Seasons

[Rhiannon]

Reminds me of a thread about pantheism that I've been meaning to start ...

Should be interesting. 

[Shaker]

I'll marshal my resources then (and try to decide where's the best place to put it) 

[Rhiannon]

Good! Since there is zero proof that any 'gods' exist, the non-god pagans would seem to me to think more logically than their confederates.

For me it's not about logic but about experience. Do I really experience a personal deity? No I don't. Thought I did once but it doesn't feel like it was ever real.

[Owlswing]

Good! Since there is zero proof that any 'gods' exist, the non-god pagans would seem to me to think more logically than their confederates.

Since when was logic a factor in any religion.

If you're going to start denigrating/dismissing my beliefs on the grounds of the non-existence of the deities, whose existence I have stated many times is a matter of faith/belief and beyond proof my participation in this conversation ends here.

[Leonard James]

For me it's not about logic but about experience. Do I really experience a personal deity? No I don't. Thought I did once but it doesn't feel like it was ever real.

But it probably did at the time. My own experience was real, but due to my upbringing I misinterpreted the cause of it.

[Leonard James]

Since when was logic a factor in any religion.

Surely you don't think that no believer has a logical argument for his/her belief?

If you're going to start denigrating/dismissing my beliefs on the grounds of the non-existence of the deities, whose existence I have stated many times is a matter of faith/belief and beyond proof my participation in this conversation ends here.

I don't denigrate your belief, and I fully understand the pressure to believe that some people feel. Furthermore, I laud your admission that it is beyond proof.

However the very fact that so many different  "beyond proof" gods/divinities are believed in, supports the logical conclusion that they are nothing more than human inventions.

[Rhiannon]

Surely you don't think that no believer has a logical argument for his/her belief?

I don't denigrate your belief, and I fully understand the pressure to believe that some people feel. Furthermore, I laud your admission that it is beyond proof.

However the very fact that so many different  "beyond proof" gods/divinities are believed in, supports the logical conclusion that they are nothing more than human inventions.

I don't think Matt's ever claimed that his deities are 'beyond proof'.

[Leonard James]

I don't think Matt's ever claimed that his deities are 'beyond proof'.

I don't know who Matt is, but my response was to Owlswing who certainly did state it if you care to read the post completely. Or have I misunderstood again?

[Rhiannon]

I don't know who Matt is, but my response was to Owlswing who certainly did state it if you care to read the post completely. Or have I misunderstood again?

My fault entirely, Len. Skim reading and multitasking.

Matt and Owlswing are the same chap.

[Leonard James]

My fault entirely, Len. Skim reading and multitasking.

Matt and Owlswing are the same chap.

I confess to getting confused when any name other than the forum one is used. Shaker is the only one I'm sure of, but there are so many Steve's around that even then it's not reliable!

[Owlswing]

I don't think Matt's ever claimed that his deities are 'beyond proof'.

Quote - whose existence I have stated many times is a matter of faith/belief and beyond proof my participation in this conversation ends here. - Unquote

Sorry Rhi but I am of the opinion that the only 'proof' of the existence of deity in personal experience of deity. I have had my experiences, as you have stated that you have, which have given me the faith to believe that my deities exist.

I cannot 'prove' it any more than Hope or Sassy or Ad_O or Leonard James can 'prove' their beliefs.

LJ dismisses my belief as 'not logical' - nowhere have I claimed my belief to be logical. If I must accept that his beliefs are correct then, equally, he should accept mine as we neither of us can prove fact one!

[Owlswing]

I don't know who Matt is, but my response was to Owlswing who certainly did state it if you care to read the post completely. Or have I misunderstood again?

When I first joined this forum I went under the name of 'Matthew Hopkins' - I am a practicing witch (if i practice long enough I might actually get good at it) and to post under the name of the Witchfinder General appealed to my sense of humour.

As time went on the joke lost its humour, for me anyway, and I reverted to the moniker I used on the Beeb after the Recondite Revenant got me barred (he hacked into my computer) of CMG_KCMG_GCMG. This was a Service joke aimed at senior (and usually senile) officers, it is a 'military only' Honour bestowed by Her Maj and stands for Commander of the Order of St Michael and St George, Knight Commander etc and Knight Grand Commander etc. Except that the lower ranks refer to it as Call Me God; Kindly Call Me God and God Calls Me God.

