Why Neo-Paganism?

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

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

Unfortunately, this sort of thing happens more in some conservative/right-wing Christian circles than it seems it would.

is it just that my family are a particular bunch of stickybeaks?

Some families seem to not talk so much. My family tends to be more like yours, BB- no shortage of handing out their opinions and advice (generally kindly, but bluntly LOL).

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".

The problem, BB, is that many of us who do this in Christianity are branded as heretical by other Christians. As I studied the Bible more on my own, delved into the contextual and linguistic nuances, and so forth, I independently found myself drawing more conclusions that were similar to Judaism than much of mainstream Christianity. When I studied the Gospels over and over, I found myself thinking about Christ in a way that was quite different from many of the mainstream Christian denominations. While it seems that such study and probing of the scriptures is expected in Judaism, in many Christian denominations this is not the case. I've been shoved outside the fold of various Christian churches many times, and not for my Neo-Pagan practices (which I tend to keep under wraps) but rather for my understanding of the Bible and Gospels itself, which are not based on Neo-Paganism but rather on careful Biblical study combined with meditative prayer.

I am in complete agreement with you- I find a great deal of truth in the Bible and it is, more than all other sacred texts, been the guide of my own life and the most often-studied text for me. However, many Christians (especially women in some of the more conservative circles) are not encouraged to ask these questions. Pastors interpret the scriptures for the congregation, and stepping up and saying "Um, but wait, does it really say THAT?" is not welcome.

This is why I avoid a lot of Christian churches, even though I consider Christ to be my own guide and savior. I got to where I didn't mind the incessant "You're a heretic and probably heading to hell" of the conservatives I met, but it is disheartening when a religious community is founded on turning a blind eye toward context.

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)

LOL I second that motion.

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.

This is exactly as I see it, and how many (though not uniformly; there is a lot of diversity) Druids see it as well. God and Goddess, and their union to produce the Child of Light, is metaphoric for the force and process of the Divine, which is of course (to me) very non-human, non-dualistic, and non-gendered. However, as God encompasses all things (in the panentheistic view), God is, in a way- human, dualistic, and gendered... but these are ultimately manifestations of an underlying force and consciousness that are none of these things. From a transcendent, incomprehensible Being springs forth manifestations of being that we can experience. These glimpses are not God in Its entirety, but point the way...

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

Eh, it seems no matter what religion you are, someone wants to kill you at some point and in some place. But it does seem that the Jews have gotten more than their fair share of negative response, and I don't really understand why. But then, with me being me, I don't really understand hatred of any group. I don't really see groups- I just see a lot of individuals.

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?

Well, this is what traditions are for. Whether we choose one or several, our study of scripture and the teachings of the guides we choose help us to engage the details. Though I guess I have never found answering those questions in the moment that hard, which is perhaps why I never could get into any particular doctrine and set of rules hook-line-and-sinker. In every moment, I sense what I could do to have joy, and I'm aware when I choose to do otherwise. It's always been that way for me, but of course it might not work for others. Hard to know what is in another person's head.

Blessings,
Kim

[sherry]

ok, I have a very simple question which the answer to is probably quite obvious and I have over looked it some how because I tend to over look the obvious at times:

what is the difference between wiccan and neo-pagan?

[path_of_one]

Wiccan is one type of Neo-Paganism. Other flavors include Druidry, Asatru, some types of witchcraft (depends on if the witchcraft is a religion or just practice), various new incarnations of indigenous shamanic traditions, etc.

Then there are types of Wiccan too.

Neo-Paganism is the umbrella term for "new religions that are attempts to revive and reinterpret the old earth-centered traditions."

Or somesuch like that.

[bgruagach]

Path-of-one explained the difference best. One little detail though -- the religion is called Wicca, and a person who follows it is a Wiccan.

Neopaganism, or Paganism, are blanket terms that refer to a large number of religions. Wicca is just one of those religions.

Edited to add: and while many modern Pagan religions are "earth-centered" (i.e. have an emphasis on environmentalism or particular respect for Earth and Nature) not all do.

[path_of_one]

Sorry for the typo about Wicca.

I'm curious which NeoPagan traditions are not earth-centered. This is some new info I'd like for the classes I'm teaching next year...

[bgruagach]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Sorry for the typo about Wicca.

I'm curious which NeoPagan traditions are not earth-centered. This is some new info I'd like for the classes I'm teaching next year...

If you do a Google search for the words pagan and the phrase "not earth-based" you'll get some links.

One group that I understand does not consider itself to be earth-based is called FlameKeeping -- their site is at Keeping the Sacred Flame

Various reconstructionist Pagan groups also tend to identify themselves as being not earth-centered or earth-based. (Reconstructionists are those who are attempting to recreate modern versions of historically-based Pagan religions with an emphasis on historical accuracy.) Greek reconstructionists for instance are not necessarily earth-based.

There will always be exceptions if you look at individual practitioners of these paths of course, but being earth-based or earth-centered or earth-revering is not necessarily considered to be a requirement for all Pagan religions. For some it is, but it is not universal among all.