[Pagans/Polytheists] Whitewashing the Gods

[Cassandra]

Going to back track here a second. In an earlier post, you said:

To which I said:

In response to which you said:

To which I said:

After which point, the conversation derailed into ludicrous land, and in spite of my attempts to steer the conversation back on track, you again ask me to respond to a question that has nothing to do with the subject of making offerings to the gods.

No. I'm not playing. I get that miscommunications happen. Perhaps that's what's happened here. But no, I'm not going to answer a question that not only has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, but is a leading question. Feel free to make contributions that are back on topic. I and others may respond to those.

How condescending.

But it starts with your own misinterpretation. Yes I write: "If you want people dead then bullets is definitely a thing you want to give to the Gods." But that is not nearly the same as saying "You gave bullets because you wanted someone dead".
That is what you constantly do, you do not react to what I say, but something else you make of it.

I assumed that the person that offered bullets did not realize the effects. That is why I warn against it. How could my words mean anything else? For if I thought he really wanted someone dead, bullets would have been appropriate (that is what I say) .

That is why I did not accuse you of wanting to harm anyone by giving guns either. That would be ridiculous. I rather assume I deal with people who, in this situation, do not see the consequences of their actions. You think giving a gun is harmless and the other guy thinks giving bullets to the Gods is harmless. Or as someone else said: It does not matter what you give.

I definitely disagree with that idea. It does matter, and not knowing the difference does not make it right. That is basing your behavior on ignorance.

Now we cleared that up, can I now get an answer to my direct question (You asked for that, remember?). Your signature is:

Three things it is everyone's duty to do: listen humbly, answer discreetly, and judge kindly

Why do you believe that?

 

[Quintessence]

But it starts with your own misinterpretation.

Next time, it would be appreciated if you would aspire to correct misinterpretations far earlier in the conversation.

I assumed that the person that offered bullets did not realize the effects.

What are those effects? How do we know or determine what those effects are? Different Pagan traditions will answer those questions in different ways, it seems. Not sure how we'd go about assessing who is "right" or if it is productive to assess things in that way.

You think giving a gun is harmless ...

I said no such thing, and think no such thing.

I definitely disagree with that idea.

That's cool. I disagree with a statement like "it doesn't matter what you offer to the gods" too.

 

[Aštra’el]

I often find that there are many other YHWH worshippers who often completely overlook the destructive side of God. The Old Testament God was said to have used fire, ice, water, wind, lightning, earth, plagues, compulsion, drought, famine, disease, humans with force powers, and death angels, to slay humans... among other methods. I have incredible respect and admiration for this... but, understandably, many do not.

I have found that there are certain feminists who speak in praise of Lilith. They describe her as having strived to be respected as Adam's equal but ultimately left him because she refused to be subservient... and they end the description there. These people are often ignorant of or intentionally leave out the "spoke the forbidden name of YHWH, transformed into a demon, escaped the paradise Eden, defied the angels sent to bring her back and got cursed by Heaven, slaughtered countless human newborns, mated with Satan, and became a demonic serial rapist" parts of the myths.

I have also found that many devil worshippers have a tendency to turn Satan into what they perceive to be a "good" thing. That was obviously inevitable and I can see how an archetype of wisdom, enlightment, and rebellion against authority could be received in a positive light... (often interpreted and distinguished as the Lucifer archetype). Although I approve of their perspective, I would still like to see more respect and reverence towards the malicious, criminal, adversarial, Infernal archetype of Satan.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

The Old Testament God was said to have used fire, ice, water, wind, lightning, earth, plagues, compulsion, drought, famine, disease, humans with force powers, and death angels, to slay humans... among other methods. I have incredible respect and admiration for this.

You have "incredible respect and admiration" for the infliction of unnecessary suffering? ...why?

 

[Aštra’el]

You have "incredible respect and admiration" for the infliction of unnecessary suffering? ...why?

I have incredible respect and admiration for YHWH, and the power of YHWH.

 

[Quintessence]

Although I approve of their perspective, I would still like to see more respect and reverence towards the malicious, criminal, adversarial, Infernal archetype of Satan.