The humour of that palled after  while and I went back to my original Beeb forum name of Owlswing.

Unlike certain other posters here who change their names more often than they change their underwear I have no intention of changing mine again until it is changed by force of circumstances to Deceased. 

[Leonard James]

LJ dismisses my belief as 'not logical' - nowhere have I claimed my belief to be logical. If I must accept that his beliefs are correct then, equally, he should accept mine as we neither of us can prove fact one!

Neither of us have to accept the other's belief ... I am simply claiming mine as more logical than yours.

Believing something exists without any proof opens the door to an infinite number of beliefs, no matter how idiotic they may be.

That is why I maintain it is more logical to believe that none of them exist, and that they are all products of the human imagination.

The fact that neither of us can prove what we believe is neither here nor there, but I am sure you can see that logic is on my side.

[Shaker]

This recondite revenant character sounds like your Moriarty 

I was cyberstalked by him too back in the day. A seriously toxic and damaged individual.

[Owlswing]

I was cyberstalked by him too back in the day. A seriously toxic and damaged individual.

That description is a serious understatement.

[Owlswing]

I was nosey.

Looks like it was someone Jez vaguely knew called Richard.

If I read that correctly.


https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/BBCRenegades/search/messages?p=recondite+revenant&fr=uh3_groups_vert_gs

No, this blokes name was not Richard except when the surname Head was added.

And, whilst on the subject of this post, Jez and I are not on the best of terms as she dismissed me, in front of a huge crowd of Pagans and witches gathered at Aveburyfor a Summer Solstice ritual, as a "neolithic sexist relic" because, trying to acknowledge, on the Beeb R and E Forum, her expertise in a certain area of Paganism, I forget which, it was a very long time ago, I referred to her as the Lady Jezreel!

She has never spoken to me since.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Owlswing,

"neolithic sexist relic"

That sounds like a compliment to me

Gonnagle.

[Owlswing]

Dear Owlswing,

That sounds like a compliment to me

Gonnagle.

Funny you should say that, Gonners.

Several persons present, both male and female, expressed similar sentiments at the time. 

[Jack Knave]

"Umbrella Term"!

Oy Vey! Ain't that the truth?

JK, it has come to be that just about anyone who is not part of one of the mainstream religions, and I include in that Sikh, Hindu, Ba'hai, Buddhism, etc. and infinitum, or atheist is lumped together as Pagan. Goddess help us it now even covers those who identify as Jedi and Sith and the Flying Spaghetti God!

There is a saying about both witches and Pagans (I'm both) that if you ask one hundred pagans or one hundred witches the same question you are likely to get one hundred and fifty different answers and each is going to be as valid as the next. Paganism is THAT diverse.

To answer your question as to what is paganism I can answer only for myself. I have, as previously stated, detailed what I believe and in what I believe only to have the Fundamentalist Christian Mafia attack from all sides, including Finland and Canada as well as the UK telling me that what I believe is NOT Paganism.

What they mean, of course, is that what I believe is not what THEY believe Paganism is. Paganism as you can see from Rhiannon's posts, a very personal belief, it is one that Christians do not understand because, as you have seen from Rhiannon’s posts, it is a very personal path and not one that has a Book of Thoughtless Obedience to tell you exactly what to do and how to do it and who to do it to.

Paganism is a path that recognises the diversity of humanity, that recognises that, in religion, "one size fits all" is rubbish.

If it is that nebulous and fluid how do you know that you are a pagan if there are no clear guidelines on what a pagan is?

[Owlswing]

If it is that nebulous and fluid how do you know that you are a pagan if there are no clear guidelines on what a pagan is?

It is actually quite simple.

You look at the world and its religions, starting, in all probability, with that of your parents, and sometimes you get to point where you start to question that religion, its beliefs, its rules, its rituals (all church services are forms of ritual), and its attitudes to people, to other religions, to nature, to everything that it stands for.

Sometimes you find that there is nothing in the religion with which you fundamentally disagree - brilliant, happy, happy, days, carry on regardless.

If there is something that you find yourself at odds with, for instance - why are all the people running the ritual, the clergy, male and why are the wearing dresses?

