Interesting question
Maureen A. Howdershelt
My friend Robert Black Eagle put this question to us localy in the D/FW
area and I thought to put it before the world for feedback.
Love,
Alice
--- Robert Black Eagle <r...@flash.net> wrote:
>
>
> I have a curious question for people on this list.
> Let us say we grant a
> general "rule of thumb" that, except for
> self-defense, one has the right to
> do whatever one wants, limited, of course, by others
> equal rights. This
> is, as I understand it, a bare minimum for civil
> society. I can think of
> others: courage, accountablilty, a minimal amount of
> honesty, mutual
> respect, honor.
>
> What others might be needed for a civil pagan
> society?
>
> RBE
>
Zahryn
news:20011017.122902....@juno.com...
> > I can think of
> > others: courage, accountablilty, a minimal amount of
> > honesty, mutual
> > respect, honor.
> >
> > What others might be needed for a civil pagan
> > society?
How about Curiosity.... I got that in spade loads. Or a bit of tolerance ??
<grin>
--
Z xxoo
------------------------------
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, because you are crunchy and taste
good with ketchup.
------------------------------
It may be that my sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others.
Alan Young
principles?...would be needed for a "civil Pagan society"?
I can't speak for a hypothetical society; I can only work on my own way of
living. (Of course, if everyone lived like me, we'd be fine! :-))
I came up with these, several years ago...my personal answer to the
Mosaic laws:
===========
The New Commandments
1. Take much joy in your body: it is the Great Mother零 gift to you, and
your instrument of pleasure.
2. Take much joy in your companions, that all may learn to grow in love.
3. Take much joy in the wild places, where your spirit can freely dance
with the Weaver of the Worlds.
4. When you cannot rejoice, give your heart of sorrow to the Mother,
without shame.
5. Let the mind dance lightly on the Spirit: for, though thoughts may
open many doors to wisdom, only the Heart can learn the way through them.
6. Respect your Power: it may be greater than you think, and Worlds hang
in the balance.
7. Let the words of these Commandments have no authority: true
understanding is beyond words.
=============
Feel free to quote these *in full*; attribuable to Fathom Hummingbear.
In article <20011017.122902....@juno.com>, "Maureen A.
Howdershelt" <twi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > I have a curious question for people on this list.
> > Let us say we grant a
> > general "rule of thumb" that, except for
> > self-defense, one has the right to
> > do whatever one wants, limited, of course, by others
> > equal rights. This
> > is, as I understand it, a bare minimum for civil
> > society. I can think of
> > others: courage, accountablilty, a minimal amount of
> > honesty, mutual
> > respect, honor.
> >
> > What others might be needed for a civil pagan
> > society?
> >
> > RBE
> >
--
8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Always remember: your focus determines your reality.
Laughing Wolf
Jennifer Martin
It's like the one tool we need that no one ever talks about.
Zahryn <amy...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Itjz7.10798$nT1.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Kye
wrote:
>I'm not exactly sure what the question is. What other...rules?
>principles?...would be needed for a "civil Pagan society"?
>
>I can't speak for a hypothetical society; I can only work on my own way of
>living. (Of course, if everyone lived like me, we'd be fine! :-))
> I came up with these, several years ago...my personal answer to the
>Mosaic laws:
Mosaic laws?
>===========
>The New Commandments
>
>1. Take much joy in your body: it is the Great Mother零 gift to you, and
>your instrument of pleasure.
>
>2. Take much joy in your companions, that all may learn to grow in love.
>
>3. Take much joy in the wild places, where your spirit can freely dance
>with the Weaver of the Worlds.
>
>4. When you cannot rejoice, give your heart of sorrow to the Mother,
>without shame.
>
>5. Let the mind dance lightly on the Spirit: for, though thoughts may
>open many doors to wisdom, only the Heart can learn the way through them.
>
>6. Respect your Power: it may be greater than you think, and Worlds hang
>in the balance.
>
>7. Let the words of these Commandments have no authority: true
>understanding is beyond words.
>=============
Printed out and on my wall! Good reminders.
How about:
8. Never deny another's request for healing if it is within your power
to help.
Kye
mist
people to work. You did say society not weekend BBQ.
....mist
Shez
--
Shez, the Old Craft lady sh...@oldcity.demon.co.uk
www.oldcity.demon.co.uk/shez/
Baird Stafford
<snip>
> Mosaic laws?
The Laws of Moses (hence, "Mosaic"), aka the Decalogue, or Ten Commandments.
Blessed be,
Baird
who can't crosspost, due to the stupidity of bellsouth.net or whoever
is not running the news servers for them....
--
Modkin for soc.religion.paganism,
Modstaff for alt.religion.wicca.moderated
Like science fiction and fantasy fiction? Read my reviews at
<http://www.bairdstafford.com>
Matthew Vincent
<twi...@juno.com> wrote:
>My friend Robert Black Eagle put this question to us localy in the D/FW
>area and I thought to put it before the world for feedback.
Cool, thanks for sharing.
>> I have a curious question for people on this list.
>> Let us say we grant a
>> general "rule of thumb" that, except for
>> self-defense, one has the right to
>> do whatever one wants, limited, of course, by others
>> equal rights. This
>> is, as I understand it, a bare minimum for civil
>> society. I can think of
>> others: courage, accountablilty, a minimal amount of
>> honesty, mutual respect, honor.
Those sound like useful traits, but I find that it is more productive
to base ethical theorising on the consequences of actions than on
character traits. Character traits come under personal growth rather
than ethics per se; character traits are merely derived as secondary
principles based on the primary ethical principles of considering the
consequences of actions. Ethics are more about how one should treat
other people by way of substantive actions. I assume what the person
meant to say above is that violence is wrong except in self-defence,
i.e. that it is wrong to cause unnecessary harm. With this, I'd agree.
>>What others might be needed for a civil pagan society?
I don't think there should be such a thing as a Pagan society.
Religion and spirituality are personal lifestyle choices which each
individual should make for themselves, rather than being proscribed by
a larger social group. It would be unhealthy to have a Pagan-dominated
society, just like it is problematic to have a society dominated by
atheism (as per Stalin), Christianity, Judaism, Islam or any other
religious or other epistemic or metaphysical belief system. It is
important to promote religious tolerance, i.e. equal consideration of
all personal religious beliefs, as long as those beliefs are innocuous
rather than malicious. The Worldwide Church of the Creator shouldn't
qualify for entitlement to equality, for instance, because it preaches
hatred towards all non-caucasian persons. Likewise, religious belief
systems that justify ritualistic violence should not be tolerated,
whereas tolerance should be extended to more moderate versions of the
same religions that promote harm in their extreme form.
Blessed be,
Matthew
Yowie
I think Amnesty International's Universal Declaration of Human Rights
pretty much sums it up for me.
It can be found at http://www.amnesty.org under "About AI"
Yowie
Shez
<war...@es.co.nz> writes
Pagans usually follow a completely personal path, their spirituality is
personal, and their link to their Gods, if they believe in them is
personal.
I don't believe paganism could ever become a monolithic religion, simply
because it lacks that central tenet of such religions, a belief in one
or several gods that is prescribed by ceremony, ritual and laws.
Everyone on this group has their own personal path, and their own
personal beliefs, though there could be a pagan way, it would still be
to lose to free and to unencumbered by laws and traditions to allow it
to become set in stone. That in fact is the opposite of paganism.
Clariana
Shez wrote:
>
>
> Pagans usually follow a completely personal path, their spirituality is
> personal, and their link to their Gods, if they believe in them is
> personal.
>
So is it possible to be an atheistic or agnostic pagan?
Clariana
Baird Stafford
<snip>
> So is it possible to be an atheistic or agnostic pagan?
Entirely. Raven of Solaria is one of the most eloquent spokesmen for
that kind of path I know. Unfortunately, he and his Lady are both
having heart problems at the same time, just now, and he hasn't
posted much of late - but if you're interested, go to the archives at
google.com and look for his articles (you can search by author under
"raven" in this newsgroup).
Blessed be,
Baird
Shez
<clar...@btinternet.com> writes
or in a power beyond our own.
The same way its possible to live a Christian lifestyle without
believing in Jesus or the Christian god, You simply live by the ethics
of that lifestyle.
Though I think personally that the sacred and divine in our life needs
no name, I do in fact believe their is something beyond our small mortal
ken.
Most pagans have a belief in something.
Magic is an art and craft, Their are Atheist witches, and agnostics
witches
Many people who study magick like to involve their belief system, but
that is a personal choice,
Their are witches who are Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, and any other
religion or belief system you can name.
Others like myself believe that magick is within you, and needs no help
from deity's or gods. Its part of who we are.
Like any craft it can be learned, and practised. The more you practice
the better you get,
Magick is a talent like any other talent, Like music, or art, you don't
have to believe in a god to practice that art.
Michael D. Hofer
I don't know.
--
Cian ua'Lochain m/k/a Michael D. Hofer
/o)\ I'm not a medievalist - I just play one on weekends!
\(o/ http://www.ancientpond.com/
*BB* [rede what ye will ;) ]
M'Kel
"Maureen A. Howdershelt" <twi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:20011017.122902....@juno.com...
I think any civil society should start with acceptance of all people for who
they are, not who you want them to be.
Then we should look at what responisiblities comes with being a thinking
entity. Responisibilty for own survival, towards society as a whole, towards
Earth and the eco-system.
Then what type of actions are tolerable within that society. A society needs
rules, but it also needs the growth that occurs only in chaos.
Needs more thought, but thats a rough outline.
--
Cheers:)
Colin
sig line out for lunch
Raven
> I think Amnesty International's Universal Declaration of Human Rights
> pretty much sums it up for me.
>
> It can be found at http://www.amnesty.org under "About AI"
[grin] Of course, it isn't *Amnesty International's* Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, any more than it's *yours* or *mine*. It's all of ours.
That Declaration was enacted by the United Nations on December 10, 1948.
It is like the USA's "Bill of Rights", but in an international context;
and it recognizes rights which the USA's "Bill of Rights" does not.
Nations have amended their laws to come into compliance with the UDHR.
Sad to say, the USA is not one of them.
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/index.htm (links to other languages' versions)
http://www.unhumanrights.org/ (other human rights org.s like Amnesty Int'l)
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&as_q=universal+declaration+human+rights
Raven
Baird Stafford <ba...@newstaff.com> wrote:
> Clariana <clar...@btinternet.com> wrote:
...
>> So is it possible to be an atheistic or agnostic pagan?
That's answered in the soc.religion.paganism FAQ:
"Many pagans, though polytheistic, see all things as being part of one
Great Mystery. The apparent contradiction of being both polytheistic and
monotheistic can be resolved by seeing the God/desses as masks worn by the
Great Mystery. Other pagans are simply monotheistic or polytheistic, and
still others are atheistic."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Here are some webpages on "pagan atheism" (in a largely NEO-pagan context):
http://pagansanctuary.com/atheist.htm
http://www.articulata.com/ip2.cfm?PoemID=3076&PoetName='flower_labor'
http://www.sandmartyn.freeserve.co.uk/paganatheism.htm -- and
http://www.secularspirituality.org/spirituality/atheistsfaith.html --
were found via http://www.secularspirituality.org/links_atheist.html
And, as I've pointed out here, Buddhists are certainly "pagan" (neither
Christian nor Muslim nor of the Jewish religion), yet are "atheistic"
in the sense of not *worshipping* gods (even if some happen to believe
that gods *exist*); thus Buddhists are clearly "pagan atheists".
I contend that the same is true of my own path, [Religious] Humanism.
> Entirely. Raven of Solaria is one of the most eloquent spokesmen for
> that kind of path I know. Unfortunately, he and his Lady are both
> having heart problems at the same time, just now, and he hasn't
> posted much of late - but if you're interested, go to the archives at
> google.com and look for his articles (you can search by author under
> "raven" in this newsgroup).
Thank you again, Baird, for your kind words (among many other kindnesses).
Clariana, if you're reading this through an archive service like Google,
just click on the "news:" links below to read some past posts on the topic.
Otherwise, replace "news:" with "http://groups.google.com/groups?selm="
to get an html link to the archived copy of the post. (This works with
any message-ID, after mid-1995, as long as it didn't have "X-No-Archive".)
Then click on "Complete Thread" to see replies and further discussion.
news:3a1b919a$0$92744$39de...@news.sol.net (the last time this came up...)
news:3b551c90$0$18888$39de...@news.sol.net ("Pagan Paths" thread)
news:7d8764ba.01080...@posting.google.com ("What is Paganism?")
news:87548831...@smyrno.sol.net (part of a long squabble on definitions)
Yowie
news:7d8764ba.01102...@posting.google.com...
> Yowie <yowi...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > I think Amnesty International's Universal Declaration of Human Rights
> > pretty much sums it up for me.
> >
> > It can be found at http://www.amnesty.org under "About AI"
>
> [grin] Of course, it isn't *Amnesty International's* Universal
Declaration
> of Human Rights, any more than it's *yours* or *mine*. It's all of ours.
Um, yeah :-) I posted that before I read more of AI's material. I feel
embrassed that I just discovered it a week or so ago. I joined Amnesty
International last week because I could no longer sit on my butt and by my
own apathy tacitly condone the actions that bring about these abuses of
human rights.
You folk would realise I feel *very* strongly about these things (even if I
tend to be blunt about my communication of same) and thought its about time
I put my $$$ where my mouth was.
> That Declaration was enacted by the United Nations on December 10, 1948.
>
> It is like the USA's "Bill of Rights", but in an international context;
> and it recognizes rights which the USA's "Bill of Rights" does not.
>
> Nations have amended their laws to come into compliance with the UDHR.
>
> Sad to say, the USA is not one of them.
>
> http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
> http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/index.htm (links to other languages' versions)
> http://www.unhumanrights.org/ (other human rights org.s like Amnesty
Int'l)
>
>
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&as_q=universal+declaration+human+rights
Thanks. The more I read, the more I realise that "civilised" countries are
no any more civilised than "uncivilised" countries - they just have more
technology, ie blinking lights and happy music, that distracts the casual
viewer from the real issues.
<sigh>
Yowie
Raven
> I joined Amnesty International last week because I could no longer
> sit on my butt and by my own apathy tacitly condone the actions
> that bring about these abuses of human rights.
At this moment I'm feeling very proud of you -- even though I have
no right to pride in the matter, not having been your teacher nor
even having met you.... But, well, there it is. Sorry 'bout that.
> You folk would realise I feel *very* strongly about these things
> (even if I tend to be blunt about my communication of same) and
> thought its about time I put my $$$ where my mouth was.
The membership fee is the least of it, really. It's the letter-writing
that takes the time, effort, and attention, let alone the postage costs.
I do suggest un-blunting your letter texts, though, since the people
you're writing to are generally rather prideful and easily offended --
and what you want is their willing cooperation in releasing prisoners.
That is, don't flame -- persuade.
May I recommend Gerry Spence's book "How to Argue, and Win Every Time"?
It explains persuading the other party to *want* you to win the argument.
(Spence is a famous defense attorney, who's never lost a defense case.)
> Thanks. The more I read, the more I realise that "civilised" countries are
> no any more civilised than "uncivilised" countries - they just have more
> technology, ie blinking lights and happy music, that distracts the casual
> viewer from the real issues. <sigh>
Too right.
We have yet to build the fully free, fair, and just society.
But the bricks and mortar for it are here.
What's needed is our own hard work.
Moons...@arduin-delos.com
/snip/
>Here are some webpages on "pagan atheism" (in a largely NEO-pagan context):
>
> http://pagansanctuary.com/atheist.htm
>
> http://www.articulata.com/ip2.cfm?PoemID=3076&PoetName='flower_labor'
>
> http://www.sandmartyn.freeserve.co.uk/paganatheism.htm -- and
> http://www.secularspirituality.org/spirituality/atheistsfaith.html --
> were found via http://www.secularspirituality.org/links_atheist.html
>
>And, as I've pointed out here, Buddhists are certainly "pagan" (neither
>Christian nor Muslim nor of the Jewish religion), yet are "atheistic"
>in the sense of not *worshipping* gods (even if some happen to believe
>that gods *exist*); thus Buddhists are clearly "pagan atheists".
Buddhism is, rather confusingly, described by many western scholars as an
'atheistic religion.' In fact the Buddhist cultures seem to have the same
sort of supernatural and 'Great Chain of Being' beliefs as most cultures:
lots of telepathy, ghosts, heavens, hells, miracles, fairies, angels,
demons, a kind of devil/tempter, a creator.... They just don't have the
One Big Jehovah sort of person at the top.
You're right about them not 'worshipping' the gods in our sense. However
they do a lot of ceremonies and respect and prayer etc etc, mostly to
Buddha (who sort of outranks the gods) --- and most of them would probably
translate that as 'worship'. And many say they do too have a god, buddha is
their god, so there!
Buddhism came from Hinduism (rather as Ch. came from Jud.). Hinduism has a
Creator who is sort of at second level from their One Big God, and is not
very well respected. :-) People think creating this world was not a really
good idea. :-) When Buddha found out how to dispell the illusion, the Hindu
Creator bowed to him and asked instruction.
Jainism is kind of similar, but without Buddha. At least, he is very
respected, a great guru and being: as are Krishna and Jesus.
Moonspinner
Raven
> Raven <ra...@solaria.sol.net> wrote:
>> Here are some webpages on "pagan atheism" (in a largely NEO-pagan context):
>>
>> http://pagansanctuary.com/atheist.htm
>>
>> http://www.articulata.com/ip2.cfm?PoemID=3076&PoetName='flower_labor'
>>
>> http://www.sandmartyn.freeserve.co.uk/paganatheism.htm -- and
>> http://www.secularspirituality.org/spirituality/atheistsfaith.html --
>> were found via http://www.secularspirituality.org/links_atheist.html
>>
>> And, as I've pointed out here, Buddhists are certainly "pagan" (neither
>> Christian nor Muslim nor of the Jewish religion), yet are "atheistic"
>> in the sense of not *worshipping* gods (even if some happen to believe
>> that gods *exist*); thus Buddhists are clearly "pagan atheists".
>
> Buddhism is, rather confusingly, described by many western scholars as an
> 'atheistic religion.' In fact the Buddhist cultures
Ahhhh... sometimes this is the result, not of the "Buddhism" parts of those
cultures, but of the continued existence of local traditions -- rather as
gift-giving on December 25, Yule logs and Christmas trees, aren't Biblical.
But (just as with modern Christmas) it can be hard to tell what came from
what -- now that it's all part of "the Buddhist [or Christian] cultures".
> seem to have the same sort of supernatural and 'Great Chain of Being'
> beliefs as most cultures: lots of telepathy, ghosts, heavens, hells,
> miracles, fairies, angels, demons, a kind of devil/tempter, a creator....
> They just don't have the One Big Jehovah sort of person at the top.
What you see there is often the pre-Buddhist theology/cosmology; in India
it might involve the whole Hindu pantheon (or whatever part of it the local
culture emphasizes). That's the game that goes on forever. What Buddhism
teaches is the way to opt *out* of the game, escape the trap, break free of
the Wheel, say goodbye to all that and hello to oblivion. [quoting Riff Raff]
> You're right about them not 'worshipping' the gods in our sense.
Well, since gods (if they do exist) are only other beings caught up in the
Wheel of Existence, trapped in an even longer cycle of life than human beings,
and thus liable to be stuck on the Wheel much longer, perhaps only able to
escape by being reincarnated as a human being and learning the Eightfold Way
of Buddhism, what would be the point of worshipping them? If anything, they
are to be pitied, for they may be left behind when all Humanity has escaped.
> However they do a lot of ceremonies and respect and prayer etc etc,
> mostly to Buddha (who sort of outranks the gods) --- and most of them
> would probably translate that as 'worship'.
Only if they're using the older meaning of the word -- respect -- as in "the
right worshipful Mayor of London" (like titling a Congressman "honorable").
One venerates a teacher, a guru, a sensei. Buddha was a teacher, not a god.
There would be neither truth nor sense to his whole life story if he had
been a god. What then of his learning the suffering of human existence,
or his long path to discovering the cause and the cure of that suffering?
What use would it be to learn that a *god* could escape this cruel realm,
when we ourselves are human beings? This is why Buddha's humanity matters.
(And it's why the retroactive deification of Jesus creates a flaw in the
promise of resurrection, for what good does it do human beings to know of
*him* being resurrected if that might only be available to a Trinity member?)
> And many say they do too have a god, buddha is their god, so there!
I would be interested in seeing where any Buddhist claims *that*.
> Buddhism came from Hinduism (rather as Ch. came from Jud.).
I would say it's an even greater divergence from the source than that.
> Hinduism has a Creator
A "trinity": Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Preserver, Shiva the Destroyer.
> who is sort of at second level from their One Big God,
You may recall the Bhagavad Gita depicting Krishna as the god behind gods.
(But I hope you realize Hindus *differ*, and don't all "centralize" one god.)
> and is not very well respected. :-)
Oh, but he *is*. But I think you mean "not very well respected by Buddhists".
And you may have noticed that there aren't many Buddhists left in India,
most of them live elsewhere. Do you think that might not be a coincidence?
> People think creating this world was not a really good idea. :-)
There is in this respect a remarkable similarity between Buddhism and a
Mediterranean theology (even in a Christian version) called Gnosticism.
The "Sethian" version of Gnosticism, for instance, says that the *original*
Creator created a world of light, filled it with spirits of light, and among
his creations was Wisdom (Sophia). But Sophia was not yet truly wise, and
she in turn created the demiurge Ialdabaoth, who then created the world of
physical matter and trapped spirits of light within it, in material bodies.
And here we are.
The repentant Sophia was then tasked by the true Creator to go into that
dark world of matter and rescue the trapped spirits by showing them the way
to escape, back to the world of light.
Sounds a lot like Buddha's mission, doesn't it?
The early "heresy" of Gnostic Christianity marked Jesus Christ as being a
sort of avatar of Sophia -- thus his saving mission (and also incidentally
his feminine traits) -- and some even suggested he hadn't truly suffered
on the cross (which again weakens the proof-by-demonstration aspect).
Sophia/Wisdom has, however, her own separate place in the Trinity, as the
Holy Spirit, the only one of the Three whom Christians must not blaspheme.
Contrarily, some Christians regard this scheme of things as diabolical, since
it makes the Creator of *this* world an evil figure (gosh, who'd have thought
such a thing after reading about all the genocides he ordered in the Old
Testament?), and treats as the supreme deity a God of Light who might well
be called Lucifer (light-bringer). Thus it's called a "Luciferian" religion.
The Cathars, aka Albigenses, of southern France in the late Middle Ages
(or early Renaissance, depending on where you draw that line), were Gnostic,
and won great popular respect for their honesty, intelligence, egalitarian
behavior (eschewing Latin for the vernacular, actually helping the poor,
dressing in plain clothing rather than richly decorated lordly robes), and
denouncing the blatantly corrupt practices of Catholic hierarchy... which is
why the Catholic Church was extremely ruthless in exterminating them, to the
point of nearly depopulating southern France, destroying entire cities where
*some* of the inhabitants may have been Cathars (the Papal Legate said, "Kill
them all, God will know his own! -- a sentiment some American soldiers during
the Vietnam War rephrased as "Kill them all, let God sort them out!"), ending
the dominance in that area of the Provencal dialect (Langue d'Oc), and making
a huge profit in land and wealth for the northern Francien (Langue d'Oil) men
who took over the estates of the dead.
The actual Cathars who were captured, though, went to their deaths singing.
There are several good websites on them, including by some modern Cathars;
I suggest you use a search engine, rather than my trying to list the sites.
> When Buddha found out how to dispell the illusion,
Only some Buddhists think the world is Maya (illusion). That's not part
of the core teaching. Even if the world is fully real, it's still a trap.
> the Hindu Creator bowed to him and asked instruction.
Yep, and that shows that there wouldn't be any point to worshipping Brahma
the Creator, or Vishnu the Preserver, or Shiva the Destroyer, even if they
*do* exist -- because *they* don't know the way out of the game, either.
>From a Buddhist point of view, that is.
> Jainism is kind of similar, but without Buddha. At least, he is very
> respected, a great guru and being: as are Krishna and Jesus.
Ye, certainly *respected*, but not treated as a deity -- for then the whole
point and premise of Buddhism (for *human beings*) would be washed away.
Mind you, then it might make a wonderful religion for *gods* to have.
Brahma, for one, would sign up in a hot second... or eon, Yuga, whatever.
Richard Ballard
ra...@solaria.sol.net (Raven) writes:
>> When Buddha found out how to dispell the illusion,
>
>Only some Buddhists think the world is Maya (illusion).
>That's not part of the core teaching. Even if the world is
>fully real, it's still a trap.
I believe that Hindus view Maya as the changling, a being
in transition.
If Maya represents a trap, the trap is not discerning the
nature of the change.
My opinions.
Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging, and security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at www.amazon.com
Last book review: "The Immortals" by Andrew Neiderman
Kye
>On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 23:16:49 CST, ra...@solaria.sol.net (Raven) wrote:
/snip/
>
>>And, as I've pointed out here, Buddhists are certainly "pagan" (neither
>>Christian nor Muslim nor of the Jewish religion), yet are "atheistic"
>>in the sense of not *worshipping* gods (even if some happen to believe
>>that gods *exist*); thus Buddhists are clearly "pagan atheists".
>
>Buddhism is, rather confusingly, described by many western scholars as an
>'atheistic religion.' In fact the Buddhist cultures seem to have the same
>sort of supernatural and 'Great Chain of Being' beliefs as most cultures:
>lots of telepathy, ghosts, heavens, hells, miracles, fairies, angels,
>demons, a kind of devil/tempter, a creator.... They just don't have the
>One Big Jehovah sort of person at the top.
>
>You're right about them not 'worshipping' the gods in our sense. However
>they do a lot of ceremonies and respect and prayer etc etc, mostly to
>Buddha (who sort of outranks the gods) --- and most of them would probably
>translate that as 'worship'. And many say they do too have a god, buddha is
>their god, so there!
Most would say that the Buddha is a person, actually. One who is an
example, very much like Jesus. There is a supreme be-ing that could be
compared with the great mystery, imo the same: the supreme
enlightenment.
I have talked with Muslims and Catholics and I believe that what those
call Allah or God is the same as the supreme enlightenment. I like the
description of the lord and lady as masks, just as the Buddha can be
seen as a 'representative' or guide to the supreme enlightenment.
So what's my point? Some kinds of atheism may in fact be experienced
by their practisioners as a theism, imo.
And, yes, Buddhism has thousands of spooky denizens of all kind --
many are really nasty little critters, too. ;)
>Buddhism came from Hinduism (rather as Ch. came from Jud.). Hinduism has a
>Creator who is sort of at second level from their One Big God, and is not
>very well respected. :-) People think creating this world was not a really
>good idea. :-) When Buddha found out how to dispell the illusion, the Hindu
>Creator bowed to him and asked instruction.
>
>Jainism is kind of similar, but without Buddha. At least, he is very
>respected, a great guru and being: as are Krishna and Jesus.
>
>
>Moonspinner
Kye
Blessed Be!
Alan Young
I guess itÄ…s time to rehash our disagreement about use of language. Those
who have read this ehange before are free to tune out.
I object to your definition of Atheist Paganism, and especially your use
of Buddhism as an example, for a number of reason.
1. _Definition of Atheism:_ The primary definition in the dictionary for
Å‚atheismË› is the belief that there is no god. If you aknowledge there is
(or may be) one or more gods, but choose not to worship, thatÄ…s only
Å‚atheismË› by a stretch.
But, thereÄ…s another complication. This dictionary is written from the
POV of a culture where most people, if they have the concept of Divine
Being, call it God. The idea of a bunch of divine beings who are not
Å‚godsË› was probably not considered by the dictionary editors; the
*connotation* that goes with Å‚atheistË› extends to the idea that there are
no divine beings of any kind. To suggest -- or insist -- that someone can
worship any number of Divine Beings and be an Å‚atheistË› because their
objects of worship are not Å‚GodsË› is pure sophistry.
2. _Definition of Paganism:_ Clear communication is ill-served by a
definition based on what something is *not*, without describing what it
*is.* The formula Å‚Not a Xian, Muslim, or JewË› was created by a society
that knew little and cared less about the beliefs of the rest of the
world, and is offensive to many of the cultures thereby lumped together.
Of course, to define Paganism here is to invite accusations of OTW-ism,
so I can proceed only tentatively. However, it seems to me that most
people who identify themselves as Pagan, and most of the cultures they
look to for symbols and theologies to borrow, have at least one principle
in common: the immanence of the divine-- that is, the sense that the
Sacred is inextricably woven into nature and daily experience. A person,
or culture, who views the Sacred primarily as transcendent, i.e. a
metaphysical concept apart from nature, ought not to be called Pagan--at
least, not without their consent!
By this sorting system, Xianity, Islam Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism
are non-pagan religions. Shinto, and the aboriginal religions of Africa,
Australia, Oceania, and the New World, may be regarded as pagan.
(Note--this distinction might not work so well to compare religions of
the ancient world, as I doubt that this dualism would have made sense to
ancient/classical cultures).
3. _Interpretation of Buddhism:_
As you have eloquently described, the original teachings of Buddhism
neither assert nor deny the existence of gods; it was suggested to the
early devotees of this path that gods were to be seen as parts of the
spiritual landscape, not objects of worship. (I would deny that this is an
Å‚atheistË› approach; see above).
But whether that advice is widely followed is another question. ItÄ…s
true that the historical Å‚BuddhaË›, Gautama Siddhartha, denied being a god.
ItÄ…s also true that Jesus never claimed to be a god; but if you therefore
assert that Å‚Jesus is GodË› is not a Christian concept, you will not have
many Xians agreeing with you. IMHE a majority of Buddhists see themselves
in relation to Buddha in much the same way that Xians see their
relationship to Jesus.
Even where this analogy fails, if you interview a cross-section of the
hundreds of millions of practicing (or self-identified) Buddhists, I doubt
that you would find any substantial number who consider themselves
Å‚atheistË› by *any* definition. It is *possible* to be an atheist and a
Buddhist, but thatÄ…s a relatively rare case, and should not be used label
Buddhism as an Å‚atheist religion.Ë› And still less a Pagan one.
bb,
hummingbear
In article <7d8764ba.01102...@posting.google.com>,
ra...@solaria.sol.net (Raven) wrote:
[snip]
Raven
> Hello, Raven, nice to see you posting again.
Thank you, Alan, it's good to be back, and to see you again.
> I guess it零 time to rehash our disagreement about use of language.
Must we? <sigh>
> Those who have read this exchange before are free to tune out.
And are probably already scrambling over each other to reach the doorway out.
> I object to your definition of Atheist Paganism,
Did you read the links I posted to *other people's* pages on Pagan Atheism?
<http://pagansanctuary.com/atheist.htm>
<http://www.articulata.com/ip2.cfm?PoemID=3076&PoetName='flower_labor'>
<http://www.sandmartyn.freeserve.co.uk/paganatheism.htm> -- and
<http://www.secularspirituality.org/spirituality/atheistsfaith.html> --
were found via <http://www.secularspirituality.org/links_atheist.html>
Obviously I wasn't insisting that anyone adopt *my view, and my view alone*.
> and especially your use of Buddhism as an example,
Then I'll let a Buddhist speak for me.
Professor D.W. Moore of PSU, author of "The Accidental Buddhist", writes:
<http://www.beliefnet.com/story/8/story_833_1.html>
"... Annie herself worries deeply about my soul because she assumes the
Buddha is my god and that I pray to that little fat statue found at the
entrance to many a Chinese restaurant. I'll bet a lot of people think that,
but are too polite or frightened to ask. I'm glad Annie did.
"Let me clear matters up, then, for the record.
"Though I am overly fond of pork lo mein, I do not worship the little fat
Buddha statue. Buddhists, in fact, do not worship anyone. The Buddha himself
was not a god, but only a man -- Siddhartha -- who became known as 'Buddha,'
the enlightened one, because of the wisdom he came to embody and teach.
We revere him, yes; worship, no."
> for a number of reason.
I've always wondered just what the Number of Reason was. e? pi? Oh, wait,
no, those are *irrational* numbers. But any integer/integer result would do.
<http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.integers.html>
> 1. _Definition of Atheism:_ The primary definition
But you know, don't you, that one may validly use the second, or third, etc?
> in the dictionary
*THE* dictionary? Oh, Alan, you *do* have a sense of humor! Wonderful!
Can we read in *THE* dictionary about *THE* religion, to settle *THE* question?
<chortle>
Sorry. Please continue. Before I so rudely interrupted, you were saying:
> The primary definition in the dictionary for "atheism" is the belief that
> there is no god.
Mmmmmm, not necessarily.
Some say it's disbelief in capital-G "God" -- y'know, Jehovah / YHVH, Adonai,
Elohim, the God of Abraham, the Claimer of the Firstborn, *him*. This would
make atheists of *all* religions other than Judaism, Christianity, and Islam,
the "Abrahamic religions".
E.g. <http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=atheist>
Some say it's disregarding one's *duty* to [that] God -- which would make
atheists of everyone who doesn't... (Attend church daily? Tithe? Vow poverty?)
So, Alan, I could point to *those* dictionaries and call *you* an atheist.
(The OED's "Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism)"
also explicitly names *my* category of atheism, the "godless" kind. May I
be permitted to cite the OED as an authoritative dictionary? Thank you.)
But elsewhere, the general theme is the *absence of belief in* gods.
That *absence of belief in* can be taken three ways:
1) Having the affirmative belief you refer to, that *no* god exists
(what the Atheism FAQs call "strong atheism");
2) Merely lacking any affirmative belief that any god does exist
(what the Atheism FAQs call "weak atheism");
3) Having no "belief in" gods in the same sense as "faith in" or "trust in",
the same sense that you would use when saying that you don't believe in
anything that President So-and-so ever said -- even though you know he
and his statements *exist* -- you wouldn't trust him or rely on him.
If you met a god in person, but didn't "believe in" him in that same
sense, you wouldn't worship him; you'd tell him, "You're not MY god!"
> If you aknowledge there is (or may be) one or more gods, but choose not
> to worship, that's only "atheism" by a stretch.
Well, I note the historical usage: early Christians were called "atheists"
for refusing to worship the Roman Emperor, though they *knew* he *existed*.
(Leave aside that they believed in their *own* god; the point is that just
believing the Emperor *existed* wasn't enough to prevent being "atheist";
actual *worship* was required. Thus atheism *meant* not-worshipping.)
I also note that the Jewish and Christian scriptures (aka "Old Testament")
refer to other gods than YHVH *existing* (though Jews and Christians are
commanded [first] to have no other gods *before* YHVH), e.g. Psalms 82 --
"God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
... I have said, Ye are gods...." If merely believing in the *existence*
of gods qualifies as a theism, then Judaism and Christianity would have to
be *polytheistic*, for their scriptures claim that many gods *exist*. Yet
these two religions are called monotheistic because they only *worship* one.
I think this alone proves that worship is the actual criterion of theism.
Unless you think most people call Jews and Christians "polytheists", right?
> But, there's another complication. This dictionary is written from the
> POV of a culture where most people, if they have the concept of Divine
> Being, call it God. The idea of a bunch of divine beings who are not
> "gods" was probably not considered by the dictionary editors; the
> *connotation* that goes with "atheist" extends to the idea that there are
> no divine beings of any kind. To suggest -- or insist -- that someone can
> worship any number of Divine Beings and be an "atheist" because their
> objects of worship are not "Gods" is pure sophistry.
Since that wasn't my position (I've been referring to those who *don't*
worship anyone at all), here you seem to be arguing with someone else.
Or fighting a straw man.
> 2. _Definition of Paganism:_ Clear communication is ill-served by a
> definition based on what something is *not*, without describing what it
> *is.* The formula "Not a Xian, Muslim, or Jew" was created by a society
> that knew little and cared less about the beliefs of the rest of the
> world, and is offensive to many of the cultures thereby lumped together.
Really? And is the whole non-Jewish world offended by being "lumped
together" as goyim (gentiles)? Is the whole non-Gypsy world offended
by being "lumped together" as gadje? Is the whole non-Japanese world
offended by being "lumped together" as gaijin? Many distinctive groups
(these three cases exemplified religions, ethnicities, and nationalities)
have names or words for (a) themselves and (b) everyone else. "Pagan"
happens to have been, for some eighteen centuries, the *Christian* word
for everyone else -- first for all non-Christians, and more recently for
all who do not worship the same God; that is, the change moved Jews and
Muslims out of the "pagan" category because they do worship the same God.
Why should anyone outside such a group take *offense* at being "lumped
together" as a non-member of that group? It's true, isn't it? If you're
not Japanese, you're a gaijin; if you're not Romani, you're a gadjo; if
you're not Jewish, you're a goy; if you're not Muslim, you're a kafir;
if you're not a Freemason [or Wiccan], you're a cowan; if you're not a
Christian or Jew or Muslim, you're a pagan. These all mean "outsider".
> Of course, to define Paganism here is to invite accusations of OTW-ism,
Oh my goodness, Alan, you're not just a One-True-Wayer about paganism,
but about atheism as well. What made you think it was any less rude?
> so I can proceed only tentatively.
Ah yes. Do go down to the 'hood and use the N-word "only tentatively",
and everyone will realize that this makes what you're doing *polite*.
> However, it seems to me that most people who identify themselves as Pagan,
are borrowing another religion's long-used term for *outsiders* to use as
their self-definition; then some complain because the original users are
still using that term the same way they had for some 1800 years before now.
> and most of the cultures they look to for symbols and theologies to borrow,
get somewhat upset that *their* stuff is borrowed and then misused by others.
See for instance the "Hands Off Native American Religions" thread.
> have at least one principle in common:
use your own stuff, and don't steal someone else's to claim as your own.
> the immanence of the divine -- that is, the sense that the Sacred is
> inextricably woven into nature and daily experience.
Whether or not one perceives *entities* (deities) behind it all.
Thus, one may feel that, in a universe so much of which is vacuum or
dead matter, *life* is something rare and precious and to be valued;
and then, even among living things, so many of which are mindless,
*mind* is something especially rare and still more precious; that both
of these kinds of "lights shining in the dark" should be kept lit,
and not carelessly or maliciously snuffed out to darken the universe.
Oddly enough, that's an attitude you can find among atheist Humanists.
So, if that's *your* criterion for being "True Pagans [tm]"....
> A person, or culture, who views the Sacred primarily as transcendent,
> i.e. a metaphysical concept apart from nature, ought not to be called
> Pagan--at least, not without their consent!
Quite obviously, most atheists don't view *anything* as apart from nature --
though it's possible to believe in other worlds without believing in deities.
> By this sorting system, Xianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism
> are non-pagan religions. Shinto, and the aboriginal religions of Africa,
> Australia, Oceania, and the New World, may be regarded as pagan.
> (Note--this distinction might not work so well to compare religions of
> the ancient world, as I doubt that this dualism would have made sense to
> ancient/classical cultures).
It certainly isn't the basis on which the word "pagan" has been used up to now.
The distinction you're making is between "Transcendentalism" and its opposite,
which is usually called "Naturalism" rather than "Paganism".
Perhaps you didn't know that a perfectly good word already existed for the
meaning you want to express. Now that you do know, you could stop trying
to pry a different word loose from *its* existing meaning.
> 3. _Interpretation of Buddhism:_
> As you have eloquently described, the original teachings of Buddhism
> neither assert nor deny the existence of gods; it was suggested to the
> early devotees of this path that gods were to be seen as parts of the
> spiritual landscape, not objects of worship. (I would deny that this is an
> "atheist" approach; see above).
Yes, do see above.
> But whether that advice is widely followed is another question. It零
> true that the historical "Buddha", Gautama Siddhartha, denied being a god.
> It零 also true that Jesus never claimed to be a god; but if you therefore
> assert that "Jesus is God" is not a Christian concept, you will not have
> many Xians agreeing with you.
The difference being that those in charge of the Christian religion,
specifically at the Council of Nicea in 325 CE, formally adopted a
creed declaring Jesus to be of the same substance as the Father, and
that creed is part of the dogma of most Christian denominations today...
... whereas I have yet to see any Buddhist denomination call Buddha a god.
> IMHE a majority of Buddhists see themselves in relation to Buddha in much
> the same way that Xians see their relationship to Jesus.
In that both were beloved teachers who brought a kind of "salvation" from
cruel suffering, there is a great resemblance. That doesn't mean that all
other aspects of the two religions are the same. Let's avoid fallacies.
> Even where this analogy fails,
Well, it does fail, immediately. Abraham, Moses, and Mohammed were each,
in a sense, religion-founders, thus parallel to Jesus *in that one respect*;
yet Jews do not consider Abraham or Moses to be gods, and Muslims do not
consider Mohammed to be a god. The pointing finger is not what it points to.
> if you interview a cross-section of the hundreds of millions of practicing
> (or self-identified) Buddhists, I doubt that you would find any substantial
> number who consider themselves "atheist" by *any* definition.
Well, how about my own (and the OED's) "godlessness", i.e. not worshipping
any gods? Moore, above, says, "Buddhists, in fact, do not worship anyone.
The Buddha himself was not a god, but only a man.... We revere him, yes;
worship, no." Must I find hundreds of millions of other such statements?
Are you switching from dictionary-thumping to demanding a worldwide poll?
> It is *possible* to be an atheist and a Buddhist, but that零 a relatively
> rare case,
Ahhhh, I see, so if I were merely to quote *thousands* of such statements,
you could say that those are only a tiny fraction of hundreds of millions,
so they don't really count. Cute.
> and should not be used label Buddhism as an "atheist religion."
> And still less a Pagan one.
I note that you have not proffered hundreds of millions of quotes in support.
Why don't you go first?
Raven
> 1. _Definition of Atheism:_ The primary definition in the dictionary...
Let's go look at what real live atheists say for themselves, shall we?
[ Subject: On posting to alt.atheism ]
[ From: Charles Fiterman <c...@geodesic.com> ]
[ Archived at: http://www.hindunet.org/alt_hindu/1995_Feb_2/msg00137.html ]
We often get postings from religious people on alt.atheism, and most of us
like them. I think our best threads were started by religious people. Without
you, alt.atheism would be a very dull place.
Most of our religious posters are Christians, and I hope we could see more
variety; it would be good all around. But a few guidelines.
We really do exist, and most of us have given some thought to our opinions.
Questioning that existence is not polite. Imagine if we did it to you.
Assume we know Pascal's argument, and can see through the first mover
argument, no matter how it is disguised.
Remember, if we believed in your holy book, or books, we could hardly be
atheists, so there is no point in arguing from them.
Don't be shocked when some of the replies look like flames. We have all types.
Please add your home newsgroup to the list of newsgroups so the people there
can see the answers. Also we like to see who we are talking to. If you fail
to do this, you will make a post and twenty people will jump on you and no
dialog will result.
To find our FAQ go to
http://www.mantis.co.uk/atheism/ [outdated URLs; see below]
http://bigdipper.umd.edu/atheism/
ftp.mantis.co.uk/pub/alt.athesim/faqs
But briefly we come in three flavors.
Those who claim "No gods exist," called strong atheists.
Those who say "There is no good evidence gods exist," called weak atheists.
Those who only say "I have no gods," which is the oldest meaning of atheist.
We would like comments on questions like what do the terms god, God, and
religion mean? Are there commonly accepted meanings? Another good question
is this. "Do any of the above definitions of atheist fit people who would
rather not be called atheists?" That is do some of your say "I fit
definition three but would rather be called a Buddhist."? I think a good
definition should include those who want to be included and exclude those
who want to be excluded, or at least it should come close. In the absence
of holy books and doctrine we must use such methods to define ourselves.
Thanks for your patience.
[ end quote ]
Notice, Alan, that what he calls "the oldest meaning of atheist" is what I
have been referring to as the "godless" variety of atheism: not-worshipping.
Here are some current addresses for Atheist FAQs:
http://www.alt-atheism.org/aafaq_ext.htm
(alt.atheism FAQ & much more)
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/ (current
home of the atheist FAQs & much more)
http://www.skepticfiles.org/atheist/atheistf.htm
(atheist FAQs and arguments)
And for other resources on Atheism:
http://www.atheists.org/lobby.html
(American Atheists)
http://humanist.net
(American Humanist Association)
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.html
(secular humanism info)
http://religioustolerance.org/agnostic.htm
(agnosticism info)
http://nav.webring.org/hub?ring=yatheistring;id=0;err=2;list
(Young Atheists Web Ring)
http://web2.airmail.net/capella/aguide/
(Biblical Errancy Web Site)
http://home.att.net/~danfake/books_index.htm
(Top 420 Books for Atheists, Agnostics,
Freethinkers,Humanists (Index)
mist
<t9v7ttka1o9k29r1i...@4ax.com>, wrote:
>
>Most would say that the Buddha is a person, actually. One who is an
>example, very much like Jesus. There is a supreme be-ing that could be
>compared with the great mystery, imo the same: the supreme
>enlightenment.
>
It is not a matter of which illusion, or what form of the wisdom that
one uses to believe that the illusion is perceived.
If in ones wisdom one can see the illusion then it is still an
illusion, when the illusion is gone then that also an illusion.
Kye
Well said Mist!
Ilusion is no-illusion therefore it is called illusion.
What say you, Mist, is there a Mist that perceives illusion?
--
Kye
Blessed Be!
mist
>Ilusion is no-illusion therefore it is called illusion.
>What say you, Mist, is there a Mist that perceives illusion?
>
Its all a dream, my friend.
And yes ,there is a strange influence that does not know what it is
that still reachs for the knowing of illusions, and mist is definately
an illusoin :)
Alan Young
with words!
As did Humpty Dumpty, in _Through the Looking Glass_.
I guess we've both made ourselves reasonably clear. Stay well.
BB
hummingbear
In article <7d8764ba.01102...@posting.google.com>,
ra...@solaria.sol.net (Raven) wrote:
Raven
> <ROTFL> Yes, very entertaining.
<bows> I live but to please.
> I appreciate your irony.
It keeps my posts wrinkle-free.
> You do have a way with words!
> As did Humpty Dumpty, in _Through the Looking Glass_.
Yet I have provided you with the words of others, not depending upon my own.
In the OED (and it's in other dictionaries) we find "godlessness" as one
category of atheism; or, as the mini-FAQ from Charles Fiterman put it,
... we come in three flavors:
Those who claim "No gods exist," called strong atheists.
Those who say "There is no good evidence gods exist," called weak atheists.
Those who only say "I have no gods," which is the oldest meaning of atheist.
. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
("Godlessness" only involves *having* no gods, *worshipping* no-one, so the
question of whether one thinks any gods *exist* is not a relevant criterion.)
And in the words of D.W. Moore, author of "The Accidental Buddhist", we read:
Buddhists, in fact, do not worship anyone. The Buddha himself was
not a god, but only a man.... We revere him, yes; worship, no.
Does it take Humpty-Dumptyism to conclude that Buddhists fit the "godless"
category of atheism, whether or not they fit either of the other two flavors?
Does it require believing a single word that I myself wrote?
The whole discussion can be reduced to a syllogism --
Major premise: One who doesn't worship a god is the "godless" type of atheist.
Minor premise: Buddhists do not worship anyone.
Conclusion: Buddhists are the "godless" type of atheists.
I have documented both the premises. The logic seems valid. The conclusion
follows directly from the premises. Where is the flaw or fallacy?
> I guess we've both made ourselves reasonably clear.
I trust so. If you are still not persuaded, I would enjoy learning whether
you disbelieve the major premise, the minor premise, or the logic involved;
what keeps you from reaching the conclusion of the syllogism?
> Stay well.
And you also.
Alan Young
> The whole discussion can be reduced to a syllogism --
>
> Major premise: One who doesn't worship a god is the "godless" type of
atheist.
> Minor premise: Buddhists do not worship anyone.
> Conclusion: Buddhists are the "godless" type of atheists.
>
> I have documented both the premises. The logic seems valid. The conclusion
> follows directly from the premises. Where is the flaw or fallacy?
>
> > I guess we've both made ourselves reasonably clear.
>
> I trust so. If you are still not persuaded, I would enjoy learning whether
> you disbelieve the major premise, the minor premise, or the logic involved;
> what keeps you from reaching the conclusion of the syllogism?
I would question the minor premise, in that not all Buddhists are alike in
their philosophy and practice. If you change it to "some" Buddhists,
then,
I will concede the conclusion, if and only if this restricted definition
is included in it. As soon as you change the statement to "[Some]
Buddhists are atheists," you have changed the connotations to the point of
making a misleading statement.
By a similar process, one could note that Xians have used the word "pagan"
to mean "one who worships no god" and thereby assert that "Pagans are
atheists," which would not be an easy conclusion to sell here. :-)
hummingbear
Matthew Vincent
>The whole discussion can be reduced to a syllogism --
>
>Major premise: One who doesn't worship a god is the "godless" type of atheist.
>Minor premise: Buddhists do not worship anyone.
>Conclusion: Buddhists are the "godless" type of atheists.
>
>I have documented both the premises. The logic seems valid. The conclusion
>follows directly from the premises. Where is the flaw or fallacy?
Possibly with premise (1): how about if someone believes in the
existence of a god or gods, but does not *worship* it/them? Perhaps
belief in the existence of gods, or some other wider criterion than
"worship", would fit better for premise (1). Still, at least *some*
(and probably most?) Buddhists do not even believe in the *existence*
of gods, and thus they're godless atheists. Your argument form would
still work by just changing the criterion from "worship" to something
else, maybe belief in existence (if necessary).
Blessed be,
Matthew
Raven
> Raven <ra...@solaria.sol.net> wrote:
>
>> The whole discussion can be reduced to a syllogism --
>>
>> Major premise: One who doesn't worship a god is the "godless"
>> type of atheist.
>> Minor premise: Buddhists do not worship anyone.
>> Conclusion: Buddhists are the "godless" type of atheists.
>>
>> I have documented both the premises. The logic seems valid. The conclusion
>> follows directly from the premises. Where is the flaw or fallacy?
>>
>>> I guess we've both made ourselves reasonably clear.
>>
>> I trust so. If you are still not persuaded, I would enjoy learning whether
>> you disbelieve the major premise, the minor premise, or the logic involved;
>> what keeps you from reaching the conclusion of the syllogism?
>
> I would question the minor premise, in that not all Buddhists are alike in
> their philosophy and practice.
True in a sense, but unfortunately not in a sense that helps your argument.
Buddhist denominations differ in some details of doctrine (e.g. whether this
world is Maya/illusion) and practice (e.g. the uses of chanting), but they
are consistent in what I referred to as "core teachings". One is the goal of
escape from the Wheel of Existence (which includes god-provided afterlives),
save for those compassionate souls who return only to help *others* escape.
Being stuck in a Heaven or Paradise would only impede and delay that escape,
just as being reincarnated as a god oneself would only prolong existence --
both trap one longer on the Wheel. Conversely, attaining Nirvana obviates
any point of a Heaven or Paradise. In other words, the ends are incompatible.
One prays to gods for what one desires. Buddhism involves freeing onself of
desires and thus the suffering which follows from desire. In other words,
the means are incompatible.
Since that which gods *can* provide is not the goal of Buddhism, & conversely
the Buddhist goal is something no god can help with, there is in Buddhism
*no point* to worshipping a god; rather, it would be counterproductive even
*if* one happens to believe gods do or might exist -- and doubly pointless if
(like some Buddhists) one believes the world *and* its gods are Maya/illusion.
Again, I cite for you what the Buddhist author D.W. Moore expressly stated:
"Buddhists, in fact, do not worship anyone. The Buddha himself was
not a god, but only a man.... We revere him, yes; worship, no."
Set aside *my* opinion on Buddhism; this was a Buddhist on his own religion.
So on the face of it, what you are saying about Buddhism seems simply untrue.
But I will apply Miller's Law to you, even if you don't return the favor:
"In order to understand what another person is saying, you must assume
that it is true, and try to imagine what it could be true of."
-- psychologist George Miller, 1980.
Now, in what sense could it be said that Buddhists worship anything? I've
already gone over the difference between revering or venerating a teacher
and worshipping him as a god, and you didn't seem to accept that distinction.
Could you possibly refer to individuals who both worship *and* are Buddhist?
Might one hedge one's bets by *both* practicing Buddhism *and* worshipping a
god, just in case one or the other fell through? Well, one could even be both
a Buddhist and a Christian, just as one can be a Christian and a neopagan --
or some other variety of what the OED calls "Pagano-Christian" -- no matter
how incompatible the goals might seem. (Example: William II Rufus, son of the
Conqueror, was said to have two altars, one for Odin and one for Jesus.)
But such a crossover, a dual-religions or multiple-religions path, does not
make the practice of one religion into the practice of another. Had I said
"Christians do not worship Odin," would the case of William Rufus disprove it?
No; when he worshipped Odin, he did so as an Odinist, not *as* a Christian.
Here's another parallel. I speak English. I am thus an English-speaker.
If I also speak a different language, I am *also* a speaker of that language.
If I said "Ede ber bukunu ejen do-ora Tengri-de Chinggis Kaghanu gajat bui,"
the fact that I'm an English-speaker wouldn't mean that I was speaking English
just *then*, and wouldn't mean that that sentence became an English sentence.
Thus "English-speaking doesn't involve saying Classical Mongolian sentences,"
even though an English-speaker may also be a student of Asian linguistics.
Another parallel. You'd agree that the secular laws of this country are not
enacted by Christian clergy, right? But then I could point to ministers and
priests who have been elected to public office, e.g. legislatures or chief
executive positions, and thus *have* enacted secular laws. This does not
invalidate the agreement, because they have done so *as* secular officials,
not *as* Christian clergy. They just happened to have both hats to wear.
So don't get confused by crossovers and boundary conditions. Otherwise, every
general statement -- including those you've made -- becomes untenable. You
say Christians aren't pagan? Some are, like William Rufus. Pagans aren't
Satanist? Some are. Atheists don't worship gods? Amazingly, some do --
as symbols of concepts they value, not as actual entities. * (Think of the
Statue of Liberty and those courthouse statuettes of Justice.) At boundaries,
you just have to be much more careful to define your terms with precision.
* "At any rate, I worship the gods because I perceive the gods as
anthropomorphizations of natural forces and abstract concepts, and
damned useful ones at that. I don't believe in their literal existence
as sentient entities, hence my atheism. I do believe, of course, in
the forces and concepts that they represent, hence my worship."
-- Natalie Ramsey, to you, on soc.religion.paganism, 8/28/1997,
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=5u4977$g14$1...@nonews.col.hp.com
> If you change it to "some" Buddhists, then, I will concede the conclusion,
Some, indeed: Buddhists who are practicing Buddhism at the time, and not
switching over to another religion. If someone practices both Buddhism and
Shinto, then his Shinto worship should be called Shinto, not Buddhism.
Alternatively, phrase it as: "Buddhists *qua* Buddhists don't worship anyone,
though some may practice both Buddhism *and* a theistic religion."
> if and only if this restricted definition is included in it.
You say that as though I hadn't been clear and specific about "restricting
my definition" from the start. But here is what you originally responded to:
And, as I've pointed out here, Buddhists are certainly "pagan" (neither
Christian nor Muslim nor of the Jewish religion), yet are "atheistic"
in the sense of not *worshipping* gods (even if some happen to believe
that gods *exist*); thus Buddhists are clearly "pagan atheists".
Please notice the "in the sense of..." that follows the word "atheistic".
A single sentence, only four lines long, and over a quarter of it, right
in the middle, was devoted to stating the sense in which I used "atheistic".
Yet, by the end of that same sentence, you took it in a different sense --
not by missing my specification, but by expressly refusing to accept it.
> As soon as you change the statement to "[Some] Buddhists are atheists,"
> you have changed the connotations to the point of making a misleading
> statement.
But I didn't change the statement; you did, by insisting on a different
meaning than I had just expressly stated, and calling the statement false
in *that* changed sense. So I don't think I'm the one who misled you.
You seem to have stood Miller's Law on its head, actually *rejecting* the
sense in which I used a word, in order to find one which you could call false.
Doesn't your own religion teach that you should take responsibility for your
own actions, and not try to blame others for them? Or was that someone else's?
> By a similar process, one could note that Xians have used the word "pagan"
> to mean "one who worships no god" and thereby assert that "Pagans are
> atheists," which would not be an easy conclusion to sell here. :-)
One who worships no god (i.e. the "godless" variety of atheist) would therefore
not worship the God of Abraham, thus would meet that criterion of "pagan" (as
of course would all those who do worship gods but only *other* gods than YHVH.)
This is not to say that "godless" describes *all* "pagans". "Godless" forms
a *subset* of the set "pagan". The godless are pagans, not necessarily the
other way around. In a Venn diagram, this would be shown as two circles, one
inside the other. Everyone in the inner (godless) circle is also within the
outer (pagan) circle, but not everyone within the outer is also in the inner.
Syllogisms, and now Venn diagrams. Hmmm. Alan, did you ever *study* logic?
Y'know, that's a branch of philosophy, a *pagan* pursuit that the Christians
distrusted ("Credo quia absurdum" being more to their tastes), so it ought to
be an acceptable field of study even to a firmly anti-Christian neo-pagan.
Irrationality was never de rigeur for ancient paganism, quite the contrary.
mist
Hey I no expert at this logic thing but I would expect that re-writing
the premises out in full with Matthews option would give a different
answer. Most importantly one that while an accurate concllusion, is
actually the answer to a different question.
eg
Major premise: "believer": One who believes in the existance of Gods
Minor premise: Buddhists do not worship anyone.
Conclusion: Not readily apparant, although possibly: One can can be a
believer and a Buddhist as the two are independant in these premises.
For the the concept of proof of the second half
Mjr: Some Buddhists don't believe in gods
Mnr: Buddhists don't worship anyone
Conc: All the Buddhists don't worship the gods the some of them might
believe in, and All the Buddhists don't worship the gods that some
don't believe in. The failure here as you premises are already
joined, so the answer is a tad circular. The double negative also
makes the linking a little ineffective.
A point of note, is again the definition of the concept of atheism.
That it is non-theism, theism being the *worship* of gods. When the
term was coined the belief of Gods was assumed, whether it be
'God","Goddess","Gods", "nature","natural forces" thus the *worship*
part was the important part. Then came questioning and monotheism,
and whole new ways of being ignorant was formed!
Matthew Vincent
wrote:
>By a similar process, one could note that Xians have used the word "pagan"
>to mean "one who worships no god" and thereby assert that "Pagans are
>atheists," which would not be an easy conclusion to sell here. :-)
Hehe... well, how exactly does one get from "one who does not worship
*my* god" to "one who worships *no* god"...? Sounds like a fine case
of bigotry and jingoism; the hidden premise being assumed is that no
other god besides the Christian god could possibly exist. Of course,
only *some* Christians are responsible for this claim being promoted.
Blessed be,
Matthew
Alan Young
> You say that as though I hadn't been clear and specific about "restricting
> my definition" from the start. But here is what you originally responded to:
>
> And, as I've pointed out here, Buddhists are certainly "pagan" (neither
> Christian nor Muslim nor of the Jewish religion), yet are "atheistic"
> in the sense of not *worshipping* gods (even if some happen to believe
> that gods *exist*); thus Buddhists are clearly "pagan atheists".
>
> Please notice the "in the sense of..." that follows the word "atheistic".
>
> A single sentence, only four lines long, and over a quarter of it, right
> in the middle, was devoted to stating the sense in which I used "atheistic".
>
> Yet, by the end of that same sentence, you took it in a different sense --
> not by missing my specification, but by expressly refusing to accept it.
The amount of space you devote to justifying a counter-intuitive use of
language does not diminish the potential of that language to mislead, the
moment you put it in a different context (e.g., juxtaposed with another
term).
My conditions for accepting your argument are reasonable. Methinks thou
dost protest too much.
Raven
> Alan Young <aay...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> By a similar process, one could note that Xians have used the word "pagan"
>> to mean "one who worships no god" and thereby assert that "Pagans are
>> atheists," which would not be an easy conclusion to sell here. :-)
>
> Hehe... well, how exactly does one get from "one who does not worship
> *my* god" to "one who worships *no* god"...? Sounds like a fine case
> of bigotry and jingoism; the hidden premise being assumed is that no
> other god besides the Christian god could possibly exist. Of course,
> only *some* Christians are responsible for this claim being promoted.
I suggest you first ask for a URL or other citation to the supposed claim.
Ascertain the fact before drawing a conclusion from it.
The (usual) definition of "pagan" amounts to "non-worshipper of the God of
Abraham", i.e. "not Christian or Jewish or Muslim" -- which includes the
"irreligious", and those whose religion does not worship any god, *along*
with those whose religions worship gods other than the God of Abraham.
These categories are "outsiders" from the set of Abrahamic religions, whether
or not they are members of *other* religions or worshippers of *other* gods.
Thus "pagan" can be, and has been, truthfully used to refer to atheists.
It does not follow that *all* pagans are atheists.
Just as the fact that "pagan" has been truthfully used to refer to, say,
Wiccans, does not mean that *all* pagans are Wiccans.
Has the concept of subsets and supersets not been taught in schools recently?
Raven
> Raven <ra...@solaria.sol.net> wrote:
>
>> The whole discussion can be reduced to a syllogism --
>>
>> Major premise: One who doesn't worship a god is the "godless"
>> type of atheist.
>> Minor premise: Buddhists do not worship anyone.
>> Conclusion: Buddhists are the "godless" type of atheists.
>>
>> I have documented both the premises. The logic seems valid. The conclusion
>> follows directly from the premises. Where is the flaw or fallacy?
>
> Possibly with premise (1): how about if someone believes in the
> existence of a god or gods, but does not *worship* it/them? Perhaps
> belief in the existence of gods, or some other wider criterion than
> "worship", would fit better for premise (1).
I have mentioned (and quoted another mentioning) the three different types
or "flavors" or senses of atheism -- "strong" (believes gods do *not* exist),
"weak" (does not believe that gods *do* exist; sometimes called "agnostic"),
and "godless" (merely *has* no gods, i.e. does not worship them).
Buddhists vary in belief about the *existence* of gods, but do not *worship*
any; that is, not all Buddhist traditions are of the "strong" or "weak" types
of atheism, but all Buddhist traditions are of the "godless" type of atheism.
As *that* is what I was saying, premise (1) is correctly formulated.
> Still, at least *some* (and probably most?) Buddhists do not even believe
> in the *existence* of gods, and thus they're godless atheists.
No, Matthew: not believing in the existence of gods means being
at least a "weak atheist" (or what's sometimes called "agnostic").
Going all the way to firmly believing that gods do *not* exist
means being a "strong atheist".
What I term a "godless atheist" simply doesn't *have* (worship) gods,
and it doesn't matter whether he believes any exist.
Here's where people often get tangled up. The theism/atheism debate is very
often (in the West) conducted in the context of Christianity and *its* God,
about whom it may be argued endlessly whether he even exists. If it could
be proved that he doesn't, that might end the argument. But don't assume
that proving he *does* exist (as many try to do) would end the argument.
Even if he *does* exist, that wouldn't mean we should *worship* that god.
Let us travel to some other realm and age, where people worship the Sun.
Whatever a people worship, that is their god. In this case, their god is
the Sun. I think most of us will agree that the Sun *exists*. Thus, at
least one god *exists*. But does that compel *us*, who are foreigners, to
worship the god of this people? No. *We* might not have (worship) that
god; this would mean that the Sun is *their* god, but not *our* god.
Believing that some gods (like the Sun) exist does not equal worshipping them.
I don't think many people are "strong" or "weak" atheists with regard to gods
like the Sun, or Roman Emperors, or idols of wood or stone or metal; we can
agree that these do, or once did, physically exist. (The existence of gods
who cannot be presented in evidence is another, separate, question.)
But if we just don't worship them, or any other gods, we remain "godless".
That is the original sense of "atheist". The strong/weak varieties only
become relevant in the context of the kind of god who might not even exist.
> Your argument form would still work by just changing the criterion from
> "worship" to something else, maybe belief in existence (if necessary).
But that would be making a different statement, one I didn't and won't make,
and one which would not be true -- as some Buddhists do in fact allow the
possibility that gods might exist, and others may even affirmatively believe
that gods *do* exist. However, Buddhism regards gods (*if* they exist) as
only other beings caught in the Wheel of Existence, and with even longer to
wait before they can escape from it -- thus to be pitied, not worshipped.
Wood Avens
[snip]
>Let us travel to some other realm and age, where people worship the Sun.
>Whatever a people worship, that is their god. In this case, their god is
>the Sun. I think most of us will agree that the Sun *exists*. Thus, at
>least one god *exists*. But does that compel *us*, who are foreigners, to
>worship the god of this people? No. *We* might not have (worship) that
>god; this would mean that the Sun is *their* god, but not *our* god.
>
>Believing that some gods (like the Sun) exist does not equal worshipping them.
>
>I don't think many people are "strong" or "weak" atheists with regard to gods
>like the Sun, or Roman Emperors, or idols of wood or stone or metal; we can
>agree that these do, or once did, physically exist. (The existence of gods
>who cannot be presented in evidence is another, separate, question.)
The thought occurs to me that one could extend this argument to say
that proven physical existence is not a necessary criterion,
expecially for those examples of 'God' for whom their followers don't
claim any tangible, physical existence. On that basis, the
purely-conceptual 'God' believed in by some contemporary Christian
theologians (for instance) clearly does exist as a thought-form.
>From this, however, it would be possible to argue that *all* Gods
exist as thought-forms in the minds of the people who believe in them
(whether or not they also have some other form of existence). Under
these circumstances, only your third category of atheism is possible.
(Which presents opportunities for confusion, given that - in the UK,
at least - the word is popularly and widely used and understood in
the 'strong' sense, and indeed defined in the Concise Oxford
dictionary simply as 'the theory or belief that God does not exist'.)
BB
Wood Avens
spamtrap: Remove number to reply
Leigh
As I understand the word pagan it's original meaning, from Latin, is
worshiper of local god(s). It has been used to refer to anyone not of
OUR * faith which
includes, therefore, athiests.
* Whichever faith the user is.
This is why language is a fluid (no not fluent) thing. As words are
misused
or corrupted they change or their meaning changes.
I think that worshiper of local, or personal, gods has a more pleasant
connotation and is more correct, than 'outsider'.
However, I recognize the fact that I may be in the minority.
IIRC, heathern means much the same but comes from germanic, meaning of
the
heath.
Thus you could say in english, Yokel. It has that slight derogatory
feel that
may or may not be intended.
Leigh
Raven
signifying a god. Therefore, an atheist is a person who is literally godless
.... Originally the term was used as a derogatory label for those who rejected
traditional gods, such as Socrates or the early Christians." -Atheist Resources
"ETYMOLOGY: French atheisme, from athee, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless :
a-, without; see a-(1) + theos, god...." -American Heritage Dictionary
Alan Young <aay...@sonic.net> wrote:
> Raven <ra...@solaria.sol.net> wrote:
>
>> You say that as though I hadn't been clear and specific about "restricting
>> my definition" from the start. But here is what you originally responded to:
>>
>> And, as I've pointed out here, Buddhists are certainly "pagan" (neither
>> Christian nor Muslim nor of the Jewish religion), yet are "atheistic"
>> in the sense of not *worshipping* gods (even if some happen to believe
>> that gods *exist*); thus Buddhists are clearly "pagan atheists".
>>
>> Please notice the "in the sense of..." that follows the word "atheistic".
>>
>> A single sentence, only four lines long, and over a quarter of it, right
>> in the middle, was devoted to stating the sense in which I used "atheistic".
>>
>> Yet, by the end of that same sentence, you took it in a different sense --
>> not by missing my specification, but by expressly refusing to accept it.
>
> The amount of space you devote to justifying a counter-intuitive use of
> language
Counter-intuitive? "Godless" is the *original meaning* of "atheist", as
that intro for alt.atheism explained, and as I indicated with reference to
the accusation levelled against those who refused to worship the Emperor;
it is also still one of the meanings listed in dictionaries such as the OED.
(As I told Matthew, the other two meanings only apply in a limited context.)
Since I took great care to specify *that* as the sense I was using, I think
it is reasonable of me to ask that it still be taken in *that* sense during
at least the same *sentence* where I specified it. Are you saying you won't
accept my usage unless I make the specification *twice* within one sentence?
> does not diminish the potential of that language to mislead,
. ^^^^^^^
You appear to be using the last word there in the sense of:
"permit deliberate misinterpretation by refusal to accept clarification".
. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nothing could diminish the potential of any language whatsoever to "mislead"
in that sense, because I could have made that same specification a dozen times
in one sentence -- but you could equally disregard them all, substituting
your own preferred meaning, and insisting that I had made the different claim
that would result from your substitution.
> the moment you put it in a different context
In the same *sentence*?
> (e.g., juxtaposed with another term).
(i.e. later on in the same sentence).
> My conditions for accepting your argument are reasonable.
Entire long threads of debates have gone on with a term defined *once*, and
used consistently thereafter. *Your* condition requires attaching a full
definition to every occurrence of a word even inside a single sentence;
this is not reasonable. I have defined my terms clearly, and within the
range of historical, current, and dictionary usage. I abide by them.
> Methinks thou dost protest too much.
Had I cited less, thou mightest say *that* were no proof.
Had I not replied at all, thou mightest say *that* were concession.
But as I have supported my usage fully, "too much" sayest thou, yet still
thou dost grumble that it is "misleading", even "counter-intuitive", quotha.
Since when, I wonder, did thine *intuition* determine a word's meaning?
Thou hast accused me of playing Humpty-Dumpty, but I now perceive that 'tis
thyself thou hast declared the "master" over words and their meanings.
Raven
> As I understand the word 'pagan', its original meaning, from Latin, is
> worshipper of local god(s). It has been used to refer to anyone not of OUR
> faith (whichever faith the user is), which includes, therefore, atheists.
>
> This is why language is a fluid (no, not 'fluent') thing. As words are
> misused or corrupted, they change, or their meaning changes.
>
> I think that worshipper of local, or personal, gods has a more pleasant
> connotation and is more correct, than 'outsider'.
>
> However, I recognize the fact that I may be in the minority.
>
> IIRC, heathen means much the same but comes from germanic,
> meaning of the heath. Thus you could say in english, Yokel.
> It has that slight derogatory feel that may or may not be intended.
"Pagan" also had the connotation of "yokel" at one time. It's had several
referents, each of which seems to have developed out of an earlier usage.
It started as the adjectival form of "pagus" (province), as contrasted to
"urbs" (city). A city-dweller was urb-an (urbanus), a province-dweller
was pag-an (paganus). Obviously those hicks from the provinces were yokels,
thus "paganus" had the same double meaning as "provincial" does today.
The Roman Legions, who marched through the provinces on their way to and from
the border posts and foreign wars, referred to civilians in general as pagani,
again with that "slight derogatory feel" -- well, soldiers today have been
known to say "ci-VIL-ians" with some exasperation.
I suspect the first *religious* usage of "pagan" to refer to non-members
may have been by the Mithraists who were so predominant in the Legions.
Since Mithras was a soldier's god, it would have been natural to think of
his followers as the "soldiers" of his army, and non-followers as the
"civilians"; thus the evolution in meaning would have been very easy.
But already by the second century CE -- long before Constantine made
Christianity the state religion and Mithraists became Christian in
droves, bringing along some of their customs into the Church -- there
was a Christian epitaph referring to non-Christians as "pagan".
Around 202 CE, Tertullian, in his De Corona Militis (The Soldier's Crown),
refers to Christians as "soldiers" and non-Christians as "civilians" (pagani),
in line with the much later song "Onward Christian Soldiers". (See below.)
Notice that "pagan" religions were still the dominant faiths, with great
temples in the cities, thus the implication of "yokel" could not have been
intended at that time. Paganism wouldn't be banished to the countryside for
another century. (This refutes one of the most common false derivations.)
In Christian usage -- which of course became universal European usage --
"pagan" meant "non-Christian" through the Middle Ages and Renaissance,
only changing in the Enlightenment period to mean non-worshipper of the
God of Christians, thus removing Jews and Muslims from the "pagan" category.
(As late as Shakespeare, "pagan" had still included Jews and Muslims.)
The Oxford English Dictionary lists (and gives sources and dates for) other
meanings "pagan" has had, including metaphorical usages such as "prostitute".
The OED's main section gives an incorrect etymology which has been circulated:
"Pagan", p.2052 (Vol.II) Compact Edition: "L. paganus, orig. 'villager,
rustic'; in Christian L. (Tertullian, Augustine) 'heathen' as opposed to
Christian or Jewish; indicating the fact that the ancient idolatry
lingered on in the rural villages and hamlets after Christianity had been
generally adopted in the towns and villages of the Roman Empire...."
But turn to "Additions and Emendations", p.4092 (Vol.II) Compact Edition:
"Pagan. Etymology. The explanation of L. paganus in the sense 'non-Christian,
heathen', as arising out of that of 'villager, rustic', given by Orosius
(a Spaniard) c. 417, has been shown to be chronologically and historically
untenable, for this use of the word goes back to Tertullian c. 202, when
paganism was still the public and dominant religion, and even appears,
according to Lanciani, in an epitaph of the 2nd cent. The explanation is
now found in the L. use of paganus as = 'civilian, non-militant', opposed
to miles 'soldier, one of the army'. The Christians called themselves
milites 'enrolled soldiers' of Christ, members of his militant church, and
applied to non-Christians the term applied by soldiers to all who were
'not enrolled in the army'. Cf. Tertullian, De Corona Militis, xi,
'Apud hunc [Christum] tam miles est paganus fidelis quam paganus est miles
infidelis'. ..."
Raven
> Raven <ra...@solaria.sol.net> wrote:
> [snip]
>> Let us travel to some other realm and age, where people worship the Sun.
>> Whatever a people worship, that is their god. In this case, their god is
>> the Sun. I think most of us will agree that the Sun *exists*. Thus, at
>> least one god *exists*. But does that compel *us*, who are foreigners, to
>> worship the god of this people? No. *We* might not have (worship) that
>> god; this would mean that the Sun is *their* god, but not *our* god.
>>
>> Believing that some gods (like the Sun) exist does not equal worshipping
>> them.
I have used the analogy of "petless". I may not believe in the physical
existence of chimerae and basilisks, but I can believe in such existence
for cats and dogs -- yet if I have no owner/pet relationship to an animal,
I remain petless. Likewise, I may not believe in the existence of "gaseous
vertebrates", but I can believe that the Sun and Moon and idols exist --
yet if I have no worshipper/deity relationship to them, I remain godless.
>> I don't think many people are "strong" or "weak" atheists with regard to
>> gods like the Sun, or Roman Emperors, or idols of wood or stone or metal;
>> we can agree that these do, or once did, physically exist. (The existence
>> of gods who cannot be presented in evidence is another, separate, question.)
>
> The thought occurs to me that one could extend this argument to say
> that proven physical existence is not a necessary criterion,
> expecially for those examples of 'God' for whom their followers don't
> claim any tangible, physical existence. On that basis, the
> purely-conceptual 'God' believed in by some contemporary Christian
> theologians (for instance) clearly does exist as a thought-form.
Yes, I take that step when arguing with fellow atheists (who are of the
"strong" or "weak" types) over why I declare myself the "godless" type.
First we have to arrive at an agreement of terms about what a "god" is --
not a super-powerful entity of such-and-such attributes, but simply the
object of worship (whether or not seen as a person, the universe's creator,
endowed with all virtues, etc., because not all gods are so described).
Then we cover whether people have worshipped the Sun, yes, does the Sun exist,
yes, therefore does at least one kind of God exist, yes; so the question goes
back to the one god most atheists in the West are used to debates over, the
Christian God. Do Christians commit worship, yes, so whatever is the object
of that worship would be a god, yes, so what is it that Christians worship?
At this point the replies may vary: their *idea* about God, their *delusion*,
the *mental image* they've been taught, and so forth. Then I ask, does an
idea exist? is there such a thing as a delusion? can there *be* a mental image?
I have been known to pile on, most cruelly:
"Measure love with a ruler, or weigh hate on a scale. Demonstrate the
objective material existence of generosity, courage, loyalty, beauty,
or truth. Point to a thought, a theory, a value. Show me a mind."
We can observe that people's *ideas* and *delusions* and *mental images* may
have real effect on their behavior, their actions, and thus on the world.
Those ideas/delusions/etc. may not actually be the universe's creator or have
any of the other qualities so often attributed to them by worshippers, but
that only means these objects of worship have been inaccurately described,
not that they don't exist *in some sense*.
Obviously these are abstractions, without *physical* existence, but we can
and do speak of other abstractions existing *in some sense*, for instance
lies, mistakes, religions, and governments. (No government anywhere ever
physically existed. Try pointing to one. Find anything physical, other
than people, buildings, equipment, and pieces of paper with ink marks on
them -- none of which are "governments".)
When someone is forced to admit that even the Christian God is as real as
the Government of the United States [or fill in the country of your choice],
"strong" and "weak" atheism tend to make way for the original "godlessness".
> From this, however, it would be possible to argue that *all* Gods
> exist as thought-forms in the minds of the people who believe in them
> (whether or not they also have some other form of existence). Under
> these circumstances, only your third category of atheism is possible.
Which is why I declare myself of *that* category, and not the other two.
> (Which presents opportunities for confusion, given that - in the UK,
> at least - the word is popularly and widely used and understood in
> the 'strong' sense, and indeed defined in the Concise Oxford
> dictionary simply as 'the theory or belief that God does not exist'.)
Well, yes; as I told Matthew, in the West the debate is so often kept to the
context of Christianity, whose God may not *physically* exist (but whose
worshippers tend to insist on something more than "thought-form" status for
him), that Westerners tend to use the word "atheist" only in reference to
that squabble. Once we leave that context, and discuss physically existing
objects of worship, "strong" and "weak" types of atheism stop being relevant.
Matthew Vincent
>Matthew Vincent <war...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>> Raven <ra...@solaria.sol.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The whole discussion can be reduced to a syllogism --
>>>
>>> Major premise: One who doesn't worship a god is the "godless"
>>> type of atheist.
>>> Minor premise: Buddhists do not worship anyone.
>>> Conclusion: Buddhists are the "godless" type of atheists.
>>>
>>> I have documented both the premises. The logic seems valid. The conclusion
>>> follows directly from the premises. Where is the flaw or fallacy?
>>
>> Possibly with premise (1): how about if someone believes in the
>> existence of a god or gods, but does not *worship* it/them? Perhaps
>> belief in the existence of gods, or some other wider criterion than
>> "worship", would fit better for premise (1).
>
>I have mentioned (and quoted another mentioning) the three different types
>or "flavors" or senses of atheism -- "strong" (believes gods do *not* exist),
>"weak" (does not believe that gods *do* exist; sometimes called "agnostic"),
>and "godless" (merely *has* no gods, i.e. does not worship them).
>
>Buddhists vary in belief about the *existence* of gods, but do not *worship*
>any; that is, not all Buddhist traditions are of the "strong" or "weak" types
>of atheism, but all Buddhist traditions are of the "godless" type of atheism.
>
>As *that* is what I was saying, premise (1) is correctly formulated.
Ah, indeed. You *did* explain the term "godless atheist" earlier, but
I overlooked it. My apologies for not paying closer attention. Oh
well, at least it gave you the chance to make some additional
interesting comments.
<agreement snipped>
Blessed be,
Matthew
Matthew Vincent
>Matthew Vincent <war...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>> Alan Young <aay...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>> By a similar process, one could note that Xians have used the word "pagan"
>>> to mean "one who worships no god" and thereby assert that "Pagans are
>>> atheists," which would not be an easy conclusion to sell here. :-)
>>
>> Hehe... well, how exactly does one get from "one who does not worship
>> *my* god" to "one who worships *no* god"...? Sounds like a fine case
>> of bigotry and jingoism; the hidden premise being assumed is that no
>> other god besides the Christian god could possibly exist. Of course,
>> only *some* Christians are responsible for this claim being promoted.
>The (usual) definition of "pagan" amounts to "non-worshipper of the God of
>Abraham", i.e. "not Christian or Jewish or Muslim" -- which includes the
>"irreligious", and those whose religion does not worship any god, *along*
>with those whose religions worship gods other than the God of Abraham.
>These categories are "outsiders" from the set of Abrahamic religions, whether
>or not they are members of *other* religions or worshippers of *other* gods.
>Thus "pagan" can be, and has been, truthfully used to refer to atheists.
In other words, that all atheists are pagans, but some pagans are not
atheists; atheists being a subset of pagans?
>It does not follow that *all* pagans are atheists.
>Has the concept of subsets and supersets not been taught in schools recently?
Errrr, I was responding to Alan's post, where he specifically
mentioned the assertion that "pagans are atheists". I have spoken to
*some* Christians who have claimed this, also.
Blessed be,
Matthew
Alan Young
(Matthew Vincent) wrote:
> Errrr, I was responding to Alan's post, where he specifically
> mentioned the assertion that "pagans are atheists". I have spoken to
> *some* Christians who have claimed this, also.
Hey, don't attribute that statement to me! I was using it as a
*hypothetical*, if Raven's logic for calling Buddhists atheists were
used.
[sheesh, ya really have to be on guard around here, there's no telling how
people might use your quotes.]
Raven
>> Abraham", i.e. "not Christian or Jewish or Muslim" -- which includes the
>> "irreligious", and those whose religion does not worship any god, *along*
>> with those whose religions worship gods other than the God of Abraham.
>>
>> These categories are "outsiders" from the set of Abrahamic religions,
>> whether or not they are members of *other* religions or worshippers of
>> *other* gods.
>>
>> Thus "pagan" can be, and has been, truthfully used to refer to atheists.
>
> In other words, that all atheists are pagans, but some pagans are not
> atheists; atheists being a subset of pagans?
Bingo.
>> It does not follow that *all* pagans are atheists.
>>
>> Has the concept of subsets and supersets not been taught in schools
>> recently?
>
> Errrr, I was responding to Alan's post, where he specifically
> mentioned the assertion that "pagans are atheists". I have spoken to
> *some* Christians who have claimed this, also.
Then I would ask them what they mean by "atheists".
Perhaps they think you don't worship *anything*. (You could correct them.)
Perhaps they think you don't believe in *anything*. (Ditto.)
Perhaps they think theirs is the *only* god, thus if you don't have that one
you can't have *any* god. (You could cite their own Bible mentioning that
there *are* other gods -- whom only the *Hebrews* were commanded not to have
*before* YHVH... notice the two loopholes there?)
Or perhaps they are merely using the word as a pejorative, the way Ben Stein
called the 9/11 terrorists "atheists" despite their being blatant monotheists.
(Stein later retracted that statement, and apologized to atheists.)
This is an area subject to much confusion, due to the failure to understand
each other's meanings for the terms involved. Clarification often helps.
Raven
> Matthew Vincent <war...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> Errrr, I was responding to Alan's post, where he specifically
>> mentioned the assertion that "pagans are atheists". I have spoken to
>> *some* Christians who have claimed this, also.
>
> Hey, don't attribute that statement to me! I was using it as a
> *hypothetical*, if Raven's logic for calling Buddhists atheists were used.
You certainly didn't use *my* logic to come up with that hypothetical.
Alan, consider a Venn diagram consisting of one big circle containing several
smaller circles qhich do not overlap each other -- ( () () () ) -- so that
anything inside one of the smaller circles is necessarily inside the larger
circle, but *not* inside any of the other small circles. Got a clear image?
This could represent a variety of real-world situations, for instance the
United States of America containing the 50 separate states (New York, Texas,
Minnesota, etc.), a state containing counties, or a county containing towns.
Someone who comes from Dallas TX is a Texan; so is someone who comes from
Houston TX. This does not mean that the Dallasian comes from Houston, or
vice versa. Both are Americans; so are New Yorkers and Minnesotans. This
does not mean that Texans come from New York or Minnesota, or vice versa.
And it certainly does not follow that all Americans are Texans.
Let's say the big circle is the category "pagan". There are smaller circles
(subsets) called "neopagan", "paleopagan", "mesopagan", "civilopagan", for
the historical period or cultural setting of each religion. Wicca is usually
described as "neopagan", and thus is also "pagan", but is not "paleopagan".
Buddhism is usually described as "civilopagan", thus "pagan", not "neopagan".
And it certainly does not follow that all pagans are Wiccans (or Buddhists).
Much of the discussion on "pagan"-themed newsgroups concerns "neopagan"
religions. Sometimes some participants forget that "neopagan" does not
constitute all of the "pagan" category, and start using "pagan" as being
synonymous with "neopagan". Since Buddhism is not "neopagan", they think
it is not "pagan" at all. They have mistaken the subset for the superset.
Neopagans are pagans. It does not follow that all pagans are neopagans.
There is a big dotted line down the middle of the big "pagan" circle,
dividing it into "theistic" pagans on one side, and "atheistic" pagans
on the other side. Some of the smaller circles may fall on one side or
the other, but I rather think most (if not all) fall on both sides --
that is, the dotted line goes right through them -- so that there are
both theistic and atheistic "civilopagans" (as in ancient Greece and Rome),
both theistic and atheistic "neopagans" (e.g. yourself vs. Natalie), etc.
Atheists are pagans. It does not follow that all pagans are atheists.
Okay, let's take that half-circle of "atheism" and make it into a circle by
itself, for separate consideration of its subsets. It has smaller circles
inside for the "godless", "weak", and "strong" varieties. This layout is
different, because the smaller circles *do* overlap or even contain others.
Let's say most of atheism is taken up by "godless", because very few atheists
of any type worship anything. (Natalie is an exception, as a "strong atheist"
in disbelief, who chooses to worship what she knows to be abstractions.)
Mostly within the "godless" circle, but with an edge poking out for the rare
exception, is the circle for "weak atheism" (lacking positive belief in gods).
Entirely within the "weak atheism" circle, likewise poking an edge out of the
"godless" circle, is the "strong atheism" circle (positively believing that
gods *don't* exist).
All those who believe gods *don't* exist also *lack* a belief that gods *do*
exist. It does not follow that everyone who lacks a belief in gods also has
a positive belief in their non-existence.
If it weren't for rare exceptions like Natalie, the diagram would be much
neater. The big "atheism" circle would also be the "godless" circle, since
no atheist would worship anything. "Weak atheism" would be an entirely
enclosed subset, and "strong atheism" would still be a subset of "weak".
This simpler layout may be easier to visualize, as long as you remember
that there *are* those exceptions it doesn't show.
As it is, we can say that *most* of those who disbelieve in gods also
do not worship them. It does not follow that those who do not worship
gods also lack belief in them or positively believe they don't exist.
Now, Buddhism in all its traditions fits within the "godless" circle, as
Buddhism does not involve worship. (A person may be both Buddhist *and*
something else, but then his *personal* circle overlaps the Buddhist border,
possibily even extending beyond the "godless" border to worship something.)
Buddhism, however, is *not* entirely enclosed within the subset circles of
"weak" and "strong" atheism, as some Buddhists may believe that gods exist.
Buddhism is "godless", thus Buddhism is "atheistic".
However, Buddhism is *not* necessarily "strong-atheistic", nor necessarily
"weak-atheistic" -- some Buddhists are, and some aren't.
Despite not being *every* type of atheists, Buddhists are *one* type of
atheists, and thus may truthfully be called "atheists", though it may help
from time to time if we clarify which type of atheists we mean by that.
Just as, despite not being *every* type of pagans, Wiccans are *one* type of
pagans (neopagans), and thus may be truthfully called "pagans".
Atheists are also pagans. And Buddhists are pagans. But it does NOT follow
that all pagans are atheists; nor that Wiccans are Buddhists, or vice versa.
Perhaps it would help to actually draw those diagrams and look at them.
> [sheesh, ya really have to be on guard around here, there's no telling how
> people might use your quotes.]
Yes, somebody might get supersets and subsets confused, and think that by
saying "Texans are Americans" you are *really* saying "Americans are Texans";
or that by saying "atheists are pagans", you are saying "pagans are atheists".
Baird Stafford
<snip>
> Much of the discussion on "pagan"-themed newsgroups concerns "neopagan"
> religions. Sometimes some participants forget that "neopagan" does not
> constitute all of the "pagan" category, and start using "pagan" as being
> synonymous with "neopagan". Since Buddhism is not "neopagan", they think
> it is not "pagan" at all. They have mistaken the subset for the superset.
Umm....
Many of us leave such religions as Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto and the
like out of our usual definition of "pagan" out of courtesy to the
practitioners of those religions - many of whom appear to object to
the perjorative connotation attached to the word.
In other words, the phenomenon Raven mentions above does exist, but
it is not always caused by sloppy thinking....
<snip>
Blessed be,
Baird
--
Modkin for soc.religion.paganism,
Modstaff for alt.religion.wicca.moderated
Like science fiction and fantasy fiction? Read my reviews at
<http://www.bairdstafford.com>
Alan Young
slapping the "tar baby" of Raven's argument the way I did. ;-]
hummingbear
In article <p05010406b80158390837@[192.168.1.2]>, Baird Stafford
<ba...@newstaff.com> wrote:
Raven
>> religions. Sometimes some participants forget that "neopagan" does not
>> constitute all of the "pagan" category, and start using "pagan" as being
>> synonymous with "neopagan". Since Buddhism is not "neopagan", they think
>> it is not "pagan" at all. They have mistaken the subset for the superset.
>
> Umm....
>
> Many of us leave such religions as Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto and the
> like out of our usual definition of "pagan" out of courtesy to the
> practitioners of those religions - many of whom appear to object to
> the perjorative connotation attached to the word.
>
> In other words, the phenomenon Raven mentions above does exist, but
> it is not always caused by sloppy thinking....
At least some Asatruar have likewise objected to "pagan", preferring instead
the term "heathen". In terms of choosing a name for the category, where
there are synonyms, there's no reason not to be polite and abide by that.
But in terms of judging whether a group falls into the category (by whatever
name), surely it's reasonable to look at whether a group meets the criteria.
Otherwise all the word "pagan" means is "those who want to be called 'pagan'".
Self-chosen names weren't really the topic under discussion.
I don't plaster the name "pagan" or the name "atheist" on myself, but merely
note that (as those words are defined) I happen to meet the category criteria.
My *religion* is Humanism. I am a *member* of the First Unitarian Society of
Milwaukee (whose denomination is the Unitarian Universalist Association) and
a charter member of the Humanist Quest of Milwaukee (affiliated with the
American Humanist Association). When a distinction is drawn between theistic
and atheistic, I happen to be on the atheistic side of the line, specifically
in the category called "godless" (non-worshipping). When a distinction is
drawn between the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) and
everything else ("pagans"), I happen to be on the pagan side of the line,
as my godlessness applies also to the God of Abraham; I don't worship him.
Notice that I capitalize the proper names (the self-chosen labels of groups)
but do not capitalize the common nouns (the general labels of *categories*).
The word "pagan" does not designate any specific religion, but rather a whole
category of religions, by exclusion from Christianity and those religions
that share its deity. This usage exists in English (and other European
languages) because England and the rest of Europe have been predominantly
Christian for most of the past two millennia, and their peoples have had many
occasions to refer to the distinction between Christians and non-Christians.
The term "pagan" is not used as a self-chosen name by, say, [most] Hindus and
Shintoists, because they are mostly in India and Japan, respectively, where
English is spoken but is not the primary (i.e. native) language -- just as
most people in America do not call themselves "gaijin" (the Japanese word for
foreign = non-Japanese), even though that is a category most of them are in.
And most Christians don't call themselves "goyim" (non-Jewish), unless they
are talking with Jews or about the distinction between Jews and non-Jews.
Baird, you and I don't go about describing ourselves to others as "kafir"
(non-Muslim), even though we happen to *be* non-Muslim, because we have no
reason to define ourselves as non-members of that religion. It might be
different if we were attending Arab Fest and chatting with a group of Muslims.
This is why I have expressed some puzzlement at Wiccans and other neopagans
actually taking (capitalized) "Pagan" as a self-chosen label, as if it gave
some definite description of their religions. It would be like answering the
question "What do you believe?" with "Oh, I'm a Kafir," or "Well, I'm a Goy."
Yet, if the question comes up about which religious groups fall into the
categories "kafir" or "goy", you would in all honesty have to say yours does.
And if the question comes up about which religious groups fall into the
category designated "pagan"... in all honesty, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto,
and Humanism do. Whether they ever utter the *word* is beside the point.
Wood Avens
>(non-Muslim), even though we happen to *be* non-Muslim, because we have no
>reason to define ourselves as non-members of that religion. It might be
>different if we were attending Arab Fest and chatting with a group of Muslims.
>
>This is why I have expressed some puzzlement at Wiccans and other neopagans
>actually taking (capitalized) "Pagan" as a self-chosen label, as if it gave
>some definite description of their religions.
The 1996 Oxford English Reference Dictionary gives two meanings of the
word pagan. The first, which corresponds with your approach here, is
'a person not subscribing to any of the main religions of the world,
esp. formerly regarded by Christians as unenlightened or heathen'.
(Interesting use of 'formerly' there).
The second, however, is 'identifying divinity or spirituality in
nature; pantheistic'. And it's that definition I have in mind when I
call myself a pagan - though I'd usually capitalize it in writing,
since it seems to be common, pragmatic usage here in order to
distinguish ancient pagans and contemporary Pagans.
(To be fair, the latest - 1999 - edition of the Concise Oxford gives
only the first meaning. But then it's a much shorter tome.)
francis freespirit
<war...@es.co.nz> writes[Raven]
>>These categories are "outsiders" from the set of Abrahamic religions, whether
>>or not they are members of *other* religions or worshippers of *other* gods.
>
>>Thus "pagan" can be, and has been, truthfully used to refer to atheists.
>
>In other words, that all atheists are pagans, but some pagans are not
>atheists; atheists being a subset of pagans?
[francis]
Raven quotes an apparently incorrect use of the designation Pagan when
applied to atheists.
Pagans *by definition* believe in few or many gods and/or goddesses.
Atheists *by definition* believe in none.
--
francis freespirit
oxford, england
francis freespirit
<chris...@ntlworld.com> writes
>As I understand the word pagan it's original meaning, from Latin, is
>worshiper of local god(s). It has been used to refer to anyone not of
>OUR * faith which
>includes, therefore, athiests.
>
>* Whichever faith the user is.
>
>This is why language is a fluid (no not fluent) thing. As words are
>misused
>or corrupted they change or their meaning changes.
>I think that worshiper of local, or personal, gods has a more pleasant
>connotation and is more correct, than 'outsider'.
>However, I recognize the fact that I may be in the minority.
>IIRC, heathern means much the same but comes from germanic, meaning of
>the
>heath.
>Thus you could say in english, Yokel. It has that slight derogatory
>feel that
>may or may not be intended.
>
>Leigh
Leigh, my friend, you are absolutely correct and I am delighted to see
your quoted definition in print. The recognition of, and the easy
everyday communication with, local gods is of the ultimate essence of
Paganism.
There are, of course, in addition to these local ones (the immanent
ones), transcendent ones, deities which have been first formulated in
the minds of men and women e.g. love as an abstract concept becomes
deified as the goddess Venus-Aphrodite.
I find it revealing that many devout Christians still honour some of
these local gods/goddesses. Strictly speaking they should not, because
the official difference between Hellenistic Christians and the rest of
the world was that the Christians were supposed to acknowledge only the
One supreme God.
francis freespirit
<ra...@solaria.sol.net> writes
>"Pagan" also had the connotation of "yokel" at one time. It's had several
>referents, each of which seems to have developed out of an earlier usage.
>
>It started as the adjectival form of "pagus" (province), as contrasted to
>"urbs" (city). A city-dweller was urb-an (urbanus), a province-dweller
>was pag-an (paganus). Obviously those hicks from the provinces were yokels,
>thus "paganus" had the same double meaning as "provincial" does today.
Raven - I have snipped most of your detailed and accurate historical
summary because I feel bound to make a rather different point.
The definitions you have specified all derive from outsiders i.e. those
who were/are not Pagans. The time really has come when we who are Pagans
begin to insist on one or more definitions which apply to us at the
present day.
I have elsewhere [newsgroup uk.religion.pagan] proposed the following :
"The essential constituent of present day Paganism (with a capital P) is
the close association of this physical world with the beings and
entities of the metaphysical worlds."
In simple terms this is a statement that Pagans recognise and
communicate with the various local and domestic 'spirits' whose
'residences' can be seen with our physical sense of sight. [These are
sometimes referred to as the *genii loci* or the *Guardians of the
Place*.]
It does not rule out the Pagan recognition of deities who have no such
residences.
francis freespirit
>described as "neopagan",
Please, NO! By some people? Yes. 'Usually'? No.
Just to clarify : is there anywhere a book *specifically about Wicca*
and published within the last ten years which describes Wicca as
neopagan? If there is, I'd like to know so I can keep my data up to
date.
francis freespirit
>category of religions, by exclusion from Christianity and those religions
>that share its deity. This usage exists in English (and other European
>languages) because England and the rest of Europe have been predominantly
>Christian for most of the past two millennia, and their peoples have had many
>occasions to refer to the distinction between Christians and non-Christians.
I find much of this very uncomfortable partly because, as I have already
posted elsewhere, the definition of Pagan used here is outdated and
incorrect; partly because there is a lack of precision in the use of
data. Take the assertion that England and the rest of Europe has been
predominantly Christian for most of the past two millennia. Before we
can discuss this any further we'd have to ask: 'What do you mean by
most?' (and we'd probably also have to ask: 'What do you mean by
Christian *in this particular context*?') When did England become
Christian? Difficult to say. When St Augustine arrived in Canterbury?
Even that date's only the start of the process. Even if we round off the
figures to 500 CE that cuts out 25% of the past two millennia. Then
Europe? Well, dear of Karl der Grosse was bashing the heathen Saxons as
fast as he could sometime after the year of grace 800 when the Pope in
Roma crowned him as Emperor. So that's a good chunk out of the first
millennium. I'd go on to ask: 'When did England cease to be
predominantly Christian?' and start to chop bits of the 20th century
from the alleged two millennia under discussion. But I guess I've made
enough of a point to go on with.
Raven
> Matthew Vincent <war...@es.co.nz> writes
>> Raven <ra...@solaria.sol.net> wrote:
>>> These categories are "outsiders" from the set of Abrahamic
>>> religions, whether or not they are members of *other* religions
>>> or worshippers of *other* gods.
>>>
>>> Thus "pagan" can be, and has been, truthfully used to refer
>>> to atheists.
>>
>> are not atheists; atheists being a subset of pagans?
>
> Pagan when applied to atheists.
I did not capitalize "pagan". I was using the common noun,
i.e. the general English word for the category, not any specific
group's name for itself, nor yet the family name.
And I have cited dictionary entries, and even both of the OED's
etymologies, to show how the history of the word's usage has
given it this meaning.
Under these circumstances, I must ask what you mean by the
word "incorrect".
> Pagans *by definition* believe in few or many gods and/or
> goddesses.
Uh, no, there are also monotheistic pagans, e.g. Zoroastrians
-- alive and active in, for instance, India, under the name
Parsees, though it has long since been unsafe for them in their
original homeland of Iran.
Their use of fire in religious ritual is why Muslims refer
to *all* pagans, generically, as "People of the Flame";
they were the first pagans Muslims knew.
And the earliest Christians certainly included them in the
category of "pagan", as Zoroastrians (and the related Mithraists)
were well known to people of the Roman Empire during that period.
Likewise there are, and have been since before the time of Christ,
atheistic pagans. I've cited examples like Lucretius, who wrote
"De Rerum Natura" [The Nature of Things], around 50 BCE:
"Nothing from nothing ever yet was born.
Fear holds dominion over mortality
Only because, seeing in land and sky
So much the cause whereof no wise they know,
Men think Divinities are working there.
Meantime, when once we know from nothing still
Nothing can be create, we shall divine
More clearly what we seek: those elements
From which alone all things created are,
And how accomplished by no tool of Gods."
http://classics.mit.edu/Carus/nature_things.html
See also:
"To What Extent Did Atheistic Thought Exist in Ancient Rome?"
http://www.auburn.edu/~downejm/sp/ddwproj6.htm
"Ancient Skepticisms"
http://atheism.about.com/library/weekly/aa020900a.htm -or-
http://atheism.about.com/library/nosearch/printable/blp_aa020900.htm?once=true&
Plutarch: "The superstitious man wishes he did not believe
in gods, as the atheist does not, but fears to disbelieve
in them."
Seneca: "Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
The above site also discusses ancient Greece, e.g. Epicurus
(341-270 BCE), who wrote: "Fabulous persuasion in faith is
the approbation of feigned ideas or notions; it is credulous
belief in the reality of phantoms." -and- "Either God wants
to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to.
...If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can,
but does not want to, he is wicked. ... If, as they say, God
can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there
evil in the world?"
As Adam Smith summarized: "Man, according to the Stoics, ought to
regard himself, not as something separate and detached, but as a
citizen of the world, a member of the vast commonwealth of nature."
[This leads to the "duty of care" toward others, recently discussed
on alt.religion.wicca.moderated.]
http://www.cygneis.com/anastaplo/collections/series/samp5i.htm
Reader's Guide to Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
http://www.classics.uiuc.edu/clciv112-116_sp/StudyAids/Guides/12-Meditations.htm
"Humanist History"
http://www.humanism.org.uk/humhist.asp?print=1
See also "Who Are Freethinkers?" by Madalyn Murray O'Hair
http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/roots/whoare/
> Atheists *by definition* believe in none.
*sigh* I wonder why I bothered to quote and cite atheist FAQs.
1) The original and oldest meaning of "atheist" (from a-theos,
'without god') is "godless", having (worshipping) no gods --
even if one acknowledges that some (like the Sun) *exist*.
This is *still* in use, *still* in dictionaries (e.g. OED),
and I assure you it's a real category, as it describes *me*.
2) In the context of *specific* objects of worship, those which
(*unlike* the Sun, Moon, idols, and Roman Emperors) *cannot*
be presented in evidence, there is also a category of atheist
that lacks belief in *those* unproved gods' actual existence:
the so-called "weak atheist", sometimes called "agnostic".
(But technically an agnostic considers the issue unknowable.)
3) Within the "weak atheist" category, there is a subset that
expresses a positive belief that such unproved gods do *not*
exist: the so-called "strong atheist".
I used to describe these as nested sets -- strong within weak
within godless -- but Natalie Ramsey on soc.religion.paganism
pointed out that she was an exception, as she did not believe
in the *existence* of gods, but worshipped some as representing
forces or concepts. (I think of the Statue of Liberty, or the
courthouse figures of blindfolded Justice, as other examples.)
So there is variety among "pagans", and among "atheists".
Please don't make blanket claims about a category, which only
truly apply to a subset of the category, because then you are
mistaking the subset for the superset, with the result that
you are no longer applying the right criteria (definition).
"Americans live in Texas. You live in New York. Therefore..."
"Britons live in London. You live in Oxford. Therefore..."
Raven
> Raven <ra...@solaria.sol.net> writes
>> "Pagan" also had the connotation of "yokel" at one time. It's had several
>> referents, each of which seems to have developed out of an earlier usage.
>>
>> It started as the adjectival form of "pagus" (province), as contrasted to
>> "urbs" (city). A city-dweller was urb-an (urbanus), a province-dweller
>> was pag-an (paganus). Obviously those hicks from the provinces were yokels,
>> thus "paganus" had the same double meaning as "provincial" does today.
>
> Raven - I have snipped most of your detailed and accurate historical
> summary because I feel bound to make a rather different point.
>
> The definitions you have specified all derive from outsiders i.e. those
> who were/are not Pagans. The time really has come when we who are Pagans
> begin to insist on one or more definitions which apply to us at the
> present day.
You're absolutely right, Francis, and what's more, we should be consistent:
the words "goy", "kafir", "gajo", "cowan", "gentile", "gaijin", "etranger",
"straniero", "extrangeiro", and "fremd", all have been applied to us by
those who were *not* these things. (Jews, Muslims, Gypsies, Freemasons,
Mormons, Japanese, French, Italians, Portuguese, and Germans.) The time
really has come when we who *are* Goyim, Kafirs, Gaje, etc., begin to
insist that *we* get to tell all *those* people how they must use *their*
words for outsider in a way suitable to *us*. For instance, if we do not
choose to include Christians in our number, then Jews must stop calling
any Christians "goyim". If our Asatru brethren dislike "kafir" as much
as they dislike "pagan", then Muslims can only use "kafir" as referring
to those who are neither Muslims *nor* Asatruar. Freemasons should only
use "cowan" of those non-Freemasons who don't use any rituals at all.
Mormons should not use "gentile" to refer to anyone whose religion was
founded *after* 1820. Japanese must not use the word "gaijin", period.
Likewise for French, Italians, etc. -- what right do any of *them* have
to use *their* words with *their* meanings, or to use *any* word meaning
"outsider" and apply it to *us* who are not members of their groups?
You've set your sights too *low*, Francis! We have our work cut out for us!
[...snip...]
Raven
> Raven <ra...@solaria.sol.net> writes:
>> Wicca is usually described as "neopagan",
>
> Please, NO! By some people? Yes. 'Usually'? No.
>
> Just to clarify : is there anywhere a book *specifically about Wicca* and
> published within the last ten years which describes Wicca as neopagan?
> If there is, I'd like to know so I can keep my data up to date.
May I bring to your attention the current versions of pagan newsgroup FAQs?
Alt.Pagan FAQ 4.0 (October 1996), on newsgroups including alt.religion.wicca,
lists Wicca *first* in its list of examples of the category "neopaganism" --
news:3BB91004...@digital-marketplace.net (posted 01 Oct 2001).
Soc.Religion.Paganism FAQ 1.3.2 (September 2001), does exactly the same --
news:VA.000019b...@upsonuk.com (posted 30 Sep 2001).
Alt.Religion.Wicca FAQ 2.0 (June 2001) makes it a specific statement:
"'Wicca' is the name of a contemporary Neo-Pagan religion...." --
news:3B922923...@digital-marketplace.net (posted 02 Sep 2001)
Alt.Religion.Wicca.Moderated FAQ 1.3 (no revision date, but recent):
"Wicca is one specific religious branch of the various religions and
practices which fall under the umbrella of Neo-Paganism..." --
news:3B0465...@arwm.net (posted 17 May 2001).
Raven
> Raven <ra...@solaria.sol.net> writes
>> The word "pagan" does not designate any specific religion, but rather a
>> whole category of religions, by exclusion from Christianity and those
>> religions that share its deity. This usage exists in English (and other
>> European languages) because England and the rest of Europe have been
>> predominantly Christian for most of the past two millennia, and their
>> peoples have had many occasions to refer to the distinction between
>> Christians and non-Christians.
>
> I find much of this very uncomfortable partly because, as I have already
> posted elsewhere, the definition of Pagan used here is outdated and
> incorrect;
Answered in news:7d8764ba.01102...@posting.google.com
> partly because there is a lack of precision in the use of data.
Since the exact date of each nation's conversion was not relevant,
more "precision" did not seem necessary.
> Take the assertion that England and the rest of Europe has been
> predominantly Christian for most of the past two millennia. Before we
> can discuss this any further we'd have to ask: 'What do you mean by most?'
Try the usual meanings. From American Heritage & Cambridge, respectively:
[pronoun] "The greatest part or number: Most of the town was destroyed.
Most of the books were missing." http://www.bartleby.com/61/62/M0436200.html
"the biggest number or amount (of); more than anything or anyone else"
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=most*1+0
There have been Muslims in southeastern Europe since the Ottoman invasion,
and Jews since even before the Diaspora, but they are a small minority by
comparison to Christians, over -- again -- most of the past two millennia.
Even adding in all the pre-conversion native religions, from Odinists in
the north to the Greco-Roman melange in the south, a 2000-year census of
every European would tot up more than half in the "Christian" column.
I should think more than 3/4 or even 7/8, but "more than half" suffices to
explain why Christian terms (e.g for "outsider") exist in the vocabulary.
You know, psychologist George Miller suggested something that has since
become known as "Miller's Law" (although it's merely advice, not a command):
"In order to understand what another person is saying, you must assume that
it is true, and try to imagine what it could be true of."
Suzette Haden Elgin points out that many people apply the law in reverse:
"In order to MISunderstand what another person is saying, decide that it's
false. Then try to imagine what could be wrong with the person who said it
that would account for the unacceptable speech."
If you were going to pick one of these two, which would you prefer?
> (and we'd probably also have to ask: 'What do you mean by
> Christian *in this particular context*?')
Identifying one's group as "Christian" as distinguished from other groups.
> When did England become Christian? Difficult to say. When St Augustine
> arrived in Canterbury?
Augustine only converted the part of England south of the Thames. All above
that had already been reached by the Celtic Church, as I've documented here.
Mind you, for the word "pagan" to be frequently used did not require that
every last person in England be converted. On the contrary, while Christians
and non-Christians still coexisted on the same turf, there would be that many
*more* referents for the "Them" (as in Us-versus-Them) word "pagan", and thus
that many *more* occasions to use it. Once everyone you'd ever meet or ever
hear of was Christian, what occasion would there be to say "pagan" at all --
except of people long ago, or far away, or in the romantic mists of myth?
> Even that date's only the start of the process. Even if we round off the
> figures to 500 CE that cuts out 25% of the past two millennia. Then
> Europe? Well, dear of Karl der Grosse was bashing the heathen Saxons as
> fast as he could sometime after the year of grace 800 when the Pope in
> Roma crowned him as Emperor. So that's a good chunk out of the first
> millennium. I'd go on to ask: 'When did England cease to be
> predominantly Christian?' and start to chop bits of the 20th century
> from the alleged two millennia under discussion. But I guess I've made
> enough of a point to go on with.
Actually, no, as I've just shown, it's really missing the point.
Here, I'll hand you some more ammunition.
You could use the date of conversion of Lithuania ("the last pagan nation
of Europe") -- 1387, well into the second millennium -- as your best case.
Well, by then it *was* the last, i.e. the other European nations had already
been converted. By any reasonable meaning of "predominantly", Europe was
already *predominantly* Christian *before* Lithuania was converted.
And so on for the second-to-last, third-to-last. These were moppings-up.
But while they were still non-Christian, the *rest* of Europe had someone
around to *call* "pagan", and thus keep using the word with that meaning.
Just as Christians had started using "pagan" in reference to all religions
other than their own, at least as early as the second century CE, while
they were still a minority faith, long before they became the state religion
of the Roman Empire. ***They had that many more "pagans" to refer to.***
People tend to form groups, name their groups, and then name the rest of the
world *outside* their groups. The more sharp the distinction drawn between
in-group and out-group, the more it will be referred to, the more it will
need some term for the non-members, the not-Us, the Them, the Outsiders.
"Pagan" happens to be the word for Them used by Christians for over 1800 years.
Good luck trying to pry it out of their fingers, or taking "Goy" from the Jews.
Daniel Cohen
> My *religion* is Humanism
This seems a very interesting discussion in general, which I have come
to late.
Would most Humanists describe their beliefs as a "religion" as you have
done? I thought, maybe incorrectly, that they would tend not to say
'religion' but to use some other wording.
--
Remove "nospam" and "please" and "invalid" for a correct address
Raven
> Raven <ra...@solaria.sol.net> wrote:
>
>> My *religion* is Humanism
>
> This seems a very interesting discussion in general, which I have come
> to late.
>
> Would most Humanists describe their beliefs as a "religion" as you have
> done? I thought, maybe incorrectly, that they would tend not to say
> 'religion' but to use some other wording.
There are several varieties of Humanism and of Humanists, and I have
discussed them at some length here and on soc.religion.paganism, with
cites and quotes of explanatory websites.
Some do refer to their path*s* as *Religious* Humanism -- I say "paths" plural
because there are distinct subvarieties, like the Humanist subset of Unitarian
Universalists (here I raise my hand) or the Society for Humanistic Judaism
(atheistic Jews who still keep all the traditions that *don't* involve a god)
or Ethical Culture. Yep, even within atheism there *are* denominations!
Then there are Humanists who inist that what they're about has nothing to do
with religion, uh-uh, no way, no how, we don't *touch* that religion stuff....
Strictly speaking, *Secular* Humanism is (as it says) *secular*, focussing
on the world we're in, and therefore not even *about* religion -- e.g., it
discusses ethical values *without* making any claim about other worlds
or afterlives or deities, neither affirming nor denying any such thing.
"The Humanist FAQ" http://www.progressiveliving.org/humanism_faq.htm
recently posted to Usenet as news:3b6fbaff$0$42873$39de...@news.sol.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3b6fbaff$0$42873$39de...@news.sol.net
"What Is Humanism?" http://www.humanist.net/definitions/humanism.html
recently posted to Usenet as news:3b6bb32d$0$42872$39de...@news.sol.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3b6bb32d$0$42872$39de...@news.sol.net
Posts in "What is Paganism?" on Humanism, and on some roots in ancient Rome:
(1) news:3b6bb1dc$0$42872$39de...@news.sol.net
(2) news:7d8764ba.01080...@posting.google.com
(3) news:7d8764ba.01080...@posting.google.com
Further resources, if you'd like more reading on the subject:
The American Humanist Association website: http://www.humanist.net/
(On the left-hand column are many links to groups of files about Humanism.)
The essay "What is Humanism?", by AHA Executive Director Fred Edwords, says:
"... Humanist religious communities (such as Ethical Culture societies and
many Unitarian-Universalist churches)...." I should clarify that not all
UU churches are explicitly Humanist. Many are, many are not. There is no
creedal requirement in the UU denomination, so individual congregations may
emphasize one approach over another, or *not* emphasize any single approach.
Ethical Culture: American Ethical Union - http://www.aeu.org/
International Humanist and Ethical Union - http://www.iheu.org/
Unitarian Universalist Humanists (Friends of Religious Humanism):
http://humanist.net/frh/
Other Religious Humanist organizations include --
The Humanist Society of Friends: http://www.humanist.net/hsof/
Society for Humanistic Judaism: http://www.shj.org/ -or-
http://www.teleport.com/~hellman/
A specifically *non-religious* Humanist site, for contrast --
The Council for Secular Humanism: http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.html
List of Humanist organizations & websites: http://www.humanist.net/websites/
Atheists or Freethinkers: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/orgs.html
An essay on Religious Humanism:
http://www.humanistsofutah.org/1998/evans4.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist.htm
As to whether Humanism, in the specific sense of Religious Humanism,
is an actual religion, I note that it is so defined in Webster's
Third New International Unabridged (Merriam-Webster); look for the
phrase "often cap" (often capitalized), as distinct from "humanism"
without the capital letter.
humanist n... 3a _often cap_: a person who subscribes to the doctrines
of scientific humanism; _specif_: a member of a religious society or
cult subscribing to such doctrines ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
humanism n... 3: a doctrine, set of attitudes, or way of life centered
upon human interests or values: as a: a philosophy that rejects
supernaturalism, regards man as a natural object, and asserts the
essential dignity and worth of man and his capacity to achieve self-
realization through the use of reason and the scientific method --
called also _naturalistic humanism_, _scientific humanism_; compare
INSTRUMENTALISM, PRAGMATISM b _often cap_: a religion subscribing
to these beliefs: RELIGIOUS HUMANISM ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(I have been using the 3b "often capitalized" sense of "Humanism", and
have also for clarification repeatedly called it "Religious Humanism".)
--
raven | "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact,
@ | every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of God,
solaria.| because if there be one, He must more approve of the homage of
sol.net | reason than that of blindfold fear." Thomas Jefferson, 10 Aug 1787
francis freespirit
> 'without god') is "godless", having (worshipping) no gods --
> even if one acknowledges that some (like the Sun) *exist*.
> This is *still* in use, *still* in dictionaries (e.g. OED),
> and I assure you it's a real category, as it describes *me*.
I've selected just this one sentence to refer to because it's the crux
of the matter.
The current (10th edition) of the Concise Oxford Dictionary has :
atheism, the theory or belief that God does not exist.
It lists 'atheist' et al as derivatives.
BUT - your statement about yourself as an atheist is different. I must
accept that as an extension of current usage. (By the way, do you really
acknowledge the Sun as a god - or have I misread you?)
It's another instance of transatlantic differences in usage.
Remember to walk on the 'pavement' if you come to our fair city <grin>.
francis freespirit
sent. But I would add a caveat: I have come across this technique before
- where the area under consideration was widened in such a way as to
divert attention from the original proposition. Let's stay with
promulgating a relevant contemporary definition of Pagan/ism to start
with. Let's conduct this debate from inside Paganism.
Have a nice day ..
francis freespirit
<snip>
Thank you for your informative response. I now have a better idea of
where you are coming from. I have for you a few points I'd like to go
forward with - as matters of factual information ..
>Just as Christians had started using "pagan" in reference to all religions
>other than their own, at least as early as the second century CE, while
>they were still a minority faith, long before they became the state religion
>of the Roman Empire. ***They had that many more "pagans" to refer to.***
The earliest reference I can put my hand to at the moment is in the 'de
corona militis' of Tertullian who died in the year 220. Is there any
earlier documented use of 'pagan' in the sense of non-Christian?
>
>People tend to form groups, name their groups, and then name the rest of the
>world *outside* their groups. The more sharp the distinction drawn between
>in-group and out-group, the more it will be referred to, the more it will
>need some term for the non-members, the not-Us, the Them, the Outsiders.
People form groups .. yes. They name their groups .. very frequently but
perhaps not always - sometimes the designation is applied from outside.
They name the 'rest of the world'? Perhaps this generalisation goes a
little too far? I see what you are getting at and either or both of us
could give examples but I'm not sure I could agree it as a 'universal'.
>
>"Pagan" happens to be the word for Them used by Christians for over 1800 years.
I find myself somewhat uneasy when I consider this. On the surface it's
one of those truisms that's beyond debate. Beneath the surface it's a
generalisation that begs to be probed. I think back over the histories
of the past two thousand years and all sorts of questions begin to form
in my mind. At that point I begin to ask myself: To what degree is this
really true? and I realise that a real investigation would be quite
fascinating. Fascinating though it may be, the best I can do for the
immediate future is to keep my eyes open as I continue my researches
into allied topics.
>
>Good luck trying to pry it out of their fingers, or taking "Goy" from the Jews.
I wouldnt dream of taking Goyim from the sons and daughters of Israel! I
seem to recall Paul from Tarsus long ago determining to take the Good
News to the 'gentile' world. And I am one of those who read of the
Crusades and ask : Who, indeed, was the infidel?
francis freespirit
understand, the position: on the evidence you have presented,
neopaganism (with or without upper case(s) and/or hyphenation) appears
to be a neologism emanating from North America. I'll be careful to bear
that in mind. <smile>
PS : my spellchecker does not list 'neopaganism' ..
Wood Avens
[Lots snipped]
>"Pagan" happens to be the word for Them used by Christians for over 1800 years.
>
>Good luck trying to pry it out of their fingers, or taking "Goy" from the Jews.
Raven, is this really fair? You don't seem to me to be taking account
of the fact that words have the highly-inconvenient habit of changing
their meanings over time - over just ten years, indeed, never mind
over centuries or millennia. Until recently I was driven crazy
whenever I heard the word 'decimate' being used to mean 'devastate' or
'destroy', rather than (as I'm sure you know) 'kill one in ten'. But
whether I liked it or not, 'devastate' was what the speakers meant,
and was also what the vast majority of the hearers understood. I'm
forced to accept that that's what the word now means - and that's one
of the meanings given in current dictionaries. And I'd bet that a lot
fewer than one in ten people either know or care where the word came
from or that it originally meant something quite different. I'm now
waiting for 'prevaricate' to show up in dictionaries meaning
'procrastinate', since I've lost count of the times I've heard people
(especially politicians, who should know better) use it in that sense.
Now, it may be the case that in the US the word 'pagan' (and/or
'Pagan') continues to be generally understood to mean 'non-Christian'
- maybe this difference of perception simply reflects the old 'two
nations separated by a common language' truism. Here in the UK, where
only 10% of the population is Christian anyway, the main (not the
only, but the main) use of the term is in the second sense I gave you
from the OERD, 'identifying divinity or spirituality in nature'.
Further, it usually means contemporary or neo-paganism. It's used in
this sense not just by self-identifying Wiccans, Druids, etc etc, but
in the media (both popular and 'quality') and (often capitalized)
within the field of comparative religion, with reference to
contemporary pagan spiritual paths. For instance, the UK Open
University's Religious Studies Research Group is hosting a one-day
academic conference in January with the title 'The Development of
Paganism: History, Influences and Contexts, 1880-2002'. The UK
census, when its results are published next year, will include under
'religion' the number of people who identify as Pagan alongside those
who call themselves Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist,
etc.
Words have meaning when what the speaker intends is also what the
hearer understands. And whatever its origins, however derogatory the
term may once have been, that's the way 'pagan' is now generally
understood - here. And if this is indeed simply a transatlantic
difference, at least we're all learning something.
I don't personally have a problem, by the way, with the prefixed
'neo-paganism', any more than I do with the phrase 'contemporary
paganism'; I generally see it used in a context where 'classical
paganism' is also being referred to, or might be thought to be meant,
and it's necessary to distinguish between the two. But that reminds
me ... when I first encountered the word 'pagan' fifty years ago, it
didn't mean 'non-Christian' then, either: it meant 'follower of the
classical Gods of Greece and Rome'.
Shez
>> Raven <ra...@solaria.sol.net> writes
>>> "Pagan" also had the connotation of "yokel" at one time. It's had several
>>> referents, each of which seems to have developed out of an earlier usage.
Gentile is still in use, it became Gentleman, and is used all over the
English speaking world.
--
Shez, the Old Craft lady sh...@oldcity.demon.co.uk
www.oldcity.demon.co.uk/shez/
Matthew Vincent
wrote:
>In article <3bda85c1...@news.canterbury.ac.nz>, war...@es.co.nz
>(Matthew Vincent) wrote:
>
>>Errrr, I was responding to Alan's post, where he specifically
>>mentioned the assertion that "pagans are atheists". I have
>>spoken to *some* Christians who have claimed this, also.
>
>Hey, don't attribute that statement to me!
I didn't. I said that you *mentioned* the assertion, not that you
*made* the assertion. You mentioned an assertion that you got from
elsewhere, and disagree with.
>I was using it as a *hypothetical*, if Raven's logic for calling
>Buddhists atheists were used.
Your argument didn't seem to evolve from anything Raven said. You
mentioned that (some) Christians had claimed that a pagan was "one who
worshipped no god", and that if this definition were used, it would
mean that pagans were atheists. I assume you mentioned this in order
to respond to Raven's comments that "pagan" is a Christian word for
outsiders, and that you were suggesting that using a Christian
definition of Paganism would be unsuitable because of the absurdity of
some Christian claims about pagans. However, it still depends on
whether "pagan" initiated as a Christian word for outsiders, or
whether it was initially a word that Pagans or some sort used to
describe ourselves. I'm really not sure where I stand on this one.
Blessed be,
Matthew
Matthew Vincent
>Perhaps they think theirs is the *only* god, thus if you don't have that one
>you can't have *any* god. (You could cite their own Bible mentioning that
>there *are* other gods -- whom only the *Hebrews* were commanded not
>to have *before* YHVH... notice the two loopholes there?)
Ah, interesting. Do you have the reference to the pertinent section(s)
of the Bible? This could be useful.
Blessed be,
Matthew
Matthew Vincent
>1) The original and oldest meaning of "atheist" (from a-theos,
> 'without god') is "godless", having (worshipping) no gods --
> even if one acknowledges that some (like the Sun) *exist*.
> This is *still* in use, *still* in dictionaries (e.g. OED),
> and I assure you it's a real category, as it describes *me*.
Cool, would you say that you affirmatively believe in a particular
god(s), or the existence of some kind of god(s), or just that there
*might* be a god or gods but you are not sure either way? What are the
characteristics of the god(s) that you believe exist, or might exist?
What is your relationship with it/them, if not worshipping? For
instance, do you interact with it/them in some way, or are you mostly
indifferent to its/their existence?
Blessed be,
Matthew
Matthew Vincent
<fra...@topdeck.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <7d8764ba.01102...@posting.google.com>, Raven
><ra...@solaria.sol.net> writes
>>1) The original and oldest meaning of "atheist" (from a-theos,
>> 'without god') is "godless", having (worshipping) no gods --
>> even if one acknowledges that some (like the Sun) *exist*.
>> This is *still* in use, *still* in dictionaries (e.g. OED),
>> and I assure you it's a real category, as it describes *me*.
>(By the way, do you really acknowledge the Sun as a
>god - or have I misread you?)
I think Raven was just using the Sun as an example of the object of
worship of *some* godless atheists. He was also saying that he is a
godless atheist, and did not specify whether he believed in the Sun or
not. Hmmmm, maybe he has quite some regard for the sun, giving the
"solaria.sol" in his email address.
I personally find the sun to be very beautiful and life-affirming,
although I wouldn't call it a god or assume that it is a conscious
entity, or worship it in any way. I like to get up early in the
morning and watch the sun rise sometimes, though, especially from the
top of a hill. It feels like a very spiritual experience and lifts my
spirits for contributing to the world around me.
Blessed be,
Matthew
Brock Ulfsen
francis freespirit wrote:
Neopagan is the common usage in Australia.
A book:
21st Century Wicca, Jenifer Hunter, "A Citadel Press Book", 1997
p7 -- There is a broader spectrum of "Neo-Paganism" which includes all
the various traditions of Wicca, some other forms of folk magic and
Witchcraft, Native American shamanism, Goddes worship, ceremonial magic
and many other traditions.
--
A wolf in your inbox.
An identity,
as illusory as ASCII.
Brock Ulfsen
francis freespirit wrote:
> In article <7d8764ba.01102...@posting.google.com>, Raven
> <ra...@solaria.sol.net> writes
>
>>1) The original and oldest meaning of "atheist" (from a-theos,
>> 'without god') is "godless", having (worshipping) no gods --
>> even if one acknowledges that some (like the Sun) *exist*.
>> This is *still* in use, *still* in dictionaries (e.g. OED),
>> and I assure you it's a real category, as it describes *me*.
>>
>
> I've selected just this one sentence to refer to because it's the crux
> of the matter.
>
> The current (10th edition) of the Concise Oxford Dictionary has :
>
> atheism, the theory or belief that God does not exist.
>
> It lists 'atheist' et al as derivatives.
>
> BUT - your statement about yourself as an atheist is different. I must
> accept that as an extension of current usage. (By the way, do you really
> acknowledge the Sun as a god - or have I misread you?)
The OED is definitive for general usage, but does not speak to any specialised field. Atheism as used in _The Times_ and as used in a Doctoral Thesis on theology are not the same word. Jargon and specialised usage can only be found in specialised dictionaries.
Raven
> Raven <ra...@solaria.sol.net> writes:
>> 1) The original and oldest meaning of "atheist" (from a-theos,
>> 'without god') is "godless", having (worshipping) no gods --
>> even if one acknowledges that some (like the Sun) *exist*.
>> This is *still* in use, *still* in dictionaries (e.g. OED),
>> and I assure you it's a real category, as it describes *me*.
>
> I've selected just this one sentence to refer to because it's the crux
> of the matter.
>
> The current (10th edition) of the Concise Oxford Dictionary has :
>
> atheism, the theory or belief that God does not exist.
>
> It lists 'atheist' et al as derivatives.
And should in that spirit define "American" as "one who comes from Texas."
Francis, I *cited* that definition, among others, earlier in this discussion
(to Alan Young when he was thumping "the dictionary" at me), to point out
that some dictionaries are so Christian-centered they do not define words
dealing with -theo- or -theis- in terms of *gods*, but only in terms of
the one Christian God; thus, if he was going to play One True Way with me
and say I *must* believe what *he* was citing in order to be an atheist,
I could cite *that* definition (the one you now cite) to "prove" that *he*
was an atheist -- and so are Hindus and every other non-Abrahamic religion.
(Do *you* believe in capital-G God? No? Then YOU are an atheist, right?)
Notice also that the OED gives as one of its definitions "Disregard of duty
to God" -- thus, even those who *believe* in that God, but don't (what, go
to church, tithe, even vow poverty?) are "atheists"; have you tithed lately?
But other dictionaries' variations do cluster closer to the general usages.
It really might help reduce repetition if you would read the preceding thread.
> BUT - your statement about yourself as an atheist is different. I must
> accept that as an extension of current usage.
Actually, your Concise Oxford uses a *subset* of current usage, apparently
because the writers have only seen atheist/Christian debates. Had they seen
the atheist/Hindu or atheist/Muslim debates or associated literature, they
might have realized they were looking at a very, VERY limited context.
http://isim.leidenuniv.nl/newsletter/1/people/01AE36.html (Taslima Nasrin)
http://humanists.net/nasrin/links.htm (more on Taslima Nasrin)
http://iheu.org/alerts/index.html (Humanist charged with blasphemy in India)
http://www.hindubooks.org/sudheer_birodkar/hindu_history/humanism.html
http://humanists.net/india/
http://humanists.net/archive/An_Email_from_Pakistan.htm (from Yunis Shaikh,
who has since then been ***sentenced to death for blasphemy*** in Pakistan)
http://free-drshaikh.org/
http://iheu.org/Shaikh/
> (By the way, do you really acknowledge the Sun as a god - or have I
> misread you?)
I think the better question would be - have you *read* me? I went over
this earlier in this thread. What is a god but the object of someone's
worship? What you worship is *your* god, though it need not be *mine*;
just as a cat or dog may be *your* pet and not mine. It is a relationship,
owner-to-pet or worshipper-to-deity, not an absolute statement of the
inherent nature of something. Roman Emperors were declared gods, by law;
obviously they *existed*. People have worshipped the Sun; and it *exists*.
Thus some gods do, or did, physically *exist*. Not *every* god is some
theoretical abstraction. This is why lack of *worship*, rather than lack
of *belief* in a god's existence, is the root criterion of atheism (from
a-theos, 'without god', thus "godless"), and why early Christians were
accused of atheism for not worshipping the Emperor, although they never
denied his *existence*. Does this begin to explain why I hew to the
oldest, original, meaning -- and not to the limited-context definitions?
> It's another instance of transatlantic differences in usage.
Not really; some Americans also focus on belief/disbelief in the Christian
God as the criterion, because they simply have never seen a wider context.
> Remember to walk on the 'pavement' if you come to our fair city <grin>.
[grin] I'd rather walk on the grass....
Raven
> francis freespirit <fra...@topdeck.demon.co.uk> [asked Raven]:
>> (By the way, do you really acknowledge the Sun as a god - or have I
>> misread you?)
>
> I think Raven was just using the Sun as an example of the object of
> worship of *some* godless atheists.
As an example of the object of worship of some, yes.
The object of worship by godless atheists, no.
"Godless" in this context means very specifically "NOT worshipping any god",
thus not having any god, being without gods, being god-less.
The same way that you are "petless" if you have no pets, even though you know
that cats and dogs exist, and that *other* people have cats or dogs as pets.
In both cases, these are statements of *relationships*, specifically your
lack of one. You are saying that *you* are not a worshipper or pet-owner.
> He was also saying that he is a godless atheist,
Right.
> and did not specify whether he believed in the Sun or not.
I must. I *saw* it, and felt the welcome heat of it, earlier today.
I just don't *worship* it, though I acknowledge that some people have.
> Hmmmm, maybe he has quite some regard for the sun, giving the
> "solaria.sol" in his email address.
[grin] It's a nice coincidence, but I didn't choose the domain name.
> I personally find the sun to be very beautiful and life-affirming,
> although I wouldn't call it a god or assume that it is a conscious
> entity, or worship it in any way.
We're on the same wavelength.
(Though -- why assume that a god must be a conscious entity?)
Yes, it is beautiful, and grand. Consider also the sincere gratitude that
we should feel for the light and warmth the Sun gives us without charge,
for the ability it gives us to see, for the oxygen it lets plants produce
through photosynthesis, for the power it gives our solar power panels,
for "pumping" our planet's air so that we have wind and weather, for the
fact that Earth itself isn't an eternally dark lifeless lump of frozen rock.
Don't you now feel like greeting it every morning with a song of praise?
> I like to get up early in the morning and watch the sun rise sometimes,
> though, especially from the top of a hill. It feels like a very spiritual
> experience and lifts my spirits for contributing to the world around me.
There you go. Have a *great* day tomorrow. (You know what to thank for it.)
Raven
[snipping FAQ citations]
> Well, thank you, Raven, for these leads. Now I understand, or I think I
> understand, the position: on the evidence you have presented,
> neopaganism (with or without upper case(s) and/or hyphenation) appears
> to be a neologism emanating from North America. I'll be careful to bear
> that in mind. <smile>
>
> PS : my spellchecker does not list 'neopaganism' ..
The Oxford English Dictionary cites usages of "neopagan" back to 1876,
under the definition of "Neo-" in both main section and supplement; in
the Compact Edition see p.1915 (Vol.I) and p.4025 (Vol.II) respectively.
(1876) "The 'man of feeling'... would in these days be a ritualist or a
neopagan." -- Sir Leslie Stephen, _History of English Thought in the
Eighteenth Century_, II, 437.
(1877) "The neopagan impulse of the classical revival." -- John Addington
Symonds, _Renaissance in Italy_, iv, 193.
(1880) "Pre-Raphaelitism... has got mixed up with aestheticism,
neo-paganism, and other such fantasies." -- Justin McCarthy,
_A History of Our Own Times_, IV, 542.
(1888) "To classicalise, to neopaganise, his naive and natural Teutonic
genius." -- Palgrave in _The Nineteenth Century_ (monthly), September, 346
Raven
>>> The definitions you have specified all derive from outsiders i.e. those
>>> who were/are not Pagans. The time really has come when we who are Pagans
>>> begin to insist on one or more definitions which apply to us at the
>>> present day.
>>
>> You're absolutely right, Francis, and what's more, we should be consistent:
>> the words "goy", "kafir", "gajo", "cowan", "gentile", "gaijin", "etranger",
>> "straniero", "extrangeiro", and "fremd", all have been applied to us by
>> those who were *not* these things. (Jews, Muslims, Gypsies, Freemasons,
>> Mormons, Japanese, French, Italians, Portuguese, and Germans.) The time
>> really has come when we who *are* Goyim, Kafirs, Gaje, etc., begin to
>> insist that *we* get to tell all *those* people how they must use *their*
>> words for outsider in a way suitable to *us*. For instance, if we do not
>> choose to include Christians in our number, then Jews must stop calling
>> any Christians "goyim". If our Asatru brethren dislike "kafir" as much
>> as they dislike "pagan", then Muslims can only use "kafir" as referring
>> to those who are neither Muslims *nor* Asatruar. Freemasons should only
>> use "cowan" of those non-Freemasons who don't use any rituals at all.
>> Mormons should not use "gentile" to refer to anyone whose religion was
>> founded *after* 1820. Japanese must not use the word "gaijin", period.
>> Likewise for French, Italians, etc. -- what right do any of *them* have
>> to use *their* words with *their* meanings, or to use *any* word meaning
>> "outsider" and apply it to *us* who are not members of their groups?
>>
>> You've set your sights too *low*, Francis! We have our work cut out for us!
>
> sent. But I would add a caveat: I have come across this technique before
> - where the area under consideration was widened in such a way as to
> divert attention from the original proposition. Let's stay with
> promulgating a relevant contemporary definition of Pagan/ism to start
> with. Let's conduct this debate from inside Paganism.
But we are *also* within (and debating from within) Goyism and Kafirism,
for we are *just* as much goyim and kafirs as we are pagans -- that is,
we are equally non-Jewish, non-Muslim, and non-Christian. The question
is, why do you single out the *Christian* term for outsider as the word
we should pry loose from its original user community for our self-label?
In other words, why pick on the Christians? Why usurp *their* word?
I suggest that "pagan" is the more familiar of these terms only *because*
our vocabulary reflects a culture in which Christianity, rather than Judaism
or Islam, has predominated.
Here's this group of non-Christians who think of themselves as "pagan"
because that is what *Christians* call their religions (among others).
Had we all grown up in Israel or in predominantly Jewish neighborhoods
(like Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn, one elevated-train stop from Coney Island,
a place I remember well), the debate now might indeed be about "Goyism".
In both cases, it is the *other* religion's term for "outsider", not a
term that those outsiders invented on their own. It makes as much sense
to adopt another nation's word for "foreign" to define one's identity.
Defining one's group as "Fremd" ("foreign" in German) would make being
non-German a significant factor of one's identity, whereas most non-Germans
aren't particularly concerned about being non-German. Most non-Gypsies
aren't obsessed about *True* Gajism. Most non-Jews don't center themselves
on Judaism by adopting the capitalized group-name "Goy". To do any of these
would be centering one's identity on the group one is excluded from, rapt in
other-focus, like a child peering through the window into a candy store.
This is the impression that strikes me when I see the insistent use of "Pagan"
as a self-applied label, and I have to wonder: why are these non-Christians
centering themselves on Christianity, by defining themselves as *not-THAT*?
So my "widening the area under consideration" is not to "divert attention
from the original proposal", but rather to *draw* your attention to the
fallacy at the heart of that proposal, by setting it in context.
In another reply, you say: "I wouldn't dream of taking 'Goyim' from the sons
and daughters of Israel!" Well, then, why would you take 'Pagans' from the
followers of Christ? If one is usurpation, so is the other.
Raven
> The earliest reference I can put my hand to at the moment is in the 'de
> corona militis' of Tertullian who died in the year 220.
Apparently *written* about 18 years before he died, circa 202 CE.
> Is there any earlier documented use of 'pagan' in the sense of non-Christian?
Yes, a 2nd century epitaph. Did you read the entry I cited from the OED?
In "Additions and Emendations", p.4092 (Vol.II) Compact Edition:
"Pagan. Etymology. The explanation of L. paganus in the sense 'non-Christian,
heathen', as arising out of that of 'villager, rustic', given by Orosius
(a Spaniard) c. 417, has been shown to be chronologically and historically
untenable, for this use of the word goes back to Tertullian c. 202, when
paganism was still the public and dominant religion, and even appears,
according to Lanciani, in an epitaph of the 2nd cent. The explanation is
now found in the L. use of paganus as = 'civilian, non-militant', opposed
to miles 'soldier, one of the army'. The Christians called themselves
milites 'enrolled soldiers' of Christ, members of his militant church, and
applied to non-Christians the term applied by soldiers to all who were
'not enrolled in the army'. Cf. Tertullian, De Corona Militis, xi,
'Apud hunc [Christum] tam miles est paganus fidelis quam paganus est miles
infidelis'. ..."
>> People tend to form groups, name their groups, and then name the rest of the
>> world *outside* their groups. The more sharp the distinction drawn between
>> in-group and out-group, the more it will be referred to, the more it will
>> need some term for the non-members, the not-Us, the Them, the Outsiders.
>
> People form groups .. yes. They name their groups .. very frequently but
> perhaps not always - sometimes the designation is applied from outside.
> They name the 'rest of the world'? Perhaps this generalisation goes a
> little too far? I see what you are getting at and either or both of us
> could give examples but I'm not sure I could agree it as a 'universal'.
I gave you examples of religious, ethnic, and national "outsider"-words,
as used by Jews, Muslims, Gypsies, Freemasons, Mormons, Japanese, French,
Italians, Portuguese, and Germans. Each nation has a word for "foreign".
The Japanese word for foreigner, "gaijin", literally means outside-person.
>> "Pagan" happens to be the word for Them used by Christians for over
>> 1800 years.
>
> I find myself somewhat uneasy when I consider this. On the surface it's
> one of those truisms that's beyond debate. Beneath the surface it's a
> generalisation that begs to be probed. I think back over the histories
> of the past two thousand years and all sorts of questions begin to form
> in my mind. At that point I begin to ask myself: To what degree is this
> really true? and I realise that a real investigation would be quite
> fascinating. Fascinating though it may be, the best I can do for the
> immediate future is to keep my eyes open as I continue my researches
> into allied topics.
Try the citations in the OED, including from Shakespeare's plays (written
while "pagan" still included Muslims and Jews, thus Launcelot calls Jessica
"most beautifull Pagan, most sweete Iew", in The Merchant of Venice).
>> Good luck trying to pry it out of their fingers, or taking "Goy" from
>> the Jews.
>
> I wouldnt dream of taking Goyim from the sons and daughters of Israel!
Well, then, why would you take 'Pagans' from the followers of Christ?
If one is usurpation, so is the other.
( As I asked in news:7d8764ba.01102...@posting.google.com )
> I seem to recall Paul from Tarsus long ago determining to take the Good
> News to the 'gentile' world. And I am one of those who read of the
> Crusades and ask : Who, indeed, was the infidel?
It was fidelity, not infidelity, to a creed, that inspired such slaughter,
just as the terrorists of September 11 were driven by faith, not lack of it.
Yes, it does seem ironic that both the faiths involved claim to be of peace.
Why do hopes to help mankind
end as guns at human heads?
Iron Maiden
See the trap, before it shuts,
of seeming starry-eyed ideals;
This coldly abstract caring cuts
the flesh its kindly case conceals.
Philosophy's a hurtful suit,
too hard and sharp for human needs;
Beneath the blade of Absolute,
the mortal body breaks and bleeds.
-- C.M. Joserlin, "Raven".
Alan Young
(Matthew Vincent) wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2001 13:09:15 CST, aay...@sonic.net (Alan Young)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <3bda85c1...@news.canterbury.ac.nz>, war...@es.co.nz
> >(Matthew Vincent) wrote:
> >
> >>Errrr, I was responding to Alan's post, where he specifically
> >>mentioned the assertion that "pagans are atheists". I have
> >>spoken to *some* Christians who have claimed this, also.
> >
> >Hey, don't attribute that statement to me!
>
> I didn't. I said that you *mentioned* the assertion, not that you
> *made* the assertion. You mentioned an assertion that you got from
> elsewhere, and disagree with.
That's correct. You did not misrepresent what I said, but repeated it with
reduced context, so that the next reader wouldn't be sure if I agreed with
the assertion or not; hence my alarm.
> Your argument didn't seem to evolve from anything Raven said.
It was a loose analogy, but I *don't* want to resume any analysis of what
Raven said. With all due respect to Raven, he always seems to provide more
detailed responses than I have time to analyze and research, let alone
critique; so I prefer to end my contributions when I've made my POV clear,
which I did several cycles back.
blessings,
hummingbear
--
8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Always remember: your focus determines your reality.
Raven
> Raven <ra...@solaria.sol.net> wrote:
>> The original and oldest meaning of "atheist" (from a-theos,
>> 'without god') is "godless", having (worshipping) no gods --
>> even if one acknowledges that some (like the Sun) *exist*.
>> This is *still* in use, *still* in dictionaries (e.g. OED),
>> and I assure you it's a real category, as it describes *me*.
>
> Cool, would you say that you affirmatively believe in a particular god(s),
> or the existence of some kind of god(s), or just that there *might* be a
> god or gods but you are not sure either way?
The term "god" indicates the object of someone's worship.
As "pet" indicates the object of a different kind of affectionate attention.
"God" is one side of a relationship, like "pet".
The other side (e.g. yours) would be "worshipper" or "owner", respectively.
If you have an owner/pet relationship with a cat or a dog or even a rock
(remember "pet rocks"?), then a pet exists there. If you do not have such
a relationship, then -- even if there is a cat or dog in the neighborhood,
living wild -- you are "petless", and as a result no pet exists there.
(Unless someone *else* has a pet there; but that still leaves *you* petless.)
Whatever you worship is your god. You'd have a worshipper/god relationship
with the object of your worship, and thus a god exists there -- which is only
to say that the action of worship is occurring there. If you do not worship,
then there is no such relationship, and no god exists there.
(Unless someone *else* has a god there; but that still leaves *you* godless.)
A cat or a dog (or a rock) may be your pet, yet not mine.
The Sun or the Moon (or a rock) may be your god, yet not mine.
In either case, my acknowledging that you have that relationship does not
compel me to engage in the same relationship.
I can see that you keep a rock (for either purpose), thus it is *your* pet
or *your* god, and yet it does not follow that it is *my* pet or *my* god.
> What are the characteristics of the god(s) that you believe exist, or
> might exist?
That they are worshipped. Otherwise, it varies.
> What is your relationship with it/them, if not worshipping? For instance,
> do you interact with it/them in some way, or are you mostly indifferent
> to its/their existence?
Not-worshipping would be the one common factor. Otherwise, it varies.
Some objects of (others') worship I acknowledge to have (or have had) physical
existence, e.g. Sun, Moon, stars, idols, Roman Emperors, and the Earth itself.
Sun, Moon, and stars, I can see.
Idols and Roman Emperors, I can read about in histories or see remnants and
relics of in museums, and it is plausible to me that such statues and people
existed, even though (or rather because) I attribute no supernature to them.
The Earth I not only see and read about, but walk upon, touch, breathe the
air of, drink the water of, eat the food from -- and indeed I myself am just
part of its abundance of forms of life. That's an *intimate* relationship.
It happens not to include worship, but I can understand why for some it does.
Theoretical abstractions are another matter, but I've discussed that with
Wood Avens earlier in this go-around (in the "Interesting question" thread),
so it might be simpler if you would just go read that discussion, at:
news:7d8764ba.01102...@posting.google.com (posted 27 Oct 2001)
francis freespirit
<war...@es.co.nz> writes
Is it not at the beginning of the Decalogue? Thou shalt have none other
gods but me .. for I am a jealous god .. &c &c
Raven
> Raven <ra...@solaria.sol.net> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps they think theirs is the *only* god, thus if you
>> don't have that one you can't have *any* god. (You could
>> cite their own Bible mentioning that there *are* other gods
>> -- whom only the *Hebrews* were commanded not to have
>> *before* YHVH... notice the two loopholes there?)
>
> Ah, interesting. Do you have the reference to the pertinent
> section(s) of the Bible? This could be useful.
http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/kjv/ a searchable King James Bible
A simple search for "gods" gets 294 matches:
If you just want to "thump" single passages back at missionaries,
try Exodus 22:28 -- "Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the
ruler of thy people." (The Religious Right here in the USA must
be in serious trouble with God for how they treated Clinton.) ;)
Or cite one of the same passages they thump to show that Jesus was
(or claimed to be) the Son of God. John 10:34-36 (or stop at 35) --
"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye
are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came,
and the scripture cannot be broken;...." (He quoted Psalms 82:6.)
What the God of Exodus told the Jews in his First Commandment was
that they owed him their freedom from Egypt, and being in his debt
were required to worship him, and have no other gods *before* him.
The First Commandment, as given in Exodus 20:2-3 --
"I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of
Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods
before me."
The First Commandment, as given in Deuteronomy 5:6-7 --
"I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt,
from the house of bondage. Thou shalt have none other gods before me."
Which leaves open the question of having other gods *after* him,
or even *next* to him as equals.
(In *other* places, he commands them not to have other gods at all.)
Notice that this God was addressing *only* this people, not the world.
He did not give that command to the Egyptians or to any other people,
only to those he freed from captivity in Egypt. If you are not
descended from those freed captives, you lack that debt, and indeed
you were not being addressed by God in these Commandments.
Judaism was -- and for that matter still is -- a *tribal* religion;
members of the tribe(s) are expected to have the religion, but the
rest of the world is not. If you choose to convert (in effect to be
adopted into the family), *then* you should have the religion. But
the commands do not apply to non-members, as shown by the tradition
of the "shabbes goy", the Sabbath Goy, who turns lights on and does
the other "work" which Jews are forbidden to do on the Sabbath.
To become Christian is also to accept the rules of *that* religion.
And to become Muslim is to accept the rules of *that* religion.
But as a non-Jew, non-Christian, and non-Muslim, you don't have to
accept any command from any of their "holy books", including the
ones about having other gods. It's no use citing a club rulebook
to a non-member of the club, who was never obligated to obey it.
However, given the likely beliefs of those who become missionaries,
*they* are required to take seriously all the passages that mention
other gods *existing*. I suggest you go to that URL and print out
the three webpages of citations that result, for your reference, or
even to show them. (They can then doublecheck in their own copies.)
Raven
> ... I *don't* want to resume any analysis of what Raven said.
Since we're defining terms, what do you mean by "resume"?
> With all due respect to Raven, he always seems to provide more detailed
> responses than I have time to analyze and research, let alone critique;
I'll take that as a compliment and thank you for it. Also, you're welcome.
However, I notice that the "always" seems to contradict the "resume".
What is never begun can't be resumed.
"'Take some more tea,' the March Hare said to Alice...."
> so I prefer to end my contributions when I've made my POV clear,
> which I did several cycles back.
Alas, it gives the impression that communication is a one-way street
for you, because no matter how clear (and detailed) I've tried to make
my explanations, the next cycle always seems to start from scratch again,
as if nothing from the last time got across, and my replies were wasted.
Spuddie
(Raven) donned a Big Bird suit and flew away while yelling:
>If you just want to "thump" single passages back at missionaries,
>try Exodus 22:28 -- "Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the
>ruler of thy people." (The Religious Right here in the USA must
>be in serious trouble with God for how they treated Clinton.) ;)
Hmmmm, of course, that leaves open to their interpretation what they
would call 'thy people.' Some very fundie Christian groups preach
that they do not answer to any government, but to God alone. So the
'leaders of their people' in their eyes would probably be their
spiritual leaders, not the government ones.
Cheryl
~~~Music with dinner is an insult both to the cook and
the violinist.~~~ (G.K. Chesterton)
Brock Ulfsen
Brock Ulfsen wrote:
> Neopagan is the common usage in Australia.
Actually let me clarify that. The usage Pagan/Neopagan tends to mark the
divide between the "50,000 years of Wymyn's Secrets" and the "Gardner
made it up" camps.
....Brock.
Alan Young
ra...@solaria.sol.net (Raven) wrote:
> no matter how clear (and detailed) I've tried to make
> my explanations, the next cycle always seems to start from scratch again,
> as if nothing from the last time got across, and my replies were wasted.
That does seem a pity. Perhaps it's because your replies, however
scholarly, don't necessarily address the heart of the issue.
Raven
> Wibbling precariously on the edge of a cliff, ra...@solaria.sol.net
> (Raven) donned a Big Bird suit and flew away while yelling:
>
> >If you just want to "thump" single passages back at missionaries,
> >try Exodus 22:28 -- "Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the
> >ruler of thy people." (The Religious Right here in the USA must
> >be in serious trouble with God for how they treated Clinton.) ;)
>
> Hmmmm, of course, that leaves open to their interpretation what they
> would call 'thy people.' Some very fundie Christian groups preach
> that they do not answer to any government, but to God alone. So the
> 'leaders of their people' in their eyes would probably be their
> spiritual leaders, not the government ones.
Those of the "very fundie Christians" who argued that to me would be
asked, "Then in the Bible's usage, would 'ruler of the people' refer
to the high priests and *not* the kings? But even the Egyptian Pharaoh
was called 'the ruler of the people' in Psalms 105:20; did the Jews
accept him as their *spiritual* leader, not just as the government?"
Raven
...
> Uh, no, there are also monotheistic pagans, e.g. Zoroastrians
> -- alive and active in, for instance, India, under the name
> Parsees, though it has long since been unsafe for them in their
> original homeland of Iran.
>
> Their use of fire in religious ritual is why Muslims refer
> to *all* pagans, generically, as "People of the Flame";
> they were the first pagans Muslims knew.
>
> And the earliest Christians certainly included them in the
> category of "pagan", as Zoroastrians (and the related Mithraists)
> were well known to people of the Roman Empire during that period.
...
For more information:
The Zoroastrian Community (online) http://www.webzc.com (Swedish site)
Avesta - Zoroastrian Archives http://www.avesta.org/avesta.html
Raven
> Raven <ra...@solaria.sol.net> wrote:
>
>> no matter how clear (and detailed) I've tried to make
>> my explanations, the next cycle always seems to start from scratch again,
>> as if nothing from the last time got across, and my replies were wasted.
>
> That does seem a pity. Perhaps it's because your replies, however
> scholarly, don't necessarily address the heart of the issue.
They addressed, and corrected with documentation, your factual claims.
In each next cycle, however, you go back to making the erroneous claims.
Now, if what you were posting was NOT "the heart of the issue", perhaps it
would be a bit more aboveboard to put that "heart" up for open examination,
not keep it a hidden agenda for which the factual claims are only a front.
Alan Young
At no point was I making "factual claims." From the beginning of this
discussion, I've been addressing a problem in semantics. Semantics are not
"facts," but interpretations.
I've also tried at least three times to "agree to disagree." That isn't
good enough for you; each time you've come back and engaged in further
argument--first under the guise of "curiosity" (which I answered out of
courtesy), now by accusing me of falsehood and insincerity (which I answer
to defend my good name). Raven, are you so desperate for attention that
you'll do anything to goad people into arguing with you?
(That's a rhetorical question; no response is sought thereby.)
I really had hoped we could exchange POVs without it becoming unpleasant.
hummingbear
In article <7d8764ba.01103...@posting.google.com>,
ra...@solaria.sol.net (Raven) wrote:
Leigh
<Snip>
> Leigh, my friend, you are absolutely correct and I am delighted to see
> your quoted definition in print. The recognition of, and the easy
> everyday communication with, local gods is of the ultimate essence of
> Paganism.
>
> There are, of course, in addition to these local ones (the immanent
> ones), transcendent ones, deities which have been first formulated in
> the minds of men and women e.g. love as an abstract concept becomes
> deified as the goddess Venus-Aphrodite.
>
> I find it revealing that many devout Christians still honour some of
> these local gods/goddesses. Strictly speaking they should not, because
> the official difference between Hellenistic Christians and the rest of
> the world was that the Christians were supposed to acknowledge only the
> One supreme God.
Francis, I am at the begining of my path and am not sure where it
will lead. What fun! Or to whom (or what) it will lead, or indeed
may have already led.
I rejected organized religion many years ago and have not actively
worshipped a divinity in the intervening years. That may not be
entirely accurate as to some just enjoying life may be such.
However, I have decided that I need more in my life and so have
taken my first steps. Maybe I should take a step back first.
I have started making a reading list with the help of this group and
look forward to your near famous tour of Oxford. <g>
I'll keep you posted. <groan>
bw
Leigh
Shez
writes
>
>
>Brock Ulfsen wrote:
>
>> Neopagan is the common usage in Australia.
>
>
>Actually let me clarify that. The usage Pagan/Neopagan tends to mark the
>divide between the "50,000 years of Wymyn's Secrets" and the "Gardner
>made it up" camps.
>
>
>....Brock.
>
What Wymyn's secrets, Its only things like Periods, menopause and
pregnancy, and oh yes P.M.S. That have been secret, mostly because Men
found them disgusting. Or frightening.
Magick isn't a secret or a sex based thing, its a talent that anyone can
use, and some are better at than others.
Women talked among themselves because women were the only ones who could
truly understand what it was like to be pregnant, give birth, have
periods, menopause or P.M.S.
francis freespirit
>
>> Neopagan is the common usage in Australia.
>
>
>Actually let me clarify that. The usage Pagan/Neopagan tends to mark the
>divide between the "50,000 years of Wymyn's Secrets" and the "Gardner
>made it up" camps.
>
>
>....Brock.
>
morning.
francis freespirit
<ra...@solaria.sol.net> writes
[francis]
>> (By the way, do you really acknowledge the Sun as a god - or have I
>> misread you?)
>
[Raven]
>I think the better question would be - have you *read* me? I went over
>this earlier in this thread. What is a god but the object of someone's
>worship?
I take this as a rhetorical question embodying a definition, and here we
must part company. Your definition, considered in the general context I
derive from your postings, appears to be along the lines of the familiar
adage that man creates his gods in his [man's] own image. Thus far I
agree. But I sense from your postings that you go a step further and
opine that god(s) exist(s) only as a result of human creation. And at
this point I must disagree.
> What you worship is *your* god, though it need not be *mine*;
>just as a cat or dog may be *your* pet and not mine. It is a relationship,
>owner-to-pet or worshipper-to-deity, not an absolute statement of the
>inherent nature of something. Roman Emperors were declared gods, by law;
>obviously they *existed*. People have worshipped the Sun; and it *exists*.
>Thus some gods do, or did, physically *exist*. Not *every* god is some
>theoretical abstraction. This is why lack of *worship*, rather than lack
>of *belief* in a god's existence, is the root criterion of atheism (from
>a-theos, 'without god', thus "godless"), and why early Christians were
>accused of atheism for not worshipping the Emperor, although they never
>denied his *existence*. Does this begin to explain why I hew to the
>oldest, original, meaning -- and not to the limited-context definitions?
I have read this and puzzled over it several times and I am still not
able to reproduce the underlying syllogism nor abstract the main,
crucial, thread of the argument. This may be because we have very
different starting points; it may be that our discrete epistemologies
are incompatible; or it may simply be that we have experienced certain
essential concepts in ways that make fruitful discussion impossible. For
the present I have to leave it at that.
francis freespirit
>as a self-applied label, and I have to wonder: why are these non-Christians
>centering themselves on Christianity, by defining themselves as *not-THAT*?
Here we have the possibility of a resolution.
Let us consider the question that follows the colon and I will, for the
present purpose, place myself within the category 'non-Christian'. From
that position I can authoritatively respond that we are not defining
ourselves as 'not-that'. We are defining ourselves by reference to the
Hellenistic culture that existed before Christianity was invented.
I could go on to a detailed explication of this position but other
obligations inhibit my so doing. I make but one gentle request: that you
accept the accuracy of the final sentence of my second paragraph.