One of the challenges with honoring the taboo is that it is taboo to talk about honoring the taboo. By extension, it is possible that there is more respect and reverence towards taboo gods (or aspects of gods) than is openly discussed. I avoid talking about these aspects of my path, as many folks inevitably get the wrong idea and have a tendency to flip out.

 

[Cassandra]

I often find that there are many other YHWH worshippers who often completely overlook the destructive side of God. The Old Testament God was said to have used fire, ice, water, wind, lightning, earth, plagues, compulsion, drought, famine, disease, humans with force powers, and death angels, to slay humans... among other methods. I have incredible respect and admiration for this... but, understandably, many do not.

My view

Originally Jahweh (married to sister Anat) was son of Skygod El (Married to mother Goddess Asherah), and Elohim (the Lords, children of El) were the collective name for minor Gods. After ditching the Goddesses, the Gods were fused into one, and all these names (El, Jahweh, Elohim) remained in use for the new book God. The Jewish God being a syncretic compilation of all Canaan Gods naturally encompasses all their powers and does both good and evil, so there is no need of an evil counter force. In Judaism Satan is mostly a servant that God uses to entice and test people.

I have found that there are certain feminists who speak in praise of Lilith. They describe her as having strived to be respected as Adam's equal but ultimately left him because she refused to be subservient... and they end the description there. These people are often ignorant of or intentionally leave out the "spoke the forbidden name of YHWH, transformed into a demon, escaped the paradise Eden, defied the angels sent to bring her back and got cursed by Heaven, slaughtered countless human newborns, mated with Satan, and became a demonic serial rapist" parts of the myths.

But those negative stories are likely created to defile the reverence of Lilith in the same way Christianity defiled the worship of Gods and spirits by Pagans by calling them Satan and demons. The Jewish priesthood eliminated the female aspect entirely, religion became an all male thing. In monotheist religions you are dealing with a commercial priesthood who protect their monopoly on religion. I am amazed you all buy that stuff. A strange combination of provocation and gullibility.

I have also found that many devil worshippers have a tendency to turn Satan into what they perceive to be a "good" thing. That was obviously inevitable and I can see how an archetype of wisdom, enlightment, and rebellion against authority could be received in a positive light... (often interpreted and distinguished as the Lucifer archetype). Although I approve of their perspective, I would still like to see more respect and reverence towards the malicious, criminal, adversarial, Infernal archetype of Satan

Please do not confuse Satanism or Left hand Path with Pagan traditions. They are a New Age reaction to and within Abramist culture, and belong to that. Abrahamism being so extreme also provokes extreme counter movements. And like you show here this has little to do with Paganism and is based on warped Abrahamist ideology. People fantasizing on the base of book stories.

For me such belief is indeed make-belief and a lot of bull and it has nothing to do with Pagan traditions, at best it is weird cultism. I think it is to be expected that nutty people create and embrace nutty cults. Sure Nature has its destructive side and it is preluded by decay. We see the same with people, physical and mental breakdown prelude death. A lot of people with weird ideas have deep longings for self-destruction.

Fine with me, but I embrace life.

 

[Cassandra]

I have incredible respect and admiration for YHWH, and the power of YHWH.

Personally I do not think the Jewish God is such a strong figure. It says enough he fears the people he creates. That is why he wants to rule through constant fear. He demands fear and submissiveness. He has a jealous nature and is also is wrathful. Those are not qualities of confident strong leaders, but rather scared leaders afraid to lose their position. We see the same combination of qualities in Human repressive leaders (Mafia bosses, dictators) They try to hide their inner weakness by outer display of power.

 

[lovesong]

Please do not confuse Satanism or Left hand Path with Pagan traditions. They are a New Age reaction to and within Abramist culture, and belong to that. Abrahamism being so extreme also provokes extreme counter movements. And like you show here this has little to do with Paganism and is based on warped Abrahamist ideology. People fantasizing on the base of book stories.

For me such belief is indeed make-belief and a lot of bull and it has nothing to do with Pagan traditions, at best is weird cultism. I think nutty people create and embrace nutty cults, that is to be expected. Sure Nature has its destructive side and it is preluded by decay. We see the same with people, physical and mental breakdown prelude death. A lot of people with weird ideas have deep longings for self-destruction.

I don't think it is our place to judge the wisdom of someone else's tradition. Especially for an identity as broad as Paganism, we cannot justly judge whether someone is "Pagan enough" or whether their tradition fits our ideals. If someone calls their tradition a Pagan one, we really have no place to tell them they're wrong or accuse them of following fantasy or being "nutty."

 

[Quintessence]

I don't think it is our place to judge the wisdom of someone else's tradition. Especially for an identity as broad as Paganism, we cannot justly judge whether someone is "Pagan enough" or whether their tradition fits our ideals. If someone calls their tradition a Pagan one, we really have no place to tell them they're wrong or accuse them of following fantasy or being "nutty."

This is both a strength and a weakness of the contemporary Pagan movement, I think. Standards for a tradition helps maintain its cohesiveness and identity; when there are no standards and anything goes, it can erode the cohesiveness of that group. I think that contemporary Paganism has reached (or gone past) that point over the past decade or so - we're seeing some fragmenting of that umbrella going on with the whole "Pagan vs. Polytheist" shenanigans. I myself have not felt particularly inclined to strongly own that term "Pagan" over the past few years, as the term has gotten so inclusive that it began to fail being a good descriptor for myself.

 

[Cassandra]

I don't think it is our place to judge the wisdom of someone else's tradition. Especially for an identity as broad as Paganism, we cannot justly judge whether someone is "Pagan enough" or whether their tradition fits our ideals. If someone calls their tradition a Pagan one, we really have no place to tell them they're wrong or accuse them of following fantasy or being "nutty."

Speak for yourself, I am not a member of your church. I can certainly give a personal view onPaganism and will do so.

 

[lovesong]

Speak for yourself, I am not a member of your church. I can certainly give a personal view onPaganism and will do so.

You can, but I don't think it's our place to tell someone that their faith is bull or they are nutty. It is one thing to state your view of Paganism, but another to tell someone their faith is nothing more than a ridiculous cult.

 

[Aštra’el]

@Cassandra

The thread did mention "polytheists" in the title, and I could accurately be described as monolotristic or henotheistic...

I pointed out some of the more destructive and diabolical characteristics of some of the gods of my pantheon. I can see how, because of that, it might seem like these attributes and archetypes are all that I revere and respect, but this is totally not the case. I only brought up those things because that is what this topic is about... "Whitewashing the Gods"... people not acknowledging some of the more "taboo" aspects of their deities. No, I respect Destruction just as I respect and revere Creation. I respect Chaos as I respect and revere Order. I respect and revere Death as I do Life. Light as I do Darkness. War, as I do Peace. Hate, as I do Love. The Celestial.... as I do the Infernal.

I have this saying... "I embrace by Day the Moon, and at Night the Sun". This phrase poetically summarizes all of that.


​

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Please do not confuse Satanism or Left hand Path with Pagan traditions. They are a New Age reaction to and within Abramist culture, and belong to that.

For me such belief is indeed make-belief and a lot of bull and it has nothing to do with Pagan traditions, at best it is weird cultism. I think it is to be expected that nutty people create and embrace nutty cults.

Personally (and I'm speaking about what I've read, not just in this thread) I find LHP and Satanism are closer to my idea of Paganism than Wicca. Nevertheless, I don't go round publicly dismissing Wiccans as nutty cultists. Insulting people for their beliefs is best left to the Atheists, who certainly do what they consider their duty in that regard!

 

[Cassandra]

The thread did mention "polytheists" in the title, and I could accurately be described as monolotristic or henotheistic...

I pointed out some of the more destructive and diabolical characteristics of some of the gods of my pantheon. I can see how, because of that, it might seem like these attributes and archetypes are all that I revere and respect, but this is totally not the case. I only brought up those things because that is what this topic is about... "Whitewashing the Gods"... people not acknowledging some of the more "taboo" aspects of their deities. No, I respect Destruction just as I respect and revere Creation. I respect Chaos as I respect and revere Order. I respect and revere Death as I do Life. Light as I do Darkness. War, as I do Peace. Hate, as I do Love. The Celestial.... as I do the Infernal.
​

I have this saying... "I embrace by Day the Moon, and at Night the Sun". This phrase poetically summarizes all of that.

You are welcome, at least you are not boring, and others here accept everyone as a Pagan that so identifies himself as such. For me you are an New Age Abramist, that you have deviant ideas does not change that. It is a rather fundamentalist idea that Abramists can not deviate.

It we relabel Angels Gods, all Abramists suddenly become polytheist Pagans? If we call the book they revere as holy, an idol, do all Abramists suddenly become idol worshipers? Because you are Abramist with deviant ideas does not make you a Pagan. There is a far deeper division between the two than you and indeed some people here appreciate. One that is not overcome with wordplay.

It is typically New Age to reformat one's present belief to make it more interesting. What you show here is mainly intellectual pursuit that means very little to me. Respect abstractions? I respect destruction? I respect Creation? That begs the question what means Respect to you? It seems to take on a new meaning that is neither found in Abramism nor Paganism.

 

[Cassandra]

You can, but I don't think it's our place to tell someone that their faith is bull or they are nutty. It is one thing to state your view of Paganism, but another to tell someone their faith is nothing more than a ridiculous cult.

You may think that, no problem.

But I think you do not pick up the finer nuances. I do not say it is bull, but that to me it is bull. For you those two may mean the same, but there is a important distinction between them, as I have absolutely no pretense of telling someone the truth.

There is important difference between a person saying: This book is the absolute truth and according to God your ideas are evil. And someone saying: I reject those ideas, I think they are nuts. My statements are connected to me, just an opinion of a stranger on a forum.

Also you seem to have overlooked that Goddess_Ashtar, a "Diabolica Angelus" posted a very provocative post, one that begs for a equally provocative reactions.

 

[Riverwolf]

Trying to get back on track...

I'd say that most any game with winners and losers is a form of warfare--even chess, which is almost entirely abstract warfare....

I'm not sure that we "pretend" we're not a warrior culture--we just want warriors to be able to turn it on and off, without any of those pesky problems that are associated with real warfare--like PTSD, nightmares, depression, suicide, etc.

Not sure why I didn't respond to this before.

One thing I'm reminded of is the marketing strategy used for those Modern Warfare games (both the actual Call of Duty sub-franchise, as well as the overall subgenre it spawned): they were frequently touted as "realistic combat", and reviewers sometimes described the games as "feeling like being in an actual war." I SERIOUSLY doubt any of those reviewers have ever seen real combat, though. I remember reading an article talking about the genre that said something to the degree of, "If these games actually felt like a real war, then we wouldn't want to keep playing them."

IOW, despite the marketing blurbs and some of the review statements, these games are not "realistic" at all; they're just as fantasy as Doom or Duke Nukem.

Thing is, that they're fantasy is not a bad thing. Since the imagined glories of war cannot exist in real warfare, these games provide a great way to experience those glories without actually killing people. In a polytheist context, I wouldn't find it inappropriate to invoke Woden during these games, or yell "Woden āgnie/āgnien!*" to opponents. Others might, though, especially in light of the story I told earlier in the thread: offering people to Woden in a non-serious context could be seen as VERY dangerous. Personally, I think Woden would be wise enough to understand the context of play, and not try to actually claim the real lives of human opponents in a game; it's not trying to cheat Woden like in that story.


*This is my Old English translation of the phrase that was once used to offer the opposing army to Woden in exchange for victory. The first form, "āgnie", is singular, i.e., for just one opponent; the second, "āgnien", is plural.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Trying to get back on track...



Not sure why I didn't respond to this before.

One thing I'm reminded of is the marketing strategy used for those Modern Warfare games (both the actual Call of Duty sub-franchise, as well as the overall subgenre it spawned): they were frequently touted as "realistic combat", and reviewers sometimes described the games as "feeling like being in an actual war." I SERIOUSLY doubt any of those reviewers have ever seen real combat, though. I remember reading an article talking about the genre that said something to the degree of, "If these games actually felt like a real war, then we wouldn't want to keep playing them."

IOW, despite the marketing blurbs and some of the review statements, these games are not "realistic" at all; they're just as fantasy as Doom or Duke Nukem.

Thing is, that they're fantasy is not a bad thing. Since the imagined glories of war cannot exist in real warfare, these games provide a great way to experience those glories without actually killing people. In a polytheist context, I wouldn't find it inappropriate to invoke Woden during these games, or yell "Woden agnie/agnien!*" to opponents. Others might, though, especially in light of the story I told earlier in the thread: offering people to Woden in a non-serious context could be seen as VERY dangerous. Personally, I think Woden would be wise enough to understand the context of play, and not try to actually claim the real lives of human opponents in a game; it's not trying to cheat Woden like in that story.


*This is my Old English translation of the phrase that was once used to offer the opposing army to Woden in exchange for victory. The first form, "agnie", is singular, i.e., for just one opponent; the second, "agnien", is plural.

A news story about a "realistic" warfare game:

 

[Cassandra]

p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120%; }a.cjk:link { }a.ctl:link { }

Trying to get back on track...

Not sure why I didn't respond to this before.



One thing I'm reminded of is the marketing strategy used for those Modern Warfare games (both the actual Call of Duty sub-franchise, as well as the overall subgenre it spawned): they were frequently touted as "realistic combat", and reviewers sometimes described the games as "feeling like being in an actual war." I SERIOUSLY doubt any of those reviewers have ever seen real combat, though. I remember reading an article talking about the genre that said something to the degree of, "If these games actually felt like a real war, then we wouldn't want to keep playing them."

IOW, despite the marketing blurbs and some of the review statements, these games are not "realistic" at all; they're just as fantasy as Doom or Duke Nukem.

Thing is, that they're fantasy is not a bad thing. Since the imagined glories of war cannot exist in real warfare, these games provide a great way to experience those glories without actually killing people. In a polytheist context, I wouldn't find it inappropriate to invoke Woden during these games, or yell "Woden āgnie/āgnien!*" to opponents. Others might, though, especially in light of the story I told earlier in the thread: offering people to Woden in a non-serious context could be seen as VERY dangerous. Personally, I think Woden would be wise enough to understand the context of play, and not try to actually claim the real lives of human opponents in a game; it's not trying to cheat Woden like in that story.

*This is my Old English translation of the phrase that was once used to offer the opposing army to Woden in exchange for victory. The first form, "āgnie", is singular, i.e., for just one opponent; the second, "āgnien", is plural.

I doubt if Americans realize how abnormal this all is outside of their own cultural context . They project their own warlike nature on the world around them, and think everybody is like them and loves war.

It is typical of Anglo-Saxon culture that is very warlike, Most other peoples are far less. There was this English guy that migrated to Spain and he wanted to start a business there. So he looked around what was not there that in the UK was. He noticed they did not have Paint-ball shooting ranges so he decided to build that. What happened was that the only people using it was English tourists, the Spaniards thought it was nuts chasing each other around with guns.

 

[Riverwolf]

I doubt if Americans realize how abnormal this all is outside of their own cultural context . They project their own warlike nature on the world around them, and think everybody is like them and loves war.

I've noticed this, as well.

Our history classes focus strongly on major wars, and only gloss over other important events in history. When it comes to non Anglo-American people, ONLY the wars are talked about at all. Nowadays, our media only ever talks about other countries whenever there's some major violent event going on.

Meanwhile, everyone who hates violence and wants to avoid it is called a "hippie", since that counter-culture movement that believed in such boring, un-American things like "love", "peace", "happiness", etc. has become a punchline, stereotyped as lazy, crazy druggies. Meanwhile, other, more beligerent counter-culture movements, such as the punk movement, is almost romanticized.

I think there are a lot of Americans who are aware of this trend, but it does take some work to get to that knowledge, since it's not fed to us by school or media.

It is typical of Anglo-Saxon culture that is very warlike, Most other peoples are far less. There was this English guy that migrated to Spain and he wanted to start a business there. So he looked around what was not there that in the UK was. He noticed they did not have Paint-ball shooting ranges so he decided to build that. What happened was that the only people using it was English tourists, the Spaniards thought it was nuts chasing each other around with guns.

LOL

It's hard to say whether it's typical "Anglo-Saxon" in the sense of the people to whom that term more properly applies (simply because we know so little about them), but from what I hear tell of the modern British army, it does make sense. I generally don't like using the term "Anglo-Saxon" in any context besides the original people, but I recently learned that people used to self-identify as that in America and Britain as a racial label, so whatever.

Though considering that the Anglo-Saxon Kings still drew their lines to Woden even after Christianization, they were probably often warlike.