reileen: (spirituality - temple/Artemis)
[livejournal.com profile] sannion has recently written two posts regarding spirituality that have caught my eye.

First off, the SRS BSNS one: On the trend of Pagan apologetics

I do agree with you that the whole effort of Pagan apologetics is an interesting and at times amusing field. I think it's good in that it forces people to reflect on what they believe, and why, which can certainly be a good thing, since I'm not generally one to favor mindless adherence and blind, uncritical acceptance of ideas. However, I also feel that when it comes down to it, the intellect plays less of a role in the formation of religious acceptance than most people realize. We believe usually because it intuitively feels right, or our experiences confirm it for us - logic is often just a retroactive prop we use to support ideas we have already decided are true for us.

I think part of the reason Pagan apologetics can be so earnest and thorough lies in the predominance of pseudo-/anti-intellectualism we've been seeing from many members of the Right in America, some of whom are Christian dominionists. We as pagans don't want to be seen as Those Folk, Only With the Goddess, so we try to explain, in as logical a manner as possible, why we follow the faith that we do.

Alternatively, since paganism of all stripes is still a minority faith, it feels like we have to do more work to gain "legitimacy" with the majority, to dispel the myth that we're doing this for the lulz/orgies/whatever. This may mean coming up with all sorts of sound theological arguments as to Why We're Not [insert faith here]. Doing so has a number of benefits: we learn more about our religion and other religions, we give our brain a workout, and the end result may possibly convince skeptics that we're not completely crazy.

On the other hand, religion is by its very nature irrational, and I wish more people would acknowledge - and even celebrate - that irrationality and absurdity - and to not be ashamed of something that is built into the framework of religion. Everything has its domain, and irrationality and the unexplainable rules over the domain of spirituality and religion. That's not meant to be an insult, by the way - I do think it's a fair way of explaining and describing the nature of religion and the myths it is based on. I mean, come on, a guy who died and rose from the dead three days later? A goddess who was born, fully-grown, from the head of her father? Reincarnating endlessly until one of your lives gets his or her shit together and achieves nirvana to break that cycle? None of it makes any sense to us with our mortal perceptions and senses, and we can't definitively prove any of it. But that sort of thing is the root of religion. Instead of trying to cover that up, we need to acknowledge that religion is the place where you have to play by different rules. Endless theological explanations and arguments only help make sense of things if you accept the irrationalities that they are based on.

I follow Artemis because, for me personally, it feels right. It's not like I sat down one day with a big-ass encyclopedia of deities and made a list of pros and cons for following each one, then concluded that following the Bitch Upstairs had enough pros to outweigh the cons. There's no real logical reason why I should have left Jesus for Artemis. In fact, if we were doing a pros vs. cons thing, it would probably make more sense for me to continue to follow Jesus. Jesus is a compassionate figure, who becomes angry in his myths only when, by our mortal perceptions, he has just reason for it, such as the moneychangers in the temple. The man has an admirable love and respect for all humanity. In contrast, Artemis changed a hunter into a stag that got torn to shreds by his own dogs for the mortal sin of...accidentally looking upon Her naked while She was bathing. (There are a number of different ways of accounting for Her hostility, some of which are detailed here.) She does not forgive transgressions to Her easily; She certainly does not love everyone. Unlike Jesus, who is widely considered to be almost wholly benevolent (save for the Rambo!Jesus that tends to pop up in dominionist mythology), Artemis' standing in mortal eyes is more troublesome. She, like many of the Olympians, embodies both light and dark aspects of life. She is the protectress of animals...but She is also the one who hunts and kills them. She offers no universal promise of salvation from evil or from ourselves (this applies to the entire Olympic pantheon). If I were going about choosing my religion in a sensible manner, logic would seem to dictate that I should follow the more comfortable, compassionate figure of Jesus Christ.

But, as y'all know, that's not the case.

I am also uncomfortable with attempts to convert others. This, unfortunately, is often a big part of contemporary Paganism - an effort to win masses to one's side, and a feeling that our religion is somehow inferior because of its minority status. While I am sympathetic to that plight, and would certainly like to have a lot of people with whom to celebrate my festivals - I think this preoccupation with winning the masses over to our side is incredibly unhealthy, and frankly dangerous.

[. . .]

Frankly, I'm against efforts at conversion because when it comes down to it, I'm a misanthrope at heart. I like the fact that our numbers are small, and most of the people who are drawn to the faith are passionate, pious, and rather smart. Once we pass a critical mark - that is not going to be the case. We'll end up with the same ignorant, bigoted, superficial, and lukewarm individuals that swell the ranks of every other religion.

Agreed with [livejournal.com profile] sannion here. I seem to be drawn to things with a small following, and am uncomfortable with massive groups of people. What I want for paganism is not necessarily great numbers of followers, but the legitimacy accorded to movements or institutions with a great number of followers.

I suppose when it comes down to it, it's about fear and insecurity. Attempts to convert others usually originate in the individual's insecurity regarding their own faith. They figure if they convince others it will banish the specter of their nagging doubts and prove the validity of it, because why else would people convert if it wasn't true.

Because I'm a cynic, I used to think this was true across the board, but now I figure that there must be some people who convert because they genuinely believe (by sometimes jumping through the hoops of doublethink, but not always) that their faith is Right, True, and Good. I don't know which one is statistically more common, though. And I think there's something to be said for the types of conversion individuals engage in, which can be traced to the reason they engage in conversion attempts in the first place. People who try to convert through words and hard-sell preaching may be more likely to be more insecure about their faith than those who live conversion attempts - that is, they evangelize by living the Word of God.

And then, for the lulz: Who do you think would win in a match - Zeus or Jesus?

-Reileen
our revels have just started, many lifetime friend

Profile

reileen: (Default)
Reileen van Kaile

April 2010

S M T W T F S
     123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930 

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags