the children's heads, as man of the house he had the right to do as he wished?)

Anyway, needless to say that started alot of inner contemplation on my part of what DO I believe. I've always believed that religion was a matter of choice, that the superficial- where you worshipped, what songs you sang, etc- didn't matter as long as you did what you thought was morally right and didn't hurt anyone else in the process. (I admit it was fun watching them grit their teeth over the years whenever I said that- I LOVE playing devil's advocate!) I had even gone as far as to tell his mother that according to what she said the Bible states, even though I can't quote one single verse in the bible and she can quote dozens, I'd bet at the end, I would be considered more "godly" than she because I did what I felt was right because I wanted to, because it WAS the right thing to do, while she did it becaus it would keep her out of hell and because a book told her too. (I admit I've missed Sunday lunches since then, she IS an excellent cook after all and I'm not )

That happened at the end of February. I floundered around for awhile thinking ok, I must be an athiest then if I don't believe in God. Then I start remembering a conversation that my younger sister and I had back in December. My sister, who has been a faithful Celtic Wiccan for 10 years, told me that I was the reason she started studying the Craft as a teenager and that she had always been disappointed in me for turning my back on what she thought was my true self. She told me that she has always considered me to be the ultimate mother figure, even before I had children of my own and she has always strived to follow my example with her children. She said I had an inner strength that she has never come close to seeing in anyone else. She see's in me an ability to put myself in anyone else's shoes and understand & respect their "why's" even if I didnt agree with them. She said she saw me as being able to read a person's personality almost immediately upon meeting them. She said she has never met anyone else that when everyone thinks person A is being one way (snobby, mean, happy), that I instictively know that they are putting on a false face and I see what is really going on with them. Needless to say that conversation left me stunned and speechless, I always thought she didn't care for me at ALL, let alone see me in that kind of light. But it was just that she was so disappointed in what she felt was me turning away from my "gifts" she didn't know how to talk to me.

Then I started to remember "me". That conversation gave me a surge of confidence in myself that I had never felt in my life. Obviously there were many other little steps along the way. But the end result is that unlike when I was a teenager or in my early 20's, I now have the confidence in myself that I never had before. I'm very proud to say "I don't believe that, but I DO believe this.." But I also realize that while I may not believe in the concept of "hell" or that the Christian God is absolute, I DO believe that there is something or someone out there guiding me. Something has always watched over me. Even knowing what my sister was, a wiccan, I did not immediately turn to that path. But the more I researched, the more I read on my own, I saw my own thoughts and beliefs reflected back to me almost word for word. My first book is Drawing Down the Moon by Margot Adler and I'm continually stunned by seeing my own thoughts and beliefs in print.

I'm still not sure of the exact path that is intended for me. There is SO much I do not know. But for the first time in my life, where religion is concerned, I feel such an inner calm, a peace, that I am on the right path.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by sherry

But as soon as I said it outloud "hell is just a threat to control people" something released inside of me. All of the years of feeling "off" when I heard him and his family be so negative of everyone else who was not them whether it be because they were a different race, social status, or religion. All the times I argued that you should do what's right because it's the right thing to do, NOT because you're threatened with hell if you don't. All the years of double-standards of what's ok for men is not ok for women, etc etc.

I agree. And I happen to think that these ideas are quite Biblical.

(did I mention that what I've done wrong is NOT accept that it was ok for my husband to have a girlfriend even though it shouldn't matter because as long as he kept a roof over my and the children's heads, as man of the house he had the right to do as he wished?)

You were within your rights as a Biblical wife to divorce a husband that is an adulterer. Quite frankly, they are perverting the Bible.

Then I started to remember "me". That conversation gave me a surge of confidence in myself that I had never felt in my life.

Congratulations! There are so many reasons why we can wind up with forgetting the real "us," and it is always a wonderful thing to come back to getting aquainted with ourselves again.

But the more I researched, the more I read on my own, I saw my own thoughts and beliefs reflected back to me almost word for word.

I think this is how it is for many of us who end up as Neo-Pagan. I'd already formed a lot of my own ideas based on my spiritual experiences, and recognized myself as a Druid after reading modern Druid writings and going "Wow! So there are my ideas- what d'ya know, someone else things this too!"

My first book is Drawing Down the Moon by Margot Adler and I'm continually stunned by seeing my own thoughts and beliefs in print.

It's a great book, IMO. A classic. When I first read the beginning where she is connected to God out in the woods and not in the church... that made me cry when I first read it. It was so... me.

I'm still not sure of the exact path that is intended for me. There is SO much I do not know. But for the first time in my life, where religion is concerned, I feel such an inner calm, a peace, that I am on the right path.

I see my path as a journey. If and when I am at peace on this journey, I am headed in the right direction. At least, that's how I see it. Joy and peace are indicators that I'm walking with divinity in my life, comfortable with my path unfolding before me.

[Snoopy]

Hi sherry, and welcome to CR

Originally Posted by sherry

She see's in me an ability to put myself in anyone else's shoes and understand & respect their "why's" even if I didnt agree with them.

I think this is a great ability to have.

I'm still not sure of the exact path that is intended for me.

Perhaps your "path" is just a name for that which is under your shoes.

There is SO much I do not know.

...and maybe you don't need to KNOW so much. Knowledge is not a panacea for the heart.

But for the first time in my life, where religion is concerned, I feel such an inner calm, a peace, that I am on the right path

You do seem to have had to put up with a lot of nonsense.

Snoopy.

[sherry]

Thank you guys very much for your feedback. As far as me "not knowing" things, I am very comfortable with that on the larger scale. I meant as for as all the seperate religions go, what they believe, stand far. I am ashamed to admit that in this area, I have always just accepted what I have been told since I was a child "all others are wrong, because the bible said so...", yet I always followed that with my own immediate thought of "but what does it matter as long as they are good people, don't hurt anyone, and still do what's right. After all, isn't that what the bible instructs you to do?"

As far as knowing things on a grander scale "why are we here, how were we created?" I'm very much a "does it really matter? we are here, this world is beautiful and a gift. All that matters is what we do while we ARE here..." So you won't see me disecting or psycho-analyzing every little thing.

As far as being able to see things from everyone else's standpoint, even if I don't agree with them, that is probably the only thing my entire life I would say was my best feature. I just didn't think that other's viewed it as positive. I've always been accused of "not being to make up my mind or stand my ground on a viewpoint" (I am REALLY bad to play devil's advocate ALOT to try to get someone to consider things other than their own viewpoint so that sometimes people thing it's what I BELIEVE, not what I understand). No, not really I'd say, it's just comes down to a matter of what you believe. I prefer milk chocolate over dark chocolate, but I can understand why someone else wouldn't. To me, it REALLY is as simple as that.

Off to work (I guess it's a good thing all religious sites are blocked at work, I'm afraid I wouldn't get much done due to trolling these forums!)

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by sherry

did I mention that what I've done wrong is NOT accept that it was ok for my husband to have a girlfriend even though it shouldn't matter because as long as he kept a roof over my and the children's heads, as man of the house he had the right to do as he wished?

dear G!D, what bible is he reading? the "hypocrite's bible"? i'm quite astonished, not to mention shocked.

All the years of double-standards of what's ok for men is not ok for women, etc etc.

i think understanding that men and woman are different and do different things can be very easily perverted into this particular form of behaviour.

My sister, who has been a faithful Celtic Wiccan for 10 years, told me that I was the reason she started studying the Craft as a teenager and that she had always been disappointed in me for turning my back on what she thought was my true self.

to me, if you'll forgive me for saying so, your sister comes across as a mite patronising. who is she to be disappointed in you for not doing as she did? you are different people.

But it was just that she was so disappointed in what she felt was me turning away from my "gifts" she didn't know how to talk to me.

that is idiotic. if i felt someone needed to hear something i'd damsure wouldn't wait years to tell them, especially someone i cared about, especially a family member. in my experience, family members find it particularly easy to deliver difficult messages, whether the recipient wants to hear them or not. or is it just that my family are a particular bunch of stickybeaks?

I have been told since I was a child "all others are wrong, because the bible said so...", yet I always followed that with my own immediate thought of "but what does it matter as long as they are good people, don't hurt anyone, and still do what's right. After all, isn't that what the bible instructs you to do?"

the jewish approach to the bible is based upon understanding precisely this sort of thing. when someone says "because the bible said so", you say, ok, where? is that really what it says? does it mean "all"? what does it mean by "hurt"? what does it mean by "good"? what does it mean by "right"? and is that what G!D or whoever said, or is it somebody a bit more recent, a bit more human and why did they say it? who did they say it to? what was the context? does it mean what you think it means? was it, for example, translated wrong? what does it say in the original? if people don't ask these sort of questions, then of course some are bound to say, as you have, "well, frankly, then, the bible isn't all it's cracked up to be, so bye".

anyway, good luck. you are trying to do something quite courageous, in my opinion. i hope we can give you any support you need. and remember - if you end up becoming a neo-pagan, try and avoid defining yourself in terms of the group you left, or in dualistic opposition (the BBITS/BTITE debate)

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Oh, and does it help any that the Druids think the Big Beard in the Sky meets up with the Big Tits in the Earth??? Do we get bonus points for having both?

well, we would tend to respond that G!D Is not confined to sky, earth, tits or beard and anything that might seem like, well, cosmic eroticism in jewish sources (which we are not short of) is simply expressing the nature of the passionate dynamic interactions within the G!DHead, or whatever you want to call the Interfaces of the Divine.

To be fair, when I ponder Judaism, it *is* a ton of hard work.

hah! and the expense, don't forget the expense. and, of course, all the people who want to kill you.

Well, in my case, I feel the answer is pretty simple; I'll try to frame the sensation into words: "Love, forgive, heal, live with joy, be thankful. And always remember- you are tiny, but significant to me." That about sums it up.

ah, yes, but that's my entire point - you are summing up. once you get into the actual practical situations, interpretation, heuristics and, in the end, law and codification all end up being required in any society. and, as someone said, the "devil" is *always* in the detail. it is all very well to "live with joy", but *how* shall i do so? what shall i do first? and then what?

b'shalom

bananabrain

[dauer]

and, of course, all the people who want to kill you.

It's not as bad as you make it sound. Last week I only received 4 death threats, and only 3 of them were due to my religion.