Has anyone ere *lost* their gods?

[monsnoleedra]

There is no denying human nature but we could also ask ourselves; don't we see this human tendency to customize the deity in virtually all religions? The difference is that 'the faithful' are willing to accept the religious perceptions, preferences and dogma of OTHER people rather than experience divinity directly and through their own filter.

In spite of my own human nature, I perceive dark and dangerous aspects of my gods and not just their "fluffy bunny" aspects. To use your analogy, monsnoleedra, my spirits definitely have meat and potatoes! lol ..

Having said that, I appreciate your intelligent post. Thank you.

Oh I wouldn't deny that just about all religions have people who customize their God / goddess / god to make them more acceptable to themselves. Yet in about every instance those people who do so are only paying lip service to the divinity they claim to honor and worship. Doesn't truly matter who it is as you see it with Christians who believe no ill of their God, Pagans & Heathens who only see the happy happy joyful joyful side of their gods / goddesses.

It's like Artemis is seen as this empowering woman many times and all her strengths. Yet those same people who see only the positive as it promotes their position fail to realize the vindictive side she has where she has slain people because they bad mouth her mother or claim a daughter in sacrifice because of the father's sins. Even the sacrifice of blood she demanded upon her altar though they claim no such blood sacrifices were given many times.

To me those who are faithful will experience her good side but also be fully aware of her bad side. They may not seek to experience it, her anger that is, for I can assure you I myself would not want that. But to my perspective the faithful will also not settle upon one image of thier god / goddess but seek to know all facets that are knowable. To use Artemis again, they would see her in her Taurian persona, her Orthian persona, her Agotera persona, her Ephesusian persona, Arcadian persona, etc, etc, etc.

But its been my experience that those who create their own practices seldom if ever do more than create a hollow shell of what they want to believe and see. To use Artemis again, to them she will forever be the pre-pubescent daughter of Zeus who asked to be a virgin and is seen as the goddess who runs through the forest with nymphs. Thinking that virgin in archaic Greece is the same as the word virgin today which means never having experienced sex. Or those who see Hekate / Hecate as the goddess of witches and magics and three-headed when much of that didn't come about until the Roman era and in her archaic form she is a maiden type goddess with a single head as depicted at her main temple at Lagina.

For me its one thing to experience divinity through ones own filters and experiences when the data stream is as complete as possible. It's something entirely different to experience it when the imagery and data is corrupt and only considered from a singular perspective. I suppose one could equate it to the notion of riding a bike. If all I ever rode was a tricycle then tried to understand the greater concepts of single speed two wheelers, multi-speed two wheels, racing bikes, mountain bikes, bikes designed for girls with the dropped center bar versus bikes designed for males with the solid center bar my comparrison would really be faulty. Yet I would still have ridden a bike even though it was only a tricycle and never once know the danger or initial fear of riding that two wheeler, especially without training wheels.

I mean consider this Hekate / Hecate is seen often with dogs (not wolves though that is so often depicted in modern art). So here is this goddess who runs the wilds with a pack of black dogs to drive or pursue the spirits of the restless dead. Yet one of the main sacrifices made to her is black dogs, recorded in a number of places to attest to that fact. So you have a conflict here in that one of the things most important to her is also one of the things most often sacrified to her. Yet you never see that depiction in modern art or literature.

[Magus]

Oh I wouldn't deny that just about all religions have people who customize their God / goddess / god to make them more acceptable to themselves. Yet in about every instance those people who do so are only paying lip service to the divinity they claim to honor and worship. Doesn't truly matter who it is as you see it with Christians who believe no ill of their God, Pagans & Heathens who only see the happy happy joyful joyful side of their gods / goddesses.

It's like Artemis is seen as this empowering woman many times and all her strengths. Yet those same people who see only the positive as it promotes their position fail to realize the vindictive side she has where she has slain people because they bad mouth her mother or claim a daughter in sacrifice because of the father's sins. Even the sacrifice of blood she demanded upon her altar though they claim no such blood sacrifices were given many times.

