Who are the Goddesses and the Gods?

[Duder]

I posted this several days ago in one of those "ask me" threads, but the opening poster hasn't taken it on. So I cast it abroad for general consideration:

What is the proper way to regard the goddesses and the gods? Who are they, exactly?

I want to know how best to understand the dieties that various wiccans revere, such as Diana, Isis, Pan and so forth, who have names and stories associated with them, who are invoked and to whom honor is given in ritual.

Are the goddesses and the gods correctly understood to be mere symbols that represent aspects of human psychology and/or attributes of the natural cosmos?

Or, are the goddesses and the gods actual beings who take up space (in much the same way as lemons and chairs and freight elevators take up space), who each experience themselves to be a "me" just as you and I experience ourselves to be "mes", and who act as independant agents in accordance with their own wishes and desires?

Or, are the goddesses and the gods different faces of a single divine being?

I am not so much interested in hearing the full range of learned opinion as much as in hearing your own understanding of who the dieties are.

[technomage]

Hi, Duder,

Let me preface my remarks with a bit of a disclaimer: I'm not the Pope of Wicca. Which not only means that I don't wear a funny hat, it also means I don't speak for Wicca as a whole, or anyone but myself. The next three Wiccans you meet may give you five opinions on these topics ... all different from mine.

What is the proper way to regard the goddesses and the gods? Who are they, exactly?

To the best of my understanding, the Lord and Lady are a "human reification" of the Creator.

That may take some explaining--when you speak to someone, say your boss at work, you only "speak to" the part of him (or her) you interact with. You may call him "Boss," or you may call him by his name, but you certainly do not address him as his spouse does ... that's a part of who he is that you don't interact with. (That is, unless you work for your spouse, but you know what I mean.) Just as you might call your boss by his name, we call the Creator by names we can understand. Let's call these names "God Names."

We can fairly well understand another human being--after all, we are human beings ourselves. But most Wiccans posit that the Creator is infinite--or is, at least, beyond human comprehension--so we cannot understand the Creator. We simply do not have the mental capacity to form a relationship with the Divine ... but we do have the capacity to form a relationship with the various "God Names" that we, as humans, invent.

So in that sense, the "God Names" don't start out with any objective reality. But if we are successful in some form of "contact" with the Creator through a specific God Name, then that God Name becomes "real"--or, at least, real enough to work with. In that sense, I hold no difference between Kernunnos and Christ, or between the Wiccan Lord and Lady and the Christian Trinity--both are human-invented "God Names" that people have used to gain communion with the Creator.

I want to know how best to understand the dieties that various wiccans revere, such as Diana, Isis, Pan and so forth, who have names and stories associated with them, who are invoked and to whom honor is given in ritual.

Some Wiccans feel more comfortable interacting with well-defined God-Names--names that have a long mythic history and a relatively-well understood sphere of interaction. Some Wiccans (like me) prefer to use the less-defined "Lord and Lady." That's an issue of personal preference ... and as such, I can't really give a coherent answer to why some Wiccans prefer one over the other.

Are the goddesses and the gods correctly understood to be mere symbols that represent aspects of human psychology and/or attributes of the natural cosmos?

Or, are the goddesses and the gods actual beings who take up space (in much the same way as lemons and chairs and freight elevators take up space), who each experience themselves to be a "me" just as you and I experience ourselves to be "mes", and who act as independant agents in accordance with their own wishes and desires?

Hmmm ... I kind of doubt that the Gods are individual entities with individual interests--though to be sure, a lot of the various world mythoi speak of them as though they do.

However, at the same time, they are not "merely" symbols--heck, they are not "merely" anything, IMO. Interacting with even one of the "God Names" is like an ant interacting with a human being ... it's is truly awesome, in the Biblical sense of the word. And I could not even begin to imagine what interacting directly with the Creator would be like ... if it is even possible to do so as a limited human being. Christians will disagree on that last point ... but even their literature depicts YHVH saying "No man may see my face and live."

Justin

[tmancour]

Let me preface my remarks with a bit of a disclaimer: I'm not the Pope of Wicca. Which not only means that I don't wear a funny hat, it also means I don't speak for Wicca as a whole, or anyone but myself. The next three Wiccans you meet may give you five opinions on these topics ... all different from mine.


This is me nominating CoM for Pope of Wicca!


To the best of my understanding, the Lord and Lady are a "human reification" of the Creator.

That may take some explaining--when you speak to someone, say your boss at work, you only "speak to" the part of him (or her) you interact with. You may call him "Boss," or you may call him by his name, but you certainly do not address him as his spouse does ... that's a part of who he is that you don't interact with. (That is, unless you work for your spouse, but you know what I mean.) Just as you might call your boss by his name, we call the Creator by names we can understand. Let's call these names "God Names."

We can fairly well understand another human being--after all, we are human beings ourselves. But most Wiccans posit that the Creator is infinite--or is, at least, beyond human comprehension--so we cannot understand the Creator. We simply do not have the mental capacity to form a relationship with the Divine ... but we do have the capacity to form a relationship with the various "God Names" that we, as humans, invent.

So in that sense, the "God Names" don't start out with any objective reality. But if we are successful in some form of "contact" with the Creator through a specific God Name, then that God Name becomes "real"--or, at least, real enough to work with. In that sense, I hold no difference between Kernunnos and Christ, or between the Wiccan Lord and Lady and the Christian Trinity--both are human-invented "God Names" that people have used to gain communion with the Creator.


I agree on all salient points with CoM. I'm a big believer in the "All Gods are One God and All Goddesses are One Goddess" School of Thought.


Some Wiccans feel more comfortable interacting with well-defined God-Names--names that have a long mythic history and a relatively-well understood sphere of interaction. Some Wiccans (like me) prefer to use the less-defined "Lord and Lady." That's an issue of personal preference ... and as such, I can't really give a coherent answer to why some Wiccans prefer one over the other.


In my personal experience, relating to one Aspect of a deity, usually connected to a particular Attribute you feel an affinity for, is more likely to help you focus.


Hmmm ... I kind of doubt that the Gods are individual entities with individual interests--though to be sure, a lot of the various world mythoi speak of them as though they do.


I think a lot of non-pagan people equate "myth" with "religion", without understanding the difference. The Gods serve many purposes, and one is to perform in morality tales or teaching stories of one sort or another. Another is to act as conduits to the Divine Superconcious. Mistaking what Zeus did to the upstairs maid in any particular with the profound and sophisticated Greek religious consciousness is doing both myth and religion a disservice.


However, at the same time, they are not "merely" symbols--heck, they are not "merely" anything, IMO. Interacting with even one of the "God Names" is like an ant interacting with a human being ... it's is truly awesome, in the Biblical sense of the word. And I could not even begin to imagine what interacting directly with the Creator would be like ... if it is even possible to do so as a limited human being. Christians will disagree on that last point ... but even their literature depicts YHVH saying "No man may see my face and live."

Justin


Word. What he said. My Goddess would not like being called "merely" a symbol when she is "represents" so much. Depending upon her Aspect, of course.

Part of the problem here, I believe, is the lack of appropriate terminology with which to discuss the nature of the Gods. Most of what we have of theological talk is designed with Radical Monotheism in mind, not pan- or polytheism.

Arion

[technomage]

This is me nominating CoM for Pope of Wicca!

:glare: I'm still not wearing the funny hat.

[Durthorin]

:glare: I'm still not wearing the funny hat.

I second the motion... and we'll get you a special funny hat.. a Pointy Hat.. :)

[Geifodd]

Or, are the goddesses and the gods actual beings who take up space (in much the same way as lemons and chairs and freight elevators take up space), who each experience themselves to be a "me" just as you and I experience ourselves to be "mes", and who act as independant agents in accordance with their own wishes and desires?

This would be my viewpoint on the matter. I myself am a hard polytheist, meaning that I believe in many possible gods, and I choose to treat them as individual entities who each have their own interests and/or agendas. Rather than seeing the universe as being under the rulership of one deity under many guises, or seeing the universe as being caught in a war between two forces in dualistic combat, I take a more pluralistic view. I believe there are many different independent spiritual forces at work in the universe, and not all of them like each other. Unlike soft polytheists, I do believe there is rivalry between some of the gods (e.g., Thor and Loki, Horus and Set, Jehovah and Lucifer). However, I do not assume either of these rivalries to possess any cosmic significance. I am no more inclined to believe that the universe revolves around our gods any more than it does around ourselves.

I should also point out that I do not believe the gods "take up space," in that I view them as being non-spatial beings who are not subject to the same physical limitations that we humans are. Hence why they are often thought of as immortal or eternal (and who knows if they really are? They may be such within our own space/time continuum, but perhaps not in others). They are perhaps most accurately described as sentient forces that exist *in* Nature, rather than outside of or against it.

Also, the gods do not really have genders, for since they are non-spatial, they do not have reproductive organs. However, we think of them as "he" or "she" depending upon the ways they choose to reveal themselves in interactions with humans. A deity is considered a "he" or "she" according to whichever gender it most usually presents itself as. For instance, Jesus Christ is typically understood by worshipers as a male. Lucifer, on the other hand, is an example of a deity who seems to enjoy revealing itself as both male and female from time to time. Some Satanists experience Him as a Goddess instead of as a God. This is adequately portrayed by Eliphas Levi's Baphomet, which depicts the Devil as a hermaphrodite figure.

Edited to add:

One particular reason why I see the gods as distinct and independent forces rather than one unified entity is because of how some people assume that all gods are one god just because they are particularizations of the concept of "divinity." I can respect this view, but I disagree with it in the same way that I would disagree with a belief that all human beings are simply one human being because we are particularizations of the concept of "humanity." Conflict and individuality exists in all levels of Nature (even no two ants are exactly alike -- every organism born into the world is some kind of individualized mutation), therefore I do not see any reason to preclude the gods from this.

[technomage]

I second the motion... and we'll get you a special funny hat.. a Pointy Hat.. :)
I told you ... I'm still not wearing ... :zap:

Oh, well. I guess I am wearing a funny hat. :teeth:

[Duder]

Hi, Duder,

Let me preface my remarks with a bit of a disclaimer: I'm not the Pope of Wicca. Which not only means that I don't wear a funny hat, it also means I don't speak for Wicca as a whole, or anyone but myself. The next three Wiccans you meet may give you five opinions on these topics ... all different from mine.



To the best of my understanding, the Lord and Lady are a "human reification" of the Creator.

That may take some explaining--when you speak to someone, say your boss at work, you only "speak to" the part of him (or her) you interact with. You may call him "Boss," or you may call him by his name, but you certainly do not address him as his spouse does ... that's a part of who he is that you don't interact with. (That is, unless you work for your spouse, but you know what I mean.) Just as you might call your boss by his name, we call the Creator by names we can understand. Let's call these names "God Names."

We can fairly well understand another human being--after all, we are human beings ourselves. But most Wiccans posit that the Creator is infinite--or is, at least, beyond human comprehension--so we cannot understand the Creator. We simply do not have the mental capacity to form a relationship with the Divine ... but we do have the capacity to form a relationship with the various "God Names" that we, as humans, invent.

So in that sense, the "God Names" don't start out with any objective reality. But if we are successful in some form of "contact" with the Creator through a specific God Name, then that God Name becomes "real"--or, at least, real enough to work with. In that sense, I hold no difference between Kernunnos and Christ, or between the Wiccan Lord and Lady and the Christian Trinity--both are human-invented "God Names" that people have used to gain communion with the Creator.



Some Wiccans feel more comfortable interacting with well-defined God-Names--names that have a long mythic history and a relatively-well understood sphere of interaction. Some Wiccans (like me) prefer to use the less-defined "Lord and Lady." That's an issue of personal preference ... and as such, I can't really give a coherent answer to why some Wiccans prefer one over the other.



Hmmm ... I kind of doubt that the Gods are individual entities with individual interests--though to be sure, a lot of the various world mythoi speak of them as though they do.

However, at the same time, they are not "merely" symbols--heck, they are not "merely" anything, IMO. Interacting with even one of the "God Names" is like an ant interacting with a human being ... it's is truly awesome, in the Biblical sense of the word. And I could not even begin to imagine what interacting directly with the Creator would be like ... if it is even possible to do so as a limited human being. Christians will disagree on that last point ... but even their literature depicts YHVH saying "No man may see my face and live."

Justin


Hello, Your Holiness ACoM I -

I understand your view, then, to be similar to the option I expressed that the dieties are thge many faces of the One (or the many faces we put on the One). That would be my view, also - but I think it is also true that the dieties do represent attributes of human psychology - for, as they say, "as above, so below". Human psychology is a reflection, as it were, of the whole cosmos. As I once heard Joeseph Campbell put it, there is a sense in which our minds are the very space through which the planets fly and the galaxies twirl.

Geiffodd's view that the dieties are independant actors and entities would be my last choice - though I think it has some validity insofar as each of us who is interested in religion begins his quest with that theory in mind.

I've had minimal experience with wiccan practise, and considerably more with Native American. I've always been the kind of guy who wants to explain things in a clear and understandable way as best I can, so the tendancy for me is to see the spirits and the powers of the directions as metaphorical, mythological or symbolic of something else. But invariably, just when I get too secure in such a view, the powers (or the spirits) get my attention and kick my butt for my foolishness that may verge on disrespect - just as though they were the kinds of independant actors Geifodd believes in. And then, just when I start to take that naive stance too seriously, something in my spiritual path shows me how silly I am being!

It is a very difficult question, isn't it? I think you treat with them respectfully as if they were independant actors, even if you "know" they're not, and at the same time you understand them in terms of cosmic relationships and all of that abstract stuff.

[technomage]

Hello, Your Holiness ACoM I -

Would you like to find out just how easy being green is? :zap:

I understand your view, then, to be similar to the option I expressed that the dieties are thge many faces of the One (or the many faces we put on the One). That would be my view, also - but I think it is also true that the dieties do represent attributes of human psychology - for, as they say, "as above, so below". Human psychology is a reflection, as it were, of the whole cosmos. As I once heard Joeseph Campbell put it, there is a sense in which our minds are the very space through which the planets fly and the galaxies twirl.

Hmmm ... I'm not sure how well I agree with Campbell on that. I think he has the cart before the horse. I feel it would be better to say that our understanding of the Universe is a necessary end product of our psychology ... but our "understanding" does not affect or change the Universe.

Geiffodd's view that the dieties are independant actors and entities would be my last choice - though I think it has some validity insofar as each of us who is interested in religion begins his quest with that theory in mind.

As far as Geifodd's views ... there is certainly enough "power" and "relevance" (best terms I have, but very poor words to apply to this issue) to make it a rather moot point. Are the various Gods individuals, or facets of the One? Frankly, I'm not sure we as human beings have the capacity to make such a distinction ... and it is entirely possible that both views are true, but that we simply are not capable of understanding such a relatedness.

It is a very difficult question, isn't it? I think you treat with them respectfully as if they were independant actors, even if you "know" they're not, and at the same time you understand them in terms of cosmic relationships and all of that abstract stuff.

Pretty much ... and as you note, it is a balancing act. One that requires the utmost in respect for Who we deal with.

[Heathen Dawn]

What is the proper way to regard the goddesses and the gods?

The way they tell you to regard them.

Are the goddesses and the gods
…

Nobody knows. Lots of people think they know, but that doesn’t a fact make. I don’t know either. I think it’s the experience that counts, not its underlying mechanics. I abhor the scientification of religion.

