BlackZero

What you call dismissive, I call putting into context. A little perspective on our time period will show that in many ways it is not different from any other time when a 'fin de siecle' mentality grows in influence.

Over the nineties and halfway throught his decade there's been (what I feel to be) an alarming rise of reconstructed faiths, clinging to old nearly discarded beliefs and a sentiment of going back to 'antiquity'. We live in uncertain times, the current dominant belief systems aren't getting the job done so people look for alternatives. As always it is always easier to look backwards than ahead. That has always been the case with human beings.

A very bold generalization. This rising tide of 'middle-east gods and beliefs BAD' and 'european gods and beliefs GOOD' is very disturbing. Now I realize you have only mentioned freedom and oppression, but far too often I am seeing this trend of highlighting all aspects of pagan beliefs as good and all aspects of mid-east beliefs as bad. This, at face value at least, seems like another example.

BlackZero

lenrek

Perhaps.

However, one thing I learned, never underestimate the conviction of the believers.

BlackZero

Perhaps I am over reliant on historical precedent, especially considering we live in an age where weaponry capable of killing millions exists and control of said weaponry lies in the hands of people of 'conviction'.

BlackZero

Ojuice5001

I'd say I agree with you objectively. It's just that I'm a polytheistic pagan who is more or less affiliated with the gods of the northern Mediterranean--so of course I identify with this Greek Reconstructionism. So of course I don't like seeing it dismissed so laconically.

But I assure you I'm capable of thinking critically about my religion.

I feel rather comfortable with it. I realize that there are problems with the goal of "going back to antiquity," but certainly it's also true that there are difficulties with sticking to the current dogmas about "progress." Or in trying to come up with something totally new. Or in doing nothing.

I do not consider myself a reconstructionist pagan, and one reason for this is the "construction" part. When the historical pagan religions arose the first time around, they sprung from a gradual accumulation of religious ideas that came together into a religious community. It was a natural process, with participation from the people, the priests, and the educated aristocrats.

Reconstructionism, on the other hand, means historians using a secular methodology to form a system from some ancient history books that weren't always that systematic anyway. And a strict interpretation of Reconstructionism would be compelled to end up thinking that this system, created by historians, is the best religous authority we have.

I know what you mean there. My patron goddess is Postverta, the Roman goddess of the past. It is in her nature to look backwards rather than ahead--but at the same time, she's looked backward for long enough to realize that conscious efforts to preserve the past aren't really the most important thing to pursue. So humans or gods will have to create something new for the world they inhabit now. The world-orders that existed in the past are great and inspiring, but they were far from perfect, and our knowledge of them more imperfect yet, and consequently that's not an especially important thing to strive for either.

I worship Postverta, a goddess of the past who believes that it's possible to learn from the ideas of modernity. Or "dynamism," as Virginia Postrel calls it. It's paradoxical--but then, Religion and Paradox speak to each other all the time.

I suppose so. If I were going to refrain from bold generalizations, I could mention that Yahweh was concerned with plight of the oppressed at a time when the Europeans were not yet civilized to oppress members of their own tribe. I could mention that the Egyptians and Sumerians are the ones who came up with ideas like agriculture, writing, and cities; ideas that provided stability and therefore security.

Yeah, I'm not bold enough to make an even bigger generalization than that. "Europe=freedom" is about the farthest I would ever go, and that too is quite an oversimplification.

Seems like it, but I recognize that I was oversimplifying. Christianity, in particular, is familiar enough to Westerners that there's really no excuse for tarring it with the same brush that we use for the tyrants of ancient Assyria or modern Iraq. Thankfully, reasonable pagans are working to tone down the anti-Christian rhetoric (but not all pagans are reasonable).

As for paganism and the West vs. Islam...well, my head says the Muslims can't be 100% bad, but my heart says "Carthage must be destroyed." (And I realize that my head is right about this one.)

Likewise, I think that Jupiter, Juno, Yahweh, Apollo, and Descartes are worthy of worship.

Ojuice5001

The reason we haven't blown ourselves up yet, and the reason why the anti-war movement is a signficant force in the world, is that for the first time in history, we are more afraid of World War III than we are of our enemies. Let's make sure not to make decisions on the opposite basis.

