Belief

[Twinkle]

There are many Recons who say that belief is not a requirement for Hellenismos - that all one needs to do is worship, do a, b, and c and the reciprocal relationship will occur whether one actually believes in the Gods or not.

Therefore, an atheist can be perfectly at home within Hellenismos.

Any thoughts on that?

[BryonMorrigan]

There are many Recons who say that belief is not a requirement for Hellenismos - that all one needs to do is worship, do a, b, and c and the reciprocal relationship will occur whether one actually believes in the Gods or not.

Therefore, an atheist can be perfectly at home within Hellenismos.

Any thoughts on that?

Well, there were certainly ancients who didn't believe in the Gods, who nevertheless were quite devout in their practice. My personal belief is that the Gods want recognition, rather than belief... (For example, I believe that Mars is quite pleased with the statue of him standing outside of the Capitol building in Washington D.C., even if it was not likely erected due to belief in his existence...)

[Son of Goddess]

I agree. The Gods do not benefit from belief, we do. It comforts us in this massive universe. The ancients would curse the Gods just as easily as praise Them, but nothing was effective until sacrifice was made. Actions speak louder than thoughts.

[Philosophia]

There are many Recons who say that belief is not a requirement for Hellenismos - that all one needs to do is worship, do a, b, and c and the reciprocal relationship will occur whether one actually believes in the Gods or not.

Therefore, an atheist can be perfectly at home within Hellenismos.

Any thoughts on that?

I understand that many ancients probably believed in such but, for myself, I don't see a reason to worship if you don't have belief. In the past, I could assume it is more socially acceptable to do the religious ceremonies but, in this modern age, I don't understand why the need if there is no belief.

[Kadynas]

I agree with Philosophia on this. :) Why practice a religion if you don't believe in the gods? I guess there's something to be said for the value of symbolism, but for me that wouldn't be enough.

But I do think that, even though most of us may have a strong belief in the gods, that doesn't mean we have to believe the same exact things *about* the gods. There is room for different theological viewpoints within Hellenismos. For instance, polytheism is pretty much assumed for the most part, but hard or soft varies from individual to individual. Some may think that the gods created the universe, others may think that all the creation myths are simply symbolic, etc., etc.

So while they may be certain things that most of us can agree upon, it doesn't mean we all have to see every issue exactly the same in order to share this religion. In fact, I think that's at the heart of a lot of the in-fighting in many different Pagan paths and religions: the tension inherent in encompassing multiple viewpoints. It can be a strength and a weakness at times. ;)

Great thought-provoking question. :)

[BryonMorrigan]

I agree with Philosophia on this. :) Why practice a religion if you don't believe in the gods? I guess there's something to be said for the value of symbolism, but for me that wouldn't be enough.

Well, I think the primary issue Twinkle brought up was more from a historical angle than a contemporary one. I doubt that many people would choose to follow a Polytheist/Pagan religion just for the ritual and symbolism in this day and age, when we are an oppressed minority. It'd be like if someone decided to "become" a gay man, solely because he liked the party atmosphere of gay clubbing, even though he was actually heterosexual.

I can, however, think of instances where it could occur. Say, for example, that your spouse is a devout Hellenic Reconstructionist. You, on the other hand, are an Atheist. You have children, and your spouse wants to raise them in the religion. I could see the "you" in this example essentially going along with being a Hellenic Polytheist for the sake of familial unity. Gods above, there certainly are a lot of Christian families where that seems to happen!


Some may think that the gods created the universe, others may think that all the creation myths are simply symbolic, etc., etc.

I tend to take the view of many Romans: That the majority of the mythical stories of the Gods doing "this" or "that" are merely imports from the Greeks, and are less about the Gods than they are about humanity. You Greeks are so "dramatic," with your "Soap Operas on Mount Olympus" stories. ;) The Gods just "are."

[androgino]

I agree with Bryon about Mars and the statue even if it was not done by Polytheists who worship him.

Hmm. I wonder now if a nonbeliever in the Theoi reciting a poem about a deity and pouring a libation to the deity would even be eusebeia?


You Greeks are so "dramatic," with your "Soap Operas on Mount Olympus" stories. ;) The Gods just "are."

Pffft.. Roman. =p

[Philosophia]

I can, however, think of instances where it could occur. Say, for example, that your spouse is a devout Hellenic Reconstructionist. You, on the other hand, are an Atheist. You have children, and your spouse wants to raise them in the religion. I could see the "you" in this example essentially going along with being a Hellenic Polytheist for the sake of familial unity. Gods above, there certainly are a lot of Christian families where that seems to happen!

But would you call yourself an Hellenic Reconstructionist?

[BryonMorrigan]

Pffft.. Roman. =p

http://www.panhistoria.com/Stacks/Novels/Character_Homes/HomeImages/T11589.gif

[Twinkle]

For me, belief is essential. If I do not believe in the Gods, for me to worship them would be rather meaningless.

Having said that - I can see that through the historical record, belief is not required...only practice.

I think an Atheist can do quite well within Hellenismos.

[AingealOreiad]

I agree with you Twinkle--in ancient times practice was what was important because the polis was so incredibly important. Today however, it's belief that brings us to the religions we practice, and without it, what's really the point? I can see an atheist or agnostic worshiping with his/her family for the sake of the oikos and family togetherness (it's why I celebrate Christmas with my family), but that's pretty much it.

[androgino]

I agree with you Twinkle--in ancient times practice was what was important because the polis was so incredibly important. Today however, it's belief that brings us to the religions we practice, and without it, what's really the point? I can see an atheist or agnostic worshiping with his/her family for the sake of the oikos and family togetherness (it's why I celebrate Christmas with my family), but that's pretty much it.

I have been reading good books by scholars of Greek religion and this is something I learned about ancient Greek religion; the polis was very important and one's religion was the religion of the polis. It was a no no to disregard the traditions (practices, holy days, etc.) passed down by the ancestors.

Today though most of us (if not all) who identify as Hellenic Reconstructionists, which is really a label used outside of Hellas, do not actually live in any of the historical city-states. I myself was not born in Athenai, Arkadia, nor any other place but southeastern Texas. Something that has been on my mind is that if a person is going to reconstruct ancient Hellenic religion as best as they could, then shouldn't they learn whatever they can about the religion of a particular polis and reconstruct it?

From what I have observed online many Hellenes apparently do not select a specific historical pantheon nor base their practices on what they have inquired into regarding the practices that were done in a particular location. To me the idea of trying to reconstruct the religion of a polis is very fascinating but there are some problems. My favorite god is Hermes and for me the most interesting polis is Arkadia. If I were to learn everything about the Arkadian Hermes then would I have to forget everything else I have learned about him from other city-states? Perhaps I could just look to the beliefs of Hermes from other city-states to add in more details?

The Celtic Reconstructionists each reconstruct the religion of a particular people; Irish, Scots, Gauls, etc. but I do not see much of anything like this (so far) in Hellenismos. Do we just select the things we like from various city-states and make our religion that way?

[David19]

I understand that many ancients probably believed in such but, for myself, I don't see a reason to worship if you don't have belief. In the past, I could assume it is more socially acceptable to do the religious ceremonies but, in this modern age, I don't understand why the need if there is no belief.


I agree with Philosophia on this. :) Why practice a religion if you don't believe in the gods? I guess there's something to be said for the value of symbolism, but for me that wouldn't be enough.

But I do think that, even though most of us may have a strong belief in the gods, that doesn't mean we have to believe the same exact things *about* the gods. There is room for different theological viewpoints within Hellenismos. For instance, polytheism is pretty much assumed for the most part, but hard or soft varies from individual to individual. Some may think that the gods created the universe, others may think that all the creation myths are simply symbolic, etc., etc.

So while they may be certain things that most of us can agree upon, it doesn't mean we all have to see every issue exactly the same in order to share this religion. In fact, I think that's at the heart of a lot of the in-fighting in many different Pagan paths and religions: the tension inherent in encompassing multiple viewpoints. It can be a strength and a weakness at times. ;)

Great thought-provoking question. :)


For me, belief is essential. If I do not believe in the Gods, for me to worship them would be rather meaningless.

Having said that - I can see that through the historical record, belief is not required...only practice.

I think an Atheist can do quite well within Hellenismos.

I agree with you 3, for myself, I don't really understand why you'd follow a path, if you didn't believe in it, to begin with, like if you don't believe in Zeus, Hera, Apollo, as real Gods, what's the point in worshipping them?, you may as well just worship yourself. That's just my opinion on the matter.

Interestingly enough, I made a post about this (http://forum.hellenistai.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=274) on another forum about a very similar/related issue which got a lot of very interesting and helpful responses.

[Son of Goddess]

I think in ancient times there was no concept of "belief" and thus it didn't affect one's daily duties to their family and community. It didn't matter if you believed that the Gods existed, because the Gods just simply existed, it wasn't a questionable idea but rather a fact of life. The Gods just were, are, and will be; I think the ancients understood this and thus were quite unfamiliar with what we perceive to be "belief".

[David19]

I think in ancient times there was no concept of "belief" and thus it didn't affect one's daily duties to their family and community. It didn't matter if you believed that the Gods existed, because the Gods just simply existed, it wasn't a questionable idea but rather a fact of life. The Gods just were, are, and will be; I think the ancients understood this and thus were quite unfamiliar with what we perceive to be "belief".

I can understand that Gods were seen as a fact of life, but, I've also read that there were some groups or individuals who did doubt the existence of Gods, maybe they weren't outright Atheists, more Agnostics or something, right now, I can't remember where I read this, I'll try and find something a bit later.

[*~Amora~*]

There are many Recons who say that belief is not a requirement for Hellenismos - that all one needs to do is worship, do a, b, and c and the reciprocal relationship will occur whether one actually believes in the Gods or not.

Therefore, an atheist can be perfectly at home within Hellenismos.

Any thoughts on that?

I'm not sure what you mean by "a requirement for Hellenismos". Are you asking about whether individuals can claim that they follow Hellenismos, or whether belief is a requirement for the movement of Hellenismos at large? I >think< you mean for the individual, but could you clarify?"

[Tim]

Well, I think the primary issue Twinkle brought up was more from a historical angle than a contemporary one. I doubt that many people would choose to follow a Polytheist/Pagan religion just for the ritual and symbolism in this day and age, when we are an oppressed minority. It'd be like if someone decided to "become" a gay man, solely because he liked the party atmosphere of gay clubbing, even though he was actually heterosexual.
I have no idea if Twinkle was referring to anyone specifically, but I do know that she has some of the same acquaintances that I do who are atheistic or complete atheists. Hellenismos, as many ancient religions, is concerned with correct practice. not correct belief. These orthopraxies were NOT just about ritualism (which so many Neopagans seem overly fixated on, almost denying other accepts of religion and spirituality), but were focused on issues of family, cultural integrity, the transmission of tradition and ethical systems among other things. It is living life in accord with specific ideals and principles, rather than focusing wholly on ritual and/or cosmology and/or theological theory. What these atheists find in Hellenismos is a religion without negative judgments about their disbelief (or presumably without negative judgments) that brings happiness and contentment within a system that does not have them needing to believe without proof. The observations of religions like Hellenismos are reasoned, natural and provable... therefore, there is no difference between the opinion that the Gods are entities or metaphors because both opinions are equally true and equally false.

[David19]

I have no idea if Twinkle was referring to anyone specifically, but I do know that she has some of the same acquaintances that I do who are atheistic or complete atheists. Hellenismos, as many ancient religions, is concerned with correct practice. not correct belief. These orthopraxies were NOT just about ritualism (which so many Neopagans seem overly fixated on, almost denying other accepts of religion and spirituality), but were focused on issues of family, cultural integrity, the transmission of tradition and ethical systems among other things. It is living life in accord with specific ideals and principles, rather than focusing wholly on ritual and/or cosmology and/or theological theory. What these atheists find in Hellenismos is a religion without negative judgments about their disbelief (or presumably without negative judgments) that brings happiness and contentment within a system that does not have them needing to believe without proof. The observations of religions like Hellenismos are reasoned, natural and provable... therefore, there is no difference between the opinion that the Gods are entities or metaphors because both opinions are equally true and equally false.

I actually asked about the Orthodoxy vs. Orthoproxy thing on another forum (http://forum.hellenistai.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=274), and, what I learnt was, it's a modern invention that the ancient Hellenes didn't care about belief. If someone thinks and acts in the right manner, they'll perform the rites correctly too, or, as Lesley said better than myself:


orthodoxia and orthopraxia are co-existent and co-reliant on one another. You cannot have orthopraxia without orthodoxia (correct thought/action). If one thinks and acts in the right manner then one will naturally practice one's religious rites in the right manner. This is the goal of philosophy on the most pragmatic level...teaching us to think correctly.

Besides, wasn't being an Atheist illegal in ancient Hellas, punishable by death? I don't think Internet Infidels would do well.

[Tim]

I don't think I actually disagree with that specific quote. If you are following a specific lifestyle, then that is going to limit the options of what are acceptable beliefs. The difference between an orthopraxy and an orthodoxy is that in an orthopraxy the weight is placed on correct practice, while in an orthodoxy the weight is placed on correct belief.

Christianity is the easiest to make this comparison. There is within Christianity a very strict set of core beliefs... one god, the father almighty, creator of heaven and earth, and all that jazz... you have to accept the divinity of Jesus and that he died for our sins and the salvation of our souls. With that, there is an idea that if one holds the correct belief they will then be compelled to correct action, and correct action only comes from correct belief.

In an orthopraxy, the reverse is true. the judgment is not made on what a person believes. It is correct practice that guides a person to correct belief, and since no one can know the whole of the Truth, correct practice guides us throughout our life.

I hate to debate a person's opinion who is not here to defend it, and having talked to Lesley in the past she sometimes is a little vague and diplomatic in her responses, but... She replied to you with the question, "Why would one want to belong to a religion when you don't believe in the Gods?" Ok... well then tell me what the correct belief in the afterlife? Is it reincarnation? Is there punishment? Are we shades, mere shadows of our former selves? There is no/was no single correct answer that was considered canon. Hellenismos has no firm, absolute, or rigid doctrine or dogma.

[Tim]

Besides, wasn't being an Atheist illegal in ancient Hellas, punishable by death? I don't think Internet Infidels would do well.
What was illegal was preaching against religious obligation or introducing foreign Gods which infringed on correct practice. You are confusing the modern concept with the ancient one. Christians were labeled atheists because of preaching against religious obligation and introducing a foreign God which infringed on correct practice. A practicing Hellenic Polytheist who is an atheist is not really denying the existence of the Gods, they are interpreting their nature differently... more impersonal force than spiritual entity.

[Twinkle]

I don't think I actually disagree with that specific quote. If you are following a specific lifestyle, then that is going to limit the options of what are acceptable beliefs. The difference between an orthopraxy and an orthodoxy is that in an orthopraxy the weight is placed on correct practice, while in an orthodoxy the weight is placed on correct belief.

Christianity is the easiest to make this comparison. There is within Christianity a very strict set of core beliefs... one god, the father almighty, creator of heaven and earth, and all that jazz... you have to accept the divinity of Jesus and that he died for our sins and the salvation of our souls. With that, there is an idea that if one holds the correct belief they will then be compelled to correct action, and correct action only comes from correct belief.

In an orthopraxy, the reverse is true. the judgment is not made on what a person believes. It is correct practice that guides a person to correct belief, and since no one can know the whole of the Truth, correct practice guides us throughout our life.

I hate to debate a person's opinion who is not here to defend it, and having talked to Lesley in the past she sometimes is a little vague and diplomatic in her responses, but... She replied to you with the question, "Why would one want to belong to a religion when you don't believe in the Gods?" Ok... well then tell me what the correct belief in the afterlife? Is it reincarnation? Is there punishment? Are we shades, mere shadows of our former selves? There is no/was no single correct answer that was considered canon. Hellenismos has no firm, absolute, or rigid doctrine or dogma.


I quoted this in its entirety because I think it's awesome -

So yeah....The Gods as Jungian archetypes would be out in terms of correct beliefs.

I mean, there's more to orthopraxy than correct ritual structure - it's always been living the worldview of the ancients.


For some reason people think that if you know how to pour a libation and practice Traditionally - that you can believe anything you want and still be considered a Reconstructionist.

[David19]

I don't think I actually disagree with that specific quote. If you are following a specific lifestyle, then that is going to limit the options of what are acceptable beliefs. The difference between an orthopraxy and an orthodoxy is that in an orthopraxy the weight is placed on correct practice, while in an orthodoxy the weight is placed on correct belief.

Christianity is the easiest to make this comparison. There is within Christianity a very strict set of core beliefs... one god, the father almighty, creator of heaven and earth, and all that jazz... you have to accept the divinity of Jesus and that he died for our sins and the salvation of our souls. With that, there is an idea that if one holds the correct belief they will then be compelled to correct action, and correct action only comes from correct belief.

In an orthopraxy, the reverse is true. the judgment is not made on what a person believes. It is correct practice that guides a person to correct belief, and since no one can know the whole of the Truth, correct practice guides us throughout our life.

I'd agree with that, from what I've learnt about Hellenismos, but, I also don't think it's as clear cut as saying "Hellenismos is all about right practice", or "we're not about orthodoxy", it's just, IMO anyway, if you're practicing a religion properly, you will hold the right beliefs, which should lead to the right practices, just, again IMO, going through the motions of a Hellenic ritual, while believing Cthulhu is part of the Olympians, isn't really being true to the religion.

I think there's a parallel with Judaism, 'cause, if you go to a religious Jew, and tell them, "beliefs are what's more important", they'd probably give you a crazy look, as both are important (e.g. someone might chant the Shema as much as they want, but, if they're doing it, while taking Mass, and bowing towards Mecca, invoking The Goddess, they wouldn't really be a Jew).

Anyway, I'm not sure if that made any sense, but, I do agree with what you were saying.


What was illegal was preaching against religious obligation or introducing foreign Gods which infringed on correct practice. You are confusing the modern concept with the ancient one. Christians were labeled atheists because of preaching against religious obligation and introducing a foreign God which infringed on correct practice. A practicing Hellenic Polytheist who is an atheist is not really denying the existence of the Gods, they are interpreting their nature differently... more impersonal force than spiritual entity.

What about Atheists such as Richard Dawkins (I know you wouldn't get many running around in the ancient world, but, how would Atheists like him be treated).

[David19]

I quoted this in its entirety because I think it's awesome -

So yeah....The Gods as Jungian archetypes would be out in terms of correct beliefs.

I mean, there's more to orthopraxy than correct ritual structure - it's always been living the worldview of the ancients.


For some reason people think that if you know how to pour a libation and practice Traditionally - that you can believe anything you want and still be considered a Reconstructionist.

That's what I thought, 'cause, it's not really being honest with yourself, or being true to a religion, if you keep bringing in completely unrelated elements, e.g. doing a traditional Hellenic altar setup, while placing it in the direction of Mecca, and praying to Allah 5 times a day, and casting a circle while doing it, it just wouldn't be right.

[Twinkle]

Well, even if you are practicing correctly - orthopraxy (as Tim stated earlier) will rule out a number of beliefs that are in contradiction with Hellenismos.

It's true that only the intellectually dishonest will claim a Title that doesn't fit.

What's also true is that most of them know it, but refuse to acknowledge it - because being Recon (for some) has so much more clout than being eclectic, or whatever.

It's really silly.

[BryonMorrigan]

Well, even if you are practicing correctly - orthopraxy (as Tim stated earlier) will rule out a number of beliefs that are in contradiction with Hellenismos.

It's true that only the intellectually dishonest will claim a Title that doesn't fit.

What's also true is that most of them know it, but refuse to acknowledge it - because being Recon (for some) has so much more clout than being eclectic, or whatever.

It's really silly.

I now bestow upon you, Twinkle...the title of "Force Recon." Enjoy! :)

http://www.blackinkapparel.com/upload_images/19_MT-502%20Force%20Recon.gif

Sincerely,

Bryon "Not a Recon" Morrigan

[Tim]

it's just, IMO anyway, if you're practicing a religion properly, you will hold the right beliefs, which should lead to the right practices, just, again IMO, going through the motions of a Hellenic ritual, while believing Cthulhu is part of the Olympians, isn't really being true to the religion.
Ultimately, your opinion is wrong, but as Twinkle stated if you are practicing correctly it will rule out a number of beliefs that are in contradiction with Hellenismos. You simply cannot incorporate Cthulhu into the religion and still be practicing correctly.

You absolutly cannot say that there is one version of mythical cannon, metaphysical understanding, or theological truth. If you think there is, please share it.

An example of and orthodoxy is the Roman Catholic Church. Let's take a question like (in the spirit of Halloween), "Are there ghosts?" If you ask a Roman Catholic, there is only one correct answer. "No." Now, there are Catholics who believe is ghosts, but it is a form of heresy. The "truth" (as stated by the Church) is that anything that appears to be ghostly activity is actually demonic and a deception. Hellenismos makes no such definitive statement on "supernatural" activity.

[David19]

Ultimately, your opinion is wrong, but as Twinkle stated if you are practicing correctly it will rule out a number of beliefs that are in contradiction with Hellenismos. You simply cannot incorporate Cthulhu into the religion and still be practicing correctly.

You absolutly cannot say that there is one version of mythical cannon, metaphysical understanding, or theological truth. If you think there is, please share it.

I never said there was, although, you still didn't answer how an Atheist like Richard Dawkins, and many others, would fare under a Hellenic society, people that fight for the seperation of religion (not just Christianity) and State.


An example of and orthodoxy is the Roman Catholic Church. Let's take a question like (in the spirit of Halloween), "Are there ghosts?" If you ask a Roman Catholic, there is only one correct answer. "No." Now, there are Catholics who believe is ghosts, but it is a form of heresy. The "truth" (as stated by the Church) is that anything that appears to be ghostly activity is actually demonic and a deception. Hellenismos makes no such definitive statement on "supernatural" activity.

From what I've heard, the Catholic Church just think ghosts are a harmless superstition, and do not mind people believing in them. Also, in the Middle Ages, the Church believed ghosts could return from Purgatory, for unfinished business, or, perhaps, other reasons, etc.

[Tobias]

This issue of orthopraxis vs. orthodoxy has been a big problem with me since encountering Hellenism. For starters, my interest comes from my belief. I have encountered certain deities who identify themselves as members of the Greek pantheon. I cannot fathom why anyone would want to follow the actions and rituals of the religion without having any belief in the Gods themselves.

My only interest is to learn more about the Gods. If this leads me to certain actions and/or rituals that They desire of me, then "correct action" comes secondary to my belief in Them. Doing stuff for Them without believing in Them seems rather backwards. Doing stuff for the sole reward of gaining the approval of other Hellenic Recons... also seems pointless. :toofless:


But I suppose most religions have their atheistic/humanistic sides. In Christianity, many if not most followers are more concerned with doing good for themselves, others, and society than they are in actually pleasing a deity that they have a relationship with. God is pleased if you are a model citizen...

And while most of us are keenly aware of the list of beliefs that exclude us from being good Christians, the religion in actual practice is all about what you do and what you don't do. Even when it comes to what you believe; the average Christian has to work hard at protecting his or her beliefs. You must not study Evolution, other religions, or listen to Liberals. All information has to be filtered through "Christian" authorities who will teach on these subjects (while completely butchering the facts).

What part of the Right Wing Christian Coalition's platform has anything to do with belief? They think that if they can force everybody in the country to just do the right things (no gays, no abortion, no fornication), then God will be pleased and the country blessed!

So while Christianity does have a long list of doctrines to believe (which changes quite drastically from denomination to denomination), it's really more about doing. Hellenism may not have a set doctrine, but still it is impossible to practice without believing anything about it. At a minimum, you have to believe that the actions you do are beneficial in some way or another.

I see belief and action completely intertwined. What we believe in, we act upon (hopefully!)

[Tim]

You have encountered certain deities who identify themselves to you personally as members of the Greek pantheon?

If your practice is based on intuition and feeling rather than historic traditions, writings, history and mythology then great for you.

I should remind you that the Specific Paths Forums is not a place for debate. So, if you are not looking to have your opinions discussed in relation to the Hellenic Recon POV, and are not "doing stuff for the sole reward of gaining the approval of other Hellenic Recons" you should probably be aware of that because if the Great Pumpkin is telling you he is a member of the Greek pantheon, from the Hellenic Recon POV you are wrong. It is though a perfect example for David19 how orthopraxy guides correct belief.

I also think some of you guys have a problem understanding the definition of orthodoxy... it does not simply mean an individual has belief or faith in something/anything, it means correct belief or faith. In which case, it would still be wrong using intuition and feeling to guide personal practice.

[Twinkle]

Tim's right on this one. Orthodoxy is about "correct belief". Even a Christian who views things outside the scope of the Bible would be considered a heretic because their views go outside the doctrine.

Gnosis, belief, etc are all wonderful things, but not requirements for Hellenismos. So if you believe in the Gods and believe that no offerings are required for them because you just "feel that way", or "believe it to be true based on what has been revealed to you by your gnosis", then you would not be practicing Hellenismos.

Correct practice would rule out the belief that no offerings are required.

[Tobias]

As a Christian, I could believe that I'm gay, that I was born gay and will always be gay; but as long as I don't practice homosexuality things are a-okay.

Most Hellenists I know admit that they don't practice animal sacrifice. Doesn't that prohibit them from being authentic? Isn't this a situation where belief over rides "correct action"?


I'm just saying that the lines are a bit blurry, that's all.

[Twinkle]

It's only blurry if one is deliberately trying to make it blurry.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with animal sacrifice. What stops most of us from doing it is lacking the ability to raise the animal traditionally in order to have it be an acceptable sacrifice.

So, we adapt our sacrifice while still keeping it orthopraxic.

The reasoning behind the sacrifice is still the same, the ritual itself is still authentic, and the sharing of the sacrifice is the same.

So no....there is nothing blurry about it - unless one just wants to argue for the sake of arguing.

[Seren_]

I should remind you that the Specific Paths Forums is not a place for debate. So, if you are not looking to have your opinions discussed in relation to the Hellenic Recon POV, and are not "doing stuff for the sole reward of gaining the approval of other Hellenic Recons" you should probably be aware of that because if the Great Pumpkin is telling you he is a member of the Greek pantheon, from the Hellenic Recon POV you are wrong. It is though a perfect example for David19 how orthopraxy guides correct belief.

*Guide hat on* With that in mind, perhaps it would be a good idea to continue this in the Theology and Philosophy section? I'm sure the thread can be split by an admin.

[Tobias]

So no....there is nothing blurry about it - unless one just wants to argue for the sake of arguing.


Well, it's been blurry for me ever since I first ran into it, and is still blurry today. I'm sorry. Not trying to pick a fight. Just hoping that something new would turn up in a discussion so I could get past this point.


Are you offended when I say, "Doing stuff for the sole reward of gaining the approval of other Hellenic Recons... also seems pointless."? I don't mean it as a slam against anyone. Really.

Take a close look at religion today. In America, most people try to keep some semblance of Christianity, not to please God necessarily -- but to please other Christians. It's not the fear of hell that drives them, but of witch hunts and inquisitions. There are real rewards for doing things the Christian way, and punishments for doing things otherwise.

Islam is much much worse. People practice the religion because they simply have to. I've heard that they have funerals for family members that convert to Christianity. Their religion is so embedded into their culture and lifestyle, that to do otherwise is unthinkable.

Back in the day, I imagine Hellenism was much the same. Perhaps not as bad as Islam, but certainly more so than what we experience with Christianity. It was social suicide to not participate in the rituals and worship of the Gods. No matter if you believed in them or not. So while it may be correct to say that going through the actions is all that was required, I'm not sure that is the part of the religion we should be focusing upon.

I could be wrong though. But my reasoning of the situation keeps me from being motivated to do things "the right way".

[Tim]

Tobias,

The purpose of sacrifice is not killing an animal, it is the sharing of a communal meal with the Gods. In fact there is a certain amount of blood guilt involved. That is Greek Religion 101. Maybe the reason it is blurring to you is that you only have tidbits of information that you picked up from here and there, and never actually took the time to research the religion. Hellenismos.us has a large recommended reading list... two actually... one for the newbie and one for those more advanced. Taking time to educate yourself more thoroughly should clear up your confusion. That is... if clearing up your confusion is really what you want to do.

[Erebos]

If I was an atheist, I don't think I would bother to practice a religion, but I can't speak for anyone else. I don't know if I could be considered a reconstructionist either, but I do follow the Hellenic gods and honor them in a fairly traditional manner.

If I'm not mistaken, othopraxy was important when it came to state sacrifices, so that everyone honored the gods for the sake of the community by participating in the public sacrifices. Whether a person believed in or honored the gods in their private life wasn't the concern of the polis. It only became an issue if a person didn't participate in the public sacrifices.

I think orthopraxy is important for the sake of tradition, but there are no more public sacrifices that people are obligated to participate in, so worship is a private matter. I would think that a person wouldn't bother to worship deities they didn't believe in if they weren't obligated to by the state, but maybe it does something for them that I'm not aware of.

[Twinkle]

There is the reasoning that correct action provides correct reaction.

So therefore, even if one doesn't *believe*, just doing the action itself will bring the benefits.

Here is where I think an atheist could do well.

I do think that there's really no point unless one has some belief in Divinity - but because we are an orthopraxy - it's not a bone of contention within the religion and not something that any Recon in my community would argue about.

It's about what we *do*, not what we *believe* (or even disbelieve).