[Duder]

I abhor the scientification of religion.

I know exactly what you mean. However, religion divorced from all connection with the empirical and rational world is pretty abhorrent, too.

[Heathen Dawn]

However, religion divorced from all connection with the empirical and rational world is pretty abhorrent, too.

A religion needs connection with the empirical and rational world only if its goal is truth. If it’s centred on happiness, like mine is, it needs no such connection.

[technomage]

A religion needs connection with the empirical and rational world only if its goal is truth. If it’s centred on happiness, like mine is, it needs no such connection.

Hmm. But my religion is centered in the search for truth ... or, at least, for as much of the truth as I can comprehend. Therefore, while I do not "scientificize" my religion, I do borrow the terminology of science or philosophy when I wish to explain my views to others.

[seer]

We can fairly well understand another human being--after all, we are human beings ourselves. But most Wiccans posit that the Creator is infinite--or is, at least, beyond human comprehension--so we cannot understand the Creator. We simply do not have the mental capacity to form a relationship with the Divine ... but we do have the capacity to form a relationship with the various "God Names" that we, as humans, invent.

So in that sense, the "God Names" don't start out with any objective reality. But if we are successful in some form of "contact" with the Creator through a specific God Name, then that God Name becomes "real"--or, at least, real enough to work with. In that sense, I hold no difference between Kernunnos and Christ, or between the Wiccan Lord and Lady and the Christian Trinity--both are human-invented "God Names" that people have used to gain communion with the Creator.

First you say that we can not form a relationship with the divine. Then you say that we use these names to gain communion with the Creator. Which is it?

[technomage]

First and foremost--well done. I was confident that you could find it ... the only question was would you persevere long enough to do so.

First you say that we can not form a relationship with the divine. Then you say that we use these names to gain communion with the Creator. Which is it?

Now if you'll show as much perseverence in reading and comprehending, I think you'll discern the answer to your question. You may not agree with it, and that's fine, but you will understand.

If you want to....

[seer]

First and foremost--well done. I was confident that you could find it ... the only question was would you persevere long enough to do so.



Now if you'll show as much perseverence in reading and comprehending, I think you'll discern the answer to your question. You may not agree with it, and that's fine, but you will understand.

If you want to....

I understand it perfectly Justin. That is why I asked this question. If we can NOT have a relationship with the divine how do these invented names cause us to gain communion with him? That is a contradiction - no?

[technomage]

I understand it perfectly Justin. That is why I asked this question. If we can NOT have a relationship with the divine how do these invented names cause us to gain communion with him? That is a contradiction - no?
No.

[seer]

I understand it perfectly Justin. That is why I asked this question. If we can NOT have a relationship with the divine how do these invented names cause us to gain communion with him? That is a contradiction - no?

No.

Justin, you do know what having communion with someone means?

Websters:

intimate fellowship or rapport

Now can you explain how this is not a contradiction:

A. We can not have a relationship with the divine:

B. We can have fellowship and rapport with the divine.

[seer]

Justin, you do know what having communion with someone means?

Websters:

intimate fellowship or rapport

Now can you explain how this is not a contradiction:

A. We can not have a relationship with the divine:

B. We can have fellowship and rapport with the divine.

What happened to Justin? He said I could ask these question if I found his beliefs...

[technomage]

What happened to Justin? He said I could ask these question if I found his beliefs...

Patience, Seer ... I do have a life outside of TWeb, you know.

Now can you explain how this is not a contradiction:

A. We can not have a relationship with the divine:

B. We can have fellowship and rapport with the divine.

Communion requires at least a minimal understanding, Seer. We cannot comprehend, or have communion with, the Divine, as God is infinite--or at least very much greater than we are. It's rather like claiming that an ant can have comprehension of, or communion with, a human being.

