The Hellenic Gods, Gender & Sexuality

[Intonsus]

It seems that this has come up in a couple threads and I would just like to make it clear to everyone.

The Hellenic Gods, The Theoi, are genderless and beyond genders. Also they are a family, but not like the Human family. More of the Family used in biology, which denotes the organization of Organisms from Species, Genus, Family, Order, Class, Phylum, Kingdom, Domain and Life.

The term Family is simply a metaphor.

Furthermore the myths are all metaphors, whether or not the Theoi have actually engaged in sexual intercourse is unknown to us. These are all metaphors, which is taken in a to literal fashion these days. The metaphors, or myths, were a way to explain the Theoi to the people of Ancient Greece in a way that they could comprehend them, because contrary to popular belief they werent all pure and virtous preists and philosophers.

To recap, the Theoi are genderless and beyond gender, are not literally performing sexual intercourse (to the best of our knowledge), and are deffinatly not involved in incest.

[YoungSoulRebel]

Repeating yourself is not the same as a recap.

[Fiamma]

Thank you for being so kind as to educate us all on your personal beliefs regarding the gods.


It seems that this has come up in a couple threads and I would just like to make it clear to everyone.

The Hellenic Gods, The Theoi, are genderless and beyond genders. Also they are a family, but not like the Human family. More of the Family used in biology, which denotes the organization of Organisms from Species, Genus, Family, Order, Class, Phylum, Kingdom, Domain and Life.

The term Family is simply a metaphor.

Furthermore the myths are all metaphors, whether or not the Theoi have actually engaged in sexual intercourse is unknown to us. These are all metaphors, which is taken in a to literal fashion these days. The metaphors, or myths, were a way to explain the Theoi to the people of Ancient Greece in a way that they could comprehend them, because contrary to popular belief they werent all pure and virtous preists and philosophers.

To recap, the Theoi are genderless and beyond gender, are not literally performing sexual intercourse (to the best of our knowledge), and are deffinatly not involved in incest.

[Tim]

I wouldn't say that what Intonsus wrote was strictly his personal beliefs. It would be best labeled as a common conception.

[Twinkle]

I wouldn't say that what Intonsus wrote was strictly his personal beliefs. It would be best labeled as a common conception.

Agreed. The gods are incorporeal beings. A quick study of cosmology and philosophy would tell anyone studying the religion of the Ancients the same.

[Intonsus]

Repeating yourself is not the same as a recap.

Thanks! I'll remember that the next time I need to recap =].
:thumbsup:

[Fiamma]

I wouldn't say that what Intonsus wrote was strictly his personal beliefs. It would be best labeled as a common conception.

Common, sure, but not universal and certainly not provable. Even if I may agree with him, which I do partially, it is still a belief. Intonsus made this post as if it were irrefutable fact that we were all just supposed to swallow (and completely lacking in any backup for why we should believe it).

I've no problems discussing and listening to other people's beliefs, and with a good enough argument may even be swayed, but this...isn't it. Moreover, it's completely dismissive of any other possible belief regarding the gods.

[Fiamma]

Agreed. The gods are incorporeal beings. A quick study of cosmology and philosophy would tell anyone studying the religion of the Ancients the same.

Intonsus said more than that they are incorporeal beings. That they are incorporeal, I think most people would have a hard time arguing with, however, it is all still belief, common or not, and his belief set is not the only possible belief set regarding the gods, and to state his beliefs as he did, as if they were fact, is, as I've said, completely dismissive of other possible beliefs.

[Twinkle]

Intonsus said more than that they are incorporeal beings. That they are incorporeal, I think most people would have a hard time arguing with, however, it is all still belief, common or not, and his belief set is not the only possible belief set regarding the gods, and to state his beliefs as he did, as if they were fact, is, as I've said, completely dismissive of other possible beliefs.

I'll tell you what - if there is any other belief that a Recon has about the Gods and is willing to share it, with sources to back it up, I can certainly respect it, if not share it.

However; the belief presented is, in my experience, the most commonly held one - and I accepted it as such.

[YoungSoulRebel]

Intonsus said more than that they are incorporeal beings. That they are incorporeal, I think most people would have a hard time arguing with, however, it is all still belief, common or not, and his belief set is not the only possible belief set regarding the gods, and to state his beliefs as he did, as if they were fact, is, as I've said, completely dismissive of other possible beliefs.
It's not only dismissive.... it's akin to denial.

