The Gods are Like Water

[Quintessence]

I'm a regular reader of John Beckett's blog over at Patheos; a few days ago he posted an essay exploring the nature of the gods by comparing them to water. I found it an interesting read, so I thought I'd share with my fellow resident Pagans. Here's a quick summary of the essay's main points, but it's probably best to read through the article to catch the metaphors (which I'm going to leave out):

• Adapted from The Gods Are Like Water
• The essence of the gods never changes. They may change an adapt to the times, but the central character of their being does not change.
• The way we experience the gods changes from place to place. The place and context within which we experience the gods gives them different characteristics.
• The gods are (almost) infinitely divisible. Each god can be understood through many aspects, and this doesn't diminish the original version.
• Once gods are divided, they differentiate. When a god is worshiped by different groups of people, those encounters shape both parties in that relationship.
• Gods are easily combined. Syncretism was very much a thing in historical Paganisms, and it can be a thing for modern Pagans too.
• Gods can exist in multiple states. And our interactions or encounters with them can take different forms, even though it is the same god.
• Gods have no source. We can't be certain if they come from the natural features they're associated with, from peoples or cultures, from stories, or something else entirely.

Do you feel elements of this comparison are insightful? Are there points where you disagree?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I'm a regular reader of John Beckett's blog over at Patheos; a few days ago he posted an essay exploring the nature of the gods by comparing them to water. I found it an interesting read, so I thought I'd share with my fellow resident Pagans. Here's a quick summary of the essay's main points, but it's probably best to read through the article to catch the metaphors (which I'm going to leave out):

• Adapted from The Gods Are Like Water
• The essence of the gods never changes. They may change an adapt to the times, but the central character of their being does not change.
• The way we experience the gods changes from place to place. The place and context within which we experience the gods gives them different characteristics.
• The gods are (almost) infinitely divisible. Each god can be understood through many aspects, and this doesn't diminish the original version.
• Once gods are divided, they differentiate. When a god is worshiped by different groups of people, those encounters shape both parties in that relationship.
• Gods are easily combined. Syncretism was very much a thing in historical Paganisms, and it can be a thing for modern Pagans too.
• Gods can exist in multiple states. And our interactions or encounters with them can take different forms, even though it is the same god.
• Gods have no source. We can't be certain if they come from the natural features they're associated with, from peoples or cultures, from stories, or something else entirely.

Do you feel elements of this comparison are insightful? Are there points where you disagree?

I like the imagery of the metaphor, and the inherent ambiguity--the cosmos is always more than we can detect with our senses, or even our instrumentation, and certainly more than we can conceive of.

As with any metaphor, the comparison will reach limits, but overall, this is how I experience the cosmos, even though I do not currently recognize deities except as very large and vague composites of smaller units.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Kapalika]

I'll need to think about this, but I'll say that intuitively it makes sense although I kind of feel the metaphor could be improved a little. I'm not totally certain that gods are always as arbitrary as this implicitly suggests, but I think they can be, contextually. I'll have to think more on it.

 

[Hildeburh]

I'm a regular reader of John Beckett's blog over at Patheos; a few days ago he posted an essay exploring the nature of the gods by comparing them to water. I found it an interesting read, so I thought I'd share with my fellow resident Pagans. Here's a quick summary of the essay's main points, but it's probably best to read through the article to catch the metaphors (which I'm going to leave out):

• Adapted from The Gods Are Like Water
• The essence of the gods never changes. They may change an adapt to the times, but the central character of their being does not change.
• The way we experience the gods changes from place to place. The place and context within which we experience the gods gives them different characteristics.
• The gods are (almost) infinitely divisible. Each god can be understood through many aspects, and this doesn't diminish the original version.
• Once gods are divided, they differentiate. When a god is worshiped by different groups of people, those encounters shape both parties in that relationship.
• Gods are easily combined. Syncretism was very much a thing in historical Paganisms, and it can be a thing for modern Pagans too.
• Gods can exist in multiple states. And our interactions or encounters with them can take different forms, even though it is the same god.
• Gods have no source. We can't be certain if they come from the natural features they're associated with, from peoples or cultures, from stories, or something else entirely.

Do you feel elements of this comparison are insightful? Are there points where you disagree?

I don't think the analogy is particularly insightful.

The bullet points are interesting but a bit naive. There are often many myths that present a contradictory picture of a god/goddess and the status of a particular deity may change over time and place. The mythos of a deity may be subsumed another, lost over time or a complete fabrication based on modern popular culture and devotional ideas.

 

[Quintessence]

The bullet points are interesting but a bit naive. There are often many myths that present a contradictory picture of a god/goddess and the status of a particular deity may change over time and place. The mythos of a deity may be subsumed another, lost over time or a complete fabrication based on modern popular culture and devotional ideas.

All of that is addressed in his article, actually. The point about how images of deity change over time and place is contained within the "the way we experience the gods changes from place to place," and the fabrication bit touched upon in various parts of his article as well. I'd suggest reading the actual article, because I simplified his points in my summary.

 

[Quintessence]

I'll need to think about this, but I'll say that intuitively it makes sense although I kind of feel the metaphor could be improved a little. I'm not totally certain that gods are always as arbitrary as this implicitly suggests, but I think they can be, contextually. I'll have to think more on it.

Yeah, the author definitely owns the limitations of the metaphor at the end of the article. Each bit gave quite a bit to think about, though. Considering I don't often see more substantive dives into the topic of theology (especially Pagan theology) I found the article refreshing. I wonder how well the metaphor would extend to other types of theology?

 

[Quintessence]

I like the imagery of the metaphor, and the inherent ambiguity--the cosmos is always more than we can detect with our senses, or even our instrumentation, and certainly more than we can conceive of.

