[ninurta]

[]In order to know for sure? Physical evidence, something I don't have an abundance of. Indisputable proof, the kind that would show other people, and all people they exist. Though since I have to rely on my experience, I can always be wrong until i find indisputable proof.[]
Why do you need proof? It appears to be a fact that "It just happened to seem like the gods answered [your] prayers" and now you have a position based on personal experience. If you never did find the proof you needed to convince anyone else would you then deny that experience? I doubt it. The thing you should value is your experience, that is the subject of this theory, not the objective state of the universe vis a vis divine personalities, but what actually appears to you. Now, if you think you might like to have more such experiences you do as you do, you try things and based on your experience with the things you try, you say something like "nothing I do seems to discourage or encourage it." or "I find this or that seems effective."

Though there is a difference. I am not saying i need to convince others, but in order to say 100% for sure that deities exist, there would need to be scientific evidence to say such. As I am a firm believer in science and the things we've found to be true through science. And sometimes that is hard to fit it with what I believe because they can at times be at odds with eachother, which is why i brought up the "by chance" arguement of my percieved answered prayers. For myself, I believe my gods answered my prayers, though can I prove that scientifically? Well no, because it is one of my beliefs that go against the side of me that is skeptical. And its not easily avoided, I am spiritual as much as I am skeptical, so it becomes like a war. I believe it but I can't prove it so how can I believe it but I do. Confusing? Yeah, but its the way it is and it will probably go to once side or another.

That is why I am philosophically agnostic, because I can not reconsile my lack of evidence for belief, though I believe its something that can neither be proven or disproven, its a belief not based on science.

From there you might develop a theory or find that there are similar theories lying around or whatever, but if you have no experience that suggests it is useful to think of the universe as containing divine personalities then you have nothing but someone else's theory to talk about - which I would avoid on any grounds but as an acolyte : someone who is still searching for an experience to validate the theory.

Though I am not searching, I am not really as active in my beliefs as I was, I do think that its impossible to know either way. But I will continue to try to know and understand, though things dont look promising. Who knows? I may become an atheist, stay an agnostic or become more of a theist, actually knowing for sure that the divine exists. its hard to tell where i will go from here. I wish I could have some of the experiences with the divine others have had, or claimed to have had, but I haven't.

[]that works for about half my gods. then you get to deities ... where there is only experiences that may not be felt by others[]
It seems useful to me to put the matter in personal terms. I don't know about Anubis either, maybe he's not around anymore, maybe he's shy, maybe it takes some event I have not yet encountered, maybe this is simply not his territory and someone else; say St Peter - who I do have an experience with - fills the same role adequately.

Speaking in personal terms, in my own experience. I have had times when I thought someone was answering my prayers directly, by putting a thought into my head as an answered prayer. I was asking what I should do, should i put my dog down who is dying of parvo or no, he is just a puppy but he was so adorable. But all of a sudden I thought, "I will give it a few more days" and after a few more days, he was completely healed.

Though that could easily have happened just by chance, or so my skeptical side says. Though I want to believe it was an answered prayer, it's hard to say. At least for me.

[]its at the bias of the beholder of the experience to know what that experience is[]
As it is in everything that happens to us. This can be discussed in terms of creative interpretation or the anthropomorphizing of everything. Finding the particular personality of distinct objects. Treating these personalities as self-conscious in their own right leads to some very interesting perceptions. How does the sun feel today? she looks quite down and won't get out of her blanket of clouds.

Exactly, but what if it turns out to be nothing like you thought it was. then I'll feel stupid for not listening to my skeptical instincts.

[]Though for me, directly experiencing them would be talking and seeing them. or just talking to them directly.[]
Some deities are more obviously talkative than others. Old man Peyote will talk your ear off and tell you so much in one night your head will seem to want to explode. We've had an explosion of lady bugs this last couple days and for some reason they pretty much only like my house and particularly like my door so. I'm not entirely sure how to take this, I think they're just sweet on me, either that or I'm enduring an old curse of a spurned lover.

I am happy for you, some are just more able to have such experiences than are others.

For me, I am left to keep guessing

[danholo]

thanks, Suska, for the clarification. I have heard of the different role deities played in ancient communities as opposes to today. In other words, the concept of religion and "God" were totally different, and culture driven. This is evident in a sense that Judaism, as an ancient religion, draws some similarities to old religions, still maintaining that "culture" aspect in regards to the deity which it has. I'm not particularly religious, but when Judaism is put in the same bag with newer religions, where the concept of the divine and god is different, it boggles my mind.

So, I think these Pagans have some history lessons to go to before they start making up religions that they thought existed...

What has Ninurta done for you lately. I take a shit on "Ninurta", the idea.

[noemon]

So, I think these Pagans have some history lessons to go to before they start making up religions that they thought existed...

That is definitely so. ninurta obviously has trouble defining ancient Pantheism and I very much doubt that his fascination with it entails anything more than trend.

What has Ninurta done for you lately. I take a shit on "Ninurta", the idea.

Nevertheless...you are not a good person.

[ninurta]

thanks, Suska, for the clarification. I have heard of the different role deities played in ancient communities as opposes to today. In other words, the concept of religion and "God" were totally different, and culture driven. This is evident in a sense that Judaism, as an ancient religion, draws some similarities to old religions, still maintaining that "culture" aspect in regards to the deity which it has. I'm not particularly religious, but when Judaism is put in the same bag with newer religions, where the concept of the divine and god is different, it boggles my mind.

What are you talking about? What does Judaism have to do with paganism? As for newer religions, what newer ones?

So, I think these Pagans have some history lessons to go to before they start making up religions that they thought existed...

What pagans are you talking about? Before you start patronizing my knowledge of history, please at least know what the extent of my knowledge is before you criticize it.

What has Ninurta done for you lately. I take a shit on "Ninurta", the idea.

You probably don't know what Ninurta is....

[]So, I think these Pagans have some history lessons to go to before they start making up religions that they thought existed...[]

That is definitely so. ninurta obviously has trouble defining ancient Pantheism and I very much doubt that his fascination with it entails anything more than trend.

Ummm......you percieve that I have trouble defining ancient pantheism, though if you want to talk about it just be the first to ask about ancient pantheism. I was never asked to define it, and to be honest with you, I didn't feel the need to define it.

O and this is about paganism. Not all pagans are nor were pantheist.

Also, I haven't been asked about any specific pagan questions by you so I dont know why you judge. If you can define it better feel free to do so.

[]What has Ninurta done for you lately. I take a shit on "Ninurta", the idea.

Nevertheless...you are not a good person.[/quote]
Don't judge him like that, that's mean. Danholo isnt a bad person, and from what we know he is a good person.

[Aekos]

What pagans are you talking about? Before you start patronizing my knowledge of history, please at least know what the extent of my knowledge is before you criticize it.

The extent of anyone's knowledge cannot be enough to truly follow that religion. There's simply not enough information to fully reconstruct the body of beliefs.

Imagine if Christianity died out a few decades after the death of Jesus, and all we had were fragments of some of the scriptures of the time. Now imagine if none of the surviving records said anything about Jesus being the son of God or the trinity or like half of Jesus's teachings. Would a "reconstructed" Christianity be anything like the real thing?

Also, I haven't been asked about any specific pagan questions by you so I dont know why you judge.

IIRC noemon has a much more complex system of pagan-inspired beliefs than you. You should ask him about them, you might learn something.

[Suska]

noemon has a much more complex system of pagan-inspired beliefs than you. You should ask him about them, you might learn something.

seriously, i waited and waited before i posted here hoping he would come along and set us straight. now that I've had my say and he's posted I'm disappointed, but I guess he's busy... didn't even get a nod from him - or a glare would have been ok too... =(

Would a "reconstructed" Christianity be anything like the real thing?

whatever can you mean? A Christianity that Paul didn't encounter or better yet Constantine would be just about spotless, even more so if the OT had been somehow lost... but then people would just say he ripped off the Buddha... Oh wait, they say that anyway...

[noemon]

Thank you Aekos and Suska, but I can not deal with this thread for the time being. Danholo's comment just grabbed my attention enough to bother to react.

Also, I prefer a different method when approaching this subject, monologuing analysis does not bear any fruits. Do you remember the V for Vendetta example, Suska?

Sorry for my disposition ninurta, but reading just a few posts of yours, that is the impression I get.

'Ancient Pantheism' refers to what is generally refered to as "paganism" ignorantly, since ancient Pantheists were much more urban populations than so-called "monotheists". Pantheon(in singular) is how the Greeks and Romans at least refer(ed) to when addressing the divine. The "pantheism" you are thinking is just a category of philosophical deism in modern taxonomy.

Don't judge him like that, that's mean. Danholo isnt a bad person, and from what we know he is a good person.

It is my prerogative to express my flat-out sincere opinion with the simplest words possible.

---------

My 2 cents in here are just to clear a few things.

1) You need to break down the religion you refer to(call it "paganism" for all I care, I am going to call it Pantheon-) into 4 categories.

a) Myth
b) Ritual
c) Philosophy
d) Spirituality

2) Then analyze where each of the 4 corresponds where. Social activity, personal activity, political activity, etcetera. Afterwards analyze exoteric and esoteric disposition.

Myth is the artistic expression of a collective utilized for lessons; moral, naturalistic, expressionistic.
Ritual is celebrations that define the history of a collective.
Philosophy is the body of moral lessons assembled in the myth and then taxonomized logically into tomes. Therefore "monotheism" which was first philologically expressed in the collections of ancient Greeks is the natural conclusion of Pantheist mythology and art(istic expression in general). This in itself completely demolishes the false and imposed demarcation line betwen "poly" and "mono".*
Spirituality is the method of approaching the better part of ones self.

These overlap as well, the "poly" in myth is explained via the unification of rituals<=>communes<=>art, it does not however alter the mono in philosophy since it sources from a different route(.ie via the ritual or unification of polities which is a political activity of a commune rather than a philosopho-religious one). In addition, the taxonomy of natural forces can only take place in plural as it does in all documents(whether so-called 'monotheistic', 'polytheistic' or scientific). Hence Danholo's comments towards you(ninurta) are rendered meaningless with these 3 very simple facts. These + *. There are many more arguments that destroy the demarcation line, already discussed previously...in time they will resurface again.

That is all. More after March.

[ninurta]

[] What pagans are you talking about? Before you start patronizing my knowledge of history, please at least know what the extent of my knowledge is before you criticize it.[]

The extent of anyone's knowledge cannot be enough to truly follow that religion. There's simply not enough information to fully reconstruct the body of beliefs.

Though I do what i can to reconstruct it as accurately as is possible. Though I don't say something that I don't know is an absolute fact about the religion, or that I don't have good reason to say.

Imagine if Christianity died out a few decades after the death of Jesus, and all we had were fragments of some of the scriptures of the time. Now imagine if none of the surviving records said anything about Jesus being the son of God or the trinity or like half of Jesus's teachings. Would a "reconstructed" Christianity be anything like the real thing?

It all depends, you certainly can reconstruct it, though unlike christianity, most of sumerian rituals and stuff like that were written down and described everything you had to do. So in a way, a sumerian recon would have an advantage, though one problem is a language barrier. Sumerian is an isolated language and is not related to any other known language.

Though the material you have, if informant enough, can and will suffice having the religion still be around. Where there is a will there is a way.

Thank you Aekos and Suska, but I can not deal with this thread for the time being. Danholo's comment just grabbed my attention enough to bother to react.

Also, I prefer a different method when approaching this subject, monologuing analysis does not bear any fruits. Do you remember the V for Vendetta example, Suska?

Sorry for my disposition ninurta, but reading just a few posts of yours, that is the impression I get.

I think you may be misunderstanding me, but don't worry about it, no hard feelings felt. We all have bad first impressions at times, though if we are not ignorant we tend to get over them.

'Ancient Pantheism' refers to what is generally refered to as "paganism" ignorantly, since ancient Pantheists were much more urban populations than so-called "monotheists". Pantheon(in singular) is how the Greeks and Romans at least refer(ed) to when addressing the divine. The "pantheism" you are thinking is just a category of philosophical deism in modern taxonomy.

I am aware, and I don't disagree that my views are modern, though I don't know why you call it ancient pantheism. I am closer to a modern pantheist in my views of deity, but I choose to worship old gods. Maybe it's because I have grown accustomed to doing so for 20 years and don't feel like changing it, though it is also because they answer my prayers. Though generally I agree, it's not a bad thing to follow an old religion in a new way, as long as you don't say you follow that religion exactly as they did back in 2000BCE, which I don't. I understand that my views are different in many ways, and I say so.

I see where you are getting at though.

My 2 cents in here are just to clear a few things.

1) You need to break down the religion you refer to(call it "paganism" for all I care, I am going to call it Pantheon-) into 4 categories.

Initially I was meaning in general, because paganism isn't a religion but an umbrella term for alot of religions. Though also I wanted to clear up any confusion if there was any.

a) Myth
b) Ritual
c) Philosophy
d) Spirituality

Those would be done on a tradition to tradition basis, but I agree nonetheless.

2) Then analyze where each of the 4 corresponds where. Social activity, personal activity, political activity, etcetera. Afterwards analyze exoteric and esoteric disposition.

Myth is the artistic expression of a collective utilized for lessons; moral, naturalistic, expressionistic.
Ritual is celebrations that define the history of a collective.
Philosophy is the body of moral lessons assembled in the myth and then taxonomized logically into tomes. Therefore "monotheism" which was first philologically expressed in the collections of ancient Greeks is the natural conclusion of Pantheist mythology and art(istic expression in general). This in itself completely demolishes the false and imposed demarcation line betwen "poly" and "mono".*
Spirituality is the method of approaching the better part of ones self.

To clear up any confusion, I am only a pantheist in the sense that I see the parts within nature as gods, though that may be better described as animism though I am unwilling to use the term animism because I have to double check the meaning outside wikipedia. Hate using wikipedia.

These overlap as well, the "poly" in myth is explained via the unification of rituals<=>communes<=>art, it does not however alter the mono in philosophy since it sources from a different route(.ie via the ritual or unification of polities which is a political activity of a commune rather than a philosopho-religious one). In addition, the taxonomy of natural forces can only take place in plural as it does in all documents(whether so-called 'monotheistic', 'polytheistic' or scientific). Hence Danholo's comments towards you(ninurta) are rendered meaningless with these 3 very simple facts. These + *. There are many more arguments that destroy the demarcation line, already discussed previously...in time they will resurface again.

That is all. More after March.

You are right, though I already knew his comment was baseless and not very well thought through.

[ninurta]

Still doing questions, though I am no longer pagan

[Potemkin]

Still doing questions, though I am no longer pagan

Maybe the thread should be renamed to 'Ask a haven't-decided-yet'?

[Suska]

The similarities between Mars and Ares are there for all the reasons Greeks and Romans are similar but like I said we shouldn't deal in generalities, after all they probably fought each other at some point, likely several times. They aren't entirely different in a general way, but they are individuals.

Imagine an ancient Greek soldier going to battle and having a real heroism experience. Take that person and say to them "I know who Ares is." You don't know shit. You can imagine, but we needn't chase Ares around, everything thats got a name has some sort of glamor (enchanting aspect). But why say that if it can't be measured it isn't real. Gravity is very real, numbers are real. Anyway, why place your experiences behind or under the command of your theory? Science is an investigation, not a book of facts. Life is for living.

[ninurta]

Maybe the thread should be renamed to 'Ask a haven't-decided-yet'?

No, I am decided. Not necessesary to change the name, but if it bothers you that much we can always call it ask about paganism.

I am decided, and always was until I decided (overtime anyway) to just go agnostic.

Imagine an ancient Greek soldier going to battle and having a real heroism experience. Take that person and say to them "I know who Ares is." You don't know shit. You can imagine, but we needn't chase Ares around, everything thats got a name has some sort of glamor (enchanting aspect). But why say that if it can't be measured it isn't real. Gravity is very real, numbers are real. Anyway, why place your experiences behind or under the command of your theory? Science is an investigation, not a book of facts. Life is for living.

I can't prove nor disprove if or if not they are real. Hence, I was always a closet agnostic.

Now that I am just agnostic, though who really knows? Science is an investigation, but it has not had the chance to speculate of the existence of the divine, so for now its up to philodophical inquiry.

[Potemkin]

Now that I am just agnostic, though who really knows? Science is an investigation, but it has not had the chance to speculate of the existence of the divine, so for now its up to philodophical inquiry.

Now that you've got that paganism nonsense out of your system, I'm going to point you in the direction of Mahayana Buddhism, specifically the Madhyamaka School of Nagarjuna. His 'theology' (for want of a better word) is essentially based on the 'emptiness' of the phenomenal world (or the indefinite nature of the noumenon, to use Kantian terminology). As an agnostic, it should appeal to you.

[ninurta]

Now that you've got that paganism nonsense out of your system, I'm going to point you in the direction of Mahayana Buddhism, specifically the Madhyamaka School of Nagarjuna. His 'theology' (for want of a better word) is essentially based on the 'emptiness' of the phenomenal world (or the indefinite nature of the noumenon, to use Kantian terminology). As an agnostic, it should appeal to you.

paganism nonsense?

All religion has a bit of nonsense in it

Not really seeking another religion, I became agnostic because my belief was increasingly being dilluted into agnosticism, not that I just one day decided to change. I just don't want religion, and don't want Buddhism either.

[Potemkin]

That's okay, ninurta (guess you'll have to change your username now, huh?).

The seed has been planted. Heh heh heh....

[ninurta]

Why would I have to change me name?

[Potemkin]

Since you are no longer a pagan, I assumed that you no longer believe that Ninurta is the deity whom you should honour and worship. Besides, wasn't naming yourself after your god somewhat hubristic?

[Suska]

only somewhat Potemkin?

[Paradigm]

Besides, wasn't naming yourself after your god somewhat hubristic?

Actually, it's a fairly common practice. I've met a Hindu guy named Shiva, and there are common names today that come from Greek and Roman gods, like Diana, or Dennis(derived from Dionysis). Many Hispanics have the name Jesus(the English equivalent of which is Joshua), and there are many common names today which are derived either from the Bible or from the names of various saints. Michael and Gabriel are both the names of archangels, yet I've met people with those names, too.

[Suska]

You're right. I should be called Thor from now on, nothing else will do.