Defining (a) Religion

[path_of_one]

To us, the body is the means by which the soul 'materialises' itself, so we don't accept the old dualism of the body and soul being two separate things, or the gnostic idea of the body as a prison or container for the soul. Rather, the body is the projection of the soul according to the medium in which it finds itself.

Very interesting. I don't think the body and soul are dualist, exactly, though I must admit that my own experience has been more of a struggle to integrate the two. However, I must offer that this is not common in Pagans. It is distinctive to my own experience, the reasons for which I understand quite well, and believe to be not common to very many people.

Having said that, the relationship between the two has become inverted ... in theory (or rather in speculation) the soul can and should be able to manifest any physical form it likes (and in the less glutinous worlds, can do so) ... I'm not saying shape-changing, necessarily, but rather that the soul can present to another soul the image of itself which is more 'real' than the material and surface image.

Hmmm... like a hologram? In all seriousness, I do understand what you're getting at. In some of my own mystical visions this is as it has been, at least in realms that are less solid than ours (and less disjointed and disconnected).

A soul in possession of its own soul faculties can determine what a lesser soul sees, or does not see ... this is not 'power of the mind' or some order of psychic persuasion, it's to do with self-projection ... disclosure ... revelation ... This all ties in to the post-Resurrection sightings of Jesus ... the clues are all there in Scripture.

Well, full self-possession, in the truest sense of the word "self," would seem to bring with it a fair bit of power in terms of what I'd call intention and focus (not necessarily mind). And this could appear, between human beings, as a sort of psychic force... but it would really be, as you say, the choosing of what to reveal to whom. We all do this somewhat, but the more fully we are self-possessed, the more powerful we become at it (and hopefully the more discerning as well).

a new idea would be a new life, a new soul ... harking back, rather like two notes causing a third note? Or a harmonic? Not sure if the analogy works...

I don't know. When I speak of sound, I tend to think everything has been manifested by God Herself. I cannot procreate the sound. I can only procreate the form a sound will take. But then, believing in reincarnation, I don't think every new baby is a new soul. For me, there's a big cosmic recycling program.

Physical generation and garments of skin became necessary when man surrendered his unitive being to enjoy his own singularity ... and suddenly found her/himself naked and alone, surrounded by strangers ... s/he didn't even recogise her/himself ... still doesn't. without a 'surface' to preserve her/him, she/he would have vanished entirely ...

I'm finding all this fascinating. So you are saying that potentially Genesis could be understood to be humanity as a spirit-form, and its turning toward individuality and material form, which separated them from God and from all other creatures, including each other?

We see the soul the same way — mineral, flora, fauna, human, spiritual — and so encapsulating the whole world in itself, as it were. There's also accounts of movements in the soul ... straight, circular, spiral ...

Movements. Yes. Last year at a large national Druid gathering I did the spiral dance- never did that before. It was very interesting. The soul does understand symbol and art and movement on some deep level, I think.

Beautiful account of your experience, by the way ...

Thank you. If death is half so lovely, I'll feel very blessed.

I think we agree in the broad stroke, but maybe differ in the detail.

Seems to be the case in general.

Our view is that God creates, and when the soul is brought into being, the end is already there (God is eternal), so the idea of perfection is to be that which we were created to be.

Then yes, in your view, I am reaching for perfection. I tend to think of perfection in quite wordly terms, and so tend to consciously avoid it, as it smacks of having some standardized goal. Since people are different, and they are created to be different, the end-state is different (at least in my worldview).

That's perfection! "Be ye perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect" Who is this perfect being ... what is this perfect being? God. What is God? God is love.

OK, OK. So maybe I am a sort of perfectionist.

But self-love, which began in Adam and continues today, is not true love. The seven deadly sins are, I think, aspects of self-love. That's what renders them deadly, they cut off the person from love.

I wouldn't say that sin arises from self-love, but from loving the wrong self. Loving one's ego causes problems. Loving one's true self is the origin of being able to fully love others. We can't give what we don't have. Self-centeredness alienates, but when one truly knows and loves the "real" self, one is connected with everything else.

I'm saying the soul is the core, I suppose ... the 'self' is the (limited) conscious awareness of the itself of the soul ... know thyself is know thy soul, when you know your soul, all barriers disappear.

Yep.

Theosis in that sense is not an individual state, it's a cosmic state ... but 'provisional theosis' or individual degrees of realisation, yes ... Some 'sleep in Christ' and others are 'awake in Christ' ...

That makes sense. In a way, it is similar to thinking of the evolution of humanity (in a spiritual sense). Many, perhaps most, are sleep-walking through life. Awakening is a sort of leap that changes everything about one's perspective. One can only imagine what it would be like for humanity as a whole to awaken.

The Church is a presence ... I'm really not wanting to go on with that, at this moment in time ...

OK. In the future, I'd be curious...

We would say there is no latency or potentiality in God, as they are conditional modes of being. God is, eternally, absolutely, infinitely, unchangingly ...

So all that God created always was? This is the trick to me. If there never was potentiality in God for creation, then creation was in existence as long as God was? Or else, creation must have had its potential within God, which means God had potential to do something God was not yet doing. I'm confused with the whole thing... it might just be semantics.

Again, we're struggling on the limits of language, as God has no beginning, but I see your point, and this sets up an apparent duality: God and God's self-knowing — which we call Father and Son — the Father begets the Son eternally, knows Himself in the Son, but because God is perfect, the Son is likewise perfect and everything that God is ...

No doubt- the language is always a huge barrier.

The point for us is the principle of manifestation must be in the Divine Nature first ... God will not manifest if it is not in the Divine Nature to do so.

Well, naturally. This is kind of what I was referring to as latency or potentiality- the principles of all that is lay within God Herself. But these were not always acted upon.

Equally, we would say (some of us) all manifest reality is unreal because it susbists according to the Will of God, God is the only 'thing' that exists of Itself.

This posits a separate between manifest reality and God that doesn't really exist in most Pagan thought. I'd say separation is an illusion. And so the "realness" of manifest reality is a non-issue- manifest reality is never real in the sense that we cannot fully know it as it is, but it is always real in the sense that in arising from God, it is held within Her embrace and Her sacredness runs through it. The entire bit about linear time (from our perspective) producing a "before" and "after" creation is probably not much related to God's perspective of it all, whatever that may be.

Far from the modern assuption of 'progress', the movement is cyclic, not linear, and we are still moving towards the low point of the cycyle.

Could you explain a bit further? I'm interested but not sure I get it.

Absolutely ... we only argue that point in the face of those who argue that God 'must' do this or that ...

To me, it's another non-issue. God is what God is. It's sort of pointless for a limited being such as myself to try to figure out the "how" of it all.

One might say God saw Herself and thought, 'this is too good to keep to Myself', so created other things to share in that.

I like that.

Blessings,
Kim

 

[path_of_one]

I recall reading somewhere that Rome, which was generally pragmatic about non-Roman religion, as long as you made all the right noises re the Roman cults, but they persecuted the Druids with some vigour?

I'm not sure, before Christian Romans came in around 400-500 AD.

Again, if memory serves, 'Celtic' is something of a generic term, cos it covered all of Europe, and thus a number of different tribes and peoples, but the Druids could move between them with relative ease, and religious respect ... it the Romans reckoned it was the Druids inciting revolt and ferment, spreading news, carrying messages, etc.

Well, wouldn't be entirely off, though Druids didn't necessarily incite revolt. The Celts covered, at one point, a huge swath of Europe from the UK all the way through France, parts of Germany and Czechoslovakia, etc. But they were a bunch of independent tribes and kingdoms that shared some religious and cultural elements, but also often warred with one another. This is the big reason they couldn't fight off the Romans- they couldn't unify consistently enough.

The Druids were a sort of professional class that combined various functions of judge, advisor to political leaders, priest, philsopher. There were also other professional classes that are now subsumed in modern Druidry- the "vates" (now called ovates), who were diviners, prophets, and seers (and potentially healers) and the bards, who were divinely inspired historians, story-tellers, musicians, and above all- poets.

Druids were afforded, as I understand, the same respect given to kings and other high political leaders, and could move freely as well as work together to influence political leaders- such as halting wars. Every political leader had Druids, who lent not only "practical" assistance but magical as well.

I'm assuming there would have been local gods and regional deities ... and that the Druids in a way transcended those ... or spoke a general language?

I'm not sure about the transcendant or general language part- not sure if anyone knows. It was an oral tradition and much was lost- the rest was mostly copied by Christian scribes and rolled up in Christian ideology and wording.

But as for the local and regional gods- most definitely. Some were quite tied to place, and others were more widespread but called by different names. Cernnunos (i.e., Pan) was like this. You find the horned god of the forest all over the place.

It is obvious that there were common cultural elements, even if the language and other things differed. For example, you find many commonalities between the Irish and the Welsh- but different languages. Divine inspiration (and divine sound- sort of the aum equivalent) was Awen in Welsh but Imbas in Irish Gaelic.

My BA (Divinity) course finishes this July. I wonder what my tutors will think if I tell 'em I'm starting a BA (Druidry) course next!

Thomas

LOL I've considered a course of study similar to a MDiv in seminary myself... but I haven't the funds for one more degree that won't lead anywhere job-wise. If I get any more degrees, they MUST pay bills.

 

[Radical_Reformer]

Of course. But a strong argument and truth are not synonymous. A color-blind person could make a strong argument that red and green are not separate colors. And it would be correct, in its own way- for that person. But then, for a person who is not color-blind, they could argue just as strongly that red and green are in fact distinct.

Interesting choice of example. Indeed I am red-green color blind. I learned this about myself as a young child. When I took a color blindness test as a child I failed. So the rods in my eyes do not have the ability to distinguish the wavelength of the radiation of incoming light. (By the way, you are not psychic are you , if I was not a rationalist I might believe so).

Does the recognition of the soul require some sort of sense which I do not possess ? Please tell me what that sense is, as I would like to test its validity .

Perhaps those that do not experience or believe in a soul do simply end after this life. Who knows?

Sometimes one has to believe something in order for it to come true. If, for example, I wish to run a 10 minute mile, it would be helpful for me to believe I can do so (I am a little overweight, so 10 minutes would not be so bad ).

But all the belief in myself will not get me a mile in 4 minutes.

So why would you think that believing in a soul would make it reality ?

 

[Thomas]

Hi Path —

Hmmm... like a hologram?

It's a huge discussion, really. Maybe we could pursue it elsewhere.

I'm finding all this fascinating. So you are saying that potentially Genesis could be understood to be humanity as a spirit-form, and its turning toward individuality and material form, which separated them from God and from all other creatures, including each other?

Yep. I'm saying that some thought that God in His Providence created the material realm in the full knowledge of what was going to happen, to prevent the energies of the soul bleeding away into nothing, as it were.

Last year at a large national Druid gathering I did the spiral dance- never did that before. It was very interesting. The soul does understand symbol and art and movement on some deep level, I think.

I rather think symbol and art are harmonics of the life and movement of the soul.

My pagan pa-in-law used to do a summer solstice mini-festival (400-people attending) with a ritual, a walk round a maze, then firing a blazing arrow into a straw sunwheel ... then fireworks. Would you believe we (me an me better arf) were site crew, and I was his ritual assistant? Sadly he's too old now, but the summer solstice mantle has shifted to us (our twins were born June 12, so there's another reason). It's just a party now, with songs and performances from anyone who fancies. Our garden's too small for mazes and stuff ...

I wouldn't say that sin arises from self-love, but from loving the wrong self.

Better said than my effort!

Many, perhaps most, are sleep-walking through life.

1 Corinthians 11:30 "Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep."

So all that God created always was?

A creation, not necessarily this one ...

I'd say separation is an illusion.

So would I, but then we would disagree on the aspect of pan(en)theism, I think.

Could you explain a bit further? I'm interested but not sure I get it.

Well I think ancient cultures have never thought in linear time, I think that is an Enlightenment idea, tied in to 'progress' and, to some degree, even 'evolution' ... the assumption that everything is getting progressively better.

Then we have the Kali Yuga in Hindu cosmology ... and the idea of ages in Christian speculation.

In Christian Neoplatonism we have exitus and reditus, the going out, and the return.

Things like that.

Pax et bonum!

Thomas

 

[path_of_one]

(By the way, you are not psychic are you , if I was not a rationalist I might believe so).

You may be rationalist, but you also assume quite a bit about how information works. Rationalism is grounded in its own potentially false assumptions- all human cognition is.

Does the recognition of the soul require some sort of sense which I do not possess ? Please tell me what that sense is, as I would like to test its validity .

The definition of soul is variable, so it is apparent that whatever people are recognizing, they are at least interpreting and perceiving in diverse ways.

If you ask me in general, I can respond from a scientific view and say it's pointless to test a sense of the soul- why bother except out of pure curiousity? And the religious view sets up necessary faith-based assumptions, as Thomas explains.

If you ask me personally, as a mystic I'd say that I have long experienced a process and being I call my soul. Whether it's like that for others I've no idea. I have no claim to "rightness" for other people, nor do I particularly care to begin.

So I guess to me, the question is really- if someone has not yet experienced something they call the soul, why not? There could be all sorts of reasons; in my own beliefs, the most probable source is either resistance at some level or poor timing. In the former case, the ego resists the experience of the soul because full realization of one's soul more or less consumes or obliterates the ego. The ego is scared of this, so it resists and "forgets" or "ignores" the true self. In the latter case, it just isn't time yet for the experience of the soul.

If you really care to have the experience, then cultivate patience and openness and see what happens. It may take lifetimes- who knows? But it's not like you're giving much up in the meantime. If you don't care to have the experience, then it's pointless to speculate as to why you haven't had it.

But all the belief in myself will not get me a mile in 4 minutes.

Again, you assume certain limitations and certain ways that physical form *must* work. This is not scientifically valid. You can only really state probabilities.

It may be very improbable that belief in yourself could get you a mile in four minutes.

But anything is *possible.* Quantum mechanics, string theory, and so forth are stranger than science fiction, yes?

So why would you think that believing in a soul would make it reality ?

Why not?

 

[path_of_one]

It's a huge discussion, really. Maybe we could pursue it elsewhere.

OK- I will try to remember to bring it up again. There's a lot in this whole thing that fascinates me... it is very similar to my beliefs and yet is wholly unlike most of what I've heard out of Christianity.

Yep. I'm saying that some thought that God in His Providence created the material realm in the full knowledge of what was going to happen, to prevent the energies of the soul bleeding away into nothing, as it were.

That's really quite interesting. I wonder why the soul would have bled away into nothing, though? I mean, other disincarnate entities in Christian doctrine turned away from God (i.e., angels to demons) and did not end? Is it a uniquely human thing?

I rather think symbol and art are harmonics of the life and movement of the soul.

That's beautifully put- and poetic. I may need to quote you somewhere one day.

Would you believe we (me an me better arf) were site crew, and I was his ritual assistant? Sadly he's too old now, but the summer solstice mantle has shifted to us (our twins were born June 12, so there's another reason). It's just a party now, with songs and performances from anyone who fancies. Our garden's too small for mazes and stuff ...

Yes, I'd believe it- you have always been a pretty interfaith sort of guy, I think. 400 people is no mini-festival for Pagans- that's enormous! I can't imagine getting that many people together in my yard!

1 Corinthians 11:30 "Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep."

Exactly.

A creation, not necessarily this one ...

Yes. Though in some way, we were always existing, as God always existed, and we exist in God.

I don't know how to explain what I'm getting at- language fails me. It has to do with time as we think of it versus time as it potentially is versus no-time.

So would I, but then we would disagree on the aspect of pan(en)theism, I think.

Well, I'm not pantheist. Panentheist, yes. Though the term seems to be a bit open-ended and encapsulate a few different possibilities. I don't really believe in a God that transcends manifest reality, but nor do I believe manifest reality is, in sum, God. All is sacred, as the sacred runs through all. But the sacredness that runs through all comes from an origin-point, a source.

Well I think ancient cultures have never thought in linear time, I think that is an Enlightenment idea, tied in to 'progress' and, to some degree, even 'evolution' ... the assumption that everything is getting progressively better.

I tend to think of evolution as things getting different. "Better" always is qualified by one's perspective.

I do believe in evolution, and I don't think things just go round and round. But spirals... yes. It is not a linear progression- and sometimes we're just going sideways as it were. But manifest reality spirals away from the origin-point, and is drawn back to it, spiraling back in.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Path —

... it is very similar to my beliefs and yet is wholly unlike most of what I've heard out of Christianity.

I'm writing as essay on the Eucharist at the moment "Symbol or reality?" Well of course it's a reality, but it is equally a symbol, and equally as important as a symbol. It's just that 'rationalism' has all but completely lost the sense of a symbol as a transcending reality. A symbol is not merely a thing, it's a dynamic thing (whereas a sign or representation is just a thing that points at something else). I firmly believe is all but lost in common Christianity, and that is a cause of profound sadness in me, for my brothers and sisters in Christ, which we all are.

I brought that challenge with me when I looked again at Christianity over thirty years ago, if I couldn't find it there, I was going to look somewhere else. Then Christianity said to me, "Oh no, son, you're going nowhere, check this out ... " (My one, real, mystical experience).

That's really quite interesting. I wonder why the soul would have bled away into nothing, though? I mean, other disincarnate entities in Christian doctrine turned away from God (i.e., angels to demons) and did not end? Is it a uniquely human thing?

By bleeding away I mean there is only one reality — God — and for created natures their reality is in the Deity. It is God that gives things their reality, because only God is absolutely real. Only God is self-subsistently real — everything else participates in God, and by virtue of its participation, is real. Only God says "I am that I am", whereas everything else says "I am because you are".

Angels and men — which we see as rational intellects — turned away from God in the sense that they tried to order reality according to themselves. They tried to make the world in their own image, the image of their own minds ... with themselves at the centre (the wrong self-love) and distinct from everything else ... everything suddenly became 'things' which seem to exist in and of themselves ... and fallen man views everything according to its utility, its use for me, but examining the world man discovers the providential means by which to find that way back to that interior reality in which all is in everything. The material surface is just the outward appearance, transitory and ephemeral ... but it all points to the unity of the whole, it's underlying reality.

Creation is a theophany.

Not sure if I'm making sense here ... I keep writing paragraphs, deleting them, and starting again ... so d'you get a sense so far? If not, I'll try and explain further.

400 people is no mini-festival for Pagans- that's enormous! I can't imagine getting that many people together in my yard!

Well, they weren't all pagans. And the beer tent from the local pub was a big attraction. He's got about one and a half acres. A ritual area here, a maze set out there, the sunwheel over here. A stage, bands, food stalls, and I might have been the pagan support unit, but sometimes there were flashes of the Office of the Inquisition when the revellers started stumbling all over everything!

Well, I'm not pantheist. Panentheist, yes. Though the term seems to be a bit open-ended and encapsulate a few different possibilities. I don't really believe in a God that transcends manifest reality, but nor do I believe manifest reality is, in sum, God. All is sacred, as the sacred runs through all. But the sacredness that runs through all comes from an origin-point, a source.

If we continue along this line, we'll come to a place where we both say yes to the other, without either surrendering any of our 'doctrines'! Language again.

One of the theologians I quote in my essay talks of the 'symbolic vision' of classical antiquity in which "the idea of Eucharist saturated everything they saw".

I do believe in evolution, and I don't think things just go round and round. But spirals... yes. It is not a linear progression- and sometimes we're just going sideways as it were. But manifest reality spirals away from the origin-point, and is drawn back to it, spiraling back in.

Yes. We have the centre, and the circle, but the circle spirals into the centre, and as it does it goes higher, so the soul is like a cone.

Then, another symbol set, as God is Infinite, there is no centre, or rather the centre is everywhere.

I'm enjoying this, Path, and I thank you for your participation.

Hey — going back to the Eucharist ... you'll never guess who said "when you receive the Eucharist you receive what you are" to the catechumens he was instructing ... St Augustine!

Heard of him? Apparently he's the most negative, dogmatic, humanity-damning, pessimistic, bleak, sin-obsessed, bloody-minded sob you could ever come across.

But if you read him, Lord Almighty! There was never a one in which the pagan and the Christian fuse into one luminous and shimmering vision of the love and grace and glory that he saw as our birthright in Divine Union ... I'll dig out some quotes.

There's a friend of ours who's a musician, and teaches music. His idea is love to play first, find an instrument you enjoy, bang it or blow it or strum it or whatever, but enjoy it ... then we'll sort out the technicalities. D'you have those bleak kiddie-concerts with children sawing away at classical pieces with not a drop of joy or light or fun or pleasure ... that drives him to distraction.

I do think, for too long, my crowd has concentrated on observing the technicalities, not the love.

I think we might have it the wrong way round.

Thomas

 

[earl]

Path, I suspect this briefly stated discussion of the relationship between consciousness and the perception of time may get at what you meant about time and timelessness. It discusses "spherical time." As to the metaphor-or is it a metaphor?- of spiral processes in all evolution a spiral could be said to be a "sphere in motion." Netscape Search earl

 

[Radical_Reformer]

I do believe in evolution, and I don't think things just go round and round. But spirals... yes. It is not a linear progression- and sometimes we're just going sideways as it were. But manifest reality spirals away from the origin-point, and is drawn back to it, spiraling back in.

Evolution is a vector in the direction of natural selection. Like all signals there is an inherent noise associated. No such romantic behavior as spirals, but it sounds nice .

 

[path_of_one]

Evolution is a vector in the direction of natural selection. Like all signals there is an inherent noise associated. No such romantic behavior as spirals, but it sounds nice .

What is your operationalization of "inherent noise" such that you can scientifically identify it?

And why do you assume spirals are romantic? Spirals are a naturally occurring pattern throughout the cosmos. I attach no romanticism to it at all. It's just a pattern that occurs.

 

[path_of_one]

A symbol is not merely a thing, it's a dynamic thing (whereas a sign or representation is just a thing that points at something else). I firmly believe is all but lost in common Christianity, and that is a cause of profound sadness in me, for my brothers and sisters in Christ, which we all are.

I didn't leave Christianity for this reason (or any particular reason really), but rather just came to realize I was never exactly a fit. But I will say that this is one thing that was largely solved for me by being in a religion that treats symbols as dynamic and interactive. My work as a mystic has involved symbol since I was a child. It's just how I "tick." Symbols are tied to my art, my poetry, and my spiritual work- and symbols are not just representations (as you point out) but rather ways that my mind integrates what I might call Divine flow. This is very difficult for me to describe. The process of contemplating, writing, and drawing symbols is a transformative process in me. The point of symbolism is not representation or even communication as much as a process of awakening parts of ourselves and integrating these parts with the rest.

Then Christianity said to me, "Oh no, son, you're going nowhere, check this out ... " (My one, real, mystical experience).

I think there is a need for diverse religions, and diverse people following them. For me, it was the opposite struggle. I struggled to stay, and stay, and stay... and I finally got sort of walloped seven-ish years ago and plopped onto the winding, forest path I'm on now. I suppose there are reasons for us both being where we are.

Only God is self-subsistently real — everything else participates in God, and by virtue of its participation, is real.

I agree with this, though it is a bit like splitting hairs for me. I can make the distinction, but I'm not sure it is a useful one.

The material surface is just the outward appearance, transitory and ephemeral ... but it all points to the unity of the whole, it's underlying reality. Creation is a theophany.

"Nature is the living, visible garment of God." -Goethe

I tend to think of manifest, material reality as art. The art of God, co-creating with God's own art.

The disincarnate entities may have a longer life, so to speak, but change all the same, and have their origin-point and consummation-point. They, too, are the art of God Herself and find their being within Her self-embrace.

Not sure if I'm making sense here ...

You are.

A stage, bands, food stalls, and I might have been the pagan support unit, but sometimes there were flashes of the Office of the Inquisition when the revellers started stumbling all over everything!

LOL- I think at that point I would have become the bouncer too!

If we continue along this line, we'll come to a place where we both say yes to the other, without either surrendering any of our 'doctrines'! Language again.

Made me smile! Too true!

Yes. We have the centre, and the circle, but the circle spirals into the centre, and as it does it goes higher, so the soul is like a cone.

Yes, I think so. This also has tangentially related ideas in the Eastern and Pagan traditions. The chakras move toward the Divine, for lack of better language, as one moves up the spine. In Feri, the triple-soul's "god-soul" or "sacred dove" (the part of us that is in connection with the Divine) rests on the crown chakra.

The idea in my flavor of Paganism is that we don't transcend our other souls or natures, but rather integrate them. We are a bridge, feet on earth and in earthy nature, crown touching sky and divinity. It is a pulling together of these energies to meet in our center, where the breath can be trained to hold these two realities together in an incarnate form. This integration extends outward to our circumference, upward into divinity, and downward into the more base natures of humanity. In this way, one is drawing, through one's own integration, a transformation of humanity as a whole.

It is not a work that one does either for or by oneself alone. At its heart is really the deep desire for all beings to awaken to divine presence and weave this into their existence. And it is assisted by the divine in its various manifestations, depending on the person- the gods, guides, guardians, God Herself, Christ, the earth and Nature, and so on. But such work does require our willingness and dedication.

I am not sure if any of this makes sense. I've not tried to describe it, and it's a very non-linguistic concept for me.

Then, another symbol set, as God is Infinite, there is no centre, or rather the centre is everywhere.

Yes- and circumference nowhere. In my own tradition, which is a confluence of several, I honor seven directions and forces, each of which is a facet of divine manifestation into Nature. The central force and direction is myself. This isn't saying "I am God," exactly, but saying "God's center is in me." It is my dedication to find God's center in myself, and the connection of this divine center with every other divine center in Nature- which is to say, all existences. This is to see the immanence of God, both in oneself and in all beings, living and non-living, incarnate and disincarnate. It is recognizing the sacredness of the All, in recognizing God's center in every facet of the All. In doing this, immanence is extended infinitely, and one tastes the Infinite God- the Mystery beyond the All.

I'm enjoying this, Path, and I thank you for your participation.

And I thank you, also. This is really wonderful to me, and I'm also enjoying it immensely.

Heard of him? Apparently he's the most negative, dogmatic, humanity-damning, pessimistic, bleak, sin-obsessed, bloody-minded sob you could ever come across.

I like that- and no, had never heard of that quote. I always felt about St. Augustine the way I felt about Paul- rather conflicted. I am not sure if they were each in turmoil, and this is reflected in their writings, or if I simply misinterpret them. But I see the most beautiful writings in them, and some of the most troubling, limiting, and (from my own perspective, which I realize may be blasphemous to you, as they are saints) unevolved thinking. Sometimes when I read them, it feels like watching someone awaken and then confront all the base qualities of humanity, but without being entirely stable and grounded yet in connection to divinity. Moments of luminesence come through, and then out pops writings that are restrictive, condemning, and, from a modern perspective, downright culture-bound in their perspectives of gender and so on.

I am not saying I'm any better... but I suppose I struggle with seeing any of these people as higher than others in some way. To me, I identify more with their struggle and see their human frailty in it, as I see my own. I see the same instability that I am currently trying to work with, building this to a point of integration and total stillness. This goes back to being in my own center, and that center being God's center. If I am there, then stillness ensues and I am not flung about between the extremes I see in myself and in Augustine and Paul.

But as I said, I could be misinterpreting them.

I'll dig out some quotes.

Would love that.

I do think, for too long, my crowd has concentrated on observing the technicalities, not the love.

I think we might have it the wrong way round.

Thomas

I loved the analogy- will have to use it. I agree that Christianity often degenerates, so to speak, into a new kind of legalism.

But, I wholly acknowledge that Paganism often has the opposite problem. Without any real leaders, structure, or widespread organization, and without any immediate sense of accountability, people are free (especially as solitary practitioners) to avoid difficult work, to ignore aspects of traditions that require deep study or that are "boring," and so on. This is equally problematic, but for different reasons.

My horse trainer says, "Horse only understands feel, and that feel is all you are. I'm not after teaching techniques, but feel. But you need to grasp some techniques pretty well for feel to come. So we start there."

When one loses sight of love, of Divine presence, of transformation and integration as the purpose, technicalities become the goal and all degenerates into meaningless- and worse, mean- action and thought. But when one goes after that Divine presence with no assistance- no teachers, no traditions, no technicalities- one courts a degeneration into again meaningless- and worse, arrogant- action and thought.

So there is an integration, too, that is ideal within religion- of tradition and study, technique and teachers that teach us humility and helps us to know ourselves (incuding the unsavory bits) *and* of intuition and presence, love and ecstasy that gives us a chance to authentically and personally touch the Divine, and in so doing, to touch the true self and the connection to all Nature.

 

[Courage]

Religion is a common belief shared by a certain mass of humans. It usually involves the worshiping of a high power.