I finished American Gods recently, and I think it's the first book I've ever read that's been able to sum up how I feel about my religion. This probably sounds weird, and I'm not really sure how to put it...Do any other Pagans feel this way? I think the only thing I've seen that comes close is Equus.

Yep. That's me exactly... although I'm not going to say that incarnations of the old gods are literally walking the Earth, sometimes things are true even if they're not real. Know what I mean? (And it might be real anyway. Nothing's impossible.)

The first time I came accross the idea of gods being created by belief (outside my own head) was in Small Gods by Terry Pratchett. I was simultaneously relieved and disappointed to find that there was someone else out there who agreed with me... relieved that I wasn't alone, disappointed that my Revolutionary Idea was not original after all. (I was about 14 or 15 at the time. Very self-impotrant age.)

So, telepathic zen hugs to you, kindered spirit!

Natalie

I really enjoyed the story, perhaps even more so because I was a Pagan reading it, who's thoughts agreed with the books suggestions.

Even moreso, I liked how the book wasn't necessarily catering to any sort of religion (not even Christianity/Catholicism). The part with Shadow and Wednesday sitting in the restaurant with Easter while Wednesday questions the waitress on her Pagan beliefs, rang all too true.

quote:

---

Exactly. Too much mealy-mouthed religion all around.

Christians should go practice the Sermon on the Mount ...

And ... well, sincere question: to the Pagans amongst you (neo-Pagans): what exactly should you be doing ... ritualistically?

---

Ok, if it's the belief that counts ... it comes back to how that belief's being put into effect.

We probably all already have a cultural grasp of several of the Judeo-Christian 'rituals' (using the word respectfully)

Any Pagans here?

What are your rituals?

Anyone care to share what they're doing in the world to serve their Divinities?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Indrid Cold,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indrid Cold:
Equally biting (and probably to the far wider audience) is the scene where Sam (the Indian girl) gives Shdow the wonderful list of doublethink and contradictions of what she (and most Americans?) 'believes' ...

If you're going to kill me, she asks, please don't hurt me, ok?

A modern American prayer to both the psycho-killer with you in the car ... and to the government and the heartless corporations poisoning the environment and your bodies with pollution and profit.

Kill me, but let me keep my comfortable American life-style, ok?

---

oh, i don't think that the speech is meant to be biting, as such. i do think that it sums up the confusion that many americans have, especially about belief. but for me that speech rang so true, because life isn't simple anymore, and it's hard to decide what to believe, so i want to believe everything. and that's what i think sam is saying.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jak:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indrid Cold:
Equally biting (and probably to the far wider audience) is the scene where Sam (the Indian girl) gives Shdow the wonderful list of doublethink and contradictions of what she (and most Americans?) 'believes' ...

If you're going to kill me, she asks, please don't hurt me, ok?

A modern American prayer to both the psycho-killer with you in the car ... and to the government and the heartless corporations poisoning the environment and your bodies with pollution and profit.

Kill me, but let me keep my comfortable American life-style, ok?

---

oh, i don't think that the speech is meant to be biting, as such. i do think that it sums up the confusion that many americans have, especially about belief.

'If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything' is one possible response: I indeed agree with you that Sam's speech is an astute reflection on Mr. Gaiman's part, about the conflicted modern mindset. I guess I thought it 'biting' because it points out (well, it's just my interpretation) the possible lack of simple meaningfulness all that modern complexity instills in modern life.

As readers, do you think Gaiman is more (or less) sympathetic to the OLD gods as opposed to the Modern gods?

but for me that speech rang so true, because life isn't simple anymore, and it's hard to decide what to believe, so i want to believe everything. and that's what i think sam is saying.

---

Yep, that's Gaiman's point ... but do you think he's sympathetic to that confusion of belief? Or do you think he's suggesting there could be a less contradictory (yet still modern) mindset?

I wonder if there's not great meaning in his use of the 'coin trick' imagery?

