A Christian or a secularist will ask whether Joe believes that his little local gods of life literally exist whereas a modern Pagan will say that it does not matter. The gods can be personifications. When I hear thunder and say that Thor is passing overhead, I know that this statement is mythological and metaphorical, not metaphysical or meteorological.
Christians made an issue of belief, proclaiming a creed, then dividing humanity first into believers and non-believers, then into true believers and heretics.
As philosophical sceptics, we can participate in rituals celebrating the passage of the seasons personified as deities.
Where I disagree with Joe in his counter-position of Cosmos to gods of life. We live in an ecology and in the cosmos! We are living beings and cosmopolites.
13 comments:
Most of the modern pagans I've met believe in the literal existence of their deities -- albeit Wiccans also regard them as aspects of the Lord/Lady.
But I do not think that they would insist on belief in literal existence as a condition for attendance at ceremonies.
No, but then neither do most Christians.
No, indeed. But an affirmation of faith is required before receiving Communion whereas there is no restriction on accepting food offered in a Sikh or Krishna Temple - unless, of course, the individual concerned prefers not to accept it! (Food offered to an idol in the case of Krishna.) Fortunately, one of my sisters learned that, if we attended a Catholic Funeral Mass but were unable to receive Communion, then we could instead approach the priest with arms held across chest and receive a blessing. Thus, as chief mourners on one occasion, we were able to participate in the liturgy almost as much as anyone else.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
It gets so confusing. I tried looking up how many neo-pagans there are in the US and the numbers vary widely. From a low of about 100,000 to a high of about half a million. And there are so many groups (covens), sects, and "churches" (I think I've seen "church" being used) of neo-pagans, which seem to constantly split up, break up, or merge with one another. And there seems to be no unity or consistency of beliefs.
Ad astra! Sean
"which seem to constantly split up, break up, or merge with one another. And there seems to be no unity or consistency of beliefs."
From what I have read, that seems to be true of pre-Constantine & post Martin Luther Christianity. In between those dates one sect mostly had the power to suppress the others.
We each have to find the truth for ourselves.
Kaor, Jim!
Except the Catholic Church existed from the very beginning of Christianity, and acted to preserve Christian orthodoxy. All the most important basics of that orthodoxy: the divinity/resurrection of Christ, the Trinity, the Real Presence of Christ in the Mass, the Primacy of Peter as the first of the popes, the three degrees of the priesthood, etc., can be found in the NT alone. And we can trace that tradition of orthodoxy after the NT in such early writings as the Didache, St. Clement's Letter to the Corinthians, the Letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch, the works of Justin Martyr, and St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. AD 180). All in less than centuries after Christ's resurrection.
Yes, there were plenty of heresies and controversies after AD 32, and that was one reason Christ founded the Church, to defend the truths revealed by God and refute errors. And the Church was often at loggerheads with the Empire, resisting efforts by too many Emperors at imposing their preferred doctrines on Christianity.
Ad astra! Sean
I agree with Jim's version.
Kaor, Paul!
Except I was puzzled by this comment of Jim: "From what I have read, that seems to be true of pre-Constantine & post-Martin Luther Christianity. In between those dates one sect mostly had the power to suppress the others."
I didn't quite understand what he meant. At a minimum, no one calling himself a Christian had the ability to use the State's coercive powers before Constantine. And even after Constantine there were times, by both Romans and barbarians, when the suppressing was done by the Arians, not the Catholics. To say nothing of the times when the Catholic Church clashed with Emperors favoring Monophysitism, Nestorianism, Monopthelitism, or Iconoclasm. All before AD 900
And there were similar complications in western Europe as well, mostly disputes over how far States could go in controlling the Church (e.g., the Investiture controversy).
Christian history was far more complicated and zig zazzy than Jim's comment should lead readers to thinking.
Ad astra! Sean
That should be "Monothelitism," with no "p" before the first "t." This was a subtle variant of Monophysitism.
Ad astra! Sean
"no one calling himself a Christian had the ability to use the State's coercive powers before Constantine"
That was exactly my point. Before Constantine Christians did not have the coercive power to suppress different variants of Christianity (or non-Christians). Constantine arranged the Council of Nicaea to get the Christians to settle their doctrinal differences. It was only partially successful, it took centuries for Arianism etc. to totally lose out within the Empire.
My impression is that non-Trinitarian sects fled the Empire, partly to Arabia, resulting in some influence on what became Islam.
Kaor, Jim!
That clarifies what you meant. And I agree, with one small correction: there were councils of bishops long before First Nicaea. Usually for the bishops of a particular province of the Empire. What Constantine did was helping arrange for a council of bishops from all over the Empire, the first Ecumenical Council.
Yes, it took centuries for Arianism, one of the most stubborn of the early heresies, to "lose out" in Europe.* Yes, it's possible some Arians in Arabia were among those who influenced Mohammed.
Ad astra! Sean
*The years after 1517 saw a revival by sectarians of Arianizing views. Much to the disgust of Trinitarian Protestants.
Post a Comment