Literal versus Liberal?

[Lutiferre]

I came to think of the whole issue of "liberals" versus "literals" with regards to some issues in Christian theology and it's relationship to reason and science.

On the same note, I have seen a lot of differences between different (polytheistic) heathens on such issues as: do the gods even exist in a literal sense, as actual, personal beings and identities that are realities we can interact with just like we can interact with any other thing? or are they just personifications of some impersonal facts of nature (impersonalism), or even representations of different aspects of one and the same fact (monotheism)? or are they just a poetical expression of the organic unity of the people (symbolism)? and so on.

So the first view, that they exist literally and actually in a completely realist sense, is literalism or as some call it, "hard polytheism". The views thereafter I would call "liberal", in that they are more lax in the variety of options of exactly "what" the gods are, beyond just literal existing beings.

I am sure there are some views that are "both and" or "in between" lit and lib, but I still feel it's a valid distinction.

So what is your interpretation, literalist or liberal? And what is your interpretation exactly?

[Anthropos]

Is the question not rather whether heathens (and religious individuals in general) are actually spiritual or just advocates of some kind of laborious, humanistic or ecologistic philosophy?

It's an interesting question anyway. (I just find the dichotomy proposed to be a bit misleading.)

[Lutiferre]

Is the question not rather whether heathens (and religious individuals in general) are actually spiritual or just advocates of some kind of laborious, humanistic or ecologistic philosophy?
Yes, you have a good point.

[Lutiferre]

And I guess, the question applies just as much to gods as to "nature spirits" and other beings in heathen beliefs.

[Psychonaut]

You'll get every possible answer to this question if you ask enough Heathens. I've got a couple of pet theories about the nature of the Gods (none of which are polished enough to share at this point), but certainly don't think that all of the disparate perspectives are necessarily mutually exclusive. My own theophantic experiences have revealed several different sides, ranging from minds-eye encounters with "vast, polyphemous-like" (to quote HPL) entities, to the temporary realization that a particular natural phenomena was an Other—a Thou—and not an it, to rare physical encounters (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17038&postcount=1).

[Anthropos]

My own theophantic experiences have revealed several different sides, ranging from minds-eye encounters with "vast, polyphemous-like" (to quote HPL) entities, to the temporary realization that a particular natural phenomena was an Other—a Thou—and not an it, to rare physical encounters (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17038&postcount=1).

You seem more certain now than when you wrote about that encounter with a poor chap, supposedly a god or an oddity, who lost an eye in an accident or from an assault.

[Psychonaut]

You seem more certain now than when you wrote about that encounter with a poor chap, supposedly a god or an oddity, who lost an eye in an accident or from an assault.

Every time I replay the incident in my mind it strikes me more and more just how surreal it was and how it just didn't make sense. Homeless people who've just had their eye ripped from the socket and are too poor to afford medical treatment for it simply don't fly cross country. Compound that with the fact that I was, at the same time reading a novel in which the protagonist meets Odin on a plane, yet, for whatever reason, didn't connect the dots while I sat next to this guy for hours is just too much of a coincidence. Heil Wuotan!

[Lyfing]

That is to limited of a distinction..

As far as I am concerned anyway..

They are as literal as I am..

And, they are as liberal as I am with my own blood..

Later,
-Lyfing

[Lutiferre]

That is to limited of a distinction..

As far as I am concerned anyway..

They are as literal as I am..

And, they are as liberal as I am with my own blood..

Later,
-Lyfing

Well, you don't have to answer within the bounds of the dichotomy. You could simply explain how your own interpretation would relate to such a dichotomy, without accepting it as defining.

That was the only point with the thread, really - to hear some views on the different interpretations and what their nature is and how they relate to reality, and what reality they are predicated on.

[Anthropos]

Every time I replay the incident in my mind it strikes me more and more just how surreal it was and how it just didn't make sense. Homeless people who've just had their eye ripped from the socket and are too poor to afford medical treatment for it simply don't fly cross country. Compound that with the fact that I was, at the same time reading a novel in which the protagonist meets Odin on a plane, yet, for whatever reason, didn't connect the dots while I sat next to this guy for hours is just too much of a coincidence. Heil Wuotan!

So tell me: What, in your opinion, was the purpose of that incident? (I did experience many similar things, things of the same order i.e., but I regard them to be cases of inferior psychism rather than of spirituality.)

[Psychonaut]

What, in your opinion, was the purpose of that incident?

:shrug:

I do know I'll be sure to strike up a conversation if it happens again though. :D

[Liffrea]

I think one’s view of divinity (in general) changes as one goes through life (if indeed you ever develop any interest in such matters at all).

If someone was to ask me now, well going by both my intellectual growth and research and also my own spiritual awareness and experiences I would say I have some level of firmness in my beliefs. I would be reticent, like Psychonaut, to put it down in black and white (although I am actually writing something along those lines at the moment).

I would say that I believe Odin is my key to understanding and that if I could ever feel a sort of personal relationship with deity it would be through his guise, either as a real existent being lighting a torch or, perhaps, as a race memory of what went before, wisdom lost inside us waiting to be tapped into.

[SuuT]

:shrug:

I do know I'll be sure to strike up a conversation if it happens again though. :D

:)

These 'first' visits with Odinn are always impish: He appears as a liar with (paradoxically) no *intent* to deceive.

He's nearly always playful: Almost as if to exemplify a certain innocence.

He is always aged, or present in a deeply symbolic wisdom.

He is always curious: As if to say that he's seen enough of your good deeds to take interest.

He always leaves enough with you to go back to the incident again and again in your mind.

He rarely shows himself before or during failures: You're on your own!

He is attracted to those at war with themselves for the sake of profundity and profound things. Naturally, he shows himself to the most 'violent' natures.

[Psychonaut]

He rarely shows himself before or during failures: You're on your own!

It's funny you mention this, because the one time I called upon him in the midst of a particular failure, not only did he not appear, but I failed much worse than I had before. I've never repeated that course of action. ;)

[SuuT]

It's funny you mention this, because the one time I called upon him in the midst of a particular failure, not only did he not appear, but I failed much worse than I had before. I've never repeated that course of action. ;)

Nor, I assume, have you ever repeated that particular failure.

You may have even failed because your call was out of need, and not homage.


Odinn wants your gold, Women and knowledge - you can keep your fuckups.:D

[Psychonaut]

You may have even failed because your call was out of need, and not homage.

Yeah, the distinct impression I got was that he had to tolerance for spiritual beggars. A lesson was learned. :thumb001: