Culture/Worldview and Deities

[Morag]

Thank you for being able to accept an example and apply it to your own personal life-story in a way that has relevence for you.

If I had had more experience as a Muslim in my life that would have been the 'default' example that I used as I expressed MY opinion on how cultures and worldviews had been adjusted. We work with what we know. Its unfortunate when others are so ready to read the nastiness into it and cry foul.

 
I'm actually in agreement with Darkhawk.

It's less offensive to me, personally, to be called a polytheistic Buddhist because I see Buddhism as more of a framework for living into which I can plug any gods. So there are remnants of my Buddhist upbringing in my current path.

It's still an offensive statement.

Assuming that if someone does not approach the gods the way you do that automatically makes them a "polytheistic [default religion]" no matter what the default religion is not only invalidates their way of approaching Deity but also invalidates the fact that religions are specific things with beliefs and systems, and classifying it as a default that everyone falls to if they don't have their own religion says the religion itself is not meaningful enough to have its own distinctions.

My best friend is not religious. She's sort of exploring spirituality and she may be interested in Buddhism but she really doesn't know; she believes there are things out there that she doesn't understand but she doesn't have a framework for it yet. She believes everything has spirit, so animism is the closest to what she is now.

If someone called her an animist Christian because it was default she would flip. her. shit. because she was Christian for a while -- being in the church got her to stop using drugs and kept her from going down a bad path, and after she got back on her feet she realized the religion was really not for her and she left.

She has already explored Christianity and decided it's not for her; the fact that she's not currently religious and may still have some beliefs influenced by her time in the church still does not make her default Christian because she is not Christian because she does not want to be.

[Juniperberry]

I'm actually in agreement with Darkhawk.

I know. I was being facetious.

It's still an offensive statement.

I wasn't aware some people felt that way. Thank you for filling me in.

Assuming that if someone does not approach the gods the way you do that automatically makes them a "polytheistic [default religion]" no matter what the default religion is not only invalidates their way of approaching Deity but also invalidates the fact that religions are specific things with beliefs and systems, and classifying it as a default that everyone falls to if they don't have their own religion says the religion itself is not meaningful enough to have its own distinctions.

That was quite the long sentence!

Assuming someone approaches a religion with the same philosophies of their old religion, when the philosophies are distinctly separate,  such as FOR EXAMPLE, Christianity and heathenry would lead me to believe that they are now working under a mixed worldview, yes.

My best friend is not religious. She's sort of exploring spirituality and she may be interested in Buddhism but she really doesn't know; she believes there are things out there that she doesn't understand but she doesn't have a framework for it yet. She believes everything has spirit, so animism is the closest to what she is now.

If someone called her an animist Christian because it was default she would flip. her. shit. because she was Christian for a while -- being in the church got her to stop using drugs and kept her from going down a bad path, and after she got back on her feet she realized the religion was really not for her and she left.

She would flip out? Really?
Is she normally so volatile?

If she still hung into concepts she received from Christianity, as she explored animism, than I would say she's operating with two Worldviews. Why is that so bad? Its seriously HARD for people who have seen the world and their place in it one way to readjust their line of thinking. I still struggle with removing Christian concepts from my worldview. In response to the actual thread question: yes, exploring culture or worldview is important t so that you can recognize what is what and see how it fits in to what you want. If you don't, you're not challengei g your views of the world but retaining what you had previously. If I didn't know differences in  death concepts than I would be a heathen with a Christian view on death.

There is a difference between denying God and his commandments and not being Christian in that sense, and then really deconstructing what core and subtle beliefs about the world from a Christian perspective that you hold on to, not even to discard but to know.

Should I not have just generalized my comment with Christianity, sure. I should have said "then your just old religion/ new religion. But I stand by the INTENT of my original post.

[Juniperberry]

juniperberry

Here are a few more examples of why I think you can't just say you're  done nd be done with whatever religion without exploring the worldview and culture.

When I first started as a pagan, I held onto the idea that the gods could see into my heart and soul. That I could silently talk to them and they could hear me. Now, this may be a truth for whoever and whatever religion- I'm not saying its only Christian or all christian, but for ME that was a Christian cross over. As a heathen I have to ask myself if Odin can hear my thoughts, if Odin is all-knowing and see into my soul. Whatever the answerbis, everyone deals with that differently and choses to throw out something or retain it. But I think it requires a look.

Another example is my bestbftiends death. I still struggle with not picturing his soul going up and out into heaven/the heavens, because that was a Christian concept I had. I still struggle with the concept that he can look down on me or hear me talking from 'up there'. I choose to adjust my worldview accordingly to match the framework of my gods.

Otherwise, I would be applying the gods to very subtle, very ingrained concepts of the world that would be influenced by the Christianity in my life. I would essentially, in my view, be 'christian' with pagan gods. Because I belief religion touches our lives in ways that extend past deity and literal Scripture.

Eta: in phone, sorry for weird typos. Too annoyed to go through and fix it :p

[Annie Roonie]

This thread was inspired by one of my "quietly watch while munching popcorn" threads.  How does culture and worldview relate to deities?  Is it required to have a particular worldview to fully understand a deity?  Is cultural context the only way to understand a deity or just the way the deity was worshiped in the past?  Can one worship or understand a deity without the original worshipers' culture/worldview?

I made a bag for this one myself.

Answers:
How does...? Jenett said it well IMO. Looking at Voodoo/Hoodoo and Christian saint appropriation has given me a very interesting slant to think about too. It seems like an ideal case study in the topic.

Is it required...? No.

Is cultural context the only way ...? No.

Can one worship...? Yes.

I base my one word answers on what I have observed of practice and claims that folks have made.

Given the absurd number of strands in the braid of my families traditions, I am not about to school anyone. If I'd ever told my grandma she wasn't doing it right, she'd hand me my hide in short order. If I said it was because I read it somewhere, she might have tanned it first.

[Morag]

She would flip out? Really?
Is she normally so volatile?

 
No. I'm the volatile one.

She's tired of people constantly assuming that her "spirituality is just a phase" and because she's not "actually anything" she's really Christian, she just doesn't know it. After spending 8 months in a relationship with a guy who just kept hoping that she'd "see the truth" and start loving Jesus like he did (and refusing to believe that she really was not interested because she didn't have a religion, so obviously she was open to any religion, especially one he saw as the ultimate truth for everyone) she's sort of lost all patience for that assumption.

[Juniperberry]

She's tired of people constantly assuming that her "spirituality is just a phase"

Yeah, that's totally understandable and not something I would appreciate, either.

and because she's not "actually anything" she's really Christian, she just doesn't know it.

That's not my intention to say that- but this statement was was helpful in seeing how those who were offended were thinking I was coming across. I don't think not being anything means your christian. I think when you grow up or are surrounded by one culture or religion, that when changing gods, it's incredibly helpful to understand their worldview. I wouldn't tell someone who doesn't identify as christian that they are, anyway. My only suggestion is that one should examine their old religious worldview against their new one and see where they wanted to make changes or how their previous religion could be reconciled with the new. But that examining that is beneficial. I don't think anyone can argue that it's detrimental, you know?

I also don't think because you've left christianity behind that you have to give up all of the concepts and worldview...It's just nice to knwo why you believ what you do, where it fits in and how to work with it. Because, for myself, there were a lot of little things I took for granted as just truth, that I later realized are not. It was eye-opening, and I think comparing to other cultures and worldviews is a great way to get that perspective.

After spending 8 months in a relationship with a guy who just kept hoping that she'd "see the truth" and start loving Jesus like he did (and refusing to believe that she really was not interested because she didn't have a religion, so obviously she was open to any religion, especially one he saw as the ultimate truth for everyone) she's sort of lost all patience for that assumption.

Heh. What a winner.

Nope, that is not what I'm saying at all. I see now where you took offense and I can appreciate it. I hope I've made my meaning a bit clearer as well.

[Auress]

Do you find it any less presumptius to basically rip a god from its native culture and apply it to yours? Shouldn't some understanding of the gods native home and people be of some concern to you?

I don't understand why the gods wouldn't care. And, this'll piss you off but that ship has sailed, but it sounds like you're saying the gods will be happy to be worshipped anyway they can get it. How is that not demeaning to them?

 I don't think you need to subscribe to he heathenry worldview, but I do think it helps to understand how that god views the world, his purpose and function in it, and what he finds pleasing. Seems somewhat respectful.

 

And I have no doubt if they want to share their opinions on this they will. I apologize that my point of view is not calibrated to the global community but only to my own.

Unwilling point out, though, that invented cultures don't have an existing worldview to consider so its a moot point.



I'm sorry you feel insulted by my opinion that has been formed from my own personal experiences and perspective, as it apparently differed from your own. To make things fair, I'll allow you to have your own independent opinion to counteract that without complaining about it offending me. Deal?

But I understand, heathens are often accused on here as needing the lore as a Bible, as if we all come from a Christian background and can't move beyond that narrow mindset. Its a fairly common opinion on here that's expressed with some frequency.

No one has ever one time, in this thread anyway, said that they're plucking Gods from a religion and not learning about them. What we're saying here, or what I'm saying here anyway is that their backgrounds are not always key to having a relationship with them. Jenett said it way better than I ever could. Their past has little to do with having a relationship with them in the present. Knowing their personalities counts, and also knowing what natural forces they represent(I'm a pantheist and soft polytheist), so I disagree a whole bunch on a lot of things that have to do with the Gods, it doesn't mean my way is not valid, and that it's not successful.

I don't believe in the Gods the way you do. Therefore, IF they were sentient beings and all omnipotent, they wouldn't need our validation. Meaning, if we chose to worship them, they could take it or leave it because it really wouldn't matter in the grand scheme of things. To think that it would be muy importante to a God to be worshiped from his/her own cultural worldview is insulting, I think, to the idea that Gods are omnipotent. So no. I don't think that's demeaning them. If it were.....we wouldn't have successful Wiccans, would we?

The reason I'm insulted by the insinuation that until you view things from the mindset of the ancient culture your Gods are from you're just a polytheist with no real background structure except the one you're coming from is because that's basically telling any eclectic, or anyone not using the worldview of a recon religion that they are not valid. It's pretty insulting. Yes, you're entitled to your opinion, as we all are, sometimes those opinions poke the "offense" button on some people, this just happens to be one of those times. That's all.

[Juniperberry]

No one has ever one time, in this thread anyway, said that they're plucking Gods from a religion and not learning about them. What we're saying here, or what I'm saying here anyway is that their backgrounds are not always key to having a relationship with them. Jenett said it way better than I ever could. Their past has little to do with having a relationship with them in the present. Knowing their personalities counts, and also knowing what natural forces they represent(I'm a pantheist and soft polytheist), so I disagree a whole bunch on a lot of things that have to do with the Gods, it doesn't mean my way is not valid, and that it's not successful.

 I was replying to the criticisms of my belief/opinion that you initially approached me with. You can't have a negative opinion on my viewpoint and then turn around and tell me that I need to accept your opinion as valid. Lol.  

I'm glad you like Jenett's viewpoint. Use it. It doesn't work for me and I don't agree with it. But I'm not the one calling it out as presumptous and insulting because it differs from mine. I ignored it and just left my opinion out there, because, unlike some, I do happen to think everyone has a right to express their opinion without me criticizing.  

[Jenett]

I'm glad you like Jenett's viewpoint. Use it. It doesn't work for me and I don't agree with it. But I'm not the one calling it out as presumptous and insulting because it differs from mine. I ignored it and just left my opinion out there, because, unlike some, I do happen to think everyone has a right to express their opinion without me criticizing.  

I'm curious, then - because my viewpoint is very much based in how I treat humans (their backgrounds are of interest, and I generally want to avoid things that are offensive, hurtful, etc - but their background is not the most important thing about them, their present is.)

How do you handle stuff with friends? Do you need to know their detailed background before you make commitments to them?

I'm not talking the very basic stuff here - I'm talking the detailed cultural and specific stuff. People can have great interactions with me, and never realise that my parents are British and Austrian (especially now I no longer sound British when I speak - though I did well into my early 20s), that I attended one of the top prep schools in the country, that I did a lot of horseback riding as a teenager, that my father died when I was 15, and a whole host of other things. Or (as I managed to surprise HeartShadow with yesterday), that I'm 35, not older.

Those things are important to me, and I expect people I have an especially close relationship with (long-term romantic relationships, a handful of my closest friends, etc.) to remember those things and take them seriously.

But I also have lots of other interactions, some of them a decade longer or more, that have been very meaningful to me (and the other person involved) where many of those topics have barely ever come up.

For example, I've had less than 10 conversations with most of my tradmates about my formal education experiences, in the course of a decade. (And that includes my initiating HPS and HP, both relationships I treasure a lot.) My educational background is a huge part of my worldview - but the details of what happened, or how it shaped me just hasn't been hugely relevant in a lot of our interactions. In contrast, I had a lot more conversations about my job (also in education), general educational theory, teaching methods, etc. (stuff that's the present, or was at the time) where my own experiences have obviously shaped my thoughts, but we're not directly talking about the experiences themselves.

(Part of that, incidentally, is because I come from a very different educational background than most of my trad mates, and I know that can be uncomfortable, so I tend to not bring it up unless it benefits the conversation, or I really need help with something related to it. High school was a while ago, so I've mostly dealt with the stuff that needed processing.)

[monsnoleedra]

.. I'm not talking the very basic stuff here - I'm talking the detailed cultural and specific stuff. People can have great interactions with me, and never realise that my parents are British and Austrian (especially now I no longer sound British when I speak - though I did well into my early 20s), that I attended one of the top prep schools in the country, that I did a lot of horseback riding as a teenager, that my father died when I was 15, and a whole host of other things. Or (as I managed to surprise HeartShadow with yesterday), that I'm 35, not older.  ..

This reminds me of a situation that occured to me many years ago.  For background I was born in Washington D.C. then moved to Maryland.  When I was around 12 my family moved back to rural Virginia.  Some years later I was talking with some friends when one looked at me and mentioned that I spoke with a southern accent but they could tell I was not from the area because of the way I pronounced certain words.  I used a Maryland enucation vice Virginian.

Yet years later when I was stationed in Scotland my accent and enucations often passed for Scotish.  When drunk it used to amaze my friends that I could understand every word being said but they couldn't follow half of what we spoke about out in town.

So while many may not ask many know far more about us than we believe.  There are so many subliminal things we do that an observant person will pick up on it.  Some out and out projecting, others not so much so but still reveal much about us.

For instance there was one woman I served with in the Navy.  She was from California and had all the accents and such but her parents were from Britian.  One day as she spread her marmalade upon her bread we got on the topic of Brits and Scots and the things they did.  Her marmalade usage and other small things spoke of her British heritage.

[Auress]

I was replying to the criticisms of my belief/opinion that you initially approached me with. You can't have a negative opinion on my viewpoint and then turn around and tell me that I need to accept your opinion as valid. Lol.  

I'm glad you like Jenett's viewpoint. Use it. It doesn't work for me and I don't agree with it. But I'm not the one calling it out as presumptous and insulting because it differs from mine. I ignored it and just left my opinion out there, because, unlike some, I do happen to think everyone has a right to express their opinion without me criticizing.  

Yeah, well. Sorry. Your viewpoint is to tell me I'm not valid. I'm insulted by that insinuation. I can, in fact, tell you that you calling other people invalid with that viewpoint is.....well ridiculous. And, I am.

The only part of your opinion I criticize is the part where you are basically dismissing those who aren't coming from a recon worldview. It's insulting, presumptuous.....and a few other things.

I guess if I came out and said that, in my opinion, Christians were just baseless Jewish people, I wouldn't get called on that? Yeah, I would. By just about everyone on this forum because it's bad mouthing another person's view of religion. From what I understand, we don't do that on this forum....... Or do we?

The problem is that you could have said that, in your opinion, yes all of these things matter. And, left it at that, but no, you decided to dig by calling them just "polytheistic Christians" for not changing to the world view of the culture their Gods are from. You're basically bad mouthing another person's religion.

You're the one that thought that was a good idea, not me. I'll go ahead and be done with the argument now. I've made my stance known.

[monsnoleedra]

.. The problem is that you could have said that, in your opinion, yes all of these things matter. And, left it at that, but no, you decided to dig by calling them just "polytheistic Christians" for not changing to the world view of the culture their Gods are from. You're basically bad mouthing another person's religion.
..

I would add here that it was not that long ago when many older pagans were speaking about Pagansim being or becoming to christianized in ethics, morality, focus and practice.    Not refering to Pow Wow, Gnostic or ceremonial practices as those were always based upon Christian concepts and notions.  So much so that in many ways a line was drawn in the sand in regards to initiated vs non-initiated, family Traditions vs society traditions vs book traditions and whether we had occultish / pagan practices or just the arrival of watered down Christanity.

While it is not spoken of to much today, for any number of reasons, it is still a widely held belief and opinion.  Especially in many of the Family Traditions, Folk Traditions and older initiated practioners, especially before the 1990's and the proliferation of Wicca 101 books on the market.

[Juniperberry]

I'm curious, then - because my viewpoint is very much based in how I treat humans (their backgrounds are of interest, and I generally want to avoid things that are offensive, hurtful, etc - but their background is not the most important thing about them, their present is.)

How do you handle stuff with friends? Do you need to know their detailed background before you make commitments to them?

Im guessing you meant comments?

First of all, I think the comparison is strange. I don't consider anonymous people on the internet to be anything like a 'friend' relationship.

Also, this board is here to discuss a specific topic- religion. The internet isn't like normal human interaction. I don't sit down with people and say "now we're going to talk about worldview and deity". Conversation flows much more naturally, with the context of tone and demeanor, and involves more of a give and take, and an actual conversational dynamic.

Here, I'm addressing two thousand registered users. In a face to face conversation there's better dialogue and it enables me to ask more questions, listen, and share interests. On the internet I try to get my opinion out there as quickly as possible and as short as possible and read the replies and learn or share in a more...guarded way?  

Another big difference is that if I say something questionable to friends, or face to face with someone, they ASK if I had just meant how it came across. They don't step back and point at finger at me and accuse me of "offensive, uncool, insulting" behavior. This is pretty common for internet communication, though. Anywhere. Not just on TC.

It's totally different, though. I don't think you can use the internet as a good basis for how someone deals with actual human to human interaction. I don't 'know' any of you and you don't know me. We're posting messages on a board, this isn't truly 'conversation'. I could be in a pissy mood, and in the seven hours it takes someone to reply, be in a completely different head space and feel slightly more forgiving to something, but now they aren't in the mood to hear it.

This is why I tend to not take internet 'argumens' to heart. I know what I meant, no one has bothered much to reply to my posts of clarification, but remain on the initial comment. I also try not to let myself get that offended by people online. It's just not the same.  *shrug*

[Dark Midnight]

This is why I tend to not take internet 'argumens' to heart. I know what I meant, no one has bothered much to reply to my posts of clarification, but remain on the initial comment. That's the internet for you. *shrug*

 
Actually, have you thought that it just may be that you haven't explained your point well enough for other people to be completely clear? That has nothing to do with an internet conversation. The time between answers may also indicate that someone needs to go and think about how to reply completely, calmly and coherently.

Here, I'm addressing two thousand registered users. In a face to face conversation there's better dialogue and it enables me to ask more questions, listen, and share interests. On the internet I try to get my opinion out there as quickly as possible and as short as possible.

But this is a debate and discussion board, therefore the idea is to not have to keep things short and sweet. If you just say something without proper explainations, don't be suprised when people keep focusing on the original comment.

[Juniperberry]

Yeah, well. Sorry. Your viewpoint is to tell me I'm not valid.

please quote me on where I said "you're way isn't valid. Only my way is valid".

I'm insulted by that insinuation.

Well, than that's on you since you just sad I insinuated and didn't directly say that.

I can, in fact, tell you that you calling other people invalid with that viewpoint is.....well ridiculous. And, I am.

Again, please quote me a statement where I called other invalid. Because, to me, I was explaining why I thought something in here was important and my reasons for saying so, which I have repeatedly clarified have come from my own personal experience. I really don't see what's wrong with that.  

The only part of your opinion I criticize is the part where you are basically dismissing those who aren't coming from a recon worldview. It's insulting, presumptuous.....and a few other things.

 I never said one had to explore the culture to a recon extent. There are many ways to explore history and find a place for that in a MODERN world with a mixed bag of beliefs without reconstructing something. But, hey, if people aren't interested in any of that that's their deal, or in exploring where their truths of spirituality come from than that's their deal. But I'm still comfortable with my opinion.  

I guess if I came out and said that, in my opinion, Christians were just baseless Jewish people, I wouldn't get called on that?

No, that would be stupid. Especially since Christianity is an evolution of Judaism, and they did take the history of Judaism and incorporate and toss out concepts that weren't beneficial to the worldview that was being built in whatever denomination.

[/I]Yeah, I would. By just about everyone on this forum because it's bad mouthing another person's view of religion. From what I understand, we don't do that on this forum....... Or do we?

We do. Check out 'bad pagan advice', 'mythconceptions', and a number of other threads.

The problem is that you could have said that, in your opinion, yes all of these things matter. And, left it at that, but no, you decided to dig by calling them just "polytheistic Christians" for not changing to the world view of the culture their Gods are from. You're basically bad mouthing another person's religion.

If you want to take it as a dig, then be my guest. Personally, I don't like to be offended, so when someone tries to clarify that what they said didn't mean what I think it meant, I listen up so that I can move on and live a happy life. Then I discuss it if I have further questions. I don't keep beating them over the head that, yes, it was offensive, damn it. Even after multiple people have shown that it's a matter of how someone is personally taking what was said, and that they can see what was meant.

You're the one that thought that was a good idea, not me. I'll go ahead and be done with the argument now. I've made my stance known.

Thank god.