Cherry-Picking Vs. Traditionalism

[malkookoo]

Is it Wrong to stray from specified guidlines within a path?
Will doing so tarnish a given practice? Will doing so show disrespect to those that have "done the work"?
Should we adhere to the rules?

Conversely, does holding onto the traditions from maybe thousands of years in the past keep us from moving forward? Should we take what we like, what is of use, and discard the rest?




Personally, I take freedom of religion to mean just that. What was pertinent decades, and centuries, and millenia ago may not be as applicable today, it may not Reconnect us the way that religion is supposed to.

I also think that much of the "Old Guard" enjoys their relative authority and don't want to see it taken from them. Then there are those that are comforted by structure and routine.

But that is IMO....

What's your's?

[~Elise~]

If you don't follow tenets within a Tradition, then you are not OF that Tradition.

If you take parts of it and parts of another--then you are following a completely different path.

What's the difficulty in the understanding of that?

[malkookoo]

I thought it a question worth asking as someone in another thread was saying that being a Christian Witch was "this and this", and I thought, well, people claim to be certain things all the time, and other come up and say, "You're wrong."

For example, I practice Reiki. There's a whole hot-bed of contraversy there. Many Reiki Masters claim that if you're doing distance healing, it's not Reiki.

So...you know...I think there's room to wiggle.

[malkookoo]

And what about Christianity? There are so many traditions, so many different paths. Very often, when someone says somthing like:

"I've met Christians that do this, this, and this. What about that."

The response is, they weren't real Christians. Yet those people still claim to be Chrisitan.

[malkookoo]

Or, what if you follow no specific tradition, no particular path? Is that "wrong", to choose what you like from each?

[~Elise~]

As a Reiki master...distance reiki is reiki.

Cherrypicking is not the same wiggle room. When you take parts from one and then another and combine them, you have something new.

MY personal opinion is that you should name it something entirely different so as not to be confused with either original.

Elise

[~Elise~]

And what about Christianity? There are so many traditions, so many different paths. Very often, when someone says somthing like:

"I've met Christians that do this, this, and this. What about that."

The response is, they weren't real Christians. Yet those people still claim to be Chrisitan.

If they believe in the divinity of Christ, I think that is all it takes to be a Christian...I don't know for sure, I'm not one. But, there are as many sects of Christianity as there of Paganism, if not more.

As for what one person believes is or isn't shouldn't make a difference. It's what is in the soul that matters.

Elise

[malkookoo]

If they believe in the divinity of Christ, I think that is all it takes to be a Christian...I don't know for sure, I'm not one. But, there are as many sects of Christianity as there of Paganism, if not more.

As for what one person believes is or isn't shouldn't make a difference. It's what is in the soul that matters.

Elise

Having been one, and having experience many different flavors and colors, I can say that most Baptists would be flinging spittle in rage at that idea.

I suppose I was flippant in my title.
What I was getting at wuz:

Is it better to follow a prescribed path, or is freewheeling preferable? Which one will teach you more, or less.

I'm not saying one way is better than another, or that one matters more than another, or that any of them matter. Just trying to reel in some opinions. Like yours.:toofless:

[~Elise~]

I've done both...one is not better than the other...just different ways of approach.

Elise

[Glowy]

I personaly have never felt comfortable with the doctrine of ..... said path. I have always felt even of members of the same or similar belief system/ a path is an individual walk. You can share the mass/ circle etc... the expereince of the belief with your family/ friends/ community.

I have always picked and chose my beliefs until I formed my own path. I just say I am Pagan.. nobody needs to know why or how. My beliefs are mine.

[Lunacie]

A very good way to go, and one that Gardner himself endorsed for Wiccans, is to follow a specific path and work with a group for the Sabbats and Esbats (which is less than a month altogether) - and the rest of the time do your own study and work with whatever path or diety you feel called to work with - as long as there isn't a huge conflict between the two paths of course.

[malkookoo]

A very good way to go, and one that Gardner himself endorsed for Wiccans, is to follow a specific path and work with a group for the Sabbats and Esbats (which is less than a month altogether) - and the rest of the time do your own study and work with whatever path or diety you feel called to work with - as long as there isn't a huge conflict between the two paths of course.


What would be an expample of such a conflict? How would one resolve it?

[Lunacie]

What would be an expample of such a conflict? How would one resolve it?

In my opinion one couldn't really be a Wiccan and honor the gods of Wicca in group practice - and then honor a god like Jehovah who is extremely jealous. I don't see any way to resolve that conflict and make both those paths work for the same person.

[Terra Mater]

Cherry-picking is never a good thing unless you are a farmer or a pie maker. :mmm:

[malkookoo]

Cherry-picking is never a good thing unless you are a farmer or a pie maker. :mmm:


Har har.:falloffch

That'll teach to pick my title more carefully...:razz:

[~Audra~]

IMO, if you say you are of one particular path, you have to follow the rules/traditions that make that path what it is...there, though, is personal space to move around and learn, you can look at things from different view points, study in different ways...

but, if you are taking a bit from here, a bit from there, you aren't following a particularly "described" path...not a traditional one...

but, as i always say...YOUR path is yours...whatever you do whether it have to do with your lifestyle, your beliefs, your whatever...EVERYONE follows their own path regardless of the purity of their tradition and their direct and straight path through it...that's why, IMO, there are a lot of solitary practitioners...you can't fill a person completely all the time with one path...their beliefs/truths aren't always going to coincide with a certain tradition 100%

like me, i could fit in with the Dianics...but i work with male deities...i work with darker aspects of the goddess/god....i see the goddess as three fold...my personal styles and non-religious thoughts resonate throughout my magical workings...IMO, you couldn't truly fit me anywhere...

So, i suppose i shall remain solitary and, as i go down MY path, i'll pick up any stray cherries laying on the roadside...if i think it's rotten, i'll toss it aside...if not, i'll eat it...:bigredgri

[cheddarsox]

Both ways have merit, and things to be gained from them.

The only problem is when people claim to do one thing and do another, thus falsely representing what they are claiming. Leads to confusion and misrepresents someone else's tradition.

If your eclectic, cool, but don't claim to be following a certain specific trad if your not. That's just identity theft.

I've done both ways, and have found them to be useful. You can get lots of growth out of really working a particular system. But that doesn't work for everyone, sometimes you need a more diversified spiritual portfolio..for a certain time in your life, or because situations change.

But I think that people tend to give traditionalists a bum rap and that does bother me. There is much potential for real deep spiritual growth by following one path with deep respect and intent, it's not all about being narrow minded, feeling superior, being unable to think for oneself or all that other stuff. Sometimes it can be really helpful to just focus on one thing, to practice some discipline, to allow oneself to get very deep into a thing and get very practiced in it. It's like choosing a major in college, it doesnt' mean you don't appreciate the elective courses, just that you recognize the worth of giving one area more intense focus.

[Cobalt]

This is an easier question to answer with religions like Islam that have a core statement of faith. If you believe that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet, that's all you have to believe. The other Pillars of Faith are all about action. So whatever else you believe, that one statement is your criterion. If you're on board with that, you're on board with Islam. If not, you're not.

Religions like Hinduism, Wicca, etc. are much trickier. A hard statement of faith like that--while extremely useful from a perspective of creating and sustaining a cultural identity for the group--is difficult precisely because excluding what is "not us" from what is "us" is contrary to what many Pagans want to see happening. Which basically means that developing any kind of coherent cultural identity within the group is contrary to what many Pagans want to see happening.

Christianity is somewhere in the middle. There are certainly statements of faith ("Jesus Christ is the son of the One True God and he died to redeem us from sin" or the like), but because there are so many definitions with their own interest in developing a unique core identity (which means they allow and exclude beliefs or believers based on criteria of their own in order to keep a coherent definition of their group)... there is a lot of fuzziness there. For example, multiple schools of thought about the nature of Christ.

There are the Nestorians, who feel that Jesus the man and Christ the son of God are effectively two different essences, even though they're centered around one guy and one name. Catholics are obviously not down with this (since whether the Virgin Mary was mother to just the human nature of Jesus or whether she birthed the whole kit and caboodle is kind of an important disputing point for them).

What I'm saying with all of this is that there are a lot of Muslims who meet the clearly-defined criteria set out by Islam, and are therefore justifiably defined as Muslim. There are Muslims who fit culturally but may not believe in the Shahadah. Islam has an easier time defining one as Muslim and one not than traditions like the various Pagan groups.

My personal feeling is that traditional groups are including and excluding certain beliefs out of a desire to maintain a cohesive identity. They basically just want to be able to know who they are. This isn't important to some Pagan groups, but out of respect to the ones that do place a priority on it, I wouldn't claim their name unless I fit their definitions. For groups that don't care who claims their name, sometimes I will when I'm intersecting with them.

So for me it's not about needing to define myself "correctly." It's about defining myself in a way that is respectful to the groups I may or may not be a part of depending on how much of a priority they place on being cohesive and how important it is to them to know who they are as a group.

So for me, it's not about an "Old Guard" needing to control their followers. It's about a group controlling their own identity, and if I respect them I'll let them do that for themselves if they need it. I won't take away their power to know who they are by clinging on to the group and muddling things up if the truth is that I'm actually something different from them.

That felt like a long ramble, but I hope I sort of got around to the point in there somewhere.

[Meadhbh]

I think that a person should stick to one path and work with it. If only because if we only choose to work with or study what we like then we're not really learning what we need to. Some times the stuff we like the least is what we need to learn. And like other people have said you also get conflcits that arise between the paths, and those can be hard to get around unless you do some real planning before hand.

[Darth Brooks]

Contrary to what some reconstructionists seem to think, I respect the basic principles of traditionalism. I can understand why some people would want to try and stick as close to the original traditions of whatever it is they're interested in as possible. If that's what it takes for you to advance spiritually, then I say do it.

But at the same time, I don't like how ecleciticism receives the criticism that it does. It's one thing if you don't like it and it doesn't float your boat. It's another if you think you have any business telling other people how to live their spiritual lives. I personally do not see anything disrespectful about "cherry picking" so long as it is practiced for the right reasons. Say, if you feel like Kali Ma and Odin are both calling you to their service at the same time, and you feel a bizarre necessity to combine Hindu and Norse mysticism in some way. If it's a deep spiritual need you have, then GO with it. And forget about the people who would criticize you for it. If they feel "insulted" by it then IMO that's their problem, not yours.

And whatever you choose to label yourself is your business...Doesn't matter if other people agree with the word choice or not. Not everybody who uses the same label really agrees on just what that label's supposed to mean, anyway. (Case in point: "Christian.") But then again, I tend to think of labels as being expendable anyway.

[~Elise~]

Just do not call Odin and Kali-ma in the same ritual...that is just mind-boggling. Keep each pantheon separate, would be my advice.

[Nox_Mortus]

I think they both have thier strong points, my only issue is people who claim to be following a tradition (like Wicca) but are actually eclectics. but that's really a whole different issue.

My general advice is to set some sort of basic framework for yourself and build from that, and also to try to respect the traditions you draw from as much as you can.

[BlackLili]

/shrugs

I'm one of those darned "cherrypickers" that shouldn't do what we do. I've given a name to my path that reflects it, too.

"American Witchcraft" is what I call it in any sort of official sense (whatever that means,) and "Melting Cauldron" in familiar company. It's supposed to reflect the Melting Pot analogy of the US, since I pull mainly from the traditions and beliefs of the descendants of people who immigrated to this country.

For me, its all about using what works. I'm not interested in practicing with a coven or a grove or a circle or a square or a triad or a dodecahedron. So I don't really give a damn what anyone thinks of my practices - I didn't ask anyone's opinion.

I can almost promise that my methodology won't work the same way for anyone else. So it wouldn't teach anyone else what I've learned from it. Nor would I have learned what I know if I had gone another route. Impossible to say if I would know more or less - unless I had stayed on the path I was born into. Then I can tell you for certain I would know less.

Cherrypicking aside (and I know what you mean by it, I'm just using it like this without negative denotation because I think its an apt word,) I think the point is for a person to be open to the opportunity to change. If your path comes to a fork in the road, some people choose the left path, some choose the right path, and some folks dither around at the fork and wring their hands and stagnate. It doesn't matter what path you choose - so long as you make a conscious choice. It is in making the choice that we learn.

[Philosophia]

I'm an eclectic and I firmly believe it's fine to "cherry pick" if you properly research the aspect fully. That means going beyond the basics and looking at the culture and history. Mixing traditions that aren't compatible isn't okay unless you're willing to do a lot of hard work to put them together. It's the same for every single thing that comes into a person's tradition.

Personally, I find that being eclectic may be a lot more harder than many people realize. In eclecticism, there isn't a set outside structure. It really depends on the individuals who are participating in their own path to create their own structure, even in rituals, prayers, etc..

Each part incorporated into a participant's path needs to be researched to the fullest degree, even if it is something small (I've heard of some deities being very "picky" about specific things that they desire). If a person doesn't, than they have to take responsibility for the consequences.

[Louisvillian]

Let's see how well I can phrase this...XD

I think that eclecticism can come in many shades of grey, and is not so black-and-white as some might think. In most traditions, there is a bit of wiggle room, so one doesn't have to follow every single traditional/conventional aspect to the letter. But, in most traditions and paths, there are some practices and beliefs that are core and define them, and without those, a practitioner most likely cannot accurately call themselves of that system.

However, it is not my place to tell someone what to believe or not to believe. I can only offer the suggestion that someone choose the most accurate name for what they practise and believe.
Example of myself: I am a solitary Wiccan, but I am fairly conventional in my practices and beliefs. However, there is quite a bit of wiggle room in regards to certain things that I could use if I wanted to, and still consider myself a Wiccan. However, since I consider myself part of that particular religion, I can't pick and choose for whatever I want, because certain things might contradict with the core beliefs and practices in Wicca.

I also agree with what Philosophia said just now- if you are going to "cherry-pick" and be generally eclectic, at least research the source material properly, and know what you're doing before getting into something.

[~Elise~]

I'm an eclectic and I firmly believe it's fine to "cherry pick" if you properly research the aspect fully. That means going beyond the basics and looking at the culture and history. Mixing traditions that aren't compatible isn't okay unless you're willing to do a lot of hard work to put them together. It's the same for every single thing that comes into a person's tradition.

Personally, I find that being eclectic may be a lot more harder than many people realize. In eclecticism, there isn't a set outside structure. It really depends on the individuals who are participating in their own path to create their own structure, even in rituals, prayers, etc..

Each part incorporated into a participant's path needs to be researched to the fullest degree, even if it is something small (I've heard of some deities being very "picky" about specific things that they desire). If a person doesn't, than they have to take responsibility for the consequences.

And there's the rub...most people won't/don't take that time and research and think it's okay. It is NOT okay.

Please notice I didn't say all don't take the time. But, lately, I find those are far and few between. And unfortunately, all eclectics get painted with the brush of those who don't.

Those who follow a Tradition get upset when they see the Gods they follow and honor treated in such a disrespectful manner. This discussion has happened MANY times in the past and my answer is always some form of this.

I'm not picking on you, Philosophia, I'm using your post as a great example of the way it should be done, but isn't. Accessorizing with the God O' the Week, is not respectful and yes, Traditionalists get upset when they see that happening.

Using the example a few post above, you want to mix Odin and Kali ma...spend a year with Norse learning, reading, honoring and absorbing, same with Hindu (another year there doing the same)...THEN if you choose to mix those two-at least you have a cultural understanding of what you're doing. (Then, I'll lay you 50 to 1 that you won't do something like that)

Elise

[Darth Brooks]

Those who follow a Tradition get upset when they see the Gods they follow and honor treated in such a disrespectful manner. This discussion has happened MANY times in the past and my answer is always some form of this.

It seems to me that if traditionalists get upset because of how an eclectic chooses to engage the Gods, then that's their problem, not the eclectic's. I've gone into detail about how Setian eclecticism works before - like Philosophia mentioned it involves a great deal of research and concentration. I am respectful to everybody when it comes to their own beliefs and practices, but if somebody else is upset by something I do in my tradition, that is not my fault nor is it my responsibility to make them feel better. They can either get over being upset, ignore me, or go away. When it comes to my own relationship with the Gods, I answer only to the Gods, not to any man-made orthodoxy or orthopraxy.


I'm not picking on you, Philosophia, I'm using your post as a great example of the way it should be done, but isn't. Accessorizing with the God O' the Week, is not respectful and yes, Traditionalists get upset when they see that happening.Again, I think traditionalists are unwise to let it bother them so much. They should remain focused on their own work and not allow themselves to be bothered by what other people do. If Odin and Kali Ma really don't approve of being called in the same ritual, then They can address the situation themselves; They do not need any human beings to "correct" the problem for Them. And furthermore I can't understand being "upset" by this because it's not exactly like somebody who recklessly "cherry picks" is really committing some kind of heinous crime anyway. I can understand being upset by murder, rape, and other things along those lines, but I can't understand getting bent out of shape because of a heresy.

[Darth Brooks]

Those who follow a Tradition get upset when they see the Gods they follow and honor treated in such a disrespectful manner. This discussion has happened MANY times in the past and my answer is always some form of this.

It seems to me that if traditionalists get upset because of how an eclectic chooses to engage the Gods, then that's their problem, not the eclectic's. I've gone into detail about how Setian eclecticism works before - like Philosophia mentioned it involves a great deal of research and concentration. I am respectful to everybody when it comes to their own beliefs and practices, but if somebody else is upset by something I do in my tradition, that is not my fault nor is it my responsibility to make them feel better. They can either get over being upset, ignore me, or go away. When it comes to my own relationship with the Gods, I answer only to the Gods, not to any man-made orthodoxy or orthopraxy.


I'm not picking on you, Philosophia, I'm using your post as a great example of the way it should be done, but isn't. Accessorizing with the God O' the Week, is not respectful and yes, Traditionalists get upset when they see that happening.Again, I think traditionalists are unwise to let it bother them so much. They should remain focused on their own work and not allow themselves to be bothered by what other people do. If Odin and Kali Ma really don't approve of being called in the same ritual, then They can address the situation Themselves; They do not need any human beings to "correct" the problem for Them. And furthermore I can't understand being "upset" by this because it's not exactly like somebody who recklessly "cherry picks" is really committing some kind of heinous crime anyway. I can understand being upset by murder, rape, and other things along those lines, but I can't understand getting bent out of shape because of a heresy.

[malkookoo]

There is within any path a very different relationship between the Diety(or not) and the practitioner and the practitioners and the practitioners.

I would agree that one's relationship with diety is a matter that is soley between the two. Religion being a process of reconnecting, it is not a matter for other practitioners to dictate what is and what is not acceptable because the process of religion is not dircted toward them*. This has always been my viewpoint, whether dealing with the God of the Bible, or (much later) others that I've felt connected to.

Now, I will readily admit, guidence has value, important value, and sometimes the guidence of others is difficult to accept and we stubbornly reject what those who may know better have to say about how we should do what.

At least, I've always been stubbon about it. Blame Freud.



*Or is it? I am also of the mind that, (psychology aside) our relationship with people is just as important and a part of our relationship with diety. Ah, the paradox of universal consciousness.

[Son of Goddess]

It seems to me that if traditionalists get upset because of how an eclectic chooses to engage the Gods, then that's their problem, not the eclectic's. I've gone into detail about how Setian eclecticism works before - like Philosophia mentioned it involves a great deal of research and concentration. I am respectful to everybody when it comes to their own beliefs and practices, but if somebody else is upset by something I do in my tradition, that is not my fault nor is it my responsibility to make them feel better. They can either get over being upset, ignore me, or go away. When it comes to my own relationship with the Gods, I answer only to the Gods, not to any man-made orthodoxy or orthopraxy.

Again, I think traditionalists are unwise to let it bother them so much. They should remain focused on their own work and not allow themselves to be bothered by what other people do. If Odin and Kali Ma really don't approve of being called in the same ritual, then They can address the situation Themselves; They do not need any human beings to "correct" the problem for Them. And furthermore I can't understand being "upset" by this because it's not exactly like somebody who recklessly "cherry picks" is really committing some kind of heinous crime anyway. I can understand being upset by murder, rape, and other things along those lines, but I can't understand getting bent out of shape because of a heresy.

The upset comes from the fact that few people these days are willing to follow up their eclectic-centered posts about certain things by saying something akin to "this is how I see so-and-so" or "this may not be historically correct" or "this isn't really [culture]'s way of doing it, but I like doing it this way because...", and so on.

Ultimately, we traditionalists (if thats what we're being called here) get upset because we fear that individuals seeking to know something authentic/historical/traditional will find these eclectic-oriented posts and believe that X, Y, Z is true of a certain deity or form of worship or whatever, completely leading the individual in the wrong direction. Its not really a matter of what the individual believes in their personal path or how they see the Gods, its just about being honest to oneself and with others.

If you find that Thor appears to you in a red dress and pink cape, hey whatever that is your personal gnosis, but its nice to let others know that that is how He appears to YOU and may not necessarily match up with how He was viewed by the Norse then and the Asatru now.

Yeah, sometimes we traditionalists step on peoples toes. We get frustrated and don't want our Gods to be misrepresented anymore than Wiccans don't want to be misrepresented as crazed maniac Satan worshippers. It all comes down to being honest with yourself and others about what you do and believe.

[~Elise~]

It seems to me that if traditionalists get upset because of how an eclectic chooses to engage the Gods, then that's their problem, not the eclectic's. I've gone into detail about how Setian eclecticism works before - like Philosophia mentioned it involves a great deal of research and concentration. I am respectful to everybody when it comes to their own beliefs and practices, but if somebody else is upset by something I do in my tradition, that is not my fault nor is it my responsibility to make them feel better. They can either get over being upset, ignore me, or go away. When it comes to my own relationship with the Gods, I answer only to the Gods, not to any man-made orthodoxy or orthopraxy.

Again, I think traditionalists are unwise to let it bother them so much. They should remain focused on their own work and not allow themselves to be bothered by what other people do. If Odin and Kali Ma really don't approve of being called in the same ritual, then They can address the situation Themselves; They do not need any human beings to "correct" the problem for Them. And furthermore I can't understand being "upset" by this because it's not exactly like somebody who recklessly "cherry picks" is really committing some kind of heinous crime anyway. I can understand being upset by murder, rape, and other things along those lines, but I can't understand getting bent out of shape because of a heresy.

It is the traditionalist's problem when said eclectic says that they are following trad path and spout inaccuracies because they have not done the study and research to represent said trad. If they say I am following my eclectic path and this is how I see it...fine...that's their gnosis.

As I stated...it is the misrepresentation that gets us bent. And you're right it isn't a heinous crime. The issue is if you cherry pick, then you aren't following a trad...except the cherry pick trad, of course :bigredgri...call it that...cherry pick trad. Don't call it what it isn't.

Elise

[Son of Goddess]

It is the traditionalist's problem when said eclectic says that they are following trad path and spout inaccuracies because they have not done the study and research to represent said trad. If they say I am following my eclectic path and this is how I see it...fine...that's their gnosis.

As I stated...it is the misrepresentation that gets us bent. And you're right it isn't a heinous crime. The issue is if you cherry pick, then you aren't following a trad...except the cherry pick trad, of course :bigredgri...call it that...cherry pick trad. Don't call it what it isn't.

Exactly. Like I said before, be honest to yourself and others about what you believe, practice, etc... Don't cling to titles and labels that you don't fit in with. It'd be like me practicing the Religio Romana but calling what I practice Wicca, it doesn't make any sense for what I do/believe doesn't fit into what Wicca is. If there isn't a title for your personal tradition, then make one up or just call it your spirituality or personal path. If it resembles Wicca, but isn't quite it, say your personal path is Wiccanesque.

As cliche as it is, the truth will set you free.

[Darth Brooks]

The upset comes from the fact that few people these days are willing to follow up their eclectic-centered posts about certain things by saying something akin to "this is how I see so-and-so" or "this may not be historically correct" or "this isn't really [culture]'s way of doing it, but I like doing it this way because...", and so on.

"Few"? Do you actually have some kind of statistic for this? Personally I've met plenty of eclectics who admit that what they do is THEIR way and nobody else's. You can find them in Setian, Discordian, SubGenius, and other circles.

And qualifying my own "eclectic-centered posts about certain things" with follow-ups like "This is how I see it" or "IMO" has apparently not helped to warm your heart to my way of seeing things at all. As a matter of fact some of the reconstructionists on this very board could benefit from that exact same advice. It's one thing to say the ancient Romans saw something this way or that, but it's quite another to present Roman beliefs as objective facts (e.g., "The Roman deities are the only ones that are real!") This sort of belief may follow a rigid orthopraxy but it is neither more nor less provable than the belief that Elvis is an alien. I think traditionalists and reconstructionists would also benefit from saying things like "IMO" more often - you certainly don't have any more room to present your subjective beliefs as objective facts than we eclectics do. And like it or not, but your beliefs are subjective - subjective to their parent culture and to you - at least until you can prove otherwise.


Ultimately, we traditionalists (if thats what we're being called here)Well you have to admit, it's a hell of a lot more flattering than "cherry picker."


get upset because we fear that individuals seeking to know something authentic/historical/traditional will find these eclectic-oriented posts and believe that X, Y, Z is true of a certain deity or form of worship or whatever, completely leading the individual in the wrong direction. Such things are going to happen whether we want them to or not. They've been happening since the dawn of time. If a person actually gets something from their rituals, no matter how "incorrect" they may be, what room has anyone else to tell them they are wrong and should do it in some other way? And again, if somebody is worshiping a deity in an "incorrect" way, that deity is powerful enough to take care of them in its own way. It doesn't need the Global Religion Police to take care of it. Until I see Jupiter throwing lightning bolts at people for daring to call Him Thor, I simply cannot see what the big deal is. Which is to say, I think you should correct people when and where appropriate, but I don't understand the point of letting yourself get upset about it.


Its not really a matter of what the individual believes in their personal path or how they see the Gods, its just about being honest to oneself and with others.

If you find that Thor appears to you in a red dress and pink cape, hey whatever that is your personal gnosis, but its nice to let others know that that is how He appears to YOU and may not necessarily match up with how He was viewed by the Norse then and the Asatru now.Considering that there is one story of Thor being dressed in women's clothing by Loki in Norse mythology, this is not exactly the best example for your argument. Also, there are Christians in the world who believe that Jesus was black, which goes against 2,000 years' worth of Christian tradition (e.g., "Jesus was white!"). Try as they might the conservative Christians cannot get such people to stop calling themselves Christians. And as much as I respect Asatru I don't see how it has any more ability to prevent such things from happening than Christianity does.


Yeah, sometimes we traditionalists step on peoples toes. We get frustrated and don't want our Gods to be misrepresented anymore than Wiccans don't want to be misrepresented as crazed maniac Satan worshippers.A fallacious analogy.

(1) We can prove that Wiccans exist. Wiccans are physical, flesh-and-blood beings who require oxygen, food, and shelter to survive. Their behavior can be observed and recorded.

(2) We can't prove the Gods exist. They are not physical, They cannot be observed and recorded in the same way that Wiccans can be. You might be able to prove that a Wiccan has red hair, but you can't prove that Thor actually has a red beard.

(3) Therefore, you have much less reason to be "offended" by people "misrepresenting" your Gods than Wiccans have to be offended by being misrepresented themselves. Because Wiccans can actually be physically hurt from it. Nobody poses any danger to the Gods by misrepresenting Them, and if they annoy the Gods long enough, the Gods can simply squash them.


It all comes down to being honest with yourself and others about what you do and believe.I think we could benefit from a bit of honesty on both sides. Eclectics ought to admit that their way of doing things is just THEIR way (and, despite what you have told me, I've met many eclectics who say just that). But on the other hand, traditionalists also need to admit that their way of doing things is just THEIR way too, and that it is neither their job nor their right to police what other believers do. Honoring the Gods is one thing, putting oneself in Their place is another.

[Lunacie]

I was going to respond to this earlier, but the migraine kicked up another notch. I was going to say that it's also been my experience to find just as many eclectic practicioners who embrace the title "eclectic" and admit they mix'n'match as there are those who "cherry pick" but call themselves by an title that has traditions that don't fit what they're doing at all.

I don't know if that's true for all religions as I've only been Christian and then Wiccan myself. But I've certainly seen it in both those religions - people who say they follow that religion but don't seem to have a clue about the basics of the religion, or else don't give a crap whether what they're doing is even close to the same.

I've learned to take everything I hear with a grain of salt, and treat what I read as opinions until I read something from a more authoritative source or find that there is a concensus of belief. This is something everyone needs to learn how to do sooner or later. There's no point in blaming others for spreading misinformation - better to simply and calmly share the correct information. Or at least what we believe to be correct.

[Rick]

<snip>...there is one story of Thor being dressed in women's clothing by Loki in Norse mythology...<snip>
Um, that would have been Heimdal... Loki just dressed in drag too, and went along for the ride... actually, Loki went about in drag (or in female form of one species or another) a lot...

[Darth Brooks]

Um, that would have been Heimdal... Loki just dressed in drag too, and went along for the ride... actually, Loki went about in drag (or in female form of one species or another) a lot...

I stand corrected - it was Heimdal's idea. But the point I was trying to make was, Thor does in fact appear in a dress at one point in the mythos.

[Son of Goddess]

"Few"? Do you actually have some kind of statistic for this? Personally I've met plenty of eclectics who admit that what they do is THEIR way and nobody else's. You can find them in Setian, Discordian, SubGenius, and other circles.

Do you have a statistic for that? Setian, Discordian, SubGenius and "other" circles isn't all that all ecompassing. Or even a statistic to prove that there are many who do? I base my posts off of experience like everybody else, in my experience such has held true.


It's one thing to say the ancient Romans saw something this way or that, but it's quite another to present Roman beliefs as objective facts (e.g., "The Roman deities are the only ones that are real!")

Interesting quote, do you have a source for that?

But anywho, you compeltely misunderstood that entire discussion. And I'm not even going to bother addressing it anymore, its fruitless on this forum. But for the record I was NOT saying that the Roman Gods were the only ones that were "real", what I tried to say as best I could under the hate mongering onslaught of everyone screaming "intolerance" was that there is, in my humble opinion and that of Rome and other classical philosophers, one universal pantheon of which the representation at Rome was the best understanding. What everyone failed to understand is that the same can be said in reverse, which isn't a bad thing, its just different; there's some tolerance and acceptance for ya.

But, thats it and I'm not rehashing this argument to help you derail this thread like the other. I've given you a short source to read, check it out if you wish, but I'm not wasting my time on you or your hordes any longer. If you don't understand it, either read up or forget about it. I'm done.


Which is to say, I think you should correct people when and where appropriate, but I don't understand the point of letting yourself get upset about it.

Fair enough, but in your wise opinion, exactly when and where is appropriate? Ultimately, I don't get upset about it, just annoyed of people not representing themselves in a true light.


Considering that there is one story of Thor being dressed in women's clothing by Loki in Norse mythology, this is not exactly the best example for your argument.

Talk about cherry picking... I'm sure you quite well got the idea of what I was trying to say and understood what I meant.


Also, there are Christians in the world who believe that Jesus was black, which goes against 2,000 years' worth of Christian tradition (e.g., "Jesus was white!"). Try as they might the conservative Christians cannot get such people to stop calling themselves Christians.

Ok, but that analogy doesn't work because Christianity relies solely upon correct belief, polytheism does not.


A fallacious analogy.

OK...do you just try to be contrary, or do you just really read too much into something? When someone says that Zeus historically is the deity of pink fluffy bunnies with green poke-a-dots and history can prove it to the contrary, then sorry, but facts are facts and that statement is incorrect. Misrepresentation is what it is, yes the Gods themselves may not be directly harmed by such, but those who follow those Gods surely can be. If everyone thinks Zeus is the God of pink fluffy bunnies with green poke-a-dots, I'm pretty darn sure those who worship Him will get a bad rap. So yes, if you stab a Hellenic he bleeds just as would the Wiccan.


But on the other hand, traditionalists also need to admit that their way of doing things is just THEIR way too, and that it is neither their job nor their right to police what other believers do. Honoring the Gods is one thing, putting oneself in Their place is another.

Yes, it is "our" way, but it is also history's way, it is factual that people worshipped X deity by doing A; it can be proven. Not saying its better, just saying its true.

[Son of Goddess]

But the point I was trying to make was, Thor does in fact appear in a dress at one point in the mythos.

And you clearly missed the point I was trying to make. If you need help to figure out what I meant, subtract the word Thor and enter Apollon. Or to be even more clear for your sake, insert a deity whose mythos and iconography does not include wearing a dress.

[kaosxmage]

Um, that would have been Heimdal... Loki just dressed in drag too, and went along for the ride... actually, Loki went about in drag (or in female form of one species or another) a lot...

Wasn't there a tale of Thor getting in drag to get his hammer back? A marriage of some sort?

On to the cherry picking matters ....

Yes. I do. With glee.

I do what works. Sometimes it seems very little, and others it's a roaring success. I also study my arse off when using tools, techniques, or Gods from various cultures. I've posted plenty on the changing myths, history, etc concerning these divinities so I will not repeat it here again so soon. :thumbsup:

I am wondering when it's so offensive to the traditional folks for an ecclectic to have a field day - I do understand ...sorta - how the traditional folks deny their very own cherry picking.

Where, I must ask, is the Human Sacrifice? Now, I say it's clearly been given to Government in the form of execution; however, why cherry pick those little habits out? The state shouldn't be trusted with that! :hahugh:

--Kaos

[Rick]

Wasn't there a tale of Thor getting in drag to get his hammer back? A marriage of some sort?

The Lay of Thrym from The Poetic Edda.


Where, I must ask, is the Human Sacrifice? Now, I say it's clearly been given to Government in the form of execution; however, why cherry pick those little habits out? The state shouldn't be trusted with that! :hahugh:

--Kaos

I know Heathen folk that hold rites outside prison walls as executions are happening, dedicating the slain prisoners to Odin, just like in the good ol' days... I have considered joining them, and most likely eventually will.

...now that's a cherry that'll probably not soon be picked, eh?

[kaosxmage]

The Lay of Thrym from The Poetic Edda.



I know Heathen folk that hold rites outside prison walls as executions are happening, dedicating the slain prisoners to Odin, just like in the good ol' days... now that's a cherry that'll probably not soon be picked, eh?

WOW!

That's interesting. Very interesting. Texas, right? Monthly? :alol:

:drinking:

--Kaos

[Philosophia]

And there's the rub...most people won't/don't take that time and research and think it's okay. It is NOT okay.

Please notice I didn't say all don't take the time. But, lately, I find those are far and few between. And unfortunately, all eclectics get painted with the brush of those who don't.

Those who follow a Tradition get upset when they see the Gods they follow and honor treated in such a disrespectful manner. This discussion has happened MANY times in the past and my answer is always some form of this.

I'm not picking on you, Philosophia, I'm using your post as a great example of the way it should be done, but isn't. Accessorizing with the God O' the Week, is not respectful and yes, Traditionalists get upset when they see that happening.

Using the example a few post above, you want to mix Odin and Kali ma...spend a year with Norse learning, reading, honoring and absorbing, same with Hindu (another year there doing the same)...THEN if you choose to mix those two-at least you have a cultural understanding of what you're doing. (Then, I'll lay you 50 to 1 that you won't do something like that)

Elise

I agree with you but I see this as a problem for all traditions, not just eclectics. I think the difficulty of the internet and in real life is that most people don't know the others range of historical knowledge.

From my own experiences, I know traditionalists (not eclectics) whose own understanding of the history of their path is not only bare but nearly non-existent. It's the same for recons and other traditions that people can call themselves. So I don't believe eclectics are the only ones who suffer from this.

I think another problem is when others look down upon eclectics without actually knowing the practitioner. If I simply state I'm eclectic, I can assume that I will have a couple of people instantly thinking I'm fluffy and I would have to work harder for people to at least have an understanding of what I'm saying.

Anyway, I think this whole issue comes down to the stereotypes that are present about the paths within Paganism, or religion in general, and how they shape our interactions with each other (online and offline).

I'm not saying I don't believe any eclectics do these issues. Some do and I know they get their ass kicked for it by either other practitioners or their deities. But I tend to not care much about them if they're unwilling to change themselves. I just wish that eclectics weren't portrayed by their actions.

[~Elise~]

Me, too, Philo...but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

I have been called worse on MW , for stating what I do...

Do I give a flying ( insert proper word here ) ?

Not one bit...and anyone , with any balls , or ovaries ,
would not care what others thought of them...

I certainly don't...

If you are affected by such...doesn't speak much for
one's belief , or tradition...IMO...:bigredgri




Yeah, sometimes we traditionalists step on peoples toes. We get frustrated and don't want our Gods to be misrepresented anymore than Wiccans don't want to be misrepresented as crazed maniac Satan worshippers. It all comes down to being honest with yourself and others about what you do and believe.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

For me I can only say I have mixed feelings on the notion of cherry picking of belief componets.

I do believe that it is an individuals right to choose and select those things that make them feel the best in thier beliefs. That resultant product is the glue that holds thier spiritual and religious foundations in place. It is in essence the backdrop by which they will view thier world and thier place in it.

Yet, inversley, I also think it leeds to the potential for unbalanced beliefs. When one only takes the items that make them feel good or that appeal to them, the result is they may also ommit or loose the opposing side of the lesson. If one only takes the good the negative is left missing so the good trully has no opposite to judge against.

I think when one takes parts of a thing and not the whole, they do not come to know the whole. I suppose those that do take the time to encompass and discover the whole will always look down upon those that do not.

I suppose one might equate it to swimming. Those that float on the raft see the water and can feel it a bit. Maybe even have a bit of relationship as they let htier legs and hands sink in. But those that acutally jump in a learn to swim see it to the very depth of their ability to reach. They will always experience the elation and fear that comes from being in the water vice just floating on top of it. Yet both can say they have been swimming.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

That just substantiates what I have always felt , and said...

Every religion , cherry picks from the one source...:thumbsup:



I suppose those that do take the time to encompass and discover the whole will always look down upon those that do not.

[Rick]

WOW!

That's interesting. Very interesting. Texas, right? Monthly? :alol:

:drinking:

--Kaos

The ones that I know personally are in Oklahoma, but I know of others from pretty much across the US.

And sometimes it's weekly... ;)

[Lunacie]

>
But anywho, you compeltely misunderstood that entire discussion. And I'm not even going to bother addressing it anymore, its fruitless on this forum. But for the record I was NOT saying that the Roman Gods were the only ones that were "real", what I tried to say as best I could under the hate mongering onslaught of everyone screaming "intolerance" was that there is, in my humble opinion and that of Rome and other classical philosophers, one universal pantheon of which the representation at Rome was the best understanding. What everyone failed to understand is that the same can be said in reverse, which isn't a bad thing, its just different; there's some tolerance and acceptance for ya.

Is that what you were trying to say in the other thread? Somehow you didn't make that very clear before. It's an interesting opinion, but there are plenty of other different opinions of course.



Fair enough, but in your wise opinion, exactly when and where is appropriate? Ultimately, I don't get upset about it, just annoyed of people not representing themselves in a true light.

Don't you mean people aren't representing a particular path/tradition/religion in a way that you find accurate? I'm sure they're representing themselves as honestly as possible.



OK...do you just try to be contrary, or do you just really read too much into something? When someone says that Zeus historically is the deity of pink fluffy bunnies with green poke-a-dots and history can prove it to the contrary, then sorry, but facts are facts and that statement is incorrect. Misrepresentation is what it is, yes the Gods themselves may not be directly harmed by such, but those who follow those Gods surely can be. If everyone thinks Zeus is the God of pink fluffy bunnies with green poke-a-dots, I'm pretty darn sure those who worship Him will get a bad rap. So yes, if you stab a Hellenic he bleeds just as would the Wiccan.

Getting snarky and making personal attacks in order to make your own opinions or arguments sound more sincere is generally not effective.

There are certainly historically accurate ways of worshipping Zeus, but show me a historically accurate description of Zeus by someone who actually interacted with him, eh? All we really have to go on are personal accounts - and as anyone can tell you, those can vary greatly from one eye-witness to another.

As to the bigger picture, becoming belligerent and angry in defense of your particular tradition doesn't really do much as far as "damage control" when fluffies are spreading misinformation. The kind of attention you get from throwing a hissy fit isn't really helpful in presenting a good image of Hellenics or Wiccans or any group. A better way to go is to simply offer the more correct and historical information and let people make their own judgment as to which makes the best sense.



Yes, it is "our" way, but it is also history's way, it is factual that people worshipped X deity by doing A; it can be proven. Not saying its better, just saying its true.

History from one region says that's probably accurate. History from other regions say something else is probably "true." Facts may be universal, but truth is relatively subjective.

[Terra Mater]

There are certainly historically accurate ways of worshipping Zeus, but show me a historically accurate description of Zeus by someone who actually interacted with him, eh? All we really have to go on are personal accounts - and as anyone can tell you, those can vary greatly from one eye-witness to another.
Ah, but you address the difficulty in proof with those with a modern mindset. If anyone did show you an account written by someone who claimed to have seen and interacted with Zeus, would you take it at face value? Or would you quantify it in some way? Most likely, based on your own statement, you would quantify it with the statement you already made about eyewitness accounts varying from one witness to another.

As to the bigger picture, becoming belligerent and angry in defense of your particular tradition doesn't really do much as far as "damage control" when fluffies are spreading misinformation. The kind of attention you get from throwing a hissy fit isn't really helpful in presenting a good image of Hellenics or Wiccans or any group. A better way to go is to simply offer the more correct and historical information and let people make their own judgment as to which makes the best sense.
Ah, but as has been shown here at MW time and time again, offering more correct information only works if the other people are willing to accept the more correct version. Most are willing to stick to their delusions no matter how many facts are presented to disprove them, usually by quantifying that they do not accept the source providing the facts because the presenter comes across as "snarky".:smileroll

History from one region says that's probably accurate. History from other regions say something else is probably "true." Facts may be universal, but truth is relatively subjective.
Actually its not truth that is subjective, just the person's willingness to perceive the truth that is subjective. Neither are "facts" universal. A simple "fact" like what time the sun rises will vary from region to region and from season to season. :weirdsmil

[Lunacie]

Ah, but you address the difficulty in proof with those with a modern mindset. If anyone did show you an account written by someone who claimed to have seen and interacted with Zeus, would you take it at face value? Or would you quantify it in some way? Most likely, based on your own statement, you would quantify it with the statement you already made about eyewitness accounts varying from one witness to another.

Yes, reading only one "eye witness" account I would probably say it was a nice personal account. If I read several accounts that agreed on at least some of the points, I would grant it greater veracity. That just seems like good sense to me.


Ah, but as has been shown here at MW time and time again, offering more correct information only works if the other people are willing to accept the more correct version. Most are willing to stick to their delusions no matter how many facts are presented to disprove them, usually by quantifying that they do not accept the source providing the facts because the presenter comes across as "snarky".:smileroll

Those who "stick to their delusions no matter how many facts are presented to disprove them" aren't going to be swayed by either those who rant and rave or those who attempt to educate. So how is ranting and raving helping? :whatgives I believe it will be a huge turn-off to those who are following the discussion, while presenting information in an attempt to educate tends to be more helpful in public perceptions.

As well, those who insist on being snarky and argumentative may not be swayed by such discussions as this either. :smileroll


Actually its not truth that is subjective, just the person's willingness to perceive the truth that is subjective. Neither are "facts" universal. A simple "fact" like what time the sun rises will vary from region to region and from season to season. :weirdsmil

So, if we agree that the facts are also subjective, depending on many factors, doesn't that support my opinion that claiming that the "truth" of one group of "ancient philosophers" is indeed only their truth, and that there is most likely a different truth in other regions... even in other times?

[Fireyone]

To me it all comes down to personal integrity, cherry picking or not. Having the balls, or ovaries, and enough self-knowledge to know how to take in information and processing it according to one's inner truth, the ultimate compass IMO.

[Terra Mater]

Yes, reading only one "eye witness" account I would probably say it was a nice personal account. If I read several accounts that agreed on at least some of the points, I would grant it greater veracity. That just seems like good sense to me.
It doesn't to me. One person, I can believe would have had a personal interaction with a divine being. One person might have been special enough. Five thousand telling the same story? Then you have to consider the number of people telling the story to get some extra attention for themselves or just because they wish it had happened to them.

Perfect example: Babe Ruth's "called shot home run" in the fifth inning of Game 3 of the 1932 World Series. the number of people at that game was only 49,986 but the number of people that have claimed to have been in the stands that day is about three times that number (source: bar napkin sports trivia).

In addition, the sense (as you put it) was almost exactly the same "sense" used in Salem. Two "afflicted" girls didn't make much of an impression, a dozen or more convinced the crowds that deviltry was afoot.:deviltail Truth is seldom popular. I personally look for the rarer when looking for truth.

Generations of mothers have raised their children with the "truth" that you must never go swimming sooner than an hour after eating (and in Cuba its three hours) because it causes potentially deadly stomach cramps. Its popular bunk, and we know now why it is bunk, but that doesn't stop the modern mothers from keeping the kiddies out of the pool for an hour after eating. For those readers of this who are going to swear its not bunk http://www.snopes.com/oldwives/hourwait.asp


So, if we agree that the facts are also subjective, depending on many factors, doesn't that support my opinion that claiming that the "truth" of one group of "ancient philosophers" is indeed only their truth, and that there is most likely a different truth in other regions... even in other times?
Nope. Your assertion is the same as saying that for the Wiccans who believe their religion is thousands of years old is just as true as the Wiccans who believe that their religion was invented in the last century by a horny con man. There may be different opinions on the subject, but they are not both true no matter how many times boths sides tell us they have the truth.:weirdsmil

[Son of Goddess]

Is that what you were trying to say in the other thread? Somehow you didn't make that very clear before. It's an interesting opinion, but there are plenty of other different opinions of course.

Yeah that was what I was trying to say, and I did try to make that clear, I mentioned the same thing several times actually but everyone else was caught up in lesser details along the way. I can't control what people want to focus on and blow out the water anymore than I can control what people choose to read and skip over.


Don't you mean people aren't representing a particular path/tradition/religion in a way that you find accurate? I'm sure they're representing themselves as honestly as possible.

Actually both, not everyone represents themselves as honestly as possible, many people like to put on facades and masks in this day and age.

[QUOTE=Lunacie;3879698]Getting snarky and making personal attacks in order to make your own opinions or arguments sound more sincere is generally not effective.

Excuse you? Snarky? Personal Attacks? Seems to me that you are the one coming after me at every turn on this site. I made no personal attack in this thread whatsoever, and if I have why don't you leave it up the moderators and administrators of the site to handle it? I think they are more than capable of doing their job without your help Lunacie. But like I said, I can't control what people choose to read, not read or even misread.


There are certainly historically accurate ways of worshipping Zeus, but show me a historically accurate description of Zeus by someone who actually interacted with him, eh? All we really have to go on are personal accounts - and as anyone can tell you, those can vary greatly from one eye-witness to another.

Actually most sculptures, statues, vases, paintings and literary descriptions match up pretty well. Certain items may change, but for the most part the overall image is fairly constant.


As to the bigger picture, becoming belligerent and angry in defense of your particular tradition doesn't really do much as far as "damage control" when fluffies are spreading misinformation. The kind of attention you get from throwing a hissy fit isn't really helpful in presenting a good image of Hellenics or Wiccans or any group. A better way to go is to simply offer the more correct and historical information and let people make their own judgment as to which makes the best sense.

Whose the one making the personal attack? I have yet to understand this incredible system you have to identify whether or not I am "belligerent", "angry" and "throwing a hissy fit". You place a lot of assumptions in what you read Lunacie instead of reading objectively.


History from one region says that's probably accurate. History from other regions say something else is probably "true." Facts may be universal, but truth is relatively subjective.

So you are saying that, for instance, the way the Greeks worshipped their Gods is accurate, and that a foreign people thought the Greeks worshipped their own Gods in the wrong way and that is accurate? What? Naturally the Greeks would know best on how to worship the Greek Gods. I'm a little confused on what you are trying to say here...

[Lunacie]

Yeah that was what I was trying to say, and I did try to make that clear, I mentioned the same thing several times actually but everyone else was caught up in lesser details along the way. I can't control what people want to focus on and blow out the water anymore than I can control what people choose to read and skip over.

I don't believe I was choosing what to read and what to skip over. What you wrote in that other thread simply wasn't as clear to me as what you wrote in this thread.


Excuse you? Snarky? Personal Attacks? Seems to me that you are the one coming after me at every turn on this site. I made no personal attack in this thread whatsoever, and if I have why don't you leave it up the moderators and administrators of the site to handle it? I think they are more than capable of doing their job without your help Lunacie. But like I said, I can't control what people choose to read, not read or even misread.

If you think I'm "coming after" you "at every turn" please ask the Admins to check our interactions. I don't remember bumping heads before that last thread where I was simply trying to get the thread back on topic. The site owners have asked some of us to volunteer as Forum Guides, so they are asking us to help in that capacity. (starting new topics, gently bringing a thread back on topic, reporting bad behavior)

In the Wicca Path forum I'm a guide, so that's what I was trying to do there. In this forum (Advanced Paganism) I'm just a member like you, and it was my personal opinion that some of your remarks seemed like you were attacking the poster rather than sticking to the topic. Yes, I probably should have used the report button instead of derailing the thread.


So you are saying that, for instance, the way the Greeks worshipped their Gods is accurate, and that a foreign people thought the Greeks worshipped their own Gods in the wrong way and that is accurate? What? Naturally the Greeks would know best on how to worship the Greek Gods. I'm a little confused on what you are trying to say here...

Not at all. I don't know whether I wasn't clear enough, or whether you were choosing what to read, not read, or misread. I was saying that the way the Greeks worshipped their own pantheon was "the truth" for them. The way other cultures worshipped their own pantheons was "the truth" for them. I think that the way you view and honor your own Gods is the truth for you, but I don't agree that there is a "universal pantheon" in which the religious practices of the ancient Greeks was then - or is today - the best way for everyone to honor all of the Gods.

[Rick]

Son of Goddess, Lunacie...

...get a room, 'K?

[kaosxmage]

The meaning of the communication is the response it elicits.

That's all I'm saying. :smoke:

--Kaos

[malkookoo]

From what I can see here, this topic brings up many issues. What I was primarily curious about was the value of one method vs. another. I had thought about this when a recon (who shall remain nameless) brought up the issue of electic-ish types "taking" from other traditions and the amount of fruitfulness and validity of doing so.

Here is another question that I believe relates:

Must one, in the worship of a specific deity, adhere to that deities structure of worship laid down by the followers of that deity?

Example: Can one experience Kali-Ma without actively engaging in the ritual associated with her? One thing I'd point out here is the Thugee and their human sacrifices, and the supposed continued animal sacrifices in her name. What was once implicit in her worship is now illegal as well as immoral. I don't want to get into a debate over the fine points of this example, but want to use it to inquire whether one needs (in general) to follow strict guidelines to make contact with a given deity.

Eh? Eh?


[Edit] Also, I think we can all agree to call a spade a strognoff is simply bad form. Sacrificing chickens in your kitchen and calling yourself a wiccan is absurd. Finding a new name for your practice is probably a good idea. However, for example, how many different types of Universal Life Force TM. do we really need?

[Son of Goddess]

but I don't agree that there is a "universal pantheon" in which the religious practices of the ancient Greeks was then - or is today - the best way for everyone to honor all of the Gods.

Just to clarify this one point, by "universal pantheon" I refer to a single pantheon of deities that every culture interprets via their worldview, not a single cultural pantheon (such as the Greeks) that the entire world must worship. Of course the Greek way wouldn't work for the Celts, they were two different civilizations with different worldviews.


What I was primarily curious about was the value of one method vs. another. I had thought about this when a recon (who shall remain nameless) brought up the issue of electic-ish types "taking" from other traditions and the amount of fruitfulness and validity of doing so.

Poor Anteros, lol.


Must one, in the worship of a specific deity, adhere to that deities structure of worship laid down by the followers of that deity?

Example: Can one experience Kali-Ma without actively engaging in the ritual associated with her? One thing I'd point out here is the Thugee and their human sacrifices, and the supposed continued animal sacrifices in her name. What was once implicit in her worship is now illegal as well as immoral. I don't want to get into a debate over the fine points of this example, but want to use it to inquire whether one needs (in general) to follow strict guidelines to make contact with a given deity.

Can it be done? I'm sure it can, however it is my opinion that when one utilizes key elements/aspects/tools/items/etc that have long been linked and familiar to a specific deity and His/Her worship the channel of communication is much more direct and clear. If you can get from point A to point B the "easy" way, why take the detour?

And your example of moving from human sacrifice to animal sacrifice is what we Recons would recognize as a need for innovation, yet tempered by tradition.

[Lunacie]

From what I can see here, this topic brings up many issues. What I was primarily curious about was the value of one method vs. another. I had thought about this when a recon (who shall remain nameless) brought up the issue of electic-ish types "taking" from other traditions and the amount of fruitfulness and validity of doing so.

Here is another question that I believe relates:

Must one, in the worship of a specific deity, adhere to that deities structure of worship laid down by the followers of that deity?

Example: Can one experience Kali-Ma without actively engaging in the ritual associated with her? One thing I'd point out here is the Thugee and their human sacrifices, and the supposed continued animal sacrifices in her name. What was once implicit in her worship is now illegal as well as immoral. I don't want to get into a debate over the fine points of this example, but want to use it to inquire whether one needs (in general) to follow strict guidelines to make contact with a given deity.

Eh? Eh?


[Edit] Also, I think we can all agree to call a spade a strognoff is simply bad form. Sacrificing chickens in your kitchen and calling yourself a wiccan is absurd. Finding a new name for your practice is probably a good idea. However, for example, how many different types of Universal Life Force TM. do we really need?

I think there are certainly pros and cons to each way. Over time a tradition can build up quite a bit of energy that is easier to tap into. But doing so can also create a group of followers who become lazy and simply do what they've always done just because that's what they've always done. Trying new things can reinvigorate things. I know I'm not explaining this very well - but I wanted to get a couple of thoughts down before I figure out what I need to eat.



Just to clarify this one point, by "universal pantheon" I refer to a single pantheon of deities that every culture interprets via their worldview, not a single cultural pantheon (such as the Greeks) that the entire world must worship. Of course the Greek way wouldn't work for the Celts, they were two different civilizations with different worldviews.
>.

O...kay. That really wasn't clear before either, thanks for clarifying. In some ways that seems to make sense to me, and in other ways we see enough difference that it makes more sense to say there really are a whole bunch of different gods. It may take another reincarnation or three before I really get a good handle on all this.

[David19]

Ok, but that analogy doesn't work because Christianity relies solely upon correct belief, polytheism does not.

Not to go OT, or nitpick, 'cause I do agree with a lot of your points, especially about not claiming a label when it's not being true (e.g. saying your a Roman recon, when you're actually worshipping Thor and Aset, while casting a circle and performing the LBRP, etc), but, there are some Christian Churches that place an emphasis on active work, and I believe it was one Christian (or it may be a Catholic saying, I'm not too sure?) who said 'faith without works is empty' or something similar to that anyway.

[Son of Goddess]

Not to go OT, or nitpick, 'cause I do agree with a lot of your points, especially about not claiming a label when it's not being true (e.g. saying your a Roman recon, when you're actually worshipping Thor and Aset, while casting a circle and performing the LBRP, etc), but, there are some Christian Churches that place an emphasis on active work, and I believe it was one Christian (or it may be a Catholic saying, I'm not too sure?) who said 'faith without works is empty' or something similar to that anyway.

Faith is the primary foundation to Christianity one need only believe; it is orthodox. Doing "works" which I take to mean as charity work and the like is in no way orthoprax, orthopraxy implies worshipping in a specific way by doing/saying specific things, referring to ceremonies, rituals, and the like.

Whether or not doing works helps your way there or not is another argument for Christians to have out at each other, but the primary foundation for all of Christianity is belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Son of God/God incarnate and the truth of the Word of God.

[NightStorm]

Whether or not doing works helps your way there or not is another argument for Christians to have out at each other, but the primary foundation for all of Christianity is belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Son of God/God incarnate and the truth of the Word of God.

Which even core basics are often argued among religious colluges.

[Louisvillian]

True, but certain Christian sects and denominations might place an additional emphasis on orthopraxy alongside orthodoxy. Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and related sects do place an emphasis on standardised practices and ceremony in rituals, for various reasons.

Though I agree that, core to just about any form of Christianity is faith in Jesus as redeemer and monotheism. I don't dispute that, nor do I think Dave was either.

[Lunacie]

As a former member of the Christian church, I think I can shed a little light on David's question.

The phrase from the bible is "...faith without works is dead." Dead being the key word, not "empty".

That doesn't mean that doing good in the world is the crux of the religion. It means that faith that produces actions to improve the world is a living faith, while faith that does nothing but say "Yay, I believe in this" is a dead kind of faith. The difference between a living tree that produces fruit and a dead tree that doesn't produce any fruit is one example I've seen used.

It's not the works that produces faith, it's the faith that produces works in the best-case scenario.


While in many Pagan religions, the works that we do bring us closer to the Gods, bringing honor to the Gods, hopefully bringing rewards from the Gods.

[David19]

As a former member of the Christian church, I think I can shed a little light on David's question.

The phrase from the bible is "...faith without works is dead." Dead being the key word, not "empty".

That doesn't mean that doing good in the world is the crux of the religion. It means that faith that produces actions to improve the world is a living faith, while faith that does nothing but say "Yay, I believe in this" is a dead kind of faith. The difference between a living tree that produces fruit and a dead tree that doesn't produce any fruit is one example I've seen used.

It's not the works that produces faith, it's the faith that produces works in the best-case scenario.


While in many Pagan religions, the works that we do bring us closer to the Gods, bringing honor to the Gods, hopefully bringing rewards from the Gods.

That's what I was thinking of, like Louisvillain said, I know faith and belief are very important in Christianity, but, for some traditions, it's not the only thing that's important, I take that saying Lunacie just posted to mean, to truly follow Jesus, and be part of the Kingdom of God, you have to do works, as well as have faith.

[Lunacie]

That's what I was thinking of, like Louisvillain said, I know faith and belief are very important in Christianity, but, for some traditions, it's not the only thing that's important, I take that saying Lunacie just posted to mean, to truly follow Jesus, and be part of the Kingdom of God, you have to do works, as well as have faith.

I think you still may have it backwards. Christians believe that true faith in Jesus means that one does good things just as Jesus did because he was a good example, not that one must do good things in order to be part of the Kingdom of God and live with Jesus forever.

[Son of Goddess]

Lunacie's on the money with this.

It is faith that breeds the work because one is genuinely inspired by the life of Jesus to do as He had done, it isn't the idea of by doing what he did one becomes like Jesus. I can do all the good works I want that may be in line with Christian morals, ethics, and so on but if I don't have a genuine belief and trust in Jesus Christ then my works were fruitless in regards to gaining my position in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Though works may be important to various sects, faith is still primary.

[David19]

I think you still may have it backwards. Christians believe that true faith in Jesus means that one does good things just as Jesus did because he was a good example, not that one must do good things in order to be part of the Kingdom of God and live with Jesus forever.


Lunacie's on the money with this.

It is faith that breeds the work because one is genuinely inspired by the life of Jesus to do as He had done, it isn't the idea of by doing what he did one becomes like Jesus. I can do all the good works I want that may be in line with Christian morals, ethics, and so on but if I don't have a genuine belief and trust in Jesus Christ then my works were fruitless in regards to gaining my position in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Though works may be important to various sects, faith is still primary.

Thanks for explaining it to me then :).

[LadyeFalcon]

The thing that keeps a tradition alive is the continued practice of a specific tradition. I think there are limits though to which one can vary from a specific tradition and still be a part of that specific tradition. I do not feel that there is anything wrong with adaptation and change. Change is a part of the world that we live in. I do not practice my craft exactly as my Mother does, nor does she practice her craft exactly his her mother did. And my daughter does not practice her craft exactly as I do nor like my Mother did with me do I expect her to. However there are certain 'core' 'beliefs' within our tradition that one is expected to understand and respect. But then we are just plain old ordinary witches it probably differs from one tradition to the next how much you are expected to know and follow.
There are just some things one can not change about a tradition and call it the same tradition. For example I studied a Dianic priestess, there are many things that one can not change and still call themselves Dianic. Even though I studied for a year and a day and I completed my training I could not call myself a Wiccan or even a Dianic witch because there are to many things I incorporate into my path or do not incorporate in practice that are not of those traditions.Therefore I think it would be disrespectful to present my self as Wiccan or as Dianic. But I do not see anything wrong with learning of and from other paths as long as you do not misrepresent yourself.

[Against The Tide]

Interesting thread. I won't read all 7 pages (140+ posts) but thought I'd chip in my 2 cents.

I believe in freedom of religion - what you believe is what you believe. I don't think its cool when people pick and chose out of convience (yes to heaven no to hell?) or fashion (oh reincarnation and past lives is so IN this season) but if that is truly whats in your heart then of course, be true to that.

Just because millions of people follow something else, doesn't make it any more truer than what you believe is the truth. They are just seeing a different facet of the same divine.

Classification is for the anally retentive, and so long as humans are born with sphincters we'll all be guilty of that one! Most of the annoyances I see with people about pick n mix faith is the classification.
Example: If a Christian Witch told a Priest she was a Christian witch, it would be very likely that the priest would tell her that so long as she practices witchcraft, she could not be a Christian (not true to what I think at all, I love you Christian witches :)), but if the same witch told the priest she was a witch then mentioned she believes in Jesus, read the bible and believed in the Christian God, I think the priest would be much more agreeable. So label yourself with caution folks :D

[RivaWitch]

Isn't Wicca a "cherry-picking" religion. When Gardner was "creating" the path he took traditions for all different cultures.
He claims a European path but takes Ideas like Karma (three fold Law) from Eastern beliefs.

[LadyeFalcon]

I am not familiar with Eastern Philosophy, however I am familiar with the three fold law as presented in Wicca. Most of the witches I know though they do not adhere to the threefold law express such concepts as 'what goes around comes around' so they recognize that there are reactions and consequences to the energy they direct. As for gardener I never read any of his books, but from what I learned of Wicca I believe you are right about him trying to dig through the past and adapting an older Pagan European tradition the result of which being what we call Wicca today.

[Rainbow]

Personally, I'd consider that a false dichotomy. There are few if any "traditional" faiths and practices that haven't strayed from their original form, if we could even pinpoint what that "original" form was. There are also few if any "cherry pickers" (I really don't like that phrasing, personally) who don't conform to any sort of structure. Most of us fall somewhere in-between.

If there were a hard dichotomy, though, I doubt any would be any "better" than the other, they're just two ways of doing things.

[Lunacie]

Personally, I'd consider that a false dichotomy. There are few if any "traditional" faiths and practices that haven't strayed from their original form, if we could even pinpoint what that "original" form was. There are also few if any "cherry pickers" (I really don't like that phrasing, personally) who don't conform to any sort of structure. Most of us fall somewhere in-between.

If there were a hard dichotomy, though, I doubt any would be any "better" than the other, they're just two ways of doing things.

I agree that's it natural for all religions to change as people convert and bring along some of their old beliefs, or are forced to convert through conquest and hold onto their old beliefs as much as embracing the new ones. Some people are just more honest about it.

[Dumunzi]

I may have responded to this previously...

Let's put this into perspective. Making an altar to Hecate I don't believe is a terrible crime against that faith or hellenic recons in general. It probably isn't the way that she was necessarily worshiped long, long ago but seeing as how all that info is more or less lost to us then the faith has to evolve.

But... A Voodoo Lwa? You can't just walk into a circle and invoke him. You don't invoke them, as far as I know. You have to work, in that tradition, within the framework of the practice/faith or you may as well not be working at all. In this regard you need an altar, perhaps 9 candles on it, a veve at some point potentially, a poppet made to represent him, offering of whiskey/rum and cigars. It'd be highly improper to just pick the deity and start doing whatever feels appropriate.

This is not a yellow pages phone book people. Have some reverence. -_-

[BlackLili]

I may have responded to this previously...

Let's put this into perspective. Making an altar to Hecate I don't believe is a terrible crime against that faith or hellenic recons in general. It probably isn't the way that she was necessarily worshiped long, long ago but seeing as how all that info is more or less lost to us then the faith has to evolve.

But... A Voodoo Lwa? You can't just walk into a circle and invoke him. You don't invoke them, as far as I know. You have to work, in that tradition, within the framework of the practice/faith or you may as well not be working at all. In this regard you need an altar, perhaps 9 candles on it, a veve at some point potentially, a poppet made to represent him, offering of whiskey/rum and cigars. It'd be highly improper to just pick the deity and start doing whatever feels appropriate.

This is not a yellow pages phone book people. Have some reverence. -_-
This is a good point, but it bring to mind a question, at least for me.

As you said, one doesn't "invoke" a lwa - but let's just say that someone looking through their "Big Book of 5000 Non-Corporeal Entities" decided to pick a lwa and attempt to use their name in their invocation.

Part of me wants to say, at least in this specific example, that the invocation would have no effect. As the lwa don't recognize much other than specific calls to them (as you mentioned, the vévés and their traditional preferred offerings,) why would they bother peering across the horizon (or whatever they have) and looking for other kinds of calls; single candles lit, circles made with tumbled gemstones and green men and Gaia and Shiva and a wolf statue and Pan and the kitchen sink kind of thing. I mean, why would it even occur to them to look? So maybe it would do nothing.

But...

(And here's the funny thing.)

At least, in the specific example of the lwa, I would never discount one of them hearing their name being called, and showing up just to "have a good time." Perhaps that's personifying the lwa overmuch, but I was always under the impression that there are several, of all families, who just enjoy making mischief.

But its more likely that the cherrypicker would be overlooked, if not outright ignored in your example, I would think. Perhaps one of the Voodoosants on here can correct me though.

[Kaneithren]

Is it Wrong to stray from specified guidlines within a path?

No, I don't think so. I don't, however, think that you should call yourself a traditional such and such if you don't specifically follow the traditions of that path.



Will doing so tarnish a given practice? Will doing so show disrespect to those that have "done the work"?

Who says that "cherry-pickers" haven't 'done the work'? I know that I have put a lot of time, study, and effort into each aspect of my path - and I consider myself an Eclectic Pagan by path definition, so I'd fall into the "cherry-picker" category.



Should we adhere to the rules?

I think it depends on the rule. Like I said above, I don't think you should misrepresent yourself as a traditional member of x path if you do not adhere to the traditions - but if you find value and validity in certain aspects of a path and wish to incorporate them into your own... why shouldn't you?

Some paths are so steeped in tradition that you would be hard pressed to get away from following them if you chose that path (the previously mentioned Vodou, for one)... but is it impossible? Well, I don't know. :) I would have to want to try it and find out the hard way to see if one of the Lwa would respond to me or anyone without the trappings and traditions of the vodou path. I can't answer that with a 100% yes or no.



Conversely, does holding onto the traditions from maybe thousands of years in the past keep us from moving forward?

Ancient traditions are subject to translation... which means that there is already a good chance that they aren't "true" to the original, but subject to the interpreters ability to interpret the original creators intent.

I don't think embracing well-known or ancient traditions is wrong - and I don't think it will keep you from moving forward unless you allow it to.



Should we take what we like, what is of use, and discard the rest?

I think that you should take what applies to you and utilize it, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the other traditions and beliefs of a particular system are worthless or that someone else shouldn't ascribe to them.

[Fiamma]

He claims a European path but takes Ideas like Karma (three fold Law) from Eastern beliefs.


Karma=/=three-fold law.

[Ben Gruagach]

Karma=/=three-fold law.

That is certainly true, but the threefold law idea was based on the eastern concept of karma.

Gardner spent a good part of his life living and working in eastern countries and had lots of exposure to eastern religions. Theosophy, which was popular during Gardner's day, also drew heavily on eastern philosophies. Gardner had a strong connection to Theosophy through his involvement with the Rosicrucian Theatre group, which included Mabel Besant-Scott, who just happened to be Annie Besant's daughter. Annie Besant was a leading Theosophist and was the president of the Theosophical Society for a time.

[Russ]

The Lay of Thrym from The Poetic Edda.



I know Heathen folk that hold rites outside prison walls as executions are happening, dedicating the slain prisoners to Odin, just like in the good ol' days... I have considered joining them, and most likely eventually will.

...now that's a cherry that'll probably not soon be picked, eh?

If I ever end up sentenced to death I am requesting this!


Faith is the primary foundation to Christianity one need only believe; it is orthodox. Doing "works" which I take to mean as charity work and the like is in no way orthoprax, orthopraxy implies worshipping in a specific way by doing/saying specific things, referring to ceremonies, rituals, and the like.

Whether or not doing works helps your way there or not is another argument for Christians to have out at each other, but the primary foundation for all of Christianity is belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Son of God/God incarnate and the truth of the Word of God.

As a former Catholic I'll add my thirty pieces of silver.

Catholics require Orthodoxy in believe and orthopraxi in Mass. You must believe and do the right actions at all times.

However charity isn't just feeding the poor. Infact currently the highest charity would be trying to end abortion, trying to convert non-Catholics and most of all praying for the living and the dead. The dead to get out of purgatory. The living that there free wills be subverted to obey the Catholic Church in all things.

[Nuadu]

Is it Wrong to stray from specified guidlines within a path?
Will doing so tarnish a given practice? Will doing so show disrespect to those that have "done the work"?
Should we adhere to the rules?

Conversely, does holding onto the traditions from maybe thousands of years in the past keep us from moving forward? Should we take what we like, what is of use, and discard the rest?

The last part there is what caught my eye and I dont think anyone has brought up the point it provokes yet. The idea that tradition is counter intuitive to progress is a product of modernism.

The study of paganism is essentially the study of a religion that has not been popular for a millennium. Modernism an exceptionally recent philosophy and applying its concepts to paganism can only further obscure the truth of a path. Does neo paganism have its fair share of Evangelists who will ram their opinion down your throat as the gospel truth, yes. But that is an issue of charactor found in other modern expressions of religion not a negative effect of following a tradition.



Personally, I take freedom of religion to mean just that. What was pertinent decades, and centuries, and millenia ago may not be as applicable today, it may not Reconnect us the way that religion is supposed to.

I know this was addressed immidiately but I would apply it differently to traditional religion.

The beliefs of Traditional Paganism does not apply to our culture because no neo pagan lives in a free traditional culture. That means we are faced with 2 choices. Reconnect to that traditional way of life in pursuit of our spirituality in doing so change ourselves to suit it or change the religion to suit our modern life. Youve probably read my opinion of how successfull I think modernism will be when applied to pagan religions.

The old guard of traditional religions have an exoteric mode of study and you can do college courses to compliment your understanding of your chosen cultures religion. But the Old Guard are essentially the unconcious inheritors of a secular knowlege. They might not consider themselves to be pagan and they might not like how you choose to live your life but unless you can reign yourself in and show them respect you wont learn.

An example of a widespread tradition in the western world but not from the western world is accupuncture. The way its taught in the western world completely strips it of all its traditional religious trappings in an attempt to legitimise eastern medicine in the west. The result of that is matter how much you pay for your college course and no matter what piece of paper you are handed until you physically GO to china and WORK in a hospital and ACCEPT the traditional way of practicing you will never have a real understanding of the skill youre trying to cultivate.

That involves sucking up the fact you are treated like a dumb foreigner and accepting 'there are more things in heaven and earth then is dreamt of in your philosophy'. I think that applies to all religious study. You have to approach it humbley with your mind open to all possibilities. Cherry Picking is the diametric opposite way of approaching religious practice.

[Darth Brooks]

The last part there is what caught my eye and I dont think anyone has brought up the point it provokes yet. The idea that tradition is counter intuitive to progress is a product of modernism.

This is true, some people definitely throw the baby out with the bathwater when criticizing traditions. However, there are two extremes here: (1) the belief that tradition is always good just because it's tradition, and (2) the belief that tradition is always bad just because it's tradition. Both extremes are false. Certain traditions have stood the test of time and proven themselves to be worthy of adherence even in modern climes, but other traditions are no longer appropriate to practice here in the modern world and could actually be dangerous if practiced the same way they used to be. For instance, I think many people forget that human sacrifice was a very important aspect of many ancient religious traditions, but I don't see very many contemporary pagans across the globe considering the idea of human sacrifice, in the sense of actually killing somebody in a religious ritual, to be acceptable in today's world. (There is a dissident minority, to be sure.)



An example of a widespread tradition in the western world but not from the western world is accupuncture. The way its taught in the western world completely strips it of all its traditional religious trappings in an attempt to legitimise eastern medicine in the west. The result of that is matter how much you pay for your college course and no matter what piece of paper you are handed until you physically GO to china and WORK in a hospital and ACCEPT the traditional way of practicing you will never have a real understanding of the skill youre trying to cultivate.That's true enough, and a fitting example of how the second of the two extremes I mentioned above can be problematic.


I think that applies to all religious study. You have to approach it humbley with your mind open to all possibilities. Cherry Picking is the diametric opposite way of approaching religious practice.Here I am still forced to disagree. First of all I think the word "cherry picking" is not being used very clearly in this thread; because of the title it can apparently be made to include any form of eclecticism at all. Since eclecticism was also a part in some ancient religious traditions, it doesn't make sense to automatically write it off as something that is always counter-productive to religious study.

Others have mentioned that it is not eclecticism itself that bothers them, but the people who are excessively eclectic and who claim to follow a specific tradition that does not share their eclecticism. Issues of respect and disrespect aside, this brings us back to one of my favorite questions: who the hell owns any of this stuff, and who the hell is able to press charges on people and sue them for not using the word "Wiccan" or "Druid" or whatever else correctly? The Catholic Church organized the systematic persecution of the Cathars and other Christian heretics because they found their version of Christianity to be insulting and abominable before the "true" Christianity of the church. That's an example of how the first extreme I mentioned above can also be problematic - when people start killing each other simply because they don't follow the same version of the same faith.

Maybe it's just because my path is inevitably solitary and no two believers in my faith are exactly alike. But I can see no point in trying to regulate the ways in which other people choose to label themselves. Even if I disagree with the way they label themselves - as in the case of 'vampires' - what is the point in making an issue of it? All it will do is make them feel "persecuted," and people can get real nasty when they feel that way. (Feeling persecuted will also reinforce exactly what is intended to be criticized - kind of like how telling somebody "No" can just make them want it more.) We have the ability to define our religions for ourselves and for our congregations (if we even have congregations), but outside that miniscule sphere of influence, pretty much anything goes. Until somebody finally finds infallible scientific proof that one particular religious theology and orthopraxy is absolutely correct over the others, at least.

[~Belladonna~]

If you don't follow tenets within a Tradition, then you are not OF that Tradition.

If you take parts of it and parts of another--then you are following a completely different path.

What's the difficulty in the understanding of that?

Hear, Hear! What she said :uhhuhuh:

[Russ]

Agreed. It would be wrong of me to create a Wicca trad where women and the Goddess where subservant and lesser than men then call it Dianic Wicca, or to start a splinter Catholic group that was Roman Catholic in all but name except for some Islamic Elements added in then call it The Karma Kagyu Tradition of Tibetan Buddhism just to use a couple of extreme examples.

[kaosxmage]

Aside from all the obvious remarks, consider something else. Living traditions of monotheism with long long unbroken lineage to antiquity can't even agree on the nature of divinity or how to approach it. Their own holy texts have been written, translated, rewritten, translated again in an ongoing cycle. Their approach changes with every culture, often different from town to town, and throughout history. I would venture to say Ancient Christians would hardly recognize their modern brethren. That's an unbroken lineage from start to present.

It's very difficult to "cherry pick" any religious thought when their is a 1,000 year black hole between you and your ancient brethren. Recons do wonderful work bringing elements of these people to life, but be honest. You're working with text written by christian monks on a people they didn't really know. Burial customs and art recovered by archaeologists help lend more knowledge, but these are cultures that were a large geographic presence in language only (Celts and Germanic/Norse). Even the great Egyptian civilization isn't a well built recon dream come true. In essence, we know very little of what the ancients actually thought. In the case of Egypt, you're talking about the Rosetta stone as the only real key to that lock. I doubt it truly captures the heart of Egyptian thought - so go to the art and burial customs.


3,000 years from now someone may want to "reconstruct" American culture, or to be more precise - what you believed. They might be doing this with a reconstructed English discovered on a restaurant menu found in Texas ...or Mexico. Combined with art and burial customs scattered over the massive landscape of North America they might paint a picture of Ancient America. It wouldn't even be close to capturing the heart.

With all that said, Reconstructionists do much needed work. They are finding the foundation brick by brick. The eclectic does much need work as well. They bring innovation, inspiration, and creativity. Of course there are all the "nutters" in the middle, but even they might produce a nugget now and then.

With the right philosophical approach, I'm sure paths of modern Paganism can be more clearly defined. Asatru's Nine Noble Virtues area good example. Cherry Picking ideas aside, I can look to the Nine Noble Virtues and identify people on the Northern Path. How they approach their Gods, hold rituals, celebrate holidays, or what tools rest on their altar is their business.

Done rambling for now ...the Cubs have a home opener to play ...

--Kaos

[Calli]

I confess. I didn't read the whole thread before responding. This question is a really good one for me right now. My home contains both types of Pagan.

My boyfriend needs a structured path, with definition. He is still trying on this one and that one, finding where he feels he fits. I, on the other hand, find that very structure unbearably restrictive. I was apparently born with my beliefs, just as I was apparently born with my values. I read and learn, just as he does, but it is much easier for me to pick and choose what fits for me than it is for him. I've read a couple of books where only one or two tidbits felt right to me, and the rest was unusable. I think green witchcraft and Druidry are cool, but have no desire to be a green witch or a Druid. I believe in much of what Wicca teaches, and for a while, called myself Wiccan, but decided recently again that I'm not. I'm very much a cherry picker, but my boyfriend can't and doesn't want to be. He's just not wired that way. He requires structure and a direction. Is either path better than the other? I acknowledge that I'm biased on that question, but, if I was totally fair I'd have to say no. The only really important thing is that it feels comfortable and right for you.

[Darth Brooks]

Agreed. It would be wrong of me to create a Wicca trad where women and the Goddess where subservant and lesser than men then call it Dianic Wicca, or to start a splinter Catholic group that was Roman Catholic in all but name except for some Islamic Elements added in then call it The Karma Kagyu Tradition of Tibetan Buddhism just to use a couple of extreme examples.

It might be "wrong," but:

(1) I highly doubt there are really that many people who would practice Roman Catholicism and honestly believe it should be called Buddhism.

(2) I highly doubt there are really that many people who would practice some kind of male-centered version of witchcraft and want to call it Dianic Wicca. Part of the whole reason why certain people use certain labels is because they find them appealing, and the idea of a male chauvinist witch even wanting to be called Dianic sounds like a Christian wanting to be called Satanic. This would be like if someone decided to start a Presbyterian church and call it Satanism - it's a completely ludicrous example that probably won't even happen.

(3) Nobody can stop you from calling yourself whatever you want. If you wanted to be a Roman Catholic/Buddhist/Muslim hybrid, that would be entirely your own prerogative. It would be up to you to find a way to make that work and have it make sense - but so long as it worked and made sense to you then that is what's important. If you wanted to build a congregation of some kind, then you'd have to work a bit harder to justify your reasoning behind your word choices; but even still, there are people who will join anything. And when you had enough members in your outfit, it wouldn't matter what outsiders thought, because you'd have an entire denomination of people supporting your view, pretty much like how things work in every other congregation. You could show up on a place like here on Mystic Wicks and discuss Tibetan Catholic Sufism or whatever, and if anybody gave you any crap, they'd get reprimanded somehow, because even something like Scientology is supposed to be respected in a place like this.

So in the end it really doesn't matter how ludicrous or idiotic a person's beliefs might seem to anyone else - whether you're a "cherry picker" or a history book thumper. It also really doesn't matter what they think about whatever labels you might choose to describe yourself. If anybody doesn't like it, then tough; they should figure out a way to get their labels copyrighted so they can sue anyone who uses those labels apart from their own definition. Then maybe we can actually get somewhere with this, aside from a bunch of people saying "You can't do that!" followed by a bunch of people doing exactly what they're told they can't do.

[*oonagh*]

So in the end it really doesn't matter how ludicrous or idiotic a person's beliefs might seem to anyone else - whether you're a "cherry picker" or a history book thumper. It also really doesn't matter what they think about whatever labels you might choose to describe yourself. If anybody doesn't like it, then tough; they should figure out a way to get their labels copyrighted so they can sue anyone who uses those labels apart from their own definition. Then maybe we can actually get somewhere with this, aside from a bunch of people saying "You can't do that!" followed by a bunch of people doing exactly what they're told they can't do.

*exactly*

[Lunacie]

It might be "wrong," but:

(1) I highly doubt there are really that many people who would practice Roman Catholicism and honestly believe it should be called Buddhism.

(2) I highly doubt there are really that many people who would practice some kind of male-centered version of witchcraft and want to call it Dianic Wicca. Part of the whole reason why certain people use certain labels is because they find them appealing, and the idea of a male chauvinist witch even wanting to be called Dianic sounds like a Christian wanting to be called Satanic. This would be like if someone decided to start a Presbyterian church and call it Satanism - it's a completely ludicrous example that probably won't even happen.

(3) Nobody can stop you from calling yourself whatever you want. If you wanted to be a Roman Catholic/Buddhist/Muslim hybrid, that would be entirely your own prerogative. It would be up to you to find a way to make that work and have it make sense - but so long as it worked and made sense to you then that is what's important. If you wanted to build a congregation of some kind, then you'd have to work a bit harder to justify your reasoning behind your word choices; but even still, there are people who will join anything. And when you had enough members in your outfit, it wouldn't matter what outsiders thought, because you'd have an entire denomination of people supporting your view, pretty much like how things work in every other congregation. You could show up on a place like here on Mystic Wicks and discuss Tibetan Catholic Sufism or whatever, and if anybody gave you any crap, they'd get reprimanded somehow, because even something like Scientology is supposed to be respected in a place like this.

So in the end it really doesn't matter how ludicrous or idiotic a person's beliefs might seem to anyone else - whether you're a "cherry picker" or a history book thumper. It also really doesn't matter what they think about whatever labels you might choose to describe yourself. If anybody doesn't like it, then tough; they should figure out a way to get their labels copyrighted so they can sue anyone who uses those labels apart from their own definition. Then maybe we can actually get somewhere with this, aside from a bunch of people saying "You can't do that!" followed by a bunch of people doing exactly what they're told they can't do.

Nope, no one can stop you from using whatever title you want to use - unless you're impersonating a police officer or a doctor or something like that. But there is no way that we are going to copyright the definition of a religious practice or set of beliefs. That's just silly.

I don't tell anyone "you can't do that" or "you're not really Wiccan." I just make the most of the opportunity to point out what most Wiccans do agree on and maybe what the reasons are for doing things a particular way. I find that educating folks works much better than criticizing them for doing things "wrong."

[RuneicResearch]

I choose not to name my path. It may name itself in time, but I take elements of so many other paths, even some that I have a great dislike toward. I constantly try to explore new uses for many arts, but try to respect the traditions all the same.

[Louisvillian]

I don't tell anyone "you can't do that" or "you're not really Wiccan." I just make the most of the opportunity to point out what most Wiccans do agree on and maybe what the reasons are for doing things a particular way. I find that educating folks works much better than criticizing them for doing things "wrong."

Same. I wouldn't outright tell someone that they're doing it wrong, or what they're doing isn't Wiccan (or what have you). I would just point out what Wiccans (or what have you) usually do, so that they are aware that they are going outside a conventional practice/belief. Which, strictly speaking, isn't "wrong".

[phoenixrising]

There is nothing wrong with cherry picking, you create your own path. But all the different subsects of religion have specific cores that make them "that subsect" You can cherry pick, but it is no longer X if you change that core, its your own. The titles/labels are there to identify that you believe in the tennants of that subsect, if someone says they are Christian I can quickly gauge there beliefs, if they specify Baptist I know even more, same goes for Wicca, and if they specify Alexandrian, or Ecclectic. It allows you to find people with similar beliefs, and if you change one of those beliefs on your path you shouldn't be identified with that same name.

[Calli]

There is nothing wrong with cherry picking, you create your own path. But all the different subsects of religion have specific cores that make them "that subsect" You can cherry pick, but it is no longer X if you change that core, its your own. The titles/labels are there to identify that you believe in the tennants of that subsect, if someone says they are Christian I can quickly gauge there beliefs, if they specify Baptist I know even more, same goes for Wicca, and if they specify Alexandrian, or Ecclectic. It allows you to find people with similar beliefs, and if you change one of those beliefs on your path you shouldn't be identified with that same name.

You summed up my opinion very well. :thumbsup:

[zombi]

You summed up my opinion very well. :thumbsup:

mine too! :thumbsup:

Do what you want, but call it what it is, basically.

[Terra Mater]

There is nothing wrong with cherry picking, you create your own path. But all the different subsects of religion have specific cores that make them "that subsect" You can cherry pick, but it is no longer X if you change that core, its your own. The titles/labels are there to identify that you believe in the tennants of that subsect, if someone says they are Christian I can quickly gauge there beliefs, if they specify Baptist I know even more, same goes for Wicca, and if they specify Alexandrian, or Ecclectic. It allows you to find people with similar beliefs, and if you change one of those beliefs on your path you shouldn't be identified with that same name.
Perfect!

[Calli]

mine too! :thumbsup:

Do what you want, but call it what it is, basically.

I agree. If you do one thing and call it another, that sort of invalidates the terminology. Especially for someone like me, who is just learning the terms. I'm not a newbie, I've just spent years cherry picking, and never bothered with learning the terms. And now, I'm here, where everything is defined. I hate being ignorant, so I'm learnin'. lol

[Morgaine_cla]

Greetings,

I adamantly agree that if one is using a name or label that is defined by specific, unique identifiers ("tenets", beliefs, customs, practices, teachings, etc.), one should either conform to those specific identifiers or else create a new name or label by which the new practice may be known. Otherwise it's rather like "bait and switch" for the new Seeker, isn't it? They arrive thinking they know where they are and just as they're preparing to sign on they find out no, it's really not that, it's something else. And for those who don't know the name or label being used it's nearly as demoralizing, since when they do finally encounter it the best they can hope is to learn that they've no idea what they are actually doing.

Best to take the high road from the start and be clear about what one is doing, even if that means that for a time no one knows what it is that you're about.

As to the concept of "cherry-picking", I am not against starting new spiritualities, but...

There are ethical and unethical ways to do it and most people do what is expedient. Being expedient doesn't make it right. One basic measure of the ethics of an idea or method is to look at the likely consequence in the light of Natural/Metaphysical Laws that govern the cause-and-effect of existance across all spiritualities and belief systems. Popular books on Neopaganism seldom address the Laws, but those of us who have studied them know what they teach: That everything is connected, that the closer the connection the greater the influence which may be exerted, and that this influence can travel both ways... Therefore, taking and using parts of existing traditions imposes influences upon the sourced spiritual paths (and those that follow them); influences which they cannot foresee and to which they have not consented.

There is some real resistance to acknowledging and addressing the implications of this fact. Many Neopagans have justified borrowing by saying that they are actually helping to conserve the paths they borrow from, but this belies the very definition of the word "tradition". A tradition exists only where it is continued. A practice that is unrecognisable to the tradition bearers doesn't "carry on" the tradition; it supplants it. There really is no getting away from that unpleasant fact... The reluctance to recognising and addressing this problem has led to a schism between Neopagan and native/traditional paths, despite that these are the very people who have the most to teach us... Pure self-interest would seem to argue for reconsidering the ethics of certain approaches to "cherry-picking" --

But that's a discussion for another time.

[Twinkle]

As a Reiki master...distance reiki is reiki.

Cherrypicking is not the same wiggle room. When you take parts from one and then another and combine them, you have something new.

MY personal opinion is that you should name it something entirely different so as not to be confused with either original.

Elise

I would agree.

Cherry picking is a rather derogatory term, as well. I think Eclecticism is probably the better term to call pulling what you like from different paths and creating something new.

I do believe that it is insulting to those that do follow a specific Tradition to actually be Eclectic, yet still want to identify as a specific Tradition.

In my experience, it's image over substance, and intellectually dishonest.

[~Nixie]

There's a lot of debate going on in this thread, but I just want to go over my own opinion and how I personally approach the situation.