Ojuice5001

But BlackZero, do you think that a socially significant religion based on the Hellenic gods is any kind of threat to peace and justice? Since they're the gods I worship, I find that to be a relevant question.

BlackZero

OJ,

First as for the WWIII thing, I would like to point out that if enough people believe that earth is nothing but a proving ground for admission into an after-life as Christianity and Islam say then one day the fear of WWIII might not be a deterrent. We live in an age where nuclear power will increase not decrease. Its not like the old days where the fat cats of the US and USSR had the bombs and a vested interest in making sure they NEVER launched. Any country right now that has nuclear capability is in danger of coming into the hands of religious extremists who are afterlife obsessed or have prophecies of an 'end to all things'. From christian zionists to Wahaabism in general we are seeing a startling rise of people who genuinely believe the world has got to end and soon.

Now, I could rest at these Ibrahmic religions but I would go even further and say that various Indo-European faiths (hindu, greek, germanic etc) that I grew up loving are also dangerous. Some time ago I saw them as godlike figures. Now, I see them as errors that were justified for their time but are unacceptable in ours. In fact I see them ALMOST as unacceptable as assertions in Aristotle's time that a heavier an object is, the faster it will hit the surface of this planet.

The only thing that warrants NOT dismissing them outright is the fact that nobody can PROVE they don't exist. But that is hardly a good argument for believing in them wholesale. But I do not believe inability to outright dismiss translates to 'lets order societies around them and set policies around their ancient tenets'. There are some old practices that maybe should never have gone away, but a lot of them I feel went away for very good reasons.

Besides, is Zeus really THAT much better than Yahweh. Yeah Yahweh is a horrible control freak and oppressive, but Zeus is no great ruler himself. For every one instance where I can think of where he made a good judgment call, there has to be at least two, maybe three where he made a bad one. Furthermore, if he exists the old man may well be slipping. In the old days when Zeus dropped the lightning on you, it was time to roll the credits. But nowadays you have situations like the Seattle Seahawks QB who got smitten TWICE yet is still up and about. :devil3:

BlackZero

aupmanyav

You cannot have much complaints with Hindu Gods. They are nice people, love fun, and are not dictatorial. One is an expert dancer, musician, linguist, and mountaineer; while the other is the sweatest chap in the world, loves the sea, a bit lazy but does not hesitate a second to help friends in need. I would prefer to overlook the small transgressions of Zeus.

Wads4

Yes, all true,-I was just indulging in a bit of wishful thinking. Ancient Egyptian beliefs are now too archaic and alien to be revived intact.

lpetrich

There are, in fact, some Egyptian neo-pagans. Some of them call their beliefs Kemeticism; they have pages like http://www.kemet.org

And that great fount of knowledge, Wikipedia, has a detailed article on neopaganism.

I find that opinion very curious. What is supposed to have happened in previous turns of the millennia? And why should our calendar be so special in that regard?

There have been lots of different zero points that have been used; originally they were the start of the reigns of the current leaders. Thus, this year is:

George Walker Bush 6
Stephen Harper 1
Tony Blair 10
John Howard 11

Our usual system is based on Dionysus Exiguus's calculation of when Jesus Christ was born. But it is likely off by a few years. If Jesus Christ was born the year King Herod died (4 BCE), then this year ought to be 2010.

The ancient Romans sometimes dated from when they calculated Rome was founded; thus this year is 2759 AUC (Anno Urbis Conditae or Ab Urbe Condita).

A Hellenistic General, Seleucus I Nicator, gave his name to the Seleucid era; this year is 2317 AS (After Seleucus).

The ancient Olympic Games were held every 4 years, starting from 776 BCE, and ending when they were outlawed as pagan by Emperor Theodosius I in 394 CE. This year is therefore the second year of the 696th Olympiad.

In the Jewish calendar, this is year 5766, counting from a calculated date of the creation of the Universe (adding up those Biblical begots).

In the Islamic calendar, this is year 1427, counting in the Islamic calendar from the Hijra (Mohammed's fleeing from Mecca to Medina).

In the French Revolutionary calendar, this is year 214, counting from when it was adopted by the French revolutionaries.

Etc. etc. etc.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/