Neopaganism growing quickly

[Potoooooooo]

http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_9695062
Give them that old-time religion — ancient religion — and then watch an exploding population of modern pagans give it contemporary twists.

Their numbers roughly double about every 18 months in the United States, Canada and Europe, according to the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance.

Neopaganism, whether a careful reconstruction of ancient practice or a completely modern interpretation of ancient lore, is now among the country's fastest-growing religions.

People, especially teens, are rejecting what they see as the "autocracy, paternalism, sexism, homophobia and insensitivity to the environment" of some more traditional religions, the Canadian group concludes.

[Will.L]

nothing more than the "same old" new age + a "fantasy" aesthetic as far as I can tell. But hell, they're better than fundies! Of the few that I've met though, it seems like they become "neopagans" as more of a fashion statement, plus due to their general imagination tending towards the fantastical than anything else... Interesting that the numbers are swelling so rapidly though.

[xunzian]

Aphrodite
She's awfully flighty
And doesn't wear a nighty

Gimme that ol' time religion!

-- Joseph Campbell

[credoconsolans]

It's better if religion is to be had at all, is for it to become much less dogmatic. Neopagan religions have that going for them.

[xunzian]

I don't think there is anything wrong with dogma qua dogma. Science has a lot of dogma associated with it. Now, dogma can be questioned, but even in very dogmatic religions, we can cite numerous examples of the dogma being successfully questioned and paradigm shifts that have resulted from that.

The problem is wanton stupidity, and neopaganism represents a huge step backwards in that respect.

[Karalora]

The problem is wanton stupidity, and neopaganism represents a huge step backwards in that respect.

Sir or Madam, I object to this slur on my intelligence. Care to explain what makes Neopaganism "wantonly stupid?"

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Neopaganism doesn't seem to me dogmatic at all. It seems to me more of a symbolic thing, nature-loving and carefree.

Right now, of course. Later, it could become more like it's ancient model. At this point in time it seems like just a cultural reaction to parental authoritarian religion. With time, things can snowball and take on a life of thier own full of priesthoods and seriousness. Only time will tell if neopagansim stays the way it is or goes from infancy to adulthood, affirming faith-based "truths" we're accustomed to seeing inother religions.

[Trout]

All religions are based on the same illogical tripe and leap of faith but if I had to pick, the "neopagans" seem better than the ironically traditional crap.

They are generally full of flakey twits and lost kids but it's much more colorful, the festivals and so on look like a blast and in the end, at least some of the ideas are based around natural phenomenon, planetary cycles and all that as opposed to purely made up goat hearder stories from the ancient middle east.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

The problem is wanton stupidity, and neopaganism represents a huge step backwards in that respect.

Sir or Madam, I object to this slur on my intelligence. Care to explain what makes Neopaganism "wantonly stupid?"

Neopaganism is too diverse to make grand generalizations. It's everything from serious potion brewers to passionate environmentalists and everything imaginable in between.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

the festivals and so on look like a blast and in the end, at least some of the ideas are based around natural phenomenon, planetary cycles and all that as opposed to purely made up goat hearder stories from the ancient middle east.

If they stop loving tolerance and diversity and start the tribal us-versus-outsiders thing abrahamic religions have, problems will begin. I am not seeing that happen, not for now at least.

[Trout]

If they stop loving tolerance and diversity and start the tribal us-versus-outsiders thing abrahamic religions have, problems will begin. I am not seeing that happen, not for now at least.

If I had to guess, I would say that if NP truly became a mainstay then it would likely adopt portions of today's dominant religions unfortunately.

Besides, loving "tolerance and diversity" isn't really a part of the old religions per se and either way, makes for a difficult group to manage with disparate goals and so on.

Sort of like why atheists have no single voice.

[+or-1]

The problem is wanton stupidity, and neopaganism represents a huge step backwards in that respect.

Sir or Madam, I object to this slur on my intelligence. Care to explain what makes Neopaganism "wantonly stupid?"

I find all religions "wantonly stupid." Not necessarily their individual adherents however. After all, I'm married to a "neopagan" (I have hope of her learning better).

[xunzian]

Traditional religions have the thrust of just that, tradition. The mistake that lead people to swallow it was done long ago. The silliness of Christianity and the like have permeated our culture to a degree that many people no longer think of it as silly at all. Neopaganism, on the other hand, is an ad hoc religion made from bits and pieces of damned near everything thrown into a blender until it becomes an amorphous mush. That gets coupled with a narrative that this ideology dating from the 1920s at the earliest has a pedigree of thousands of years.

I can forgive people for not noticing the silliness of the major religions because they are so common that considering them silly takes more thought than most people put into it. Neopaganism, on the other hand, should easily be identified as silly by right-thinking individuals without any difficulty.

[+or-1]

Traditional religions have the thrust of just that, tradition. The mistake that lead people to swallow it was done long ago. The silliness of Christianity and the like have permeated our culture to a degree that many people no longer think of it as silly at all. Neopaganism, on the other hand, is an ad hoc religion made from bits and pieces of damned near everything thrown into a blender until it becomes an amorphous mush. That gets coupled with a narrative that this ideology dating from the 1920s at the earliest has a pedigree of thousands of years.

I can forgive people for not noticing the silliness of the major religions because they are so common that considering them silly takes more thought than most people put into it. Neopaganism, on the other hand, should easily be identified as silly by right-thinking individuals without any difficulty.

For some reason the phrase "right-thinking" always makes me cringe. I guess because most of the time, people who use it want to tell everyone else what they're supposed to think. :huh:

Note that I could not agree more about neo-paganism being an amorphous mush.

[Trout]

I for one will adopt NP as soon as the week long drunken spring orgies in the fields are reinstated

[figuer]

Neopaganism, on the other hand, should easily be identified as silly by right-thinking individuals without any difficulty.:rolleyes: The concept of "right-thinking" should be recognized as silly...

Neo-Pagans seem to be some sort of "spiritual-atheists" or similar. The old gods are seen as psychological tools to get in touch with emotions and instinctual impulses, or as some sort of "elemental psychic energy"... If it works and satisfies them I don't see the issue in calling them "silly".

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Neo-Pagans seem to be some sort of "spiritual-atheists" or similar. Some of them. I'm basing myself on polls I've seen at http://www.ecauldron.com/. Others really get serious about potions and witchcrafty stuff. They can't bee seen like you would muslims, but more like christians, who have everything from vatican catholics and calvinistic fundamentalists, to easy going Friends (Quakers) without clergy, ritual or formal theology... and, of course, everything in between (without forgetting oddball churches like the LDS).

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Traditional religions have the thrust of just that, tradition. The mistake that lead people to swallow it was done long ago. The silliness of Christianity and the like have permeated our culture to a degree that many people no longer think of it as silly at all. Neopaganism, on the other hand, is an ad hoc religion made from bits and pieces of damned near everything thrown into a blender [...]

I can forgive people for not noticing the silliness of the major religions because they are so common that considering them silly takes more thought than most people put into it.

You have extracted my very thoughts with an alien brain sucking proboscis.

[figuer]

Others really get serious about potions and witchcrafty stuff. But that isn't neo-Paganism in itself. Some Christians are into such things.

[No Robots]

People of a spiritual bent are trying to find alternatives to the mindlessness of the reigning physicalism. And they are succeeding, effectively separating themselves from mass materialist society.

[Karalora]

In order to convincingly denounce the "silliness" of Neopaganism, you must first demonstrate that it is in fact silly, and not merely assert such. I certainly don't feel silly when I do my rituals (unless that is the point--humorous spirituality can be a great therapeutic tool).

That it is new, that it is well outside the mainstream, that it often involves a fusion of elements from different traditions...how does this equate to "silliness?" Why do other religions get a pass merely because they are old and familiar and "pure" (whatever that might mean)?

On another note, I notice that the goalposts have been shifted. The original accusation leveled against Neopaganism was that it was "wanton stupidity." Now that a Neopagan has responded, that has been softened to "silliness." Hmmmm...

[xunzian]

Precisely, concepts like "elemental spiritual energy" are the sorts of things we need less of. Just because Neo-Paganism dresses up their idiocy in a nice, "everybody wins!" fashion, doesn't make them any less idiotic. As for the notion of "neo-paganism-in-itself", I smell the sort of "No true Scotsman" fallacy that Christian apologetics is littered with. Let's skip right past that part.

[xunzian]

It is wantonly stupid. All religions contain a hefty dose of stupidity to them. Taking misattributed agency, unprovable woo of all sorts, rituals made up recently by some dude in his basement after playing too much D&D, and delusions of past greatness all lead to something that is wantonly stupid.

I listed the reasons why the older, more popular religions get a pass. That doesn't make it right, but it does make it understandable. Neo-paganism, on the other hand, actively involves shutting off your brain at some point. That's bad.

The religion is silly. To follow that religion is wantonly stupid. That is where the divider lies.

[Trout]

In order to convincingly denounce the "silliness" of Neopaganism, you must first demonstrate that it is in fact silly, and not merely assert such. I certainly don't feel silly when I do my rituals

Weeeel, unless these "rituals" are purely intended for some sort of physical effect such as relaxation or whatever then they're bunk. If you want to burn cedar to the four sacred directions in hopes of appeasing the gods of "cleansing" an area of spiritual baddies than you're basically providing an example yourself.

that it often involves a fusion of elements from different traditions...how does this equate to "silliness?"

Two sillies do not make a non-silly

Why do other religions get a pass merely because they are old and familiar and "pure" (whatever that might mean)?

They don't or at least shouldn't

On another note, I notice that the goalposts have been shifted. The original accusation leveled against Neopaganism was that it was "wanton stupidity." Now that a Neopagan has responded, that has been softened to "silliness." Hmmmm...

Pretty weak goalpost shifting but you pick one.

