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.
7 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.
Post a Comment