[Caitlin.ann]

It's not only dismissive.... it's akin to denial.

To each their own. I see nothing wrong with what the OP presented in the beginning of this thread. He is entitled to his belief, which is just as valid as anyone elses whether others like it or not. :) I personally am learning a lot here and would like to keep doing so.

[Twinkle]

It's not only dismissive.... it's akin to denial.

I don't know. There's been no other points of view presented, only people complaining about how other beliefs can't be incorporated in the discussion.

We have no idea what the response would be to another point of view because there hasn't been one.

I've already stated I'd be more than willing to entertain discussion about it.

[Intonsus]

It's not only dismissive.... it's akin to denial.

This is the accepted view of most Hellenic Reconstructionist I have had the pleasure to talk and meet, in the US, Greece, Italy, Albania, FYROM, Austria and Turkey, the ones who didn't agree with it simply were not sure. If you are a Hellenic Reconstructionist with a different view then please state so. So that I may learn from your great wisdom.

[Toby Stimpson]

This is the accepted view of most Hellenic Reconstructionist I have had the pleasure to talk and meet, in the US, Greece, Italy, Albania, FYROM, Austria and Turkey, the ones who didn't agree with it simply were not sure. If you are a Hellenic Reconstructionist with a different view then please state so. So that I may learn from your great wisdom.

I just saw this on the feed and thought I'd share my two cents.

I don't think this is a fair argument, because it quite simply is not a logical argument. IF this is an accepted view, then it would be widly accepted on Mysticwicks by the Hellenic recons represented here, as Mysticwicks is one of the largest NeoPagans forums out there. Also, this logic relies heavily on your experiences.... which although are important to you, cannot be applied in an over arching way to include all Recons. especially since you havn't said how many recons you have met. you could have met 5 recons, one in each of the countries you represented, which although might true to what you were saying... would not represent the prevalent views of all Hellenic recons, or Hellenic recon groups worldwide.

[Intonsus]

I just saw this on the feed and thought I'd share my two cents.

I don't think this is a fair argument, because it quite simply is not a logical argument. IF this is an accepted view, then it would be widly accepted on Mysticwicks by the Hellenic recons represented here, as Mysticwicks is one of the largest NeoPagans forums out there. Also, this logic relies heavily on your experiences.... which although are important to you, cannot be applied in an over arching way to include all Recons. especially since you havn't said how many recons you have met. you could have met 5 recons, one in each of the countries you represented, which although might true to what you were saying... would not represent the prevalent views of all Hellenic recons, or Hellenic recon groups worldwide.

Ah, I understand where your comming from. Would it be stupid of me to assume that you are not to familiar with Hellenic Reconstructionism? It's only because only the newest on our path would not be familiar with this concept which has been held by many philosophers of Ancient Greece, this is why most Hellenic Reconstructionist would hold this idea as true.

As for how many others of my path I've met, talked to and listened to, theres 7 countries =P, so at least 7 =P with that logic. But in Greece I met many (20+) and listened to more.

[Fiamma]

I don't know. There's been no other points of view presented, only people complaining about how other beliefs can't be incorporated in the discussion.

We have no idea what the response would be to another point of view because there hasn't been one.

I've already stated I'd be more than willing to entertain discussion about it.

Didn't really seem like there was much point, what with Intonsus informing us of the nature of the gods and all.

However, no one stated that other people's beliefs couldn't be incorporated into the discussion. Can't for the life of me figure out where that was said.

I said that his statements were dismissive of other possible beliefs, YSR likened them to denial, but no one said they couldn't be discussed.

For the record, I believe that the gods are not their myths, but the myths are part of the gods.

I believe that they have gender without being confined by it.

I don't believe that their interactions with people, as described in myth are necessarily literal- certainly not all of them- but that some of the myths could very well have been inspired by actual events. Their interactions with each other and other non-corporeal beings? Don't know. Are they literally a family? Don't know. Literal sex with each other? Don't know. Literal incest? Don't know. In any case, I'm not going to presume to say that they were definitely or definitely not involved in any particular event depicted in myth.

I do believe that myth is more than just metaphors.

I believe that being beyond us and beyond our comprehension does not necessarily mean that some parts of them do not mirror what we know and understand as mortals. Actually, I should turn that around- I think that it's possible that what we know and understand as humans may mirror some parts of the gods.

There. A little bit of belief.

[David19]

It seems that this has come up in a couple threads and I would just like to make it clear to everyone.

The Hellenic Gods, The Theoi, are genderless and beyond genders. Also they are a family, but not like the Human family. More of the Family used in biology, which denotes the organization of Organisms from Species, Genus, Family, Order, Class, Phylum, Kingdom, Domain and Life.

The term Family is simply a metaphor.

Furthermore the myths are all metaphors, whether or not the Theoi have actually engaged in sexual intercourse is unknown to us. These are all metaphors, which is taken in a to literal fashion these days. The metaphors, or myths, were a way to explain the Theoi to the people of Ancient Greece in a way that they could comprehend them, because contrary to popular belief they werent all pure and virtous preists and philosophers.

To recap, the Theoi are genderless and beyond gender, are not literally performing sexual intercourse (to the best of our knowledge), and are deffinatly not involved in incest.

Hopefully, this thread won't devolve into more arguements, but, could I just ask a question about the Theoi/Gods, I know they don't have a corporeal body as far as I'm aware, but, do the Gods have any kind of form at all, like would they be "made" (I'm not sure if that's the right word) in some kind of energy body or body of light (I'm just thinking of the Myth where Zeus revealed himself in his true form to a mortal woman, whose name escapes me at the moment (Semele?), and burns her up, I've always pictured that as some kind of great light). I'm not sure if that was that clear, but, was did any philosophers address it at all?.

[Intonsus]

Fiamma, there it is again, I dont understand why but it seems like we keep misunderstanding each other, maybe my english is poor, though its unlikely that it is poor beyond comprehension.

Or maybe its the way I word things, and when read by another pair of eyes, my original message seems different to those eyes.

Anyway, I believe you just pretty much stated what I said, using a larger quantity of different words.

[Intonsus]

Hopefully, this thread won't devolve into more arguements, but, could I just ask a question about the Theoi/Gods, I know they don't have a corporeal body as far as I'm aware, but, do the Gods have any kind of form at all, like would they be "made" (I'm not sure if that's the right word) in some kind of energy body or body of light (I'm just thinking of the Myth where Zeus revealed himself in his true form to a mortal woman, whose name escapes me at the moment (Semele?), and burns her up, I've always pictured that as some kind of great light). I'm not sure if that was that clear, but, was did any philosophers address it at all?.


David, many Recons have a pantheistic or panentheistic view of the universe. Meaning that the 12 olympians = the universe, which exists because the One (or the All) exists. So if Zeus had any form at all, it would be 1/12th of the universe, according to math.

[David19]

David, many Recons have a pantheistic or panentheistic view of the universe. Meaning that the 12 olympians = the universe, which exists because the One (or the All) exists. So if Zeus had any form at all, it would be 1/12th of the universe, according to math.

This is probably me being dumb or just not getting it (so, I apologise if it's annoying to you), but, I read on YSEE's FAQ (http://www.ysee.gr/index-eng.php?type=english&f=faq#22):


Do you seriously believe that the Gods live on Mount Olympus?
Olympus is indeed the abode of the Olympian Gods. However, it is not the well-known mountain separating Thessaly from Macedonia on whose peak our ancestors built alters, knowing full well that it could not therefore be the Gods' literal abode. There were 18 other mountains also called Olympus in distant places inhabited by Hellenes, from Asia Minor to the colonies in the West.

The true Olympus was and is a Divine place, a celestial 'land' that is bathed in Spiritual Light. In fact the word Olympus is derived from the verb 'Lampo' (I radiate), whose archaic root is probably proto-Pelasgian. The sublime Olympus lies above us, below us and within us. Our Gods are everywhere!

I just thought if the Gods dwell in Olympus, they might have some kind of "form" (obvously, not a body), if they exist on Higher Plane of existence. Again, I hope that made some sense :) (I actually might see if I can ask Lesley or Mano, they are usually excellant at explaining Hellenic concepts in a way I can understand).

[Intonsus]

Personally I believe Olympus is The One; Because much like the Sun, The One "radiates" and much like because the Sun radiates there is Sun rays, the One radiates and because of that there is the Universe.

[David19]

Personally I believe Olympus is The One; Because much like the Sun, The One "radiates" and much like because the Sun radiates there is Sun rays, the One radiates and because of that there is the Universe.

Thanks for the explanation, if I'm understanding right, does The One encompass everything?, like, do the Gods dwell in the One, would we, sitting at our laptops/computers/wherever you are now, be surrounded by The One?, or even everything being The One in some sense (even this chair, computer, etc)?.

[Intonsus]

the gods are everything, the one is everything and beyond everything.

[Fiamma]

Fiamma, there it is again, I dont understand why but it seems like we keep misunderstanding each other, maybe my english is poor, though its unlikely that it is poor beyond comprehension.

There what is? I've made a few posts, what are you referring to specifically?


Or maybe its the way I word things, and when read by another pair of eyes, my original message seems different to those eyes.

Well, your original message definitely reads to me as if you are trying to inform us to some objective, evidence-based nature of the gods.


Anyway, I believe you just pretty much stated what I said, using a larger quantity of different words.

Assuming you're referring to my belief here, most of what I said that I believe conflicts what you originally state.

[*~Amora~*]

I'll tell you what - if there is any other belief that a Recon has about the Gods and is willing to share it, with sources to back it up, I can certainly respect it, if not share it.

With all due respect, Intonsus didn't cite any sources either. Also, the existence of one's personal beliefs don't require cited sources, because the beliefs expressed in the context of discussion are the source. Sources are needed when one is attempting to convince others that those beliefs are correct. :)

[Twinkle]

With all due respect, Intonsus didn't cite any sources either. Also, the existence of one's personal beliefs don't require cited sources, because the beliefs expressed in the context of discussion are the source. Sources are needed when one is attempting to convince others that those beliefs are correct. :)

Hi Amora,

I didn't require sources from Itonsus because it's the most predominate belief in Hellenic Polytheism.

Reasoned belief requires sources. How else would we be able to communicate what we believe and why we believe it? I believe what you are referring to is faith - which is belief in the absence of proof or contrary to proof. Two separate things. Faith is not a part of the Hellenic religion.

ETA: In an effort to be agreeable, a philosophical treatise in the absence of sources would suffice. What I mean byt that is a well written dissertation explaining how all the pieces fit together and still remain coherent and within Hellenic orthopraxy.

[*~Amora~*]

the gods are everything, the one is everything and beyond everything.
Yes, that is pantheism and a form of "soft" polytheism (specifically, polytheism + monism). However, that is not the only religious paradigm Hellenic Recons believe in.

See this from Kansas State: www.k-state.edu/aura/handout1.doc

Personally, based on those descriptors, I suppose I would categorize myself under panentheism (gods interpenetrate all of nature, but has an existence apart from nature as well), animism (I believe some things that are complex enough have a soul, like my car), and a form of "hard" polytheism called henopolytheism (devotion to one pantheon without denying the existence of other gods outside of that set - I believe in, but do not follow, my husband's path in which he is devoted to the Norse gods of his ancestors). With "hard" polytheism described as believing that there are distinct and literal gods and goddesses (or forces) in multiplicity with unique personalities who aren't reducible to one force or being.

I believe those gods/forces are gendered, except for Hemaphrodite who is dual-gendered, and can combine (perhaps not in the way we experience intercourse through flesh) to produce new gods/forces. However, I think this way of combining and birthing new gods is not incest. And I like the analogy of their family being more like a "family" as used in taxonomic rank.

[zombi]

David, many Recons have a pantheistic or panentheistic view of the universe. Meaning that the 12 olympians = the universe, which exists because the One (or the All) exists.
Would you say then that most Hellenic Recons are in fact soft polytheists rather than hard polytheists?

[Tim]

[FONT="Book Antiqua"]Yes, that is pantheism and a form of "soft" polytheism (specifically, polytheism + monism). However, that is not the only religious paradigm Hellenic Recons believe in.

See this from Kansas State: www.k-state.edu/aura/handout1.doc
Excuse me, but where on the document does it say that it is a list of religious paradigms for Hellenic Recons? And I don't believe a list without citations can be used as a valid source for anything.

[Tim]

Would you say then that most Hellenic Recons are in fact soft polytheists rather than hard polytheists?
Show me a valid definition of soft polytheism. In order to answer your question we both need to be talking about the same thing.

[*~Amora~*]

Hi Amora,

I didn't require sources from Itonsus because it's the most predominate belief in Hellenic Polytheism.

Reasoned belief requires sources. How else would we be able to communicate what we believe and why we believe it? I believe what you are referring to is faith - which is belief in the absence of proof or contrary to proof. Two separate things. Faith is not a part of the Hellenic religion.

ETA: In an effort to be agreeable, a philosophical treatise in the absence of sources would suffice. What I mean byt that is a well written dissertation explaining how all the pieces fit together and still remain coherent and within Hellenic orthopraxy.

*nods* I appreciate your approach.

I'm not convinced that the paradigm Itonsus presented is the most predominant one, not short of a statistical survey (that's just me - because I work in clinical research, it's in my nature to be skeptical about statements concerning what is common or not). My point is that it isn't the only paradigm Hellenic Recons believe in (one exception - one person who thinks differently - means it isn't a uniform conception).

As for belief vs. faith, I think we're talking past each other. The way I understand the way you're using the term "belief" is as if it's a "claim", which does need backing.

I'm a little bit confused however with your statement concerning the "pieces fit together and still remain coherent and within Hellenic orthopraxy"... aren't we talking about orthodoxy in this discussion? :)

[Tim]

[FONT="Book Antiqua"]My point is that it isn't the only paradigm Hellenic Recons believe in (one exception - one person who thinks differently - means it isn't a uniform conception).
I believe the phrase used was common conception, not the only or the uniform conception.

[*~Amora~*]

Excuse me, but where on the document does it say that it is a list of religious paradigms for Hellenic Recons? And I don't believe a list without citations can be used as a valid source for anything.
I am not following why it needs to be tailored to Hellenic Recons specifically... These are general religious paradigms concerning polytheism, which can be applied to different polytheistic religions.

As for sources of definitions, I find the one I provided from the Alliance for Understanding of Religious Alternatives there to be quite useful and descriptive. So in the place of a vacuum of terminology, I provided a set. However, I'll happily operate under a useful and mutually agreeable set of definitions of various religious paradigms, and probably cite the set later. ; )

[*~Amora~*]

I believe the phrase used was common conception, not the only or the uniform conception.
Are there any surveys or statistics to verify that it's common?

[Tim]

I am not following why it needs to be tailored to Hellenic Recons specifically... These are general religious paradigms concerning polytheism, which can be applied to different polytheistic religions.

As for sources of definitions, I find the one I provided from the Alliance for Understanding of Religious Alternatives there to be quite useful and descriptive. So in the place of a vacuum of terminology, I provided a set. However, I'll happily operate under a useful and mutually agreeable set of definitions of various religious paradigms, and probably cite the set later.
First off, there is nothing linking anything on that page to Hellenismos. Are you claiming that every religious paradigm is interchangeable with Hellenic Reconstruction?

Second, I don't believe most of those are real labels, and a citation is needed to prove they are established and legitimate terms. "Polytheism 'plus'"? Seriously?

[Tim]

Are there any surveys or statistics to verify that it's common?
Both the Supreme Council of Ethnikoi Hellene and the Societas Hellenica Antiquariorum combined hold the majority of practitioners and supporters for this movement worldwide. This makes their religious opinions and philosophical positions the most common, dominant, and authoritative.

[*~Amora~*]

Show me a valid definition of soft polytheism. In order to answer your question we both need to be talking about the same thing.
What definition of "valid" are you operating under?

I'll propose this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_(statistics)
*cheeky grin* :smile:

[Tim]

What definition of "valid" are you operating under?

I'll propose this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_(statistics)
*cheeky grin* :smile:
Ok, show me an academically recognized definition for soft polytheism from a known and respected source.

[*~Amora~*]

First off, there is nothing linking anything on that page to Hellenismos. Are you claiming that every religious paradigm is interchangeable with Hellenic Reconstruction?

Second, I don't believe most of those are real labels, and a citation is needed to prove they are established and legitimate terms. "Polytheism 'plus'"? Seriously?
1) No, I think that religious paradigms can be used to qualify (as in describe) certain view points applied in Hellenic Reconstruction.

2) As for the validity of the labels, as expressed in another post, I'll happily operate with another set of paradigm descriptors if one is proposed and seems equally useful and mutually agreeable (in other words, I not require a citation if they seem reasonable).

[Tim]

1) No, I think that religious paradigms can be used to qualify (as in describe) certain view points applied in Hellenic Reconstruction.

2) As for the validity of the labels, as expressed in another post, I'll happily operate with another set of paradigm descriptors if one is proposed and seems equally useful and mutually agreeable (in other words, I not require a citation if they seem reasonable).
1) You still provide nothing linking the list to Hellenismos.

2) Your the one who can here to argue Intonsus was wrong. The burden of proof is on you, and you give us made up identifiers for religious paradigms. Prove your point.

[*~Amora~*]

Ok, show me an academically recognized definition for soft polytheism from a known and respected source.
Awwwe, you're no fun. Unfortunately, I don't have time tonight to do a formal literature review, in the meantime I'll just take a stab with this from www.reference.com:


Theological variations
The so called Hard Polytheists believe that gods are distinct and separate beings with separate personalities. Hard polytheists reject the idea that "all gods are One" or that they are manifestations or facets of a universal life force. In that, their point of view can be contrasted with Soft Polytheists, who believe that gods may be part of a unifying principle such as The One of Platonism and Neoplatonism and also Panentheism. The so called Hard Polytheism as seen in mythology, shows the gods as "independent agents" who can be, and often are, in conflict with one another, and are always are subject to fate. Soft Polytheists, however, see that they are subject to a Divine Order, that represents an implicit form of divine unity.
A structured formulation of a "underlying" divine unity, an unifying principle, came with Philosophy, in particular with Platonism and Neoplatonism. This divine unity implies a single personal divine being (but not equivalent to the monotheistic deity of Abrahamic religions) and regards gods as parts of the whole, but not as "illusory" "aspects", "facets" or "masks" of The One. Neoplatonism openly accepts and defends the principle of a plurality of distinct gods as an 'unfolding into light' of the divine unity represented by The One.

http://www.reference.com/browse/Soft+polytheism

[*~Amora~*]

1) You still provide nothing linking the list to Hellenismos.

2) Your the one who can here to argue Intonsus was wrong. The burden of proof is on you, and you give us made up identifiers for religious paradigms. Prove your point.

*amused* 1) I don't see why I have to.
2) Not exactly. It's true I'm suggesting that there are other paradigms/labels/conceptions, but more importantly, I'm also asking for statistical backing for the claim that his/hers the most common conception.

[Tim]

Awwwe, you're no fun. Unfortunately, I don't have time tonight to do a formal literature review, in the meantime I'll just take a stab with this from www.reference.com:



http://www.reference.com/browse/Soft+polytheism
Sorry, all reference.com has is a page scrape of a Wikipedia article that makes uncited statements about soft polytheism. This is not an academically recognized definition for soft polytheism from a known and respected source. Sorry. Please try again.

[Tim]

*amused* 1) I don't see why I have to.
2) Not exactly. It's true I'm suggesting that there are other paradigms/labels/conceptions, but more importantly, I'm also asking for statistical backing for the claim that his/hers the most common conception.
Amora, you have nothing to prove the contrary except a made up list. As already stated, the Supreme Council of Ethnikoi Hellene and the Societas Hellenica Antiquariorum combined hold the majority of practitioners and supporters for this movement worldwide. This makes their religious opinions and philosophical positions the most common, dominant, and authoritative. If you argue in circles, just to argue, they will shut this thread down too.

[*~Amora~*]

Both the Supreme Council of Ethnikoi Hellene and the Societas Hellenica Antiquariorum combined hold the majority of practitioners and supporters for this movement worldwide. This makes their religious opinions and philosophical positions the most common, dominant, and authoritative.
Ok, now we're getting somewhere! :uhhuhuh: How many people follow Supreme Council of Ethnikoi Hellene and the Societas Hellenica Antiquariorum compared to all of the Hellenic Polytheist Recons? What are their numbers? Is there a source for their judgement on this paradigm? What definition do they follow?

[Tim]

Ok, now we're getting somewhere! :uhhuhuh: How many people follow Supreme Council of Ethnikoi Hellene and the Societas Hellenica Antiquariorum compared to all of the Hellenic Polytheist Recons? What are their numbers? Is there a source for their judgement on this paradigm? What definition do they follow?
You telling me you have never been on their site? Here's the link to their FAQ: http://ysee.gr/index-eng.php?type=english&f=faq

The last I read they had over 2,000 practicing members, and over 100,000 contributing official supporters. I'm sure I can get up to date numbers for you... just like I verified their position on same-sex marriage.

[*~Amora~*]

You telling me you have never been on their site? Here's the link to their FAQ: http://ysee.gr/index-eng.php?type=english&f=faq

The last I read they had over 2,000 practicing members, and over 100,000 contributing official supporters. I'm sure I can get up to date numbers for you... just like I verified their position on same-sex marriage.

That would be great! And a comparison with how many Hellenic Polytheist Recons there are worldwide would be fabulous for fueling this discourse. :)

[Tim]

That would be great! And a comparison with how many Hellenic Polytheist Recons there are worldwide would be fabulous for fueling this discourse. :)
What would be great is if you provided something of substance which to discuss. All you are being is argumentative, trying to poke holes in what Intonsus stated, and claiming he has to be wrong with nothing of substance to back it up. For all the talk of wanting statistical data, you use a list of mostly made up phrases to identify religious paradigms.

[*~Amora~*]

What would be great is if you provided something of substance which to discuss. All you are being is argumentative, trying to poke holes in what Intonsus stated, and claiming he has to be wrong with nothing of substance to back it up. For all the talk of wanting statistical data, you use a list of mostly made up phrases to identify religious paradigms.
I think we're talking in circles and no one is convincing anyone of anything.

But this was fun. Let's agree to disagree? :)

[Tim]

I think we're talking in circles and no one is convincing anyone of anything.

But this was fun. Let's agree to disagree? :)
We are talking in circles because you made statements with nothing to back it up. Intonsus can prove that at least 2,000 practitioners of Hellenismos share his cosmology, you can't even provide a list of legitimate terms.

[*~Amora~*]

We are talking in circles because you made statements with nothing to back it up. Intonsus can prove that at least 2,000 practitioners of Hellenismos share his cosmology, you can't even provide a list of legitimate terms.
Not at the moment, like I said, I lack the time tonight. Speaking of which, I'll make this last statement before I have to go...

The list of terms wasn't the crux of my point. My point was that Intonsus hasn't backed up his claim. A number of practitioners sharing a paradigm doesn't back up the claim that it's the most common conception, unless there's a ratio (that is a comparison to the number of practitioners world wide), which is why we're talking in circles.

[evergreen]

I don't consider myself a Hellenic recon, but I do follow the Greek gods. This presented a very interesting belief, some points that I agree on, such as the Gods and their relation to myths.

However, in my personal experience (very limited), the Gods and Goddess were not genderless. This is based on faith and my own feelings, of course, which apparently has no standing in this discussion. I can't cite anything or give you sources. But then, can religion ever do that?

I'm not sure one group such as the Supreme Council of Ethnikoi Hellene and the Societas Hellenica Antiquariorum can define what every single Hellenic recon believes and follows. Maybe they present the most accurate form of what was present in Ancient Greece, but views differ.

I don't think pushing those beliefs onto someone because many view they are right is the best thing to do.

[Tim]

[FONT="Book Antiqua"]Not at the moment, like I said, I lack the time tonight.
Maybe next time come prepared to class.


Anyway, the list of terms wasn't the crux of my point. My point was that Intonsus hasn't backed up his claim. A number of practitioners sharing a paradigm doesn't back up the claim that it's the most common conception, unless there's a ratio (that is a comparison to the number of practitioners world wide), which is why we're talking in circles.
We don't need statistical data in the absence of any substantial alternative. If there was other groups as large, or several 100 small groups, that provided alternatives then we have something to run data on. Right now we have the thousands linked to these two large groups, and no evidence of any substantial anything else. Heck, even Hellenion can't have anymore than 50-100 based on their financials, and that's generously assuming a large number of unreported free memberships, and assumes they are all are actually Recon (which we don't know for sure since membership is open to anyone). Even if every other practitioner of Hellenismos had a different perception of the Gods, and that number counterbalanced YSEE, YSEE's would still be the most common, dominant, and authoritative because there would be no dominant alternative.

[Tim]

This is based on faith and my own feelings, of course, which apparently has no standing in this discussion.
That's true. Faith is not an aspect of the Hellenic Religion.

[~Elise~]

Alright, this is going nowhere fast except in circles.