[figuer]

Precisely, concepts like "elemental spiritual energy" are the sorts of things we need less of. Why? I see no justification for your claim except personal preference.Just because Neo-Paganism dresses up their idiocy in a nice, "everybody wins!" fashion, doesn't make them any less idiotic. :rolleyes: Idiocy is found in all groups, be them religious or areligious.As for the notion of "neo-paganism-in-itself", I smell the sort of "No true Scotsman" fallacy that Christian apologetics is littered with. Let's skip right past that part.I think you should skip strawmen. Neo-paganism in itself is what defines something as Neo-paganism...

[Karalora]

Taking misattributed agency,

Examples?

unprovable woo of all sorts,

Examples?

rituals made up recently by some dude in his basement after playing too much D&D,

Is that what you think? You poor thing.

and delusions of past greatness

Examples?

all lead to something that is wantonly stupid.

So what makes you think I engage in any of that?

The religion is silly. To follow that religion is wantonly stupid. That is where the divider lies.

You are still asserting rather than demonstrating. "It should be obvious to everyone" is not an argument. I would have hoped that intelligent adults would be above these sorts of slanderous insults.

Weeeel, unless these "rituals" are purely intended for some sort of physical effect such as relaxation or whatever then they're bunk.

And if they are intended for relaxation, mental focus, etc.? What then?

If you want to burn cedar to the four sacred directions in hopes of appeasing the gods of "cleansing" an area of spiritual baddies than you're basically providing an example yourself.

What if I want to burn cedar to the four sacred directions because I like the smell?

Two sillies do not make a non-silly

It has not yet been demonstrated to my satisfaction that any of these factors are in fact silly. At least, no more silly than anything anyone else does, and as part of "anything" I include purely secular rituals like always laying out the dinner table in the same way.

[figuer]

Neo-paganism, on the other hand, actively involves shutting off your brain at some point.:rolleyes: I observe presently that neo-pagans are not the only ones who actively shot off their brains...

[Trout]

And if they are intended for relaxation, mental focus, etc.? What then?

The they produce a physical effect and are free of religious mumbo jumbo garbage. Basically then they are aspirin.

If you think that they help you speak to angels or whatever then those and other examples are the bunk part of this thing.

What if I want to burn cedar to the four sacred directions because I like the smell?

Then it's incense and nothing more. You could also get one of those terrible smelling glade plug-ins if you want and it achieves the same.

Two sillies do not make a non-silly

It has not yet been demonstrated to my satisfaction that any of these factors are in fact silly. At least, no more silly than anything anyone else does, and as part of "anything" I include purely secular rituals like always laying out the dinner table in the same way.

What a weird dinner table example.

Either way though, you seem to be trying to defend NP by saying it should nto be considered more silly than other religions and I agree. They are all super silly.

My point was taking stupid ideas A, B, and C and putting them together doesn't make new idea D based on them any less so.

[J.F. Gaul]

To be honest, I've never found any reason to take neo-paganism seriously. The whole movement is pretty arbitrary and trendy, and of no real value except for helping people feel spiritual without actually having to do anything (except, perhaps, vote Democratic). From Karalora, I'd love to know exactly why the four directions are sacred, and why only four of them are. (By the way, comparing burning cedar to four sacred directions to laying out the dinner table is to completely confuse the senses of the word "ritual").

[BriAnna]

I would like to make a very intresting point.


To be very honest, most neo pagans/pagans are going to be much more interested in separation of church and state. If I took a poll of most of the pagans I know, most of them would rather spend time supporting an atheist organization then a christain one.

So yes just like any other belief or lack of belief system, there are wack jobs out there. I suggest we educate our selves, not be so closed minded, and learn how to coexist.

We all get further that way.

P.s. I am with Karalora on this one.

[Trout]

The whole movement is pretty arbitrary and trendy, and of no real value except for helping people feel spiritual without actually having to do anything

Basically true. It's hardly even a "movement" as opposed to a loose collection of randomly and often personally chosen meaningless practices that make the practicioners feel better or feel they are "spiritual" for their own happiness. I had an old girlfriend who was into aspects of it so I know bits about the whole deal through her and her crystal rubbing friends.

It's like many things really. Just a sort of club or hobby that people enjoy. The problem happens when these "hobbyists" come to believe that their stamp collecting is a sacred act with any meaning beyond the obvious.

[BriAnna]

P.s.s. So if I was a Native American Tribe Member, practicing sacred traditions of my ancestors would that make it ok?

[J.F. Gaul]

P.s.s. So if I was a Native American Tribe Member, practicing sacred traditions of my ancestors would that make it ok?

Both forms of religion are misguided, but comparing willful hooey like neo-paganism to Native American religion is more than insulting to the latter.

[Trout]

P.s.s. So if I was a Native American Tribe Member, practicing sacred traditions of my ancestors would that make it ok?

It would make it a rooted cultural act that's probably more interesting to watch (assuming the tribe hasn't been totally culturally decimated) but not any more legitimate in terms of spiritual matters.

It's like with the native groups in the southwest (?) who seal themselves into a big adobe "tent" thing with a fire for a few days. They see visions and all that and I would say they are probably quite valuable physiologically but they are not visions from god, the wolf spirit or the jaguar.

[BriAnna]

P.s.s. So if I was a Native American Tribe Member, practicing sacred traditions of my ancestors would that make it ok?

Comparing willful hooey like neo-paganism to Native American religion is more than insulting to the latter.

Why?

It is very similar concepts. Do you know any native americans? Do you know any pagans?

[BriAnna]

P.s.s. So if I was a Native American Tribe Member, practicing sacred traditions of my ancestors would that make it ok?

It would make it a rooted cultural act that's probably more interesting to watch (assuming the tribe hasn't been totally culturally decimated) but not any more legitimate in terms of spiritual matters.

It's like with the native groups in the southwest (?) who seal themselves into a big adobe "tent" thing with a fire for a few days. They see visions and all that and I would say they are probably quite valuable physiologically but they are not visions from god, the wolf spirit or the jaguar.

Most Native American Tribes have sweat lodges.

You assume they would let you watch.

[jess]

Neo-paganism, on the other hand, actively involves shutting off your brain at some point.:rolleyes: I observe presently that neo-pagans are not the only ones who actively shot off their brains...

Where's the rep button?

[Trout]

Most Native American Tribes have sweat lodges.

The one I referred to was/is a particular practice of one linguistic tribal group.

You assume they would let you watch.

Well, I've watched various ceremonies before although not a sweat lodge. I do know a non-native who went to one though so I don't believe it's that much of a big deal at least in some places.

What's your point?

[BriAnna]

Most Native American Tribes have sweat lodges.

The one I referred to was/is a particular practice of one linguistic tribal group.

You assume they would let you watch.

Well, I've watched various ceremonies before although not a sweat lodge. I do know a non-native who went to one though so I don't believe it's that much of a big deal at least in some places.

What's your point?

My point is that if you're going to insult religions you should do it equally across the board.

[J.F. Gaul]

It is very similar concepts. Do you know any native americans? Do you know any pagans?

I've researched both forms of religion and have known people involved in both forms of religion. The concepts aren't at all similar except in perhaps a very basic way. The difference between neo-paganism and Native American religion is one of principles, in that Native American spirituality actually has them.

[BriAnna]

It is very similar concepts. Do you know any native americans? Do you know any pagans?

I've researched both forms of religion and have known people involved in both forms of religion. The concepts aren't at all similar except in perhaps a very basic way. The difference between neo-paganism and Native American religion is one of principles, in that Native American spirituality actually has them.

Why?

I do not see what you're saying and I would like you to explain this concept better. What makes it different between a religion I was born with or a religion I adopted?

[J.F. Gaul]

My point is that if you're going to insult religions you should do it equally across the board.

Why? Some religions have more admirable concepts than others, even if the religion as a whole is useless.

[BriAnna]

My point is that if you're going to insult religions you should do it equally across the board.

Why? Some religions have more admirable concepts than others, even if the religion as a whole is useless.

Really? What makes one religion better then another?

[Karalora]

The they produce a physical effect and are free of religious mumbo jumbo garbage. Basically then they are aspirin.

Only, you know, effective. (Aspirin does nothing for me for some reason.)

If you think that they help you speak to angels or whatever then those and other examples are the bunk part of this thing.

Pfft. Angels are an Abrahamic thing.

Then it's incense and nothing more. You could also get one of those terrible smelling glade plug-ins if you want and it achieves the same.

Why would I want to use a Glade plug-in that smells terrible when cedar incense smells good and is both cheaper and probably better for the environment?

What a weird dinner table example.

What's so weird about it? Secular rituals are still rituals.

My point was taking stupid ideas A, B, and C and putting them together doesn't make new idea D based on them any less so.

But you still have to convince me that ideas A, B, and C are actually stupid. Incidentally, it's not looking like today is going to be your day to deconvert this heathen.

From Karalora, I'd love to know exactly why the four directions are sacred, and why only four of them are.

Why four? Because wherever you go, you perceive four directions: before, behind, left, and right. If you have a compass, you can orient yourself so that your personal directions line up with the major compass points, which are real, natural phenomena of the planet.

(By the way, comparing burning cedar to four sacred directions to laying out the dinner table is to completely confuse the senses of the word "ritual").

No it isn't. (See? I can do it too.)

[xunzian]

Kara,

Pretty much the whole kit-and-kaboodle give examples of woo and all sorts of other silliness. Go the belief.net or wikipedia, read through the list. Silliness and absurdity all the way down. Nature worship, pantheism, spiritual energy, dualism, ect.

Bri,

Is the enemy of my enemy my friend? That hardly seems a reasonable means of navigating the world. I fully recognize the right of people to believe silly things, be they Christian, Neo-Pagan, or what-have-you. But if you ask me my opinion on any of them, I'll gladly give it. Tolerance does not equate with respect.

As for your p.s.s. [sic], yes, I would respect that more. It would put you in the same category as the Christians, presumably with a heaping dose of ethnocentricism which isn't necessarily a bad thing in endangered cultures.

Context matters a great deal in these things. Someone born into a traditional religion is making the completely understandable mistake of trusting their parents as an authority on religious issues. People born into cultures where a particular traditional religion is dominant tend to have their initial perceptions enhanced by an ad populum fallacy -- if so many people believe it, how can it be wrong? So even someone not born into a family believing a traditional religion may slide into it because of the culture they are in. This position deserves less respect than the born-into one, but is still a fully understandable and human conclusion. However, to adopt a new religion, one both devoid of history and culture, requires the believer to have actively decided to engage in foolishness. That position does not deserve very much respect at all.

The real problem here isn't religion, it is post-modernism. If the truth is just a narrative that can be twisted any which-way we like, it follows that we should just do what makes us feel good. After all, who is to know what the real truth is? It is all a matter of opinion, of perspective. Ground fertilized with intellectual feces like that gives rise to things like Neo-paganism, Intelligent Design, Biblical Literalism, ect. They all seek to reject the intellectual developments of the Enlightenment rather than to recognize the problems that arise because of it and work with them. That is why they all represent a step backwards and one people ought discourage others from taking.

[Trout]

My point is that if you're going to insult religions you should do it equally across the board.

Whoa there. I'm not insulting any groups in particular just stating what I have experienced myself and my general feelings toward all religious beliefs. I mean this is an atheist board right so where else can I say what I think besides here?

And FYI the question I asked was regarding a native group allowing me to watch and if you had implied anything

[sidhe]

It is very similar concepts. Do you know any native americans? Do you know any pagans?

I've researched both forms of religion and have known people involved in both forms of religion. The concepts aren't at all similar except in perhaps a very basic way. The difference between neo-paganism and Native American religion is one of principles, in that Native American spirituality actually has them.

Did you research individual branches within neo-paganism, or just the overarching term? If the latter, then I can see the idea that there are "no principles" to neo-paganism. But that's okay, because "neo-paganism" itself isn't so much a religion as a term for a variety of different belief structures. The individual systems that comprise neo-paganism do have defined principles.

[J.F. Gaul]

Why?

I do not see what you're saying and I would like you to explain this concept better. What makes it different between a religion I was born with or a religion I adopted?

The propagation of religion is mostly a product of primary socialization. Some of the ideas we hold closest are the ones we are taught by those closest to us and those most involved in our upbringing. For those more pragmatically-oriented, it is perfectly acceptable to simply accept the world with which we were presented. It may be nonsense, but its value is primarily in the affirmation of identity and community. I find this epistemologically unacceptable, but I can empathize with it. The problem with those who adopt religions later in life is that, generally, there's no good basis for it. They haven't realized the problem. People raised as Christians who become pagans because "cool" people generally aren't Christians are just trading one big bowel movement for another.

[jess]

I'm curious as to how many neopagans and pagans people here have met, not merely read the blogs of.

Like most people, the average neopagan/pagan does not actually run around babbling about his/her religion.

Wacky fundalmentalism is not reserved for only Christian, Muslims and atheists. Tehre are neopagans adn pagans as well who are wacky.

Please don't paint us all by the most vocal brush...

[BriAnna]

My point is that if you're going to insult religions you should do it equally across the board.

Whoa there. I'm not insulting any groups in particular just stating what I have experienced myself and my general feelings toward all religious beliefs. I mean this is an atheist board right so where else can I say what I think besides here?

And FYI the question I asked was regarding a native group allowing me to watch and if you had implied anything

Yes you can say what you think, as so can I.

and It was kind of non sequitur tbh. I'll admin that I don't know where I was going with that, besides that true traditionalist Native Americans do not like white people watching their ceremonies so I am not sure how anyone can know exactly what is going on.

[J.F. Gaul]

Did you research individual branches within neo-paganism, or just the overarching term? If the latter, then I can see the idea that there are "no principles" to neo-paganism. But that's okay, because "neo-paganism" itself isn't so much a religion as a term for a variety of different belief structures. The individual systems that comprise neo-paganism do have defined principles.

Both (though, of course, only a few of the individual branches). As far as the principles you speak of, generally they aren't founded in the religion itself. That is, the religion does not explain why the principles are there.

[Trout]

Only, you know, effective.

Swell. You might also try willow bark

Pfft. Angels are an Abrahamic thing.

Talking ravens then or did you not get the point?

Why would I want to use a Glade plug-in that smells terrible when cedar incense smells good and is both cheaper and probably better for the environment?

You will please notice I don't care if you use either or anything at all and never implied as such.

What's so weird about it? Secular rituals are still rituals.

Setting the table can be considered a ritual I suppose but it has zero spiritual meaning so I fail to see the relevance of your useing it as an example of anything regarding a religion.

But you still have to convince me that ideas A, B, and C are actually stupid. Incidentally, it's not looking like today is going to be your day to deconvert this heathen.

Hey now I'm probably more a heathen than you

But I'm also not out to convert anyone of anything.

If you believe that taking elements of christian or other more mainstream religious garbage, mixing it together in your neo-caldron with some thousand year old eye of newt and a pinch of modern ecology to produce a new religion based on the original myths plus a few new childrens stories than knock yourself out. For a logical mind though, it still makes no sense and has no meaning.

I believe I already stated I'd probably prefer NP's to christians given the choice but the simple fact of the matter is that both are deluded.

[Trout]

true traditionalist Native Americans do not like white people watching their ceremonies so I am not sure how anyone can know exactly what is going on.

Well I wouldn't go that far. Odds are not the general public but who would?

Ever read any Wade Davis? The guy's got some great books out there and he has experienced a lot of rituals first hand accross the two continents.

[jess]

I'm sorry, Trout, but you are building a strawman.

No neopagan here fits that description.

Which is strange, if you like them more than Xians... :huh:

Setting the table can incredibly spiritual. Our modern drive-thru culture has made it that way...

[J.F. Gaul]

Why four? Because wherever you go, you perceive four directions: before, behind, left, and right. If you have a compass, you can orient yourself so that your personal directions line up with the major compass points, which are real, natural phenomena of the planet.

The point of pronouncing them sacred being...?

Really? What makes one religion better then another?

Whom would you rather hand a gun to - a radical Muslim or a radical Jainist?

[jess]

Why four? Because wherever you go, you perceive four directions: before, behind, left, and right. If you have a compass, you can orient yourself so that your personal directions line up with the major compass points, which are real, natural phenomena of the planet.

The point of pronouncing them sacred being...?

Really? What makes one religion better then another?

Whom would you rather hand a gun to - a radical Muslim or a radical Jainist?

personal reasons? Is calling them 'cardinal' better?

and, you've never met a radical jain, have you?

[BriAnna]

Why?

I do not see what you're saying and I would like you to explain this concept better. What makes it different between a religion I was born with or a religion I adopted?

The propagation of religion is mostly a product of primary socialization. Some of the ideas we hold closest are the ones we are taught by those closest to us and those most involved in our upbringing. For those more pragmatically-oriented, it is perfectly acceptable to simply accept the world with which we were presented. It may be nonsense, but its value is primarily in the affirmation of identity and community. I find this epistemologically unacceptable, but I can empathize with it. The problem with those who adopt religions later in life is that, generally, there's no good basis for it. They haven't realized the problem. People raised as Christians who become pagans because "cool" people generally aren't Christians are just trading one big bowel movement for another.

I didn't disagree with you on the fact that becoming a religion because it is cool. Though I disagree on your other points.

[BriAnna]

true traditionalist Native Americans do not like white people watching their ceremonies so I am not sure how anyone can know exactly what is going on.

Well I wouldn't go that far. Odds are not the general public but who would?

Ever read any Wade Davis? The guy's got some great books out there and he has experienced a lot of rituals first hand accross the two continents.

Have you read "Neither Dog nor Wolf"?

Eta: Wiki says "beliefs associated with plants with psychoactive properties". Interesting.

[J.F. Gaul]

personal reasons? Is calling them 'cardinal' better?

Read Karalora's response.


and, you've never met a radical jain, have you?

I, of course, was referring to propensities.

[jess]

JF: I understand her, but not you.
Please explain.

And, a radical is a radical.

[Karalora]

Swell. You might also try willow bark

Hahaha. Willow bark is even less effective--being, you know, the same ingredient at a lower concentration--and it tastes terrible. For pain relief specfically, I take Advil.

Talking ravens then or did you not get the point?

Of course I get the point. Incidentally, they're actually crows.

...

Okay, not really. I do sometimes have the impression of "talking to" something when I'm meditating, but for all I know it's "just" a part of my own psyche that I don't normally access.

You will please notice I don't care if you use either or anything at all and never implied as such.

It's hard to tell sometimes. My typical experience around here is that the atheists and skeptics start scoffing at the "New Age woo,"* I explain that for me at least, it's not like that...and they scoff at me for doing things that I don't really "believe in."

* What exactly is "woo," anyway? I always thought it was a Chinese surname.

Setting the table can be considered a ritual I suppose but it has zero spiritual meaning so I fail to see the relevance of your useing it as an example of anything regarding a religion.

If you have to set the table the same way every time or you get antsy (some people do), then there is a psychological dimension to the table-setting ritual.

If you believe that taking elements of christian or other more mainstream religious garbage, mixing it together in your neo-caldron with some thousand year old eye of newt and a pinch of modern ecology to produce a new religion based on the original myths plus a few new childrens stories than knock yourself out.

[auto mechanic]Well there's your problem...[/auto mechanic] You assume too much, and project your own flippant attitude onto others.

For a logical mind though, it still makes no sense and has no meaning.

It's a good thing we humans aren't 100% logical, then.

I believe I already stated I'd probably prefer NP's to christians given the choice but the simple fact of the matter is that both are deluded.

How can you accuse me of delusions when you don't even know what I think?

[jess]

How can you accuse me of delusions when you don't even know what I think?

^^^ this.

[J.F. Gaul]

JF: I understand her, but not you.
Please explain.