However, human cultures all over the world have developed "God-names"--finite representations of the Infinite Divine. Now, the Divine has graciously communed with us humans through these God-Names ... but none of the God-names are accurate, and none of them is anywhere near a "complete" understanding of God.

These various God-Names do have a form of reality, in as much as God uses them to commune with humanity. But as they are human creations, they are subject to the limitations of their human creators--including the "cultural ethnocentrism" of the carious cultures that developed these God-Names. Thus the myths of any specific culture are--to those outside of that culture--nonsensical at best, and morally repugnant at worst.

Justin

[seer]

Communion requires at least a minimal understanding, Seer. We cannot comprehend, or have communion with, the Divine, as God is infinite--or at least very much greater than we are. It's rather like claiming that an ant can have comprehension of, or communion with, a human being.

So can we can't have communion with God? Why did you say that we could?

However, human cultures all over the world have developed "God-names"--finite representations of the Infinite Divine. Now, the Divine has graciously communed with us humans through these God-Names ... but none of the God-names are accurate, and none of them is anywhere near a "complete" understanding of God.

So we can have communion with God? And I am not speaking of having a complete understanding of God. Also, do these names tell us anything true about God? If they are not accurate then what good are they? Are we not believing falsehoods?


These various God-Names do have a form of reality, in as much as God uses them to commune with humanity. But as they are human creations, they are subject to the limitations of their human creators--including the "cultural ethnocentrism" of the carious cultures that developed these God-Names. Thus the myths of any specific culture are--to those outside of that culture--nonsensical at best, and morally repugnant at worst.

So God uses falsehoods to commune with humanity?

[technomage]

So God uses falsehoods to commune with humanity?

Do you consider limited human understanding a "falsehood," simply because it is not complete or correct?

[seer]

Do you consider limited human understanding a "falsehood," simply because it is not complete or correct?

Justin answer me this. Do the names of God or the attributes we give to Him tell us anything true or accurate about His nature and character?

And I am still unclear - can we have communion with God or not? You seemed to be saying two different things...

[technomage]

Justin answer me this.

Please answer my question before posing questions of your own.

[seer]

Please answer my question before posing questions of your own.

Justin, I can not answer you until you clear this up:

However, human cultures all over the world have developed "God-names"--finite representations of the Infinite Divine. Now, the Divine has graciously communed with us humans through these God-Names ... but none of the God-names are accurate, and none of them is anywhere near a "complete" understanding of God.

So if none of the names are accurate, then are we dealing with truth or fiction? They may not be complete, but still may be true, as far as they go. Are we dealing with truth?

Also, if you please:

And I am still unclear - can we have communion with God or not? You seemed to be saying two different things...

[technomage]

Justin, I can not answer you until you clear this up:

However, human cultures all over the world have developed "God-names"--finite representations of the Infinite Divine. Now, the Divine has graciously communed with us humans through these God-Names ... but none of the God-names are accurate, and none of them is anywhere near a "complete" understanding of God.

So if none of the names are accurate, then are we dealing with truth or fiction? They may not be complete, but still may be true, as far as they go. Are we dealing with truth?

Also, if you please:

And I am still unclear - can we have communion with God or not? You seemed to be saying two different things...
Seer--my answer to your question depends on your answer to mine.

Do you consider limited human understanding a "falsehood," simply because it is not complete or correct?

[seer]

Do you consider limited human understanding a "falsehood," simply because it is not complete or correct?

Incomplete no, incorrect yes. So is our understanding of God incomplete or incorrect? There is a vast difference.

[technomage]

So is our understanding of God incomplete or incorrect?

Yes.

[seer]

Yes.

If it's incorrect Justin then it is false. So our relationship with God is based on falsehoods. Which is no relationship at all - which makes me wonder why you even suggested that we were in communion with God...

[technomage]

If it's incorrect Justin then it is false. So our relationship with God is based on falsehoods. Which is no relationship at all...

Your own Bible says that our understanding of God is incomplete (1 Cor 13:12). Any incomplete knowledge is, by definition, incorrect. Yet Paul understood that communion can still exist.

which makes me wonder why you even suggested that we were in communion with God...

Because God--the Creator, or whatever you want to call the Divine--has evidently decided to grant us at least some measure of Communion. The medium of said communion--our own flawed and incomplete understanding--cannot but result in an incomplete and incorrect picture. But God evidently grants that communion despite our ignorance.

Of course, I already covered this in our Basketball Court thread ... but you weren't listening then, either.

[seer]

Your own Bible says that our understanding of God is incomplete (1 Cor 13:12). Any incomplete knowledge is, by definition, incorrect. Yet Paul understood that communion can still exist.

That is wrong Justin. Incomplete does not mean incorrect. Look, take a loved one - you can not know that person completely - but you can know some true and correct things about that person. And that is the question before us - can we know some true and correct things about God? And Paul said some very specific things about the nature and character of God - true things...

Because God--the Creator, or whatever you want to call the Divine--has evidently decided to grant us at least some measure of Communion. The medium of said communion--our own flawed and incomplete understanding--cannot but result in an incomplete and incorrect picture. But God evidently grants that communion despite our ignorance.

First, how do you know that He grants us a measure of communion with Him? Second you said: We simply do not have the mental capacity to form a relationship with the Divine ... but we do have the capacity to form a relationship with the various "God Names" that we, as humans, invent.

And since you agree that these invented names are incorrect, are we not back to having a completely false view of God? Therefore we are having a relationship with something false...


So we can have a relationship with God?

[Richbee]

That is wrong Justin. Incomplete does not mean incorrect.

Well posted young man.

The Bible doesn't say that it is the end of revelation, just the whole of the written Word. (Note, that as Jesus reveals his person, there is a progressive, and eternal on going revealation.)

Nature is an indirect revelation of God, and yet we the finite, cannot and will never comprehend the infinite or wrap our arms around this reality.

We can try by reading Psalms 8,14, and 19, driving out in the country or peering into the Universe - God's creation. The heaven's reveal God's glory.

Some here have completely forgotten about prayer and the super natural power(s) of God, the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ.

Now, I'm not talking about a flash of light, or a feel good emotional high, I am speaking here about dreams, visions, and deep and powerful experiences. (e.g. I have experienced supernatural forgiveness for my own Father. A long story, but a miracle in my journal of 1986.)

I would call myself, an Existentualist Christian, and absolutely I must experience these realities, experiences and see some fruit. (Or, "Eat, drink and be Merry till we die?)

My sense is that God's wisdom is good for his children. Taste God and indeed, see that God is Good. All good things flow from God. Mercy, grace, forgiveness, life, blessings, abundant fruit, wisdom, righteousness, justice, judgement and the promise to end Evil. (In the end, the dragon or serpent, or for the lack of a better name Satan is destroyed.)

:joy:

[Geifodd]

Duder:

Geiffodd's view that the dieties are independant actors and entities would be my last choice - though I think it has some validity insofar as each of us who is interested in religion begins his quest with that theory in mind.

I must be living in a different reality, because I don't see that everybody who is interested in religion begins with the polytheism that I embrace. I certainly didn't; I arrived at it from monotheism. I also do not agree that hard polytheism is somehow "inferior" to other theologies. As far as I'm concerned, hard polytheism makes the most logical sense, and everything else is bunk.

[Geifodd]

CC:

(In the end, the dragon or serpent, or for the lack of a better name Satan is destroyed.)

Wishful thinking, compliments of the salesman for Christ.

[Richbee]

CC:

(In the end, the dragon or serpent, or for the lack of a better name Satan is destroyed.)

Wishful thinking, compliments of the salesman for Christ.

Why do you fear the Lake of Fire? Has not your master promised to save you?

[Geifodd]

Why do you fear the Lake of Fire? Has not your master promised to save you?

Who said I fear the lake of Fire? Quit putting words in my mouth, little man. :wink: