I have questions for you before I put up my own reply, and it's fairly simple stuff but I'm curious even so how did you get into Norse Paganism? I mean it's not like you could have just driven past a church one day and thought 'hm, I'll check it out.' also I want to ask is it difficult getting people to respect this as a sober choice, and realistic lifestyle? I can personally imagine many people might be inclined to see it as a joke or fad-religion, refusing to take it seriously even potentially becoming upset to see it put on the same level as something more well-received like Christianity. Is it difficult to be taken seriously, and to find people amoung whom you can freely practise, speak, and so on without being subjected to criticism based on why you chose this, etc.? You see I can also imagine an added layer of difficulty in that you must not have a large community and therefore not a great deal of support against such people or ideas, or do you find that you're accepted by the larger Pagan community as a whole? My last question is what about it appeals to you, as in, you must obviously accept it as truth therefore I'm curious about specifically how it or what about it made you think it was the real deal? I ask this of most people who espouse a Religion for example I'd ask a Catholic why God and not Allah, not Isis or Jupiter, and so I ask you why Odin, why Thor and not Jehova, Allah, Jesus, Buddha, etc? Why is this right and they're wrong? What makes the tenants and guidelines of your faith appealing to you finally as opposed to other religions?

My belief: I don't know if you'd consider this religious. I don't since in religious terms I'm pretty much a materialist and therefore disavow of all religious or superstitious thinking (you'd be surprised how much this kind of thinking extends beyond religion) not to say I do not accept the merit of some religious ideas but I tend to approach them from a philosophical angle. One thing which I believe that is often associated with religion (new-age hokum mostly, but it predates that) is the totality of consciousness or infinite association / sensory filtration. This is the idea that the senses are designed to limit our perception of the world to channels which can be understood, and in a way that aids survival in a hostile environment rather than to threaten it.

I know there is little scientific evidence to support this. There is some anecdotal evidence however such as when we look at sensory perception vs. intelligence in animals (animals who's senses yield the greatest raw amount of data operate on a very basic and instinctive level therefore that data is only processed in a simplistic fashion i.e, 'threat or food,' where more intelligent animals would be overwhelmed by such massive amounts of information for example a person with a shark's sense of smell and other unique senses would do little other than process it in the myriad complex ways a person does; it would arguably greatly reduce their ability to deal with more present and pressing concerns) the potential value of this is that in a human controlled environment such enhanced perception would not represent a danger as it would in a natural setting. You can also contrast this with the senses of more intelligent animals.

Humans for example, peak intelligence, we have a kind of sensory frailty. Our 'global,' or passive senses are incredibly weak i.e. smell and hearing. We can subject any sensory data to a degree of analysis which would put even the most adept animal to shame however a person can learn to identify complex substances, even their ingredients, to subject the smell of that substance to analysis which, say, a dog never could (a dog would simply regard it as in edible, inedible, threat, safe, not another dog, etc) same with hearing. Because these senses are passive however in effect they must be very weak. If we had very strong senses of smell and hearing it would certainly compromise us in that we would spend a long time attempting to get to grips with the information constantly streaming in via those senses. Hence our strongest and most developed sense being sight is neither global, nor is it passive, and operates in a way that facilitates intelligent analysis (the clarity of our vision, depth of visible colour and so on) I've seen a few tests where people's sensory perception was tested against their intelligence and the results generally speak positively toward these ideas however I do not know if such tests were undertaken with a solid methodology. Nevertheless there are various ways in which people claim to have expanded their perception from meditation to drug use, and if our senses are static this should not be possible. Nor should it be possible for a blind person to develop superior hearing.

Most of what I state above is simple logic. There are of course two conclusions that can be drawn the common one being that the connection between brain and perception, and physical interconnecting features, have a fixed quality developed on the basis of need via evolution and so on with perhaps a small range of potential for development/atrophy. The second is that the connection and physical features are in a sense designed to filter and limit our perception of the world through convenient channels established flexibly apropos of our ability to analyse said information. There are people who go so far as to state that (as the name suggests) our perception is total and all-inclusive, even to the point where it includes limitless ability to associate / empathize with all other consciousness, and to be aware of what they are aware of.

I can't prove it, and I'm sure there are certain facts which can be shown to say it is an unlikely thing though I doubt anyone knows enough about the brain to state it cannot be, even so, I've had a great deal of personal experience with altered perception (near death experiences, recreational and prescription drug use, alternative lifestyle focusing on spiritual/intellectual development via meditation and similar) I, and others who have done likewise have experienced much which makes this idea ring true. If anyone is interested in finding out more, or reading up, I recommend Island (by Aldous Huxley, his own answer to Brave New World and the Utopia to its Dystopia) and The Doors Of Perception (also Aldous Huxley, philosophical consideration of experience with altered perception via mescaline use) no doubt other examples exist, but those two are my favourites and in my opinion the best place to begin.

"If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narow chinks of his cavern." - William Blake (The Marriage of Heaven & Hell)

Sure God is real, just look around you! How can you deny that?

/sarcasm

There is no 'Authenticity' in an adult adopting someone else's 'religion' unless they have struggled to comprehend and discern fundemental Truths. Or at least to approximate to one or two of them.

It is far easier to 'become' and atheist, than to become, say a Christian. The former simply requires rejecting without accepting anything else from a basis of deep, authentic understanding linked specifically to one's own personal Integrity.

Adopting a pagan religion lacks authenticity. It is not even connected to one's own heritage, tenuous though even that might be to Integrity. It is like beleiving a Harry Potter world. Paganism is based in providing post hoc, imaginary explanation for Nature without any rational basis, in terms of 'super beings' that 'inhabit' parts of the natural world. As if !

Without trying to be disrespectful to the person of Lady Caff, her 'beliefs' are ertzatz. They are of no greater nor of personal value as Icelandic or Papua New Guinean fantasies of meaning.

The Edda is a magnificent window into the people of the old Norse times. But the Edda has as much validity as a 'religion' as the mabinogian has. Just a cut above Ron L. Hubbard's Dianetics.

I do not pretend to know God or the meaning of Life, the Universe and Everything, but I do see that Life and the Universe has stages and paths, and may just be a small part of a far greater enterprise that does not have a little old man with a beard (just like me) at its centre.

Life is an 'arising' from inert matter. Matter is solidified energy in various phases dependant in part on its temperature. Energy has several phase forms too, of which matter is but one. Where does energy originate? What is enegy for? What is the whole process for?

There seems to be a progression from 'Something' to an expression of 'Energy', to expressions of energy in 'Matter', to the initiation, spread and variety of 'Life', to the sparking of 'Consciousness' from life, to the 'Knowing' of the Universe of matter and Energy and perhaps soon the 'Something' behind it all.

David Bohm and Fr.Teilard de Chardin seems to me to have grasped some elements of a barely discernable rationale. I might be leaning toward a view that 'God' is the Prime Mover, the Uncaused Cause, as both Mystics and Scientists would agree on, who(?) seeks to 'Know' itself via a long involved process of divergent differentiation and eventual convergence orf a developing expression of fundemental aspects of itself. This 'God' could be 'Mind' itself, or 'Mind' might just be one fundemental expression of God that comes prior to 'Energy' It could be that an all-knowing entity chooses to learn All through its own creation - of which we are a part - discovering it.

I am content to be too thick to know. But I am also content to be able to know that there are things I don't know and don't even know what it is I don't know, but some of which comes slowly into sight over a period of time before I am too tired and worn out to care about continuing on.

Who does the Grail serve.

Is it necessary for me to believe in God. Or for you to?

More relevant is God's belief in me.

I am far easier to figure out.

even so how did you get into Norse Paganism?

I grew up going to an UU church, my parents were Christians but wanted me to find the answers to "Truth" on my own. At a very young age I rejected most of Christianity's values, because I found most of them morally repugnant. When I went to college, I stopped going to church and became an agnostic theist with beliefs that were similar to my current ones, with some slight Christian influences. But, it wasn't until I met a godhi that I began to examine my personal belief system, and I asked to sit in at a blot and sumbel. I didn't really completely believe until probably four or five years ago, until after I graduated college.

Is it difficult to be taken seriously, and to find people amoung whom you can freely practise, speak, and so on without being subjected to criticism based on why you chose this, etc.?

It's usually a shocker to some of the people that see my Mjollnir Hammer, and the quotes from the Havamal on the white board in my office(current one:"Loddfafnir, listen to my counsel: You will fare well if you follow it, It will help you much if you heed it. If aware that another is wicked, say so: Make no truce or treaty with foes." - Havamal, 127). I have gotten reactions of mockery, curiosity, or indifference.

You see I can also imagine an added layer of difficulty in that you must not have a large community and therefore not a great deal of support against such people or ideas, or do you find that you're accepted by the larger Pagan community as a whole?

I have a fairly decent amount of support in the online pagan community(and Norse heathen community, sometimes they don't see eye to eye), I don't actually know any other pagans besides my hearth and some online pagans that I am in contact with.

My last question is what about it appeals to you, as in, you must obviously accept it as truth therefore I'm curious about specifically how it or what about it made you think it was the real deal? I ask this of most people who espouse a Religion for example I'd ask a Catholic why God and not Allah, not Isis or Jupiter, and so I ask you why Odin, why Thor and not Jehova, Allah, Jesus, Buddha, etc? Why is this right and they're wrong? What makes the tenants and guidelines of your faith appealing to you finally as opposed to other religions?

I always think of the "blind men and elephant*" thing, we are all on our own path to discover Truth, Norse heathenry isn't for everybody, and certainly others have made their own decisions as to what they believe, I think we are on our own journy to find the truth and that is fine with me.

*I think it applies to every religious and belief system:Blind men and an elephant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't know if you'd consider this religious. I don't since in religious terms I'm pretty much a materialist and therefore disavow of all religious or superstitious thinking (you'd be surprised how much this kind of thinking extends beyond religion) not to say I do not accept the merit of some religious ideas but I tend to approach them from a philosophical angle

Question: Do you follow a secular philosophy, like Objectivism or Humanism?

Sure God is real, just look around you! How can you deny that?

*cough*blind men and an elephant*cough*

i like it when you talk dirty.

I like compliments.

Paganism is based in providing post hoc, imaginary explanation for Nature without any rational basis, in terms of 'super beings' that 'inhabit' parts of the natural world. As if !

See blind men and the elephant.
Honestly, I find the idea of multiple gods having authority over a differnt thing more convincing than other belief systems(God is in control of everything) and some of us pagans see our gods as Jungian Archetypes, not as literal beings. As a aside: I worship nature spirits and their ilk, along with my ancestors.

But the Edda has as much validity as a 'religion' as the mabinogian has.

Correction: There are two. Also: The Eddas are just a jumping point where our religion is derived. The Eddas can't be a religion because they are a text.

I know some German guys who wear Mjollnirs, but I'm not sure if they have any religious conviction to that. Something I like about many "pagan" religions is their tendency to see the divine in the natural world. This was more-or-less lost in Christianity, having relegated God to some faraway heaven.

As for my own beliefs, 10 years ago I boiled them down to "The best way to experience the world, is without fear, and seeing the soul/consciousness behind everything." It's gonna sound corny, but this scene from American beauty more-or-less describes the way I felt about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGWU4QhJ4L8

I later found these ideas expressed in Buddhism, and started studying it. I currently subscribe to Madhyamaka Buddhism, but in a broader sense, I'm a nondualist. Nondualism is also found in Sikhism, Taoism, Advaita Vedanta Hinduism, Sufism, and some heretic brands of Christianity. It holds that in ultimate reality there is no separation between self, others, God, and that the illusion of separation is at the root of the suffering we experience in the conditioned universe. I know I cannot prove that ultimate reality is nondual, but removing dualistic thought (ugly/beautiful, good/evil*) cuts at the root of negative emotions.

* This also means I don't believe in a Satan that's somehow separate from God. There is nothing that is not God. Does this mean that evil goes unpunished? Well no, but it's not God that condemns or punishes, 'evil' punishes itself because all 'evil' deeds require an immersion in dualistic thought, and thereby widen the illusionary separation between self and God. Hmm, I realize this may sound wacky... anyways, let me quote from an earlier thread where I put my views on good/evil in simpler words.

I don't need to think in categories of evil and good. All beings can suffer. Actions that cause suffering are bad, and when they were intended to cause suffering they are worse. I don't believe people are intrinsically evil. They are just ignorant of the suffering of others, or unable to feel it themselves. That I don't believe in "pure evil" doesn't mean I wouldn't try to stop "evil" deeds. If I see someone hurting others, I'd still try to stop him/her, with violence if needed. You don't have to believe (s)he's evil to do that, you just have to empathize with the suffering of his/her victims. That's it.

Ehh,before I sound all too spiritual and blah di blah... I hate to lose a game (so a lack of being able to feel joyful for the winner), I watch porn, during conversations I often don't really listen to the other, more preoccupied with what I'm gonna say next, etc.

I know another Buddhist, but he's atheistic. But it seems you're pantheistic? Am I correct in assuming that?

I am an atheist, which isn't actually a religion or a belief.

Something I like about many "pagan" religions is their tendency to see the divine in the natural world. This was more-or-less lost in Christianity, having relegated God to some faraway heaven.

The only civilisation that stimulated Science as a rational pursuit was the Christian-based western civilisation. Far from relegating God to a far away heaven well away from nature, the early scientists were predominantly Christians who were seeking to know God through the study of His creation. They saw the Divine in the Natural world far more rationally and intelligently than the pagans.

Other civilisations had dabbled in developing the tools of science - a little mathematics here, the odd chemical process there, some mechanical invention - but the whole rationale and method of science was a fundementally Christian effect. Pagans were stuck in magical thinking modes which we see today in children. It is a 'stage' of cognitive development. Christianity moved on from that child-stage. As St Paul said, "When I was a child, I did childish things. When I became a man I put away my childish ways".

He was not denigrating Childhood, and I am not denigrating Paganism. I am simply putting it in context. But I see no need to exault childish ways to adults.

I pray to perry winkles...

TMOTS

Quote from Lady Catherine

I know another Buddhist, but he's atheistic. But it seems you're pantheistic? Am I correct in assuming that?

I guess pantheism comes close: FAQ: Is Pantheism Nondualism?

Buddhism is often seen as an atheist religion, but I think that's a misinterpretation. Buddha usually described things in negative terms "it's not this, it's not that", rather than saying directly what it is. For instance, when someone asked him "What is the self" he answered in a series of negations "You are not your body", "You are not your emotions", etc., and did not give any positive answer. An 'atheist Buddhist' would say that by stopping self-identification with impermanent things, Buddha aimed to stop stop related suffering (like when you don't self-identify with your body, old age won't depress you so much), but I think it goes deeper than that. IMO, the Buddha refused to identify the self and the Ultimate, because that would obstruct the realization of their nonduality. It's like telling a wave to stop talking about 'wave' and 'ocean', so that it can realize the nonduality of wave and ocean. (if waves could talk and think )

A related discussion has to do with nirvana: YouTube - Robert Thurman: Lam Rim Video #9

Quote from Percy

The only civilisation that stimulated Science as a rational pursuit was the Christian-based western civilisation. Far from relegating God to a far away heaven well away from nature, the early scientists were predominantly Christians who were seeking to know God through the study of His creation. They saw the Divine in the Natural world far more rationally and intelligently than the pagans.

I agree that modern science was born in the Christian world, but "seeking to know God through the study of His creation" is not necessarily the same as "seeing God in His creation". He can still be in a faraway heaven :P

Some might argue that religion/belief systems are unusual in and of themselves.

At a very young age I rejected most of Christianity's values, because I found most of them morally repugnant.

How so? I'm not challenging you I'm just curious. I've never really given much thought to the moral difference between various Religions, although of course I understand some are better and some are worse. Christianity in its pure state is quite inoffensive.

Hrm. I'm sorry about this but I have serious issues with your blind men and elephant story (the king featured in the story is a dim bastard who has no business being a king) anyway it boils down to the classic new-agey junk idea that 'truth' for me is somehow different to 'truth' for you. An inane concept, but let's look at the king's conclusion and discover the fatal flaw in his reasoning:

"All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently is because each one of you touched the different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all the features you mentioned." - The kings (incredibly childish) conclusion.
It should read:

"All of you are wrong. None of you left your conclusions in a tentative state like a true man of science. Science I hasten to add is the only effective model mankind has for explaining what we cannot readily understand. I condemn you all to prison for a minimum of fifteen years for being assholes,"

If I was in the dark (or blind) and asked to identify an animal I would refuse to make any kind of assumption; the 'blind men,' here operate under the mistaken idea which most Religious folk also operate under and this is that a bullshit explanation is somehow superior to no explanation, and further they rush to their conclusion. I'm happy to wait, and if I never find out what makes the world function beyond those principles I can understand, if I die before the spirit of enquiry furnishes us a logical explanation well so be it. It does not limit or damage my life in any way.

What's the moral of this story in its original form anyway? 'Truth for you is truth, despite how half-assed and fundementally flawed was your effort to seek it,' or is it 'People who lack the ability to understand something yet claim to understand it anyway by virtue of fallacious evidence are correct,' I can't see these as anything but farcical silliness.

Question: Do you follow a secular philosophy, like Objectivism or Humanism?

I hesitate to lump myself with any group that might include people I hate though I suppose secular humanism for the most part describes my attitude.

Paganism is based in providing post hoc, imaginary explanation for Nature without any rational basis, in terms of 'super beings' that 'inhabit' parts of the natural world. As if !

I would argue that this is the purview of almost all religion, not just paganism. Of course some religions develop higher considerations and ideals beyond simply being tools with which to understand the world and things as-yet unexplained but those aspects of religion do not require a religious mindset for one to appreciate in my opinion.

Whom does the grail serve?

I know some German guys who wear Mjollnirs, but I'm not sure if they have any religious conviction to that. Something I like about many "pagan" religions is their tendency to see the divine in the natural world. This was more-or-less lost in Christianity, having relegated God to some faraway heaven.

Why would anyone need to see the divine in the natural world? Isn't divine just a high-handed metaphor for supernatural? We understand the natural world quite effectively therefore we do not require superstition to appreciate it. Of course the natural world can still be beautiful, sublime, etc, and if you get beyond the provincial mindset of religion (which is generally limited and parochial in the extreme) you will find natural phenomena to inspire beyond the most inane fanciful bullshit of any wanky text about made up people doing fictional crap. The entire universe is within the spectra of the natural.

Quote from dad_savage

Why would anyone need to see the divine in the natural world? Isn't divine just a high-handed metaphor for supernatural? We understand the natural world quite effectively therefore we do not require superstition to appreciate it. Of course the natural world can still be beautiful, sublime, etc, and if you get beyond the provincial mindset of religion (which is generally limited and parochial in the extreme) you will find natural phenomena to inspire beyond the most inane fanciful bullshit of any wanky text about made up people doing fictional crap. The entire universe is within the spectra of the natural.

Anything within the universe is natural. I don't see how it cannot be. Supernatural is only a term for the not-understood. When I said "I like how pagan religions tend to see the divine in the natural world", I didn't mean I like simplistic explanations as "Thor makes lightning and thunder", I merely meant a deeper sense of connectedness with the natural world, or a sense of the life behind things.

Eh, like Percy expressed it here, is a close as you can get to way of seeing the 'divine' in the natural world, whilst staying scientific.

Quote from Percy

I do not pretend to know God or the meaning of Life, the Universe and Everything, but I do see that Life and the Universe has stages and paths, and may just be a small part of a far greater enterprise that does not have a little old man with a beard (just like me) at its centre.

Life is an 'arising' from inert matter. Matter is solidified energy in various phases dependant in part on its temperature. Energy has several phase forms too, of which matter is but one. Where does energy originate? What is enegy for? What is the whole process for?

There seems to be a progression from 'Something' to an expression of 'Energy', to expressions of energy in 'Matter', to the initiation, spread and variety of 'Life', to the sparking of 'Consciousness' from life, to the 'Knowing' of the Universe of matter and Energy and perhaps soon the 'Something' behind it all.

David Bohm and Fr.Teilard de Chardin seems to me to have grasped some elements of a barely discernable rationale. I might be leaning toward a view that 'God' is the Prime Mover, the Uncaused Cause, as both Mystics and Scientists would agree on, who(?) seeks to 'Know' itself via a long involved process of divergent differentiation and eventual convergence orf a developing expression of fundemental aspects of itself. This 'God' could be 'Mind' itself, or 'Mind' might just be one fundemental expression of God that comes prior to 'Energy' It could be that an all-knowing entity chooses to learn All through its own creation - of which we are a part - discovering it.

I am content to be too thick to know. But I am also content to be able to know that there are things I don't know and don't even know what it is I don't know, but some of which comes slowly into sight over a period of time before I am too tired and worn out to care about continuing on.

David Bohm was a particle physicist. His work with 'superposition' lead him to the equation-supported view that our complex material world, the entire Universe, was an 'expression' of something far more complex. He termed the one we know, the Explicate Order. But this visible and increasingly graspable order is derived from and dependant upon an Implicate Order which is NOT material.

That is the 'supernatural' in a scientific sense. It is 'outside' of Time and Space and Matter and Energy, which depend upon it.

He posits several distinct levels of the Implicate just as we can undertand several levels of the Explicate (see my poor description of the stages, above which are each dependant upon the prior stage.)

His was not a TATWD explanation so familiar in Pagan world-views (Turtles all the way down). His view envisaged a Prime level, totally beyond our grasp and likely ungraspable (semiotically) which is the Prime Mover and from which All Things and non-things (conceptuals, like love, freedom, Truth etc) are derived and all 'things' and non-things are inextricably connected.

God.