My point was that neo-paganism has the tendency to be ridiculously arbitrary, and the "four sacred directions" idea seems to support that. As of yet, no one has stated what principle or "basic truth of paganism" that doctrine is based on.

And, a radical is a radical.

True, but you seem to have missed my point, which is that some religions are more benign than others.

[BriAnna]

Did you research individual branches within neo-paganism, or just the overarching term? If the latter, then I can see the idea that there are "no principles" to neo-paganism. But that's okay, because "neo-paganism" itself isn't so much a religion as a term for a variety of different belief structures. The individual systems that comprise neo-paganism do have defined principles.

Both (though, of course, only a few of the individual branches). As far as the principles you speak of, generally they aren't founded in the religion itself. That is, the religion does not explain why the principles are there.

Does it bother you that much that some things just aren't explained?

My motto is "It is what it is."

To be honest, it doesn't matter because you're going to go on believing what you believe and I am going to go on believing what I believe.

[Trout]

I'm sorry, Trout, but you are building a strawman.

No neopagan here fits that description..

It was a bit of a joke description but Karalora has mentioned taking aspects of others and putting them into her own NP design so I'm not building anything

[Karalora]

My point was that neo-paganism has the tendency to be ridiculously arbitrary, and the "four sacred directions" idea seems to support that. As of yet, no one has stated what principle or "basic truth of paganism" that doctrine is based on.

I can't speak for all Neopagans, of course, but to my way of thinking, if the Earth is sacred (i.e., deserving of our respect), and the cardinal directions are functions of the Earth (which they are, because of the planet's rotation and magnetic field), then the cardinal directions are sacred. It's not arbitrary at all.

Plus, it does a psyche good to find significance in simple acts like finding one's way about.

[xunzian]

While I'm no logical positivist, what is the merit of spiritual energy? There is no good evidence to suggest it, which allows for doubt. Throw on top of that the fact that these dualistic tendencies violate the modern understanding of how the world works, and I think such doubt is justified.

And while idiocy is found in all groups, that doesn't mean we ought validate particularly stupid belief systems or those that enrich for stupidity.

As for your tautological definition of Neo-Paganism, I tend to avoid deductive clusterfucks whenever possible. We have to look at things in a contextualized way, otherwise all we are doing is mingling our minds with the ether. But if you'd like we could take a side-trip and play by those rules and examine why particular representive beliefs of Neo-Paganism are stupid. Or we could look at how the underpinnings of the movement are flawed, which I alluded to in my response to BriAnna.

[Trout]

Have you read "Neither Dog nor Wolf"?

No but I have read: One River, Essays on the Spirit of Place, and Shadows in the Sun most recently.

[jess]

JF: I understand her, but not you.
Please explain.

My point was that neo-paganism has the tendency to be ridiculously arbitrary, and the "four sacred directions" idea seems to support that. As of yet, no one has stated what principle or "basic truth of paganism" that doctrine is based on.

Did you ask?

And, a radical is a radical.

True, but you seem to have missed my point, which is that some religions are more benign than others.

No. More or less powerful, not benign.

Read up on your history.

[Trout]

Hahaha. Willow bark is even less effective--being, you know, the same ingredient at a lower concentration--and it tastes terrible. For pain relief specfically, I take Advil.

Yeah, I was just making a funny. Tough room today

If you have to set the table the same way every time or you get antsy (some people do), then there is a psychological dimension to the table-setting ritual.

But not a religious.

I assume nothing. I'm just following what's already been said

How can you accuse me of delusions when you don't even know what I think

*sigh* OK, well what do you think then?

And once again, as I have said, I'm not particularly saying you are deluded but people who choose to illogically believe in any religious (or really almost anything at all) aspect of anything without the slightest amount of proof are generally what is termed deluded.

[Karalora]

While I'm no logical positivist, what is the merit of spiritual energy?

Beats me. S'why I talk about mental energy and focus instead.

[J.F. Gaul]

Did you ask?

Yes.

No. More or less powerful, not benign.

Read up on your history.

Are you, perhaps, thinking of the Sikhs?

Granted, the extreme asceticism of Jainism is objectionable, but less objectionable than much of Islam.

Also, "more benign" is not the same thing as saying "benign."

Read up on your English language.

[Karalora]

Yeah, I was just making a funny. Tough room today

Well, I've never been very fond of insult comics.

But not a religious.

That's why I specified table-setting as a secular ritual.

*sigh* OK, well what do you think then?

What do I think about what? Be specific or we'll be here all summer, and I have grocery shopping to do.

And once again, as I have said, I'm not particularly saying you are deluded but people who choose to illogically believe in any religious (or really almost anything at all) aspect of anything without the slightest amount of proof are generally what is termed deluded.

Unless, you know, they can get X number of people to say they believe in it too. But I didn't quit Christianity just to dive right into another mudhole of blind faith. For me, it's not about beliefs at all, but about practices and attitudes.

[Trout]

I can't speak for all Neopagans, of course, but to my way of thinking, if the Earth is sacred (i.e., deserving of our respect), and the cardinal directions are functions of the Earth (which they are, because of the planet's rotation and magnetic field), then the cardinal directions are sacred. It's not arbitrary at all.

What precisly does "functions of the Earth" mean? How many are there, are they all sacred and how can this be determined to begin with? Once determined what does this mean for our interaction with them?

You see this is one of my bigger problems with NP in particular. The very core concept is basically left undefined so in essence it is not a belief system at all but a hobby for each individual to take up as they see fit and call themselves by the same name.

And anyway, NP just makes the same sorts of illogical leaps that christianity makes but wraps itself in a few more modern ideas on ecology, gets rid of the need for priests, etc (at least so far) and makes noises like it should be listened to when in actuality it has nothing to say with anything like a single voice.

[Trout]

Unless, you know, they can get X number of people to say they believe in it too. But I didn't quit Christianity just to dive right into another mudhole of blind faith. For me, it's not about beliefs at all, but about practices and attitudes.

Fine so what the heck does that even mean?

Is this sort of like Confucianism to you? Something based around behavioral codes and so forth instead of spiritual belief?

[BriAnna]

Have you read "Neither Dog nor Wolf"?

No but I have read: One River, Essays on the Spirit of Place, and Shadows in the Sun most recently.

I'll look into them.

To everyone else:

To be honest, I think it is more important to be aware of who we are to ourselves.

Just calling some one's belief system stupid because you don't' agree with it, is very lacking in discussion.

[BriAnna]

Unless, you know, they can get X number of people to say they believe in it too. But I didn't quit Christianity just to dive right into another mudhole of blind faith. For me, it's not about beliefs at all, but about practices and attitudes.

Fine so what the heck does that even mean?

Is this sort of like Confucianism to you? Something based around behavioral codes and so forth instead of spiritual belief?

For a lot of Pagans, yes.

:)

[jess]

gah!

I have to bow out--- going on a canoe trip in ... 2 hours!

If there is a clear list of things to discuss when I get back, I'd be happy to...

[Trout]

For a lot of Pagans, yes.

OK well that then changes the equation substantially.

If we're looking at this as a type of "ethic" or whatever for lack of a better word, then this isn't about religion, the supernatural, talking birds, life after death, jaguar spirits and so on at all.

Sounds like a philosophy.

I must say though that I have known many people claiming to be NP's who do not feel that way and there are reams of books on the subject that do not agree with your stance either. I like yours better

[xunzian]

I'm with Trout on this one. If it is a philosophical system devoid of religious claims, and Neo-Pagans seem to be painting themselves into that corner, then why describe it as a religion? Especially since NP will admit that it is just a personalize hodge-podge of this-and-that.

I think the system lacks discipline, so it isn't a terribly robust philosophy. But I can respect a non-robust philosophical system a whole heck of a lot more than I can respect a non-robust religious system. After all, most philosophies are constructed in a hodge-podge manner, we've come to expect that.

[BriAnna]

the problem is that the words "neo paganism" and "paganism" covers A LOT of grey areas that don't fit any where else.

To say they are all stupid is kind of throwing the baby out with the wash water.

I will be the first to admit that there are people in any religious belief system including my own that are fanatics or just plain insane.

So many people use Neo Paganism and Paganism interchangeably. I have a dear friend who is part Native American and she calls her self pagan. That is why I brought up the whole Native American concept to begin with.

[Karalora]

What precisly does "functions of the Earth" mean?

Maybe "attributes of the Earth" would have been a better wording.

How many are there,

Ask a geologist.

are they all sacred

Probably.

and how can this be determined to begin with?

Intuition.

Once determined what does this mean for our interaction with them?

It means pay attention to what you're doing.

You see this is one of my bigger problems with NP in particular. The very core concept is basically left undefined so in essence it is not a belief system at all but a hobby for each individual to take up as they see fit and call themselves by the same name.

You could say much the same of Christianity. Ask 100 Christians what Christianity is about at the root, and you'll probably get at least 10 different answers. They don't all believe the same things, and for many Christians, their religion functions more as a hobby or an expression of cultural identity.

And anyway, NP just makes the same sorts of illogical leaps that christianity makes but wraps itself in a few more modern ideas on ecology, gets rid of the need for priests, etc (at least so far) and makes noises like it should be listened to when in actuality it has nothing to say with anything like a single voice.

Why do we have to be homogenous in order to be taken seriously?

Is this sort of like Confucianism to you? Something based around behavioral codes and so forth instead of spiritual belief?

That's a pretty good way of looking at it, actually. Nowhere near as strict and detailed as Confucianism, of course, but the same general idea. It is far more important for us to figure out how we should behave than what we should believe. Anything else you get from religion or philosophy, no matter which one(s) you subscribe to, is just a personal bonus.

[jess]

LOL @ Karalora---

what's the saying? Ask 3 Rabbis and get 5 opinions?

[J.F. Gaul]

the problem is that the words "neo paganism" and "paganism" covers A LOT of grey areas that don't fit any where else.

To say they are all stupid is kind of throwing the baby out with the wash water.

I agree with you. But even if some forms of paganism aren't "stupid," they are all unnecessary.

So many people use Neo Paganism and Paganism interchangeably. I have a dear friend who is part Native American and she calls her self pagan. That is why I brought up the whole Native American concept to begin with.

Neopaganism refers to a specific religious movement, while paganism basically refers to non-mainstream religions. So, in a sense, all neo-pagans are pagans, but not all pagans are neo-pagans.

[Trout]

I think the system lacks discipline, so it isn't a terribly robust philosophy. But I can respect a non-robust philosophical system a whole heck of a lot more than I can respect a non-robust religious system.


Agreed

[BriAnna]

the problem is that the words "neo paganism" and "paganism" covers A LOT of grey areas that don't fit any where else.

To say they are all stupid is kind of throwing the baby out with the wash water.

I agree with you. But even if some forms of paganism aren't "stupid," they are all unnecessary.

So many people use Neo Paganism and Paganism interchangeably. I have a dear friend who is part Native American and she calls her self pagan. That is why I brought up the whole Native American concept to begin with.

Neopaganism refers to a specific religious movement, while paganism basically refers to non-mainstream religions. So, in a sense, all neo-pagans are pagans, but not all pagans are neo-pagans.

I am sorry you can not understand this concept but I find it rather healthy to have some sort of spiritual connection to the universe. For myself. I am more of the mindset to think that they are necessary to some people. I don't think you should push your ideas on me. That is where this becomes a problem. You're being very hypercritical in that regard.

Can you show me why they would be unnecessary? Do you do anything ritual? Do you ever quiet your thoughts and think about something seriously?

[Trout]

Maybe "attributes of the Earth" would have been a better wording

*sign* OK then.....meaning what?

Ask a geologist.

What? :confused:

Probably.

Well as long as you're sure......:confused:

Intuition.

Okeedookey then. Well I guess that's the crux of the whole thing. If "Intuition" is the basis for determining the sacred aspects of this so called "religion" then there is no basis at all.

It means pay attention to what you're doing.

Look, I've been trying to ask decent questions and would hope that you would choose to provide decent answers but apparently you are either deciding not to or you simply do not have enough understanding of the very belief system you are promoting. That's occasionally called fraud.

You could say much the same of Christianity. Ask 100 Christians what Christianity is about at the root, and you'll probably get at least 10 different answers. They don't all believe the same things, and for many Christians, their religion functions more as a hobby or an expression of cultural identity.

How many times do I have to tell you that I don't care about comparisons to christianity. It's a bunk belief system to me as I have already stated so when you compare your NP slant to it the results are both meaningless and occasionally weaken you position.


Why do we have to be homogenous in order to be taken seriously?

How can you be taken seriously when you have already stated that the basis of what is sacred to you is formed around "intuition"?!?! Is you intution even the same as the next 5 people in the room because if not then you can't even say you believe in the same basic "sacred" ideas = there's nothing to take seriously because there is no group to begin with.

It is far more important for us to figure out how we should behave than what we should believe.

You know, I had hoped that would be the case because at least that's a reasonable beginning foundation of something but judging by your answers I don't believe it.

[J.F. Gaul]

I am sorry you can not understand this concept but I find it rather healthy to have some sort of spiritual connection to the universe. For myself.

I completely understand the concept. We all must come to terms with our place in the universe through some means. I simply find the "spiritual connection" to be the least rational way of doing that.

I am more of the mindset to think that they are necessary to some people.

Yes, I can see that.

I don't think you should push your ideas on me. That is where this becomes a problem. You're being very hypercritical in that regard.

I'm presenting, not pushing, my ideas. I've only criticized the most basic faults of neopaganism. That's hardly hypercritical.

Can you show me why they would be unnecessary?

They are unnecessary in the same sense that beanbag chairs are unnecessary. They may be comfortable, but no one would be worse off without them.

Do you do anything ritual?

Of course, everyone does. But rituals do not serve solely religious functions. Rituals are the children of socialization and culture, not of someone trying to find their way in the universe.


Do you ever quiet your thoughts and think about something seriously?

Think about something seriously? Yes. Quiet my thoughts? I'm afraid that depends on what you mean.

[BriAnna]

I am sorry you can not understand this concept but I find it rather healthy to have some sort of spiritual connection to the universe. For myself.

I completely understand the concept. We all must come to terms with our place in the universe through some means. I simply find the "spiritual connection" to be the least rational way of doing that.


It maybe the least rational way of doing this for you. It makes sense for me.



I'm presenting, not pushing, my ideas. I've only criticized the most basic faults of neopaganism. That's hardly hypercritical.


Do you see how something that gets presented so very often finds that pushing comes easily to a sensitive area? I think we are talking about two different sides of the coin. I am talking about how people feel, you are talking about how people act. It is hard to discuss feelings about something when they are so extremely personal.


They are unnecessary in the same sense that beanbag chairs are unnecessary. They may be comfortable, but no one would be worse off without them. I beg to differ. I am much worse off with out spirituality in my life. I've tried it.





Think about something seriously? Yes. Quiet my thoughts? I'm afraid that depends on what you mean.

Listen to your own heart beat. Stop thinking so much.

[figuer]

I completely understand the concept. We all must come to terms with our place in the universe through some means. I simply find the "spiritual connection" to be the least rational way of doing that.While by definition initially you seem to be correct, since spiritual has to do with the irrational emotions and instinctual impulses which structure our psyche, further analysis reveals that such an opinion is based on a fallacy. In terms of psychology something is rational if it satisfies our emotional needs. Since "spiritual connections" do precisely that, there is no justification for calling them the least rational of methods. Reason is a tool, it is not an end in itself.

[Karalora]

I agree with you. But even if some forms of paganism aren't "stupid," they are all unnecessary.

1) What Brianna said.

2) Even if you're right, people do lots of things that aren't necessary.

*sign* OK then.....meaning what?

Well, what does "attribute" usually mean? Property? Characteristic? Thing-that-is? I feel like I'm having to reinvent the English language here.

What?

A geologist would know more about the specific properties of the planet than a layperson like me would.

Well as long as you're sure......

I'm not. But last I checked, certainty was the purview of fundamentalists.

Okeedookey then. Well I guess that's the crux of the whole thing. If "Intuition" is the basis for determining the sacred aspects of this so called "religion" then there is no basis at all.

If you're looking for an objective basis, you're not going to find one, in Neopaganism or any other religious or philosophical position. But that doesn't mean there is no basis at all. A subjective basis is still a basis.

Look, I've been trying to ask decent questions and woudl hope that you would choose to provide decent answers but apparently you are either deciding not to or you simply do not have enough understanding of the very belief system you are promoting. That's occasionally called fraud.

I apologize. This thread got off to a very snarky start, and I'm still trying to sort out the snark from the sincerity. It's a cutthroat message board we've got here.

So the question was, if I understand correctly, once we have determined that something is sacred, what do we do about it? To me, to call something "sacred" means that it is deserving of respect and/or worth contemplating. I don't know how you'd go about respecting the cardinal directions, but contemplating them can be quite profound once you realize that no matter where you go on this planet, with the exception of the Poles themselves, the cardinal directions are the same. Every culture on Earth has been aware of them. Any inhabitable planet would have them. That's something that kind of makes you go "whoa" if you're not already totally jaded.

How many times do I have to tell you that I don't care about comparisons to christianity.

Once, apparently. This is the first time you've mentioned it to me.

It's a bunk belief system to me as I have already stated so when you compare your NP slant to it the resulsts are both meaningless and occasionally weaken you position.

Well, are we talking about factual validity here or are we talking about sociopolitical legitimacy? You seem perfectly happy to accept Christianity as a legitimate religion even while you dismiss its beliefs as "bunk."

How can you be taken seriously when you have already stated that the basis of what is sacred to you is formed around "intuition"?!?!

Dude, how do you determine what is awesome to you? What do you mean, it just is? How can I take you seriously?

Is you intution even the same as the next 5 people in the room because if not then you can't even say you believe in the same basic "sacred" ideas = there's nothing to take seriously because there is no group to beegin with.

Well, we adopt a common label because, on discussion with one another, we have discovered that we do generally intuit the same things as sacred.

You know, I had hoped that would be the case because at least that's a reasonable beginning foundation of something but judging by your answers I don't believe it.

I'm not surprised. You came into this discussion having pre-determined that Neopaganism was ridiculous. It's no wonder that you choose to jump on the answers that seem to confirm this bias and brush off the ones that contradict it.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

There is no apologetical sturcture, no official creed, no catechism, no spokesperson or recognizable founding guru for neopaganism. Targeting the animal called "neopaganism" can only fire misses. It's a general classification.

They don't agree on anything at all, I don't knnow what the fuss is about. Is it astrology you want to target? Gardnerian wicca? Gaia? Reconstructionist hellenismos? They're all different, so pack all your guns, you're going to have to target each one seperately.

[J.F. Gaul]

It maybe the least rational way of doing this for you. It makes sense for me.

I am much worse off with out spirituality in my life. I've tried it.

Then I sincerely recommend you keep it up.

While by definition initially you seem to be correct, since spiritual has to do with the irrational emotions and instinctual impulses which structure our psyche, further analysis reveals that such an opinion is based on a fallacy. In terms of psychology something is rational if it satisfies our emotional needs. Since "spiritual connections" do precisely that, there is no justification for calling them the least rational of methods. Reason is a tool, it is not an end in itself.

Spirituality is immediately emotionally rational, but is also unstable. A more rational approach is to find a connection that satisfies one emotionally but doesn't rely solely on how one feels.

[Karalora]

Spirituality is immediately emotionally rational, but is also unstable. A more rational approach is to find a connection that satisfies one emotionally but doesn't rely solely on how one feels.

That is where the moral dimension of religion/philosophy comes in.

[BriAnna]

It maybe the least rational way of doing this for you. It makes sense for me.



Then I sincerely recommend you keep it up.



Then why wouldn't it work for others? General dismissing never helps anyone. : )

[Trout]

I'll try to hit the high points as this appears to be going no where.

If you're looking for an objective basis, you're not going to find one, in Neopaganism or any other religious or philosophical position. But that doesn't mean there is no basis at all. A subjective basis is still a basis.

Subjective? Based on personal intuition? So you may as well base your beliefs around what different people like for lunch?

Once, apparently. This is the first time you've mentioned it to me.

I've mentioned it in other posts in this thread. You can read them.

Well, are we talking about factual validity here or are we talking about sociopolitical legitimacy? You seem perfectly happy to accept Christianity as a legitimate religion even while you dismiss its beliefs as "bunk."

It's a religion sure. A completely wrong and factless one based on nothing though so is that what you wish to compare NP to?

Dude, how do you determine what is awesome to you? What do you mean, it just is? How can I take you seriously?

Take me seriously? Well "dude" if you apparently determine what is "sacred" as being equal to what is "awesome" to you based on nothing but "intution" then that sounds like a really trippy concept. Real groovey man :rolleyes:

Well, we adopt a common label because, on discussion with one another, we have discovered that we do generally intuit the same things as sacred.

:rolling:You and the rest of the NP community "intuit" the same things as sacred do you? Well that's a pretty neat trick. Care to offer one shred of evidence because hey, if you all like, think trees are like, awesome just y'know, because they're soooooo awesome then I'd really like to see some sort of proof even of just that one single claim.

It's no wonder that you choose to jump on the answers that seem to confirm this bias and brush off the ones that contradict it.

No, I came into the discussion understanding that all religions based on illogical beliefs and leaps of wishful thinking/faith are meaningless and pointless. I then tried to determine exactly what the so called NP movement was all about but you've been pretty defensive and not able to provide very good answers. If anything, the reply by BriAnna stating it was actually NOT a religion but an ethic has been the most helpful.

But hey, just for the heck of it, what pre tell would those contrdictions to NP as a religion being ridiculous possibly be? Feel free to list them straight out if you want.

[BriAnna]

Trout, you can back down on the snark any time!

I think that that the stereotype of the neopaganism fluff bunny makes me want to rip people from limb to limb but that is like saying that all atheists think they know everything.

There is a definite aspect of it that is like goth kids worshipping satan to rebel against their parents.

I personally don't regard it this way and find it to be more of a way of life. A hippie/buddhist mixture of beliefs that make me feel (which is completely SUBJECTIVE) more connected to the universe at as a whole. I don't have a coven or a community to speak of for the most part. Just some good friends that like to discuss things and bounce topics off of each other in a healthy fashion. I don't know a better way of feeling like your part of a bigger picture and completely understand why more women tend to be pagan and more men tend to be atheists.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

I personally don't regard it this way and find it to be more of a way of life. A hippie/buddhist mixture of beliefs that make me feel (which is completely SUBJECTIVE) more connected to the universe at as a whole. I don't have a coven or a community to speak of for the most part. Just some good friends that like to discuss things and bounce topics off of each other in a healthy fashion. I don't know a better way of feeling like your part of a bigger picture and completely understand why more women tend to be pagan and more men tend to be atheists.

I very probably would like a long afternoon with you guys.

[sidhe]

Trout, you can back down on the snark any time!

I think that that the stereotype of the neopaganism fluff bunny makes me want to rip people from limb to limb but that is like saying that all atheists think they know everything.

There is a definite aspect of it that is like goth kids worshipping satan to rebel against their parents.

I personally don't regard it this way and find it to be more of a way of life. A hippie/buddhist mixture of beliefs that make me feel (which is completely SUBJECTIVE) more connected to the universe at as a whole. I don't have a coven or a community to speak of for the most part. Just some good friends that like to discuss things and bounce topics off of each other in a healthy fashion. I don't know a better way of feeling like your part of a bigger picture and completely understand why more women tend to be pagan and more men tend to be atheists.

QFT.

The amusing thing is that some of those goth kids (like me) keep being pagan and start doing more than rebelling. Of course, I didn't like the rebellious pagans when I was a whiny goth teen...I was pagan because I thought it was a grand way of viewing life, not because I had uberchristian parents to rebel against. I had a new-agey mom who thought it was a grand way of viewing life, too. ;)

Though, rebellious pagan kids throw the best damn college parties. :devil1:

[figuer]

Spirituality is immediately emotionally rational, but is also unstable. A more rational approach is to find a connection that satisfies one emotionally but doesn't rely solely on how one feels.But Neo-Paganism, at least in its more 'psychological', less esoteric forms, seems to derive from a rational analysis of religion and its uses.

[BriAnna]

Just because I talk to the spider that runs around on my wall does not make me a nut job. Though thinking that the spider is answering me is another story. :D

[wordy]

I've met some of the leading NeoPagans in Sweden. Friendly people
and easy to like but I 'm not so much for it.

They want us to follow the local "Seid" or regional customs for
how to do rituals and words to use and what the gods are about.

It is more like a restoration than a new interpretation?

Would it not be better to start anew? They did start anew
some time in history so if that worked for them why would it
fail for us?

It would fail for me cause I am not a good thinker and have
no talent for it but I mean somebody good at setting up
systematic thought would be able to make something much
better than the old NP stories?

Ok we have the Objectivists and we have different versions of
extropians? Like Kurzweil? Isn't his version close to Trans-humanism.

I don't believe in their wishful thinking but most of it are rather
new stuff and not old stories about Storm gods and Sky gods

Uploading the content of our brain into big capacity computers
to protect us from death and to later download us to a android
that could function as our new body?

Good as a Scifi story but not likely to ever happen but maybe
work as a hope for those in need for eternal life? An illusion?

[Karalora]

Subjective? Based on personal intuition? So you may as well base your beliefs around what different people like for lunch?

Sure, why not? Food nourishes us both physically and emotionally, and helps keep us in touch with the cycle of the seasons. Feasting is a big part of most Pagan religions for just that reason. Much ancient spirituality was built around reverence for the food.

It's a religion sure. A completely wrong and factless one based on nothing though so is that what you wish to compare NP to?

I'm not out to convince you or anyone else that Neopaganism is factually correct. But I won't sit by while people stereotype me and others who are like-minded as stupid, frivolous, or insincere.

Take me seriously? Well "dude" if you apparently determine what is "sacred" as being equal to what is "awesome" to you based on nothing but "intution" then that sounds like a really trippy concept. Real groovey man :rolleyes:

Well, I am from California. But the point of that was that we all have subjective opinions, yet most of the time we manage to get along rather than holding each other up to ridicule on the basis of those subjective opinions. And here you seem to be taking it to the next nasty level, ridiculing me not because of what my subjective opinions are, but because I have subjective opinions in the first place.

:rolling:You and the rest of the NP community "intuit" the same things as sacred do you? Well that's a pretty neat trick. Care to offer one shred of evidence because hey, if you all like, think trees are like, awesome just y'know, because they're soooooo awesome then I'd really like to see some sort of proof even of just that one single claim.

How does one go about proving a subjective opinion? Seems like an inherent contradiction to me.

Incidentally, trees are awesome. I've been to Sequoia National Monument.

I then tried to determine exactly what the so called NP movement was all about but you've been pretty defensive and not able to provide very good answers.

That's because it's very hard for me to tell a) exactly what it is you are asking, and b) whether you are asking it out of genuine curiosity, or because you want to refine your mockery.

If anything, the reply by BriAnna stating it was actually NOT a religion but an ethic has been the most helpful.

It is both. There is a spiritual dimension as well as an ethical dimension.

But hey, just for the heck of it, what pre tell would those contrdictions to NP as a religion being ridiculous possibly be? Feel free to list them straight out if you want.

Why should I have to prove that I do not deserve ridicule? Surely that should be the default assumption inasmuch as I am a human being.

[+or-1]

Wow, look what happens when these people expect me to do my job instead of wasting "valuable company time" playing on this intraweb thingy.

First, I sincerely find all religions (that I've heard of) equally silly. Is someone seriously trying to contend that it's sillier to burn cedar to the sacred directions than it is to take an imaginary bite of a 2000 year old corpse? OTOH, I take each individual adherent of any faith or none on their own merits. Why do so many of us assume that the adherents of one religion or another must be therefore defined by said religion? The idea that every adherent of any religion is a mindless idiot is seemingly a moderately popular one among atheists but it is, in reality, patently untrue. I no more think that each person I know that professes a religious faith spends all of their time thinking about said faith than I spend the same amount of time thinking about my lack thereof. It's part of who I am but certainly not everything I am. It's just not a concern to me. I really don't understand the mindset that makes it so.


Note to Brianna. In fact I do know everything (well, nearly). ;)

[jess]

I think something important to consider is the basic anthropolgical idea that we 'need' ritual and ceremony in our lives, and neopaganism is an attempt to reconnect with an earlier form of this.

off to canoe!

[BriAnna]

Note to Brianna. In fact I do know everything (well, nearly). ;)

If you say so. I agree that if you're going to think religion is silly to do so equally! :D

[Karalora]

+or-1, thank you for that. I get weary of having to insist that no, I really am a fairly normal person who happens to pursue non-mainstream spirituality.

[jess]

to the OP, however, I think it's really cool that the numbers are increasing that much!

We're still in the broom closet, but it's nice to think we'll be less scared of coming out soon!

[Karalora]

Dammit, jess, get in that canoe and get outta here! :)

[Bushman]

Let's say I wanted to adopt neo-paganism, what would I have to do? What makes someone a neo-pagan? What particular beliefs would I have to adopt?

[+or-1]

I think something important to consider is the basic anthropolgical idea that we 'need' ritual and ceremony in our lives, and neopaganism is an attempt to reconnect with an earlier form of this.

off to canoe!

