Do you believe the Greek Gods are better than other Gods?

[David19]

This is something I recently heard while I was browsing another Pagan forum. I was looking at this thread, here (http://www.mind-n-magick.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1203366577) and a few others, and some of the posters seemed to be saying they believed the Greek Gods were the "most perfect" representation of the Gods, even though I'm a "hard" polytheist and not a "soft" polytheist (believing there to be only one archetypal pantheon that manifests in different ways), I'm not sure if I agree with that statement, I know I'm not a Hellenic recon either, but I don't even think the Gods I worship (Sumerian) are the "most perfect" representation.

Even though I do think the Greek Gods are quite cool and very interesting (especially Apollo, Hecate, and a few others like Athene and Artemis), I don't see why they'd be the most "perfect", just like I don't think YHWH would be the most perfect God, despite what some of his followers think.

Anyway, I would really like to get some other Hellenic Pagan opinions on this, as I'm really curious about it, also, was this view held in ancient times too?.

Thanks for any help :).

[Theres]

yes, this does sound a bit arrogant. and yet on another level i can see the point.

our Euro-centric western culture is based very heavily upon the Greek prototype. everything from art to law to politics to architecture to philosophy and more can be traced back to ancient Greek roots. even Christianity, which, for better or worse, is the dominant religious paradigm in our culture is rooted deeply in Greek religious and philosophical practice.

this is not something i subscribe to personally, but with all that in mind it's not hard to see how someone could extrapolate a 'dominace theory' out of the raw material provided.

and on a slightly different note, this thread rings strongly to me of deja vu.
have i read this somewhere else recently, or is the brain just sizzling again?

[patch]

Whilst they are my favoruite, I don't see them as any more or less perfect than other gods.

[wintermagick]

Better? I wouldn't say that. The only ones that seem to call to me or that I really use or identify with? Sure.

[Twinkle]

This really isn't anything new...Religio Romana feels the same way about their Gods.

I do feel that the Greek Pantheon is the most perfect representation of the Gods. I have no need to worship Mercury, when Hermes is the most perfect representation of Hermes.

I believe that there is no reason to bring in other gods from other pantheons into my worship, regardless of syncretism, because Zeus is still the most perfect representation of Zeus.

It's not about our Gods being "better". It's about our Gods being the most perfect representation of the Gods in our pantheon. Why would I worship Yaweh when Zeus is the most perfect representation? I could certainly worship Zeus Yaweh (as an epithet), but for a practitioner of Hellenismos....correct practice would be to worship the Greek God.

[Tim]

This is something I recently heard while I was browsing another Pagan forum. I was looking at this thread, here (http://www.mind-n-magick.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1203366577) and a few others, and some of the posters seemed to be saying they believed the Greek Gods were the "most perfect" representation of the Gods, even though I'm a "hard" polytheist and not a "soft" polytheist (believing there to be only one archetypal pantheon that manifests in different ways), I'm not sure if I agree with that statement, I know I'm not a Hellenic recon either, but I don't even think the Gods I worship (Sumerian) are the "most perfect" representation.

Even though I do think the Greek Gods are quite cool and very interesting (especially Apollo, Hecate, and a few others like Athene and Artemis), I don't see why they'd be the most "perfect", just like I don't think YHWH would be the most perfect God, despite what some of his followers think.

Anyway, I would really like to get some other Hellenic Pagan opinions on this, as I'm really curious about it, also, was this view held in ancient times too?.

Thanks for any help :).

This may come from your lack of understanding of the Ancient Greeks and their perception of the Gods. The Greeks believed that every culture worshiped the same Cosmic Gods, just through the veils of different names and different myths, but that their representation of these Gods were the most perfect. This is not soft polytheism in that all Gods are different faces of one God, but a belief that there is only one pantheon or collative of Gods. This concept is what I call Inclusive Polytheism, and you can read a discussion about it here (http://hellenismos.us/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=177).

Therefore, it is not saying that the Greek Gods are better, because the Greek Gods are all there is in actuality, outside of local divinities. It is saying that the Greek perception is the most evolved and most complete perception of the Cosmic Gods. Why would a person be a practitioner of Hellenismos if they did not believe that it provides the most truth? Why would anyone participate in any religion if they did not believe that it provided the most perfect representation of the Divine?

[David19]

This may come from your lack of understanding of the Ancient Greeks and their perception of the Gods. The Greeks believed that every culture worshiped the same Cosmic Gods, just through the veils of different names and different myths, but that their representation of these Gods were the most perfect. This is not soft polytheism in that all Gods are different faces of one God, but a belief that there is only one pantheon or collative of Gods. This concept is what I call Inclusive Polytheism, and you can read a discussion about it here (http://hellenismos.us/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=177).

Therefore, it is not saying that the Greek Gods are better, because the Greek Gods are all there is in actuality, outside of local divinities. It is saying that the Greek perception is the most evolved and most complete perception of the Cosmic Gods. Why would a person be a practitioner of Hellenismos if they did not believe that it provides the most truth? Why would anyone participate in any religion if they did not believe that it provided the most perfect representation of the Divine?

For me personally, I worship my Gods, just 'cause I feel called to them specifically, I don't see that Ereshkigal is the most perfect representation of all underworld Gods or Enlil as being the most perfect representation of all rulers of the pantheon, etc. I see all Gods as equally valid, I may not worship them, but that doesn't stop me from respecting the deity in question and their worship.

It may just be me, but I kind of think, that when you start talking about one set of Gods or one representation being "perfect", it can spiral down to the level of Christian and Muslim fundamentalism, who argue their God or their representation of God is the "most perfect" (like you might get a Christian fundamentalist who says Muslims, Jews, etc all worship the same as God as themselves, but only their representation of God is the most perfect, I hope that made some sense).

[Tim]

For me personally, I worship my Gods, just 'cause I feel called to them specifically, I don't see that Ereshkigal is the most perfect representation of all underworld Gods or Enlil as being the most perfect representation of all rulers of the pantheon, etc. I see all Gods as equally valid, I may not worship them, but that doesn't stop me from respecting the deity in question and their worship.

It may just be me, but I kind of think, that when you start talking about one set of Gods or one representation being "perfect", it can spiral down to the level of Christian and Muslim fundamentalism, who argue their God or their representation of God is the "most perfect" (like you might get a Christian fundamentalist who says Muslims, Jews, etc all worship the same as God as themselves, but only their representation of God is the most perfect, I hope that made some sense).
How do you then rectify the prime flaw with a polytheistic theology? The Greeks believed the Zeus was the king of all Gods, but the Romans believed it was Jupiter. Does this mean the Zeus is only king of the Gods within the boundaries of Greece, and Jupiter limited to only Rome. What of Hades? Are there multiple Underworld Gods, each with charge over multiple systems? Seems like an irrational, iritic, complex, and ultimately implausible system.

And please don't twist my words. I'm not saying the Greek Gods are more perfect then "other" Gods, I am saying that there can only logically be one set of Gods governing the Cosmos, and that I believe the Greek perception is the most complete. This perception also existed within Ancient Greece long before Christianity ever was. What sounds Judeo-Christian is the idea of being "chosen" by a God, much like YHWY supposedly did.

[Twinkle]

I thought like David did at one time, Tim...that somehow it's disrespectful and trampling on another culture to say that Gods from other pantheons are not somehow equally valid as another pantheon.

The thing of it is, it makes no sense to Zeus the King of all the Gods in Greece, and then have it shift to Jupiter in Rome.

Philosophically speaking, the only rational belief is that there is one set of Cosmic gods that animate and harmonize the world.

My belief is that the Greek Gods are the most evolved and perfect representation of those Gods. Of course, I am a Hellenic Recon...I would believe that my pantheon is the most perfect representation.

I would sort of question anyone who didn't feel that their pantheon wasn't the most perfect representation of the Gods....why would they be worshipping that pantheon....

Because you're called to it doesn't seem to have fleshed out the reasons why you believe and practice...at least in my opinion.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

Are there multiple Underworld Gods, each with charge over multiple systems?

Absolutely so...parallel dimensions , with differing pantheons
ruling each one...minor characters , in a large passion play...

Room for all , in a multi - verse of religious diversity...:smile:

[Tim]

Absolutely so...parallel dimensions , with differing pantheons
ruling each one...minor characters , in a large passion play...

Room for all , in a multi - verse of religious diversity...:smile:

Why would you worship Cosmic Gods that make, animate, harmonize, and keep a universe other than your own? ...or do you perceive the Gods as little more than superheroes with superhuman powers?

[Twinkle]

I don't believe ShawBlack Wolf is a Reconstructionist. I think he is a practitioner of Fairy Magick and the Fairy Tradition.

I don't believe his perception or worship of the Gods would fall in line with Reconstructionist belief or methodology.

[Tim]

Regardless of whether he is a Recon or not, his remarks have me wondering about if he is working under a coherent philosophy in creating his personal theology, and what that philosophy is. If we understand what he believes the Gods are, what their relationship to the universe is, what their relationship to humanity is, and why we would worship them, then I think we can rationalize the comment.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

Thank you , Twinkle , for your clarification , and
your respectful statement...

Tim...in answer to your question...and I am sure
this goes against your beliefs , which I am not attacking...

I was just answering your question , with my knowledge ,
and belief , shall I say...

So...

1. We ( humans ) are Gods , with amnesia...come to this
plane of existence , and in the process , lost memory , and
abilities...

2. There are those who kept those abilities , and memory ,
due to their choosing not to enter this dimension...these ,
are the ones , presently known as gods...associates...not
to be worshipped...just reminders , and guides , to our
ancestral heritage...helpers on the path...yet , in their
"exalted" position , many of them have their own form of
amnesia...thinking they are better , than their old friends ,
and associates , just because they did not choose to come
here , in full human form...

3. Gods act as quantum boundary constraints , within
certain parameters...thus , they have certain abilities ,
each fitting within their specific task , in the larger
paradigm...

I am in no sense of the word...a religious person...

Mgieckally oriented...most certainly...I worship nothing ,
and no one...and I am a god , in the process of remembering...

Hope that helps...was not trying to derail your discussion...

Blessings on your path...

[Tim]

So, then, you are an atheist who believes in magic(k)?

[Twinkle]

To be honest, it sounds more like Scientology...they are humans taken over by alien memories...they cannot remember what it's like to be human...so they go through all sorts of stuff to regain their "humanity"....or something like that....and because of that ,Scientologists are the only ones truly "aware" enough to do anything, help anyone in this world.

[Tim]

To be honest, it sounds more like Scientology...they are humans taken over by alien memories...they cannot remember what it's like to be human...so they go through all sorts of stuff to regain their "humanity"....or something like that....and because of that ,Scientologists are the only ones truly "aware" enough to do anything, help anyone in this world.

What do you expect from a religion founded by a science fiction author?:boing:

[Twinkle]

I didn't take into account the whole magick thing, though.

So...an atheist that believes in magick is the better summary.:smileroll

[Halstrom]

What do you expect from a religion founded by a science fiction author?:boing:

You mean other than being exciting or fascinating and not creepy? :smile:

[Tim]

Oh, I absolutely think it is creepy... and obviously very lucrative.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

No , don't fit either of those descriptions...just what I said...

Not your interpretation of it...you have your way...you choose
to worship...you choose to see the gods your way...I can respect
that...just respect mine...simple enough...

I tried my best to give you a very respectful answer , Tim...

I am a mgieckal worker...not an athiest , not a worshipper...


That is it...as I said...remembering heritage...

[Twinkle]

Well...if you don't believe in or worship any gods, but feel that you are a God, and practice magick....I believe that would actually make you some form of Satanist.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

Do not believe in that paradigm , as espoused , either...but I do
understand why you might think that , given what is espoused
in that tradition...

I don't fit into the pigeonhole complex , nor did I enter the thread
to disrupt...I saw David had posted here...wondered what it was
about...saw Tim's question...had an answer...gave it...

Continue with your thread , with my blessing on your path...:smile:

[Tim]

No , don't fit either of those descriptions...just what I said...

Not your interpretation of it...you have your way...you choose
to worship...you choose to see the gods your way...I can respect
that...just respect mine...simple enough...

I tried my best to give you a very respectful answer , Tim...

I am a mgieckal worker...not an athiest , not a worshipper...


That is it...as I said...remembering heritage...
...respect your perceptions of the Gods? I can most certainly respect your right to believe whatever you want to believe. You injected yourself into this thread, and based on your stated belief of what the Gods are, what you are, and your relationship to them, that would place you in the category of an atheist in my opinion. You just seem to place the Gods on such low level of reality, and your perception of them makes them appear rather insignificant. I'm sorry if you find that offensive, but it is the reality of what you wrote.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

Do not find it offensive , do not find it inoffensive ;

It is your interpretation of the reality of what I wrote ,
that is all ...not the reality of what I wrote...

Try reading Robert Anton Wilson's works , and his
writings , regarding reality tunnels...personal , group ,
religious , social / political...if you choose...

Help you understand how some of us percieve multi -
level reality / realities...we do not need , nor desire...
to pigeonhole...and we most certainly do not fit within them...:lol:

[Tim]

I will say that, in my opinion, inclusive polytheism (at the very least) does not attempt to completely invalidate other religions. What it does is attempt to answer why different polytheistic religions exist, and that answer is Divine Truth becomes interpreted differently based on multiple factors, and in ancient times this was primarily filtered through culture.

People can become offended, if they want, by me stating the Greek Gods are the most perfect and complete representations of the Cosmic Gods, but inclusive polytheism does not state that they are necessarily wrong. I would refer you all to the Eastern parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant.

Shawn, as "respectful" as you claim to be, your personal theology does imply that almost every religion, including polytheistic religions, is absolutely wrong, and only you have the true knowledge of the true truth.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

Not true , in my eyes Tim...go back , to where you were
stating to Twinkle , you wanted to know my views...

Therefore , trying to give you most graciously what you
asked for , I posted my way of seeing it...

Now , another point...Theo - ology , is a word based on a
male oriented belief system...which does not fit my paradigm...

So I do not have a theo - ology , or any ology...:lol:

I keep saying to you , but you won't let it go...Blessings On
Your Path...and that I respected your beliefs...can you not
just accept someone else's view of reality , through their
reality tunnel , without feeling insulted , or invalidated ?

If you ask for someone else's view...be strong enough , and
respectful enough , to accept it , when you get it...that's all...

May your gods you believe in...bless you...:smile:

[Tim]

Why do you insist on continuing to hijack this thread?

You saw my question regarding the major flaw in a polytheistic theology, and answered. I would have never asked you to expand if you never injected yourself into this thread, on a topic you know nothing about. You followed up by stating that all beliefs, in all the Gods, from every pantheon and culture, are wrong. Not only that, you go a step further, describing some Gods as becoming delusional. How you can claim that is not an attempt to invalidate the beliefs and be disrespectful of others is beyond me. You seriously want me to accept your arrogant slap in the face to almost every Pagan on this board as being somehow respectful?

[Shawn Blackwolf]

Why don't you stop the malarkey , Tim ?

I posted in this thread , respecptfully , to answer a question
you posited ; you then asked for a clarification , which I gave ,
respectfully , again...however you just did not like the answer ,
and have continued to post toward me...so I have continued to
answer you...I have offered respect for your views , while holding
my own...if you , or others choose to feel insulted...I can not , nor
shall I try to prevent you...

Again , may the gods you believe in bless you...I am going to
go teach my class , where I do not have to deal with this...

I have tried to gracefully walk away , again and again...

Going to let it happen...this time ?

[Tim]

There is nothing stopping you from walking away... expect maybe my opinion that you shroud arrogant intolerance in a smokescreen of flowery rhetoric about respect and acceptance. Who is spouting malarkey? Do you hear yourself talk?

"Now , another point...Theo - ology , is a word based on a male oriented belief system...which does not fit my paradigm..."

What is that? Is this just an attempt to out talk me by posting a bunch of empty meaningless rhetoric? I know you think you're insightful. If you are trying to get me to think you are insightful too, that is probably not going to happen.

[patch]

. What of Hades? Are there multiple Underworld Gods, each with charge over multiple systems?
I see it like this-
The otherworld is a big place, hades controls one area for example, and another deity may control another.
When I die I go to hades, when a christian dies they go to YHVH.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

I think that the Greek cosmos is the most well known to the average school child, as such it is the most developed within our social perspective. We have reference's to it through our governmental system, our educational system to a degree, our cultural identity via Western Civilization. Even through our collective historical memory passed down generation to generation.

Our mythology as revealed in the media plays to the Greek mythos more than any other. While we see the Romanized gods / goddess our movies and books more so align to the Greek model. We see the stories of Jason and the Golden Fleece, Hercules, the story of Helen of Troy, Alexander the Great.

While the mythos of the other area's are known to people they pale in comparrison to the amount of support the Greek cosmos receives. When in doubt the average person fills in the missing pieces from the movies or tales passed down in school classes.

One facet I think overlooked is the concept of multiple time lines. In each time line any number of actions or developments have occured, could have occured, or might occur, that potentially have created demensions where Rome created the gods / goddess of fame. Points where the Nordic gods / goddess held thier status and the Northern ways influenced the world.

I believe that in our abiity to preceive or imagine the various possibilities that we can touch upon them. If all exist at once and lie in paralell to our known time line that cross overs or connections do occur and can be created. That gods / goddess that hold little sway in our physical universe may hold great power in the time line dedicated to thier mythos.

Sort of like the series Quantum Leap the connections are thier on multiple levels. Of course that is my opinion so others may have a differing view point.

[Tim]

I see it like this-
The otherworld is a big place, hades controls one area for example, and another deity may control another.
When I die I go to hades, when a christian dies they go to YHVH.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but is that a reasoned response based on the systemized theology you developed that addresses metaphysical and cosmological questions, or merely conjecture?

[Tim]

I believe that in our abiity to preceive or imagine the various possibilities that we can touch upon them. If all exist at once and lie in paralell to our known time line that cross overs or connections do occur and can be created. That gods / goddess that hold little sway in our physical universe may hold great power in the time line dedicated to thier mythos.

I really believe you may be over thinking this. I am a practitioner of Hellenismos. This is the Hellenic Recon sub-board of the Recon Path board. The question relates to the beliefs of Ancient Greece, and the beliefs of Hellenic Recons. It makes no difference what possible paradigm exists in some alternate reality, or how developed a perception is of a hypothetical civilization.

The Cosmic Gods are the Cosmic Gods despite what names they are given or what myths they are known by. As a practitioner of Hellenismos, which is a reconstruction of the ancient Greek religion, I espouse within this beliefs system that the Greek Gods are the most perfect and complete representation of those Cosmic Gods. What is going on in a hypothetical parallel reality is of no concern to me.

In fact, it does not concern me if Religio Romana, Kemeticism, or Hinduism see their representation of the Gods as the most perfect. Why? ...because their beliefs do not affect or detract from my own. I do not understand why there must always be an attempt by Neopagans to waterdown every cultural religion.

[Twinkle]

It's watered down so they can assimilate it.

It takes less time to make everyone the same then it does to actually sit down and study an ancient culture.

I would agree with you that hypothetical alternate realities don't mean squat to me, as they don't affect my beliefs, or my practice.

Within Hellenismos...the Greek Gods are the most perfect representation of the Cosmic Gods, and this is why we worship them.

It is why the Greeks in Egypt worshipped Zeus, not Ammon.

It's that simple.

[David19]

How do you then rectify the prime flaw with a polytheistic theology? The Greeks believed the Zeus was the king of all Gods, but the Romans believed it was Jupiter. Does this mean the Zeus is only king of the Gods within the boundaries of Greece, and Jupiter limited to only Rome. What of Hades? Are there multiple Underworld Gods, each with charge over multiple systems? Seems like an irrational, iritic, complex, and ultimately implausible system.

To me, I think Zeus is only ruler of the Olympians, he has no authority over Gods such as Enki, Odin, Thor, The Morrigan, Aset, etc. Same for Jupiter, although whether Jupiter and Zeus are the same, I don't know, although someone who's had experiences with both Zeus and Jupiter tells me they are different.



And please don't twist my words. I'm not saying the Greek Gods are more perfect then "other" Gods, I am saying that there can only logically be one set of Gods governing the Cosmos, and that I believe the Greek perception is the most complete. This perception also existed within Ancient Greece long before Christianity ever was. What sounds Judeo-Christian is the idea of being "chosen" by a God, much like YHWY supposedly did.

I didn't mean to twist you words, but I don't see why there can only be one set of Gods governing the cosmos. I just don't see why the Greek view would be the most "complete", what makes the ancient Greek view so special?.

Also, the idea of getting choosen by a God isn't that unusual, many Gods, throughout history and myth have choosen either individuals or groups, like in the Iliad(sp?), Athena chooses Odysus(sp?) and becomes his patron, in Kemeticism and the Sumerian religion, a God will choose you, or even create your soul (and therefore be your spiritual parent), same with Vodou and Santeria, the Norse Gods (from what I know and have read, the Norse Gods only call those who have their blood), etc.

So, I don't think the idea of YHWH choosing the Jews is really such a wierd idea.

[David19]

Absolutely so...parallel dimensions , with differing pantheons
ruling each one...minor characters , in a large passion play...

Room for all , in a multi - verse of religious diversity...:smile:

I agree with you :).

[David19]

Why would you worship Cosmic Gods that make, animate, harmonize, and keep a universe other than your own? ...or do you perceive the Gods as little more than superheroes with superhuman powers?

I think that's where we differ, I don't view the Gods as animating and harmonizing the world, like I've heard one example of someone who was an inclusive polytheist who said they didn't believe Zeus would command a thunder storm then as soon as it passed to Rome, Jupiter took over, but to me, I don't see the Gods as being responsible for natural phenomena, I don't see as every rainfall being sent by the Gods, I don't see the sun rising as the work of a God, etc.

In my religion (Sumerian), Utu is a sun God, among other things, but I don't believe he is the sun, I don't believe that Utu is responsible for making it rise or set, and I don't believe that if Utu were to disappear somehow (not sure he can, but let's speak hypothetically), the sun would stop spinning and vice-versa (e.g. that if the sun stopped, Utu would be gone, etc). Maybe the ancients believed that the Gods sent every natural phenomena or used the Gods as a way of explaining things, but with science, we know why things happen now, we know that the sun doesn't rise 'cause of a God pulling it across the sky, etc. To use the Utu example again, I think him being associated with the sun tells us about what kind of God he is, it's used symbollicaly, like he's also a God of law (and the laws of hospitality were very very important in Sumer and the religion), he watches over those who keep and violate those laws like the sun, he is like the light of the sun - can be good but also can burn you, etc (I'm not sure if I've explained that right, I should come up with more detailed views).

If the Gods suddenly stopped and went away, the universe/multiverse would continue spinning and doing its work. I don't think the Gods are just concerned with making sure the universe runs, they do afterall have a life of their own, in their own realms or maybe this one.

Maybe they are connected in some metaphysical way to the cosmos, or maybe they keep some kind of balance in the universe/multiverse, I'm not too sure, I think maybe some or all of them might keep a balance between destruction (the kind personified by Isfet in Kemetic thought, needless destruction) and order, like my Gods are Gods of civilization, among other things, and, IMO, would be opposed to needless destruction (some of them are for destruction, but there's always a purpose for it), etc.

Hope that made some sense.

[Twinkle]

David, I think you're missing the point. We don't recognize, Odin, Enki, or Thor. Our gods are the most perfect representation of the Gods...so therefore Odin, Enki, or Thor are really the Greek Gods...the people of different different cultures are seeing our Gods by those names.

It's not a new concept....and the Ancient Greeks felt the same. When they went to a new place they asked: "How is Zeus worshipped here?"

We worship the Greek pantheon...we feel that our Gods are the most perfect and evolved pantheon...why else would we worship them? That's what makes them so special to us. The Romans feel there Gods are most perfect...so be it. It doesn't effect my practice...they can believe what they want. You don't have to believe the Greek Gods are the most perfect...worship your Gods. We just don't see it that way.

There's a difference between being called to a pantheon or god, and being "chosen". Now...if you're talking about being "chosen" to spread the word of the Gods...then I would ask that one take a look at Hellenic thought and see if that matches up with Judeo-Christian prophets.

[David19]

So, then, you are an atheist who believes in magic(k)?


To be honest, it sounds more like Scientology...they are humans taken over by alien memories...they cannot remember what it's like to be human...so they go through all sorts of stuff to regain their "humanity"....or something like that....and because of that ,Scientologists are the only ones truly "aware" enough to do anything, help anyone in this world.

Actually, and Shawn can correct me if I'm wrong or way off, but I think his post is more Gnostic, it's about remembering you're a God, (in Gnosticism, at least from what I've learnt, the basic plot is humanity existed in the Pleroma, something happened, it differs what, but some say the Demiurge captured sparks of light and trapped them in matter, and the goal is to remember our existence in the Pleroma, and free ourself from the control of the Demiurge). That's what I've got from Gnosticism anyway, Shawn's system may be different to that, I just think his is more Gnostic in some sense anyway.

[David19]

Well...if you don't believe in or worship any gods, but feel that you are a God, and practice magick....I believe that would actually make you some form of Satanist.

Maybe kind of OT, but quite a few Satanists do worship a God (Satan), and not all practice or believe in magic.

[David19]

I will say that, in my opinion, inclusive polytheism (at the very least) does not attempt to completely invalidate other religions. What it does is attempt to answer why different polytheistic religions exist, and that answer is Divine Truth becomes interpreted differently based on multiple factors, and in ancient times this was primarily filtered through culture.

People can become offended, if they want, by me stating the Greek Gods are the most perfect and complete representations of the Cosmic Gods, but inclusive polytheism does not state that they are necessarily wrong. I would refer you all to the Eastern parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant.

But, inclusive polytheism does seem to say some people are wrong, like, take the Greek Gods, they are called the Immortals, and death doesn't affect them, and while that's true for most Gods, the Norse Gods can and will die (their prophecised to at Ragnarok). Also, some of the Sumerian Gods can "die", although, IMO, death for them isn't the same as death for mortals. If you read the Descent of Inanna, Inanna is killed by Ereshkigal, or more specifically impaled and turned into rotting flesh, etc.

[Theres]

But, inclusive polytheism does seem to say some people are wrong, like, take the Greek Gods, they are called the Immortals, and death doesn't affect them, and while that's true for most Gods, the Norse Gods can and will die (their prophecised to at Ragnarok). Also, some of the Sumerian Gods can "die", although, IMO, death for them isn't the same as death for mortals. If you read the Descent of Inanna, Inanna is killed by Ereshkigal, or more specifically impaled and turned into rotting flesh, etc.
i think you may be falling into that old trap of confusing mythology with religion.

[Tim]

I think that is it exactly. I don’t know how many times (not just here on MW) I have had to state that the Gods are not their myths.

David19 seems to think I am saying the Greek Gods are better then other Gods, or that the Gods of other cultures are subservient to them, which I am not. All I am saying is that there can only be one set of Cosmic Gods. From a Hellenic perspective, the Greek Gods are the most complete and perfect representation (or maybe interpretation would be better) of those Cosmic Gods.

Another problem, I think, is that David19 does not see the Cosmic Gods as Cosmic. From my perspective, the Gods are inseparable from the universe. They "make" and make up all that exist in the Cosmos, at the same time being part of the multiplicity which is the Unity of the One. David19 sees them much more mundanely, and probably not anything I would even consider to be a God.

[David19]

I think that is it exactly. I don’t know how many times (not just here on MW) I have had to state that the Gods are not their myths.

Maybe that's where we differ, 'cause I see the myths as being important, to learning about the Gods, not the sole source of knowledge, but they are important (that's why I like Joseph Campbell and Jung, and other mythologists they don't disregard the myths).


David19 seems to think I am saying the Greek Gods are better then other Gods, or that the Gods of other cultures are subservient to them, which I am not. All I am saying is that there can only be one set of Cosmic Gods. From a Hellenic perspective, the Greek Gods are the most complete and perfect representation (or maybe interpretation would be better) of those Cosmic Gods.

But, why can there be only one set of Gods, that's what I don't understand. The thing I don't like about the saying one interpretation is more "complete" or "perfect" is 'cause it creates an "us vs. them" situation, I think that while many ancient people probably felt that way, may ancient people were also very xenophobic (the Sumerians definantly were, the Greeks were famous for it, the early Jews were, same with the ancient Egyptians, etc). I think it was more done to champion their specific culture, in our modern age of interconnectedness, I don't see the need to champion one culture's view as more "perfect".

For example, I worship Ereshkigal, and in the Greco-Egyptian religion (http://neosalexandria.org/) (of which Sannion, and various others, is a recon of), she was sometimes equated with Hecate, but I wouldn't tell someone who worshipped Hecate, "I respect your position but my interpretation is more perfect", that just sounds arrogant to me, it seems just to champion a cultural view, and not a God (and IMO, a religion should be about the God or Gods, not a culture).


Another problem, I think, is that David19 does not see the Cosmic Gods as Cosmic. From my perspective, the Gods are inseparable from the universe. They "make" and make up all that exist in the Cosmos, at the same time being part of the multiplicity which is the Unity of the One. David19 sees them much more mundanely, and probably not anything I would even consider to be a God.

That's 'cause I've seen no evidence that the sun rises 'cause of a God or that every rainfall falls 'cause of a archetypal rain God, etc. IMO, ancient people may have thought that, but that was in the age of pre-scientific thinking. If anyone can provide any evidence as to why the Gods do these things, well, talk to Richard Dawkins.

Also, we may differ on seeing the Gods as making up "the One".

And, I don't see how my view of my Gods makes them any less divine.

I just don't see how the Gods could all be the same set of Gods, like, and I know you say other peoples conceptions don't matter from a Hellenic perspective, but the Aztec Gods want blood sacrifice, that's expected of any worshipper (in modern times, they obvously don't get human sacrifice, but they do get auto sacrifice of blood lettigns and other things), but, some pantheons don't like blood at all, for example, the Kemetic Gods, if the Hellenic view is right, then one of those conceptions is probably wrong, etc.

[Tim]

Maybe that's where we differ, 'cause I see the myths as being important, to learning about the Gods, not the sole source of knowledge, but they are important (that's why I like Joseph Campbell and Jung, and other mythologists they don't disregard the myths).

Jung and Campbell discuss psychological and literary archetypes, not the Gods. There have been a number of discussions regarding how and why the Greek religion was not defined by myth. Feel free to look back over the old threads. The fact is that a person who bases their perceptions of the Greek religion on myth, will not get an accurate view of practices and beliefs. One must make use of the best available evidence from a variety of fields including historical literary research, anthropology, religious history, political history, archeology, forensic anthropology, historical sociology, el al.


But, why can there be only one set of Gods, that's what I don't understand. The thing I don't like about the saying one interpretation is more "complete" or "perfect" is 'cause it creates an "us vs. them" situation, I think that while many ancient people probably felt that way, may ancient people were also very xenophobic (the Sumerians definantly were, the Greeks were famous for it, the early Jews were, same with the ancient Egyptians, etc). I think it was more done to champion their specific culture, in our modern age of interconnectedness, I don't see the need to champion one culture's view as more "perfect".

With your perception of the Gods not playing any role in the universe, and being basically super-beings, then there can be. With my perceptions of the Gods, if you take away the Gods then the universe ceases to exist. As I stated before, from my perspective, the Gods "make" and make up all that exist in the Cosmos, at the same time being part of the multiplicity which is the Unity of the One. I simply believe your mundane perception of the Gods is unworthy of them.


For example, I worship Ereshkigal, and in the Greco-Egyptian religion (http://neosalexandria.org/) (of which Sannion, and various others, is a recon of), she was sometimes equated with Hecate, but I wouldn't tell someone who worshipped Hecate, "I respect your position but my interpretation is more perfect", that just sounds arrogant to me, it seems just to champion a cultural view, and not a God (and IMO, a religion should be about the God or Gods, not a culture).

Sannion abandoned reconstruction a long time ago. More to the point, if you believe Ereshkigal and Hecate are the same, why would you choose one over the other? If you don't see them as the same, then there is nothing to discuss on this, is there?


That's 'cause I've seen no evidence that the sun rises 'cause of a God or that every rainfall falls 'cause of a archetypal rain God, etc. IMO, ancient people may have thought that, but that was in the age of pre-scientific thinking. If anyone can provide any evidence as to why the Gods do these things, well, talk to Richard Dawkins.

See my previous statement. The Gods are inseparable from nature. Does a God make it rain? Of course, there is no super being flipping the rain switch, but without the Gods, there would be no rain, no sun, no earth, and no anything else.


And, I don't see how my view of my Gods makes them any less divine.

The perception you stated may make for a good comic or Disney cartoon, but not anything I would call a God. Will you worship aliens if they ever land one day?


I just don't see how the Gods could all be the same set of Gods, like, and I know you say other peoples conceptions don't matter from a Hellenic perspective, but the Aztec Gods want blood sacrifice, that's expected of any worshipper (in modern times, they obvously don't get human sacrifice, but they do get auto sacrifice of blood lettigns and other things), but, some pantheons don't like blood at all, for example, the Kemetic Gods, if the Hellenic view is right, then one of those conceptions is probably wrong, etc.

Well, if the Greeks believed their's were the most perfect and complete representation of the Gods, and perception of the Gods can be based on culture, then other cultural perceptions would have been seen as less perfect and complete.... therefore less correct. As I stated before, Divine Truth is interpreted differently based on multiple factors, and can become distorted. Why is it a stretch of the imagination to say different cultures perceive the Gods differently?

[Agaliha]

David, I think you're missing the point. We don't recognize, Odin, Enki, or Thor. Our gods are the most perfect representation of the Gods...so therefore Odin, Enki, or Thor are really the Greek Gods...the people of different different cultures are seeing our Gods by those names.

It's not a new concept....and the Ancient Greeks felt the same. When they went to a new place they asked: "How is Zeus worshipped here?"

We worship the Greek pantheon...we feel that our Gods are the most perfect and evolved pantheon...why else would we worship them? That's what makes them so special to us. The Romans feel there Gods are most perfect...so be it. It doesn't effect my practice...they can believe what they want. You don't have to believe the Greek Gods are the most perfect...worship your Gods. We just don't see it that way.

I see, makes more sense to me now.
I actually wasn't aware of this aspect of Hellenismos.

So, for clarification the Greeks if they went to India would see Lakshmi as the Indian form of say Aphrodite or something like that?

Also what of the non-Hellenistic gods that don't have a Hellenistic god to represent? Not all deities have a Hellenistic counterpart. Just curious how that works.

_inabox_

[Twinkle]

If the Greeks went to Egypt and saw a temple to Ammon...and that he was worshipped as the King of the Gods....they would see it as Ammon being their representation of Zeus.

When they worshipped at the temple, they did not worship Ammon...they worshipped their most perfect representation of Zeus...Zeus.

[Agaliha]

If the Greeks went to Egypt and saw a temple to Ammon...and that he was worshipped as the King of the Gods....they would see it as Ammon being their representation of Zeus.
When they worshipped at the temple, they did not worship Ammon...they worshipped their most perfect representation of Zeus...Zeus.

Got it. ;)

[Tim]

So, for clarification the Greeks if they went to India would see Lakshmi as the Indian form of say Aphrodite or something like that?

Yes, something like that. It is also on of the practice that really does not require reconstruction because the Greek Gods are the Greek Gods period. The need to make these associations no longer exists.


Also what of the non-Hellenistic gods that don't have a Hellenistic god to represent? Not all deities have a Hellenistic counterpart. Just curious how that works.

There were Gods that did not get associated with Greek ones. The Greeks did recognize that while their's may have been the most complete, it was not absolutely complete. There are also Gods that were strictly local. The God of a particular forest or river, outside of Greece, would not have a Greek God associated with them. They also had the Altar to the Unknown God, which served to make sacrifices to all Gods that were unknown to them, but were worthy of worship.

[David19]

Jung and Campbell discuss psychological and literary archetypes, not the Gods. There have been a number of discussions regarding how and why the Greek religion was not defined by myth. Feel free to look back over the old threads. The fact is that a person who bases their perceptions of the Greek religion on myth, will not get an accurate view of practices and beliefs. One must make use of the best available evidence from a variety of fields including historical literary research, anthropology, religious history, political history, archeology, forensic anthropology, historical sociology, el al.

And, those tell you how worship was done, among other things, but it doesn't give you a clue into the personality of the God, IMO, the Gods do have personalities, they feel love, they feel hate, they're feel similar emotions and feelings to humans, only they are better, stronger, more powerful, more intelligent than mortals, etc.

I see myths as expressions of the human soul, and I see the soul as connected to the Gods and divinity.



With your perception of the Gods not playing any role in the universe, and being basically super-beings, then there can be. With my perceptions of the Gods, if you take away the Gods then the universe ceases to exist. As I stated before, from my perspective, the Gods "make" and make up all that exist in the Cosmos, at the same time being part of the multiplicity which is the Unity of the One. I simply believe your mundane perception of the Gods is unworthy of them.

So, I'm unworthy of the Gods?, well, Ereshkigal choose me, and I'm going to trust her opinion and her judgement over yours, being that she is a God, and, IMO, one of the greatest.



Sannion abandoned reconstruction a long time ago. More to the point, if you believe Ereshkigal and Hecate are the same, why would you choose one over the other? If you don't see them as the same, then there is nothing to discuss on this, is there?

I don't see how Sannion abandoned reconstructionism a long time ago, I've spoken with him and he's very cool, he knows a lot, and I love his articles, and, while I'm not on the same religion as he is, I find I can adapt his practices and suggestions for myself and to serve my God and Gods.

And, I wasn't talking about choosing over God over the other, but you seem to be saying there's only one set of Gods, but the Greek perception is the best, I was saying I could never think that, even if there were only "one set" of archetypal Gods, I wouldn't say my perception is "more perfect" or "better" (better is another word perfect).



See my previous statement. The Gods are inseparable from nature. Does a God make it rain? Of course, there is no super being flipping the rain switch, but without the Gods, there would be no rain, no sun, no earth, and no anything else.

But, exactly how do you come to that conclusion, I'm not being rude or disrespectful, I'm generally curious why you think that (I've seen others hold that view, but I just don't understand it myself).



The perception you stated may make for a good comic or Disney cartoon, but not anything I would call a God. Will you worship aliens if they ever land one day?

What would you call a God then, and how did I make them seem like "cartoons"?.

And, if aliens landed one day, would you tell them your perception of the divine was more perfect, even though they were way more advanced than you (I'd imagine an alien species who can get to this world would be more advanced).


Well, if the Greeks believed their's were the most perfect and complete representation of the Gods, and perception of the Gods can be based on culture, then other cultural perceptions would have been seen as less perfect and complete.... therefore less correct. As I stated before, Divine Truth is interpreted differently based on multiple factors, and can become distorted. Why is it a stretch of the imagination to say different cultures perceive the Gods differently?

It's not the part about different cultures interpreting the divine differently that's difficult for me to comprehend, even though I don't share that belief, it's the part about the Greek perspective being "more perfect", I just don't get why that would be, or why a Roman perspective might be "more perfect" (according to Roman recons), etc. Maybe the Aztec perspective is how the Gods truly are, maybe if there's only one set of Gods, then they want blood and we've been worshipping them all wrong except the Aztecs and Mayans, etc.

[Tim]

And, those tell you how worship was done, among other things, but it doesn't give you a clue into the personality of the God, IMO, the Gods do have personalities, they feel love, they feel hate, they're feel similar emotions and feelings to humans, only they are better, stronger, more powerful, more intelligent than mortals, etc.

Well, again, this comes from you perceiving the Gods as super beings rather than Gods. I believe the Gods to be good, free from passion, and free from change. For the Gods to be made agree, appeased, or whatever would demonstrate a lack of perfection. If a presumed perfect thing was able to be changed, for better or worse, then it cannot be perfect.


So, I'm unworthy of the Gods?, well, Ereshkigal choose me, and I'm going to trust her opinion and her judgement over yours, being that she is a God, and, IMO, one of the greatest.

No. Go back an reread what I wrote. I wrote, "I simply believe your mundane perception of the Gods is unworthy of them." You quoted it. Why would you then claim I said something I did not?


I don't see how Sannion abandoned reconstructionism a long time ago, I've spoken with him and he's very cool, he knows a lot, and I love his articles, and, while I'm not on the same religion as he is, I find I can adapt his practices and suggestions for myself and to serve my God and Gods.

...and you having a man crush on Sannion makes him a Reconstructionist how?


And, I wasn't talking about choosing over God over the other, but you seem to be saying there's only one set of Gods, but the Greek perception is the best, I was saying I could never think that, even if there were only "one set" of archetypal Gods, I wouldn't say my perception is "more perfect" or "better" (better is another word perfect).

I think you are starting to confuse yourself talking in circles. First off, the Gods are the Gods, not simple archetypes, but since you are a big fan of Campbell, then you know he does reduce all cultural myths to a single set of archetypal figures. What are you arguing? Is it just that I believe the Greek representation of the Gods are the most perfect? ...that's it? ...or are you just pissy because I'm not of weak faith like you? ...or that I'm not some kind of Universalist Pagan who reduces everything down to the lowest common denominator in some lukewarm and watered down practice?


What would you call a God then, and how did I make them seem like "cartoons"?.

I have stated that in this thread. Go back and read it. I'm not going to talk circles with you. Please tell me if this conversation is going to turn into you asking the same questions a hundred differed ways.


And, if aliens landed one day, would you tell them your perception of the divine was more perfect, even though they were way more advanced than you (I'd imagine an alien species who can get to this world would be more advanced).

Reread what I wrote. You stated that the Gods are advanced beings that have no real influence on the universe... well, that kinda fits into the Stargate SG1 category of aliens masquerading as Gods.


It's not the part about different cultures interpreting the divine differently that's difficult for me to comprehend, even though I don't share that belief, it's the part about the Greek perspective being "more perfect", I just don't get why that would be, or why a Roman perspective might be "more perfect" (according to Roman recons), etc. Maybe the Aztec perspective is how the Gods truly are, maybe if there's only one set of Gods, then they want blood and we've been worshipping them all wrong except the Aztecs and Mayans, etc.
Because you can't comprehend why I would, I'm wondering why you would not of your own, and do you actually believe anything? You are a polytheist, right? Don't you believe that polytheism provides a more perfect representation of the Divine than does monotheism? Why else be a polytheist, right? ...or is it because you think it is cool?

[Xentor]

Admin mode

Tim, David, behave.

[Agaliha]

So not sure if this will work, or makes sense but if not just ignore!

_inabox_

This reminds me of people's names.
There are many names translated into other languages that carry the same/similar meaning, but the person in question probably feels that their name in their language (or the language it's given) is the best version of their name.

So take Ekaterina of Russia, say a person has this name (and likes it, loves being called Ekaterina). She would probably perfer this to, say the Hawaiian form: Kakalina. Or to plain Catherine. Or to the Finnish Kaarina. Or the Polish Katarzyna.

When asked what her name is she'd say Ekaterina because to her, that's the perfect representation of her name-- not any of the other forms of it. Not any other versions in other languages (like the many pantheons of gods, like Ammon), but hers (like the Greek pantheon).

This isn't saying that people named Catherine or those named Kakalina or Katarzyna are wrong, it's just saying from Ekaterina's POV (like the Hellenismos view) her name in that form and language is the preferred and perfect version of the name for her. She doesn't need to call herself Kaarina, she's Ekaterina. She doesn't need to be called Catalina, she's Ekaterina.

If she goes to Spain, she'd probably correct them as to the spelling and pronunciation of her name even though for the people there she is Catalina (the Spanish variant) and might call her as such. This reminds me of the Greeks going to Egypt and in the temples of Ammon, but worshiping Zeus. In Spain, though they see her and her name as Catalina (like Ammon), she is still Ekaterina (ie Zeus) and she continues to keep her name, spelling and pronunciation because for her it's the preferred and best sound/spelling of what makes her her.

Hope that makes sense.
And if it doesn't...just ignore :2G:

[Twinkle]

A quick couple of things:

Sannions articles are a log of his spiritual journey, and no longer what he believes now...

He no longer identifies as a Recon, what he is is multireligious. He has a personal pantheon, is a self proclaimed oracle, and no longer uses the term Reconstructionist to identify himself. What's confusing about it is that he leaves his winterscapes website up, so everyone *thinks* he is still Recon. He once was, but now is not.

Any advice that he gives is based on his own perspective, not as a Recon...but what he believes from his own multireligious perspective. Being well read does not a Recon make.

So...using Sannion to back up your point won't hold much water with Recons like myself and Tim, David.

Your personal theology is your own David. What Tim is attempting to get you to do is flesh out *why* you believe what you do. He's asking the questions, and you're not really providing anything in terms of answers.

[Twinkle]

So not sure if this will work, or makes sense but if not just ignore!

_inabox_

This reminds me of people's names.
There are many names translated into other languages that carry the same/similar meaning, but the person in question probably feels that their name in their language (or the language it's given) is the best version of their name.

So take Ekaterina of Russia, say a person has this name (and likes it, loves being called Ekaterina). She would probably perfer this to, say the Hawaiian form: Kakalina. Or to plain Catherine. Or to the Finnish Kaarina. Or the Polish Katarzyna.

When asked what her name is she'd say Ekaterina because to her, that's the perfect representation of her name-- not any of the other forms of it. Not any other versions in other languages (like the many pantheons of gods, like Ammon), but hers (like the Greek pantheon).

This isn't saying that people named Catherine or those named Kakalina or Katarzyna are wrong, it's just saying from Ekaterina's POV (like the Hellenismos view) her name in that form and language is the preferred and perfect version of the name for her. She doesn't need to call herself Kaarina, she's Ekaterina. She doesn't need to be called Catalina, she's Ekaterina.

If she goes to Spain, she'd probably correct them as to the spelling and pronunciation of her name even though for the people there she is Catalina (the Spanish variant) and might call her as such. This reminds me of the Greeks going to Egypt and in the temples of Ammon, but worshiping Zeus. In Spain, though they see her and her name as Catalina (like Ammon), she is still Ekaterina (ie Zeus) and she continues to keep her name, spelling and pronunciation because for her it's the preferred and best sound/spelling of what makes her her.

Hope that makes sense.
And if it doesn't...just ignore :2G:



From my perspective, you're pretty close. I believe an Ancient Greek would have said that the Romans were mistakenly worshipping Mercury as Hermes. In any event, they would have accepted that Mercury was seen as Hermes in Rome, but would have continued to worship Hermes.

In the case of Ammon in Egypt...The Greeks thought that Zeus was being worshipped as Ammon. The Greeks did worship in the Temple of Ammon, but they still worshipped Zeus...their perfect representation of their God. He was worshipped under the name of Zeus, with the epithet of Ammon.

Zeus-Ammon.

[Agaliha]

From my perspective, you're pretty close. I believe an Ancient Greek would have said that the Romans were mistakenly worshipping Mercury as Hermes. In any event, they would have accepted that Mercury was seen as Hermes in Rome, but would have continued to worship Hermes.
In the case of Ammon in Egypt...The Greeks thought that Zeus was being worshipped as Ammon. The Greeks did worship in the Temple of Ammon, but they still worshipped Zeus...their perfect representation of their God. He was worshipped under the name of Zeus, with the epithet of Ammon.
Zeus-Ammon.

Makes sense. :)

Maybe my little name example will help others understand the view you are presenting, which was my goal. Sometimes it's easier to understand things when you look at them in another way...

[Tim]

@Agaliha

That was a very good analogy. Thanks for the help.

[Agaliha]

@Agaliha
That was a very good analogy. Thanks for the help.

:)

[David19]

Well, again, this comes from you perceiving the Gods as super beings rather than Gods. I believe the Gods to be good, free from passion, and free from change. For the Gods to be made agree, appeased, or whatever would demonstrate a lack of perfection. If a presumed perfect thing was able to be changed, for better or worse, then it cannot be perfect.

I don't think the Gods are perfect in that sense, 'cause if they never changed, then that just leads to stagnation, and it's a fact that when things stagnate, it leads to death.

In the Sumerian religion, the Gods are a force for change.

Also, how do you define "good", that's a subective word.



...and you having a man crush on Sannion makes him a Reconstructionist how?

Ok, several questions here, how do I have a "crush" on Sannion, why use the term "man crush" (why not just the word crush) and how is Sannion not a recon, you still haven't explained.



I think you are starting to confuse yourself talking in circles. First off, the Gods are the Gods, not simple archetypes, but since you are a big fan of Campbell, then you know he does reduce all cultural myths to a single set of archetypal figures. What are you arguing? Is it just that I believe the Greek representation of the Gods are the most perfect? ...that's it? ...or are you just pissy because I'm not of weak faith like you? ...or that I'm not some kind of Universalist Pagan who reduces everything down to the lowest common denominator in some lukewarm and watered down practice?

Actually you are a universalist, you're saying everyone worships the same Gods, that's a tenet of what universalist Pagans believe.

And how am I of weak faith, I know that my Gods are real. Also, when I refered to archetypes, I was refering to how seem to believe there are a set of Gods that manifest in different ways, so in a sense a set of archetypal Gods (a rain God, love God, etc). Archetype only means original or something similar.



Reread what I wrote. You stated that the Gods are advanced beings that have no real influence on the universe... well, that kinda fits into the Stargate SG1 category of aliens masquerading as Gods.

And, when I see proof that natural phenomena is caused by Gods, and not science, then I'll agree with you, but as of yet, I haven't seen any proof that rain is sent by some rain God (I'm not going go into a science discussion, but you must have done geography or science in school, so you should know how rain is formed, and it sure doesn't have anything to do with anything spiritual).


Because you can't comprehend why I would, I'm wondering why you would not of your own, and do you actually believe anything? You are a polytheist, right? Don't you believe that polytheism provides a more perfect representation of the Divine than does monotheism? Why else be a polytheist, right? ...or is it because you think it is cool?

Actually, I don't think any way is better (and "more perfect" does mean better), people have different needs, and there's no one size fits all way to believe, some people believe in only one God, and for them, that makes sense to them, some people believe in many Gods that are seperate from each other, like me, some believe in only a finite set of Gods, like you, etc. None of those ways are "more perfect"/better than the other. It depends on what makes the most sense and feels right to you.

[Tim]

I don't think the Gods are perfect in that sense, 'cause if they never changed, then that just leads to stagnation, and it's a fact that when things stagnate, it leads to death.
The Gods would be beyond such things.


Also, how do you define "good", that's a subective word.
I suggest to read Plato.


Ok, several questions here, how do I have a "crush" on Sannion, why use the term "man crush" (why not just the word crush) and how is Sannion not a recon, you still haven't explained.
A "man crush" is not a "in love" of sexual kinda thing. It is a man being in awe of another man's perceived awesomeness... a groupie. Anyway, he is not a recon because he is not reconstructing anything. He is eclectic. I think we cleared that up on the other thread.


Actually you are a universalist, you're saying everyone worships the same Gods, that's a tenet of what universalist Pagans believe.
A Universalist would also perceive all religions as equal and work within a perceived universal doctrine, I do not.


And how am I of weak faith, I know that my Gods are real. Also, when I refered to archetypes, I was refering to how seem to believe there are a set of Gods that manifest in different ways, so in a sense a set of archetypal Gods (a rain God, love God, etc). Archetype only means original or something similar.
I don't get the sense that you do.


And, when I see proof that natural phenomena is caused by Gods, and not science, then I'll agree with you, but as of yet, I haven't seen any proof that rain is sent by some rain God (I'm not going go into a science discussion, but you must have done geography or science in school, so you should know how rain is formed, and it sure doesn't have anything to do with anything spiritual).
Perceiving that the Gods exist as in integral part of nature, and not separate from it (see previous comments), would mean all things exist within nature... therefore science and religion do not conflict, and there is a scientific explanation for EVERYTHING.


Actually, I don't think any way is better (and "more perfect" does mean better), people have different needs, and there's no one size fits all way to believe, some people believe in only one God, and for them, that makes sense to them, some people believe in many Gods that are seperate from each other, like me, some believe in only a finite set of Gods, like you, etc. None of those ways are "more perfect"/better than the other. It depends on what makes the most sense and feels right to you.
So, you chose your religion because you liked the flavor?

[Twinkle]

I think he said in an earlier post that he was called to his Gods. And that's actually a fair place to start. What it sounds like now is that he has yet to reason *why* he is worshipping and *what* that means for him.

Hopefully now David understands the concept of Cosmic Gods, what that means and how it equates to Hellenic belief.

Socratic questioning is a very good tool in getting you to flesh your thoughts out, and see if that is rational or not. I'm really enjoying watching the lightbulbs come on for David19.

[David19]

The Gods would be beyond such things.



I suggest to read Plato.

I will, which of his works do you think is the best to start with?.

But, I'll also keep in mind, he was just one man giving his opinion.


A Universalist would also perceive all religions as equal and work within a perceived universal doctrine, I do not.

I guess that's where me and you differ, I do see other religions as being equal, not all of them, but most of them, like I have no problem with Christianity, Wicca, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Asatru, etc, they all answer peoples specific spiritual needs. The "religions" I have a problem with are the cult-like ones (e.g. Scientology is perhaps the most famous example of that).


I don't get the sense that you do.

Well, I do.


Perceiving that the Gods exist as in integral part of nature, and not separate from it (see previous comments), would mean all things exist within nature... therefore science and religion do not conflict, and there is a scientific explanation for EVERYTHING.

I don't agree with that, as science and religion do conflict. Religion deals with the irrational/the supernatural, science deals with the physical world, the things that can be proven (take, for example, spiritual experiences, you probably have had quite a few spiritual experiences, but those are all subjective, they can't be proven or reproduced, so I respectfully disagree that science and religion are always compatiable).


So, you chose your religion because you liked the flavor?

Like Twinkle said, I was drawn to the religion 'cause I felt it matched me, I felt called to it, so to speak, the Gods, the beliefs, the mythology, the philosophy, etc all felt right for me. I'm sure you must have felt the same way about the Hellenic religion, otherwise you wouldn't have felt it was right for you.

[Tim]

I will, which of his works do you think is the best to start with?.

But, I'll also keep in mind, he was just one man giving his opinion.
On second thought, start with Sallustius' On the Gods and the Cosmos, and then work you way backwards to Plato. Sallustius provides a nice summation of thought. Though not very detailed, it does provide a base of understanding with which to work.


I guess that's where me and you differ, I do see other religions as being equal, not all of them, but most of them, like I have no problem with Christianity, Wicca, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Asatru, etc, they all answer peoples specific spiritual needs. The "religions" I have a problem with are the cult-like ones (e.g. Scientology is perhaps the most famous example of that).
There is the saying, "There are many paths to the top of the mountain." This is true, but some paths are a better choice than others are... and "many paths to the top of the mountain" does not mean "all paths."


I don't agree with that, as science and religion do conflict. Religion deals with the irrational/the supernatural, science deals with the physical world, the things that can be proven (take, for example, spiritual experiences, you probably have had quite a few spiritual experiences, but those are all subjective, they can't be proven or reproduced, so I respectfully disagree that science and religion are always compatiable).
No, I'm sorry, I disagree. This was not at all the case in Ancient Greece, or within modern Hellenismos. The irrational is seen man's primal ego self. Intelligence, wisdom, and understanding come from the Divine. Science and religious thought always moved through history in unison until the advent of Christianity.


Like Twinkle said, I was drawn to the religion 'cause I felt it matched me, I felt called to it, so to speak, the Gods, the beliefs, the mythology, the philosophy, etc all felt right for me. I'm sure you must have felt the same way about the Hellenic religion, otherwise you wouldn't have felt it was right for you.
I can understand "drawn to" but "stay with" or "dedicated to" are different. There is "feels right" and then there "is right." Do you seek wisdom and truth, or do you seek comfort? There is just no way I could have stayed with Hellenismos if it did not provide for a reasoned understanding of the Gods and the universe.

[Twinkle]

There is "feels right" and then there "is right." Do you seek wisdom and truth, or do you seek comfort? There is just no way I could have stayed with Hellenismos if it did not provide for a reasoned understanding of the Gods and the universe.


I think that's a really good point, and I wanted to expand on it a little bit. Religion shouldn't be *too* comfortable. (imo). I think that we should always be working to improve ourselves, understand the world around us, understand who we are and what we do, and work on being the best person we can be.

It's not enough to be drawn to the Gods or feel that the religion is a match. To stay in that space will eventually lead to a sort of spiritual stagnation.

[Tim]

I think that's a really good point, and I wanted to expand on it a little bit. Religion shouldn't be *too* comfortable. (imo). I think that we should always be working to improve ourselves, understand the world around us, understand who we are and what we do, and work on being the best person we can be.

It's not enough to be drawn to the Gods or feel that the religion is a match. To stay in that space will eventually lead to a sort of spiritual stagnation.

Excellent point!! Religious practice must have a point and a purpose. If it means becoming close to or in harmony with the Gods... what does that mean? How does the practice provide tangible results. If your life is in disarray, things don't every seem to be going your way, everything is a consistent struggle... then there may be something wrong with your connection to the Gods. One either walks with the Gods or they do not, and how your life "is" is a reflection of that walk.

[YoungSoulRebel]

Why do you insist on continuing to hijack this thread?

You saw my question regarding the major flaw in a polytheistic theology, and answered. I would have never asked you to expand if you never injected yourself into this thread, on a topic you know nothing about. You followed up by stating that all beliefs, in all the Gods, from every pantheon and culture, are wrong. Not only that, you go a step further, describing some Gods as becoming delusional. How you can claim that is not an attempt to invalidate the beliefs and be disrespectful of others is beyond me. You seriously want me to accept your arrogant slap in the face to almost every Pagan on this board as being somehow respectful?

Actually, that's not what he said. Not in his view, anyway, and reiterating that such "is what he said" is just inviting a cyclical argument that is going ten ways to nowhere.

I know that Shawn is using fringe logic here, so that is almost definitely where the "confusion" he says you're finding in what he's saying is coming from.

OK, what Shawn is saying in a flowery version of webspeak is ... OK, what you know as reality is only one view of reality and that basically everybody's reality somehow differs from everybody else's. This argument in this particular form of fringe logic is supported by the fact that no two people can, without a doubt, experience any one incident in exactly the same way. They may experience, say, eating a pint of Ben & Jerry's Americone Dream on the same date, at the same time, same location, and with spoons crated to be otherwise identical to the other, very similarly in that both parties may find said experience pleasurable and an experience that they shall attempt to replicate in the future, but the fact that both parties are, in fact, different people, means that ultimately both experiences were, in fact, different, and in such a way that neither party can 100% convey the full scope of their experience to the other.

Now that I've explained the logic Shawn is using, it therefore begs to reason, in this kind of fringe logic at least, that your perception of reality is not his, nor Twinkle's, nor David's, nor mine, nor anybody else's. Because your reality is ultimately different, Shawn's words are, thus, respecting your interpretation of reality by stating that Shawn is allowing you to maintain your own personal view of reality without a fight. You may still find this "disrespectful", but you're also not using the same kind of logic that he's using, so naturally, you'll find his words disrespectful, even "kooky".

Now, I myself do not subscribe to said form of fringe logic. I find it interesting and I can see how another person can make sense of it. At times, I find it comforting to think that way, even; though only temporarily. If one wishes to subscribe to said form of fringe logic, then I will not tell that person that their logic is wrong because it will just result in cyclical arguments that ultimately go no-where. Debate can only progress from a certain point when both parties are using the same form of logic to come to two different conclusions -- this is not the case, here. Here there are two incompatible forms of logic going back and forth like children on a playground saying "Nuh-uh!" "Yuh-huh!" for hours.



I see it like this-
The otherworld is a big place, hades controls one area for example, and another deity may control another.
When I die I go to hades, when a christian dies they go to YHVH.

This is more or less how I see it. I can see similarities between, say, Brighid and Hestia, but I can see similarities between Brighid and Minerva, as well. To say that Brighid is a Gaelig interpretation of either Hestia or Minerva is not just ignoring the cultural differences between the Gaelig Keltoi and the Hellenes or the Gaelig Keltoi and the Romans, but it ignores the mythological differences that make Brighid, well, Brighid.

I also see no other logical explanation for why some people feel an affinity toward, say, the Irish Brighid but toward neither the Greek Hestia nor the Roman Minerva other than the three simply being Goddesses of three altogether different pantheons and They just happen to have some points in common with each-Other. Now, all of these pantheons I feel almost definitely come from ultimately the same place, uniting all Gods and Goddesses in one great Cosmic Otherworld, but for a modern worshipper to say that Brighid is "the Irish interpretation of Hestia" essentially grasps at straws to connect the two in an attempt to support the argument of "different cultural interpretations of what's basically the same pantheon" -- and in doing such, it both oversimplifies who Brighid is and ignores the fact that the ancient Romans compared Her to Minerva.

Zeus is thus the King of the Hellenic Pantheon, and so on. Why He and the Hellenic Pantheon were chosen by ancient Hellas, or vice-versa, then and why worshippers seem unconcerned with geographical barriers (or even "ethnic" barriers) now is simple -- people, in general, travelled less than they do now and knowledge is more freely spread now versus then. To try and answer it further than that is obviously something that has neither been made apparent to myself nor others (and even if it were, the likeliness of such an explanation being believed by others is quite slim, to say the least).

But, for one reason or another, They either "resonate with" or "have chosen" who They do to form reciprocal relations with. We scratch their backs, they'll scratch ours, sort of thing. Giving Them worship is part of the deal, but why, say, A worships Hestia while B worships Brighid is simply not something that we, as humans, need to know just yet, if ever.



But, inclusive polytheism does seem to say some people are wrong, like, take the Greek Gods, they are called the Immortals, and death doesn't affect them, and while that's true for most Gods, the Norse Gods can and will die (their prophecised to at Ragnarok). Also, some of the Sumerian Gods can "die", although, IMO, death for them isn't the same as death for mortals. If you read the Descent of Inanna, Inanna is killed by Ereshkigal, or more specifically impaled and turned into rotting flesh, etc.

This is exactly why I see what's being defined here as "Inclusive Polytheism", at the very least, can't be entirely right. There is just too much conflict between the mythos of Hellas, versus the Norse, versus the Keltoi, versus Hinduism, and so forth. It can't all be "different cultural interpretations of the same thing" because there are just some points that cannot logically be resolved in that manner -- and the "culture" hasn't much to do with it. If it was all the same thing, there wouldn't be all these inconsistencies when comparing mythologies -- and for this reason, I simply can't believe that Minerva is Brighid, is Hestia, and so forth.



i think you may be falling into that old trap of confusing mythology with religion.

But mythology is part of the religion and plays an important part in the understanding of whatever religion it's associated with. It's far from the end-all-be-all of any religion or even said religion's understanding of Divinity, but it is an important tool for understanding what the Gods meant to the ancient peoples and who wrote said mythos, and how the Gods can relate to future generations as well as our own.

The Gods may not be Their mythos, but there are, in fact, truths about the Gods contained within the mythos, and through study of the mythos, those truths become apparent.



That's 'cause I've seen no evidence that the sun rises 'cause of a God or that every rainfall falls 'cause of a archetypal rain God, etc. IMO, ancient people may have thought that, but that was in the age of pre-scientific thinking. If anyone can provide any evidence as to why the Gods do these things, well, talk to Richard Dawkins.

Actually, "scientific method" as it is known today, is of Greek origin. And not all ancient Greeks were theistic -- some were very vocally atheistic, and it's a fallacy to assume otherwise. Check out the old PBS series Cosmos -- there's an episode where Sagan has an, umm, intriguing rant about Pythagoreas.



I just don't see how the Gods could all be the same set of Gods, like, and I know you say other peoples conceptions don't matter from a Hellenic perspective, but the Aztec Gods want blood sacrifice, that's expected of any worshipper (in modern times, they obvously don't get human sacrifice, but they do get auto sacrifice of blood lettigns and other things), but, some pantheons don't like blood at all, for example, the Kemetic Gods, if the Hellenic view is right, then one of those conceptions is probably wrong, etc.

That is, essentially, what's being said. X-Culture believes X-practise is "the most perfect" way to honour Cosmic Gods, whereas Y-Culture believes that Y-practise is. Do I agree with it? Not totally, though I do understand the logic used to make that statement.

My issue is this: many people, both ancient and modern, have said at various points and in so many words that their religion's practises have come directly from the Gods as what said Gods demand or request of said peoples. Why, then, would a universal Cosmic Pantheon request human sacrifice from the Aztecs, the blood of goats from Athens, the blood of "only the most perfect goat" from Sparta, and so on and so forth? Why does the God of Abraham demand penile mutilation whereas Zeus seems to prefer leaving your son's weiner alone? Either this "unifying cosmic pantheon" has a real twisted sense of humour or, simply, all pantheons are different, but united collectively as Deities that all have a part to play in keeping the universe from collapsing on itself. I personally see all pantheons as being multiple tribes of one "cosmic pantheon", but not in the same way Tim does. All pantheons are collectively one pantheon -- not ultimately one pantheon.

This does not mean that They somehow do not have a hand in creation and "harmony within the universe", scientific explanations are simply one way that mortals are allowed to see things. And perhaps "tribal gods" is another way mortals are permitted to see things -- but as one who practises Hellenismos, I came to this religion after searching, including a couple of years in high school where I tried desperately to connect to the Irish pantheon and came up with nothing. I received a message not of "you're doing it wrong", but more "this is not for you", and since essentially "coming home" to Hellenismos, I've seen no reason to believe that such an experience is because what I "interpreted as Lugh" at the time "was actually Mercury (an ancient Roman connection to the Gaelig Lugh) or Apollon (a modern connection) in interpretation of one tribe of the Keltoi" (after all, Welsh deities are, in fact, different and their names involve covering everything in spittle to pronounce -- and Gaulish and Cornish deities are also different, as are Pictish, though the Picts technically aren't Keltoi). At the age of fourteen and fifteen, it made sense -- I'm of largely Irish extraction, therefore I "should" worship Irish deities. As somebody much older than that, call it being "chosen" or being "called to", but this is simply the Pantheon I'm supposed to worship; and while I have my own explanation of why that is, I shall also take a note from Socrates and state that "all I know is that I know nothing", id est, my explanation of different tribal pantheons united as one collective pantheon is one way to interpret the evidence and answer the question of "why", and as much as it makes sense to me, it would be foolish to say anything more than that. Tim sees one universal pantheon interpreted differently through different cultures, and I'm sure his experiences cause that belief to make sense to him -- but he can't prove that belief, beyond a shadow of a doubt, any more concretely than I can mine.



And, if aliens landed one day, would you tell them your perception of the divine was more perfect, even though they were way more advanced than you (I'd imagine an alien species who can get to this world would be more advanced).

OK, this... offends me. On a very basic level. It shouldn't matter if an alien race is more technologically advanced than this one, but one's belief in Divinity in any form that's diminished by technology is a belief that doesn't seem very strong in the first place. If one's spiritual beliefs aren't at least jostled to the point of examination, I can't see how one can become spiritually stronger; but giving things a little shake-up every now and again is very different from allowing one's beliefs to become diminished by the presence of external beings or forces or what-not. I mean, technology has made it so that I can replicate the sound of certain instruments at almost any computer with enough processing power and some basic software -- this does not lessen the fact that I believe that music is a gift from certain Gods and that the ability to perform and create it well is a personal blessing from those Gods. I may not need a lute, a lyre, and a pan-pipe -- hell, I may not need a full symphony orchestra -- as technology has made it much simpler, but music itself is a gift from the Divine. There may be scientific explanations for why certain instruments sound certain ways -- and yes, even the ancient Greeks were aware of the sciences of how a harp or panpipe sounded the way they did -- but the music itself is a Divine gift, and technology can't take away my belief in that. Certain advances in technology may prompt me to examine the relationship between certain Gods and music, but if I were to cease placing the importance of the Gods in the creation of music, I would cease being spiritual and be little more than an atheist who thinks the Gods are a good idea.



It's not the part about different cultures interpreting the divine differently that's difficult for me to comprehend, even though I don't share that belief, it's the part about the Greek perspective being "more perfect", I just don't get why that would be, or why a Roman perspective might be "more perfect" (according to Roman recons), etc. Maybe the Aztec perspective is how the Gods truly are, maybe if there's only one set of Gods, then they want blood and we've been worshipping them all wrong except the Aztecs and Mayans, etc.

Well, that's not exactly what Tim and others are saying -- I just don't think he's wording it in a way that you like.

He's saying, as an Hellenic Recon, the Gods of Hellas are the best Gods and Goddesses for him to worship; they are and thus should be the "most perfect" to any other Hellenic Recon. Likewise, a Keltic Recon should feel that the Keltic pantheons are the best, or "most perfect" Gods to worship.

He's not saying that the Hellenic pantheon is ultimately the "most perfect" for anybody, except for Hellenic Recons. In that sense, I agree. For whatever reasons, these are the Gods that are the best for me and other Hellenists to worship. Unlike Tim and certain vocal ancient Hellenes whose writings have been preserved, I'm open to interpretation for why that is, and my experiences have shaped my beliefs so that the idea of "all Pantheons are ultimately one Pantheon" makes less sense than "all Pantheons are collectively one Pantheon" -- if my experiences shape my perceptions to see it in a decidedly different way later, I'm open to that. But at the end of the day, the Gods of Hellas are those that are the best for me to worship, and I feel other Hellenic Recons should feel similarly about their relationship to the Hellenic Pantheon. Likewise, a Keltic Recon should feel that way about the Keltic Pantheon which they honour. Likewise, a Hindu should feel that way about the Hindu Gods and Goddesses. And so on. It's not that one Pantheon is ultimately the "most perfect", it's that one Pantheon is "most perfect" for certain worshippers whereas another Pantheon is "most perfect" for others, and so on.



And, when I see proof that natural phenomena is caused by Gods, and not science, then I'll agree with you, but as of yet, I haven't seen any proof that rain is sent by some rain God (I'm not going go into a science discussion, but you must have done geography or science in school, so you should know how rain is formed, and it sure doesn't have anything to do with anything spiritual).

Technically, "science" does cause it, either. Science is merely an explanation of how things work. Science answers the question of "how" -- not the question of "why". Science and religion are not concepts which are mutually exclusive of and at odds with each-other. Intelligent Design and Evolutionary Theory are not concepts where a belief in one negates the possibility of belief in the other. Evolutionary Theory explains how things became as they are and Intelligent Design explains why -- two very different questions answered in two very different ways. Taking creation mythos as literal truth, on the other hand, is something totally different, and it's unfortunate that such is what most people think of when they think of "Intelligent Design".



No, I'm sorry, I disagree. This was not at all the case in Ancient Greece, or within modern Hellenismos. The irrational is seen man's primal ego self. Intelligence, wisdom, and understanding come from the Divine. Science and religious thought always moved through history in unison until the advent of Christianity.

Too true.



I can understand "drawn to" but "stay with" or "dedicated to" are different. There is "feels right" and then there "is right." Do you seek wisdom and truth, or do you seek comfort? There is just no way I could have stayed with Hellenismos if it did not provide for a reasoned understanding of the Gods and the universe.

Well, technically, both are necessary.

Let me offer an analogy:

In the mid-20th Century, there were many exposes of orphanages. One thing that was discovered was many orphanages, even in the U$, had these rooms that were basically "storage warehouses" for babies. And when the records of these babies were examined, it was discovered that all of them were much older than they appeared to be. This then prompted scientific studies of chimpanzees. Scientists would make a pair of sort of wire frame "mothers", one which was just a basic wire frame with a bottle sticking out at about where a mother chimp's breast would be, and another that was simply a wire frame covered in a fur pelt to vaguely look more "chimp-like" (and, of course, a control group offring the infant chimpanzees both food and comfort). It was quickly discovered that infants will ultimately choose comfort over food, even if more than adequate nutrition is provided but without comfort. Despite only getting the scantest nutrition, infants that were offered comfort thrived far greater than the infants that weren't offered comfort.

Now, we are not chimps. And as reasonably rational adults, we'll probably pick food before comfort until we reached a point of going stir-crazy, if only given the choice of one or the other. But if given the choice of both good nutrition and comfort/socialisation? Oh, hands down, I don't think you would even choose the option of "just food" if the third option of "both" was offered (though you're more than welcome to say otherwise, if I'm guessing you wrong).

I honour and worship the Divine for the truths they offer, but also because I feel "at home" with worshipping this pantheon. The Gods of the Keltoi also offer another path to truth, but the fact that I don't have that "at home" feeling with Them is what turned me away from Them after desperate attempts to gat that sort of "connection" to them. I'm human, not Divine, and as a human, the truth is that I need not only honesty and wisdom but a sense of, well, comfort -- if I were to lack a sense of "this is for your own good" I just wouldn't thrive, spiritually.



I think that's a really good point, and I wanted to expand on it a little bit. Religion shouldn't be *too* comfortable. (imo). I think that we should always be working to improve ourselves, understand the world around us, understand who we are and what we do, and work on being the best person we can be.

It's not enough to be drawn to the Gods or feel that the religion is a match. To stay in that space will eventually lead to a sort of spiritual stagnation.

This is pretty much exactly how I would have followed up my previous paragraph. A balance is necessary for spiritual growth. Infant chimps getting more than adequate comfort but only "survival" levels of nutrition may have gotten larger, faster, but had other, less visible, health problems. Similarly, a person who's only having the need for "comfort" met by their religious practises may be happy and seemingly content, but a simple conversation would prove that, even after years with said religion, they just haven't had any genuine spiritual growth, just a mere ego-stroke.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

Young Soul Rebel :
_handclapp_handclapp_handclapp_handclapp_handclapp_handclapp_handclapp_handclapp_handclapp_handclapp _handclapp_handclapp_handclapp

:fpraiseyo:yourock:...Not just what you said , regarding me...I have been
following the discussions , going on in the two threads...I must say
overall , you are one of the best and smartest , among all those , I
have ever seen , on this site...

For whatever it is worth...you have truly earned my respect...

I am pleased , to know you are a member of MW...please stay
within the rules , just enough to stay here...at least...:lol:...

Blessings...keep it up...:boing:...:abanana:...:veryweird...:fpraise:...:smile:...

[Theres]

But mythology is part of the religion and plays an important part in the understanding of whatever religion it's associated with. It's far from the end-all-be-all of any religion or even said religion's understanding of Divinity, but it is an important tool for understanding what the Gods meant to the ancient peoples and who wrote said mythos, and how the Gods can relate to future generations as well as our own.

The Gods may not be Their mythos, but there are, in fact, truths about the Gods contained within the mythos, and through study of the mythos, those truths become apparent.
sorry, but this seems little more than an ambiguous slippery slope.

which mythology defines the gods' truths? from which era? from which author?

moderns tend to the rather bad habit of seeing 'mythology' as complete and comprehensive, but it is neither.
the 'truths' of Hesiod are pretty far removed from the 'truths' of Ovid, but to lump them together as some kind of unified mythology results in a tenuous connection at best, and complete nonsense at worst.

so while all of this might give us some insight into the literary accomplishments of ancient Greece, and perhaps even some of the folklore (which may not be without aetiological advantages, i'll grant), how can this artificial mish-mosh give us much in depth information about the religious practices of the average Achaean beyond the sacrificing of hecatombs?
i doubt that Joe Blowicles related very much to Jason's quest for the fleece, or Atalanta's hunting prowess, if he was even aware of these myths. but his libations to Hestia and monthly sweeping out of the old were vital to his religion, and yet you won't find these practice's in Bullfinch.

[YoungSoulRebel]

sorry, but this seems little more than an ambiguous slippery slope.

which mythology defines the gods' truths? from which era? from which author?

If this is how you see what i said, it's not what I meant.

OK, how to re-phrase this....

OK, When I see the word "myth" in a religious context, I go back to the meaning of its origin/root: "sacred texts", but more casually, as narrative tales that have certain points important to the religion which the Gods described in said mythos are sacred to.

It is within the sacred texts of Hellenismos, for example, that it is said Zeus and Hera and King and Queen of the Gods. Among Hellenic Recons, I see that belief, that Zeus and Hera are, respectfully, King and Queen of the Gods. It is part of how those deities are defined. It is part of what many many people see Them as being syncretic to Jupiter and Juno, or Thor and Freya(?), and so on. So it is therefore within the mythos, id est, the sacred texts of Hellenismos where this truth of Zeus and Hera being King and Queen, son and daughter of Kronos and Rhea, is learned.

Now, is Hera the "bitter shrew" that Homer describes Her as? Well, evidence of ancient cultus, at the very least, says "probably not" and most likely "definitely no" -- but even in this unfavourable description, it can be concluded that she is not just the Queen of the Hellenic Pantheon, but a protector of wives and a deity of marriage rites.



moderns tend to the rather bad habit of seeing 'mythology' as complete and comprehensive, but it is neither.
the 'truths' of Hesiod are pretty far removed from the 'truths' of Ovid, but to lump them together as some kind of unified mythology results in a tenuous connection at best, and complete nonsense at worst.

I never said it was complete or comprehensive, and if you feel that I did, then take this as a clarification.

This is where study of the mythos is necessary. Careful study. They're not meant to be taken absolutely literally, but they're meant to be studied and examined and learned from. There is wisdom in them, but no, you're right, it's not universally present, and yes, there are points which seem contradictory -- but are the contradictions complimentary of each-other and ofering some wisdom that way? Or are the contradictions apparently serving no other purpose than entertaining stories about the Divine? Still, to dismiss the mythos completely on that unfortunate fact alone is tantamount to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I will agree that the study of ancient practises are definitely more important than collecting books of mythology, but there is, doubtless, some spiritual value in the study of the mythologies of ancient Hellas. It may not be apparent to everybody, but dismissing it as useless just because one lacks the ability to see, or even lacks the need for seeking such value is just as bad as dismissing any practise on the fact that it's "modern", regardless of the fact that said "modern" practise falls in line with the patterns or reasoning of Reconstructionism.

[YoungSoulRebel]

Young Soul Rebel :
_handclapp_handclapp_handclapp_handclapp_handclapp_handclapp_handclapp_handclapp_handclapp_handclapp _handclapp_handclapp_handclapp

:fpraiseyo:yourock:...Not just what you said , regarding me...I have been
following the discussions , going on in the two threads...I must say
overall , you are one of the best and smartest , among all those , I
have ever seen , on this site...

For whatever it is worth...you have truly earned my respect...

I am pleased , to know you are a member of MW...please stay
within the rules , just enough to stay here...at least...:lol:...

Blessings...keep it up...:boing:...:abanana:...:veryweird...:fpraise:...:smile:...

o.O

If you say so.

Don't take offence to this, but despite my tendencies to run my mouth, I'm here to learn and offer whatever insight I might have -- on occasion, I've been messaged or responded to with somebody stating such was offered when, in my head, I was just running my mouth. I admit that I may come off as a wise-ass, even a weiner at times, but it's a bit of a defence mechanism from being on the tubes about ten years and being on the receiving end genuine hostility and e-bullying. I do take into consideration what people I disagree with say, if only just to see where they're coming from -- I may not agree, but I can often see the logic they're using to support their argument, and that's all I really want other people to see with what I say; nay, I think that's all most (though hardly all) people on the tubes want.

I'm not trying to be seen as "one of the smartest" on any on-line forum. I'm just an outspoken guy who's trying to make sense of it all, and who (from time to time) comes off as a typical obnoxious Gael with nothing better to do.

Here? I see the value in studying mythos. Other people don't. According to social anthropologists, situations like this one are hardly a modern phenomenon. C'est la vie -- one big cyclical argument that's constantly repeating itself with different words in an effort to clarify its positions.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

No offense taken...and , it was not just any one post...

I myself , am loved and hated , here , and elsewhere...
how I define smart...is basically what you said...and
have epitomized...speaking one's truth , listening , if
those who speak , are willing to put it in a way one
can hear it , or at least try , learning the new...

It is also , being willing to see beyond one's box , even
when it seems to go against everything one believes...

That , is why I said what I said...best to you...

And yes...we Irish , do tend to speak up...even if it gets
others up in arms...:lol:

May the Gods you worship...bless you...

[David19]

On second thought, start with Sallustius' On the Gods and the Cosmos, and then work you way backwards to Plato. Sallustius provides a nice summation of thought. Though not very detailed, it does provide a base of understanding with which to work.

Thanks, I've actually read him already, although it was kind of short. He seemed like he had some cool ideas.



There is the saying, "There are many paths to the top of the mountain." This is true, but some paths are a better choice than others are... and "many paths to the top of the mountain" does not mean "all paths."

I'd agree with this, and if it's a path like Scientology, then I'd agree that's the wrong path (I may seem anti-Scientology, but I've seen a lot of evidence that shows they've basically driven people to death and also are just out for money).


No, I'm sorry, I disagree. This was not at all the case in Ancient Greece, or within modern Hellenismos. The irrational is seen man's primal ego self. Intelligence, wisdom, and understanding come from the Divine. Science and religious thought always moved through history in unison until the advent of Christianity.

Well, I've downloaded 'The Greeks and the Irrational' so maybe I'll understand that concept a bit better once I've read it (would recommend that book, BTW?).


I can understand "drawn to" but "stay with" or "dedicated to" are different. There is "feels right" and then there "is right." Do you seek wisdom and truth, or do you seek comfort? There is just no way I could have stayed with Hellenismos if it did not provide for a reasoned understanding of the Gods and the universe.

I stay with my Goddess 'cause it just is right for me, at this present stage in my life anyway (I'm only 21, so you never know what Fate will bring (Fate is big in my religion)). I got some great advice once from a Cochrane witch (a witch derived from Robert Cochrane traditions), who I truly respect, and it was, when you find the religion or tradition/coven that is right for you, you will know it, it will scream "you're home", or something like that, and that's what the Sumerian religion feels like to me. I'm not sure if you'd agree with that same advice, but I think it's great advice, a religion, again IMO, should be about feeling "at home" so to speak.

Also, BTW, I wanted to go back to my perspective on myths, 'cause I don't think I explained it very well, or what the Sumerian view on them is. We don't see them as literal or Gospel like some (though not all) Christians might see the Bible, but we do see them as relevant to the Gods. To understand this, I'll just explain something about Sumerian philosophy, on our altars, everything will take on a spiritual reality, like the carving I've got of Ereshkigal, once I've performed the Opening of the Mouth ritual anyway, will become, in a sense, Ereshkigal, the statues of worshippers (that's a feature of Sumerian altars) will be real in the spiritual realm, it's like they take on a sort of alternate reality.

Here's an article (http://templeofsumer.org/share2.html), from the Temple I'm associated with, that might explain it better:

This bit is the relevant section:


3) Idolatry: It is hard for people today to understand the purpose and symbolism behind idolatry. Even the term idolatry has taken on bad connotations due to the Judao-Christian commandment against the worship of false idols.

Who wants to be thought of as the guy that worships statues? This would be the same as asking why a Christian would worship crossed sticks. Idolaters are not actually worshiping the statues that they appear to be worshiping. They are actually worshiping the god represented by the statue.

In Sumerian religion, as in many religions where idolatry is practiced, the statues represent a connection between the physical world and the spiritual world. A votive statue of a man worshiping a votive statue of a god IS the same as a man worshiping the god in person. The statue of the worshiper is acting as a vessel for the spiritual essence of the worshiper just as the statue of the god is a vessel for the actual god.

People in the Christian religion go to church and commune with their god but they are not in the physical presence of their god per se. They are symbolically in the presence of their god. If a statue of the virgin Mary begins to bleed it is not the wood or the stone that is bleeding, but rather a spiritual manifestation through an appropriate vessel. The Sumerians are doing no less than this when it appears that one is worshiping statues.

Everything on a Sumerian's altar exists and is real in the spiritual realm. When the statue of a worshiper is placed on an altar in a position where it is worshiping the gods it begins to show devotion to the gods continually every moment of the day.

Not every statue represents a physical person. Some statues are votive worshipers or servants that exist entirely on the spiritual realm. These votive statues serve various functions depending on their form.

Also, a Babylonian recon who's a member of MW probably explained it better than I could:

From here (http://mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=182641):


1. Sacred Space: A special room with a central altar table and images or symbols of a particular deity or deities. In ancient Mesopotamia symbols and metaphors have an alternate reality, in that it is believed these representations can manifest and be evoked by the certain ritual actions. This includes the image of the god and the psychological nature of each metaphor. Even as mythology is metaphorical, it also was understood as being reality to the world of the gods though we may not fully grasp their world ourselves.

I hope that explained it a little more, the myths are "literal", but we do see them as being real/true, if that makes any sense.

Hopefully, the articles and the post by Babylon should explain it a lot clearer than I have, and hopefully, I haven't got you too lost.

[Theres]

If this is how you see what i said, it's not what I meant.
i really don't want to take this thread any further off topic, but...

i didn't mean to suggest there was no religious value in mythology.
what i meant was that mythology is a bogus teacher of religion, if that is where one begins and ends. and the proof of that is in the context of David's confusion... hence my remark.

when people see the gods only as they are defined in myth then they are not going to have a very satisfying relationship with Them.
imo.

okay, now you can all get back to arguing over which side of the egg to open.

[Twinkle]

Theres:

It may sound like a silly argument, because we all love the Gods, right?

Well...in the grand scheme of things, it's a big deal because without a clear dividing line between what is Hellenismos, and what is not....we'll have things that are utterly fraudulent...like the Church of Thessaly....claiming to be the "true" Ancient Religion of Greece.

I realize that that our truly educated and well read people out there...and I respect their knowledge immensely...you and Fiamma come to mind. I respect what you do and I have no issues with any of it, because neither one of you have ever claimed to be Reconstructionists.

If we don't stop people from co-opting the label when it doesn't apply...we'll have Wiccafied "Recons"....and honestly, we already do. It's got to stop.

The Church of Thessaly...while they may continue to believe what they want...has changed what's on their webpage...and that's a good start in keeping the integrity of Hellenismos intact.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

This may be in left field but have to ask. If I understand correctly Hellenismos covers that period of time known as the Hellenistic period of Greek history or the third age of Greek civilization. From a more defined point that period after Alexander but before the Roman influence.

If so what Archaic and / or Classical period influences are recognized, or are they recognized at all?

[Tim]

This is exactly why I see what's being defined here as "Inclusive Polytheism", at the very least, can't be entirely right. There is just too much conflict between the mythos of Hellas, versus the Norse, versus the Keltoi, versus Hinduism, and so forth. It can't all be "different cultural interpretations of the same thing" because there are just some points that cannot logically be resolved in that manner -- and the "culture" hasn't much to do with it. If it was all the same thing, there wouldn't be all these inconsistencies when comparing mythologies -- and for this reason, I simply can't believe that Minerva is Brighid, is Hestia, and so forth.
I actually think you touched on why this is a good explanation earlier. Remember your Ben & Jerry's Americone Dream analogy? It comes down to perceived reality verses actual reality. If we take three individuals who know how to make ice-cream (one is a stay at home mom, one is a top notch chef at a five star restaurant, and one is a "scientist" at a kitchen lab with on of Ben & Jerry's competitors) and ask them to reproduce Ben & Jerry's Americone Dream, none can actually reproduce Ben & Jerry's Americone Dream, but there will be one representation more perfect than the others. If we compared the three products produced, we may find that the closest reproduction to true Ben & Jerry's Americone Dream is the one created by the scientist working in the kitchen lab, and the one created by the stay at home mom is so drastically different as to not even be recognizable as a reproduction, and the professional chef finds himself somewhere in the middle. Each are valid reproductions. Each may be good, and satisfy the needs of those who consume them, but one interpretation stands out to be a closer representation of actual Ben & Jerry's Americone Dream.

[Tim]

But mythology is part of the religion and plays an important part in the understanding of whatever religion it's associated with. It's far from the end-all-be-all of any religion or even said religion's understanding of Divinity, but it is an important tool for understanding what the Gods meant to the ancient peoples and who wrote said mythos, and how the Gods can relate to future generations as well as our own.

Myth did not provide that drastic a role in the religion of Ancient Greece, and some have argued it had little to no influence on the public religion.

[Tim]

Thanks, I've actually read him already, although it was kind of short. He seemed like he had some cool ideas.
...cool ideas? It has been described as the catechism for Julian's early Hellenismos.


Well, I've downloaded 'The Greeks and the Irrational' so maybe I'll understand that concept a bit better once I've read it (would recommend that book, BTW?).
Yes... The Early Greek Concept of Soul by Jan N. Bremmer.

[Tim]

This may be in left field but have to ask. If I understand correctly Hellenismos covers that period of time known as the Hellenistic period of Greek history or the third age of Greek civilization. From a more defined point that period after Alexander but before the Roman influence.

If so what Archaic and / or Classical period influences are recognized, or are they recognized at all?

The basic idea of reconstruction is to pick up where the religion left off, making concessions for modern adaptations.

[patch]

Theres:

I realize that that our truly educated and well read people out there...and I respect their knowledge immensely...you and Fiamma come to mind. I respect what you do and I have no issues with any of it, because neither one of you have ever claimed to be Reconstructionists.

Upon reading this I had a really odd realisation.
You and tim are actually the only people in the hellenic community I've properly spoken to that identify as recon!

Highlights the proportions of recons:non recons dosen't it?
When people ask me I always say 'I'm a hellenic polytheist who is as recon as they can be without being recon' :hahugh:

[Theres]

When people ask me I always say 'I'm a hellenic polytheist who is as recon as they can be without being recon' :hahugh:
yep, me too!

in fact i believe that if devout reconstructionists were to observe my practice they might wonder why i don't identify as such myself.

[Twinkle]

I don't wish to be instrusive, Theres...but if you are willing to share, why *don't* you identify as Recon?

As I said, your practice may be intensely private to you...and I completely respect that.

[Theres]

I don't wish to be instrusive, Theres...but if you are willing to share, why *don't* you identify as Recon?

As I said, your practice may be intensely private to you...and I completely respect that.
no, i don't mind you asking, however i'm not sure i can give you a decent reply.
i also don't want to sound like i'm indicting anyone else's practice... these are just my own disjointed thoughts off the top of my head, and in no particular order.

for one thing, i find too much emphasis placed on orthopraxy.
i'm an historian by nature, and i'm also a Libra. i strive to do things the right way because i wouldn't feel right doing them any other way. that would, to me, be disrespectful to the Gods and those who came before us.
however, i feel that a certain balance must be struck between orthopraxy and orthodoxy if one is too achieve a true connection to one's deities (i believe the Greek word is 'phronema?).
just going through the motions in the proper order is meaningless to me.

also, i'm not sure true "reconstruction" is even possible.
we cannot know exactly how our forebears worshipped, even though the literature on the subject is not as bare as some would believe. i understand that recons allow for a certain modernization, but is that genuine?
for instance xenia. how many recons in this day and age are willing to open their homes up to total strangers, let alone do so without the vulgarities of "who are you" or "where do you come from". not many i would venture. and yet to do otherwise is, classically speaking, an affront to Zeus, is it not?
or, supposing i was going to build a temple in the classic style, as prescribed by the architect Vetruvius (which i will be doing, btw). i could probably keep to the original plan to a certain degree, but necessity would require that i use some modern materials, tools, etc. however, the result would not be a reconstruction, but rather a replica... similar but not the same.

and then there is the fact that i am just not a joiner.
my practice is, as you mentioned, very private, and i am thoroughly convinced that my Gods are happy with the result. how that plays out to the community's approval matters not a jot to me, nor does the perception of others outside of said community. but i do see this concern being expressed among many recons nearly to the point of a bunker mentality, or at the very least a certain degree of elitism. who cares whether some silly website is using improper terminology? while i might be somewhat irked by the stupidity, in truth i am not spiritually affected in the least.

again, i'm not suggesting these are the pitfalls that ALL recons are subject to, but the anal insistance on the proper order does seem, to me anyway, too often to come at the expense of the pure connection... a connection that i am all about reaching for.

ymmv.

[Twinkle]

I really appreciate you responding to me, and honestly...I almost deleted my post because I was very afraid that I had offended you. I am really happy to talk with you.

Sounds schmoozy, but it's the truth. :)

Reconstruction, imo *cannot* be an absolute perfect kind of thing, because let's face it, we're not the Ancient Greeks.

That being said, there is so much that we *do* know, that I would venture to say that we can actually publicly worship without too much trouble.

Modern innovation would be a necessity, considering that Hellenismos is a modern religion that attempts to reconstruct ancient practice.

I think that's where we may have a difference as to what Reconstruction means.

Anyway....your personal practice is your own, and I can respect and appreciate that you don't place as much emphasis on orthopraxy as say, I would. Not a big deal to me, and certainly not one to you. :)

I've always thought that people should practice what they want...they should just be intellectually honest as to *what* they are practicing.

I would agree with you that some that claim the title of Recon are merely going through the motions...and there is a lack of true spiritual connection between themselves and the Gods. I've always believed Hellenic Reconstruction to be deeply spiritual as well as orthopraxic, and I believe that a balance between the two must be achieved or it's just an intellectual exercise without any true belief. In other words, I'm one of those recons that's orthopraxic and deeply spiritual. I just balance my spirituality and connection with the Gods with Hellenic thought, belief *and* orthopraxy.

Sometimes it's not easy...I will admit. But then again...I don't believe religion should be easy.

I can also appreciate your point about not being spiritually affected enough to worry about what others are doing, and if they are using terms correctly or incorrectly. I get that...and once again, I can respect that.

I believe that if I remain silent on something I know to be false, then I am, in fact, validating it. Believe me when I tell you that I wish sometimes I could keep my mouth shut...because the viciousness of the attacks against me *almost* had me leaving the religion altogether.

Just today in fact....I got into it with sannion...and instead of any discussion being made on Hellenismos...I got attacked as a person. There were comments made about my mental health, my personal relationships, my job....my life. Not one thing about the issue...which was what makes a Reconstructionist. It was deplorable.

I don't enjoy it...but for me, I have to do what I have to do. I understand that others would choose not to involve themselves in it.

Anyway...thank you for talking with me.

[Theres]

I really appreciate you responding to me, and honestly...I almost deleted my post because I was very afraid that I had offended you.
no no, i'm glad you didn't, and i am not that easily offended.


I've always thought that people should practice what they want...they should just be intellectually honest as to *what* they are practicing.
i can agree with that 100%.
in fact i used to get all up in arms about such matters, and wrote extensively about here and elsewhere. but i finally realized that the world is chock full of stupid and dishonest people, and my crusading against them wasn't even going to make a dent in anything but my owm happiness.
besides i firmly believe in the not-so-old addage that "arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics... even if you win you're still retarded!"


I would agree with you that some that claim the title of Recon are merely going through the motions...and there is a lack of true spiritual connection between themselves and the Gods. I've always believed Hellenic Reconstruction to be deeply spiritual as well as orthopraxic, and I believe that a balance between the two must be achieved or it's just an intellectual exercise without any true belief. In other words, I'm one of those recons that's orthopraxic and deeply spiritual. I just balance my spirituality and connection with the Gods with Hellenic thought, belief *and* orthopraxy.
it sounds like we're not so far apart then, as i suspected.
but one other reason i should have listed above is that i think there must be room allowed for a certain amount of unconfirmed personal gnosis.
this was a hard realization for me, as i am basically rather rational and pragmatic. i have little patience for those who speak in riddles so as not to allow any arguement ('cause who really knows what the hell they're saying anyway, right?!).
however, truth be told it was exactly such a UPG that led me away from Wicca (with a very loud 'SLAM'!) in the first place, so who am i to say my epiphany is more valid than someone else's?
and it hasn't been an easy transition socially, as most of my friends have since departed.


Sometimes it's not easy...I will admit. But then again...I don't believe religion should be easy.
perhaps the most truthful thing i have heard here.
classical religions, whatever form they take, are not for the lazy, and this is as it should be, imo. another reason i moved on from my past belief system.


I believe that if I remain silent on something I know to be false, then I am, in fact, validating it. Believe me when I tell you that I wish sometimes I could keep my mouth shut...because the viciousness of the attacks against me *almost* had me leaving the religion altogether.
i can respect this, but i'm not sure if i fully agree or not.
there are a hundred thousand things in life i know aren't true, but i can't spend my life in service against them. but this in no way suggests that i condone them. i just defer to Sun Tzu's philosophy on the matter and choose my battleground (a sign of age perhaps? NO! i refuse to believe that!)


Anyway...thank you for talking with me.
my pleasure. it is always nice talking with you m'dear! :)

[Twinkle]

It may surprise you to know that I actually do receive upg's...and some very profound, deeply personal gnosis that effected me in a way that I really cannot adequately describe.

They just don't effect my practice.....and honestly, I've never received a UPG that told me anything that *would* effect my practice. They just helped me to understand my gods and strengthened my relationship with them. It was deeply spiritual and personal...but had absolutely no effect on how I worshipped the gods.

I believe that a Recon can have deep, profound gnosis...it just can't trump practice...that's all.

[Theres]

It may surprise you to know that I actually do receive upg's...and some very profound, deeply personal gnosis that effected me in a way that I really cannot adequately describe.

...I believe that a Recon can have deep, profound gnosis...
of course, and that doesn't surprise me in the least. i would be surprised if it were otherwise.


...it just can't trump practice...that's all.
why?

[Twinkle]

Because Hellenismos is an orthopraxy. Gnosis, while important, really has no effect on how I worship. I worship orthopraxically.

If I received gnosis that Hermes wanted me to worship only him, and ignore the rest of the pantheon...I would have to weigh that with Hellenic thought and practice. My gnosis would then be untrue...and I would reject it. I'd be more inclined to think I was daydreaming, misinterpreting the gnosis, or just plain old making it up.

If I received gnosis that Hermes *really* liked Caramels (which I have) and I weighed that against orthopraxy....then it would be fine for me to incorporate caramels as an offering. In that case, my gnosis *did* effect my practice, but in a way that did not conflict with *correct* practice.

It is a modern innovation, but still justifiably orthopraxic.

[Twinkle]

If I believed that my gnosis that Hermes really did want me to worship only him and ignore the rest of the pantheon...and I did so...then I would no longer be worshipping orthopraxically and be in line with Hellenic thought.

If I chose to have my gnosis trump my practice of the reconstruction of Ancient Greece...then I would no longer be a practitioner of Hellenismos. I would be a Hellenic Pagan.

And that would be fine....I would be practicing what *I* felt was right.

What I am though, is a practitioner of Hellenismos...and therefore, keep my gnosis in proper perspective, and worship in a culturally correct context.

I really hope that made sense.


ETA: I would be lying to you if I told you that I didn't struggle with this. I have to constantly keep my ego in check...because part of me really wants to be *special* to the Gods....and sometimes the connection I have with Hermes and Hera makes me really want to believe that I am. I constantly have to weigh my JudeoChristian indoctrination of being "called" or "special" with what I know about Hellenic thought and theology. I admit that my ego sometimes makes me irrational....and I work every day on having a rational and reasoned approach with my gnosis.

[Theres]

... I really hope that made sense.
well, i understood it anyway (my "why" was really just devil's advocate rhetoric anyway. that is my favorite question though).

but to me it sounds like you're saying that the envelope is more important than the message within, and that makes no sense to me at all.

a very strange analogy, but indulge me if you can...

there used to be a show on VH1 called 'Rotten TV', hosted by Johnny Rotten in all his irreverent glory.
one episode had him standing next to a manniquin all dressed up in overpriced rock memorobilia... Bon Jovi's (hork!) boots, Jimmy Page's shirt, etc, etc, all bought at exhorbitant prices and placed on this manniquin. i think it was even holding Sid Vicious' bass.

anyway, after describing all this stuff and how much people were willing to pay for this it all in the name of nostalgia, he hopped into a tank and blew the shit out of it!
his point? that it was the things these people did that was important, NOT what they were wearing while they did it!

somehow this blind allegiance to practice seems quite ponderous to me, and really can get in the way of what the practice is supposed to reveal.
or so it seems.
not that i'm opposed to correct practice, just not at the expense of the reason i'm practicing in the first place. but maybe that's just a result of my 35 years of prior atheism.

[YoungSoulRebel]

i really don't want to take this thread any further off topic, but...

i didn't mean to suggest there was no religious value in mythology.
what i meant was that mythology is a bogus teacher of religion, if that is where one begins and ends. and the proof of that is in the context of David's confusion... hence my remark.

when people see the gods only as they are defined in myth then they are not going to have a very satisfying relationship with Them.
imo.

I don't see how this comment is altogether off-topic, just a parallel direction in conversation.

Basically, though, I agree with you. Somebody whom I used to talk to on-line, among other whack-nutty things, claimed to be an Hellenic Recon who freely admitted that their study of the ancient Greek religion and its modern Reconstruction began and ended with Homer. While Homer can tell a good story, he's definitely one of the worst possible sources for learning about Hera, and other Deities.

[Twinkle]

I see what you're saying, and I can see why you feel that way.

I prefer Traditional worship. I'm attracted to it, always have been. I believe that the message and the practice can work harmoniously with each other.

I've been a practicing pagan in one form or another since 1987. Growing up I was a Roman Catholic, attended Catholic Grammar and Highschool. I started as a Satanist (for me it was 18 year old angst). I was a Wiccan for 12 years after that, and a Christian Wiccan, then a Christian, (because Wicca gave me no spiritual fulfillment at all) and then a practitioner of Hellenismos. I had finally found what I was looking for...I just didn't know it existed.

It has everything: Tradition, gnosis, ethics, philosophy, reason, and deep spirituality.

I am a Traditional kind of girl.

[Theres]

I am a Traditional kind of girl.
and i respect that highly.
like i said, much of this was just DA discussion, and a lot of fun it has been too. :)

but as i posted before, my actual practice is not much different than yours in all likelyhood. i just don't worship the procedure as much as it's intended target.


so to continue what has been a delightful discussion, and for my own further education, would you say that this is an unfair statement...

*that recons put less emphasis on their own UPG than that of someone 's from 2000 years ago?*

i mean it seems that you've said your personal epiphanies are less important than the practice itself, but who defined the practice parameters originally?

[Theres]

okay, here's another thought (and if you'd rather start this as a new topic, i'm cool)...

it seems to me that Hellenic recons tend to reconstruct Hellenistic practice (or attempt to anyway). in fact Tim as much as said so in an earlier post.
there has also been much heated debate over the so-called bastardization of Hellenismos by sites that were described as Wiccan in a thin Hellenic veil, etc. (and i understand the chagrin, believe me)

but to me the Hellenistic age housed what was already a distorted version of 'true' Greek religious practice. it was watered down by Persian and Egyptian religious philosophy, and actually gave birth to new, politically expedient gods to fill the need of the masses.
so what exactly IS "correct practice"?

thoughts?

[Twinkle]

I suppose if we look at history we can see the parameters pretty clearly. Each city state had its patron Gods, and the household worshipped the Gods specific to the home (Hestia, Agathos Daimon, Zeus)....but the whole pantheon *was* worshipped publicly. It seemed to be broken down into three things...the public worship, the home worship, and the mystery cults.

I suppose that gnosis was actually viewed as more important in cult worship, which as you know, we know woefully little about, except for maybe some of the stuff with Dionysus. I suspect it was a group gnosis that had worship based off of that.

That would have been outside of the public worship, though....and those in the cult of Aphrodite would have still honored the whole pantheon, and would have participated in public worship.

[Theres]

ooooh, good answer!

i suppose my reply would be that the public religion of Athens, etc, was a bit too politically and socially motivated for me, much in the same way that late classical mythology was distorted by too much poetic licence.

i guess i'm just a 'mystery' boy at heart.

[Twinkle]

okay, here's another thought (and if you'd rather start this as a new topic, i'm cool)...

it seems to me that Hellenic recons tend to reconstruct Hellenistic practice (or attempt to anyway). in fact Tim as much as said so in an earlier post.
there has also been much heated debate over the so-called bastardization of Hellenismos by sites that were described as Wiccan in a thin Hellenic veil, etc. (and i understand the chagrin, believe me)

but to me the Hellenistic age housed what was already a distorted version of 'true' Greek religious practice. it was watered down by Persian and Egyptian religious philosophy, and actually gave birth to new, politically expedient gods to fill the need of the masses.
so what exactly IS "correct practice"?

thoughts?


These are my thoughts on it...

The Classical Age is when the Pantheon took shape, when worship was really getting more defined...hymns, offerings, and all of that....and when we start seeing the city states having their own myths, and so on. To me, this is when the *public* practice of Ancient Greece really took form. I realize the Hellenistic period is when philosophy started coming into play, but it was considered for the educated elite, and still didn't effect the public practice.

Local deities have always been acknowledged, and when visiting another place, a person would worship the local deities as well, because it was still about correct practice.

I'm not sure I answered your question....if I didn't, please ask me some more questions.

Thanks for this, by the way....you're helping me flesh out my thoughts, as well.

[Twinkle]

ooooh, good answer!

i suppose my reply would be that the public religion of Athens, etc, was a bit too politically and socially motivated for me, much in the same way that late classical mythology was distorted by too much poetic licence.

i guess i'm just a 'mystery' boy at heart.


Actually, I'm a 'mystery" girl as well. I have been deeply fascinated with the mystery cults of Aphrodite.

Of course, I can't really find out *anything* that they did in those cults...but I still enjoy reading about it.

[Theres]

Local deities have always been acknowledged, and when visiting another place, a person would worship the local deities as well, because it was still about correct practice.
yes, but the syncretic era was more than just the acceptance and worship of "local deities", it was the full-fledged manipulation of the classical Gods (imo).
we even saw the manufacture of entirely new gods to fill the gaps (Sarapis anyone?), and the deification of sitting kings (ie; Ptolemy).

surely this was not in accordance with original Greek religious thought?

[Twinkle]

yes, but the syncretic era was more than just the acceptance and worship of "local deities", it was the full-fledged manipulation of the classical Gods (imo).
we even saw the manufacture of entirely new gods to fill the gaps (Sarapis anyone?), and the deification of sitting kings (ie; Ptolemy).

surely this was not in accordance with original Greek religious thought?

My response to that would be that while syncretism was done, it was done carefully, the Greeks just didn't start syncretizing willy nilly.

I talked before about Ammon being the king of the Gods in Egypt. The Greeks in Egypt acknowledged that Ammon was being worshipped as Zeus in Egypt. While they still worshipped at the temple of Ammon, he was still worshiped as Zeus.

Zeus-Ammon.

So really, it does correspond with Greek thought....in that the Cosmic Gods were finite, and named different names in different cultures...but the most perfect representation of Zeus was still Zeus....even if he was being worshipped as Ammon in Egypt.

[Twinkle]

The Hellenistic period is when things start getting really...odd....at least for me.

[Theres]

My response to that would be that while syncretism was done, it was done carefully, the Greeks just didn't start syncretizing willy nilly.

I talked before about Ammon being the king of the Gods in Egypt. The Greeks in Egypt acknowledged that Ammon was being worshipped as Zeus in Egypt. While they still worshipped at the temple of Ammon, he was still worshiped as Zeus.

Zeus-Ammon.

So really, it does correspond with Greek thought....in that the Cosmic Gods were finite, and named different names in different cultures...but the most perfect representation of Zeus was still Zeus....even if he was being worshipped as Ammon in Egypt.
hmmm...

this really doesn't explain the advent of the Sarapis cult though, does it? or the cult of Ptolemy. they were not original Greek gods under a different name, nor were they adopted gods from another culture (as were Hekate, Dionysus, etc).
it seems to me that these were rather willy-nilly.

no, that's not right either. they were well thought out i imagine, but the motivations are questionable. to me anyway.
this is why my personal practice does not include this era.


The Hellenistic period is when things start getting really...odd....at least for me.
well we can certainly agree on that!

[Twinkle]

I don't disagree. The Hellenistic period is odd.

[Tobias]

My response to that would be that while syncretism was done, it was done carefully, the Greeks just didn't start syncretizing willy nilly.

I talked before about Ammon being the king of the Gods in Egypt. The Greeks in Egypt acknowledged that Ammon was being worshipped as Zeus in Egypt. While they still worshipped at the temple of Ammon, he was still worshiped as Zeus.

Zeus-Ammon.

So really, it does correspond with Greek thought....in that the Cosmic Gods were finite, and named different names in different cultures...but the most perfect representation of Zeus was still Zeus....even if he was being worshipped as Ammon in Egypt.

Hi Twinkle et al,

Very interesting discussion! I hope nobody minds if i jump in?

I've been thinking for a while on your statement about the Greek representation of the gods being the most accurate... I don't suppose such a statement could be proven, now could it? :) On one hand it's probably a simple declaration of faith. Without believing in it it would probably be unwise to to follow Hellenism as a religion, no? But on the other hand even declarations of faith need to be substantiated somehow. Nobody would claim that "Jesus is the ONLY way" or Muhammed was the LAST prophet" without expecting to support their claims with some kind of logic or evidence.

I've found that it's necessary to seek out the most accurate knowledge of a god/goddess possible when getting to know them. When Athena first presented herself to me a few years ago, I considered all possible angles of her being a goddess of Wisdom. Being a Christian it would have been convenient to call her Sophia or equate her with the unnamed personification of Wisdom in the Proverbs, but she was pretty sure her name was "Athena", and the sooner I got on board with that the quicker I learned what she had to teach me. :)

I can't imagine any better sorce of knowledge on her than what may have come from the city of Athens. Who better to know her than those who are serious about her worship? But then again, when you add politics and priesthood in the mix, accuracy often times goes out the window! How can anyone be certain which historically accurate "facts" about a goddess are actually true?

Could it be possible to verify known "facts" about the gods, through collecting and anylizing various people's upg's, and seeing what stands up to reality? It would only make sense that, if certain facts were true, then it would be apparent to pretty much everyone who's able to make contact. Instead of building a religion or practice then off of a hope that the ancients had it all figured out correctly, we could build based upon what really is.

But perhaps I'm over simplifying what would amount to an almost impossible process? :hehehehe:

[Tim]

i can respect this, but i'm not sure if i fully agree or not.
there are a hundred thousand things in life i know aren't true, but i can't spend my life in service against them. but this in no way suggests that i condone them. i just defer to Sun Tzu's philosophy on the matter and choose my battleground (a sign of age perhaps? NO! i refuse to believe that!)

You cannot standup for every falsehood that comes down the road, but (IMO) we most certainly should for those things that are important. For me, that is family, Gods, and country.

[Tim]

well, i understood it anyway (my "why" was really just devil's advocate rhetoric anyway. that is my favorite question though).

but to me it sounds like you're saying that the envelope is more important than the message within, and that makes no sense to me at all.

No, not at all. It is about placing ego to the side (not calling you an egotist), and looking at the bigger picture. Testing gnosis is asking is this the message, or is this a greasy hamburger induced hallucination, or is this my ego. Gnosis is also not irrelevant. If the Gods (or a God) is asking to a one time sacrifice, or even a new local festival to be created, that is not over the top. It can be tested to be orthopraxic. But if you (the generic you) think Hermes (for example) gave you a vision that you are to be his oracle, do "his work", and be "his representative" to the people, that does not stand the test, and is most likely a self created, ego induced delusion.

[Tim]

so to continue what has been a delightful discussion, and for my own further education, would you say that this is an unfair statement...

*that recons put less emphasis on their own UPG than that of someone 's from 2000 years ago?*

i mean it seems that you've said your personal epiphanies are less important than the practice itself, but who defined the practice parameters originally?

I would say this is an incorrect statement. The one thing they had 2000 years ago that we do not have is an informal system of check and balances. Oracles, for instance, did not interpret the messages they gave. They where nothing more that a tool used for communication, a conduit for the information to flow (kinda like a radio), and were elected or appointed to the position. There was also a group of trained priests that actually translated the messages. Today, we have self-anointed "oracles" handing down prophetic messages with no checks and balances. In essence, we have no 3rd party evaluation, no testing, no training, no nothing, just some yahoo proclaiming that god so-and-so spoke to him and told him to be his oracle. Then this megalomaniac says and does whatever his ego tells him, and with a little flowery speech, people buy into it.

[Tim]

but to me the Hellenistic age housed what was already a distorted version of 'true' Greek religious practice. it was watered down by Persian and Egyptian religious philosophy, and actually gave birth to new, politically expedient gods to fill the need of the masses.
so what exactly IS "correct practice"?

thoughts?
I think you may be confusing philosophy with religion. During the Hellenistic age, the Classical religion was rather unaffected. Sure, we can say that there were cults that popped up, but for the most part, they did not influence of replace the public religion. These manifestations also tending to be specific to metropolitan areas (not exclusively), and rural practices remained constant. We have also had discussions about this on both MnM (http://www.mind-n-magick.com/forum/YaBB.pl) and Hellenismos.us (http://hellenismos.us). We can very clearly see that there was a decline of the Pagan religions (in the Mediterranean), when flexible morals, perfunctory religion, cosmopolitan tastes, exotic cults, faddish behavior, and a falling away from orthopraxy and tradition allowed for the rise of Christianity and, in essence, the Gods turning their backs on us. We need (IMO) to be reconstructing the Hellenic religion, not every fad, foreign cult, or whatnot that existed.

[Tim]

Hi Twinkle et al,

Very interesting discussion! I hope nobody minds if i jump in?

I've been thinking for a while on your statement about the Greek representation of the gods being the most accurate... I don't suppose such a statement could be proven, now could it? :) On one hand it's probably a simple declaration of faith. Without believing in it it would probably be unwise to to follow Hellenism as a religion, no? But on the other hand even declarations of faith need to be substantiated somehow. Nobody would claim that "Jesus is the ONLY way" or Muhammed was the LAST prophet" without expecting to support their claims with some kind of logic or evidence.

I've found that it's necessary to seek out the most accurate knowledge of a god/goddess possible when getting to know them. When Athena first presented herself to me a few years ago, I considered all possible angles of her being a goddess of Wisdom. Being a Christian it would have been convenient to call her Sophia or equate her with the unnamed personification of Wisdom in the Proverbs, but she was pretty sure her name was "Athena", and the sooner I got on board with that the quicker I learned what she had to teach me. :)

I can't imagine any better sorce of knowledge on her than what may have come from the city of Athens. Who better to know her than those who are serious about her worship? But then again, when you add politics and priesthood in the mix, accuracy often times goes out the window! How can anyone be certain which historically accurate "facts" about a goddess are actually true?

Could it be possible to verify known "facts" about the gods, through collecting and anylizing various people's upg's, and seeing what stands up to reality? It would only make sense that, if certain facts were true, then it would be apparent to pretty much everyone who's able to make contact. Instead of building a religion or practice then off of a hope that the ancients had it all figured out correctly, we could build based upon what really is.

But perhaps I'm over simplifying what would amount to an almost impossible process? :hehehehe:

The statement that the Greek Gods are the most perfect representation is based on the perception that the Greek Gods are the most complete pantheons (which is not dependant on total number) and the most reasoned. We can say that the Gods can be seen through three stets of eyes. There are the Gods of the religion, the Gods of myth, and the Gods of the philosophers. The cumulative affect creates the most complete representation of the Cosmic Gods. We could nickel and dime this, but that is the essence of it. IMO, the only other pantheon that gives the Greek Gods a run for their money are the Hindu Gods.

[Tobias]

The statement that the Greek Gods are the most perfect representation is based on the perception that the Greek Gods are the most complete pantheons (which is not dependant on total number) and the most reasoned. We can say that the Gods can be seen through three stets of eyes. There are the Gods of the religion, the Gods of myth, and the Gods of the philosophers. The cumulative affect creates the most complete representation of the Cosmic Gods. We could nickel and dime this, but that is the essence of it. IMO, the only other pantheon that gives the Greek Gods a run for their money are the Hindu Gods.


Ok, so let's look at the number of Greek gods, for a moment. How did they come up with the ones they have? Did they look into the Cosmos, and see that there are twelve major Gods and Goddesses holding everything together? And then move on and add all the other important ones that pertained to their locale on the planet? I think not.

The Greek pantheon developed along side with the Greek community. Gods were added as city-states were included. I can't imagine this process being anything more than politics on many levels. Is that a fair assumption from someone who hasn't studied this too extensively?

At some point the pantheon was stablized, though they never stopped considering whether new gods deserved to be added or not, did they? Was Isis ever accepted in any way other than as a popular cult?

It just seems to me, that your average person 2000 years ago in Greece would have honored the gods and goddesses that they felt a connection with. Unless you want to take into account the fear of what would happen if any of the major ones were forgotten. They would have had their select few that they honored regularly, and if any outside gods also appealed to them, then nobody complained if they also wanted to set up an alter to someone like Anubis or Odin.

[Tim]

Ok, so let's look at the number of Greek gods, for a moment. How did they come up with the ones they have? Did they look into the Cosmos, and see that there are twelve major Gods and Goddesses holding everything together? And then move on and add all the other important ones that pertained to their locale on the planet? I think not.

The Greek pantheon developed along side with the Greek community. Gods were added as city-states were included. I can't imagine this process being anything more than politics on many levels. Is that a fair assumption from someone who hasn't studied this too extensively?

At some point the pantheon was stablized, though they never stopped considering whether new gods deserved to be added or not, did they? Was Isis ever accepted in any way other than as a popular cult?

It just seems to me, that your average person 2000 years ago in Greece would have honored the gods and goddesses that they felt a connection with. Unless you want to take into account the fear of what would happen if any of the major ones were forgotten. They would have had their select few that they honored regularly, and if any outside gods also appealed to them, then nobody complained if they also wanted to set up an alter to someone like Anubis or Odin.

Well, the fact that you don't actually provide a rebuttal or alternative viewpoint, I don't see any value is discussing this with you. We can all nickel and dime any belief system to death, and engage ourselves in some form of intellectual masturbation. It does not change the historically accurate description that has been stated about the Greek perception of their Gods, it will not change my perception in my Gods, and making a list of all the reasons why their representation may not be the most perfect, is not proof of anything.

If you truly want to know about how the Twelve Gods are argued to be the correct number for the Gods in possession of the Cosmos, you will need to read up on Greek religion and philosophy. It is simply too difficult to have a discussion with a person, on that magnitude, who does not have at least a minimum level of knowledge, has no interested in developing any level of understanding, and only wants to bicker.

[Twinkle]

I struggled with this whole number of the Gods thing myself. I had to really read up on philosophy to truly understand it, and then compare it to what I believed to be true, and then figure out if I was being rational or not.

It takes awhile, sometimes.

[Tobias]

I struggled with this whole number of the Gods thing myself. I had to really read up on philosophy to truly understand it, and then compare it to what I believed to be true, and then figure out if I was being rational or not.

It takes awhile, sometimes.


It's difficult. :)


The only reason I find myself interested in Hellenism at all is because I have been brutally honest about my discoveries into the Cosmos. I started out thinking I was taking a unique path towards proving the tenets of Christianity to be correct; by observing how they compare to Reality as we experience it. While some parts do hold up, imagine my suprise when I started bumping into Greek deities... :lol:

Needless to say, I'm not impressed with anything that amounts to the logic of saying,"Our religion is right because we believe it is!" I can just imagine Alexander the Great going forth out of Macedonia to conquer the known world, convinced that his people's concept of the gods was the "right" one... has nothing changed? lol

[Tobias]

If you truly want to know about how the Twelve Gods are argued to be the correct number for the Gods in possession of the Cosmos, you will need to read up on Greek religion and philosophy. It is simply too difficult to have a discussion with a person, on that magnitude, who does not have at least a minimum level of knowledge, has no interested in developing any level of understanding, and only wants to bicker.


If you don't know how to answer me, Tim, you could just say so. :)

[Twinkle]

That's not it at all, and in fact, he gave the same response to me when I was asking similar questions.

It's just that unless you have a basic understanding of Greek philosophy, the conversation becomes rapidly circular, and in the end does nothing but create the reply you just gave....

If there is some sort of philosophy or theology that implies something other than Tim said, and not just your musings, it would be easier to have a discussion.

[Tim]

If you don't know how to answer me, Tim, you could just say so. :)

I did answer you. I was willing to engage with David19 because, from previous conversations, I presumed he had at least a conversational level on knowledge when it came to the ancient Greeks, and their religion, culture, and philosophy. In fact, I was mistaken. Even if a person does not know the philosophical concepts that explain it, if they have only passing knowledge of the ancient Greek religion, they then know the Greeks believed that everyone in the world worshipped the same set of Gods, just by different names and myths. Now, while the advanced concepts explaining this belief are culled from philosophy, this was the belief of the common people. I can provide you with a basic explanation of why Twelve is reasoned to be the number of Gods governing the world, but the philosophy behind it fills volumes. Ultimately, if you don't have any knowledge (which it seems you do not), and have no real interest except to bicker (which also seems true), then it is a pointless conversation.

[patch]

We could nickel and dime this, but that is the essence of it. IMO, the only other pantheon that gives the Greek Gods a run for their money are the Hindu Gods.

Any particular reason? Or just preference? :)


We can very clearly see that there was a decline of the Pagan religions (in the Mediterranean), when flexible morals, perfunctory religion, cosmopolitan tastes, exotic cults, faddish behavior, and a falling away from orthopraxy and tradition allowed for the rise of Christianity and, in essence, the Gods turning their backs on us. We need (IMO) to be reconstructing the Hellenic religion, not every fad, foreign cult, or whatnot that existed.

So, for you personally; mysticism- yay or nay?

Also, I can't find it to quote, but back to your post with the hamburger hallucination. xD
I understand and fully agree with what you said. However, would you say you are of the opinion that a person cannot have contact with a deity like that?

[Tobias]

I did answer you. I was willing to engage with David19 because, from previous conversations, I presumed he had at least a conversational level on knowledge when it came to the ancient Greeks, and their religion, culture, and philosophy. In fact, I was mistaken. Even if a person does not know the philosophical concepts that explain it, if they have only passing knowledge of the ancient Greek religion, they then know the Greeks believed that everyone in the world worshipped the same set of Gods, just by different names and myths. Now, while the advanced concepts explaining this belief are culled from philosophy, this was the belief of the common people. I can provide you with a basic explanation of why Twelve is reasoned to be the number of Gods governing the world, but the philosophy behind it fills volumes. Ultimately, if you don't have any knowledge (which it seems you do not), and have no real interest except to bicker (which also seems true), then it is a pointless conversation.


Well let's see. I reasoned that a statement to the effect that "The Greek gods are the most perfect representation of the gods" is a statement of faith, not unlike "Jesus is the only way" and "Muhammed was the last prophet". As a statement of faith, it is quite possible that many accept it as such without trying to "prove" it. I also reason that no religion just issues such a statement without some theologian(s) somewhere coming up with a system of logic to defend it.

If your religion is in such a place that you are unable to defend your own statement of faith; either because you are new to the religion, unaware of what the arguments in favor of it are, or just simply going through your own crisis of faith and unwilling to touch on things that upset you; then fine. I'm not trying to force unwilling conversation out of anybody. :)

[Tim]

Any particular reason? Or just preference? :)
Generally, for the same reason I gave for the Greek pantheon


So, for you personally; mysticism- yay or nay?
It is a yay.


Also, I can't find it to quote, but back to your post with the hamburger hallucination. xD
I understand and fully agree with what you said. However, would you say you are of the opinion that a person cannot have contact with a deity like that?
You would have to define for me what you mean by "like that." Do I believe in mystical experience, communion with the Gods, and Divine possession? Sure do. Do I believe that people are "chosen," as prophets, or can independently proclaim themselves oracles? No, I do not. This is a fundamental truth regarding the Hellenic religion; no one stands between you and the Gods.

A priest is not a God's representative on earth to the people; a priest is the people's representative to a God. The individual does not need them (for the most part). An Oracle is not chosen by a God to be their prophet; they are mundanely appointed in some fashion. An Oracle is nothing more then a tool. It was for trained priests to interpret what the information means.

A mystical experience needs to be explained, tested, and critiqued; not merely accepted at face value. One must ask how information fits within Hellenic concepts, values, and practices. Does the information expand or explain existing knowledge? Does the perceived information conflict with the concepts of piety, reciprocity, and moderation? Does the information conflict with the virtues of temperance (self-control), prudence (forethought), fortitude (courage), and righteousness (justice)? Can the information be reasoned to be true? I mean really reasoned by being able to make a declaration to explain or justify the information in a logical sense, not just say it "feels right." Is it our ego talking to us, or the Gods? People who are convinced of their "specialness" need to be avoided.

[patch]

^You pretty much got the meaning of my question!
I enjoyed your answers :)

On a small pagan community I am on, we say that people who think they are specially picked by the gods or are a victim of false mass hysteria; or something similar, are in a 'mr dark' situation. ;)

[Tim]

Well let's see. I reasoned that a statement to the effect that "The Greek gods are the most perfect representation of the gods" is a statement of faith, not unlike "Jesus is the only way" and "Muhammed was the last prophet". As a statement of faith, it is quite possible that many accept it as such without trying to "prove" it. I also reason that no religion just issues such a statement without some theologian(s) somewhere coming up with a system of logic to defend it.

If your religion is in such a place that you are unable to defend your own statement of faith; either because you are new to the religion, unaware of what the arguments in favor of it are, or just simply going through your own crisis of faith and unwilling to touch on things that upset you; then fine. I'm not trying to force unwilling conversation out of anybody. :)

That is just poor form. How very weak! Is this an attempt to illicit an angry response, or use my ego to force a reply so you can then try to pick apart with your uneducated musings?

Well... fine... here is a brief synopsis:

The Gods are perceived manifested in various levels. We can also acknowledge that being is in a state of multiples and is a distribution of the original Unity, understanding that the Twelve heavenly Gods exist in Unity with their offspring. It is through repeated emanations and distribution of this power the mundane universe was caused to exist. While we can recognize the absolute number of the Gods is innumerable to the human mind, twelve is the most appropriate number to the absolute Gods as it represents the finished progress of the Hypercosmic. The Demiurge is recognized as a triad (beginning, medium, and end) and therefore three. We then recognized four groups of Gods based on action (to cause, to animate, to harmonize, and to protect), which incidentally coincides with the Four Fundamental Forces of Nature recognized by Physics. It then becomes a simple equation (3*4=12) that twelve becomes the number.

If you want to discuss it further and in more detail, you will need to be read up on Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, Plotinus, and Proclus, or at least, read my book The Gods of Reason (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1430327634/) to get some basic understanding. I am not going to entertain discussions with you if you only want to poke people with a stick.

[Tim]

^You pretty much got the meaning of my question!
I enjoyed your answers :)

On a small pagan community I am on, we say that people who think they are specially picked by the gods or are a victim of false mass hysteria; or something similar, are in a 'mr dark' situation. ;)
I usually describe them as being unable to purge Christian thinking from their head, and suffering from "chosen people syndrome." :lol:

[Tobias]

A mystical experience needs to be explained, tested, and critiqued; not merely accepted at face value. One must ask how information fits within Hellenic concepts, values, and practices. Does the information expand or explain existing knowledge? Does the perceived information conflict with the concepts of piety, reciprocity, and moderation? Does the information conflict with the virtues of temperance (self-control), prudence (forethought), fortitude (courage), and righteousness (justice)? Can the information be reasoned to be true? I mean really reasoned by being able to make a declaration to explain or justify the information in a logical sense, not just say it "feels right." Is it our ego talking to us, or the Gods? People who are convinced of their "specialness" need to be avoided.


As a person coming to Hellenism because the gods decided to start revealing themselves to me, I fell your assessment may be a bit biased against the mystical end of things. But I suppose your same logic could apply also towards an academic who displays signs of being "convinced of his own specialness"?? :lol:

From what I understand, one of the central foundations of Hellenism is to "Know Thyself". We must understand that the gods are gods, and that we are mere mortal man. To know our place, and become content with that. Hubris happens when we see ourselves as more than what we are. But what happens if we see ourselves as less?

Throughout the mythology of the Greeks we see the gods bestowing their favors upon certain individuals from time to time. These heroes were given certain gifts, and certain challenges to overcome. I can't imagine what would have become of the situation had the hero of the story not taken the challenge presented, or had he rejected the gifts of the gods. For the hero to "Know Thyself", he had to accept the fact that the gods had made him "special"; at least as compared to most everybody else. :)

The same might also apply to a prophet or the Pithia. Unless that person admitts to themself that "the gods do speak through me", they could not do their job. This does not mean that anybody should ever see themselves as more than what they are... but I do feel it's important to understand exactly what we are; nothing more, and nothing less.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

I admit up front my memory of Greek mythos is not up to par right now so please bear with me.



understanding that the Twelve heavenly Gods exist in Unity with their offspring.


I'm not sure I follow the unity concept here. If I recall correctly Cronos consumed all his offspring until such time as Zeus was born. That only by having him eat a rock was Zeus in fact able to avoid being consumed by Cronos. Later Zeus would overthrow the titans and imprisson them in Tartarus (sp).

Where is the unity in this? I agree that it appears that while Cronos consumed them they yet survived to be born after the consumption. Then Zeus stripped them of thier power accept for Hecate who was allowed to keep her former power and points of influence after they made war on each other.

If being imprisoned in Tartarus is unity then I fail to see the balance. Perhaps balance if infered by having the older class removed and thier power distributed to the newer grouping. Through the change of power the creative influence remains constant while the group welding it changes, retaining its connection to the previous generation.

Like I said though I am not up to date on my greater Greek histories.

As a second question mention has been made of the gods not choosing an individual yet where not many of the great heroes chosen by the gods for the feats they would perform?

[Twinkle]

The central core of Hellenismos is piety, reciprocity, and moderation. It is also a based on rationality and reason, and ethics.


