“Why Don't You Look Into Jesus?”

[Unveiled Artist]

Huh? I didn't say I found a church.

Oh "to find" misread. Congrads when you do find one just in case I don't.

 

[Cassandra]

I'm not gonna lie, it hasn't been easy for me as a spiritual seeker. My mind has flipped every which way, to the point where I've lost a sense of my own self. Don't get me wrong, everyone! I haven't lost my now firm polytheistic conviction (especially as an unlimited polytheist )! Never. Though, I often times start to think deeply about my relationship with the religion of my youth – Christianity....

Mind you, I hold no animosity whatsoever towards it, or towards Jesus Christ, or The Bible. It's undoubtedly an ever-lingering presence in my life (and a positive one, at that, conjuring more than pleasant memories and emotions). However, with my 21st birthday speedily approaching, I realize that I'm on the threshold of the future of manhood, and that I can't hold on to the past. At the same time, though, my past will always be a part of me. I can't deny it. Religiously, I see no reason to distance myself from Christianity (again, despite my polytheism).

My question is: Do you see any way for me to reconcile my past (Christianity) with my present (unlimited polytheism)? Is it even possible or should my past simply be left in the past?


Thanks, everyone. I very greatly appreciate the advice given.

This may suprise some but I voted yes. I think it depends on the church. I do not see much of a problem in Roman Catholic or Anglican church and moderate protestant churches. In my country Catholics have the good custom of not talking about religious beliefs. The saying is: let the church be in the middle. No one is asking you what you believe, and no one is expecting you to talk about it. From where I come from that it is not even appreciated that people put their faith in other peoples faces, as this can only create uneasiness and controversy. It is mainly American (evangelist) denominations that are sticking it in your face. Which is rather rude.

The Catholic church has changed a lot. Nowadays the Pope no longer tells what to believe but just gives his take on it and you do with it what your conscience tells you. Evolution theory is accepted along creation theory. The church leaves it up to you. They give you guidelines but have stopped imposing it. Roman Catholicism has always regarded the revelation as something in progress and not something that ended when the book came into print, like fundamentalist protestants.

When you are baptized a Catholic you are supposed to be one till you die, regardless. There is only one way to get into trouble and that when you start preaching different views. That is not something Pagans are interested in. So yes if you have been raised as a Christian you can still be part of a Christian community, though it depends on the community.

I am a Pagan, I do not regard religion a doctrine or believe system, but more like preserving ancestral traditions of value. I can not get around it that Christianity, especially Catholicism absorbed a lot of Pagan traditions and keeps them alive, and that my forefathers have adopted this tradition and it has defacto become part of our ancestral tradition. But having a Pagan mindset, for me religion is not doctrine and I do not care about that part. But I do care about preserving traditions and community life.

I have no problem in partaking in Catholic festivities or rituals on occasion, like funerals or weddings. For me Eastern and Christmas have Pagan meaning and I have no problem of sharing my delight with Christians. For both of us they are festivities of joy and light that we can share. And frankly every Christian gives his/her own meaning to it, so that is not that different.

I have no problem with bringing respect to Jesus or Mary either as I bring respect to all good spirits. I think Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox church, Anglican church are rich European traditions and I hope they will continue to flourish and develop. I think the loss of such highly developed traditions will only make room for much more crude fundamentalist ideology and materialism.

A true Pagan is by definition a traditionalist. He wants to preserve the traditions of his ancestors. The stories of the ancestors are not prescribed beliefs but inspirational. Christianity and its stories is part of that these days. The more developed churches have long understood that you can no longer dictate views, and their role is rather supportive. If these religions want to survive the accent should be on community life, establishing a social community spirit that some will call Christ.

Pagans are very much people who care about orthopraxy, not orthodoxy. I quote: Orthopraxy - Wikipedia

While orthodoxies make use of codified beliefs, in the form of creeds, and ritualism more narrowly centers on the strict adherence to prescribed rites or rituals, orthopraxy is focused on issues of family, cultural integrity, the transmission of tradition, sacrificial offerings, concerns of purity, ethical systems, and the enforcement thereof.[5][6] Typically, traditional or folk religions (paganism, animism) are more concerned with orthopraxy than orthodoxy, and some argue that equating the term "faith" with "religion" presents a Christian-biased notion of what the primary characteristic of religion is. This contrasts with the case of (for example) Hinduism, in which orthopraxy and ritualism are not easily disentangled.

I hope the large Christian churches can evolve further in something more practical and ethical and less of a brainwash. If they can not because they are held back by their own fundamentalists, they will continue to dwindle. Islam will probably profit because it is a more practical faith with simple duties. But then we also loose a lot of the beautiful European heritage that was developed over the centuries and also revived classical thinking. We also lose a lot of our Pagan ancestral traditions.

I am a European. No matter what American protestants claim, Christianity is a European tradition. Judaism and Islam are not, they are middle Eastern Semitic traditions. I do not feel any spiritual connection with Jewish or Arab traditions. I do not share ancestry with them, they have different cultural values. Their thinking is fundamentally different. Christianity is much deeper based in Hellenic thinking.

Generally Pagans do not discuss their Gods, I have never done that. That is more intimate and private than sex. After rereading the Bible, I regard Jesus more as a Pagan God. He not my personal God, but I respect him. I think these days in the Catholic church there is another wind blowing. I was happily surprised by the Pope Francis "Pope Francis issues top 10 tips for happiness" and his viewpoints. He stresses orthopraxy in ways I agree with.

Lets live and let live and work together on creating a great local social communities that thrives, each contributing in his own way. The spirituality of Pagans and the organization of the church can fertilize each other. I think the present pope has the right ideas to create fertile climate for cooperation. There are also protestant denominations that think similarly.

Though the church does have a troubled past in her suppression of Paganism, a moderate should never miss the chance for reconciliation. We should also realize that there is and has always been a power struggle within the church between moderates, fundamentalists, and the corrupt and the church policies have suffered from this. That should nor prevent us to sail with the good wind.

 

[Jumi]

My point was that the definition I intended did not specify direct or indirect. Just a "guide" in general. Also I think Taoist philosophy might also debate the distinction between direct and indirect to begin with.

The source texts often mention things such as "not doing but achieving". So the Tao would be more of something like a river leading to the sea, being a guide than someone who decided to create rivers by his Word. That is why the Chinese for God is Shangdi, the ruler of Heaven, not the Dao.

But eh, whatever. I acknowledge that the similarity between the Catholic conception of a God and the Taoist conception of the Way is not as strong as the other half of my analogy, the Catholic conception of a Saint and the Taoist conception of a God.

Yes, the folk taoists and mythology have things like most religions, with it's "deified" heroes. I think of these as later innovations, not coming from the original texts that are more practical and mystical than what is for consumption of most people. Hence the confusion between "religious" taoism and "philosophical" taoism.

Perhaps for the latter part of the analogy I should have used differing religions rather than just sticking with the original two. The Tao is still close to other religions' definitions of a "god" anyways, if not so much with Catholicism. I pretty much just stuck with the example of Catholicism and Taoism because those were the two used in the other half.

I think they are not close. Just like 5 carefully controlled volts on a microchip is the same as raw billion volts of a lightning strike. One requires a designer, the other just requires the right environmental conditions.

 

[Sanzbir]

Yes, the folk taoists and mythology have things like most religions, with it's "deified" heroes. I think of these as later innovations, not coming from the original texts that are more practical and mystical than what is for consumption of most people. Hence the confusion between "religious" taoism and "philosophical" taoism.

Oh?? The "folk" Taoists?? I think you mean the Taoists. Are they not true Taoists?? The religious aspects and philosophical aspects are undoubtedly and quite clearly linked in the country of origin.

It seems to me like it's mostly in the West where people want to make a distinction for "philosophical Taoists" because they like the textual works but don't like the supernatural elements within them.

Really the whole idea that there should be divisions between who we consider a "folk Taoist" a "religious Taoist" and a "philosophical Taoist" seems just silly to me considering what the Taoists wrote about the silliness of such distinctions.

The Tao does not falter before the huge, is not forgetful of the tiny; therefore the ten thousand things are complete in it. Vast and ample, there is nothing it does not receive.

The source texts often mention things such as "not doing but achieving". So the Tao would be more of something like a river leading to the sea, being a guide than someone who decided to create rivers by his Word. That is why the Chinese for God is Shangdi, the ruler of Heaven, not the Dao.

Bah, I think this whole distinction you are making in insisting this dichotomy would be simply waved away by the likes of Chuang Tzu. Different, same. Who is to say??

Is the Tao a direct guide or an indirect guide?? Or is the concept of direct and indirect a false dichotomy to begin with, like any other dichotomy covered under this philosophical outlook??

The differentiation you see is merely a matter of perspective and nothing more.

I think they are not close. Just like 5 carefully controlled volts on a microchip is the same as raw billion volts of a lightning strike. One requires a designer, the other just requires the right environmental conditions.

And I'm not really sure how knowledgeable you are on other monotheistic religions outside of the standard ones based on your comment there.

 

[Jumi]

Oh?? The "folk" Taoists?? I think you mean the Taoists. Are they not true Taoists?? The religious aspects and philosophical aspects are undoubtedly and quite clearly linked in the country of origin.

Yes. The religious taoism sprung up much later than the practical, mystical taoism of the DDJ.

Even the religious daoist will say it:

It seems to me like it's mostly in the West where people want to make a distinction for "philosophical Taoists" because they like the textual works but don't like the supernatural elements within them.

Really the whole idea that there should be divisions between who we consider a "folk Taoist" a "religious Taoist" and a "philosophical Taoist" seems just silly to me considering what the Taoists wrote about the silliness of such distinctions.

It doesn't matter if we think the distinctions are silly if they exist. Do mystical and legalistic forms of Islam exist?

The Tao does not falter before the huge, is not forgetful of the tiny; therefore the ten thousand things are complete in it. Vast and ample, there is nothing it does not receive.

You are relying on western translation here though.

The differentiation you see is merely a matter of perspective and nothing more.

You are convinced of your perspective, but I remain unconvinced.

And I'm not really sure how knowledgeable you are on other monotheistic religions outside of the standard ones based on your comment there.

I am going by the "standard monotheistic ones" here, since I know nothing of how Bahais think of their God. Is the Dao the same as your God?

 

[Sanzbir]

Yes. The religious taoism sprung up much later than the practical, mystical taoism of the DDJ.

EDIT: Wait, no, this is not relevant to the overall discussion.

It doesn't matter if we think the distinctions are silly if they exist. Do mystical and legalistic forms of Islam exist?

EDIT: Neither is this, we're straying too far away.

You are relying on western translation here though.

So??

When the world knows beauty as beauty, ugliness arises
When it knows good as good, evil arises

It's not hard for me to find an Eastern translation of a line covering the nature of false dichotomies. It's a rather common theme throughout the texts.

You are convinced of your perspective, but I remain unconvinced.

Psh, I'm unconvinced of all perspectives.

I am going by the "standard monotheistic ones" here, since I know nothing of how Bahais think of their God. Is the Dao the same as your God?

How could I know such a thing?? God as the Faith teaches is truly unknowable. The Tao as the Taoist writes is truly unknowable. How could I then say with certainty either way.

 

[Sanzbir]

Yes. The religious taoism sprung up much later than the practical, mystical taoism of the DDJ.

It doesn't matter if we think the distinctions are silly if they exist. Do mystical and legalistic forms of Islam exist?

Eh, sorry, edited my last post because I realized I've been straying too far away.

You want to distinctify and divide things along lines I (and various scholars) feel are arbitrary?? Sure, be my guest. All I really need to say is that the Taoist in my first part of my original analogy was a "folk Taoist" as you differentiate, and it still works. Sorry for straying off topic unnecessarily.

My example was using "folk Taoism" and not "philosophical Taoism". There, problems solved.

 

[Jumi]

Eh, sorry, edited my last post because I realized I've been straying too far away.

You want to distinctify and divide things along lines I (and various scholars) feel are arbitrary?? Sure, be my guest. All I really need to say is that the Taoist in my first part of my original analogy was a "folk Taoist" as you differentiate, and it still works. Sorry for straying off topic unnecessarily.

And various scholars would disagree that god and dao are the same, and feel like I do, that lumping them together is arbitrary. So we will have to agree to disagree.

It's true that Taoists like you describe exist in the modern western world who believe in Dao as a God who sends prophets, thinks about humanity or has plans for the world.

 

[syo]

My question is: Do you see any way for me to reconcile my past (Christianity) with my present (unlimited polytheism)? Is it even possible or should my past simply be left in the past?

christianity and polytheism can coexist. there are orthodox christian polytheists who view the many gods as lesser gods who do the bidding of the christian god. the christian god is the supreme god and the other gods are lesser.