See, I don't think we need it at all. I think it's something we're conditioned to accept from a young age. Rituals are comfortable, frequently even useful (I have one for cutting the grass and one for going on a motorcycle ride for instance) but hardly necessary. Hope you enjoyed the canoing. Bet you have a ritual for that. ;)

[BriAnna]

Let's say I wanted to adopt neo-paganism, what would I have to do? What makes someone a neo-pagan? What particular beliefs would I have to adopt?

wiki has this one pretty correct...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neopaganism
Neopaganism or Neo-Paganism is an umbrella term used to identify a wide variety of modern religious movements, particularly those influenced by historical pre-Christian European "pagan" religions.[1][2]

Neo-Pagan religious movements are extremely diverse, with beliefs that range widely from polytheism to animism, to pantheism and other paradigms. Many Neopagans practice a spirituality that is entirely modern in origin, while others attempt to accurately reconstruct or revive indigenous, ethnic religions as found in historical and folkloric sources.[3] (see also List of Neopagan movements)

Neopaganism is particularly strong in the United States, Britain, Greece, Lithuania, Iceland, Scandinavia, Ukraine and Russia. The largest Neopagan movement is Wicca.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism
Since the later 20th century, "Pagan" or "Paganism" has become widely used as a self-designation by adherents of Neopaganism.[3] As such, various modern scholars have begun to apply the term to three separate groups of faiths; Historical Polytheism (such as Celtic polytheism and Norse paganism), Folk/ethnic/Indigenous religions (such as Chinese folk religion and African traditional religion), and Neo-paganism (such as Wicca and Germanic Neopaganism).

[xunzian]

I would agree that ritual plays a very important role in our lives. I don't see it as conditioned, since often how we learn is through ritualistic behaviors. Indeed, non-ritualized "learning" tends to amount to just making crap up.

And, as you mentioned, they are comfortable. People seek comfort, and there is nothing wrong with that. Indeed, since they do make people comfortable, why not embrace them so as to make yourself and others comfortable. Will Ferrel has stated that he bases his humor off of people acting inappropriately for the situation, of acting out-of-step with the perscribed rituals for the context. We find it funny because it so goes against the grain of how we think, how could it be anything other than absurd?

[Ljoilae]

I skipped most of the replies, but I find it funny people will make broad handed statements about neo-paganism when it pretty much includes just about every possible belief, and non-belief, which is pretty much in keeping with ancient paganism (in the classical world you had monotheists, polytheists, henotheists, atheists, agnostics, pantheists, everything in one goopy mix).

As for people making things up in their basement or playing Dungeons and Dragons, there's actually a large contingent of neo-pagans called reconstructionists that base their religions on historical example. Most of them reject even being associated with things like witchcraft, Wicca and the random eclectic sorts. Quite a few neo-pagans don't practice or believe in "magic" at all. A lot of them have rejected the terms neo-pagan and pagan over the past ten years because they simply do not feel any relationship to the mainstream/eclectic currents that "pagan" suggests in the popular consciousness now.

There's also an increasing scrutiny between verifiable knowledge, tradition, and things you made up and "unverified personal gnosis" (UPG). Which isn't motivated by outside forces at all, but mainly by quite outspoken members of particular cultures that are tired of having a bunch of retards appropriate their identities. Saying such and such is so or is an ancient tradition of whatever is likely to get you in deep... argument in many circles.

[bopot]

I believe there's a revival of the ancient Greek pantheon happening in Greece, now that it's no longer illegal. (Yes, it was just recently made legal for Greeks to practice a religion of their own creation.) It at least does a reasonable job of explaining the universe using myth.

They begin with Chaos, representing the original formless void. Then Chaos begat gods and goddesses representing night and day, and Earth, and so forth. Then they begat the elements (air, water). Then they have the specialist gods for mountains, storms, etc. Then the various emotions: love, hate, envy. And eventually they get to the Olympians we're all familiar with, who are basically a reflection of human hierarchies, with Zeus as their king.

I'm probably off on the details there, but the point is that they tried to explain the universe, as they understood it, by creating a pantheon of deities to represent various real phenomena, and to explain how everything is interconnected. They seem to have understood the big picture a lot more clearly and intuitively than the monotheisms.

Not that I'd consider adopting the religion of course, or even endorsing anyone else doing so, but it's at least marginally less nutty than most (and I doubt you'll ever find anyone strapping on bombs in the name of Athena).

[Brion]

You can be a Pagan without the Religion bit. All I am came from the Earth all will go back to the Earth. I love the Earth. why wouldn't I ?

[wordy]

I know almost nothing about them. I've been to three public presentations.
At the Stockholm University they had a meeting and Staff at the Uni that
was Asatroars was giving their "Academic" and personal views on Asatro.

The most famous of them being Mattias Gardell
http://ceifo.soc.se/person.php?Id=5

He has studied the unfortunate nationalistic and racistic tendencies
within some groups that also identify themselves as Heaten.

* 2003. Gods of the Blood: The Pagan Revival and White Separatism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.


Present was three Swedish groups of NeoPagans of the Asatroar sort.

Neopaganism is much bigger than that but I was notinterested in the Wicca type. I've visited such conferences too but these ones was for Asatroars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattias_Gardell

Another known supporter are Carl Johan Rehbinder who are or have been chairperson in several constellations of neopagans in Sweden through the years. Very nice and friendly person.
http://www.rehbinder.se/

http://www.multiart.nu/grimner/english/index.html

I guess they are active here too
http://www.idavallen.org/lankar.html
this link gives much info too.
http://www.lysator.liu.se/religion/neopagan/asatru.html

I don't support them but it is interesting that it works for them.

[aupmanyav]

All religions are based on the same illogical tripe and leap of faith..Do you think 'advaita' too is like that? Hinduism does not repress illogical tripe and leap of faith by the masses, though it tries to channel it to what is not illogical and dependent just on faith. Loving 'tolerence and diversity' is the way with hinduism.P.s.s. So if I was a Native American Tribe Member, practicing sacred traditions of my ancestors would that make it ok?As a hindu, I would love that. We value traditions. A tradition which survives for 5 or 10 thousand years is not without reason.Why four? Because wherever you go, you perceive four directions: before, behind, left, and right. If you have a compass, you can orient yourself so that your personal directions line up with the major compass points, which are real, natural phenomena of the planet.Hindus try to pacify six directions, Sky as well as Earth too. :)

[bopot]

A tradition which survives for 5 or 10 thousand years is not without reason.

Says who? At some point it becomes possible for a tradition to self-perpetuate.

"Why do we continue this tradition?"

"Because it's tradition!"

There must have been some reason for it to get off the ground successfully, but there's no reason to necessarily believe that it was maintained on those same grounds.

I'm reminded of this (http://www.amazon.com/Fiddler-Roof-1964-Original-Broadway/dp/B000002WB3/). (Scroll down and play the first sample. Don't dismiss it on sight! It's a classic, TBH. I recommend playing them all.)

P.S. Be careful invoking tradition (http://nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html). ;)

[aupmanyav]

Well, Bopot, I will modify my statement a little and say that a tradition that has survived 5 or 10 thousand years may not be without reason. I would still not reject it outright. Sometimes we may fall short in understanding the reasons.

[bopot]

Well, Bopot, I will modify my statement a little and say that a tradition that has survived 5 or 10 thousand years may not be without reason. I would still not reject it outright. Sometimes we may fall short in understanding the reasons.

True, a tradition may not be without reason, and we may fall short in understanding those reasons, but the same can be said for a brand-new idea. Every tradition was a new idea once.

The point is: the fact that something is tradition does not add (or subtract) one scintilla to its truth value. It may make you feel warm and fuzzy, but that's beside the point.

[wordy]

The point is: the fact that something is tradition does not add (or subtract) one scintilla to its truth value. It may make you feel warm and fuzzy, but that's beside the point.

To them the truth value doesn't seems to be most important and not
how it feels either. The point maybe is to follow the local custom cause
they see much value in being "asatru" true to the local custom/tradition?

"The Sed"

I don't know the english word for "sed". Why they see value in doing that
is not easy to know. Could it be the belonging part?

My Mom most likely did follow the local custom to go to Swedish Church.
Despite her having both Baptist and Pentecostal and Presbyterian??? churches more nearby but "Swedes" where by birth belonging to SvK.
The Lutheran Evangelical Church.

What can it be in the NeoPagan view that they see as more important than
truth or how it feels?

[bopot]

What can it be in the NeoPagan view that they see as more important than
truth or how it feels?

The latter, in most cases, I suspect. Since most of them are pretty easily discounted as untrue, fuzzy feelings are all that's left. I've got no problem with that, per se (as long as they don't insist that I get fuzzy, too), I'm just making a point.

[Karalora]

Hindus try to pacify six directions, Sky as well as Earth too. :)

Some Neopagans also address Above and Below. That's usually considered advanced work though. ;)

[BriAnna]

Hindus try to pacify six directions, Sky as well as Earth too. :)

Some Neopagans also address Above and Below. That's usually considered advanced work though. ;)

Neopagans that require initiation or try to advise me what I can or can't do based on my level of practice need to stop with the cult like behavior! Not saying that you are saying that K!

[Rigel]

Hindus try to pacify six directions, Sky as well as Earth too. :)

Some Neopagans also address Above and Below. That's usually considered advanced work though. ;)

How is this "advanced work"? What qualifications does someone need for this advanced work?

[aupmanyav]

Actually, hindus pacify 10 directions by worshiping their individual Gods with individual mantras. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardians_of_the_directions) :)

[hinduwoman]

I think the growth of fantasy market in publishing and films have contributed to the craze.

[hinduwoman]

I think something important to consider is the basic anthropolgical idea that we 'need' ritual and ceremony in our lives, and neopaganism is an attempt to reconnect with an earlier form of this.

off to canoe!