It is good to accept your attributes and gifts...but you have to take a reasoned and rational approach to it. You must think like a mortal, be moderate in your approach, and rational and reasoned in your response. Being overly humble would be just as bad as being egotistical and convinced of your specialness.

I'm not sure how you're equating *being who you are* with self proclaiming yourself special...and being chosen by the Gods.

I have the gift of mediumship. I am intuitive and clairvoyant. I am a seer. I would not presume that the Gods have chosen me to do or *say* anything on their behalf.

[Tim]

From what I understand, one of the central foundations of Hellenism is to "Know Thyself". We must understand that the gods are gods, and that we are mere mortal man. To know our place, and become content with that. Hubris happens when we see ourselves as more than what we are. But what happens if we see ourselves as less?
That is but one of many maxims. Another is "think as a mortal." There are plenty of books out there regarding the Delphic Maxims and the Seven Sages. Feel free to visit your local library.


Throughout the mythology of the Greeks we see the gods bestowing their favors upon certain individuals from time to time. These heroes were given certain gifts, and certain challenges to overcome. I can't imagine what would have become of the situation had the hero of the story not taken the challenge presented, or had he rejected the gifts of the gods. For the hero to "Know Thyself", he had to accept the fact that the gods had made him "special"; at least as compared to most everybody else. :)
*sigh* The myths are not the Gods. The myths had little effect on the religion. The myths were not used as doctrine, or seen as a form of revelation.


The same might also apply to a prophet or the Pithia. Unless that person admitts to themself that "the gods do speak through me", they could not do their job. This does not mean that anybody should ever see themselves as more than what they are... but I do feel it's important to understand exactly what we are; nothing more, and nothing less.
See my previous comments on oracles. :goodgrief

[Twinkle]

Tim:

What is it with this need to be special or chosen?

I've always thought it was JudeoChristian conditioning....Moses and the Burning Bush, Noah being told to build the Ark.....

Someone else mentioned that it was a psychological need for acknowledgement.

I'm thinking that it might be a little of both?

[Tim]

I admit up front my memory of Greek mythos is not up to par right now so please bear with me.

I'm not sure I follow the unity concept here. If I recall correctly Cronos consumed all his offspring until such time as Zeus was born. That only by having him eat a rock was Zeus in fact able to avoid being consumed by Cronos. Later Zeus would overthrow the titans and imprisson them in Tartarus (sp).
The myths are not the Gods. The myths had little effect on the religion. The myths were not used as doctrine, or seen as a form of revelation.


Where is the unity in this? I agree that it appears that while Cronos consumed them they yet survived to be born after the consumption. Then Zeus stripped them of thier power accept for Hecate who was allowed to keep her former power and points of influence after they made war on each other.
Philosophical and theological concepts are not linked to myth, as it is in Christianity. Myth is allegorical. While it can be said myth is symbolic of the activities of the Gods, it does not provide the whole truth about the Gods. For instance, the story of Cronus swallowing his children could be described, as Sallustius did, by saying, "Since God is intellectual, and all intellect returns into itself, this myth expresses in allegory the essence of God." Zeus being the son of Cronus in myth does not mean that Cronus actually came before Zeus, but describes Cronus in relation to Zeus.


Like I said though I am not up to date on my greater Greek histories.
I would recommend the same list I did early. You can also find suggested reading material here (http://hellenismos.us/?page_id=4).


As a second question mention has been made of the gods not choosing an individual yet where not many of the great heroes chosen by the gods for the feats they would perform?
See previous answers.

[Tim]

Tim:

What is it with this need to be special or chosen?

I've always thought it was JudeoChristian conditioning....Moses and the Burning Bush, Noah being told to build the Ark.....

Someone else mentioned that it was a psychological need for acknowledgement.

I'm thinking that it might be a little of both?
I think that that is a fair judgment.

[Tobias]

The central core of Hellenismos is piety, reciprocity, and moderation. It is also a based on rationality and reason, and ethics.


It is good to accept your attributes and gifts...but you have to take a reasoned and rational approach to it. You must think like a mortal, be moderate in your approach, and rational and reasoned in your response. Being overly humble would be just as bad as being egotistical and convinced of your specialness.

I'm not sure how you're equating *being who you are* with self proclaiming yourself special...and being chosen by the Gods.

I have the gift of mediumship. I am intuitive and clairvoyant. I am a seer. I would not presume that the Gods have chosen me to do or *say* anything on their behalf.


So, in Christianity it would seem at times that God has needed to rely upon the actions of various people to get His purposes done. If the prophet (or whomever) did not do his job, then God's will would have been foiled. Jonah perhaps being an extreme example of what lengths God is willing to go through to get the cooperation He needed.

Are you saying that the Hellenic gods would never do anything of the sort? Under no circumstances would they ever be in a possition where they need to rely upon humans to that extent? (To any extent??)

So then what of messages from the gods? As a medium/clairvoyant/seer, have you never known any of the gods to wish to use you to pass on a message to someone else? I feel that I have sucessfully done this a couple of times. Not as someone to be put on a pedistal and revered, but as a person who perhaps has a rather unique ability to do so, or as a third party who's not so close to a situation to where I can't see things in perspective. I wouldn't say that I've done so out of a calling or anointing from the gods; but more from an attitude of reciprocity. I appreciate what some of them have done for me; how better to thank them then to deliver a messege if I'm asked? (Honestly, how could I justify saying "no"?) :)

Are you saying that there is no place for this in Hellenismos? (Thinking about the seer telling Agnamennon(sp) that Artimes required the sacrifice of his daughter for favorable winds to sail to Troy... yeah I know... myth!)

[Twinkle]

So, in Christianity it would seem at times that God has needed to rely upon the actions of various people to get His purposes done. If the prophet (or whomever) did not do his job, then God's will would have been foiled. Jonah perhaps being an extreme example of what lengths God is willing to go through to get the cooperation He needed.

Are you saying that the Hellenic gods would never do anything of the sort? Under no circumstances would they ever be in a possition where they need to rely upon humans to that extent? (To any extent??)

So then what of messages from the gods? As a medium/clairvoyant/seer, have you never known any of the gods to wish to use you to pass on a message to someone else? I feel that I have sucessfully done this a couple of times. Not as someone to be put on a pedistal and revered, but as a person who perhaps has a rather unique ability to do so, or as a third party who's not so close to a situation to where I can't see things in perspective. I wouldn't say that I've done so out of a calling or anointing from the gods; but more from an attitude of reciprocity. I appreciate what some of them have done for me; how better to thank them then to deliver a messege if I'm asked? (Honestly, how could I justify saying "no"?) :)

Are you saying that there is no place for this in Hellenismos? (Thinking about the seer telling Agnamennon(sp) that Artimes required the sacrifice of his daughter for favorable winds to sail to Troy... yeah I know... myth!)


You've answered your own question, Tobias. :) The mythology of the Bible is central to the Christian faith. Mythology in Hellenismos had no effect on worship.

I don't believe we need a conduit to ourselves and the Gods. Hellenismos did not, and still does not need prophets.

You've read Tim's responses regarding oracles, and I stand in agreement with that.


I have channeled, I am powerfully good at Divination, and I have some extrasensory perception, at times.

Divination is different from oracular work...and I do it to *honor* the Gods, but it is not considered a message from them to anyone else. When I channel, I have nothing make me believe that a God was working through me. Therefore, I would not make that claim that I was an oracle. Oracles were historically chosen by priests, and they weren't anything truly special.

The honest answer is that I'm not sure what I channeled....and I would rather err on the side of caution than make a hubristic claim that a God called me. Any information I have received cannot be tested against anything that would verify that the Divine was giving me a message. And honestly, anything I have done to help anyone else has been through Divination...not channeling.

I hope that answered your question.


ETA: I *almost* fell into the trap of thinking I was an oracle. I truly *wanted* to believe that a specific God was working through me...but when I weighed it with rational thought, the concept of piety, and my ethics, I couldn't justify the claim. I just couldn't.

[Twinkle]

I would also add that the modern day oracles we see popping up are asking for money...or course, it's called a "donation"....but still. It smells absolutely rotten....and I would be highly skeptical of anyone claiming to be an oracle.

[Twinkle]

I can understand where you are coming from...probably more than you think I do.

You have obviously had something very powerful happen with you. I've had the same....and there is a need that "we" have to figure out what it means in the grand scheme of things. It would be tempting, and very easy to think that we are conduits...that we can help people from the information that we receive.

Unfortunately, at least in Hellenismos...I can't jump to that conclusion that quickly. And after weighing it...despite what I really wanted to believe...I cannot and will not say I am chosen by any God to be an oracle.

What I am is a person that had a powerful mystical experience.

[Tobias]

Thank you Twinkle, you've been truly kind and helpful. :)


Sigh.


It seems like such a waste. I've trained as a prophet; why would the gods not be interested in using this ability? It seems like so much better of a way to reciprocate and show my appreciation for what they do for me than offering them food or killing animals for them. I am rather disinclined to think that academics, who all too often wish to control the direction of the religion to favor their own positions in it, could come up with an unbiased assessment of the historical relevance that the seers and oracles have had on the people.

Not that a guy like myself could ever hope to access the right books and information to ever see what they have to say for myself. Tell me, why is it that those of us who can actually listen to the gods ourselves, are reduced to such a lowly position that nobody cares to hear what our direct line of communication has caused us to surmise? lol There is nothing "special" about this!! If I wanted to be "special" I should have majored in religion in collage! Then I too could go around telling people how they need to "read more" before I deem them worthy enough to talk to me! :rotfl:

Anyway, you are a breath of fresh air in an otherwise rather hostile religion. :smile:

[Theres]

Anyway, you are a breath of fresh air in an otherwise rather hostile religion. :smile:
don't blame the religion Tobias.
there are condescending fundamentalists in all spiritual paths it seems.

[Tobias]

don't blame the religion Tobias.
there are condescending fundamentalists in all spiritual paths it seems.

lol. Thanks!

[Tim]

I am rather disinclined to think that academics, who all too often wish to control the direction of the religion to favor their own positions in it, could come up with an unbiased assessment of the historical relevance that the seers and oracles have had on the people.

I'm pretty sure you would be hard pressed to find any comment in this thread stating that seers and oracles are historically irrelevant, or even irrelevant to the modern religion. What is irrelevant are the delusional ravings of megalomaniacs who thinks they are the Hellenic version of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Paul, or even Muhammad. Do you actually think that is beneficial? For Hellenismos to have it's own version of Paulists who are influenced by individuals who claim they are "chosen by God" and given divine revelation? Do you believe that Hellenismos would benefit from a person claiming "But I certify you, brethren, that the [message] which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of..."?

[Twinkle]

don't blame the religion Tobias.
there are condescending fundamentalists in all spiritual paths it seems.


This is true. I've been accused of it myself, to be honest. I would never want to claim that my way is the only way. And I would hope that I would never be condescending to anyone. I would be ashamed of myself if I did.

What I would love to see is people practicing what they want in whatever way they want. I would defend anyone's right to practice whatever they religion they choose.

The only thing that would qualify me as condescending and a fundamentalist is when I point out what people are practicing is *not* Hellenic Reconstructionism. And all I'm basing that information on is what we know of Hellenic thought, ethics and practice.

I suppose that the argument could then be that we don't know everything, and who knows? Maybe what I *am* practicing actually *is* something the Ancient Greeks did, and I know that through Divine revelation.

With nothing to objectively test that revelation, it then becomes nothing other than what you (the general you) *think* it is.

If everything is allowed to be Hellenismos based off what you *think* to be true without any sort of actual historical evidence of its validity...then it becomes (and I'm sorry, I don't mean to offend), Neo-Wicca...which encompasses everything and anything.

I think religion is sort of exclusionary by nature. You do a, b and c.., believe a,b and c or you're not a practitioner of it. Neo-Wicca is the only religion I've seen that is truly inclusive...and even then, some of them claim that "this" is not Wicca or "that" is not Wicca.

If I claimed to be Catholic, and yet didn't believe that Jesus was the Son of God, then I am not a Catholic.

If that makes me an elitist and a fundamentalist, then I guess it does.

I would admit that it would hurt to think that people would think so little of me...but I guess that's the way it goes sometimes.

[patch]

Hellenismos/hellenic religion is so very rooted in reason that the last thing I'd think was that the gods wanted me to become an oracle.

I don't see something and immediately take it as a sign, I think people do this too often. If I recieve signs they tend to come in fours of fives. Because each time I brush it off and ask for clarification until I can't call it a coincidence any more. That is why I'm sitting here now as a practicing hellenic polytheist with Poseidon as my patron. ;)
In addition to this, I look at the context of the signs; what was I doing at the time? Is this a common occurence I'm just taking out of context? For example, imagine I'm watching a program about ancient greek religion, and Zeus' name pops up several times. It is HIGHLY unlikely this by itself is a sign, because you'd expect to hear Zeus' name on a program like that.

Not trying to be big headed or anything, but I think if more people reasoned like this( including the question 'what was I doing at the time, was I taking drugs?'), we wouldn't have phony oracles.

[Tobias]

I'm pretty sure you would be hard pressed to find any comment in this thread stating that seers and oracles are historically irrelevant, or even irrelevant to the modern religion. What is irrelevant are the delusional ravings of megalomaniacs who thinks they are the Hellenic version of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Paul, or even Muhammad. Do you actually think that is beneficial? For Hellenismos to have it's own version of Paulists who are influenced by individuals who claim they are "chosen by God" and given divine revelation? Do you believe that Hellenismos would benefit from a person claiming "But I certify you, brethren, that the [message] which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of..."?


Well, ok. I was trying to steer the conversation away from comparissons with Christian prophets as they are sorely misunderstood. It seems that there are just as many misconceptions about them as there are fatal errors they can make while trying to do their job.

As long as you are specific though about which attributes (or supposed attributes) of prophets we are talking about, I should be able to follow. :) "Delusional ravings of megalomaniacs" = not good. Sounds fair enough. You'll get no argument from me on that point!




Speaking of specifics... I would be very interested in a break-down of the various mystical practices and how they relate to Hellenism. Twinkle mentioned that she would practice divination, but not presume to channel for the gods. (Correct?) Christian prophets don't channel per se, but do speak on behalf of God... which many times has a prediction somewhere in the content of the messege. Apollo is known for being a (the?) god of prophecy... in what context is the word "prophecy" used here? As in predictions, or does it mean something else?

I was considering starting a new thread to discuss this (if enough people are interested), as it seems to be a bit OT for this one. But then it occured to me that surly this topic has been covered somewhere before. Does anyone know where I could find information on this, so I'm not troubling you all with what seems to me some very basic questions?

Thank you :)

[Tobias]

This is true. I've been accused of it myself, to be honest. I would never want to claim that my way is the only way. And I would hope that I would never be condescending to anyone. I would be ashamed of myself if I did.

What I would love to see is people practicing what they want in whatever way they want. I would defend anyone's right to practice whatever they religion they choose.

The only thing that would qualify me as condescending and a fundamentalist is when I point out what people are practicing is *not* Hellenic Reconstructionism. And all I'm basing that information on is what we know of Hellenic thought, ethics and practice.

I suppose that the argument could then be that we don't know everything, and who knows? Maybe what I *am* practicing actually *is* something the Ancient Greeks did, and I know that through Divine revelation.

With nothing to objectively test that revelation, it then becomes nothing other than what you (the general you) *think* it is.

If everything is allowed to be Hellenismos based off what you *think* to be true without any sort of actual historical evidence of its validity...then it becomes (and I'm sorry, I don't mean to offend), Neo-Wicca...which encompasses everything and anything.

I think religion is sort of exclusionary by nature. You do a, b and c.., believe a,b and c or you're not a practitioner of it. Neo-Wicca is the only religion I've seen that is truly inclusive...and even then, some of them claim that "this" is not Wicca or "that" is not Wicca.

If I claimed to be Catholic, and yet didn't believe that Jesus was the Son of God, then I am not a Catholic.

If that makes me an elitist and a fundamentalist, then I guess it does.

I would admit that it would hurt to think that people would think so little of me...but I guess that's the way it goes sometimes.


Identifying what is, and what is not Hellenic Reconstructionism does not make anyone a Fundie in my opinion. :) You would have to take it a step further and insist that the only way to honor the Greek gods is if a person does it your way (presumably the pattern the Hellenic Recons follow to acheive whatever it is they are attempting to acheive ~ not being negative towards that just unsure of what the parameters are.)

:)

[Tim]

Speaking of specifics... I would be very interested in a break-down of the various mystical practices and how they relate to Hellenism. Twinkle mentioned that she would practice divination, but not presume to channel for the gods. (Correct?) Christian prophets don't channel per se, but do speak on behalf of God... which many times has a prediction somewhere in the content of the messege. Apollo is known for being a (the?) god of prophecy... in what context is the word "prophecy" used here? As in predictions, or does it mean something else?
Not prophecy in the sense of a God's plan or will, but prophecy in the sense of the possibility and probability on a certain outcome. In any event, it is not a gift bestowed on special messengers, but an ability available to anyone.

[Fiamma]

I can understand where you are coming from...probably more than you think I do.

You have obviously had something very powerful happen with you. I've had the same....and there is a need that "we" have to figure out what it means in the grand scheme of things. It would be tempting, and very easy to think that we are conduits...that we can help people from the information that we receive.

Unfortunately, at least in Hellenismos...I can't jump to that conclusion that quickly. And after weighing it...despite what I really wanted to believe...I cannot and will not say I am chosen by any God to be an oracle.

What I am is a person that had a powerful mystical experience.

Twinkle, a question if you don't mind.

With all that you have to say about oracles, and the views that you've expressed here and in other venues, I'm rather confused by the fact that, not very long ago, you suggested to me that I perhaps should be considering doing some oracular work, and when I said that it wasn't something that I was prepared to undertake at the present time, you suggested that Apollo might feel otherwise.

(I am volunteering the link here: http://fuego.livejournal.com/659031.html)

[Twinkle]

From what I've read, I believe the people being chosen at the Oracle of Delphi were women from aristocratic families 25 years of age or less.

That's it. The oracular room itself let off sorm form of gas that created a trancelike state. The women were trippin'....and that is how they received the messages from Apollo.

In other words..it had nothing to do with the girl herself. She wasn't special or anything like that...and she certainly wasn't self proclaimed. She was picked by priests because she met a certain parameter that had nothing to do with any clairvoyant gifts.

[Fiamma]

From what I've read, I believe the people being chosen at the Oracle of Delphi were women from aristocratic families 25 years of age or less.

That's it. The oracular room itself let off sorm form of gas that created a trancelike state. The women were trippin'....and that is how they received the messages from Apollo.

In other words..it had nothing to do with the girl herself. She wasn't special or anything like that...and she certainly wasn't self proclaimed. She was picked by priests because she met a certain parameter that had nothing to do with any clairvoyant gifts.

You might find William Broad's book, The Oracle: Ancient Delphi and the Science Behind Its Lost Secrets, interesting. It's mostly a report of the geological basis behind the functions of Delphi (and the story of the long, hard road to its discovery), but there is also some discussion of evidence that the Pythia was, at least after a time, an older, married woman. It is a fascinating read.

The gas, by the way, is ethylene, it's production drastically decreased in winter due to changes in seismic activity, which would explain th practical basis for the Oracle's silence during the winter.

[Tim]

You might find William Broad's book, The Oracle: Ancient Delphi and the Science Behind Its Lost Secrets, interesting. It's mostly a report of the geological basis behind the functions of Delphi (and the story of the long, hard road to its discovery), but there is also some discussion of evidence that the Pythia was, at least after a time, an older, married woman. It is a fascinating read.

The gas, by the way, is ethylene, it's production drastically decreased in winter due to changes in seismic activity, which would explain th practical basis for the Oracle's silence during the winter.
Therefore, you agree with Twinkle statements that the women were under the influence of the gas, and that is how they received the messages from Apollo, not that they were in anyway "special," and that they were chosen priests because she met a certain parameters, but not because of any gift.

[Fiamma]

Therefore, you agree with Twinkle statements that the women were under the influence of the gas, and that is how they received the messages from Apollo, not that they were in anyway "special," and that they were chosen priests because she met a certain parameters, but not because of any gift.

I've no doubt that the gas had something to do with it. What precisely, and what Apollo did with that influence...I don't know.

As far as the choosing of the Pythia, I have not read enough about that as of yet to say that I agree or disagree with anything. Other than what I mentioned, what else there may or may not have been to it, I simply don't know. Once I have had the opportunity to learn more (which I have every intention of doing, as Delphi is asubject of particular fascination for me), I would be happy to revisit the discussion.

The Pythia was not the only oracle, but I will make no further commentary on that because my knowledge of any other specific ones is even less, so it is not a discussion that I am able to entertain on any sort of educated basis.

[Twinkle]

Just for giggles, I looked up the effects of Ethylene exposure on human beings. This is what I got:

Symptoms
Ethylene has a pleasant sweet faint odor, and has a slightly sweet taste, and as it enhances fruit ripening, assists in the development of odour-active aroma volatiles (especially esters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ester)), which are responsible for the specific smell of each kind of flower or fruit.
In mild doses, ethylene produces states of euphoria, associated with stimulus to the pleasure centres of the human brain. It has been hypothesised that human liking for the odours of flowers is due in part to a mild action of ethylene associated with the plant.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]
Exposure at 37.5% for 15 minutes may result in marked memory disturbances. Humans exposed to as much as 50% ethylene in air (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air), whereby the oxygen availability is decreased to 10%, experience a complete loss of consciousness and may subsequently die due to hypoxia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypoxia_%28medical%29).
Symptoms of ethylene exposure include the following.
Mild exposure in air

Percent of O2 saturation at 90%
Night vision decreased
Mild euphoria reported.Moderate exposure in air

Percent of O2 saturation at 82 to 90%
Respiratory rate has compensatory increase
Pulse, also a compensatory increase
Night vision is decreased further, focus is simplified
Performance ability is somewhat reduced, mild distortion to speech, utterances increasingly ambiguous.
General alertness level is somewhat reduced to anything but central concerns
Symptoms may begin in those patients with pre-existing significant cardiac, pulmonary, or hematologic diseases.
EuphoriaHigh concentration in air

Percent of O2 saturation at 64 to 82%
Compensatory mechanisms increasingly become inadequate
Air hunger, gasping for breath
Fatigue, lassitude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lassitude), inability to maintain balance
Tunnel vision, out-of-body experiences
Dizziness
Mild to persistent headache
Belligerence, certainty of truth
Extreme euphoria, belief in capacities of the self enhanced
Visual acuity is reduced, dreamlike seeing of visions
Numbness and tingling of extremities
Hyperventilation
Distortions of judgment, abnormal or illogical inferences drawn
Memory loss after event
Increased cyanosis
Decreased ability for escape from toxic environmentVery high concentration in air

Percent of O2 saturation at 60 to 70% or less
Further deterioration in judgment and coordination may occur in 3 to 5 minutes or lessSevere oxygen deprivation

Loss of consciousness results when the air contains about 11% of oxygen.
Death occurs quickly when the oxygen content falls to 8% or less.Very high concentrations in oxygen

Prolonged inhalation of about 85% in oxygen is slightly toxic, resulting in a slow fall in blood pressure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_pressure).
At about 94% in oxygen, ethylene is acutely fatal.
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethylene&action=edit&section=28)] Medical and historical use

Ethylene has long been in use as an inhalatory anaesthetic. When used as a surgical anaesthetic, it is always administered with oxygen with an increased risk of fire. In such cases, however, it acts as a simple, rapid anaesthetic having a quick recovery.
Many geologists and scholars believe that the famous Greek Oracle at Delphi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphi) (the Pythia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythia)) went into her trance-like state as an effect of ethylene rising from ground faults.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethylene_(plant_hormone)#_note-Roach)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethylene_(plant_hormone)

[Twinkle]

Twinkle, a question if you don't mind.

With all that you have to say about oracles, and the views that you've expressed here and in other venues, I'm rather confused by the fact that, not very long ago, you suggested to me that I perhaps should be considering doing some oracular work, and when I said that it wasn't something that I was prepared to undertake at the present time, you suggested that Apollo might feel otherwise.

(I am volunteering the link here: http://fuego.livejournal.com/659031.html)


Sure, I'd be more than happy to answer your question.

At one time I believed that people could be chosen to be oracles. Because of my own experiences, and my own sense that I needed to feel special or chosen by the Gods (Aphrodite specifically), I allowed myself to think that perhaps myself and others *were* oracles.

I always had an internal struggle...something deep inside of me would not rest. I contemplated, read, contemplated some more...worked on what I believed to be true vs. what Hellenic ethics, and piety told me, and discovered, much to my chagrin and ultimately...shame....that what I thought about oracles was not based on anything other than what I *needed* and *wanted* to believe.

It's that simple.

When I am wrong, I change my viewpoint.

[Tim]

I've no doubt that the gas had something to do with it. What precisely, and what Apollo did with that influence...I don't know.

As far as the choosing of the Pythia, I have not read enough about that as of yet to say that I agree or disagree with anything. Other than what I mentioned, what else there may or may not have been to it, I simply don't know. Once I have had the opportunity to learn more (which I have every intention of doing, as Delphi is asubject of particular fascination for me), I would be happy to revisit the discussion.

The Pythia was not the only oracle, but I will make no further commentary on that because my knowledge of any other specific ones is even less, so it is not a discussion that I am able to entertain on any sort of educated basis.

My point was that if anything was special, it was Delphi, which is confirmed further with the oracle proclaiming the God will no longer speak there in the 4th century. This clearly identifies that the Greeks saw the power came from the location (a sacred site), not the person.

[Fiamma]

Sure, I'd be more than happy to answer your question.

At one time I believed that people could be chosen to be oracles. Because of my own experiences, and my own sense that I needed to feel special or chosen by the Gods (Aphrodite specifically), I allowed myself to think that perhaps myself and others *were* oracles.

I always had an internal struggle...something deep inside of me would not rest. I contemplated, read, contemplated some more...worked on what I believed to be true vs. what Hellenic ethics, and piety told me, and discovered, much to my chagrin and ultimately...shame....that what I thought about oracles was not based on anything other than what I *needed* and *wanted* to believe.

It's that simple.

When I am wrong, I change my viewpoint.

Okay, that's cool. was just wondering.

[Twinkle]

It's what I said before...I constantly struggle and challenge myself and my beliefs. I have to constantly check my ego against reason, rationality, history and so on.

It's *so* not easy, at times, and sometimes I fall short.

[Tobias]

Not prophecy in the sense of a God's plan or will, but prophecy in the sense of the possibility and probability on a certain outcome. In any event, it is not a gift bestowed on special messengers, but an ability available to anyone.

Thank you, Tim. :)

[YoungSoulRebel]

The same might also apply to a prophet or the Pithia. Unless that person admitts to themself that "the gods do speak through me", they could not do their job. This does not mean that anybody should ever see themselves as more than what they are... but I do feel it's important to understand exactly what we are; nothing more, and nothing less.

OK, I'm just going to say this because I see a lot of people misinterpreting it.


In the late 19th Century or so, somebody (though I forget who, precicely, right now) translated some ancient Greek to read "The God Apollon spoke through the Pythia" -- and since then, a lot of people approximately 2,000+ years after the original now-Ancient Greek text was written, have been reading that to mean "OMGZORZ!! APOLLON MADE HER HIS MEAT-PUPPET!!! SPOOKINESS!!"

Let me make an analogy:

You ever watch MST3K? I do. A lot. There is an episode, I think it was Viking Women Vs the Sea-Serpent (or maybe it was Fire Maidens From Outer Space?) where Crow T Robot lets a matte-black "evil spectre"/his doppelgänger whom he names "Timmy" onto the Satellite of Love. At some point, "Timmy" starts saying "obscene" things (well, as obscene as Mike Nelson ever let it get, anyway), and Crow says "Timmy wants to speak through me".

Now, in watching this episode, we never see any evidence whatsoever that Timmy somehow took possession of Crow's body and very literally enacted his will using Crow as a puppet for doing so. No, instead, we just see Timmy whispering to Crow and Crow (presumably) repeating Timmy's words verbatim.

This is all it means when somebody writes "the God spoke through the oracle".

There is no evidence that the Pythiai were ever "possessed" by Apollon or any other Gods. Some anthropologists and archaeologists are even now publishing works which, at the very least, suggest (if not outright state) that the Pythia was calm and comparatively "reserved" for what we've come to associate with a belief of God- or spirit-possession, and for the love of all that is sacred, I'd source this if I wasn't two minutes from leaving to go do something in the middle of the night. Yes, her words were re-interpreted, but the information made available to us does not suggest that which could be easily construed as "possession" -- we have descriptions of seemingly collected women relaying the words of a God. Less "meat puppet", more "Teletype machine".

[YoungSoulRebel]

Tim:

What is it with this need to be special or chosen?

I've always thought it was JudeoChristian conditioning....Moses and the Burning Bush, Noah being told to build the Ark.....

Someone else mentioned that it was a psychological need for acknowledgement.

I'm thinking that it might be a little of both?

I wouldn't completely blame it on a Judeo-Christian upbringing. I was raised Catholic and, sometimes very literally, had a sense of humility (well, humility when concerning the Divine) beaten into me. It's been among (though not always by) certain self-proclaimed "Recons" that I've had *ahem* "fellow worshippers" attempting to drill a sense of "specialness" into my head -- thus we learn that, to some people, the Maxims of Delphi are multiple choice.

[Tobias]

Not prophecy in the sense of a God's plan or will, but prophecy in the sense of the possibility and probability on a certain outcome. In any event, it is not a gift bestowed on special messengers, but an ability available to anyone.



As much as I want to make nice here, I can't help but to point out how illogical this statement seems to me. :) Aren't there certain umm... limitations that are generally understood by pretty much everybody, when it comes to the gods communicating to people? The very existence of Delphi should be enough to show us that, while anyone who wishes may ask questions of Apollo, certain circumstances and/or people are necessary to hear his answers.


Psychic abilities are being studied more and more. I don't think it will be too much longer before the phenomenon will be a science in it's own right. As it is, we know that some people can see things in the spirit realm (clairvoyants), while other people can only hear (clairaudient - like myself, btw). Some people focus their perceptions onto "Earth bound spirits", others onto nature spirits. Some on the dearly departed, others on the Guides and Gods. Some mystics look even beyond all of that, and sense an all encompassing Presence of warmth and unconditional love.

Now as things are, we can dismiss each experience and the interpretation of it as religious, and pertaining only to the specific religion the person belongs to. But I really feel that this is in the process of changing. We are finding that, pretty much across the board, these psychic experiences can be categorized using a set standard that applies to all. Just like we accept it as fact that a thunderstorm originating in Greece and then blowing west on to Rome isn't first controlled by Zeus and then taken over by Jupiter; psychic experiences that happen in a Hellenic setting (or Christian for that matter) aren't going to follow a unique set of principles that are completely incomprehensible to those who have studied under a different system.
The Laws of Physics are the same in both Greece and Rome.

Methodology however, can be quite different. We know that the pithia most likely inhaled a drug, and gave forth oracles that then had to be interpreted by the priests. I cannot see how you can claim that such a system is available to everybody on an individual basis? Even if we did try passing out bongs of just the right mixture of whatever it was they had at Delphi, where are the priests to interpret the prophecies?

Which then brings up the issue of being special. I think we have to accept the fact that, in life, certain people do possess traits that make them "special" (and I'm not talking about Downs Syndrome, lol). In fact, we all live in specialized society; making each of us unique in our own way. While we may tell our children that they can become anything they want to (fireman, doctor, etc), the truth of the matter is that each specialization requires certain traits, abilities, education, and dedication to make them happen.

Now, we've all run into people who think they are God incarnate. In fact, each one of us have to learn to deal with our own egos in our own way. Does the presence of ego in any proportion immediately exclude us from doing anything for the gods or for the religion? Or is that standard only applied to those who feel they are asked to speak on Their behalf? Unchecked ego can be displayed by any religious worker, from poets and musicians to historians and orators.

When it comes to specializing in the delivery of prophecies, it is very basic, elementary stuff to learn to separate your own pride and your own ideas and beliefs, from the word you are bringing forth. Like I say, it takes first an aptitude, and after that quite a bit of trainning. But unlike some instances of prophets in the past, there is no big mystery surrounding the phenomenon. We can understand what is happening, and others similarly trained can judge the quality of the work that is being done. We can easily tell the difference between what is being spoken as a word of prophecy, and what is being made up on the spot by someone unethical or inexperienced.

There's no reason to repeat the mistakes of the past; but there's also no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.

[Tobias]

OK, I'm just going to say this because I see a lot of people misinterpreting it.


In the late 19th Century or so, somebody (though I forget who, precicely, right now) translated some ancient Greek to read "The God Apollon spoke through the Pythia" -- and since then, a lot of people approximately 2,000+ years after the original now-Ancient Greek text was written, have been reading that to mean "OMGZORZ!! APOLLON MADE HER HIS MEAT-PUPPET!!! SPOOKINESS!!"

Let me make an analogy:

You ever watch MST3K? I do. A lot. There is an episode, I think it was Viking Women Vs the Sea-Serpent (or maybe it was Fire Maidens From Outer Space?) where Crow T Robot lets a matte-black "evil spectre"/his doppelgänger whom he names "Timmy" onto the Satellite of Love. At some point, "Timmy" starts saying "obscene" things (well, as obscene as Mike Nelson ever let it get, anyway), and Crow says "Timmy wants to speak through me".

Now, in watching this episode, we never see any evidence whatsoever that Timmy somehow took possession of Crow's body and very literally enacted his will using Crow as a puppet for doing so. No, instead, we just see Timmy whispering to Crow and Crow (presumably) repeating Timmy's words verbatim.

This is all it means when somebody writes "the God spoke through the oracle".

There is no evidence that the Pythiai were ever "possessed" by Apollon or any other Gods. Some anthropologists and archaeologists are even now publishing works which, at the very least, suggest (if not outright state) that the Pythia was calm and comparatively "reserved" for what we've come to associate with a belief of God- or spirit-possession, and for the love of all that is sacred, I'd source this if I wasn't two minutes from leaving to go do something in the middle of the night. Yes, her words were re-interpreted, but the information made available to us does not suggest that which could be easily construed as "possession" -- we have descriptions of seemingly collected women relaying the words of a God. Less "meat puppet", more "Teletype machine".


As the study of phychic phenomenon grows, I think we well come to understand that there are a finite number of possibilities of what could have transpired in Delphi. Possession of the pithia is one of them. "Whispering in her ear" is another.

Yet another possibility is that she was sitting there tripping on drugs, while the priests themselves wrote down answers to the questions they were presented with; and Apollo wasn't involved at all. Or if he did answer most of the questions, what did the preists do if for some reason he didn't choose to speak every now and again? Would they just make something up? The people did pay good money to hear from Apollo; what if he didn't play along for some reason?

There are so many ethical issues at hand here. It is commendable that they did have a system of checks and balances; but even so there are plenty of ways they could have gotten around them.

[Tim]

Psychic abilities are being studied more and more. I don't think it will be too much longer before the phenomenon will be a science in it's own right. As it is, we know that some people can see things in the spirit realm (clairvoyants), while other people can only hear (clairaudient - like myself, btw). Some people focus their perceptions onto "Earth bound spirits", others onto nature spirits. Some on the dearly departed, others on the Guides and Gods. Some mystics look even beyond all of that, and sense an all encompassing Presence of warmth and unconditional love.
I'm not sure when we are talking about oracles that we are talking about psychic abilities. Regardless, anything one person can do, anyone can do. Music is a good example. There are those with natural ability, and those who learn, and natural ability, while giving an edge, does not ultimately translate into a greater proficiency compared to those who have to work harder to learn.



Methodology however, can be quite different. We know that the pithia most likely inhaled a drug, and gave forth oracles that then had to be interpreted by the priests. I cannot see how you can claim that such a system is available to everybody on an individual basis? Even if we did try passing out bongs of just the right mixture of whatever it was they had at Delphi, where are the priests to interpret the prophecies?
Well, that does create a quandary for those wanting to claim the title of oracle. Anyway, the way I can make the claim that ability is available to all is as previously stated. If one person can, then anyone can. As far as holding the office of oracle, no, not everyone can be. Each oracle office would have their own requirements, just as any office held. It is just like not everyone can be the President of the United States. At the same time, it is the office that is the most important.


Which then brings up the issue of being special. I think we have to accept the fact that, in life, certain people do possess traits that make them "special" (and I'm not talking about Downs Syndrome, lol). In fact, we all live in specialized society; making each of us unique in our own way. While we may tell our children that they can become anything they want to (fireman, doctor, etc), the truth of the matter is that each specialization requires certain traits, abilities, education, and dedication to make them happen.
I disagree. Outside of a physical or mental limitation, anyone can be anything they want to be. Now, of course, as one gets older those options become more limited. At 37, it is unlikely that I could ever become an astronaut, but that does not detract from the fact that it was a path I could have chosen to take.


When it comes to specializing in the delivery of prophecies, it is very basic, elementary stuff to learn to separate your own pride and your own ideas and beliefs, from the word you are bringing forth. Like I say, it takes first an aptitude, and after that quite a bit of trainning. But unlike some instances of prophets in the past, there is no big mystery surrounding the phenomenon. We can understand what is happening, and others similarly trained can judge the quality of the work that is being done. We can easily tell the difference between what is being spoken as a word of prophecy, and what is being made up on the spot by someone unethical or inexperienced.
I think if we (the universal we) could easily tell the difference, then this conversation would not be happening. There are too many people easily influenced by flowery speech and empty spiritual rhetoric. This is not just a Hellenic issue, but this is within all religions. If we (again, the universal we) could easily tell the difference then we would have never had to deal with Jim Jones, David Koresh, Heaven's Gate, or any of the other destructive cults.

[Tobias]

Tim,

I have often compared psychic abilities to musical aptitude. Some have it in greater proportions than others. And it's true that with music enough instruments have been created that are easy enough to play to where most anybody can learn how to pick out a song on one of them. That does not mean that they know how to make music, though! Have you ever watched the auditions for American Idol?? I can't stand that show! So many people thinking they are so great... they need that British guy to set them straight and tell them just how badly they stink. lol

Perhaps this is exactly the problem you are trying to avoid when it comes to prophets and oracles. I have to disagree with you though when you say that anybody can become anything. We may each have a rather broad spectrum of choices available. Some however are going to be jobs where we can easily excel at, because they utilize our specific talents and aptitudes and our upbringing. Others are going to be much more of a struggle as we try to compensate for our lack of aptitude in key areas, and lack of socialization in others. Not just anybody can be a doctor. You have to be able to retain masive amounts of medical information, as well as surviving years and years of medical school. Many potential candidates are weeded out of the program for any number of reasons.

Otherwise, I gather from what you're saying that the position of oracle historacly was never a One Man Show? Oracles were set up as an "Office", which was never about the dynamic personality and charismatic leadership of the one doing the prophesying? :) Ok yeah, that is a bit different than what's happened in Church history.

Still, I would hope that any group taking it upon themselves to set up an Oracular Office would lean a little more heavily upon the science of how things work, rather than strictly upon how things were done in the past.

[Tim]

I have often compared psychic abilities to musical aptitude. Some have it in greater proportions than others. And it's true that with music enough instruments have been created that are easy enough to play to where most anybody can learn how to pick out a song on one of them. That does not mean that they know how to make music, though! Have you ever watched the auditions for American Idol?? I can't stand that show! So many people thinking they are so great... they need that British guy to set them straight and tell them just how badly they stink. lol

Perhaps this is exactly the problem you are trying to avoid when it comes to prophets and oracles. I have to disagree with you though when you say that anybody can become anything. We may each have a rather broad spectrum of choices available. Some however are going to be jobs where we can easily excel at, because they utilize our specific talents and aptitudes and our upbringing. Others are going to be much more of a struggle as we try to compensate for our lack of aptitude in key areas, and lack of socialization in others. Not just anybody can be a doctor. You have to be able to retain masive amounts of medical information, as well as surviving years and years of medical school. Many potential candidates are weeded out of the program for any number of reasons.
I could not disagree more with your assessment of talent. While talent may make learning certain skills easier, any truly dedicated individual can acquire proficiency in any skill. When my brother started college (this is going back about 12 years ago) I gave him this quote in a frame:


“Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful people with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'press on' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race” ~ Calvin Coolidge


Otherwise, I gather from what you're saying that the position of oracle historacly was never a One Man Show? Oracles were set up as an "Office", which was never about the dynamic personality and charismatic leadership of the one doing the prophesying? :) Ok yeah, that is a bit different than what's happened in Church history.
That is correct. There is no Hellenic equivalent of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, or Paul. Claims of such specialness would have been interpreted as complete and utter hubris. In fact, that is one of the criticisms made by the Greeks and Romans against early Christians.


Still, I would hope that any group taking it upon themselves to set up an Oracular Office would lean a little more heavily upon the science of how things work, rather than strictly upon how things were done in the past.
I agree. Any "miracle" that has every occurred, happened because there is a natural law that allows it. I would argue thought that "what ever we have learned" since ancient times, regarding metaphysics and the "supernatural," is often less advanced and filled with fanciful drivel.

[Tobias]

Ok, so setting our difference of opinion aside concerning the importance of natural talent, would it be safe to say that we both agree on the need for a certain amount of training and dilligence on the part of any sucessful oracular candidate? The office of an oracle then wouldn't be filled by "just anybody", but someone who shows the integrity and resolve to do the job as best they can. Perhaps that doesn't make them special as in "chosen by the gods" from birth or any such thing; but I do think there is an important element of being "accepted by the gods" if indeed we accept the premise that said person is actually speaking on their behalf.

[Tim]

With regards to "certain amount of training and diligence on the part of any successful oracular", I don't believe there is any evidence to suggest that there was any special training or skill needed on the part of the person serving as oracle, beyond the actual process. Being an oracle is not described as a life-long office where the level of proficiency increased. They were more like tools, and it would be like saying a Ouija board or a Tarot deck needs training. The training and diligence would be on the part of the priests interpreting the messages. On the issue of choosing a person based on integrity and resolve to do the job, I would agree. A person who was publicly known to be lacking in the area of virtue would not have been chosen.

[Twinkle]

Ok, so setting our difference of opinion aside concerning the importance of natural talent, would it be safe to say that we both agree on the need for a certain amount of training and dilligence on the part of any sucessful oracular candidate? The office of an oracle then wouldn't be filled by "just anybody", but someone who shows the integrity and resolve to do the job as best they can. Perhaps that doesn't make them special as in "chosen by the gods" from birth or any such thing; but I do think there is an important element of being "accepted by the gods" if indeed we accept the premise that said person is actually speaking on their behalf.


Hi Tobias :)

I don't think that the oracular candidate needed any special training or diligence. The only thing I've read (and I don't even pretend to know everything) would be how to prepare to go into the oracular room. At the oracle of Delphi, She was purified, and dressed. Then she was escorted by priests into the center of the room, given laurel leaves to chew...and then she sat and inhaled the gas.

The only thing she was trained on was the procedure. The rest of it was interpreted by the priests.

The only integrity required at Delphi was that the girl be a virgin. I've been doing some additional reading...and found that one young woman grew tired of her celibate lifestyle and allowed herself to be seduced by a querent. At that point they changed the Pythia to an older woman in her fifties...the uglier the better.

So after all that...I guess I fall in line with what Tim said. The Pythia would not be considered the Pythia if she gave in to vice.

[Tobias]

So in the case of the pithia they used a drug induced trance. :) Like I say, there are a finite number of ways they could have used to make this work properly. Why then do you suppose that the talent and training resided in the priests who interpreted the oracles? Were her words unintelligable, similar to the Christian practice of Tongues and Interpretation, where one person speaks a message out in an unknown language, while another person interprets it into our common language? Or did she speak in riddles and rhymes, kind of like Nostradamus?


I've kind of been under the impression Tim, that while you seem to assert that Apollo is indeed real and that he wishes to speak to each one of us; you then take away every known method of that ever happening. But perhaps I misunderstand you and you have other methods of communication in mind? I admit that I've always considered a direct "Thus Saith the Lord" type of word to be rather awkward. There are so many less-direct ways to communicate what we might believe is the wisdom of God to someone else.

Do I get this impression that you think the office of an oracle is unimportant because you feel there are other, more dependable methods that the gods can use to get their point(s) across to us?

[Tim]

So in the case of the pithia they used a drug induced trance. :) Like I say, there are a finite number of ways they could have used to make this work properly. Why then do you suppose that the talent and training resided in the priests who interpreted the oracles? Were her words unintelligable, similar to the Christian practice of Tongues and Interpretation, where one person speaks a message out in an unknown language, while another person interprets it into our common language? Or did she speak in riddles and rhymes, kind of like Nostradamus?
What would have you thinking it was not the priests? What portion of the process indicates that it was the oracle? The power came from the sacred site. The priests interpreted her ramblings. In the whole process, the oracle was just a vessel or conduit.


I've kind of been under the impression Tim, that while you seem to assert that Apollo is indeed real and that he wishes to speak to each one of us; you then take away every known method of that ever happening. But perhaps I misunderstand you and you have other methods of communication in mind? I admit that I've always considered a direct "Thus Saith the Lord" type of word to be rather awkward. There are so many less-direct ways to communicate what we might believe is the wisdom of God to someone else.
What brings you to the conclusion that I am "taking away every known method?" I do not discount omens, signs, dreams, visions, or even oracles, but we need to look at these things with a critical eye.


Do I get this impression that you think the office of an oracle is unimportant because you feel there are other, more dependable methods that the gods can use to get their point(s) across to us?
...more dependable? In what way? Did I say oracles were not dependable? It is kind of surprising that after this whole conversation about what is and is not an oracle, and that gnosis needs to be explained, tested, and critiqued, that you would then misrepresent my opinion as if the entire conversation did not happen. You seem want to push the position that because I do not accept the modern self-proclaimed oracles or the so-called divine revelation of prophets that I then do not accept oracles at all. All I have said was that the self-anointed oracles, who hear voices in their heads, and then dispense their found "wisdom" to others, are not oracles, and their delusions of grandeur are nothing less than hubris.

[Twinkle]

Wow, Tobias. Not only did you miss the whole point of what we've said, you've now flipped it to say that Tim doesn't believe in mysticism or the accuracy of the oracular office.

I think I'm done here.

[Tobias]

Wow, Tobias. Not only did you miss the whole point of what we've said, you've now flipped it to say that Tim doesn't believe in mysticism or the accuracy of the oracular office.

I think I'm done here.


Twinkle,

In Christianity we have a bit of a stand off between the prophetic types and the scholars. The prophets do what they can to imitate that which is recorded as closely as possible, but the scholars always find fault with some fine detail or another. They revere the prophets of the past, and with their words say that they believe prophets should still be a part of our every day lives; but then turn around and try to discredit every single prophet that ever comes around.

Why do they do this? I don't know for sure. Perhaps all the prophets are screwing up. Or maybe it has something to do with the fact that in the absence of any recognized prophets, it's the scholars who maintain authority. Not that I have or do accuse Tim of being that way; I just felt the need to bring it up as this is an issue I've been looking out for and trying to see if it reads into the situation here. And see? A simple answer from him assures me that he does accept the mystical. :)


Sorry to bring my "Christian Baggage" over to your religion. But in many ways the type of Christianity I've been involved with is a reconstructionist movement; trying to recreate the religion as originally set forth by the apostles. And there has always been an area of conflict where the theoretical side meets the practical. I don't think one side is complete without the other, which is why I enjoy talking with Tim. I am acutely aware though of just how much I don't know about this religion; which is perhaps why it's taken me twenty posts to figure out what he's saying. :)

[Twinkle]

He said that he believes in Divine Possession and mysticism. He does not accept that an oracle is anything other than a tool. The oracle is an office, not a person. The person is merely a vessel for relaying information, that is then interpreted by trained priests.

[Tobias]

What would have you thinking it was not the priests? What portion of the process indicates that it was the oracle? The power came from the sacred site. The priests interpreted her ramblings. In the whole process, the oracle was just a vessel or conduit.


What brings you to the conclusion that I am "taking away every known method?" I do not discount omens, signs, dreams, visions, or even oracles, but we need to look at these things with a critical eye.


...more dependable? In what way? Did I say oracles were not dependable? It is kind of surprising that after this whole conversation about what is and is not an oracle, and that gnosis needs to be explained, tested, and critiqued, that you would then misrepresent my opinion as if the entire conversation did not happen. You seem want to push the position that because I do not accept the modern self-proclaimed oracles or the so-called divine revelation of prophets that I then do not accept oracles at all. All I have said was that the self-anointed oracles, who hear voices in their heads, and then dispense their found "wisdom" to others, are not oracles, and their delusions of grandeur are nothing less than hubris.

I did not mean to offend, or accuse you of anything Tim. I appologize if it came across that way.

Let me just conclude my thoughts here, and we can be done with this conversation before it gets beat too far into the ground. :)

There have been many cultures through the ages that have used drug induced trances to connect with the supernatural. One advantage with this method I guess would be that the one taking the drugs doesn't have to have any special talents or training. There are, however, other more reliable methods using people with natural psychic talents that don't involve controled substances, as well as training available that is proven to work.

While it may be historicaly accurate in Hellenism for one person to be set up as the oracle and be induced with drugs, on a practical level I think perhaps this part of the process could be skipped without loosing too much authenticity? If indeed it was the trained and talented priests who did the interpreting of the oracles. Why not simply skip that which was mostly just for show (and is quite unhealthful, I presume), and go with what appears to be the heart of the matter: a trained group of individuals that have the ability and practice to hear from the gods, as well as the education to know what They might or might not say?

[Tobias]

He said that he believes in Divine Possession and mysticism. He does not accept that an oracle is anything other than a tool. The oracle is an office, not a person. The person is merely a vessel for relaying information, that is then interpreted by trained priests.


My interest in Hellenism comes from the mystical side of things. So far all I've found is that any attempts I've made to bring things out of the theoretical into the practical have been met with resistence.

Perhaps I'm working this too hard though, re-inventing the wheel as they say. Point me to where people have already found a way to apply the mystical in an apropriate way, and I'll be happy! :T

[Tim]

Tobias ,

I'm not stating that the altered state of consciousness must be drug induced, I saying the oracle is merely a tool. The problem with merging the interpreting priests' role with the oracle is that one loses a level of checks and balances. The Hellenic religion does not have prophets. Hellenismos is a religion of reasoned understanding, not divine revelation. It is a fundamental difference in thinking, compared the Christianity. The idea of doing "God's will," that "God has a plan for me," or other some such thing, is not part of the theology.

[Tim]

My interest in Hellenism comes from the mystical side of things. So far all I've found is that any attempts I've made to bring things out of the theoretical into the practical have been met with resistence.

Perhaps I'm working this too hard though, re-inventing the wheel as they say. Point me to where people have already found a way to apply the mystical in an apropriate way, and I'll be happy! :T

I have been reading Essays in Ancient Greek Philosophy (edited by John P. Anton). In the work, it is stated that the line between Greek shamanism and Greek mysticism is Pythagoras, and defines the type of mysticism practiced in Greece as philosophical mysticism. Philosophical contemplation is the practice, within the Hellenic religion, for achieving conscious awareness of ultimate reality.

[Twinkle]

Point me to where people have already found a way to apply the mystical in an apropriate way, and I'll be happy! :T



What does that mean? Appropriate for you, or appropriate for Hellenic Reconstruction?

[Tobias]

I have been reading Essays in Ancient Greek Philosophy (edited by John P. Anton). In the work, it is stated that the line between Greek shamanism and Greek mysticism is Pythagoras, and defines the type of mysticism practiced in Greece as philosophical mysticism. Philosophical contemplation is the practice, within the Hellenic religion, for achieving conscious awareness of ultimate reality.


:ballonsmi


Honestly Tim, this is what I was alluding to in post 165 where I suggested that you might know of a more reliable way for the gods to speak to us than through oracles and prophecies. I had had a moment of clarity, where what I perceived as possibly your opinion on the matter was suddenly made evident to me. I didn't want to say it for you though, just in case that wasn't the case. :)

I can see this happening... That as we apply ourselves to understand a certain element of how things work... and reason amoungst ourselves... that the gods, muses, or whomever take pity upon us and enlighten us with an understanding of that which we are seeking for. Does that sound about right? (Putting it in layman's terms, lol)

The title of your book, The Gods of Reason keeps ringing in my ears as I think about this. Is this phenomenon something you expound on in there, hence the tittle? Also, would you recomend that work as a good place for someone like myself to start?

Thanks

[Tobias]

Point me to where people have already found a way to apply the mystical in an apropriate way, and I'll be happy! :T



What does that mean? Appropriate for you, or appropriate for Hellenic Reconstruction?


Appropriate for Hellenic Reconstruction, of course! ;)

[Tim]

:ballonsmi


Honestly Tim, this is what I was alluding to in post 165 where I suggested that you might know of a more reliable way for the gods to speak to us than through oracles and prophecies. I had had a moment of clarity, where what I perceived as possibly your opinion on the matter was suddenly made evident to me. I didn't want to say it for you though, just in case that wasn't the case. :)

I can see this happening... That as we apply ourselves to understand a certain element of how things work... and reason amoungst ourselves... that the gods, muses, or whomever take pity upon us and enlighten us with an understanding of that which we are seeking for. Does that sound about right? (Putting it in layman's terms, lol)

The title of your book, The Gods of Reason keeps ringing in my ears as I think about this. Is this phenomenon something you expound on in there, hence the tittle? Also, would you recomend that work as a good place for someone like myself to start?

Thanks
If I can quote Gods of Reason, I state, "Within Hellenismos, theology is a science that provides for the contemplation of the Gods and the Universe..." (p 33). I do not go into the actual detail about the practice of contemplationin the book, and the fact is I don't believe we have any reliable information on the methods the philosophers used. Most Hellenists have created methods unique to themselves. The technique I use is a form of "blank mind meditation."

[patch]

I have been reading Essays in Ancient Greek Philosophy (edited by John P. Anton). In the work, it is stated that the line between Greek shamanism and Greek mysticism is Pythagoras, and defines the type of mysticism practiced in Greece as philosophical mysticism. Philosophical contemplation is the practice, within the Hellenic religion, for achieving conscious awareness of ultimate reality.

Can you elaborate on that idea? The pythagoras thing I mean.

Also, perhaps elsewhere if you are worried about getting OT, could you explain 'blink mind meditation' also?

I have a particular interest in this aspect of things ^_^ I can't help it!

[Tim]

Can you elaborate on that idea? The pythagoras thing I mean.
Pythagoras marks the turning point in Greece where understanding of the Gods came through philosophical contemplation rather than shamanistic practice.


Also, perhaps elsewhere if you are worried about getting OT, could you explain 'blink mind meditation' also?
Ah... that was a typo. I fixed it. It was suppose to say blank mind meditation. It takes some time to learn, and requires a good bit of practice, but is ultimately an easy concept. It is the process of silencing your mind, and thinking of no thing (not nothing, but no thing). It is by silencing the mind that one can achieve awareness.

[patch]

Ah... that was a typo. I fixed it. It was suppose to say blank mind meditation. It takes some time to learn, and requires a good bit of practice, but is ultimately an easy concept. It is the process of silencing your mind, and thinking of no thing (not nothing, but no thing). It is by silencing the mind that one can achieve awareness.

Ah, I see! In my head I had an image of you sitting on a chair and blinking rapidly xD

I tend to try and place my awareness outside of my body completely. I try to focus on what is going on around me.
The best place for this is the bath or shower I've found, possibly because of the water being a notably different feeling against the skin, or the layout of the room.

[Tim]

Ah, I see! In my head I had an image of you sitting on a chair and blinking rapidly xD

I tend to try and place my awareness outside of my body completely. I try to focus on what is going on around me.
The best place for this is the bath or shower I've found, possibly because of the water being a notably different feeling against the skin, or the layout of the room.

See, this method is almost a form of sensory deprivation. You don't want any outside distractions. No sounds. No smells. No nothing.

[patch]

See, this method is almost a form of sensory deprivation. You don't want any outside distractions. No sounds. No smells. No nothing.

Nice to know it works for you :)

I simply cannot do anything like that. No matter how hard I try, I can't shut off like that, there is always something going on in the background at least.
And so I find the best thing for me is to step outside of myself, instead of further inside.

[Twinkle]

I go into a pitch black room...I can't even see my hand in front of my face. I sit down and completely empty my mind. I have no sense of anything but blackness. In essence, I disappear.

[Twinkle]

Appropriate for Hellenic Reconstruction, of course! ;)


I'll be honest, and I'm sorry if this hurts you. I believe you are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. The idea that you have of what an oracle is is not in line with Hellenic Reconstruction.

[Twinkle]

Don't mean to butt in, but I have to say this has been a really enlightening thread!


It really has been...and it's good to talk about things like this. I'm finding that that oracles and oracular work are largely misunderstood. Hell...I misunderstood it at one time.

[Tobias]

I'll be honest, and I'm sorry if this hurts you. I believe you are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. The idea that you have of what an oracle is is not in line with Hellenic Reconstruction.


Lol. That's ok, Twinkle. :smile: I kind of get that idea from the way the conversation is going.

[Twinkle]

Ugh. I felt like such a turd after I posted it. :( I'm glad that you weren't hurt or offended...it was the last thing I would want to do to you.

[patch]

Ugh. I felt like such a turd after I posted it. :( I'm glad that you weren't hurt or offended...it was the last thing I would want to do to you.

The idea that you think a post like that might be offensive makes you even less of a turd xD

[Tobias]

The idea that you think a post like that might be offensive makes you even less of a turd xD


Lol! Agreed. :)





I've found the Hellenismos Theology yahoo list which is real interesting to me. I'm finding answers to questions I've had, like: "Why do people feel the need to revive this particular religion?", and "Whatever were the gods thinking when they let Christianity take over?" lol The discussions there are very helpful.


I want to thank you all for the hand you've lent me so far. :) I'm sure I'll come up with some more questions along the way.

[Tim]

I've found the Hellenismos Theology yahoo list which is real interesting to me.
I recommend the Hellenic_Recon Yahoo List (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Hellenic_Recons/). Some of the others are either dead, or heavily saturated with Neopagans.

[Tobias]

I recommend the Hellenic_Recon Yahoo List (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Hellenic_Recons/). Some of the others are either dead, or heavily saturated with Neopagans.


Tim,

I'm a little unclear as to where the boundaries are between Hellenic Paganism and Hellenic Reconstructionism. Has there been any united effort at this point to come up with a standard of what is and what is not Reconstructionism?

Of particular interest: I recall encountering more than one Hellenic site that stated that the works of both Homer and Hesod were considered of importance. Not divine revelation, but containing spiritual significance. Yet you've mentioned some pages back in this thread that the myths were not (I can't rememer your exact words here) to be taken into account when it comes to theology?

Is this a difference of opinion between different reconstructionists, or part of what separates between them and "Neopagans"? lol

[Twinkle]

Well, the boundaries between Reconstruction and Hellenic Paganism are really pretty clear:

Hellenismos is the reconstruction of ancient religious practice. Hellenic Paganism is the worship of Greek Gods in any form...whether that be Hellenic Wicca, Hellenic Druidism, etc.

It's been stated a couple of times on this thread, but to reiterate.... The myths are considered allegorical, they hold hidden truths that require contemplation. They are important, as they have valuable lessons on ethics and morality, but they are not literal tales of the Gods. The Gods are not their myths. To base practice on the myths would not be Hellenic Reconstructionism. To view the Gods by their myths would not be Hellenismos.

The line between Hellenic Polytheism and Hellenic Reconstruction is blurrier. The terms are used interchangeably, and so it's easy to get confused as to what is Hellenismos, and what is Hellenic Polytheism.

IMO...the emphasis of gnosis over orthopraxy is the thing that delineates the Hellenic Polytheist from the Reconstructionist.

And I know...I'm not Tim...I hope you don't mind me answering you all the same, though.

[YoungSoulRebel]

Tell me, why is it that those of us who can actually listen to the gods ourselves, are reduced to such a lowly position that nobody cares to hear what our direct line of communication has caused us to surmise? lol There is nothing "special" about this!! If I wanted to be "special" I should have majored in religion in collage!

Well, Twinkle *is* saying that. She's saying, and has been saying, that just about everybody within Hellenismos has the opportunity to listen to the Gods themselves. And really, that's all the priest-appointed oracles of yore were -- regular people who underwent a training to do X so that nobody else had to; if they were shown to have some special predisposition toward those abilities before their training, sure, they were given preference in the choosing process, but, in theory, their training as a medium could have been had by just about anybody. Hell, just a cursory glance at the history of even the Pythiai shows that, at first, it was only young "virgin" women chosen for the position -- but later it was only "middle aged" women who were chosen, and at one point, three were elected just to keep the people moving through faster.



don't blame the religion Tobias.
there are condescending fundamentalists in all spiritual paths it seems.

Very true. Of course, I (for example) was only a few weeks ago, and in far harsher words, was accused of such by a member of Spira -- actually, he called me a "bigot" with some other adjectives and very probably an intensifier attached, but that's just splitting hairs. The funny thing is, I *do* support the right of those in Spira and any other Neo-Pagan group to practise whatever they want, but if you're going to call your religion Hellenismos, then it should go along, in part, with reconstructed practises of the ancients and, in part, with modern improv that makes sense within a Reconstructionist methodology. Reconstructionism was never intended to be a perfect revival of practises, if only because of the burning of the Library of Alexandria by Christians with their torches and their blasphemies against the Gods of Hellas, but more a method to attempt to pick thing up from where they were left off at.



Hellenismos/hellenic religion is so very rooted in reason that the last thing I'd think was that the gods wanted me to become an oracle.

Same with me. I've had dreams and flashes of "visions" of such that may have led another person to believe "OK, I'm an oracle now", but frankly, I just can't believe that of myself -- if only cos my spiritual upbringing is too steeped in Catholic humility! LOL! I have, though, taken this as a sign to pay closer attention to my intuition and "clairvoyant" abilities, and I've made a harder effort to perfect my skills at my preferred divination techniques (scrying, tea and coffee readings, bay leaf divination, and I've always had an interest in "gypsy" playing card divination that uses a regular poker deck)



I don't see something and immediately take it as a sign, I think people do this too often. If I receive signs they tend to come in fours of fives. Because each time I brush it off and ask for clarification until I can't call it a coincidence any more. That is why I'm sitting here now as a practicing hellenic polytheist with Poseidon as my patron. ;)

Honestly? I don't see how this is outside the realm of Hellenic thought. Somebody else can correct me if I'm wrong, but I just don't see it.

I myself keep a notebook of "signs and visions" and I jot down just about everything in there that I could *rationally* perceive as such along with the date, time (or approximate time), and any possible connections to a deity. If I see a pattern forming, I'll meditate on it. I've never (as far as I can tell, anyway) gotten anything more than a lesson for myself, but there's nothing wrong (if you ask me) with any activity that keeps one grounded and self-aware.

I myself am a Recon who pays cultus to the Gods of Music and the Divine Lovers and with a strong spiritual and academic interest in the concept of Divine Youth -- and as a musician, a lover, and a guy who's 26 and looks fourteen, I think it just makes sense. What keeps me "Recon", though, is that I give praise for my abilities and the joys they bring me; if I ever got a definitive message from any God(s) that I was specially "chosen" to have these abilities, that would be all well and good, but it won't change the fact that I'm mortal and thus have a duty to think as one, ergo, I wouldn't ever dream of going about and proclaiming such.

I write a lot of stories to convey my thoughts about certain things -- from masculinity to spirituality -- and I'm working on this one right now that takes place in ancient Hellas. One of the primary characters has OAC-1 Albinism, "pure white Albinism", to put it simply. I've also incorporated the common folk-belief (though, admittedly, I'm not well-read enough on the subject to say if this belief is any more an ancient Graeco-Roman belief than Fellini's Satyricon attempts to "smooth out" the episodic feel of the fragmented novel it's based on) that people with albinism have somehow been "touched" by the Divine. The youth's whole family considers him hemitheos and while he occasionally uses this to his advantage when dealing with his family, to anybody willing to actually listen to him, he constantly maintains that he cares not if he is hemitheos or not, that as far as he can say, he is a man and nothing more. Granted, I'm using a personal belief (nobody can say for certain whether they are or are not touched by the Divine, and to say that one is, is hardly anything more than an attempt to elevate one's status) as an allegory for my own upbringing as well as other things, but I think that this bit in my story does spell out my beliefs about those who claim to be deemed "special" by the Divine perfectly.



In addition to this, I look at the context of the signs; what was I doing at the time? Is this a common occurence I'm just taking out of context? For example, imagine I'm watching a program about ancient greek religion, and Zeus' name pops up several times. It is HIGHLY unlikely this by itself is a sign, because you'd expect to hear Zeus' name on a program like that.

