Attn Pagans: Are our paths too a la carte?

[CelticRavenwolf]

I do not want this to be a debate in which we defend ourselves from any of the major organized religions, nor prove ourselves against atheists. Please only post if you consider yourself to be pagan or an eclectic New Age system.

For those of you unfamiliar with the term, 'a la carte' is French for "from the menu". In sociology this terms is applied to religions that generally grant their members the freedom to pick and chose what aspects of their faith they would like to adhere to. So for example, Catholicism is not considered a la carte because of their highly structured belief system and rules of proper behaviour. While it is undisputed that not everyone follows all the rules, the church itself is solid on their standpoints. It is safe to say that most - if not all - pagan pathways are very much a la carte.

But are we too a la carte? Given our freedom of expression, of worship, of beliefs, of gods, of social rules, have we lost any source of direction as a community? No two people in the pagan RF community seem to adhere to the same beliefs - I believe that's what makes trying to organize anything between us so hard.

So my question is - where do you draw the line for your faith/belief's freedoms? This question originated out of a disagreement I had with someone over Chaos magic,(found here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/spell-check/53273-evocation-sephiroth.html) and pulling ritual and spirits to call upon out of the video game/role play/sci-fi universe.

I'll start this debate off with my opinion:
Being a follower of Celtic Reconstruction, I try to keep my faith as close to what we know of the ancient Celts as possible. It's hard, because there really isn't a whole lot of solid knowledge, and what there is was all written down by social and religious conquerers, so one has to keep in mind the skeptical and ignorant twist they undoubtedly put on their writings. So I do not deny that I am forced to pick, choose and interpret as I see fit for an awful lot of my religious beliefs. I do not deny that my chosen religion is very much a la carte.

But I take exception to those of any religion that feel that they can just make up whatever they want and call it faith. I feel that it is insulting and undermines our community as a whole to make up new gods (please stay away from the argument that ALL gods can be considered to be made up, we're not looking to debate philosophy here) or those who were only made up for fictitious writing and entertainment. I feel that this take away from the legitimacy of our beliefs, and is what makes it so hard for the major religions to take us seriously.

In my personal experience, making mention of my beliefs, especially using words such as: Celts, dragon, reincarnation, druids, Otherworld, Epona (or any deity's name, really) all seem to consistently conjure images of Dungeons and Dragons, Lord of the Rings or other fantasy creations for people who are unfamiliar with non-Christian lore. It makes it difficult enough to be taken seriously as it is, without the people who call themselves pagan or New Age praying to Mielikki or Ifrit (the summon in Final Fantasy, not the lesser known Jinn from the Qu'ran). People who think Shiva is an Ice queen goddess, not the male Destruction deity of Hinduism. To call that kind of thing a spiritual belief is ridiculous, and the epitome of commercialism.

Discuss.

 

[Gentoo]

I think most of the confusion is that people forget who they're talking to, not saying this is what happened of course, and use terminology with different definitions to those different people. The example I would use here is in that thread linked in the OP. But you two were drawing from completely different systems that mean very different things to the other, in that respect, there is no right or wrong. A druid is in a video game, and is also a teacher/sage of the ancient Celts. Huge difference, but then, context is everything.

I see nothing wrong with being "a la carte", being an eclectic myself and all. However, that said, I do agree with you that there is a such thing as too eclectic, but that's usually as an outsider looking into someone else's system.

 

[Azakel]

Sometimes I think people within are Pagan grouping can be to a la carte, I know I know I was for the longest time. I my still be a little bit eclectic, but the beliefs come from around the same cultures.

 

[CelticRavenwolf]

I think most of the confusion is that people forget who they're talking to, not saying this is what happened of course, and use terminology with different definitions to those different people. The example I would use here is in that thread linked in the OP. But you two were drawing from completely different systems that mean very different things to the other, in that respect, there is no right or wrong. A druid is in a video game, and is also a teacher/sage of the ancient Celts. Huge difference, but then, context is everything.

I see nothing wrong with being "a la carte", being an eclectic myself and all. However, that said, I do agree with you that there is a such thing as too eclectic, but that's usually as an outsider looking into someone else's system.

That is exactly the point that I'm getting at. A 'druid' can be considered a role play job listing or the sages of the Celtic world - it's the people who consider them one and the same that I'm taking issue with. It's the people who don't look past the difference between the fictional use of the term and the spiritual/historical use and interchange them readily.

I don't see a difference between that and saying "I'm going to call myself a Catholic, except I don't believe in the holy trinity or the ten commandments." Or "My goddess's name is Sahelah and she is a beautiful deity that I can pray to for strength and guidance."

If I can just make up a deity or spirit and pray to them and think that I'm being heard or having my summons actually answered, then I'm either delusional, or the concept of gods can officially be thrown out the window, because then it's obvious that they don't exist beyond the creative confines of our mind and the results we think we're getting are purely in the realm of self-realization and coincidence.

 

[Gentoo]

That is exactly the point that I'm getting at. A 'druid' can be considered a role play job listing or the sages of the Celtic world - it's the people who consider them one and the same that I'm taking issue with. It's the people who don't look past the difference between the fictional use of the term and the spiritual/historical use and interchange them readily.

People are also going to continue to think that Pagans are all evil, satanic beasts that want nothing more to eat their precious children (even though they're WAY too high in cholesterol, and I'm trying to watch that ) My point here is, we can tell the truth until we're blue in the face AND the cows come home but there are still going to be those that refuse to believe it. It's far less stressful on everyone involved to offer the truth, and not force it if they don't want it.

I don't see a difference between that and saying "I'm going to call myself a Catholic, except I don't believe in the holy trinity or the ten commandments." Or "My goddess's name is Sahelah and she is a beautiful deity that I can pray to for strength and guidance."

I see a large difference. But if that's what they believe, then that's what they believe. I think you're trying very hard to put labels on people who don't have them, or necessarily want them. My philosophy here is, believe as you will as long as you're happy (though be prepared to explain yourself to curious onlookers).

If I can just make up a deity or spirit and pray to them and think that I'm being heard or having my summons actually answered, then I'm either delusional, or the concept of gods can officially be thrown out the window, because then it's obvious that they don't exist beyond the creative confines of our mind and the results we think we're getting are purely in the realm of self-realization and coincidence.

The same can be said of any religious people, pagan or not. No God(dess) can be proven to be outside of our minds, despite the signs we see (which atheists have said can be purely coincidental). The only difference I see between The Morrigan, and Sahela is origin, and given enough time, if Sahela catches like The Morrigan has, then the ORIGINAL origin will most likely be lost.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

But I take exception to those of any religion that feel that they can just make up whatever they want and call it faith.

One of the aspects of Chaos Magic that separates it from the magical usage of other traditions is its source of magic. To a Chaos magician, power comes from belief. Belief is a malleable tool, rather than a static mindset. That isn't to say that a Chaos magician will "make up anything they want"; rather, they recognize things that would normally be considered "mundane" as being potential magical tools, usually on the premise that it represents something meaningful to the user.

There are valid philosophical and spiritual reasons for this use of belief. The axiom "nothing is true and everything is permitted" is an example and often used by Chaos magicians. That "no thing is true" stems from the idea that without personal definition, there is nothing; a void; chaos.

This way of thinking is not uncommon in any religious circle, but is often overlooked. The assertion that one must believe in Jesus to attain heaven is an example, as is the idea that one must put complete faith in the anthame for it to have any power.

Chaos magic just takes it to another level.

I feel that it is insulting and undermines our community as a whole to make up new gods (please stay away from the argument that ALL gods can be considered to be made up, we're not looking to debate philosophy here) or those who were only made up for fictitious writing and entertainment. I feel that this take away from the legitimacy of our beliefs, and is what makes it so hard for the major religions to take us seriously.

Ah, but often these new gods are the old ones with new names.

For instance, gods often embody characteristics that some--like the psychologist Carl Jung--would call "archetypes." These archetypes can be found in modern fictional characters, such as comic book heroes or video game villains.

And this is also where the malleability of belief, and the recognition of meaningfulness come in handy. While Neptune may not have the cultural power today to be of any use to someone in need of him, Chthulhu may.

In my personal experience, making mention of my beliefs, especially using words such as: Celts, dragon, reincarnation, druids, Otherworld, Epona (or any deity's name, really) all seem to consistently conjure images of Dungeons and Dragons, Lord of the Rings or other fantasy creations for people who are unfamiliar with non-Christian lore. It makes it difficult enough to be taken seriously as it is, without the people who call themselves pagan or New Age praying to Mielikki or Ifrit (the summon in Final Fantasy, not the lesser known Jinn from the Qu'ran).

I'm sorry for your experiences with that, but a better understanding is needed of the growing Neo-pagan, New Age, and Reconstructionist movements. Discussions like this help.

 

[Mike182]

I do not want this to be a debate in which we defend ourselves from any of the major organized religions, nor prove ourselves against atheists. Please only post if you consider yourself to be pagan or an eclectic New Age system.

For those of you unfamiliar with the term, 'a la carte' is French for "from the menu". In sociology this terms is applied to religions that generally grant their members the freedom to pick and chose what aspects of their faith they would like to adhere to. So for example, Catholicism is not considered a la carte because of their highly structured belief system and rules of proper behaviour. While it is undisputed that not everyone follows all the rules, the church itself is solid on their standpoints. It is safe to say that most - if not all - pagan pathways are very much a la carte.

But are we too a la carte? Given our freedom of expression, of worship, of beliefs, of gods, of social rules, have we lost any source of direction as a community? No two people in the pagan RF community seem to adhere to the same beliefs - I believe that's what makes trying to organize anything between us so hard.

understood, and thanks for posting this thread!

So my question is - where do you draw the line for your faith/belief's freedoms? This question originated out of a disagreement I had with someone over Chaos magic,(found here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/spell-check/53273-evocation-sephiroth.html) and pulling ritual and spirits to call upon out of the video game/role play/sci-fi universe.

I'll start this debate off with my opinion:
Being a follower of Celtic Reconstruction, I try to keep my faith as close to what we know of the ancient Celts as possible. It's hard, because there really isn't a whole lot of solid knowledge, and what there is was all written down by social and religious conquerers, so one has to keep in mind the skeptical and ignorant twist they undoubtedly put on their writings. So I do not deny that I am forced to pick, choose and interpret as I see fit for an awful lot of my religious beliefs. I do not deny that my chosen religion is very much a la carte.

thanks for sharing your background a bit

But I take exception to those of any religion that feel that they can just make up whatever they want and call it faith. I feel that it is insulting and undermines our community as a whole to make up new gods (please stay away from the argument that ALL gods can be considered to be made up, we're not looking to debate philosophy here) or those who were only made up for fictitious writing and entertainment. I feel that this take away from the legitimacy of our beliefs, and is what makes it so hard for the major religions to take us seriously.

i don't think we can avoid theology if we are to discuss valid and invalid manifestations of divinity

In my personal experience, making mention of my beliefs, especially using words such as: Celts, dragon, reincarnation, druids, Otherworld, Epona (or any deity's name, really) all seem to consistently conjure images of Dungeons and Dragons, Lord of the Rings or other fantasy creations for people who are unfamiliar with non-Christian lore. It makes it difficult enough to be taken seriously as it is, without the people who call themselves pagan or New Age praying to Mielikki or Ifrit (the summon in Final Fantasy, not the lesser known Jinn from the Qu'ran). People who think Shiva is an Ice queen goddess, not the male Destruction deity of Hinduism. To call that kind of thing a spiritual belief is ridiculous, and the epitome of commercialism.

i actually got asked what my religious beliefs were yesterday when i was in the pub. i went out for a smoke, and a guy asked me if i was at the uni. i said yes, i do religious studies. he then in turn asked if i was religious. i replies "yes, i'm part of the neo-Pagan movement". he didn't know anything at all about Paganism, so of course he asked me what that all meant. i replied "put simply, i believe in multiple Gods and Goddesses, and i believe their power and attributes are manifest in nature."

true, the guy didn't walk away with the degree of knowledge about the history and beliefs of the modern Pagan movements, but he understood the gist of what i believe - plus i wanted to go dance with my friend so i kept is short lol.

i don't know enough about Chaos Magic to really make any meaningful contributions in this thread, however if you are concerned that Chaos Magicians who find power in things that you deem as childish hurts the Pagan image, well, i personally would say Recons having goes at Chaos Magicians will do more damage to the wider Pagan movement than the image of a Chaos Magician will do. we have enough to fend off from the outside, so we really need it from within?

 

[CelticRavenwolf]

i don't think we can avoid theology if we are to discuss valid and invalid manifestations of divinity

Touché. In fact, I must admit I've been trying to come up with a suitable argument against Guitar's Cry and Gentoo that bypasses this and I have to say it's pretty tough!

i don't know enough about Chaos Magic to really make any meaningful contributions in this thread, however if you are concerned that Chaos Magicians who find power in things that you deem as childish hurts the Pagan image, well, i personally would say Recons having goes at Chaos Magicians will do more damage to the wider Pagan movement than the image of a Chaos Magician will do. we have enough to fend off from the outside, so we really need it from within?

I have to say that was a tough pill to swallow, but indeed you are right. So I guess my rebuttal to all three of you can only be this:

My biggest issue with Chaos Magic and the "if you belief in it it's real" philosophy is how a person can gain any type of spiritual gratification from something that they fully understand they're making up as they go along. I don't see how you can invent gods and spirits, and then in all honesty pray or call on them and expect results. How can you do that and truly believe in the spiritual and divine? Would you not be proving to yourself then and there that spirituality is purely a construct of the mind and thus does not exist?

Ah, but often these new gods are the old ones with new names.

For instance, gods often embody characteristics that some--like the psychologist Carl Jung--would call "archetypes." These archetypes can be found in modern fictional characters, such as comic book heroes or video game villains.

You're saying that fictional characters can be substituted for gods based on personality traits? This isn't just a matter of taking Zeus and calling him Jupiter (which is really just language bastardization as opposed to making up a new name), it's taking Zeus and calling him Frank the Longbeard because it pleases you to do so for no other reason than you get to be different. Just because I decide I don't like your name and want to call you Lemmiwinks and say you come from Iceland doesn't make it so. The only person I'd be fooling is myself. One could argue to let me be happy in my own little world, but am I the only one who thinks it's damaging to set oneself apart in such a fashion?

People are also going to continue to think that Pagans are all evil, satanic beasts that want nothing more to eat their precious children (even though they're WAY too high in cholesterol, and I'm trying to watch that ) My point here is, we can tell the truth until we're blue in the face AND the cows come home but there are still going to be those that refuse to believe it. It's far less stressful on everyone involved to offer the truth, and not force it if they don't want it.

What 'truth' is there to offer in a make-your-own religion? I do get your point about how others will continue to think what they will if they don't have an open mind, though again, in my experience even the most arrogant of the devout can be at least made to peek out from behind their blinders a little bit, even if it only serves to strengthen their own faith.

I see a large difference. But if that's what they believe, then that's what they believe. I think you're trying very hard to put labels on people who don't have them, or necessarily want them. My philosophy here is, believe as you will as long as you're happy (though be prepared to explain yourself to curious onlookers).

I don't really think I'm putting any labels on people that they haven't already placed upon themselves. My question for people who DO 'believe what you will' is how can you believe what you will and still be happy, knowing within yourself that you made it up?

The same can be said of any religious people, pagan or not. No God(dess) can be proven to be outside of our minds, despite the signs we see (which atheists have said can be purely coincidental). The only difference I see between The Morrigan, and Sahela is origin, and given enough time, if Sahela catches like The Morrigan has, then the ORIGINAL origin will most likely be lost.

This, I have to concede, is a good point. It reminds me of a comic I once saw (I tried to find it online for fun, but no such luck), a single panel consisting of a guy sitting behind a booth on the street with a sign above his head reading "help us reach our goal!" the gauge beside him reads as it ascends "bunch of wackos, secular faction, cult, mainstream religion."

It goes without saying that religions all have their basis in history, evolving out of cultures and to answer humanity's unending need for knowledge and to understand why things are the way that they are. Have we now come to the point where we think we have all the answers, and so can just make up new systems and protocols to fill the void? It's like Scientology - how can someone who learns that L. Ron Hubbard was a science-fiction writer, who proclaimed many times that the way to get rich was to start a religion, believe that they have heard the "truth"? Are we that desperate for spiritual gratification that we will jump on board anything so long as we think it will grant us a degree of power not found by praying to the gods?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

My biggest issue with Chaos Magic and the "if you belief in it it's real" philosophy is how a person can gain any type of spiritual gratification from something that they fully understand they're making up as they go along. I don't see how you can invent gods and spirits, and then in all honesty pray or call on them and expect results. How can you do that and truly believe in the spiritual and divine? Would you not be proving to yourself then and there that spirituality is purely a construct of the mind and thus does not exist?

The last question is actually one of the tenants that many Chaos magicians live by. But worded differently, "Spiritual power exists in the mind, because only the mind can conceive it."

It should be kept in mind that anything we believe in must first be a mental construct; creation is often (always?) recreation. The person who creates the spiritual source is recognizing it as an idol; a tool--a focus for the true source of power which is in belief.

You're saying that fictional characters can be substituted for gods based on personality traits? This isn't just a matter of taking Zeus and calling him Jupiter (which is really just language bastardization as opposed to making up a new name), it's taking Zeus and calling him Frank the Longbeard because it pleases you to do so for no other reason than you get to be different. Just because I decide I don't like your name and want to call you Lemmiwinks and say you come from Iceland doesn't make it so.

What are gods to us but personality traits? Actually, I think it goes deeper than that. A god or spirit is a feeling for us. An experience. A person who experiences Frank the Longbeard may be having the same experience as someone who believes in Zeus. The problem is, Zeus may not be all that culturally and personally meaningful to that person. In fact, they may have negative cultural associations with the name, in the same way that a Christian worships "God" instead of "Allah."

It goes without saying that religions all have their basis in history, evolving out of cultures and to answer humanity's unending need for knowledge and to understand why things are the way that they are. Have we now come to the point where we think we have all the answers, and so can just make up new systems and protocols to fill the void? It's like Scientology - how can someone who learns that L. Ron Hubbard was a science-fiction writer, who proclaimed many times that the way to get rich was to start a religion, believe that they have heard the "truth"? Are we that desperate for spiritual gratification that we will jump on board anything so long as we think it will grant us a degree of power not found by praying to the gods?

I think many of us are so desperate for meaning that we cling to anything and everything in order to anchor ourselves in the void. Post-modernism has us reeling off-balance, thus the sudden shift towards fundamentalism.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

I think the fact that our religious paths branch from one another so much shows that we are actually people that think about our faith and try to pick that perfect path. Most modern Pagans are not "raised" into the faith like you commonly see with Christian faiths. We do not allow ourselves to be brainwashed. We like to seek answers when we have questions. We are of a "living religion" and, such as life does, the religion will adapt to different conditions. The only time I see the differences as a problem is when people change their ways out of convenience, rather than for genuine belief or Divine reasons.