In the olden days when Kings ruled the land, if a person was called before the king, he would be very scared not knowing what might befall him. Once before the King, he would fall on his knees and shake with fear. He had no defense as the King was Judge and Jury. He could have him killed for no reason at all! The King issues commands, laws and passed judgements. To a King, keeping his throne was of the utmost importance. To this end he rewarded loyalty and killed and abused those who he deemed disloyal, even if they were good people. A King could not afford to spare even children and babies! This is the Abrahamic "god"! God made in the image of a King. Their "god" runs a segregated heaven open to only the faithful (loyal) and gives hell to those who do not toe the line. For these people simply going to heaven is not enough, those who pray to others must be punished. In some of their popular books, christians get to go to a flesh-happy heaven and the rest are left on earth to endure drought, pestilence and violent storms. But this is what a King would do to those who are not loyal to him.
A Gandhi is shown the door while a pedophile is let in. In the bible there are stories of how "god" urges his minions to kill all, not to spare even women, children and babies. He rules with threats and fear, on judgement day, lots of killing. Hitler only killed 6 million, but this king would kill billions because they are not christians. Christians proudly call themselves christian soldiers, again the reference to an army and a ruler. King Worshippers, worshipping a King and calling him God.
The Hindu/Buddhist version of God is more akin to a Parent or Teacher. To Hindus/Buddhists the ultimate goal is not a flesh-happy heaven but Moksha or Enlightenment. God is our teacher in this journey towards enlightenment. It may take several lives for us to reach the level of a Buddha. In each life the ups and downs we face are God's teachings. Our God does not pass laws or judgements. A Hindu/Buddhist should never, never, never fear God.
A teacher wants his students to ask questions, explore fresh & different ideas, respect others' ideas, be open-minded and learn constantly. It is no surprise to me that Hindu India is a shining democracy whereas Muslim Pakistan lurches from one despot to another. A king has no use for democracy, those who follow King religions closest see democracy take flight. Even western nations found democracy only after seperating church from state. In India the opposite is true, India will always remain a democracy as long as it remains a Hindu nation.
Some changes that we need to make is not to use the word Lord when referencing God. That word denotes him as a ruler not a teacher. Also Hindus/Buddhists should stay away from kneeling in front of the murti. A subject/slave kneels before his master or King. We are devotees of God not his slaves/subjects. I believe that God wants devotees, she does not want a slave quaking in fear, leave that to Abrahamic faiths. God is above us but be clear that we are not below God.
To me the idea of Hell is a western import, I know that some sastras do talk about hell but I am very uncomfortable with a God who tortures people, bad people they may be. This is a human idea that somehow says that inflicting physical pain will make them better people, unfortunately we know that is not true. I do believe that Karma and Rebirth do away with a torture God. With Karma and Rebirth, a bad person will learn God's lessons anew in his new life. Let's realize that a bad person is not going to be tortured in his new life but simply will be made to realize his errors and reform and lead a better life. Besides, it's more fun to live several lives, enjoy being different people, rather than be one-and-done! I never cared for a flesh-happy heaven anyway.
You've lost me. What were you trying to say about paganism, again? :confused:
Dark Energy. It can be found in the observable Universe. Found in ratios of 75% more than any other substance. Dark Energy. It can be found in religious extremists, in cheerleaders. To come to the conclusion that Dark signifies mean and malevolent would define 75% of the Universe as an evil force. Alternatively, to think that some cheerleaders don't have razors in their snatch is to be foolishly unarmed.
sorry I forgot to post. First of all I just hate this Pagan word, it is an abusive word used by the King religions towards anyone who does not follow their faith. Based on what I posted above that is not surprising. I am a bit disappointed that people would call themselves pagans, that's like blacks being proud of the n word.
As for my posting, where does your version of God fit in? Is he a King or a Teacher?
sorry I forgot to post. First of all I just hate this Pagan word, it is an abusive word used by the King religions towards anyone who does not follow their faith. Based on what I posted above that is not surprising. I am a bit disappointed that people would call themselves pagans, that's like blacks being proud of the n word.
As for my posting, where does your version of God fit in? Is he a King or a Teacher?
The term simply fits for those who practice a myriad of beliefs, you may see the term as a pejorative, but most who self identify as Pagans, do not. It isn't really abusive, when used from a Juedo-Christian perspective, it simply means anyone who does not believe in their God. Most Pagans use the term Pagan and Neo-Pagan interchangeably, and it's just the term the community has adopted. The Asatruar often refer to themselves as Heathens, again a term that in certain context has a pejoritive meaning, but they do not see it as such.
Such is language.
Truth in our hearts, Strength in our arms, Fulfillment in our tongues.
sorry I forgot to post. First of all I just hate this Pagan word, it is an abusive word used by the King religions towards anyone who does not follow their faith. Based on what I posted above that is not surprising. I am a bit disappointed that people would call themselves pagans, that's like blacks being proud of the n word.
So don't use it. I am a pagan because I say I am. You can not be a pagan by calling yourself something else. :rolleyes:
HinduGuy wrote:
As for my posting, where does your version of God fit in? Is he a King or a Teacher?
Which god are you talking about? I got lots.
Dark Energy. It can be found in the observable Universe. Found in ratios of 75% more than any other substance. Dark Energy. It can be found in religious extremists, in cheerleaders. To come to the conclusion that Dark signifies mean and malevolent would define 75% of the Universe as an evil force. Alternatively, to think that some cheerleaders don't have razors in their snatch is to be foolishly unarmed.
[QUOTE=HinduGuy;981523]sorry I forgot to post. First of all I just hate this Pagan word, it is an abusive word used by the King religions towards anyone who does not follow their faith. Based on what I posted above that is not surprising. I am a bit disappointed that people would call themselves pagans, that's like blacks being proud of the n word.
As for my posting, where does your version of God fit in? Is he a King or a Teacher?[/QUOTE]Only certain king's religions use(d) the word perjoratively. Its first usage was to describe a group of people that were not of the military- hence, unarmed peasants and country dwellers. The French word 'pagus' still denotes a country district. As Christianity flourished, the word pagan came to mean a group of people who had no knowledge of their God (the Christian god) and who lived a hedonistic type lifestyle.
Today, we use the word to describe ourselves as followers of polytheistic faiths. While there are similarities between the beliefs, they can't all be described as religions. Some are only observation and practice with no set religious beliefs involved. It bears noting, though, that the gods are not religious - people are.
Depending on the context in which I'm speaking and, also, to whom I'm speaking, I will denote myself as either Pagan, Wiccan, a Witch, or Alexandrian. The terms I use specifically carry pointed identification to different groups. Each of these designations do carry, somewhat, a sense of pride when I use them... else, why use them at all? I follow a religion of Witchcraft called Wicca; I'm a High Priest trained in the Alexandrian tradition and, in the sense of the belief in all gods, I'm definitely Pagan. I see no shame in any of that nor cause for someone else's disappointment.
As to your last question, the gods would be teachers in the sense that they are more friends and confidants, offering guidance rather than governance, mastery, or jurisdiction. It's more of a parent/child relationship, not one of absolute authority. When something is requested by the gods, we always have the choice of honouring that request or ignoring it (albeit sometimes to our detriment though not through the direct retribution of the gods). If the request is something that they feel must be done, like a parent, they will keep niggling and reminding you, though hardly to the point of retaliation as you'd find in a position of domination.
I am Freyr of the Heathen Freehold of BC
I am the elected King of my folk.
In the ancient traditions of our folk, we gather together at the Althing, where the voices of all free men and women are heard, disputes are settled, oaths are taken, and the folk elect from amongst themselves the witan or alderman, a council of the wise to advise the Freyr and guide different areas of the folks endevors. At this time the folk either choose to acclaim the sitting Freyr or choose to call for another.
At the last Althing, the sitting Freyr placed my name in nomination for his position while declining the acclimation he was offered. From him I inherit the position of sacral king, holder of the honour of the folk, and the final authority of our people.
It is not a despotic position, and in ancient times never was. The Freyr is the leader of the folk. My duty is to see that all of my folk achieve the greatness that is within them. My duty is to invoke the passion and power of my people, while seeing that the inevitable disputes that arise between honourable men and women are settled in such a way as to build rather than weaken the community.
It is mine to challenge the honour of any who would stand for witan, to see that any who would represent the people have lived a life of keeping their sworn word, meeting their own challenges, and placing the good of all before themselves. I challenge them before the folk that all can see their strength, can see not only the worth of their proven deeds, but that they have the heart to stand against the Freyr himself when honour demands.
The king is the land, the king is the folk, the king holds the honour of the people in his hands, and for that sacred trust stands not above his folk, but ever before them. No free man or woman, no child of the folk fears to come before me. Many have come to me in shame of their actions, or torn by their conflicts because they seek the path of honour, but cannot find the way on their own. It is mine to take their fear, to show them their choices, to aid them in determining the way their strengths can meet their challenges, their means can achieve their ends.
It is also mine to see that those who come to the Freyr with needs are joined to those among the people with the skills and wisdom to aid them. The King has the skills and strength of all of the folk at his command, so let all problems be brought to him, that the needs of the folk be balanced by its strength.
There are many in the folk who are better suited than me to meet the needs of any one of the folk, it is mine not to solve all the problems myself, but to teach each to solve the problems within their power, or to find the others of the folk who have the skills to do so.
The late Christian model of the divine right of kingship make the king the owner of his people, that is not the way of a true king. The ancient kings were the servants of the folk, walked freely and often among them, was sought out by those of any station for the resolution of disputes.
The strength of a king is the strength of his folk. The glory of the king is the achievement of his folk. The role of the king is ensuring harmony within the folk, while helping each of them to achieve the greatness that is within them.
Christians proudly call themselves christian soldiers, again the reference to an army and a ruler.
Not exactly. If I can add to Innerpoint's response, the Latin term ‘paganus’ meant civilian, literally someone who was a citizen of the Roman Empire but not in the military. Early Christians did refer to themselves as ‘soldiers of Christ’ but this was mostly in reference to the heavenly battle that their faith said was being waged between good and evil. A familiar theme for religions that pre-dated and were contemporary within the Middle East. As the ‘power language’ of the Roman Empire was military, being a ‘soldier of Christ’ also had underlying connotations. Hence the early Christians began to refer to anyone and anything not Christian as civilian or paganus, most often in urban areas where Christianity spread more quickly. So pagani (plural) acquired a secondary meaning of rural dweller. Paganus/pagani however did not stop being adapted there. There were three Paganism Movements, the first being Greek academics trying to merge Greek science with Christian theology, unsuccessfully. The second Paganism Movement was roughly from the 16th to 19th centuries in Europe and Britain. This was again a literary movement that grew out of a rebellion against the hold that Catholicism had on European cultures. From the books written with this Movement came many of the mythological history themes that would later influence the current and third Paganism Movement beginning in the 20th century. By that point, there were four influential meanings for the term pagan. These were: Paganism as the Greek and Roman Empire (admirable except for lack of Christian ethics), the Greek and Roman Empires as having joyful hedonistic religions, promoted by both the Occult and Romantic Movements though not historically accurate. The influence of the Romantic Movement and probably that of the Glastonbury Movement added a definition of paganism as an idealised, pastoral relationship between nature, mankind and religion. The Christian writers and those writing the highly popular occult fiction of the 18th and 19th centuries found more useful the fourth definition, that of the savage barbarian who worships idols etc. In the 20th century until now, all these terms are still in use depending on whom one is speaking to. They are not considered to be valid in all contexts however. As you are using a limited and earlier definition that can be universally applicable only through utter vagueness, your disappointment is not surprising. Those who self-identify as Neo-/Pagans do not consider this term to be derogatory as has been pointed out. Within the third Paganism Movement, it is considered to be an alternate or primary descriptor for the religions and personal paths as Innerpoint so aptly demonstrated. It has only four commonalties I have observed to date: those of self-identification, self-definition, experiential validation and non-consensus sufficient to be a singular faith. Neo-Paganism is sometimes used synonymously with Paganism or as opposing (Paganism- ancient Greek and Roman religions and Neo-Paganism in 20th/21st centuries). So while you are entitled to your opinion, may I respectfully request that you consider your disappointment to be a product of how you define the term rather than how modern Neo-/Pagans use this term.
A Hindu/Buddhist should never, never, never fear God.
Nor do self-identified Neo-/Pagans though in most cases, this will be Gods, not singular and since when did Hinduism become monotheistic?
where does your version of God fit in? Is he a King or a Teacher?
Every Neo-Pagan who answers you will have a different response.
My ‘version of God’ is Gods – plural and polytheistic. My Gods would be properly addressed as She, Her or Sacred Mother. So definitely no kings though just as definitely teachers. I, please let me point out, come from a specific part of the broad spectrum of the Movement, one that is women-only and goddess(es)-only by definition.
Finally, may I respectfully suggest that if you have issues with Christianity or Islam, that you discuss these on the appropriate boards for those religions or on the multi-faith or political boards if you have not already done so. This is also not the appropriate place to debate the in’s and out’s of the India/Pakistan conflict, which is far more complex than your pointed rhetoric would imply. While there are self-identified Neo-/Pagans who as individuals still have issues with religions that they used to participate within, these remain his or her personal issues to resolve. The Neo-/Paganism Movement in itself does not occupy an adverbial position to such religions. If you do wish to discuss Hinduism and/or Buddhism in relation to the broad spectrum of modern Neo-/Paganism, then that would be on topic.
C.H.
No one cares how much you know until they know how much you care.
Actually it always has been a monotheistic faith. There are many Gods or God has many names but he/she is still one. Think of say your mother. She has a name but you may call her mom. Your father may call her something else, she is also someone's little girl, could also be a employee, or a manager - and this is all the same person.
Similarly you may see hindus praying to lots of gods but it is always stressed that there is no difference between each. Unlike the king religions, a Hindu is free to go to any temple. A Hindu usually goes to a temple because he a) likes the ambience or b)is closest to his home. I can walk into a Durga(female God) temple and see Rama in her.
Setting divisions and making God male, female etc. is a form of idolatry