[nods] Agreed. It would be too easy to take the abundance of crows in the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti, Michigan area as a "sign" from Apollon. Of course, because Ann Arbor, Michigan specifically has a reputation for art and music and has one of the best teaching hospitals in the country, it doesn't seem like too far a stretch in the imagination to believe that Apollon may be quite fond of this little city. But without any definitive reason to say that He does, (at the very least, not without some sort of Peer-Confirmed Group Gnosis) who's to say whether He does or does not? I'm fond of this area (or at least I'm fond of this area's legacy), and while it would be nice to believe that Apollon is as fond of this area as I am, it's hardly my place to say whether He does or does not -- and if I were to proclaim that He is, it would only be an attempt to attract more Hellenists and Apollon cultists to the area; while having more local HR people would certainly be nice, I think the city and its legacy should be able to sell itself to such people, the presence or lack thereof, of a mortal attempting to speak for the Divine should have no effect on whether or not this city looks attractive to such persons.



Not trying to be big headed or anything, but I think if more people reasoned like this (including the question 'what was I doing at the time, was I taking drugs?'), we wouldn't have phony oracles.

Your statement doesn't sound big-headed at all. Just level-headed. :)



As much as I want to make nice here, I can't help but to point out how illogical this statement seems to me. :) Aren't there certain umm... limitations that are generally understood by pretty much everybody, when it comes to the gods communicating to people? The very existence of Delphi should be enough to show us that, while anyone who wishes may ask questions of Apollo, certain circumstances and/or people are necessary to hear his answers.

As always, Tim (or in this case, anybody) is welcome to correct me if I'm misinterpreting, but I don't see how Delphi is evidence of that. I can see how Delphi can make for an argument that more direct and/or immediate answers may be recieved through the Oracle at Delphi, but if a person knows what to look for, or "listen to" (as a figment of speech), then most people, if not anybody, can get their own answer from Apollon -- and (and I'm quoting Touched By an Angel here, modifications in brackets, cos my step-mother loved that show), "sometimes the answer is [even] 'no' [or 'not now']".



Psychic abilities are being studied more and more. I don't think it will be too much longer before the phenomenon will be a science in it's own right. As it is, we know that some people can see things in the spirit realm (clairvoyants), while other people can only hear (clairaudient - like myself, btw). Some people focus their perceptions onto "Earth bound spirits", others onto nature spirits. Some on the dearly departed, others on the Guides and Gods. Some mystics look even beyond all of that, and sense an all encompassing Presence of warmth and unconditional love.

And there are many people who study it, even, who believe that everybody has some level of psychic ability, if they'd only just learn what it is and how to interpret it. You may disagree, but from my point of view, I've seen the belief that "only certain people can use this ability" lead to charlatans like John Edwards and Sylvia Brown who do nothing more than cold readings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_reading) (and then it's edited for television to make it all look "so amazingly accurate" -- some of it very obviously so), and thus swindling very willing people out of gobs of money. I once saw Sylvia Brown even give away one of her "secrets" to how "accurate" she seems on an episode of Oprah in the late 1990s. Her big mystical secret? "Most people die within six months of their birthday" -- anything else making her look "so accurate" is completed through guess work on her part, careful editing from the staff of the program (who are being paid to make Sylvia look good), and confidentiality agreements that her lawyers make studio audience members sign before letting them on Oprah.

Is everybody going to be 100% accurate all the time? Well I find it doubtful that even the Pythai even were, because the testimonials to the accuracy of the Pythai were mostly from socially and politically powerful people -- and statements like "if you go to war, a great kingdom will fall" are so vague that they could be interpreted to mean, and did mean, well, just about anything (and since that example, in particular, was so vague, I'm wondering why a Pythia was needed at all -- jeez, my Atheist room-mate could have said that).



Just like we accept it as fact that a thunderstorm originating in Greece and then blowing west on to Rome isn't first controlled by Zeus and then taken over by Jupiter; psychic experiences that happen in a Hellenic setting (or Christian for that matter) aren't going to follow a unique set of principles that are completely incomprehensible to those who have studied under a different system.
The Laws of Physics are the same in both Greece and Rome.

Who's to say that a thunderstorm isn't somehow controlled or aided by the Theoi? Having a scientific explanation does not negate Divine influence over the situation. The Gods are weaved into everything.



Methodology however, can be quite different. We know that the pithia most likely inhaled a drug, and gave forth oracles that then had to be interpreted by the priests. I cannot see how you can claim that such a system is available to everybody on an individual basis? Even if we did try passing out bongs of just the right mixture of whatever it was they had at Delphi, where are the priests to interpret the prophecies?

You seem to be of the belief that priests are somehow "chosen" by the Theoi and then this is somehow universally recognised by others.

In ancient Greece, priesthoods were mostly an elected position -- and I only say "mostly" to compensate for a polis or time that may have done it differently at one point or another, but that information is now lost to us. But at Delphi, the priests were elected, as were the Pythai -- obviously, the people were going to elect who they felt were best suited for the positions, and there was some homework required of potential candidates beforehand, but this was something that, to the ancient Hellenes, just about anybody with the priorities to fine-tune the skills necessary for the position could do. And, as now, as has always been, as with just about everything, wielding one's social and political power beforehand made a great deal of difference.



Which then brings up the issue of being special. I think we have to accept the fact that, in life, certain people do possess traits that make them "special" (and I'm not talking about Downs Syndrome, lol). In fact, we all live in specialized society; making each of us unique in our own way. While we may tell our children that they can become anything they want to (fireman, doctor, etc), the truth of the matter is that each specialization requires certain traits, abilities, education, and dedication to make them happen.

Or, in the case of Hillary's candidacy, being on Wal-Mart's board of directors for years and looking good in an Ilsa, She-Wolf of the SS costume and knowing how to treat naughty, naughty boys. (I'm sorry, but as somebody who votes Democrat in national elections, Hillary's pro-corporate past makes me twitch, at the very least.) But we're not here to discuss politics...

Actually....

As much as I would otherwise agree with you if this conversation was about doctors or even music, can not just anybody learn some basic medicinal skills, such as tying a tourniquet to stop bleeding? Or make a note of what the active ingredients in cough syrups to look for? I could probably name a few mentally retarded people who know just as much about purchasing over the counter medicines and basic first aid as most nurses. Will they be able to go through nursing school? Doubtful, but they would be very adept, should a loved one ever need them to go out for cough medicine or control moderate bleeding before paramedics arrive. Iannis Xenakis, as another example, had no classical training in music, nor did he possess any savant-like skill in any instrument (if you ask me, there's a *huge* difference between savantism and true talent), but many well-accomplished classical musicians frequently give up when learning how to play his pieces, decrying them as "inhumanely advanced" when, in reality, his notations and measures were based on basic maths and he made frequent use of chords for playing bowed instruments (violin, viola, celo, etc...), and they come from a distinctly different school of making music.

Likewise, there may be a difference between basic communique with the Theoi and a highly skilled clairvoyant, so to say that only "special people" can accomplish the former is tantamount to advocating charlatanism, as practised by adept cold readers such as John Edwards.



Now, we've all run into people who think they are God incarnate. In fact, each one of us have to learn to deal with our own egos in our own way. Does the presence of ego in any proportion immediately exclude us from doing anything for the gods or for the religion? Or is that standard only applied to those who feel they are asked to speak on Their behalf? Unchecked ego can be displayed by any religious worker, from poets and musicians to historians and orators.

Quite true, but I don't see how this means that only certain people can communicate with the Theoi.



When it comes to specializing in the delivery of prophecies, it is very basic, elementary stuff to learn to separate your own pride and your own ideas and beliefs, from the word you are bringing forth. Like I say, it takes first an aptitude, and after that quite a bit of trainning. But unlike some instances of prophets in the past, there is no big mystery surrounding the phenomenon. We can understand what is happening, and others similarly trained can judge the quality of the work that is being done. We can easily tell the difference between what is being spoken as a word of prophecy, and what is being made up on the spot by someone unethical or inexperienced.

There's no reason to repeat the mistakes of the past; but there's also no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.

I addressed this above. What I know of the Pythai shows no communication -- nay, no interpretation of that communique that was really all too special. While it's quite possible that Apollon was speaking vast specifics through the women who were elected each year (at one point, there were as many as three pythiai, just to keep up with demands), the efects of the ethanol meant they could never correct anybody later, and the interpretations by the priests (such as "a great civilization will fall, should you go to war"), or at least those which we've retained records of, show a similar vagueness to Sylvia Brown and John Edwards -- it's just vague enough that it will be right, no matter what the outcome.



The people did pay good money to hear from Apollo; what if he didn't play along for some reason?

Actually, yes, people did pay good money to the temple of the oracle.



Music is a good example. There are those with natural ability, and those who learn, and natural ability, while giving an edge, does not ultimately translate into a greater proficiency compared to those who have to work harder to learn.

Very true. One may have a very good natural voice, for example, but if they're using improper technique in singing (like "singing from the throat" rather than "from the diaphragm"), they won't have a good voice for long -- Cyndi Lauper was very vocal about the fact that she almost didn't have a career due to the ill effects of improper technique. Additionally, Dean Martin, for example, I think most of us could agree had a pretty good voice, but could he project enough power into his voice to sing unmic'd opera, like Domingo or Caruso? Do any of those men have the five-octave range of Aris Cristofellis, including Christofellis' very shrill soprano? Just because they all have very good voices doesn't mean they got to skip some kind of training to get to the recognition that they have today.



It is just like not everyone can be the President of the United States. At the same time, it is the office that is the most important.

Eh, I think U$ Presidency is a bad example here. Jimmy Carter was from a working-class background, while the Bushes are from an "old money" New England family. Several presidents weren't even college educated, and not all of them chose the military instead of college. While every US president did have some sort of prominent political background before entering office, heck Reagan was an actor most prominently before his presidency. In theory, yes, anybody can be president, but the probability is much lower than the probability of "anybody" becoming a doctor or a rock star.



I disagree. Outside of a physical or mental limitation, anyone can be anything they want to be. Now, of course, as one gets older those options become more limited. At 37, it is unlikely that I could ever become an astronaut, but that does not detract from the fact that it was a path I could have chosen to take.

Well, I'd say anybody has the potential, anyway, and it's part opportunity and part personal priority (or, if you'd rather, "determination") that says whether or not somebody will meet their potential to do X. Let me use an example from my room-mate: He's a fan of the adult model Nadine Jansen. I've seen her photos and she has a pretty face and, while I've never seen photos of her looking any bigger than Anna-Nichole at her "midweight", Nadine is German and living in Germany, and the opportunity to become a "plus-sized" pin-up queen like Anna-Nichole is much lower there than in Los Angeles, and it's obvious that, even with the increased opportunity brought by the Internet, it's just not a priority of hers to be any more well-known than she already is -- and her reasons for this priority are hers alone.



I think if we (the universal we) could easily tell the difference, then this conversation would not be happening. There are too many people easily influenced by flowery speech and empty spiritual rhetoric. This is not just a Hellenic issue, but this is within all religions. If we (again, the universal we) could easily tell the difference then we would have never had to deal with Jim Jones, David Koresh, Heaven's Gate, or any of the other destructive cults.

And there would be lower instances of people making a killing off a simple cold reading.



I have often compared psychic abilities to musical aptitude. Some have it in greater proportions than others. And it's true that with music enough instruments have been created that are easy enough to play to where most anybody can learn how to pick out a song on one of them. That does not mean that they know how to make music, though! Have you ever watched the auditions for American Idol?? I can't stand that show! So many people thinking they are so great... they need that British guy to set them straight and tell them just how badly they stink. lol

If you can't stand the show, then why watch it?

I don't care about it one way or the other, but I've seen the audition reels on occasion and while, yes, some of the auditions are truly bad, many of the people I've seen have decent enough voices and they just lack proper training. They'll probably never be as esteemed or as naturally "gifted" as Cecelia Bartoli or Aris Christofellis, but with proper training, most people can sing well enough to entertain friends and family, and the few who can't may prove proficient enough in some other instrument, be it a bazouki, a bass viol, or bongo drums. And this is coming from somebody whose been accused of snobbery over his musical talents.



Still, I would hope that any group taking it upon themselves to set up an Oracular Office would lean a little more heavily upon the science of how things work, rather than strictly upon how things were done in the past.

While that does seem a highly probable event in the future, it doesn't diminish the fact that no "middleman" is necessary for communique with the Theoi.



I could not disagree more with your assessment of talent. While talent may make learning certain skills easier, any truly dedicated individual can acquire proficiency in any skill. When my brother started college (this is going back about 12 years ago) I gave him this quote in a frame:

“Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful people with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'press on' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race” ~ Calvin Coolidge

Good quote. Too bad Coolidge doesn't fit the theme for my e-mail sig rotator.



That is correct. There is no Hellenic equivalent of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, or Paul. Claims of such specialness would have been interpreted as complete and utter hubris. In fact, that is one of the criticisms made by the Greeks and Romans against early Christians.

And one that I see every reason to agree with. Who is to say who does and does not speak for the Theoi? And what good is a God who needs any one, singular mortal to speak for him -- or even an elite class of people to speak for Him? The Oracle of Delphi was appointed by mortals, not by Gods. If she was normally a rather proficient seer to begin with, that may have been in her favour, but it did not replace the fact that her appointment to that position was man-made.



I agree. Any "miracle" that has every occurred, happened because there is a natural law that allows it. I would argue thought that "what ever we have learned" since ancient times, regarding metaphysics and the "supernatural," is often less advanced and filled with fanciful drivel.

An old friend of mine once said, "There is nothing more 'natural' than the supernatural. Because it is natural, there is thus a scientific explanation for it. If we do not yet have that explanation, then it is merely 'unknown' -- when we discover the scientific explanation, it is guaranteed to seem less 'miraculous', but with knowledge and education, even Mozart's talents don't seem to be any big deal. It's far harder to maintain a passion for life despite gaining knowledge and education of how it all works than it is to believe in miracles."

Sometimes Satanists (like the friend I quoted) do have nuggets of wisdom to offer.



All I have said was that the self-anointed oracles, who hear voices in their heads, and then dispense their found "wisdom" to others, are not oracles, and their delusions of grandeur are nothing less than hubris.

That's generally how I've read it -- that an oracle has a specific definition, being one who acts as nothing more than a vessel for the interpretation of priests of a sacred place. That the modern self-defined oracle is not an oracle by traditional definition and, by ignoring the historical definition and thus position of oracles (such as the Oracle of Delphi), they are not merely ignoring the specific conditions that made the oracles of the past, oracles, but are serving not the tradition they claim to be, but are instead serving nothing more than their own over-inflated egos.

A traditional oracle may have a purpose in modern Hellenismos, but the self-appointed "oracles" are arguably doing harm by misrepresenting the religion via putting forth the fallacy that there is somehow a "tradition" of prophets within Hellenismos comparable to those of Christianity; nay, in fact, there are no such traditions within Hellenismos, but that does not mean there is no history of people who put developing their skills in divination, or clairvoyance, or ESP at a higher priority than others.

[Tim]

Tim,

I'm a little unclear as to where the boundaries are between Hellenic Paganism and Hellenic Reconstructionism. Has there been any united effort at this point to come up with a standard of what is and what is not Reconstructionism?

Of particular interest: I recall encountering more than one Hellenic site that stated that the works of both Homer and Hesod were considered of importance. Not divine revelation, but containing spiritual significance. Yet you've mentioned some pages back in this thread that the myths were not (I can't rememer your exact words here) to be taken into account when it comes to theology?

Is this a difference of opinion between different reconstructionists, or part of what separates between them and "Neopagans"? lol
There has been an attempt to make clear what a reconstruction is and is not from organizations like the World Congress of Ethnic Religions. The problem comes in that those who do not want any limits, and feel anyone has a right to call whatever they do anything they want, will never accept any definition. This is what caused Wicca to become undefined, and this is what threatens every Reconstructionist religion.

As reconstruction is applied to the Hellenic tradition, one needs to take an in-depth look at the ancient Greek culture to get a sense of that is and is not appropriate. I would never say Homer and Hesiod are unimportant, but they are also not the basis of a firm doctrine. It could be said that these works represent Greek ideas, but not that Greek ideas are based on them. It is a fundamental difference between how Hellenes and Christians approach their myths. Additionally, a person who bases their practice on myth is not practicing a reconstruction of the Ancient Greek religion. There is a lot that myth is, but there is a lot that myth is not.

Reconstruction requires using the best available evidence, and by best available evidence, we are talking about inclusively from the fields such as historical literary research, anthropology, religious history, political history, archeology, forensic anthropology, historical sociology, and others. Now, a person who wants to practice Hellenismos does not have to be engaged in this kind of research and active reconstruction, they can just practice the religion itself, but the basis of what is and is not Hellenismos is based on what we know, and even what we come to know based on newer discoveries, about ancient Greece, and making room so that traditional practices can be modified in a modern context. "In a modern context" means making things work in an modern urban apartment setting (as an example) not "Wicca is modern so I'm going to twist the Greek religion into knots to make it work within Wicca, but still call it Hellenismos."

There are different types of Reconstructionists, but they are not well defined. It tends to run along a sliding scale of liberal to conservative opinions, but all use the same criteria. The modern Neopagan movement is seen as having no direct links to Hellenismos. They are no direct links with any form of shared ethical code, set of practices, core values, institutions, common traditions and rituals, recognized sacred texts, or history even though there are attempts by some Neopagans to stretch their practice back in time or making use of reconstructionist material to eclectically add more traditional aspects to their modern practices.

Having said all that, practicing Hellenismos is not a mere reenactment of the Ancient Greek religion. It is the application of Hellenic character, thought, culture, and ethical system into a person's every day life. It is to seek harmony with the Gods by living a pious and ethical life based on ideals and the quest for excellence. It is the quest for a rational understanding of the Gods and the Cosmos. Hellenismos is not a religion that can be segregated from one's secular world; it is a lifestyle.

[Twinkle]

Man, Tim....that was truly eloquent.

[Tobias]

Man, Tim....that was truly eloquent.


Lol. You took the words right out of my mouth!

Thank you both. :)

[Fiamma]

Tobias ,

I'm not stating that the altered state of consciousness must be drug induced, I saying the oracle is merely a tool. The problem with merging the interpreting priests' role with the oracle is that one loses a level of checks and balances. The Hellenic religion does not have prophets. Hellenismos is a religion of reasoned understanding, not divine revelation. It is a fundamental difference in thinking, compared the Christianity. The idea of doing "God's will," that "God has a plan for me," or other some such thing, is not part of the theology.


So I went back and started rereading William Broad's book (the one whose earlier mention in this thread you took to mean that I agreed with what you said) and have found on several places in the book that he mentions that there is plenty of evidence to support that the Delphic Oracles proclaimations were in fact not interpreted by priests, but taken as she spoke them. He also mentions extensive training more than once.

Being as though it's only been in the last hour or so that I've been rereading this book, I've not had the opportunity yet to look to other sources, but I think that the opposing viewpoint is worth mentioning.

[Tobias]

YoungSoulRebel,

In response to some of your post, :)

I think on most points we are all being cautious about the same thing when it comes to oracles in Hellenism. We don't want any phonies. :) You seem to agree with others that self proclaimed, or "special" individuals are who to avoid; I would hate to see a system reconstructed simply because it's the way things were done in the past with no accounting being done for our general knowledge of what works and what doesn't. I would hope that in the future nobody feels that our time period is so unique that they wish to recreate our religious experience exactly the way we have it; complete with the dogmatic opinion that doing things the John Edwards and Sylvia Brown's way is the "only right way". :weirdsmil

Were the Hellenic oracles in doing it "the right way"? Or were they using techniques that we have come to know as unauthentic? Was the pithia a necessary part of the process of getting the message from Apollo, or was she just there to distract the audience while the priests worked their slight of hand in the shadows?

I reasert my position that any reconstruction of the office of an oracle needs to take into account the most up to date "technology" available concerning how messages can be delivered from a god to mankind.

[Tobias]

So I went back and started rereading William Broad's book (the one whose earlier mention in this thread you took to mean that I agreed with what you said) and have found on several places in the book that he mentions that there is plenty of evidence to support that the Delphic Oracles proclaimations were in fact not interpreted by priests, but taken as she spoke them. He also mentions extensive training more than once.

Being as though it's only been in the last hour or so that I've been rereading this book, I've not had the opportunity yet to look to other sources, but I think that the opposing viewpoint is worth mentioning.

Interesting!

BTW, I didn't see this post before I hit "send" on my last one.

[Fiamma]

YoungSoulRebel,

In response to some of your post, :)

I think on most points we are all being cautious about the same thing when it comes to oracles in Hellenism. We don't want any phonies. :) You seem to agree with others that self proclaimed, or "special" individuals are who to avoid; I would hate to see a system reconstructed simply because it's the way things were done in the past with no accounting being done for our general knowledge of what works and what doesn't. I would hope that in the future nobody feels that our time period is so unique that they wish to recreate our religious experience exactly the way we have it; complete with the dogmatic opinion that doing things the John Edwards and Sylvia Brown's way is the "only right way". :weirdsmil

Were the Hellenic oracles in doing it "the right way"? Or were they using techniques that we have come to know as unauthentic? Was the pithia a necessary part of the process of getting the message from Apollo, or was she just there to distract the audience while the priests worked their slight of hand in the shadows?

I reasert my position that any reconstruction of the office of an oracle needs to take into account the most up to date "technology" available concerning how messages can be delivered from a god to mankind.

Tobias,

I realize you were speaking to YSR, but I recommend taking a look at the book The Oracle: Ancient Delphi and the Science Behind Its Lost Secrets by William J Broad. I think you will find it very interesting.

It talks a lot about the scientific part, as the title indicates- it is the main subject of the book (If you've had any halfway decent high school scientific education, there should be no problems following it.) but there is also much discussion of the role of the Pythia herself, with discussions of specific answers given to both large, sweeping questions as well as common mundane inquiries, her role in history and culture. It's also interesting to note how the scientists involved are dismayed by the folks who take the discoveries to mean that just because we can explain certain aspects of the topic through science, then we've also given up any possibility of there being any spiritual value.

[Fiamma]

Interesting!

BTW, I didn't see this post before I hit "send" on my last one.


That's ok. I just posted a bit more about the book a minute ago :-)

[Tobias]

Tobias,

I realize you were speaking to YSR, but I recommend taking a look at the book The Oracle: Ancient Delphi and the Science Behind Its Lost Secrets by William J Broad. I think you will find it very interesting.

It talks a lot about the scientific part, as the title indicates- it is the main subject of the book (If you've had any halfway decent high school scientific education, there should be no problems following it.) but there is also much discussion of the role of the Pythia herself, with discussions of specific answers given to both large, sweeping questions as well as common mundane inquiries, her role in history and culture. It's also interesting to note how the scientists involved are dismayed by the folks who take the discoveries to mean that just because we can explain certain aspects of the topic through science, then we've also given up any possibility of there being any spiritual value.

Thank you. I was able to order it from the library system. :)

[Twinkle]

The Seer in Ancient Greece (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0520252292?ie=UTF8&tag=hellenismos-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0520252292) by Michael Flower
The Road to Delphi: Scenes from the History of Oracles (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0374526109?ie=UTF8&tag=hellenismos-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0374526109) by Michael Wood
The Oracles of the Ancient World: A Comprehensive Guide (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0715631942?ie=UTF8&tag=hellenismos-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0715631942) by Trevor Curnow
Oracles, Divination and Prophecy in Ancient Greece (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1405115726?ie=UTF8&tag=hellenismos-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1405115726) by Sarah JohnstonHere is some additional reading that will give you information on oracles, and how they were used. It includes cited sources, and also reiterates that the Pythia was a mouthpiece, a tool, and that is all. It also states that in more than one oracle, priests and priestesses interpreted the oracle.

Once again, the spiritual value of an oracle has never been in question. What is in question is "how" an oracle becomes an oracle, and that self proclaimed oracles that claim to have direct communication with deity that they then proclaim to the world at large is *not* a Hellenic concept.

The point is...we are *ALL* capable of hearing the Divine. The point is...without any sort of checks and balances within a system, then anyone claiming to have divine communion with a deitycan claim to be an oracle. The point is....self proclaimed oracles are not a part of Ancient Greek History.

I am in favor of oracles, I believe they are an important part of the religion and have their place. But being chosen by a god to be his prophet is not the same as an oracle...if anyone reads anything on oracles, especially the reading material I have posted, that would be evident.

[Fiamma]

Once again, the spiritual value of an oracle has never been in question.


Actually, I didn't mean to imply that the spiritual value of oracles was in question here...I just think that it's very interesting that scientists, who tend to be given to a reputation of atheism express dismay at the fact that others who read their reports have taken their findings to mean that there is nothing but hard science to it.

[Tobias]

Thanks for the links, Twinkle!


Once again, the spiritual value of an oracle has never been in question.


This statement stood out for me too! Really?? Nobody questioned the value of the oracle's words? I have a hard time imagining that. With all the great thinkers back in the day I would have thought that a certain number of them would have criticized the oracles profusely!

Heck... I question them! I've spent enough time in the Christian Prophetic movement to know just how easy it is to be careless. I've watched John Edwards and read Silvia Brown. Don't think of me a a big advocate for this crap. :bigblue:




The point is...we are *ALL* capable of hearing the Divine.

I still cringe everytime someone says that though. On many levels it is true; in that we each walk our own path with the divine and nobody else can really tell us what that is, and well, we have to acknowledge that the gods are capable of getting whatever message though to any of us if they so choose. There is however, the issue of experience. Those who haven't learned the art of doing this can ever so easily mistake their own desires for the Voice of Advice. The worst examples probably happening in the case of romance. :spinnysmi

I can see a need for assistance in our lives to learn how to hear Them for ourselves. Not to submit to someone claiming special abilities, but to hear from our patron deities at times through another person. This tends to occur more as a spontaneous happening during conversation; definitely not something you could charge admission for at the door guarenteeing each paying visitor an "answer from the Gods".

[Twinkle]

The oracles were a huge part of the Ancient Greek religion. They were consulted, and the Oracle at Delphi in particular was considered extremely accurate. Of course, it was also wrong...and a couple of times very, very, very wrong.

The point of it is, not everyone *has* to consult an oracle, but in terms of Ancient Greece, yes they were consulted, and the spiritual significance of them was not denied by the people.

What makes you think that the only way to hear the Divine, be aware of it, feel the Gods is through some dramatic mystical experience?

The Gods animate, harmonize the World. The Gods are not beings that sort of flit around and we can only get a glimpse of them once in a while through some prophet.

The Gods *are* the World. They are everywhere.

My opinion is that if people are looking so hard for *a sign* they miss what is right in front of their face.

[patch]

The oracles were a huge part of the Ancient Greek religion. They were consulted, and the Oracle at Delphi in particular was considered extremely accurate. Of course, it was also wrong...and a couple of times very, very, very wrong.

The point of it is, not everyone *has* to consult an oracle, but in terms of Ancient Greece, yes they were consulted, and the spiritual significance of them was not denied by the people.

What makes you think that the only way to hear the Divine, be aware of it, feel the Gods is through some dramatic mystical experience?

The Gods animate, harmonize the World. The Gods are not beings that sort of flit around and we can only get a glimpse of them once in a while through some prophet.

The Gods *are* the World. They are everywhere.

My opinion is that if people are looking so hard for *a sign* they miss what is right in front of their face.

*Applauds*

[David19]

I did answer you. I was willing to engage with David19 because, from previous conversations, I presumed he had at least a conversational level on knowledge when it came to the ancient Greeks, and their religion, culture, and philosophy. In fact, I was mistaken. Even if a person does not know the philosophical concepts that explain it, if they have only passing knowledge of the ancient Greek religion, they then know the Greeks believed that everyone in the world worshipped the same set of Gods, just by different names and myths. Now, while the advanced concepts explaining this belief are culled from philosophy, this was the belief of the common people. I can provide you with a basic explanation of why Twelve is reasoned to be the number of Gods governing the world, but the philosophy behind it fills volumes.

Since I'm only 21, sorry if don't understand everything there is to know about the Hellenic religion and what they believed, I do have uni and some personal issues to deal with that take up time from studying other religions.

And, was it really the common belief of every single "Greek" person (I put Greek in " 'cause I think Theres once mentioned there really wasn't a Greece until after Alexander and it was more individual city states) that everyone in the entire world worshipped the same God. Are you sure that wouldn't be the interpretation of the priests and philosophers, maybe the average worshipper would see things differently?.

[David19]

I disagree. Outside of a physical or mental limitation, anyone can be anything they want to be. Now, of course, as one gets older those options become more limited. At 37, it is unlikely that I could ever become an astronaut, but that does not detract from the fact that it was a path I could have chosen to take.

I disagree that every path is potentially open for everyone, for example, to be an athlete (whether footballer or whatever) or an astronaut, etc you have to be physically fit, some people just don't have the right genes for that, whether it's some kind of disablity or asthma or whatever (some people with asthma do do well as sports, though).

Or take me for example, a path involving maths was never open to me, 'cause I'm just not good at it at all, there's no way I'd ever could be an accountant.

[patch]

Since I'm only 21, sorry if don't understand everything there is to know about the Hellenic religion and what they believed.

OT- Don't let age be a limiting factor for you, seriously.
I don't say this often, but I'm sixteen years old and when it comes to theology I can talk people twice my age under the table.

[David19]

Psychic abilities are being studied more and more. I don't think it will be too much longer before the phenomenon will be a science in it's own right. As it is, we know that some people can see things in the spirit realm (clairvoyants), while other people can only hear (clairaudient - like myself, btw). Some people focus their perceptions onto "Earth bound spirits", others onto nature spirits. Some on the dearly departed, others on the Guides and Gods. Some mystics look even beyond all of that, and sense an all encompassing Presence of warmth and unconditional love.

This is kind of OT, and could be a whole other topic, but I don't agree that psychic abilities will become a science, in the near future anyway. If anything, most scientists are of the opinion that there's no basis too it (Richard Dawkins, etc). There's some that say some psychic powers could be theoretically possible, like telepathy. I've also read one science magazine (can't remember the title, but it's a UK one, I think it's produced by the BBC) that said the only psychic power that might be feasable is rapid healing, as it's just an extension of what our bodies already do.

Now I do believe in psychic ablities, I just don't think it's a science, or can be proved scientifically, a lot of the proof you'll have is your own personal proof.

[David19]

I myself am a Recon who pays cultus to the Gods of Music and the Divine Lovers and with a strong spiritual and academic interest in the concept of Divine Youth -- and as a musician, a lover, and a guy who's 26 and looks fourteen, I think it just makes sense. What keeps me "Recon", though, is that I give praise for my abilities and the joys they bring me; if I ever got a definitive message from any God(s) that I was specially "chosen" to have these abilities, that would be all well and good, but it won't change the fact that I'm mortal and thus have a duty to think as one, ergo, I wouldn't ever dream of going about and proclaiming such.

If it's not too much trouble, do you think you could explain the concept of Divine Youth, as that sounds really interesting to me.

Thanks :).

[Twinkle]

This is kind of OT, and could be a whole other topic, but I don't agree that psychic abilities will become a science, in the near future anyway. If anything, most scientists are of the opinion that there's no basis too it (Richard Dawkins, etc). There's some that say some psychic powers could be theoretically possible, like telepathy. I've also read one science magazine (can't remember the title, but it's a UK one, I think it's produced by the BBC) that said the only psychic power that might be feasable is rapid healing, as it's just an extension of what our bodies already do.

Now I do believe in psychic ablities, I just don't think it's a science, or can be proved scientifically, a lot of the proof you'll have is your own personal proof.


It *is* a science. A soft science, but a science nonetheless. It's called parapsychology.