See, I don't think we need it at all. I think it's something we're conditioned to accept from a young age. Rituals are comfortable, frequently even useful (I have one for cutting the grass and one for going on a motorcycle ride for instance) but hardly necessary. Hope you enjoyed the canoing. Bet you have a ritual for that. ;)

I think many individuals don't need rituals that much, but a community as a whole does. It makes participants feel group-bonding and connected with previous generations.

[wordy]

Some here locally say they are in it for the beer and the opportunity
to meet partners. They don't take the gods that seriously. Seems
more like a live role play game to some. But others take it rather
seriously and they make blot on the harj? Give a gift to the god
on the stone altar kind of.

so there are many variations here. some are only in it for the
research into old texts and how to interpret them. Maybe a
bit like when nerds are into SciFi and discuss the interior and
the drives of a mother ship and are not interested in the drama
between the crew. Very nerdy. :) I'm not good at social relations
but the drama between gods could be fun if it was not so simplistic.

I would almost join if there was a very local group of BattleStar Galactica
fans that played out in a "live" what happens between the humans and the
cylons. I find Cylons very interesting. Can they love or is it just an illusion?

And BSG are just fantasy but more interesting to me than Thor and all the
other gods.

Star Wars Yoda and the Sit and Dart Vader and those have the Force and
that one is one of the few religions that get itself going almost by accident?

I don't think Lucas wanted to have real believers trust in the Force?

and take the modern version of Heathens. The extropians? The Transhumanists
who believe in downloading of our brain's content in hardware.

I mean it is pure fantasy but they take it as a real future hope that it will work.
To me that is on par with neo paganism only transferred to the "gods" of future
science. A kind of literalistic allegory? I fail to support them too.

[credoconsolans]

I think many individuals don't need rituals that much, but a community as a whole does. It makes participants feel group-bonding and connected with previous generations.

I was thinking both, actually. Rituals lend themselves to group bonding, so it reinforces a sense of belonging. Also individuals in situations where they feel they need additional reassurance also delve into ritual, whether it's an atheist/agnostic woman with cancer deciding to go to Lourdes (happened to someone on this board), a team athlete wearing his 'lucky socks' before a big game or having a group prayer, or a soldier (to use a movie example) knocking his rifle clip on his helmet twice before loading and going into action.

[Kassiana]

We don't need to have books, music, computers, cars, pets, food choices, drink choices, etc. to survive, either. Anyone want to get rid of all of those, just because human beings can live without them?

Hey, I see no need for televised sports, car shows, or okra. But I recognize that my fellow human beings like them more than I do, and I have no problem letting them have these things that they certainly don't need, even though I know from experience that one can live without them. Why do you have such a problem allowing others to have things YOU don't need?

[jess]

Heretic!

Okra is awesome!

[Kassiana]

Heretic!

Okra is awesome!
Carrotarians know that Okra is not nearly good enough, but we pity you Okranarians.

[sidhe]

Ack! Kassiana!

I'm just happy to see you!

[Kassiana]

:wave:

[credoconsolans]

Heretic!

Okra is awesome!

Heretic!

Okra is awesome!
Carrotarians know that Okra is not nearly good enough, but we pity you Okranarians.

Hate the okra, not the Okrarians.

[Karalora]

How is this "advanced work"? What qualifications does someone need for this advanced work?

Did you not notice the ;) ? I'm used to fundies not comprehending irony, sarcasm, and kidding, but your profile says you're a freethinker.

[aupmanyav]

Kubera - North - Chandra (Moon)
Yama - South - Brihaspati (Jupiter)
Indra - East - Surya (Sun)
Varuna - West - Shukra (Venus)
Isana - Northeast - Rahu (North Lunar Node)
Agni - Southeast - Mangal (Mars)
Vayu - Northwest - Shani (Saturn)
Nirriti (sometimes Raksasa) - Southwest - Budha (Mercury)
Brahma - Zenith - Ketu (South Lunar Node)
Shesha - Nadir - Lagna

Regarding directions, it would be interesting (historically) to think why these directions were allocated to the various divinites. Sun is many times called Indra in RigVeda, is that why Indra is the God of East? At a higher lattitude (some people opine that the Aryan homeland was in Arctic regions), sun would seem to rise from South-East and set in South-West. Is that why the God of South-East is Agni (Fire), and the Goddess of South-West is Nirriti (Darkness, night)? Same for South, Yama, where the netherworld was supposed to exist. Did the winds come from North-West to give that direction to Vayu (Wind) and Shani (Saturn)? Awarding Zenith to Brahma (the supposed Creator God) and Nadir to Shesha (Serpent) or Rakshasas (Demons) also is natural, do not the snakes live in the ground and Rakshasa world is in Patala (Netherworld)? Again, Mars to South-East, is it where the enemies came from; and Venus to West for its beautiful damsels? No, I do not have the answers.

[Rigel]

How is this "advanced work"? What qualifications does someone need for this advanced work?

Did you not notice the ;) ? I'm used to fundies not comprehending irony, sarcasm, and kidding, but your profile says you're a freethinker.

Irony is sometimes difficult to perceive in a communication method like this. My apologies.

[hinduwoman]

Kubera - North - Chandra (Moon)
Yama - South - Brihaspati (Jupiter)
Indra - East - Surya (Sun)
Varuna - West - Shukra (Venus)
Isana - Northeast - Rahu (North Lunar Node)
Agni - Southeast - Mangal (Mars)
Vayu - Northwest - Shani (Saturn)
Nirriti (sometimes Raksasa) - Southwest - Budha (Mercury)
Brahma - Zenith - Ketu (South Lunar Node)
Shesha - Nadir - Lagna

Regarding directions, it would be interesting (historically) to think why these directions were allocated to the various divinites. Sun is many times called Indra in RigVeda, is that why Indra is the God of East? At a higher lattitude (some people opine that the Aryan homeland was in Arctic regions), sun would seem to rise from South-East and set in South-West. Is that why the God of South-East is Agni (Fire), and the Goddess of South-West is Nirriti (Darkness, night)? Same for South, Yama, where the netherworld was supposed to exist. Did the winds come from North-West to give that direction to Vayu (Wind) and Shani (Saturn)? Awarding Zenith to Brahma (the supposed Creator God) and Nadir to Shesha (Serpent) or Rakshasas (Demons) also is natural, do not the snakes live in the ground and Rakshasa world is in Patala (Netherworld)? Again, Mars to South-East, is it where the enemies came from; and Venus to West for its beautiful damsels? No, I do not have the answers.

Mars: enemies, Venus: women are Western equations, not Hindu.

[aupmanyav]

Shukra (Venus) may not be connected to womenm but I think it is connected to love. Mangal (Mars) for strife here also. We had twenty-eight asterisms (Rashis) and reduced them to 27 in the Greek fashion. We sure knew about each other. My theory after reading Tilak - Aryans knew Yavanas, a sister tribe, before they went to Greece and gave their name to Ionia, i.e., before they became Greek. Ionians were northern foreigners in Greece. They had the same religious beliefs and deities, otherwise there would not have been Jeus and Herakles would not be rescuing the cows from a dungeon covered by stone with the help of the dog Cerebrus from the Titans in the fashion of Indra rescuing 'Gawah' from a dungeon covered by stone with the help of Sarama the bitch from Vritra, Namuchi, Vaala, or Shambara, the demons of darkness.

[SecularFuture]

Neopaganism seems okay to me. Some of the branches that focus on rituals and worship seem a little eccentric to me, but, in general, Neopagans are far more open-minded and tolerant than many of our Christian and Muslim cousins.

[gurugeorge]

Neopaganism is just what religion ought to be: multifaceted, colourful, mostly about subjective experience, largely mutually respectful and tolerant (though the respect isn't always guaranteed, the tolerance usually is, because nothing much hangs on belief in particular propositions).

IOW, if you look at Hinduism, that's sort of what Western religion looked like at one time, and what it would have looked like now, if there hadn't been such a thing as the monotheistic, Abrahamic religions.

And that's what mass religion is becoming again, now that the monotheistic, Abrahamic religions are losing their hegemony in the intellectual and moral realms.

The monotheistic religions became popular because of their value as tools of state power; but as the state's hold on people dwindles, with the decline of the necessity of the state itself (with the decline of the tie between land and agriculture and state power), so monotheistic religions are dwindling in power.

[kged]

My only direct contact with neopaganism happened while attending a birthday party in south Wales a few years back. I knew the birthday girl was a pagan, as were several of her friends, but that fact hadn't really directly intruded on my consciousness until this party. In a corner of the living room was the fish tank where her kids' pet fish lived. They were ill, and the prognosis was not good. My friend, the birthday girl, asked another woman present if she'd do a healing for the fish; they both went over to the tank, and the second woman began to move her hands about in the air, pulling them away from each other as if she was stretching some invisible malleable thing. This went on for a few pulls and stretches, until she declared triumphantly "There it is!". Then, my mate "took hold" of the invisible thing, and pushed it towards the tank.

That was enough for me, thanks. My friend is a lovely woman, but this was a ridiculous charade. Did they genuinely believe they were doing something? Summoning some power? Changing reality? I admit it, I found it a lot harder to take her seriously after that.

(As if you don't know, the fish died within the week.)

[sidhe]

My only direct contact with neopaganism happened while attending a birthday party in south Wales a few years back. I knew the birthday girl was a pagan, as were several of her friends, but that fact hadn't really directly intruded on my consciousness until this party. In a corner of the living room was the fish tank where her kids' pet fish lived. They were ill, and the prognosis was not good. My friend, the birthday girl, asked another woman present if she'd do a healing for the fish; they both went over to the tank, and the second woman began to move her hands about in the air, pulling them away from each other as if she was stretching some invisible malleable thing. This went on for a few pulls and stretches, until she declared triumphantly "There it is!". Then, my mate "took hold" of the invisible thing, and pushed it towards the tank.

That was enough for me, thanks. My friend is a lovely woman, but this was a ridiculous charade. Did they genuinely believe they were doing something? Summoning some power? Changing reality? I admit it, I found it a lot harder to take her seriously after that.