Shadow enjoys the ILLUSION of the coin trick ... Wednesday has his own take on that (avoiding a spoiler moment obviously) ...

But Gaiman ends up having a definite position on real magic versus faked magic, yes?

I wonder if that doesn't also include valid belief versus ... confused belief?

quote:

---

but do you think he's sympathetic to that confusion of belief? Or do you think he's suggesting there could be a less contradictory (yet still modern) mindset?

---

I am. And I think he is too. I see nothing wrong or meaningless in believing in everything. Meaning is where you make it.

quote:

---

I wonder if there's not great meaning in his use of the 'coin trick' imagery?

---

Yes, there is. He talks about it somewhere. It was meant as a metaphor.

A huge part of Neil's work concerns the question, what is real? What is real magic/sacredness/truth/reality? And in everything I've read by him, the conclusion seems to boil down to: it doesn't matter. Only how we react, how we treat one another, matters. The rest is irrelevant.

quote:

---

But Gaiman ends up having a definite position on real magic versus faked magic, yes?

---

No, he doesn't. In his stories, all of them- it's all fake. Or it's all real. If you look you'll find the clues, the allusions to levels of reality. The Odreal of the Key in Neverwhere. Lyta Hall's journey in the Kindly Ones. Even in American Gods- Shadow's last conversation with Mad Sweeny (when he's alive, anyway.) Under the bridge.

The magic is in the creation. The reality of events within the narrative, or the lack therof, is again, irrelevant.

quote:

---

I wonder if that doesn't also include valid belief versus ... confused belief?

---

I see no invalidity to confused belief.

According to the great Terry Pratchett
(paraphrase):

"Yesterday I was not born. Each moment, the universe creates itself anew. Therfore, the only proper state of mind is confusion. The only proper state of the heart is joy. Be joyous!"

-Wen the Eternally Confused

This message has been edited. Last edited by: VegaRiad,

quote:

---

Originally posted by VegaRiad:

quote:

---

But Gaiman ends up having a definite position on real magic versus faked magic, yes?

---

No, he doesn't. In his stories, all of them- it's all fake. Or it's all real. If you look you'll find the clues, the allusions to levels of reality. The Odreal of the Key in Neverwhere. Lyta Hall's journey in the Kindly Ones. Even in American Gods- Shadow's last conversation with Mad Sweeny (when he's alive, anyway.) Under the bridge.

The magic is in the creation. The reality of events within the narrative, or the lack therof, is again, irrelevant.

---

So ... belief in a true thing is no more valid than belief in a false thing?

I recognize that sometimes human understanding may not be able know, to make the distinction between what is in fact true and what is false ... but is Gaiman suggesting that all beliefs are equally relevant?

That Shadow's coin tricks are as valid as the old gods walking the Earth?

quote:

---

So ... belief in a true thing is no more valid than belief in a false thing?

I recognize that sometimes human understanding may not be able know, to make the distinction between what is in fact true and what is false ... but is Gaiman suggesting that all beliefs are equally relevant?

That Shadow's coin tricks are as valid as the old gods walking the Earth?

---

Gaimen's whole thesis- throughout his work, really- is that belief itself creates a kind of truth.

He doesn't suggest as some authors do that all of reality is consentual, but that enough of it is to make the difference between in-your-head reality and outside-your-head reality irrelevant, at least to the individual.

There is an excellent essay on this subject at the beginning of one of the Sandman collections. The fragmentation of reality. I think it's in the introduction to A Game of You.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indrid Cold:
Exactly. Too much mealy-mouthed religion all around.

Christians should go practice the Sermon on the Mount ...

And ... well, sincere question: to the Pagans amongst you (neo-Pagans): what exactly should you be doing ... ritualistically?

---

Ok, if it's the belief that counts ... it comes back to how that belief's being put into effect.

We probably all already have a cultural grasp of several of the Judeo-Christian 'rituals' (using the word respectfully)

Any Pagans here?

What are your rituals?

Anyone care to share what they're doing in the world to serve their Divinities?

I'm a pagan, more or less- an animist anyway. And I see the very act of being alive as sacred ritual. There is an aspect of ritual in everything I do. It's a part of what I see as- not worship, which strikes me as blinding, but respect. For all things, living and unliving.

I have a number of formal-ish rituals that I would perform if I wanted to acheive something specific- usually, communicating reverence and respect to something which, while it may or may not care what I think, may or may not even exist, still deserves respect. A specific spirit, or spirits, a force of life or death or non-life, which I might anthropomorphise simply because it is human to do so, so there's no point fighting with yourself all the time about it.

If nothing else, it's a reminder to myself, to remain reverent even in my irreverence. (which I have plenty of, and damn proud of it too )

Hopping in a bit late, I know. A quote that might give a bit of perspective on Neil's opinion of the whole religion/belief thing:

quote:

---

I love religion. I could make up religions all day. I sort of think that in an
ideal world I'd like to be a religion designer. I'd like people come up to me
and say, "I need a religion." I'd go talk to them for awhile, and I'd design a
religion for them. That would be a great job. There's a need for people like
that. Fortunately, seeing that one can't actually do it, I get paid for sort of
making them up anyway.

---

Full interview is here:
Gaiman Interview with Brian Hibbs

My impression is that he'd prefer to imagine ways the world could be more interesting, if some of the rules were changed, but doesn't actually think the world works that way.

quote:

---

Originally posted by VegaRiad:
I'm a pagan, more or less- an animist anyway. And I see the very act of being alive as sacred ritual. There is an aspect of ritual in everything I do. It's a part of what I see as- not worship, which strikes me as blinding, but respect. For all things, living and unliving.

I have a number of formal-ish rituals that I would perform if I wanted to acheive something specific- usually, communicating reverence and respect to something which, while it may or may not care what I think, may or may not even exist, still deserves respect. A specific spirit, or spirits, a force of life or death or non-life, which I might anthropomorphise simply because it is human to do so, so there's no point fighting with yourself all the time about it.

If nothing else, it's a reminder to myself, to remain reverent even in my irreverence. (which I have plenty of, and damn proud of it too )

---

Hi all... I'm very late in the game here!

I just wanted to say that you, VegaRiad, have summed up very well the type of life I try to lead. I considered myself a Pagan for years, and now lean more towards atheism with a pagan heart I guess you could say. Even if nothing is there, life is sacred and I will live it to the fullest extent that I can, enjoying myself and bringing joy to others as often as possible.

I greatly enjoyed the ideas put forth by Gaiman in American Gods. Has anyone seen the made for TV movie Merlin with Sam Neil (I think that was his name)? In it, the gods died when the people forgot about them.

Anyhow, very interesting what you all have to say. I never was sure what the meaning of the coin tricks was.

well, people bein' the way they is...waiter gets paid
off to drop some greasy chicken on lap of leader of
communist nation, picnic is vetoed by uncle samual,
CIA planted in farthest stall from the door in ladies
washroom, israeli delegate packs a lunch and refuses
to share, palistinian leader is invited over the
phone, seated to the left of the king of norway and
the name card reads "some dude" placed on the table in
front of him, secretary of state of Suriname declares
he is actually vegetarian and really "just wants to
dance", the 3,127 tribal groups that make up africa
are represented by one man who graduated from yale,
sports a monocle, speaks only english and "a little"
swahili and can't dance to save his life, canadian
delegate was there, we think, but nobody noticed him,
the representative from britain suffered an allergic
reaction to the pectin in the potatoe salad, sneezed
on the italian prime ministers wifes lapel, dislodging
a rather opulent looking rock and, sending it hurtling
across the room, it lands in the ukranian diplomats
vodka, he swigs, he chokes, they claim they have every
reason to believe it was intentional, tony blair
declares war on the ukraine for the "outrageous"
accusation, china never showed because they figured it
would be a great time to invade those "motherhumper's"
from japan, japanese delegate was absent because he
was "under the weather" (truth is...he was drugged and
robbed by two russian prostitutes whom he brought to
his room for a little shenannigans, and was ordered
back by the emperor who, believe it or not, is still
running the show over there, nothing concrete was
agreed upon, everybody aligned themselves with the
side most likely to be able to protect them during the
impending anglo-ukraine war and the UN's(who was
supposed to be footing the bill) credit card was
declined so nobody was allowed to leave the building
until "somebody paid", peru sent in it's "anti-fraud
tactical unit" who proceeded to gun down the majority
of the leaders and delegates present, when the cooks
and cleaners came out see what was going on (the
actual words used were "que pasa mang?"), they
realized that nobody had touched the pate (and it had
miraculously escaped the gunfire and flying bodies),
sat down, (luckily slovenka hodgeson, the dishwasher's
best friend who had turned up to "meet some really
powerful men", had a half-eaten packet of velveeta's
in her pocket)...not to be continued

Um, EnGiNeErRr, can I help you with anything? You seem a tad double-visioned and woozy today.

Ahhh..... I see.

Carry on, then.

quote:

---

Originally posted by tHe EnGiNeErRr:
I know where dialogue stops and when monologues begin.

---

Ach, you`ll hate this then, but forgive this rambling Fool. I`ve always been too sqeamish to edit my own work

quote:

---

The Gods teach us the lessons we need to know, however hurtful and uncomfortable
they may be to accept... see the Book of Job as an example. I read somewhere
that one meaning of the word "innocence" is ignorance ( In my case of the
harm I`ve done to those around me ) and that self -knowledge by definition
means taking responsibility not just for what we`ve knowingly done, but
also what we`ve done in our "innocence" / ignorance.

I`ve never been much of a fan of orthodox Christianity with
my knee-jerk rejection of hierarchical authority but in my distaste of what
has been done in God`s name by his Church and it`s intolerance of other
paths I more than suspect something that that religious literalists and
pagans alike have overlooked and that is that Jesus was into mysticism in
a big way.

To me the claim that "No one comes to the Father except through
me" has always smacked of religious imperialism but if what if Jesus was
actually saying that each one of us is the "Son of God" .. i.e Divine, then
that vexatious and provocative claim that has led to so much persecution
and misery is actually telling us that each one of us is his own personal
*Saviour* so to truly understand and attune ourselves to "God" we need only
look within.. just as Wiccans like I do with *our* deities.

If we can learn our True Selves we can transcend the limitations of our
egos and become "one" with God/Nature. If all paths lead to the top of the same mountain
then I ought not to sneer if they`ve wandered off theirs. A lost sheep
is still a lost sheep even if his inner Shepherd goes by a different name
than mine.

My notion of re-incarnation has shifted somewhat with this thought too.
Perhaps our quests for self-knowledge are part of the Divine Universe`s
own quest? To create the Universe the Divine Principle fragmented itself
into many parts ( with a range of awarenesses ranging from unconscious,
unknowing rocks via living beings such as plants and animals , sentient
life ( i.e us ) and elemental entities such as Angels and so forth up to
the One Divine Soul at the core of an ever turning Wheel of life.

Are we not spun out as individuals to interact with others and the world
around us so that when we "die" that knowledge becomes part of the Universe`s
own quest for self perfection , so that when the ultimate cycle is completed
and it`s time for the Universe itself to be reborn our knowledge - intermingled
with all that are and ever have been becomes part of the "New" Universe.
We are thus part of the one Creator and our own creation. When we "remember"
past lives etc.. it`s not necessarily our own ancestors lives we "re-live"
but fragments distilled from the lives of the many before us.. i.e you and
I could remember the same things because those experiences have become part
of a shared heritage.

---

I`m not quite sure I`d call it that since being midly autistic I`ve always had difficulty in holding my thoughts together long enough to record them. This tends to lead toward a "stream of consciousness" type of narrative which is highly unstructured, oftimes contradictory ( As I have insights that might run contrary to what I`d wrote earlier. To complicate things further, the limitations of "special ed" funding favoured behavioral control at the expense of academic discipline, so I`ve basically had to educate myself, with the invariable gaps in my repertoire as a result. Hence the poor grammar and lack of structure to my piece.