That's an interesting thing that comes out of the article that I didn't pull out of it myself at first brush. Yes, the gods are a thing... yet our ability to know them is confined by our own human faculties. Maybe that's good to remember when we presume to say "this is what the gods are?" On the whole, since Paganisms focus less on beliefs as a litmus test, it's a bit less important for us what is believed about the gods compared to how you honor them. Because of that, I suppose many of us are fairly comfortable with that ambiguity?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

That's an interesting thing that comes out of the article that I didn't pull out of it myself at first brush. Yes, the gods are a thing... yet our ability to know them is confined by our own human faculties. Maybe that's good to remember when we presume to say "this is what the gods are?" On the whole, since Paganisms focus less on beliefs as a litmus test, it's a bit less important for us what is believed about the gods compared to how you honor them. Because of that, I suppose many of us are fairly comfortable with that ambiguity?

I agree that practice is more important than belief. It's taken me several decades, but I am much more accepting of ambiguity than I used to be. Many people I encounter seem to want certainty, even if they have to believe they are certain in order to do so. I find it much more agreeable just to acknowledge that there are things--many things--that I will never be able to be certain about...

 

[Quintessence]

I agree that practice is more important than belief. It's taken me several decades, but I am much more accepting of ambiguity than I used to be. Many people I encounter seem to want certainty, even if they have to believe they are certain in order to do so. I find it much more agreeable just to acknowledge that there are things--many things--that I will never be able to be certain about...

There are certain segments of society that seem to believe uncertainty is a form of weakness. One must be certain of everything, know The Truth of everything, or be found wanting by others. It's a curious thing. Thinking back on it, I suppose there was a time I felt that way too. That got eroded out of me in undergrad, as I learned that certain things I was taught in biology in high school were oversimplifications or just plain wrong (this was again reinforced to me in graduate school). At some point, I tossed my hands in the air and went "yup, I'm just some dumb hairless mammal making it up as I go along, and it's always a work in progress."

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

There are certain segments of society that seem to believe uncertainty is a form of weakness. One must be certain of everything, know The Truth of everything, or be found wanting by others. It's a curious thing. Thinking back on it, I suppose there was a time I felt that way too. That got eroded out of me in undergrad, as I learned that certain things I was taught in biology in high school were oversimplifications or just plain wrong (this was again reinforced to me in graduate school). At some point, I tossed my hands in the air and went "yup, I'm just some dumb hairless mammal making it up as I go along, and it's always a work in progress."

That's pretty much it in a nutshell Almost everything is NOT either/or, it's AND.

 

[Cassandra]

I'm a regular reader of John Beckett's blog over at Patheos; a few days ago he posted an essay exploring the nature of the gods by comparing them to water. I found it an interesting read, so I thought I'd share with my fellow resident Pagans. Here's a quick summary of the essay's main points, but it's probably best to read through the article to catch the metaphors (which I'm going to leave out):

• Adapted from The Gods Are Like Water
• The essence of the gods never changes. They may change an adapt to the times, but the central character of their being does not change.
• The way we experience the gods changes from place to place[/B]. The place and context within which we experience the gods gives them different characteristics.
• The gods are (almost) infinitely divisible. Each god can be understood through many aspects, and this doesn't diminish the original version.
• Once gods are divided, they differentiate. When a god is worshiped by different groups of people, those encounters shape both parties in that relationship.
• Gods are easily combined. Syncretism was very much a thing in historical Paganisms, and it can be a thing for modern Pagans too.
• Gods can exist in multiple states. And our interactions or encounters with them can take different forms, even though it is the same god.
• Gods have no source. We can't be certain if they come from the natural features they're associated with, from peoples or cultures, from stories, or something else entirely.

Do you feel elements of this comparison are insightful? Are there points where you disagree?

Frankly I do not have a clue what he is talking about. To me it seems neopagans have a great need to rationalize ancient traditions with a 21th century mindset. That is why we hear them say that stories about "gods" are symbolic and "gods" are archetypes (a distortion of what Jung meant).

I doubt that our ancestors were thinking along such lines. For me the Greek, Roman, and other cultures around the Mediterranean are NOT Pagan. Those were city civilizations with a highly organized religion with priesthoods and temples. Those are products coming from urban Kingdoms in which religion emerges as an instrument of rule and commerce. It is surrounded with all kind of stories to make it attractive to the masses. What we see today as religion is combination of power doctrine, commerce, philosophy and folk belief mixed into one and canonized to fill the needs all the classes in empires. It is a product and it is sold as such all over the world by dedicated salesmen with a huge profit margin worth fighting trade wars over.

Pagans however are rural. And thus I like to think of Pagan traditions as something preceding the degeneration of spirituality that comes with urban life. My ancestors did not have temples, they gathered in natural open spaces in forests and around sacred trees and sang hymns together. Their "religion" was highly spiritual and also practical, not ideological and philosophical. It is simply how people perceived Nature around them, and tried to connect with it, and felt the need to seek harmony with it, because the did not have the control modern man developed over her artificial self-constructed environment.

And that is how I like it. I want to meet the spirits like my ancestors. I am not interested in a philosophical discourse of what the Gods are. Because Pagan traditions have no ideology or philosophy, modern intellectuals feel free to retrofit their own ones and call it "Paganism" or "neopaganism". But that creates the same kind of philosophical rationalization that modern religion is.

It creates new dogma's like this one:

Syncretism was very much a thing in historical Paganisms

A nonsensical idea that our ancestors were always willing to trade their Gods for others. Nothing is further from the truth.

 

[Quintessence]

@Cassandra - did you read the article? Some of your points don't match up to what the author is actually saying in it. I include a summary to be helpful for those who don't have the time to read the full article, but it's always better to go to the original source.