Neither "cherry-picking" or "traditionalism" are bad, both have the potential to be good, bad, fulfilling, disrespectful, etc. Yes, there are eclectics that do not put a lot of thought into what they're doing, but as long as they're not advertising their practices as a great thing to do, I don't think that anybody else needs to worry about them. If they piss off the Gods or f-up, that's essentially their problem, unless they're leading themselves into a dangerous situation where intervention may be considered. We can offer advice and food for thought, but condemning them may make them run the other way. In the end we can only present our ideas to each other, the individual is ultimently going to do what feels right to them. On the other side of the spectrum, some traditionalists feel that their own path is the only "proper" way to go about things, which is something I don't agree with. I've been on a forum where the members essentially flip out if you make any mention of any non-traditional form of Wicca, or of certain people honoring certain deities because that deity comes from a "closed-culture" even if that culture is a part of their heritage but they never truly can because of reasons a b and c. While some of their arguments bring up good points, I think it goes too far sometimes. Neither liberalism or conservatism should be taken into the extremes, in my opinion.

And then you have responsible eclectics and traditionalists (and each path may contain elements of both). If we're going to criticize anybody, it should be those who go about their path in an irresponsible manner, it shouldn't matter what path that is. The responsibility applies to the individual, to the Gods/forces they're aligning themselves with, and to how they approach other pathways and individuals.

I would describe myself as being fairly eclectic, but I do not like the term "cherry-picking". Cherry-picking implies that I'm just grabbing whatever looks nice and shoving it down my throat without even thinking about it. "Cherry-picking" sounds like taking what just looks appealing on the surface. I think that eclectics who are responsible and take themselves seriously will do a certain degree of research and self-reflection before pursuing something as their own. I can't say how much or how often, but I don't think we should count "fluffy" as the definition of eclectic, or treat it as such.

In the past, and still to this day, I have had difficulty with honoring Gods of different pantheons because I do not want to disrespect them. I'm not really a soft polytheist or hard polytheist-rather I'm somewhere in the middle with my own experiences and philosophies. I tend to be very critical and I'm careful of what I do. I have always been drawn to the Gods of many different cultures, and while I feel that it has its limits (at least for me) I have found ways for it to work out. Some Gods are compatible and some aren't. Some Gods don't want me worshiping certain other Gods and some don't care. I don't call different Gods into the same space, I treat them as individuals that deserve respect. I do research and see how I feel, as well as receive permission, before moving forward. It can be challenging, but it certainly is doable. It can, and is very fulfilling. That's just one example. I also think we should respect other cultures and titles that belong to another belief system.

[Allytria]

I cannot read Cuneiform. That doesn't stop me from working with Mesopotamian deities. I do not claim that my stuff is 3000 years old. I do not claim my Way is the only Way. I *am* interested in reading anthropology to find out how they used to do it, so I can modify what I do, but I am not a reconstructionist. My Way is only correct for *me*. I also don't claim to be of a Religion I am not practicing.

[C. Iulia Regilia]

There's a lot of debate going on in this thread, but I just want to go over my own opinion and how I personally approach the situation.

Neither "cherry-picking" or "traditionalism" are bad, both have the potential to be good, bad, fulfilling, disrespectful, etc. Yes, there are eclectics that do not put a lot of thought into what they're doing, but as long as they're not advertising their practices as a great thing to do, I don't think that anybody else needs to worry about them. If they piss off the Gods or f-up, that's essentially their problem, unless they're leading themselves into a dangerous situation where intervention may be considered. We can offer advice and food for thought, but condemning them may make them run the other way. In the end we can only present our ideas to each other, the individual is ultimently going to do what feels right to them. On the other side of the spectrum, some traditionalists feel that their own path is the only "proper" way to go about things, which is something I don't agree with. I've been on a forum where the members essentially flip out if you make any mention of any non-traditional form of Wicca, or of certain people honoring certain deities because that deity comes from a "closed-culture" even if that culture is a part of their heritage but they never truly can because of reasons a b and c. While some of their arguments bring up good points, I think it goes too far sometimes. Neither liberalism or conservatism should be taken into the extremes, in my opinion.

And then you have responsible eclectics and traditionalists (and each path may contain elements of both). If we're going to criticize anybody, it should be those who go about their path in an irresponsible manner, it shouldn't matter what path that is. The responsibility applies to the individual, to the Gods/forces they're aligning themselves with, and to how they approach other pathways and individuals.

I would describe myself as being fairly eclectic, but I do not like the term "cherry-picking". Cherry-picking implies that I'm just grabbing whatever looks nice and shoving it down my throat without even thinking about it. "Cherry-picking" sounds like taking what just looks appealing on the surface. I think that eclectics who are responsible and take themselves seriously will do a certain degree of research and self-reflection before pursuing something as their own. I can't say how much or how often, but I don't think we should count "fluffy" as the definition of eclectic, or treat it as such.

In the past, and still to this day, I have had difficulty with honoring Gods of different pantheons because I do not want to disrespect them. I'm not really a soft polytheist or hard polytheist-rather I'm somewhere in the middle with my own experiences and philosophies. I tend to be very critical and I'm careful of what I do. I have always been drawn to the Gods of many different cultures, and while I feel that it has its limits (at least for me) I have found ways for it to work out. Some Gods are compatible and some aren't. Some Gods don't want me worshiping certain other Gods and some don't care. I don't call different Gods into the same space, I treat them as individuals that deserve respect. I do research and see how I feel, as well as receive permission, before moving forward. It can be challenging, but it certainly is doable. It can, and is very fulfilling. That's just one example. I also think we should respect other cultures and titles that belong to another belief system.


I have to agree with you on that -- you can do things respectfully or disrespectfully. Not only to the Gods themselves, but to the culture that created the path. One of the big things is that you try to get permission if possible before doing something -- if what you're doing is giving the trads the heebeejeebees, then find another way. If what you're doing isn't the same as what the practicioners of Trad X are doing, then it isn't Trad X.

I can't really call what I do recon, because although I try to do things in a Roman way, there are some things I just can't do Romanly, so I use other things (praise Iove for ADF). That's why I call my path Religio Romano Revivalismo. It's not traditional, but it is Roman, at least I try to be Roman.

[Kalioppee]

I cannot read Cuneiform. That doesn't stop me from working with Mesopotamian deities. I do not claim that my stuff is 3000 years old. I do not claim my Way is the only Way. I *am* interested in reading anthropology to find out how they used to do it, so I can modify what I do, but I am not a reconstructionist. My Way is only correct for *me*. I also don't claim to be of a Religion I am not practicing.

This is how I view my path. I can't claim how old my tradition or path is, I work with Polish traditions and deities. I learned much from my grandparents who actually came from the old country, and my Mother. My Mom and I actually made modifications on many things, but yet we kept the core there.



It's very difficult to "cherry pick" any religious thought when their is a 1,000 year black hole between you and your ancient brethren.

With the right philosophical approach, I'm sure paths of modern Paganism can be more clearly defined. Asatru's Nine Noble Virtues area good example. Cherry Picking ideas aside, I can look to the Nine Noble Virtues and identify people on the Northern Path. How they approach their Gods, hold rituals, celebrate holidays, or what tools rest on their altar is their business.--Kaos

You could on one hand say that I have taken from the Norse or Asatru traditions, but if you were to study what some of my old Polish ancestors did you would say that they did. They worshiped in circles and groves but throughout their history they did blots and sumbels, they have a slightly different world tree, they worked with runes. You can see how their religious beliefs evolved, but at the same time there are no records, at the most you have to go through their Christian festivals with a fine tooth comb and cross your fingers that you can pull out the pagan elements, but of course you are also missing other elements that have been dropped, you have to fill it in yourself from what you have learned or read somewhere that you feel fits. Cherry-picking.. I don't like that term. I am not a re-constructionist, I am not trying to reconstruct my ancestors religion, that's not feasible, times have changed, so did their religion over the centuries. What I do have is elements that my family followed their old traditions and I hold onto those and have built from there, hopefully with respect and honor to the old ones.

[IndigoRising]

I personally use what calls to me and my own filter.. I believe we are each set along our own paths for a reason.. if one particular path calls to you in exclusion of all others thats wonderful. I myself am what I like to Call Eclectic pagan
I consider myself a Witch amongst other things and I practice what my heart and my deities/guardians help me to discover..every person thinks and feels differantly.
And as such a beleif system created by a specific person is only naturally going to fit them better than one created by another.

but thats just my two cents

[GlassMinotaur]

"Conversely, does holding onto the traditions from maybe thousands of years in the past keep us from moving forward? Should we take what we like, what is of use, and discard the rest?"

Yes, yes it does, and yes, yes we should.

Religion changes slower than society and in the end holds it back. Tradition keeps people locked into old mentalities. Some of these notions get so firmly held by generations that the inhabitants of that time period actually have to die off before new ideas can take place, and that reason is because of fiercely held traditions, often held in place by the iron hand of religious momentum.

We didn't even speak the same LANGUAGE 1000 years ago. Ever tried to read the Beowulf in the original Old English? If we were holding to the same societal standards there would be a few issues. Tradition is a very pretty notion, but ultimately one that is not sustainable. The same people who created the Norse Gods also had a penchant for slavery, human sacrifice, warfare and the occasional rape and pillage session. The Celts created a beautiful mythology and also like to terrorize the Romans and keep the heads of the defeated generals in boxes for display.

People like tradition because it gives them something other than themselves to rely on, and that is a very powerful evolved instinct from the time our species were packs of our tribal ancestors. It is human nature to want to wrap ourselves in something bigger than ourselves, whether it is gods, nature, leaders, or tradition.

The beauty of Paganism is that traditions don't need to apply. The mentality that we need to keep in line with a guy who died 60 years ago now, who died a drug addict and seen as a loon from the outside, during a time when women were still objects and black people weren't allowed on tv, is a disgrace to everything society has accomplished and wants to accomplish in the neverending march of time and progress.

"Humanity. They follow leaders -- queens or kings, chiefs or emperors. We tell them what to do, and they do it. We know no more than they than they, but still they follow us, blindly as people lost in the catacombs would follow a child carrying a flaming torch" - Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, "August"

[Benvarry]

"Conversely, does holding onto the traditions from maybe thousands of years in the past keep us from moving forward? Should we take what we like, what is of use, and discard the rest?"

Yes, yes it does, and yes, yes we should.


Agree as well. Refusing to evolve and adapt from the mistakes humanity has made in the past is a dangerous, disturbing notion.

[C. Iulia Regilia]

Agree as well. Refusing to evolve and adapt from the mistakes humanity has made in the past is a dangerous, disturbing notion.

Well, true BUT adapting has its limits. I can't suddenly make Lilitu a feminist goddess becuase she isn't a goddess, and she's pretty dark. Lilitu is what Lilitu is. Kali isn't warm and fluffy, and I don't think attempts to make gods bend to what you want them to be is respectful. It seems like trying to turn your mom into a diva when she's a southern belle. It won't work and you'll both be miserable. On the other hand, it's perfectly reasonable to make the god of wine accept Vodka and Beer as his perview.

[*~Amora~*]

I think it's fine to practice whatever works for you. The problem comes when one claims that the changes are in line with tradition.


Is it Wrong to stray from specified guidlines within a path?
Will doing so tarnish a given practice? Will doing so show disrespect to those that have "done the work"?
Should we adhere to the rules?

Conversely, does holding onto the traditions from maybe thousands of years in the past keep us from moving forward? Should we take what we like, what is of use, and discard the rest?




Personally, I take freedom of religion to mean just that. What was pertinent decades, and centuries, and millenia ago may not be as applicable today, it may not Reconnect us the way that religion is supposed to.

I also think that much of the "Old Guard" enjoys their relative authority and don't want to see it taken from them. Then there are those that are comforted by structure and routine.

But that is IMO....

What's your's?

[SidheRocks]

As for my own two cents, I couldn't agree more with GlassMinotaur. It seems the religion tends to evolve with humanity... not vice versa. I don't think the deity Yahweh is offended that his followers no longer fry bulls/people in his name, even though his scriptures say it very clearly that he adores the "pleasant smell" of the aroma to that. No, it seems he has now evolved into a more forgiving and understanding deity. But these are just my own musings... I'm sure others might disagree. :mmm:

I'm sure people who stick to the traditions formulate a special bond with their deity, and vice versa. But I see them both as a 50/50 advantage with totally unique experiences/gains. For me, I couldn't go traditional when it's basically a filtered version of more primitive men who had very limited views/understanding of humanity and even their genders/races. If I wish to honor a deity who, by older tradition, believed men should act like mindless brutes... but my best friend is a poet (and a male) I would hope that deity is evolved enough to not take offense to my friend honoring her/him. Strange, eh? It's sort've like the topic of whether or not homosexuals are allowed to be Christian. Lol either the deity does not like it, or he does. Yet the problem remains in that humanity is too diverse to truly reflect a "one and only way," to connect with a deity. Perhaps those are the pros/cons to traditional/non.

Doesn't help that "tradition" can be what eclectics are doing now in about 3,000 years. :hyper:

[Socinus]

I know I'm jumping in a bit late, but I sometimes get static for this as an Eclectic.

I feel no inherent discomfort in blending different ideas from different belief paths. The way I see it is my soul has already been through the world however many times and the variety is a way for the soul to learn about new things it hasn't experienced before.