Presumably the first people you will address this question to is your parents - if their answer satisfies you, move on to the next question. If all your questions are satisfactorily answered - again, happy days.

If not you move on to the Clergy and the library and try to find answers there.

If you do not find the answers you start looking at religions other than that in which you were raised. Some find what they want in the organised religions, others do not; of these last some will become atheist or anti-theist, some will investigate the non-organised religions - most of which are deemed pagan by the organised religions.

Paganism is the home of those who reject the philosophies of organised religion but equally reject the dogma of atheism. This is why modern paganism, neo-paganism is such a personal belief/religion. Some pagans do not call paganism a religion at all, mainly because of the connotation with all that they have rejected.

Yes, we are seen as the clowns of the religious world; fine, so be it, if you don’t like it reject it and us, but don't take the piss as, during our journey to paganism, we have, most of us, learned how to take the piss back and believe me the adherents of the organised religions and atheism do not like that and will always deny that they have ever taken the piss at all!

You don't believe me? Read these pages, but do it with an open mind.


   

[Rhiannon]

For me it was finding out that the things that speak to me also speak to other people, and a good many of those identify as pagan.

[Leonard James]

It is actually quite simple.

You look at the world and its religions, starting, in all probability, with that of your parents, and sometimes you get to point where you start to question that religion, its beliefs, its rules, its rituals (all church services are forms of ritual), and its attitudes to people, to other religions, to nature, to everything that it stands for.

Sometimes you find that there is nothing in the religion with which you fundamentally disagree - brilliant, happy, happy, days, carry on regardless.

If there is something that you find yourself at odds with, for instance - why are all the people running the ritual, the clergy, male and why are the wearing dresses?

Presumably the first people you will address this question to is your parents - if their answer satisfies you, move on to the next question. If all your questions are satisfactorily answered - again, happy days.

If not you move on to the Clergy and the library and try to find answers there.

If you do not find the answers you start looking at religions other than that in which you were raised. Some find what they want in the organised religions, others do not; of these last some will become atheist or anti-theist, some will investigate the non-organised religions - most of which are deemed pagan by the organised religions.

Paganism is the home of those who reject the philosophies of organised religion but equally reject the dogma of atheism. This is why modern paganism, neo-paganism is such a personal belief/religion. Some pagans do not call paganism a religion at all, mainly because of the connotation with all that they have rejected.

 

I found it much simpler than that. Once I saw the contradictions in the religion I was brought up in, it became clear to me that nobody knows anything about what caused the universe, despite the colourful claims made by so many.

The mysterious 'something' that brought everything into existence remains a mystery, in spite of the best efforts of science so far.

Whatever it is (or was) is either unable to reveal itself, or chooses not to ... and is therefore a matter of indifference to us.

[Owlswing]

I found it much simpler than that. Once I saw the contradictions in the religion I was brought up in, it became clear to me that nobody knows anything about what caused the universe, despite the colourful claims made by so many.

The mysterious 'something' that brought everything into existence remains a mystery, in spite of the best efforts of science so far.

Whatever it is (or was) is either unable to reveal itself, or chooses not to ... and is therefore a matter of indifference to us.

You are, of course, entitled to your interpretation of reality, as I am mine, it is just that we have decided to take different conclusions from the available evidence.

[Shaker]

If it is that nebulous and fluid how do you know that you are a pagan if there are no clear guidelines on what a pagan is?

Loth as I am to start getting into hard and fast definitions here but I would also say that there surely has to be some element of the natural world being a focal point of reverence. I don't know enough about Wicca to be able to say if this is the case for Owlswing but I'm pretty confident that Rhiannon would agree with this much.

[Owlswing]

Loth as I am to start getting into hard and fast definitions here but I would also say that there surely has to be some element of the natural world being a focal point of reverance. I don't know enough about Wicca to be able to say if this is the case for Owlswing but I'm pretty confident that Rhiannon would agree with this much.

Wicca is not so much about the belief as the practice. How ritual is performed, what is done when, as set out by Gardner and Valiente. I am not a Gardnerian and therefore, according to the Gardnerians, I am not allowed to call myself a Wiccan , but I can call myself a wiccan.

Snobbery to the n^th degree. Wiccans/Gardnerians and, to a lesser extent, Alexandrians consider themselves the aristocracy of neo-paganism.