To me those who are faithful will experience her good side but also be fully aware of her bad side. They may not seek to experience it, her anger that is, for I can assure you I myself would not want that...

There are so many points upon which we agree here that I hardly need say anything more at this time. Well put monsnoleedra

...But to my perspective the faithful will also not settle upon one image of thier god / goddess but seek to know all facets that are knowable. To use Artemis again, they would see her in her Taurian persona, her Orthian persona, her Agotera persona, her Ephesusian persona, Arcadian persona, etc, etc, etc...

I'm sure some people will do as you describe but it is impossible to suggest everyone, or even most people, will react this way. It will vary from person to person.

... But its been my experience that those who create their own practices seldom if ever do more than create a hollow shell of what they want to believe and see. To use Artemis again, to them she will forever be the pre-pubescent daughter of Zeus who asked to be a virgin and is seen as the goddess who runs through the forest with nymphs. Thinking that virgin in archaic Greece is the same as the word virgin today which means never having experienced sex. Or those who see Hekate / Hecate as the goddess of witches and magics and three-headed when much of that didn't come about until the Roman era and in her archaic form she is a maiden type goddess with a single head as depicted at her main temple at Lagina.

Once again I'm in total agreement.... right up until you wrote this:

... For me its one thing to experience divinity through ones own filters and experiences when the data stream is as complete as possible. It's something entirely different to experience it when the imagery and data is corrupt and only considered from a singular perspective....

This quote, along with your analogy, is perfectly reasonable but certainly not the only feasible viewpoint. On these points I am happy to simply agree to disagree with you.

I am also happy to exchange opinions with you on this since your posts are well written and insightful.

Bright Blessings to you.

[monsnoleedra]

There are so many points upon which we agree here that I hardly need say anything more at this time. Well put monsnoleedra

Thank you.

I'm sure some people will do as you describe but it is impossible to suggest everyone, or even most people, will react this way. It will vary from person to person.

Truthfully I wouldn't expect everyone to go to that degree. I figure that is where one would seperate the layman from the clergy from the devotee type things. A layperson I would not expect to go full depth into all the facets of thier spirituality or religion. Yet one who claims to be clergy, acolyte, master, etc I would figure would go to the nth degree to discover all they can. Of course i'd also figure a great deal of it would also be based upon ones own relationship with their God / god / goddess and what was expected / asked in return.

This quote, along with your analogy, is perfectly reasonable but certainly not the only feasible viewpoint. On these points I am happy to simply agree to disagree with you.

I have no problem with that. I don't expect nor demand any one else see things as I do. All I ask is give me some reason to support thier position that hopefully has more support than just its UPG. Not that UPG is a bad thing in and of itself, I just find that most I know use UPG to fill in holes not create the entire support system.

I am also happy to exchange opinions with you on this since your posts are well written and insightful.

Again thankyou.

[Magus]

...Truthfully I wouldn't expect everyone to go to that degree. I figure that is where one would seperate the layman from the clergy from the devotee type things. A layperson I would not expect to go full depth into all the facets of thier spirituality or religion. Yet one who claims to be clergy, acolyte, master, etc I would figure would go to the nth degree to discover all they can. Of course i'd also figure a great deal of it would also be based upon ones own relationship with their God / god / goddess and what was expected / asked in return...

Although I am the sort that delves deep beneath the surface and thinks as profundly as my abilities permit, sadly, most people don't share my passion. A more or less superficial faith seems to satisfy them well enough.

.... I don't expect nor demand any one else see things as I do. All I ask is give me some reason to support thier position that hopefully has more support than just its UPG. Not that UPG is a bad thing in and of itself, I just find that most I know use UPG to fill in holes not create the entire support system....

Excuse my ignorance but what is "UPG?"

While I wait for your reply, allow me to share a personal note. Because I DO respect your comments and enjoy sharing ideas with you I want to explain why I probably won't take this discussion too much further.

Since I have intentionally included almost no detail in my profile that would allow anyone to identify my real-world persona or google my real name, there is no way you could possibly know me or my life story. Please suffice it to say that if you did, my next statements might make more sense. Forgive me for being so mysterious.

I have made it my policy in the last couple of years to express my religious/spiritual views simply and leave it at that. My opinions and the reasons for believing them are very well developed indeed. They work very well- for me.

Somewhere along the way I discovered that there is little point in debating with folks who have a different belief. I feel no impulse whatsoever to prove that what I say is "true," valid, "right" or in any way better than your outlook. Those days of fierce debate, point and counterpoint, lunge and parry, are gone for me. Believe what you wish of me and my beliefs. I can live with that. Please accept my comments in the spirit of friendship and peace.

Bright Blessings to you!

[monsnoleedra]

.. Excuse my ignorance but what is "UPG?" ..

It basically means Unprovable (Unverifiable) Personal Gnosis. It's a stament used many times to justify why something does not have to be supported in a person's spiritual / religious practices. Some use it to describe where a notion came from, other's to justify why it should be accepted blindly by all.

The thing that alays gets me though is that a lot of people who follow the same god / goddess find that thier UPG while not exactly the same is very close to one another. So much so that I think its sort of accepted as fact. Yet when two people who follow the same god / goddess have UPG that is so far apart as to be worlds apart that many times gets challenged on the spot.

Then it becomes an issue of are you challenging it because it doesn't fit into your paradyn or because it makes you quesiton the validity of your position?

It's like myself and another member here spoke about the ocean facet of Hekate / Hecate and how we saw it though there is almost no historical data to support it. Yet our two UPG's are so close in similarities that we can speak on them and have an understanding that is more than just historical or validated with data. Perhaps even filling in more facets as we compare and contrast the two understandings we had.

[Magus]

Thank you for the "UPG" clarification! It is the first I've heard of it.

It basically means Unprovable (Unverifiable) Personal Gnosis. It's a stament used many times to justify why something does not have to be supported in a person's spiritual / religious practices...

The definition of UPG makes me wonder what would qualify as a "PPG" or 'proven personal gnosis?' The "proof" would be hard to come by, to say the least. I venture to say that the 'verifiable' parts of ANY religious belief is primarily comprised of enough people coming together who agree on the so-called "facts" of their faith/gods/doctrines. Sure, we can stir into the pot ancient writings and traditions passed down throughout history but it all boils down to a very, VERY subjective, individual perception of reality. For example, you can certainly make a case for the "facts" about Hekate being well established through long tradition and careful scholarship but in the final analysis her reality must be something experienced on a personal level, personal gnosis, as it were. In my opinion, "personal gnosis" is, by its very nature, unprovable and unverifiable - except in the minds of people who happen to agree on the "facts."

Some use it to describe where a notion came from, other's to justify why it should be accepted blindly by all.

This is where I diverge from the rest. After many years I finally broke free of the need to justify my religious and spiritual beliefs to others. Been there, done that! At this point I'm perfectly content to have people think me a fool, misguided or just plain wrong lol! In my time I have been mentor, teacher, guide, counselor to a great many people and have humbly received magnificent accolades along the way. I am not ashamed to say I have been called 'master,' 'Baba,' High Priest, wizard and even 'lord.' (yeah, I know, that one was a bit over the top! ) I'm retired from all that now and only want to share thoughts anonymously in this quiet little corner of the internet. I like it here, monsnoleedra, and hope we will enjoy many conversations together!

...It's like myself and another member here spoke about the ocean facet of Hekate / Hecate and how we saw it though there is almost no historical data to support it. Yet our two UPG's are so close in similarities that we can speak on them and have an understanding that is more than just historical or validated with data....

As best I can tell, what is commonly called "history" was written by people, not gods. Once again, subjective human opinions penned by individuals who may have decided they had the 'inside track' on the deity. I don't give greater weight to 'ancient records' than what I read in the news today. Let us not forget that the ancient writings were once 'brand new!'

When it comes to the spiritual realm it is my opinion that the ONLY reliable gauge to what is true reality must come via direct, intimate personal gnosis. I understand that is a controversial statement but, there it is.

[monsnoleedra]

.. The definition of UPG makes me wonder what would qualify as a "PPG" or 'proven personal gnosis?' The "proof" would be hard to come by, to say the least. I venture to say that the 'verifiable' parts of ANY religious belief is primarily comprised of enough people coming together who agree on the so-called "facts" of their faith/gods/doctrines. Sure, we can stir into the pot ancient writings and traditions passed down throughout history but it all boils down to a very, VERY subjective, individual perception of reality. For example, you can certainly make a case for the "facts" about Hekate being well established through long tradition and careful scholarship but in the final analysis her reality must be something experienced on a personal level, personal gnosis, as it were. In my opinion, "personal gnosis" is, by its very nature, unprovable and unverifiable - except in the minds of people who happen to agree on the "facts."

I do agree that defining PPG (Proven Personal Gnosis) would be really difficult to anyone but oneself. I do think a person would have to best define it when they are satisified that their position and opinion is satisfactorly proven to themselves. For some though I can see how it would be a pitfall they would be unable to escape while for others is would be an unachievable state or condition.

Myself I do not think I could ever arrive at a point where I could claim PPG as the result. Mostly from the position that I am never satisified and ever seeking to learn more or expound upon something that I have already discovered. But that is my own personal position. Its like for me I am never satisified with any of my writings or other creations so unless it is taken from me I am constanly reworking them.

This is where I diverge from the rest. After many years I finally broke free of the need to justify my religious and spiritual beliefs to others. Been there, done that! At this point I'm perfectly content to have people think me a fool, misguided or just plain wrong lol! In my time I have been mentor, teacher, guide, counselor to a great many people and have humbly received magnificent accolades along the way. I am not ashamed to say I have been called 'master,' 'Baba,' High Priest, wizard and even 'lord.' (yeah, I know, that one was a bit over the top! ) I'm retired from all that now and only want to share thoughts anonymously in this quiet little corner of the internet. I like it here, monsnoleedra, and hope we will enjoy many conversations together!

I don't have a need to justify my religious or spiritual beliefs to others or seek their approval for them. At best its more a degree of proving to myself and presenting my conclusions for debate or discussions.

I'm of the opinion that nothing another does can make me or break me less I give them power over me or surrender it to them. As such I don't tend to be concerned with what others think of me as far as crazy, missing a few bolts or what ever description they might use. I suppose for me that comes from being a loner almost all of my life.

Yet I do like discussions and debates within a set parameter. If it makes me evaluate my perspective or sources I used to arrive at my conclusions then all that can do is strengthen my own position. Granted at times it does become difficult to see that the debate / discussion is aimed at the material and not the person writing / speaking it out loud.

As best I can tell, what is commonly called "history" was written by people, not gods. Once again, subjective human opinions penned by individuals who may have decided they had the 'inside track' on the deity. I don't give greater weight to 'ancient records' than what I read in the news today. Let us not forget that the ancient writings were once 'brand new!'

My degree is in history so its pretty apparent to me that to the victor's does history belong for the most part. If one is lucky the lossers do get a voice but you have to dig really deep to find it most times. Then as the years add up the voice becomes even more difficult to discover for even the truth of those who were there gets changed for what ever reason is the most politically or religiously correct at the time.

I find people forget so many times that the person who sat down and put pen to paper had an agenda of thier own at the time. Writing to either endorse or renounce some position or ideal they held in importance to themselves at the time. Strange but that was one of the reasons I tried so hard to read point and counter-point articles or books about the same topics or periods of history.

When it comes to the spiritual realm it is my opinion that the ONLY reliable gauge to what is true reality must come via direct, intimate personal gnosis. I understand that is a controversial statement but, there it is.

Not really controversial to me. In the end we all have to walk our own walk and talk our own talk to be true to our own pathways and lives. When we start trying to ape those about us then we are not living our lives but trying to mimic thiers in my opinion.

[Magus]

... Mostly from the position that I am never satisified and ever seeking to learn more or expound upon something that I have already discovered. But that is my own personal position. Its like for me I am never satisified with any of my writings or other creations so unless it is taken from me I am constanly reworking them....

Well, how could an insatiable desire to learn and understand how the universe "ticks" be a bad thing? Monsnoleedra, in my humble opinion, I think you make the world a better place. If more people had your desire to explore the underpinnings of knowledge and truth the world would be a less ignorant, belligerent place, don't you think?

As for your compulsion to improve and "tweak" your work, I have only two thoughts to offer for your consideration. First; what you describe sounds an awful lot like something I read about the great artist Michelangelo. He is purported to have said that the moment he touched brush to canvass, he begins to destroy his vision.' He was never satisfied with his final product, no matter how divine its execution! Second; Your passion for personal excellence is ALMOST the recipe for greatness. Why "almost?" Its missing one vital ingredient. I know this because of this little snippet in your post:

...my writings or other creations so unless it is taken from me I am constantly reworking them....

Despite his misgivings Michelangelo DID release his works. Authors DO send their creations out into this critical world DESPITE seeing imperfections in their own work. In other words there has to be a scertain BALANCE between perfection and practicality. Unless you want all your work to be published Post Mortem! LOL...

I'm of the opinion that nothing another does can make me or break me less I give them power over me or surrender it to them.

Bravo!

...As such I don't tend to be concerned with what others think of me as far as crazy, missing a few bolts or what ever description they might use.

"Missing a few bolts"? Just think of yourself as a lighter weight, more efficient version, minus all those "extra bolts!" lol You're fine the way you are.

Finally this point gave me reason for pause:

...I suppose for me that comes from being a loner almost all of my life.

I wonder WHY is that? Do you have two heads? Do you smell? Are you simply shy or don't you get along with Neanderthals who've fallen a bit behind the evolutionary curve? (these are rhetorical questions. You don't have to answer them) I imagine you could add a great deal to any group of people.

I find people forget so many times that the person who sat down and put pen to paper had an agenda of thier own at the time. Writing to either endorse or renounce some position or ideal they held in importance to themselves at the time.

Oh so true! Once again, there is a need for balance, a pinch of caution and a 'eyes wide open,' naivete-free approach to our studies. People may dress differently, speak differently and have a boat-load of fancy techno-toys to play with these days but basic human nature both positive and negative hasn't changed since the so-called "ancient times." There IS truth in the world, but much of that has to come from YOU.

Have a wonderful day, monsnoleedra!

[Ask-Embla]

I will research those more. I know some of Druidism, but really know nothing of Celtic Reconstructionsim. Thank you.

This is me throwing my two cents in a bit late the game, but for the record, I currently label myself only as a pagan, but am very actively exploring Celtic Recon, specifically Scot Gaelic. I started that when, like you, I found my strongest connections came with my relationship with the land, seasons, and especially the personality of trees. I looked at Druidry at first, and then I found CR. The way I see it, the Celts were ALL about the relationships between people and their land, and their deities were drawn off of these relationships. It's frustrated a lot of scholars in the past that the Celts had no cut-and-dry pantheon like the Greeks, Romans, or even the Scandinavians and other germanic people. Only a very small handful of deities were at all close to being pan-celtic, but there are hundreds of deities over all. A lot of them were personas of landmarks, like goddesses of rivers and such. It's made very clear to Celtic Reconstructionists (or at least it was to me) that the dieties are most liekely not going to show up until you start to figure out the land around you and read a lot of books. A lot of books. If you love to learn and explore the woods, CR is for you. I'm still finding my feet on this path. I plan on not officially calling myself a CR until the next Là Fhèill Brìghde, or another day that seems signifogent. So far I've not had any face to face experiences with any deities, not have I tried to. I built a nondescript alter, and I think about nature. I've felt pinpricks of Their presence, but so far, we're taking it nice and slow. The Celtic Cosmology doesn't see the world in four elements (water, fire, air, earth) but in three realms (land, sea, and sky.) I find this fits with my world view, especially since the number three seems a lot more worldly than four. So there's a good deal more, but I wanted to write this, if only for a chance to organize my own thoughts. In conclusion, CR = learning about absolutely everything + nature. Find your own path! But this is mine.