Parapsychology (from the Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language): παρά para, "alongside" + psychology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology)) is the study of ostensibly paranormal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranormal) events including extrasensory perception (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrasensory_perception), psychokinesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychokinesis), and survival of consciousness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_after_death) after death. Parapsychologists call these processes psi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psi_%28parapsychology%29), a term intended to be descriptive without implying a mechanism.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology#cite_note-0) Parapsychology is a fringe science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_science) because it involves research that does not fit within standard theoretical models (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modelling) accepted by mainstream science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus).
Parapsychological research involves a variety of methodologies including laboratory research and fieldwork, which is conducted at privately funded laboratories and some universities around the world[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology#cite_note-faqfile1-1) though there are fewer universities actively sponsoring parapsychological research today than in years past. Such research is published in specialized parapsychological publications, though a smaller number of articles on parapsychological research have also appeared in more mainstream journals. Experiments conducted by parapsychologists have included the use of random number generators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_number_generators) to test for evidence of psychokinesis, sensory-deprivation Ganzfeld experiments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzfeld_experiment) to test for extrasensory perception, and research trials conducted under contract to the United States government to investigate the possibility of remote viewing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing).
Scientists such as Ray Hyman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Hyman), Stanley Krippner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Krippner), and James Alcock, among others, are critical of both the methodology used and the results obtained in parapsychology. Skeptical researchers suggest that methodological flaws provide the best explanation for apparent experimental successes, rather than the anomalistic explanations offered by many parapsychologists. To date, no evidence has been accepted by the scientific community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus) as establishing the existence of paranormal phenomena. Active parapsychologists have admitted difficulty in getting scientists to accept their research[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology#cite_note-2), and science educators at the California State Board of Education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Board_of_Education) have called the subject pseudoscience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience) in their academic standards literature.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology#cite_note-CaliBoard-3)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology

[Theres]

extremely soft.

[Twinkle]

ROFLMAO!!

Ok, Ok, it's so soft it floats....but still.

[patch]

This thread is rwally OT now.
Can we rename it the chat thread?
Or perhaps start a new one?

[David19]

It *is* a science. A soft science, but a science nonetheless. It's called parapsychology.


Parapsychology (from the Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language): παρά para, "alongside" + psychology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology)) is the study of ostensibly paranormal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranormal) events including extrasensory perception (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrasensory_perception), psychokinesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychokinesis), and survival of consciousness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_after_death) after death. Parapsychologists call these processes psi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psi_%28parapsychology%29), a term intended to be descriptive without implying a mechanism.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology#cite_note-0) Parapsychology is a fringe science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_science) because it involves research that does not fit within standard theoretical models (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modelling) accepted by mainstream science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus).
Parapsychological research involves a variety of methodologies including laboratory research and fieldwork, which is conducted at privately funded laboratories and some universities around the world[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology#cite_note-faqfile1-1) though there are fewer universities actively sponsoring parapsychological research today than in years past. Such research is published in specialized parapsychological publications, though a smaller number of articles on parapsychological research have also appeared in more mainstream journals. Experiments conducted by parapsychologists have included the use of random number generators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_number_generators) to test for evidence of psychokinesis, sensory-deprivation Ganzfeld experiments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzfeld_experiment) to test for extrasensory perception, and research trials conducted under contract to the United States government to investigate the possibility of remote viewing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing).
Scientists such as Ray Hyman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Hyman), Stanley Krippner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Krippner), and James Alcock, among others, are critical of both the methodology used and the results obtained in parapsychology. Skeptical researchers suggest that methodological flaws provide the best explanation for apparent experimental successes, rather than the anomalistic explanations offered by many parapsychologists. To date, no evidence has been accepted by the scientific community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus) as establishing the existence of paranormal phenomena. Active parapsychologists have admitted difficulty in getting scientists to accept their research[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology#cite_note-2), and science educators at the California State Board of Education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Board_of_Education) have called the subject pseudoscience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience) in their academic standards literature.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology#cite_note-CaliBoard-3)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology



extremely soft.

I'm going to agree with Theres here, it may be a "science" but a very very soft one. Personally, I just don't think psychic powers are provable in the standard scientific sense.

[YoungSoulRebel]

... I recommend taking a look at the book The Oracle: Ancient Delphi and the Science Behind Its Lost Secrets by William J Broad. I think you will find it very interesting.




The Seer in Ancient Greece (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0520252292?ie=UTF8&tag=hellenismos-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0520252292) by Michael Flower
The Road to Delphi: Scenes from the History of Oracles (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0374526109?ie=UTF8&tag=hellenismos-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0374526109) by Michael Wood
The Oracles of the Ancient World: A Comprehensive Guide (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0715631942?ie=UTF8&tag=hellenismos-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0715631942) by Trevor Curnow
Oracles, Divination and Prophecy in Ancient Greece (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1405115726?ie=UTF8&tag=hellenismos-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1405115726) by Sarah Johnston

Ah, more for the reading list.




Are you sure that wouldn't be the interpretation of the priests and philosophers, maybe the average worshipper would see things differently?.

See, this is the one question that keeps me cynical about syncreticism. A lot of anthropologists and other people studying ancient Hellenic religion and daily lives of the people will say that the words of the philosophers and priests reflected the thoughts of the people -- but a lot of other such scholars will point out that the philosophers were part of the "educated elite" and whether their beliefs were a reflection of the common person's is always going to be indefinite, and using the philosophers as a starting point for learning about the common people should be taken with a grain of salt.

One example I often bring up for how syncreticism isn't a perfect "fit" is the Gaelig Brighid: ancient Romans compared her to Minerva, but modern Pagans of many stripes compare her to the Greek Hestia. There are two ways to resolve this; the first is to say that Brighid is a separate Goddess who simply possesses many qualities of both Minerva and Hestia -- the other is to say that the Deity(s) interpreted as the singular Brighid by the Gaelig Keltoi are the separate Minerva/Athene and Hestia/Vesta. Of course, even Graeco-Roman syncreticism is imperfect -- the Romans simply didn't have a God similar to Apollon, so when they merged their culture with Hellas, they adopted the God for their own and Romanised His name as "Apollo"; forthermore, Mars is a God of both War and Agriculture under Roman tradition, whereas Ares is a God of War, Conflict, Masculinity, Courage and Strength. Now, comparing the Hellenic Apollon or Eros to the God Aengus-Og of the Gaelig Keltoi could very easily have helped keep peace between the people of both cultures, but what we know of Aengus-Og says that he is both a God of Love and Creation (as is Eros) as well as a God of Music and Poetry (as is Apollon) and (like Apollon) had many lovers, and this points to no single Hellenic, Roman, Germanic, or any other Deity in particular, but it does point to several deities in many other Pantheons.

Syncreticism is an imperfect argument in support of the notion that "all ancient cultures worshipped the same Gods under different names" -- but it works very well as an argument for why ancient peoples shouldn't have fought over religion, since Aengus-Og is quite similar to Apollon with some qualities of Eros, and Lugh is quite similar to Mercurius with some qualities of the Romanised "Apollo", and Krishna bares some similarities to Hermes and Apollon, as well, while Sarasvati can easily be compared to the Mousai, while bearing some qualities of other Goddesses. Indeed, I do believe that the desire to conquer another culture with the sole intent of converting the people to the conquering people's religion is a Christian invention -- syncreticism, to me, therefore seems most probable as a way to tell the conquered peoples, "don't be angry, you can worship Aengus in this temple to Apollo, cos your God is like our God in these ways -- and likewise, we will worship Minerva in your rituals to Brighid, because She is like our Goddess in these ways. No, it's not completely identical, but it's silly to fight over religion, since all Divinity is Divine, and your God is still very likely to hear your prayers in our new temples to our God."



I disagree that every path is potentially open for everyone, for example, to be an athlete (whether footballer or whatever) or an astronaut, etc you have to be physically fit, some people just don't have the right genes for that, whether it's some kind of disablity or asthma or whatever (some people with asthma do do well as sports, though).

Well, Tim also has said at several points that as long as one is physically and mentally capable of doing one job or another, one can, as long as one is determined to get it done. But even so, dyslexic people have earned degrees in law and medicine and, as you have pointed out, asthmatic persons have performed very well in athletic competitions. You may, indeed, be mentally ill-suited for jobs that require lots of maths, but what can stop you from seeking something else, where maths were less important? And what's to stop you from trying to overcome your issues with maths? It's defeatist to say that one can't before one tries; unless, of course, one simply isn't interested in trying, and then it's mere excuses -- just admit that you don't want to and move on.



OT- Don't let age be a limiting factor for you, seriously.
I don't say this often, but I'm sixteen years old and when it comes to theology I can talk people twice my age under the table.

Don't take this wrong (I've been accused by self-proclaimed "Liberals" who give Liberals a bad name of being "ageist" in the past), but I never would have guessed. Of course, a lot of people often assume that I'm older than I am, usually because of my tastes or how I dress or (occasionally) because of my vocabulary and "how [I] present [myself]". One time last year, I was complaining to a friendly acquaintance that a lot of people assume I'm about ten years older than I actually am. Another friendly acquaintance overheard and then asked, "So, wait... you're only... thirty-five?" -- which is ten years older than I actually am.

Of course, there's also apparently no such thing as a Transsexual who starts physically transitioning between the ages of twenty-two and thirty-six. FTM men usually start at around early college-age, and MTF women usually start either at early college-age or at young middle-age (about thirty-seven to forty-five) -- there doesn't seem to be all that much in-between.



This is kind of OT, and could be a whole other topic, but I don't agree that psychic abilities will become a science, in the near future anyway. If anything, most scientists are of the opinion that there's no basis too it (Richard Dawkins, etc). There's some that say some psychic powers could be theoretically possible, like telepathy. I've also read one science magazine (can't remember the title, but it's a UK one, I think it's produced by the BBC) that said the only psychic power that might be feasable is rapid healing, as it's just an extension of what our bodies already do.

Now I do believe in psychic ablities, I just don't think it's a science, or can be proved scientifically, a lot of the proof you'll have is your own personal proof.

Well, some scientists are now discovering that there's "something about" meditation that is just starting to be proven scientifically. There are instruments, for example, that measure pain tolerance. most people register between 5 and 9 on this instrument before it becomes "intolerable" to them. But some people, like those from India who go into a trance as their cheeks and other areas of the skin are skewered, register as high as the twenties and forties, usually with those who have been practising these meditations longer registering much higher, and they register higher still whilst in a trance. Even heavily tattooed and pierced people rarely register higher than 12 on these same meters.



If it's not too much trouble, do you think you could explain the concept of Divine Youth, as that sounds really interesting to me.

Thanks :).

Well, for starters, every Pantheon I have some degree of familiarity with has at least one Deity with many "youthful" aspects, if not presented outright youthful. A friend of mine who is formally converting to Hinduism has said to me on a few occasions that many Hindu Deities can be classified as either "masculine", "feminine" or "youth". The Hellenic Pantheon likewise has many Deities that possess youthful aspects, though only a few have a specified domain over "youth" or are regarded as protectors of young people (Artemis has been regarded as the protector of girls and young women while Apollon as the protector of boys and young men). Even the Gaelig Pantheon has Aengus-Og, a name that means literally "Aengus the young".

The concept of "Divine youth", though, goes a little deeper than simply recognising Deities that possess youthful qualities. Very simply, one way to put it is that the fountain of youth (metaphorically speaking) can be reached by maintaining one's most important youthful characteristics: When we're young, many of us maintain our political and social ideals quite passionately, believing that with just enough power and energy funnelled into the proper directions, that we can change the world. Older people who have had a hand in changing the world didn't do so by "settling down" and having one's passions "mellowed out" with age -- nay, they did so by retaining their youthful passions and by acting on them. With age comes not only wisdom, but tendencies for sedation over action. Apollon, for example, through His attributed teaching of "all in moderation, [including moderation itself]", is often portrayed as the ideal of "eternal youth", not only physically, but mentally -- passion is his only vice, but it's acted upon when deemed necessary; maintaining a youthful demeanour is thus no excuse for acting irrationally and impulsively. Still, as mortals, the occasional irrational or impulsive behaviours are to be expected, but the ideal is, obviously, to learn from them.

Through paying cultus to the Divine Youth, I ask for their immortal wisdom so that I may guide my actions in the best possible direction, and I seek knowledge on maintaining whatever semblance of my own youth that I can through my inevitable ageing.

[patch]

Don't take this wrong (I've been accused by self-proclaimed "Liberals" who give Liberals a bad name of being "ageist" in the past), but I never would have guessed. Of course, a lot of people often assume that I'm older than I am, usually because of my tastes or how I dress or (occasionally) because of my vocabulary and "how [i] present [myself]". One time last year, I was complaining to a friendly acquaintance that a lot of people assume I'm about ten years older than I actually am. Another friendly acquaintance overheard and then asked, "So, wait... you're only... thirty-five?" -- which is ten years older than I actually am.


Hehe, it's okay. Most people don't realise. Which I like because people talk to me and get to know me before they know my age. Prevents me being lumped in with pagan youths who become 'wiccan' beause they saw charmed or because it's goth.


Well, some scientists are now discovering that there's "something about" meditation that is just starting to be proven scientifically. There are instruments, for example, that measure pain tolerance. most people register between 5 and 9 on this instrument before it becomes "intolerable" to them. But some people, like those from India who go into a trance as their cheeks and other areas of the skin are skewered, register as high as the twenties and forties, usually with those who have been practising these meditations longer registering much higher, and they register higher still whilst in a trance. Even heavily tattooed and pierced people rarely register higher than 12 on these same meters.

There was a brilliant program on over here a few months back called 'medicine men abroad' where two british doctors went to see tribal medicine in action.
They also went to these groups in india you mentioned above.
One was an entirely atheist organisation proving you could do these things using mind over matter. One man hung from a hook attatched to his back and it didn't hurt him. Then one of the doctors tried and was very surprised to find that if he put his mind to it, it didn't hurt.

[YoungSoulRebel]

Hehe, it's okay. Most people don't realise. Which I like because people talk to me and get to know me before they know my age. Prevents me being lumped in with pagan youths who become 'wiccan' beause they saw charmed or because it's goth.

Very understandable.

The bartender at this old Goth club I used to DJ at was surprised that I was only turning twenty-one on the day of my first DJ gig (it was an 18+ club), saying "wait, you're just now turning twenty-one? I just figured you for a teetotaller, cos usually the kids who come in here are doing whatever they can to get booze underage, stripping down to hotpants and electrical tape and acting like idiots, or they're those straight-edge ****s trying to start shit with everybody else. You played Superheroines up in there twenty minutes ago, you can't *just now* be twenty-one!"

While I genuinely feel very much for young people, especially for the fact that a lot of even slightly-older people have very little respect for those twenty and younger, at the same time, I agree that certain assumptions about young adults is not without reason. But it does no good to exclude all young people because many have tendencies to act unwise -- much of those actions are a result of modern parenting that's based on psychological neoteny; in ancient Greece and Rome, for example, a girl was deemed not only physically, but psychologically prepared for marriage by the age of about fifteen, finding a girl that prepared in this day and age is a rarity. While we may now have an awareness of the fact that a person is not 100% physically "mature" until they're about twenty-two or twenty-three, the fact still remains that young people are fully mentally capable of acting mature enough to deal with a lot of life's "unpleasantness" than most modern adults assume. Young adults don't "act immature" because they're somehow intrinsically incapable of acting otherwise -- they act so because modern Western parenting is based on intentional psychological infantillism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantilism_%28obsolete_usage%29), id est, keeping one's offspring behaving as "young" as possible by doing whatever one can to limit or outright exclude a young child's or prepubescent person's exposure to "adult" subjects such as sex, violence, and death, and often prolonging the stage where one can't tell fantasy from reality (for example, I went to junior high with an otherwise intellectually "normal" twelve-years-girl who seriously believed in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, she also had a ten-years-old sister who still nursed at their mother's breast -- an extreme example, sure, but one that illustrates my point).

...your reasons for keeping your age low-key are probably similar to why I keep being FTM rather low-key on-line: people are often very quick to making assumptions, no matter how "open minded" they may claim to be. And on-line, it's just not that important and will bring nothing to the conversation, most of the time.



There was a brilliant program on over here a few months back called 'medicine men abroad' where two british doctors went to see tribal medicine in action.
They also went to these groups in india you mentioned above.
One was an entirely atheist organisation proving you could do these things using mind over matter. One man hung from a hook attached to his back and it didn't hurt him. Then one of the doctors tried and was very surprised to find that if he put his mind to it, it didn't hurt.

The example I brought up was specifically on some program on, I think, The National Geographic Network. In a lot of ways, we're only just now beginning to understand the power of the human mind.

[David19]

See, this is the one question that keeps me cynical about syncreticism. A lot of anthropologists and other people studying ancient Hellenic religion and daily lives of the people will say that the words of the philosophers and priests reflected the thoughts of the people -- but a lot of other such scholars will point out that the philosophers were part of the "educated elite" and whether their beliefs were a reflection of the common person's is always going to be indefinite, and using the philosophers as a starting point for learning about the common people should be taken with a grain of salt.

I agree with you, I'm not so sure if the philosophers reflected the beliefs of the common people.


One example I often bring up for how syncreticism isn't a perfect "fit" is the Gaelig Brighid: ancient Romans compared her to Minerva, but modern Pagans of many stripes compare her to the Greek Hestia. There are two ways to resolve this; the first is to say that Brighid is a separate Goddess who simply possesses many qualities of both Minerva and Hestia -- the other is to say that the Deity(s) interpreted as the singular Brighid by the Gaelig Keltoi are the separate Minerva/Athene and Hestia/Vesta. Of course, even Graeco-Roman syncreticism is imperfect -- the Romans simply didn't have a God similar to Apollon, so when they merged their culture with Hellas, they adopted the God for their own and Romanised His name as "Apollo"; forthermore, Mars is a God of both War and Agriculture under Roman tradition, whereas Ares is a God of War, Conflict, Masculinity, Courage and Strength. Now, comparing the Hellenic Apollon or Eros to the God Aengus-Og of the Gaelig Keltoi could very easily have helped keep peace between the people of both cultures, but what we know of Aengus-Og says that he is both a God of Love and Creation (as is Eros) as well as a God of Music and Poetry (as is Apollon) and (like Apollon) had many lovers, and this points to no single Hellenic, Roman, Germanic, or any other Deity in particular, but it does point to several deities in many other Pantheons.

Syncreticism is an imperfect argument in support of the notion that "all ancient cultures worshipped the same Gods under different names" -- but it works very well as an argument for why ancient peoples shouldn't have fought over religion, since Aengus-Og is quite similar to Apollon with some qualities of Eros, and Lugh is quite similar to Mercurius with some qualities of the Romanised "Apollo", and Krishna bares some similarities to Hermes and Apollon, as well, while Sarasvati can easily be compared to the Mousai, while bearing some qualities of other Goddesses. Indeed, I do believe that the desire to conquer another culture with the sole intent of converting the people to the conquering people's religion is a Christian invention -- syncreticism, to me, therefore seems most probable as a way to tell the conquered peoples, "don't be angry, you can worship Aengus in this temple to Apollo, cos your God is like our God in these ways -- and likewise, we will worship Minerva in your rituals to Brighid, because She is like our Goddess in these ways. No, it's not completely identical, but it's silly to fight over religion, since all Divinity is Divine, and your God is still very likely to hear your prayers in our new temples to our God."

Thanks, that makes sense.



Well, Tim also has said at several points that as long as one is physically and mentally capable of doing one job or another, one can, as long as one is determined to get it done. But even so, dyslexic people have earned degrees in law and medicine and, as you have pointed out, asthmatic persons have performed very well in athletic competitions. You may, indeed, be mentally ill-suited for jobs that require lots of maths, but what can stop you from seeking something else, where maths were less important? And what's to stop you from trying to overcome your issues with maths? It's defeatist to say that one can't before one tries; unless, of course, one simply isn't interested in trying, and then it's mere excuses -- just admit that you don't want to and move on.

Some of that can be true, like extremely dedicated individuals can overcome the odds, but it's not true for everything. I think that if a dyslexic person attains a law degree, then I think it was, not only due to their hard work, but also 'cause they were meant to be a lawyer.

I have tried hard in maths, when I did it in school, but it just wasn't something I was good at, so I think, for some things, dedication and hard work don't make much of a difference (it wouldn't stay in my mind, etc), like I could study and study and study as a lot of maths books, but I wouldn't improve, 'cause it's just not a subject for me.




Well, some scientists are now discovering that there's "something about" meditation that is just starting to be proven scientifically. There are instruments, for example, that measure pain tolerance. most people register between 5 and 9 on this instrument before it becomes "intolerable" to them. But some people, like those from India who go into a trance as their cheeks and other areas of the skin are skewered, register as high as the twenties and forties, usually with those who have been practising these meditations longer registering much higher, and they register higher still whilst in a trance. Even heavily tattooed and pierced people rarely register higher than 12 on these same meters.

While scientists have shown that meditation does aid relaxation and can improve your health, I don't think it proves the existence of psychic powers or magic. I did see one scientist on TV once talking about how studies of Buddhist meditation can make you feel like you're out of body, but that wasn't "proof" of psychic powers, it was simply saying astral projection is "only a psychological feeling", brought on through meditation or something like that.

I don't consider the pain tolerance that many Indian yogis and others demonstrate (like walking on hot coals, piercing themselves with pins, etc) to be magic, it's impressive, don't get me wrong, but I think that's more a question of mind over matter, that can be demonstrated scientifically, IMO.

Now, if these yogis were levitating (which I know is a siddhi (supernatural power) that can be devoped through yoga, and other practices, although not the only one), summoning spirits, had telekenisis, had telepathy, could teleport, etc then that would be magic, IMO anyway.



Well, for starters, every Pantheon I have some degree of familiarity with has at least one Deity with many "youthful" aspects, if not presented outright youthful. A friend of mine who is formally converting to Hinduism has said to me on a few occasions that many Hindu Deities can be classified as either "masculine", "feminine" or "youth". The Hellenic Pantheon likewise has many Deities that possess youthful aspects, though only a few have a specified domain over "youth" or are regarded as protectors of young people (Artemis has been regarded as the protector of girls and young women while Apollon as the protector of boys and young men). Even the Gaelig Pantheon has Aengus-Og, a name that means literally "Aengus the young".

The concept of "Divine youth", though, goes a little deeper than simply recognising Deities that possess youthful qualities. Very simply, one way to put it is that the fountain of youth (metaphorically speaking) can be reached by maintaining one's most important youthful characteristics: When we're young, many of us maintain our political and social ideals quite passionately, believing that with just enough power and energy funnelled into the proper directions, that we can change the world. Older people who have had a hand in changing the world didn't do so by "settling down" and having one's passions "mellowed out" with age -- nay, they did so by retaining their youthful passions and by acting on them. With age comes not only wisdom, but tendencies for sedation over action. Apollon, for example, through His attributed teaching of "all in moderation, [including moderation itself]", is often portrayed as the ideal of "eternal youth", not only physically, but mentally -- passion is his only vice, but it's acted upon when deemed necessary; maintaining a youthful demeanour is thus no excuse for acting irrationally and impulsively. Still, as mortals, the occasional irrational or impulsive behaviours are to be expected, but the ideal is, obviously, to learn from them.

Through paying cultus to the Divine Youth, I ask for their immortal wisdom so that I may guide my actions in the best possible direction, and I seek knowledge on maintaining whatever semblance of my own youth that I can through my inevitable ageing.

Thanks for the explanation, that's actually quite interesting, I think there are some Gods in the pantheon I worship (Sumerian), that might count as Divine Youth (I can't remember the names right now, I'll have to look it up).

[David19]

While I genuinely feel very much for young people, especially for the fact that a lot of even slightly-older people have very little respect for those twenty and younger, at the same time, I agree that certain assumptions about young adults is not without reason. But it does no good to exclude all young people because many have tendencies to act unwise -- much of those actions are a result of modern parenting that's based on psychological neoteny; in ancient Greece and Rome, for example, a girl was deemed not only physically, but psychologically prepared for marriage by the age of about fifteen, finding a girl that prepared in this day and age is a rarity. While we may now have an awareness of the fact that a person is not 100% physically "mature" until they're about twenty-two or twenty-three, the fact still remains that young people are fully mentally capable of acting mature enough to deal with a lot of life's "unpleasantness" than most modern adults assume. Young adults don't "act immature" because they're somehow intrinsically incapable of acting otherwise -- they act so because modern Western parenting is based on intentional psychological infantillism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantilism_%28obsolete_usage%29), id est, keeping one's offspring behaving as "young" as possible by doing whatever one can to limit or outright exclude a young child's or prepubescent person's exposure to "adult" subjects such as sex, violence, and death, and often prolonging the stage where one can't tell fantasy from reality (for example, I went to junior high with an otherwise intellectually "normal" twelve-years-girl who seriously believed in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, she also had a ten-years-old sister who still nursed at their mother's breast -- an extreme example, sure, but one that illustrates my point).

While I can see some of your point, and I definitely agree young people are looked down upon by adults (like over here in the UK, there's a big problem with knife crime and teens getting killed, but for some reason, a lot of adults seem to think all teens are to blame or we all carry knives, and some shops now have alarms that only teens can hear, if a group of teenagers are outside a shop, doesn't matter if they're only talking and the owner turns on the alarm, it'll release a sound only teens (under 25's) can hear, and force them to get away, which is kind of discrimination, I mean, they wouldn't create an alarm that targets all black people or all Asians, etc, so why do they do it for teens?), and I realised I just went OT, so I'll try and get back on topic now. I do agree that teens are capable of understanding a lot more about life than most adults think (like sex, death, etc), but I don't think 14 or 15 year old girls or boys are ready for marriage, it also opens up the possiblity of pediphiles taking advantage (they'll say "well, they're adults now" or something like that).

The example you brought up is definitely extreme, most of the people I went to school with knew about Santa when they 10 or around that age, and the girl who was still being breastfed at 10 is definitely wrong, and social services should've intervened and looked into the mother, maybe even taking the kids away from the parents.

I do think you're right about one thing though, like I said above, teenager's aren't idiots, and can understand a lot more than most adults think, and adults shouldn't look down at teens and young people.



The example I brought up was specifically on some program on, I think, The National Geographic Network. In a lot of ways, we're only just now beginning to understand the power of the human mind.

I agree that the mysterious powers of the human mind are incredible, I just don't think science can prove their existence.

[David19]

There was a brilliant program on over here a few months back called 'medicine men abroad' where two british doctors went to see tribal medicine in action. They also went to these groups in india you mentioned above.
One was an entirely atheist organisation proving you could do these things using mind over matter. One man hung from a hook attatched to his back and it didn't hurt him. Then one of the doctors tried and was very surprised to find that if he put his mind to it, it didn't hurt.

I heard about that programme, but unfortunely I didn't get to see it :sadman:, I thought I might be able to see it on Youtube, but I can't seem to find it, but I'm sure it'll be repeated sometime, or I'll find a way to download it.

I do think that there are things "tribal" medicine can do, that either western medicine can't or has overlooked, and I do agree that mind over matter can do some incredible things, but I don't really consider that magic, at least, not in the way mind over matter is usually defined. I can definitely find attaching a hook to your back and not feeling pain to be an impressive display of mind over matter and psychology, I don't consider it magic.

[YoungSoulRebel]

... but I don't think 14 or 15 year old girls or boys are ready for marriage, it also opens up the possiblity[sic] of pediphiles[sic] taking advantage (they'll say "well, they're adults now" or something like that).

Well, first off, I am far from advocating that. Let me repeat what I said in plainer words:

Medical science has, over the last couple hundred years, proved that a person, specifically a human female, is not <i>physically</i> "mature enough" for <i>pregnancy</i> until the age of about 22. Even sex without pregnancy before the age of "about eighteen" can be physically harmful.

Still, you cannot rationally tell me that the human brain has truly degenerated over the last couple of thousand years &mdash; or even the last several hundred (as girls were getting married as young as fourteen and fifteen quite regularly until about the Victorian era). A fourteen-year-old person is fully <i>capable</i> of understanding the repercussions of sex, violence, and death --without Neo-Puritan propaganda, and without sickeningly infantillistic "modern" parenting-- even though, since the mid-19th Century, Western society has been prolonging certain intermediate developmental stages, producing modern seventeen-year-old persons who are as ill-prepared for life in general as a seven-year-old of 27C.E. Rome.

Even the fads that our advertisers encourage on teenagers, especially teen girls, things such as "teddy bear back-pack purses" (which, I know, was a mid-1990s thing) is nothing more than socially-acceptable infantilism -- I mean, hey, at the age of five, we tell children that they're not allowed to bring their teddy bear to Kindergarten, but their fifteen-year-old sister gets to take one to high school, but since "it's really a purse", the infantilism is OK.

And sex? eight year olds are fully capable of understanding sex -- and fully capable of understanding that one is not emotionally or even physically "ready" to have sex until they're considerably older. Psychologists and sociologists have proved time and time again that "abstinence-only" programs fail, and that those who get a full and balanced set of lessons of all that one needs to know about human reproduction, puberty, and contraception are more likely to make wise choices (from waiting until they are of age to legally consent, or even if not, are more likely to protect themselves from STI's and unwanted pregnancy). But young people, especially so in the U$, don't get that. I found it rather disturbing that the girls in my class didn't get a lesson in what menstruation actually is and how it happens until most of them had already been menstruating for three years -- <i>that's</i> infantilism.


<b>... the girl who was still being breastfed at 10 is definitely wrong, and social services should've intervened and looked into the mother, maybe even taking the kids away from the parents.</b>

Actually, it's called "attachment parenting" and, while controversial, is legal. As are other "attachment parenting" techniques that are veritable psychological abuse, creating emotionally stunted, unprepared, and bizarrely neurotic young adults, who are then expected by a largely uncaring society to suddenly "know everything" by the age of eighteen.

[David19]

Well, first off, I am far from advocating that. Let me repeat what I said in plainer words:

Medical science has, over the last couple hundred years, proved that a person, specifically a human female, is not <i>physically</i> "mature enough" for <i>pregnancy</i> until the age of about 22. Even sex without pregnancy before the age of "about eighteen" can be physically harmful.

Still, you cannot rationally tell me that the human brain has truly degenerated over the last couple of thousand years &mdash; or even the last several hundred (as girls were getting married as young as fourteen and fifteen quite regularly until about the Victorian era). A fourteen-year-old person is fully <i>capable</i> of understanding the repercussions of sex, violence, and death --without Neo-Puritan propaganda, and without sickeningly infantillistic "modern" parenting-- even though, since the mid-19th Century, Western society has been prolonging certain intermediate developmental stages, producing modern seventeen-year-old persons who are as ill-prepared for life in general as a seven-year-old of 27C.E. Rome.

I agree that a lot of 14 year olds are capable of understanding and having sex, that's not what I'm against, and I don't think it should be illegal for 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, etc year olds to have sex with each other, but I don't really endorse the view that the ancient world had - that it was ok for old men (or even women) to sleep with young teens (say someone in their late 30s or 40s sleeping with a teen).




Even the fads that our advertisers encourage on teenagers, especially teen girls, things such as "teddy bear back-pack purses" (which, I know, was a mid-1990s thing) is nothing more than socially-acceptable infantilism -- I mean, hey, at the age of five, we tell children that they're not allowed to bring their teddy bear to Kindergarten, but their fifteen-year-old sister gets to take one to high school, but since "it's really a purse", the infantilism is OK.

And sex? eight year olds are fully capable of understanding sex -- and fully capable of understanding that one is not emotionally or even physically "ready" to have sex until they're considerably older. Psychologists and sociologists have proved time and time again that "abstinence-only" programs fail, and that those who get a full and balanced set of lessons of all that one needs to know about human reproduction, puberty, and contraception are more likely to make wise choices (from waiting until they are of age to legally consent, or even if not, are more likely to protect themselves from STI's and unwanted pregnancy). But young people, especially so in the U$, don't get that. I found it rather disturbing that the girls in my class didn't get a lesson in what menstruation actually is and how it happens until most of them had already been menstruating for three years -- <i>that's</i> infantilism.

Again, I agree that girls and boys should have proper sex education, and told how to use a condom, the pill, etc and other things related to that.

I also think that gay sex should be taught in schools, I mean sex education is lacking in many areas, but when it comes to gay sex, no one wants to acknowledge it exists, and the amount of people who complain at just the thought of it being taught in schools is incredibly high, and they seem to think it'll "make" the kids LGBT by just learning about it. Sex education is quite hetrosexual-focused, and even that is lacking.




<b>... the girl who was still being breastfed at 10 is definitely wrong, and social services should've intervened and looked into the mother, maybe even taking the kids away from the parents.</b>

Actually, it's called "attachment parenting" and, while controversial, is legal. As are other "attachment parenting" techniques that are veritable psychological abuse, creating emotionally stunted, unprepared, and bizarrely neurotic young adults, who are then expected by a largely uncaring society to suddenly "know everything" by the age of eighteen.


Well, it shouldn't be legal, I don't think it is over here in the UK, and I think it is a form of abuse, both physically in some cases, psychologically, emotionally, etc.