Definition by Metaphor

Tags

boxes, deity, god, gods, metaphors, monotheism, panentheism, pantheism, polytheism, religion, theism opinions, views of deity

…Useful if you don’t take yourself too seriously.  If you take yourself too seriously, you might be offended.  Then again, if you’re the type of person that takes yourself too seriously and might be offended, I’m not sure why you read my blog in the first place!

Although, in all actual seriousness, this is how I first explained the differences in how people view deity to my kids (though I’ve added a few since then)–and it was something they understood easily.

 

Maxim Monday: Be (religiously) silent (Ευφημος ιοθι)

Tags

#delphicmaxims, #paganvalues, Delphic Maxims, maxim monday, religion

Disclaimer: I wrote this last week Tuesday and scheduled it to post today. I forgot about it until just now… If it seems a bit blasé or like it was written with a bit more levity than one might expect in the aftermath of the terror attacks last week, it is. I thought about taking it down and rewriting it, or just holding on to it for a while…but too much levity or not, its something that needs to be said.

You may or may not have noticed, but there’s whole lotta “holier than thou” goin’ on ’round the internet. From Starbucks cups to the literal polytheist vs everyone else match #892 Pagan Blogosphere bitchfest, there isn’t a corner of the internet where someone isn’t thinking someone else is doing religion wrong, while their oh-so-persecuted selves are the only one doing it right.

I have been inspired to discuss my oh, so favorite Delphic Maxim. I call this the “religion is like a penis” maxim. You know how the saying goes (though there are a few variations)…

Look, everyone has an opinion on the nature of the Divine (whether it be one god, many, or none, or something else altogether).  And everyone has (or has interpreted) experiences that have convinced them that their opinion of the Divine is the *right for them* opinion of the Divine.  But somehow, *right for them* just becomes *right*.  And then it seems to follow that since we are *right*, everyone that disagrees with us must have the *wrong* opinion.  And of course, if they actually think that their opinion is the *right* opinion, it must be because they have decided that they are somehow *better* than those of us that think in this other way.  And if they think they are *better* thank we are, then it follows that we should be personally insulted!  And since we have been personally insulted, we must immediately get angry and Defend The Faith.

But I can’t help but think that when we feel the need to Defend The Faith against those whose personal experiences and interpretations of those experiences differ from our own*, that we do so from a place of insecurity.  Because if the gods are, indeed, literal and discrete entities with capability that far outstrip those of mankind, then those gods should have the capacity to inform those *wrong* worshippers that they are, indeed, actually *wrong* in a way that they would be heard and understood…but if they aren’t actually doing that, then it seems like it should follow that maybe they (the gods) don’t actually care as much as we do about either orthodoxy or orthopraxy.  Else, the people making these sorts of doctrinal tests are really no better than some of the more obnoxious fundamentalist Christian denominations.

When we open our big, fat mouths and proclaim that we understand the substance and nature and desires and will of the Divine for each and every single of the several billion people upon this planet, we look like a jerk.  Claiming to know the will of the gods is pretty much the ultimate hubris.  Our experiences of the gods are individual experiences.  Certainly, they are often shared among people with common beliefs (by the way, there are likely evolutionary reasons for that–both biological and cultural), but there are also differences in those experiences.  And if we can’t talk about our religion without waving it in air and whacking people over the head with it, maybe we should keep it in our pants.

So go ahead–long for wisdom** and please, honor providence** (where ‘ere you may find it)!  But don’t forget to control anger**, exercise prudence**, and find fault with no one** while you are at it. After all, you are not a god…so restrain the tongue** when you decide to open your mouth, ‘else you might betray your inability to think like a mortal**.  Keep your religion in your pants.

*telling someone else that they are incorrect is radically different than telling them that you disagree with them, and why–the first is an argument, the second is a discussion

**yeah, these guys are all Delphi Maxims too 🙂

randomly connecting things I’m reading

Tags

four centers of paganism, multifaith, paganism, religion, religious differences

A (long) while back, I started reading a book called Shaman, Sorcerers, and Saints: A Prehistory of Religion by Brian Hayden.  I never got to finish it because it was a library book, and it was when we were in transition between Virginia to Illinois and back again, but it interestingly divided religions into two basic types–the so-called “book” religions and traditional religions.  This is by no means the actual point of the book…it was just a few pages from the introductory chapter before progressing to a discussion of the different ways to study the development of religions, but I think there were a number of ideas that the author expresses that I think are useful to consider as a contemporary Pagan

Hayden asserts that religions can (at their very most general and basic level) be divided into two main types–traditional (usually indigenous) religions (experiential and usually passed on orally) and formal “book” religions (religions that have texts or scripture describing the nature of divinity, the supernatural, and morality).  He states that traditional indigenous religions have been shaped by two main factors–ecology and (what I would describe as) “the something that makes us human” which is (specifically, according to the author) “an innate emotional foundation”.  The latter allows for us to have “the ability to enter into ecstatic states via a number of techniques and to create strong, emotionally binding relationships with other people (or institutions or ideals) associated with those states”.  The former “modifies the context of this innate emotional factors in terms of economic conditions or small group political relationships”.  And he goes on to distinguish and differentiate traditional religions from “book religions” in eight main differences (to which there will, of course, be exceptions):

1. World view—In most book religions, sacredness/divinity is something that is separate and often distant from material existence.  In most traditional religions sacredness/divinity is imminent (though possible dormant) and can be accessed through the technology of religion (rituals, special items, etc).  And if you notice, the differences in the following seven points pretty much all stem from this one thing.
2. Sacredness of food and dance–I would describe this one more as “sacredness of the physical”, though the author is specifically talking about how food and drink, and music and dance are used as a link between man and gods/spirits in traditional religions, vs book religions that considered these actions and experiences to be profane indulgences.
3. Ecstatic experiences–As the author puts it, “In most traditional religions, entering into ecstatic states is the religious experience.  It is a direct connection with the sacred forces of the universe and is therefore promoted as desirable.”  In book religions, not so much; if they aren’t outright shunned, they are kept as something separate and/or limited.
4. Participation–Traditional religions are generally speaking more inclusive and allow for the participation of most aspects of the religion for a “broad segment of the community” (through altered states of consciousness).  In book religions, accessing the divine is generally a more spectator sport (if it happens at all) during rituals (usually performed entirely by clergy on behalf of followers).
5. Life Attitude–In book religions, existence is generally seen as bad/evil/suffering/etc that can only be escaped (generally not until the afterlife), vs traditional religions which generally tend towards celebratory ritual that fosters connections between individuals and their environment (or aspect of the environment).
6. Goals and morality–Traditional religions tend not to be moral systems while book religions tend to proclaim a moral system geared towards ensuring a lack of sin or state of purity.
7. Central Mysteries–According to the author, central mysteries in book religions generally “revolve around the actions of deities” and/or “moral aspects of the universe”vs. the central tendency of traditional religions’ central mysteries to be centered around life and living: “where it comes from, where it goes, what affects it, and how it is transformed and continuous from year to year and generation to generation”
8. Exclusivity–“Because book religions are ethical systems, usually based on the teachings of key historical figures such as Mohammed, Christ, or Buddha, book religions tend to consider other belief systems as not fully ethical and valid. Generally they are intolerant of other belief systems even when they do not actively campaign to eliminate them.  Therefore, book religions transcend ethnic groups and tend to become imperialistic.  In contrast, traditional religions easily accept other religions as being equally valid and are tolerance of beliefs in other deities.”

I’m not mentioning these differences to criticize the so-called book religions, but to point out that (while there is still variability) some of the commonalities between many contemporary Pagan traditions, which tend to resemble traditional religions more than they resemble the “book religions” (I’m not terribly fond of this term, but it works I suppose). While arguing over defining Paganism is a popular (though thankfully seasonal and seemingly out of season at the moment) spectator sport in the Pagan blogosphere, the predominant theme between most contemporary Pagan religions (as far as I can tell) echo these above-listed differences from book religions between.  When I’ve taken a wide-angled, multi-faith look at Pagan traditions, for the most part, these commonalities of traditional religions (and of contemporary Paganisms) can be summed up or distilled as 1) Practice is Experiential, 2) Divinity is Plural, and 3) the Material is Sacred (for full disclosure, I staunchly favor a polythetic definition of Paganism).  Which brings me to where our differences (at their most basic level can be found…

And I think the best summation of these differences, if one uses that same wide-angled, multi-faith look, can be found in the idea of there being multiple “centers” of Paganism (AFAK, John Halstead at The Allergic Pagan is one of the first people to write about this idea in this way, followed up by John Beckett at Under the Ancient Oaks, both of which are Patheos blogs). The first, Nature/Earth Centered Paganism, which is “concerned primarily with ecology, those more local forms of Paganism that I would call “backyard Paganism” or are sometimes called “dirt worship”, and many forms of (neo-)animism which view humans as non-privileged part of an interconnected more-than-human community of beings” (per John Halstead). The second, Deity Centered Paganism, which “is mainly concerned with forming and maintaining relationships with the Gods, ancestors, and spirits” (per John Beckett).  The third, Self Centered Paganism isn’t actually self-centered (I’ve taken to calling it Self-centric), but rather centered around the development of the self and “defined by spiritual practices which aim at development of the individual, spiritually or psychologically” (per John Halstead).  The fourth, Community Centered Paganism is “about maintaining harmonious relationships” where we are “secondary to the family, and immortality is in the continuation of the family, not in the continuation of the individual” (per John Beckett).

Practically speaking, most Pagans that I have encountered seem to identify with more than just one of these centers (and religion, IMO, is about the relationships we find in those centers, whether it is between one another or ourselves and the gods or ourselves and our ancestors or our relationship with the world around us).  Some of us identify with all of them through out our path, either at different times on our journey or in different aspects of our path.  Some traditions do this as well–ADF specifically recognizes and addresses the spirits of the land, the ancestors, and deities and leaves decision of which center to focus on up to the practitioner.  Another book I’m fond of, by an ADF Saxon Pagan (To Walk a Pagan Path by Alaric Albertsson, which I’ve been blogging about) talkabout connecting with spirit in reference to these three things (he leaves out the Self), whereas I find that connection with spirit occurs in all four centers as well (or maybe where they all intersect, if we think of them in terms of being a Venn diagram), and I think this is an important distinction when talking about how we individually and collectively connect with spirit (a topic for another day), rather than dismissing one another as being *not my Paganism*.

Hallelujah, Mr. President

Tags

politics, prayer, president, religion, speech

“As we speak, around the world, we see faith inspiring people to lift up one another — to feed the hungry and care for the poor, and comfort the afflicted and make peace where there is strife. We heard the good work that Sister has done in Philadelphia, and the incredible work that Dr. Brantly and his colleagues have done. We see faith driving us to do right.

But we also see faith being twisted and distorted, used as a wedge — or, worse, sometimes used as a weapon. From a school in Pakistan to the streets of Paris, we have seen violence and terror perpetrated by those who profess to stand up for faith, their faith, professed to stand up for Islam, but, in fact, are betraying it. We see ISIL, a brutal, vicious death cult that, in the name of religion, carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism — terrorizing religious minorities like the Yezidis, subjecting women to rape as a weapon of war, and claiming the mantle of religious authority for such actions.

We see sectarian war in Syria, the murder of Muslims and Christians in Nigeria, religious war in the Central African Republic, a rising tide of anti-Semitism and hate crimes in Europe, so often perpetrated in the name of religion.

So how do we, as people of faith, reconcile these realities — the profound good, the strength, the tenacity, the compassion and love that can flow from all of our faiths, operating alongside those who seek to hijack religious for their own murderous ends?

Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history. And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ. Michelle and I returned from India — an incredible, beautiful country, full of magnificent diversity — but a place where, in past years, religious faiths of all types have, on occasion, been targeted by other peoples of faith, simply due to their heritage and their beliefs — acts of intolerance that would have shocked Gandhiji, the person who helped to liberate that nation.

So this is not unique to one group or one religion. There is a tendency in us, a sinful tendency that can pervert and distort our faith. In today’s world, when hate groups have their own Twitter accounts and bigotry can fester in hidden places in cyberspace, it can be even harder to counteract such intolerance. But God compels us to try. And in this mission, I believe there are a few principles that can guide us, particularly those of us who profess to believe.

And, first, we should start with some basic humility. I believe that the starting point of faith is some doubt — not being so full of yourself and so confident that you are right and that God speaks only to us, and doesn’t speak to others, that God only cares about us and doesn’t care about others, that somehow we alone are in possession of the truth.”

(snip)

“And so, as people of faith, we are summoned to push back against those who try to distort our religion — any religion — for their own nihilistic ends. And here at home and around the world, we will constantly reaffirm that fundamental freedom — freedom of religion — the right to practice our faith how we choose, to change our faith if we choose, to practice no faith at all if we choose, and to do so free of persecution and fear and discrimination.

There’s wisdom in our founders writing in those documents that help found this nation the notion of freedom of religion, because they understood the need for humility. They also understood the need to uphold freedom of speech, that there was a connection between freedom of speech and freedom of religion. For to infringe on one right under the pretext of protecting another is a betrayal of both.

But part of humility is also recognizing in modern, complicated, diverse societies, the functioning of these rights, the concern for the protection of these rights calls for each of us to exercise civility and restraint and judgment. And if, in fact, we defend the legal right of a person to insult another’s religion, we’re equally obligated to use our free speech to condemn such insults and stand shoulder-to-shoulder with religious communities, particularly religious minorities who are the targets of such attacks. Just because you have the right to say something doesn’t mean the rest of us shouldn’t question those who would insult others in the name of free speech. Because we know that our nations are stronger when people of all faiths feel that they are welcome, that they, too, are full and equal members of our countries.”

(the entirety of the President’s remarks)

 

Unfortunately, it comes to no surprise that in a 5 page long speech, the so-called Christian conservative pundits so-often featured on Faux News centered a week’s worth of outrage on two sentances taken entirely out of context…

It is unfortunate that such close-minded and close-hearted individuals are so lacking in integrity and intellectual honesty. It is even more unfortunate that so many buy their crap. Putting your head in the sand regarding one’s own history when pointing out the atrocitites of others makes one a hypocrite.

Personally, I though it was spot on (even if I’m not entirely fond of the venue or the religiousization of politics).

Pot, meet kettle…a rant

Tags

Christian, Christianity, interfaith, pagan, paganism, rant, religion

A couple years ago, I posted a note on Facebook (I think I had intended it to be a comment, but it was “too long”) and ended up entitling it REALigion…it went something like this:

I don’t care what name (or names) you use to address what you believe to be divine in this universe, what books you read, holidays you celebrate, or what dogma (or lack of it) you claim represents that power; I care that you treat others with the same compassion and respect that you would wish for yourself from someone whose beliefs are different from your own.

I think I originally typed this in response to the sort of religious bickering that seems to cycle ’round and ’round…and after reading various FB feeds, news articles, blogs, and (worse) the comments, I think its time to break out the sentiment again.

This time, I even feel compelled to rant a bit…so beware (particularly since politics=religion seems to be a common theme this election cycle).

A message to (some) Pagans about Christianity:

Look, there isn’t some secret Christian agenda to ruin your life.  In fact, there isn’t even some Christian Religion™ to have an agenda, secret or otherwise, to ruin your life.  Because Christianity is a monotheistic religion, not a monolithic one.

There are some 38,000 religious denominations under the Christian umbrella, and some of them have about as much in common as Wicca and Asatru (compare the Christians that come to this church with congregants of Divine Science or with Mormons or members of the United Church of Christ–whom, if you aren’t familiar with them, marry h0mosexual couples in their church).  Certainly they all have one thing in common–they all do religion with Jesus.  But even then, there is rampant disagreement.  Some denominations believe in the Trinity (others do not), some believe in universal salvation (others do not), some believe in the Bible as the literal word of God (and others do not)…and these are the Big Ticket Items!  There are even more differences in terms of who can take communion, on baptism (infant vs adult) vs, Christenings and dedications, on who can marry, on the roles of women or of homosexuals, on proselytizing, on evolution, on politics, on so many things I can’t even list them all.

So please, stop lumping all Christians together.  It is annoying (not to mention inaccurate).  There is no such thing as the Christian Church (unless you are specifically talking about a church denomination also known as the Disciples of Christ), and all it does in the end is make you look like a bit of an ass. Sometimes it even makes you look bitter.  And looking like a bitter ass isn’t really proper interfaith etiquette…

If you want to be taken seriously in a world of religious plurality, then you need to take ALL religions seriously, even the one’s you don’t like because of their most extreme members.  Not all Christians are the Westboro Baptist Church, or Ted Haggarty, or the family that sent their middle schooler to proselytize to The Hubby at White Castle, or the Jesus Camp lady, or pedophile priests…in fact, most Christians are just like you or me.

All of us, just trying to live our lives in the best ways we can.

A message to some Christians from a Pagan:

Look, you belong to a monotheistic religion, not a monolithic one.  There are some 38,000 religious denominations under the Christian umbrella, and you can’t even all agree on what makes you Christians, much the finer (and not so fine) points of your theology.  So please, stop pushing your denomination (or just your opinion) as The Christian Thing To Do™ instead of YOUR thing to do based on YOUR understanding and interpretation of YOUR religion.  Because I’ll tell you now, it makes it really easy for people to hate on you, when…well, just look at the Westboro Baptist Church, or the actions of Ted Haggarty, or the family that sent their middle schooler to proselytize to The Hubby at White Castle, or the Jesus Camp lady, or the Catholic church’s issues with pedophiles, or…well, you get the idea.  And I’d like to continue thinking that most Christians aren’t crazy or hypocrites or crazy hypocrites.

From the PR standpoint of an outsider–the best way to look like a good Christian is to just be a good person first.  Loving your neighbor sometimes means leaving them alone when their religious beliefs are different than yours…or their sexuality, their gender, their skin tone, their income level, or the amount of sin you think they live in (wasn’t it Jesus that said something about casting the first stone?).  And voting to deny people the ability to live in the same freedom that you enjoy–definitely not loving your neighbor to discriminate like that (after all, Jesus himself healed the daughter of a Canaanite…or a Greek, depending on the author).

From the perspective of the adherent of another religious outlook, please have the decency, respect, and intelligence (if not for me personally, but at least for the free will you probably should believe that your deity gave me) to realize that I’m happy not being Christian–I (like most Pagans, or non-Christian Unitarian Universalists for that matter) was at one time Christian, I already know what you are selling, and I have no desire to buy into that brand of faith again.  And, if by some chance you think you are that extra-special proselytizer that would change my mind, think again.  I am surrounded by thousands of denominations IRL and online, and I am savvy enough to find one that would appeal to me without your assistance, were I interested.  Oh, and if you are that extra-special sort of proselytizer thinks the threat of the Horrors of Eternal Damnation™ is an effective conversion technique, really–don’t bother.  I’ve calculated the odds, and a God that uses intimidation tactics isn’t worthy of my time or energy.

Don’t get me wrong–I’m happy that you, whomever you are (and however much I might disagree with your theological opintion), have found a path that brings you peace and meaning.  But so have I.   And I’m pretty sure that at the end of the day, we aren’t all that different.

All of us, trying to live our lives in the best ways we can.