The Four Agreements

Another LiveJournal find.  Rather than link to the post, though, here I post a summary of The Four Agreements (by Don Miguel Ruiz) which I incorporated into an open letter to a former acquaintance of mine in Bellefontaine, Ohio.

• Be Impeccable With Your Word. Speak with integrity. Say only what you mean. Avoid using the word to speak against yourself or to gossip about others. Use the power of your word in the direction of truth and love.

• Don’t Take Anything Personally. Nothing others do is because of you. What others say and do is a projection of their own reality, their own dream. When you are immune to the opinions and actions of others, you won’t be the victim of needless suffering.

• Don’t Make Assumptions. Find the courage to ask questions and to express what you really want. Communicate with others as clearly as you can to avoid misunderstandings, sadness and drama. With just this one agreement, you can completely transform your life.

• Always Do Your Best. Your best is going to change from moment to moment; it will be different when you are healthy as opposed to sick. Under any circumstance, simply do your best, and you will avoid self-judgment, self-abuse and regret.

Paganism and Christianity: Is it possible?

Another rip and post from LiveJournal.  Hopefully the links explain the context, as trying to recapture the context here would be burdensome.

While the following involves both Christianity and Paganism, it's really more about the latter than the former. Those of you who are Christians are of course welcome to read along, but since it's probably not of interest to most Christians, I'll do you a favor and put it behind a cut.

Recently, one of my fellow members over at dot_pagan_snark posted a snark about an article that appeared in Witchvox. Now, the journal post is only available to members of that community, but the original Witchvox article is available to the public. The title of the Witchvox article is something right up my alley: Paganism and Christianity- Is It Possible?

I have some real problems with this article, beyond the items critiqued in DPS (i.e. that it wanders off into fluffy history, and that it is written in the IM-laden jargon that passes for written communication nowadays). For the sake of convenience, I'll address those problems in the classical "quote and response" format:

I am no longer what you would call a practicing witch. I have given up my spells and enchantments for what I consider the larger picture. I gave them up because I got tired of doing everything alone after a while. That and I only practiced spells I was careful that I knew wouldn't effect anyone around me, only me… and the only spells I could figure wouldn't ever effect anyone else besides me were healing and protection spells.

It's a shame that the author chose to be solitary. Perhaps she felt she had no choice, which of course is in itself a shame. One reason it's such a shame is because, had she practiced with those who are more knowledgeable, she would have known that magic is a practice, moreso than the "directed will" definition proffered by many authors. (To wit, magic is directed will, but that only begins to describe it.) 

When we send our newly matriculated doctors to practice, we tell them: "First, do no harm." Do you suppose that they sweat over that injunction, powerless to pick up a scalpel or anything else that might harm their patients? No. Theypractice the art that they learned. Needless to add, they were instructed in the art of medicine before they began their practice. That would be another reason it's a shame the author chose to be solitary.

One important lesson I've learned is to embrace the change that I seek. To want something to change, it's not enough to focus one's will at it in a vainglorious attempt to make it change on its own. One must examine one's own position relative to the change, and to make that change within first. That's good magical practice. (Any Christians reading this will note that this is analogous to the change within that a new Christian seeks from the Holy Spirit. Spirituality is often universal in pragmatics, even if it differs greatly in dogma.)

So now, I am just one of those people who see ties between everything -- connections and coincidences (though I don't really believe in coincidences) -- and believes that god is energy. [...] Electricity is energy. And energy is god, so all things have god within them. Or it is god that animates them. All manipulation of energy (magic) also called miracles in the Christian bible [a miracle is just anything that the common viewer does not understand how it works, how it was accomplished].

If we took a lighter back in time with us to the cave man days, cave men would see the ability to make fire with a lighter as performing a miracle. So therefore, it is the educated [versus the uneducated] manipulation of god, or use of god that is utilized to create a desired response.

I was raised Christian, and boy am I ever blaspheming here, lol.

Indeed, the author does blaspheme. Herein lies my rant.

To be a Pagan nowadays, many expect one to abandon belief in the Gods as real entities. While that belief may be what motivates some people to become Pagans in the first place (particularly belief in Goddesses, as acknowledgment of the Divine Feminine is sorely lacking in many cultures and religions in this modern age), it's a belief that they are often encouraged to abandon by those who pretend to have deeper spiritual knowledge. It's a spiritual faux pas nowadays to fail to recognize that deities are naught but archetypes.

The caveat I would offer toward such thinking is that it's blasphemy within many religious contexts. It still is; and it always has been. That's not a problem for other religious contexts, as the belief in deities as archetypes is as old as Buddhism and Gnosticism, not to mention several other religions originating in Asia. 

But it is blasphemy in one particular religion originating in Asia, namely Christianity. If "God" is just an archetype of the human mind, to be manipulated at will or "utilized to create a desired response", then what is the bloody point-- excuse the pun-- of Jesus the Christ? Indeed, why bother being a Christian, and why ask if Christianity and Paganism are compatible? Clearly without the tenet of Christian faith that Christ reconciles God and man, there's no reason to be a Christian.

Every single miracle the Jesus performed in the Christian bible could be explained by cabbala magic. So then, both our theory and the Christian theory would be correct.

Our theory is that Jesus’ miracles were the result of cabbalistic magic. The Christians’ theory being that it was the power, or the hand of god that performed those miracles.

It could be Cabbala magic and still be god, since direction of energy is magic. Energy is also god, so it would still be done through the ‘power of god’.

Almost sounds confusing. But it's such a simple concept. 

Nope, it only seems simple to the author because she has neatly redefined Jesus to suit her own means, and then matched that redefinition to her own definition of magic. That's the problem I have with many Neo-Pagans. Look, it's not out of an apologetic for Christian belief that I offer this rant. I just happen to believe that if you're going to claim a particular belief system, you should ensure that you're not redefining the belief system to suit your own ends.

Christianity is only one of many religions which have been exposed to this pattern of "claim it, then redefine it" by Neo-Pagans. Wicca has been so abused since the 1970's. Amerindian beliefs have been abused in this manner since the 1960's, and perhaps before that yet. What's particularly irritating about this abuse is that many of the people perpetrating it are themselves the same people who claim to respect other cultures. 

Bah. Maybe that's why I call myself a Marcionite, instead of "Pagan" or "Christian".

Affirmations

Another rip and post from LiveJournal.

I believe that spirituality should not be defined by negatives. Faith becomes practical when it highlights aspects of one's own spirituality as true, rather than defining the perceived spirituality of others as false. (That's not to say that there is no use in distinguishing one's beliefs from another, only that it's not of much use to define one's beliefs entirely in opposition to others.)

I believe in God. 

I believe that God-- i.e. the sum total of God-- is greater than that which we can conceive.

Therefore, I believe in many Gods.

I believe the genders of humanity mirror those of the Gods. I.e. I believe in Goddesses.

I believe in good.

I believe in the existence of evil.

I believe that humanity is not inherently evil. I believe in human destiny, and in the design of humanity toward this destiny that says that we are to be among the Gods. Thus are we to be perfect, and thus were we designed perfectly. Therefore be thou perfect.

I believe evil comes from the desire for power. Evil is to say, "It is I who am God. Apart from me, there is no other."

I believe God nurtures and serves humanity as a parent nurtures and serves a child. I believe humanity should not serve God, because humanity cannot serve God until they have become [as] God. I believe humanity should instead love and respect God.

I believe we are saved from evil. We are not saved to be the servants of [a] God, but so that we may become [with] God and may in turn serve humanity. "And he that will be first among you, shall be your servant. Even as the Son of man is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a redemption for many."

I believe that life is largely what you make it. If you aren't happy with life, you have the power to change it. We create our own reality, through that which we affirm.

I believe that there is a singular reality which is universal to all.

I believe the previous two affirmations do not contradict one another. ;-)

I believe in humanity. I believe in life. I believe in love.

And I believe that, if we try real hard at this life thang, everything is going to be just fine. Amen, and so mote it be.

Christianity, Wicca, and Cultural Suppositions

This one can be linked back directly to LiveJournal, since it was a public post:

http://swisscelt.livejournal.com/171889.html

A Dialogue on Marcionism

This is a rip and post from LiveJournal.  The following is from a dialogue I had with a conservative Christian on my beliefs at the time.  It is naturally more "Christian" than I might word it today, both because of the audience and my position at the time.  I suppose I should revisit this at some point, and update.

I should also note that this took place long before my present understanding of Judaism.  Apologies if it seems antisemitic now.

Let me start off, in turn, by saying that I do differ in some beliefs from traditional Marcionism. (More on this below.) So, with that in mind...

The "Demiurge," a deity, was responsible for creation, and is a sort of "bad" diety, opposed to the "Christ" deity that indwelt Jesus.

That's a reasonably fair assessment both of classical Marcionism and my own beliefs. I'd add that, unlike most of the ancient Gnostics, I believe that creation was already formed before the Demiurge forged Adam from the dust of the earth. Many Gnostics believe that the Demiurge is responsible for the physical plane; thus, materiality is itself evil. I see no need for that asceticism. (By the way, I'm not sure if traditional Marcionites likewise view the material world as evil. That's something I know to be true of other Gnostic sects.)

This of course means there are multiple deities. (More than just these two? I dunno.)

Yes. The collection of deities is known as the Entirety, to which Marcionites (and most other Gnostics) believe the Hebrew name Elohim refers. The sin of Yaldaboath (the Demiurge) is in denying the Entirety. In so doing, we believe he expelled his power (the power being that given to him by and through the Entirety) and ceased to be part of Them. This is akin to the sin of renouncing the Holy Spirit, in Roman Catholic Dogma.

Jesus was fully man, not divine, and was indwelt by the "Christ" deity who was a separate, fully divine being.

This is perhaps the key difference between my beliefs and the teachings of Marcion. Marcion (along with Arius, et al) rejected the then-budding theology known as homoousion, with which I'm sure you're familiar. I see no way that Jesus, the Christ could have done what He did without being in a state of homoousion. If Christ dwelt in Jesus, then the will and being of Jesus, the man, was subverted; thus, He could not have made the sacrifice to appease the Demiurge in reconciliation of our imperfection vis a vis the Entirety. 

Let me explain that one a bit further: The Demiurge created us through Adam. Though Adam was not the first man, we are all descended from Adam through Noah. (And even if one discounts the flood, it's highly likely through intermarriage that everyone now alive would be the descendants of Adam.) The Demiurge condemns Adam, as Adam-- being of the design of the Demiurge-- lacks the essence of being in the Image of God; i.e. one among the Entirety. The Law was given by the Demiurge to condemn the descendants of Adam (again, all of us) because, the Demiurge charges, we are not among the Entirety.

The Law, I'm sure you agree, is fulfilled through Christ. Thus, if Jesus is not the Christ (i.e. is only indwelt by the Christ), He could not have fulfilled the Law, because He would not be of one essence with the Entirety. The Entirety would dwell within Him, but He would still be subject to the Law, and thus unable to fulfill it. Likewise, the Christ had to be man, for if He were not man then He could not fulfill the Law given to condemn man.

The Demiurge is the "God of the OT" while Christ is "God of the NT," illustrated by the OT's focus on wrath and justice versus the NT's focus on grace and forgiveness.

Eh, more or less true, but an oversimplification. The God of Genesis 1is God, the Almighty. The Entirety speaks with one voice throughout Genesis 1. There are other places in both the OT and NT (and in other scriptures) where the Entirety speaks with one voice. IIRC, Isaiah 14 and the Nativity story from the Gospel of Matthew (eh, help me out here... I don't remember the chapter off-hand) are two such examples. 

We view "God" as being the Entirety itself; the communion in which all power resides. Thus, it's a bit of a misnomer to call Christ the "God of the NT", as Christ is a part of the Entirety, and not the Entirety as a whole. Now, I do call Christ a God, but that's mainly because I view the Gods as distinct entities. Some Gnostics and Neo-Gnostics-- most notably the famed psychoanalyst Carl Jung-- view the Gods as archetypes; manifestations of either the Entirety or the collective unconscious. (Maybe both; it's been a while since I really delved into Jung.)

The Demiurge is also called the Yaldabaoth, and is referred to in the Gospel of Judas (Nebro).

Well, I haven't heard "the" applied to Yaldaboath in English; this may be a holdover from Koine Greek, where the article kai seems to be applied to darn near every noun. ;-) Also, I'm *this close* to rejecting the Gospel of Judas; it seems not much more than an adaptation of the Gospel of Thomas, written by the Barbelites or some similar sect which wished to use the Demiurge as an excuse to hedonism. (The theory is that by indulging in the material world, one rejects the Law and the Demiurge... er, never mind. That's not all that important for the topic at hand. *grin*) Anyway, while theologically speaking the Barbelites and other adherents of the Gospel of Judas may be more or less correct, philosophically speaking I must reject Barbelism on the same grounds I reject Satanism. As I've often said, faith ought not be based on negatives.

So the God of Genesis 1 is the Entirety before or after Yaldabaoth split off from the Entirety (or do I understand this incorrectly)?

Before.

Either way, where do you place the split and how can you draw that from Scripture - i.e., how do you know where the Entirety speaks/acts and where Yaldabaoth speaks/acts?

The split happened gradually. The creation of Adam was the beginning of the split, but then in Genesis 6 we learn that Yaldaboath repented of the creation of man. By the time Yaldaboath declared himself alone and above all, though, the split was complete.

This happened when he named himself YHWH, or "I am that am". Generally, in Scripture, YHWH refers to Yaldaboath... although, by the time some of the kings and prophets came around, their revelations of the Entirety were channeled through their understanding that YHWH was God. Thus, to repeat an example from earlier, I'm not convinced that Isaiah was referring to Yaldaboath when he speaks of the Lord.

Easter Thought

Another LiveJournal rip and post:

There's something sublimely ironic about the thought that a person can print a book and call it God, then turn around and try to send me to a place of eternal punishment for daring to worship an eternal Goddess. Before that book was yet a sapling, She was. Before the language of that book was put to print, She was. Before the words of that book were even uttered, She was. She was with the Creator, forming all things, and was delighted every day. Her delights were to be with us. And She will be, even after the last book has turned to dust. She was. She is. She will be, just as the Living Christ was, is, and will be. This is the Word. The rest is written in dust, and the winds are blowing.

Live and love, people. That's all that will survive the dust.

A Short Statement of Belief

On a fundamental level, I believe that there is a power greater than ourselves. I believe that this power is vested in entities which hold love and concern for humanity. I believe that we share a kinship with these entities; in other words, we are in the image of God. I believe it's entirely plausible that we will be asked to be in communion with these entities as equals.

I believe that we are not fit to be equals with these entities as yet. I believe that evil interferes with this, our higher purpose. I believe this evil is manifest most greatly in vainglory, which I would describe as self-interest to the exclusion of others. I believe the entities described above have prescribed the means by which we can overcome this evil.

I realize that these statements are somewhat vague. I'm wording them thusly, because I also believe that faith is not defined by negatives. These are statements which I intend to be in the affirmative, to illustrate my faith.