Literalism vs allegory

[Quintessence]

Anthropomorphic? No, I don't believe so. We ascribe human characteristics to the gods because of what Krishna says in Bhagavad Gītā 12.5 "For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifest, the path of realization is full of tribulations. Worship of the unmanifest is exceedingly difficult for embodied beings."

Basically, the true nature of the gods is so far beyond our understanding we can only relate to them on our level. This of course, is my UPG.

An interesting perspective. I look at it in a similar fashion, though with a bit of a distinction. As I said earlier (though in somewhat different language), the way the gods are depicted in storytelling is basically for literary purposes, and that would include things like anthropomorphism. A couple ways we might spin this around a bit, though.

First, it seems we can approach the gods in ways that don't overly-humanize them. This is most of what I do in my own practice, at least, though I wager that doesn't work for everyone. Certainly from a narrative standpoint, making the gods into characters that appear at a single place at a time is easier for a reader to follow.

Second, there was an interesting thought that was seeded in my brain from a podcast I listened to recently. Sometimes various god-concepts, particularly those of Paganisms, get criticized for being anthropomorphic, or projecting human characteristics onto the gods. Perhaps what we need to do more of is flip that around - say that it is the gods that project their characteristics into us. And if the gods are the foundation of reality, would that perhaps be the more accurate way of looking at it, as a polytheist? Something worth mulling over, at any rate.

 

[Jainarayan]

Perhaps what we need to do more of is flip that around - say that it is the gods that project their characteristics into us. And if the gods are the foundation of reality, would that perhaps be the more accurate way of looking at it, as a polytheist? Something worth mulling over, at any rate.

Yes indeed. At least in Norse Paganism, the first two humans and the world were created by the gods, Óðinn and his brothers Vili and Vé. It's not inaccurate to say that Norse Paganism and Heathenry is pantheistic... all is divine and is the basis for being. I think of it as monism, but I don't think too hard about "stuff", "thing", or other forms of monism. Like the Big Bang, from which everything came, the collision of Muspelheim and Niflheim started it all. Out of that collision came the gods, and from the gods, us. This why Heathenry sees the gods as our elder kin and progenitors.

http://norse-mythology.org/concepts/pantheism/

 

[David1967]

Probably. Howard was well-read in regards to mythology, and his world was meant to be the Earth during an earlier period(the Hyborian Age, or for Kull, the Thurian Age) though Cimmeria was meant to be a Celtic people rather than Norse. Though of course, there was a good deal of overlap during the later Celt & Nordic civilizations.

From the Conan stories I gathered that the Vanity and Aesir were more in line with what would become the Norse people.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What I kinda want to know from Abrahamics, and maybe I will ask them in another forum is do "they" actually see their religion as belief-based? Because most I know say their god is real and fact and that sounds no different than my claiming the spirits real while another Thor or Ordin.

Are we assuming they are belief-based faith in and of itself or are we defining their faith based on the believers we interact with?

On one end, I can see how their "religion" is a act-based faith as that each sacred text does not say just believe. A Muslim poster said in the Quran it tells them what they should do, how to conduct business, their relations, and their prayers.

Jesus did not teach "believe only" he taught to go out and make disciples and he taught what believers should and should not do.

Judaism is an act-based faith and similar to muslim in the cultural importance as well. I dont know how they see the Torah when applying it to every aspect of their life, but it is more than what "I hear" from most protestant christians who-mind you-do not define the christian religion.

Ars we being bias here or should we consider that abrahamic faiths are cultural faitha too. In some aspects, especially Christianity, there are pagan influences and maybe morals as well but they have been take out.

Something to think about?

 

[Quintessence]

The notion of religion being belief-based largely comes from the dominance of Protestant Christian ideology in the United States, where it is taught that belief alone is sufficient for salvation. In reality, no religion is entirely grounded on beliefs, but Protestant Christianity does explicitly emphasize the importance of belief over other aspects of religion.

Also, Abrahamic religions emphasize doctrines and dogmas more on the whole - creeds are of significant importance. This is not so much the case in Paganisms.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

The notion of religion being belief-based largely comes from the dominance of Protestant Christian ideology in the United States, where it is taught that belief alone is sufficient for salvation.

Exactly. The doctrine that faith alone saves sinners was launched by Luther and the majority of Christians never accepted it. The Catholic Church asserts that faith is quite insufficient without love and good deeds. Of course, the whole argument assumes that we are all wicked sinners in need of saving! Ancient critics of Christianity would have said that Luther proved their point: Christianity is about irrational belief.