To pull myself back from lapsing into one of those "poor me" diatribes I`m all too fond of ( Shoot me if you see me doing that again)I`m not entirely sure what particular path I`m following at the moment. Basically I`m reading large numbers of texts on subjects as diverse as Plato, St Augustine, Aleister Crowley, the Order of the Golden Dawn and the early Gnostics. The last I found a tad too anti-materialistic for me. Neo-Platonism and Thelemic Magick are the closest I`m come so far and I`ve only just dipped my tootsies in the Kabbalah. Personally I blame Neil for this as much as Plato because it was his musings in American Gods that led me to wondering about who created who and why

Whilst the idea of creation by emanation ties in well with my ideas, the notion that matter was a mistaken - or even *evil* creation of a false God just doesn`t gel well with the notion that if everything is ultimately *of* the Supreme Being. Take me for a fool, perhaps but if the SB is perfect how could he emanate, by however many removes, a "false God"? To reconcile that you`d have to pre-suppose that a) The Supreme being did so by intent - in which case he`s malevolent, or that b) he`s ignorant, in which event he cannot be omnipotent and therefore not the Supreme Being at all. Which is about how the Gnostics regard Yahweh.

I know it`s rather presumptious of me to questio n the wisdom of so many experts, but I`ve always had a tendency to sling tomatoes at the mighty and ask stupid questions, even if the egg usually ends up on my own face as a result. Thus I found myself asking why did God, or whatever you want to call him, her, them or it, *want* to create the Universe? If you look at the Bible ( Which has two seperate creation myths - look it up ) then he appeared to do it for the sheer hell of it ( pun intended).

Now since most of us appear to be innately curious.. even animals share that, then such a universal trait does offer up an insight into what was in the SB`s mind at the time. Consider that the SB was basically alone, how on earth could it learn but from interacting with others? Oh, except there were no others and since the SB was *all* that existed, the only way to interact was to fragment itself in a cascade reaction of creation. You thus end up with innumerable individual entities, all of which possess a divine spark, who can interelate with each other in a Socratic manner and thus enable the SB to learn, much in the way you and I learn though logic and experience.

Part of my thinking came from a discussion on physics rather than theology and came at the issue of creation from a scientific perspective. As I understood conventional cosmology, the whole universe began with the Big Bang, before which there was quite literally nothing - no time, no space, no matter, no s**t ( Can I say that here?) and that the whole shebang is going to expand forever.

The other debater argued that there was all this dark matter which would eventually slow the whole process down and eventually put it into reverse, except that it has been found that far from slowing down, the universe is actually expanding faster and only a fraction of the alleged dark matter has been found!

About this time, I stumbled across an article on Black Holes that described what happens to anything that falls into one.. i.e it`s sucked into a hyper dense infinitesimely small thing called a singularity, much like the one that preceded the Big Bang. Now the word singularity implies "oneness" to me, making me consider whether all those Black holes aren`t in fact syphoning all that material back into the one "singularity", the resultant loss of gravity makes the universe expand ever faster until time, which requires, like learning, some kind of interaction to take place.

Ultimately, all particles evaporate through entropy and the event horizons of black holes seal up, but even if that didn`t happen an accelerating universe would require the spontaneous creation of huge amounts of dark matter to slow, let alone reverse it. As stated earlier, that`s just not happening!

To try and bring this back toward theology if you have, like me a hermetic view of the universe ( As above, so below) then the obverse ( So below, as above) must also be true. Now if the proto-Universe represented the infinite sea of possibilities then the process of Creation represents the elimination of possibilities as the Universe expands. In short that that space expands in direct proportion to elimination of possibilities. Now when you get to the point where nothing exists and space is absolute then there are no possibilities *to* eliminate and hence no time, whereas you have infinite possibility at the start and hence all is time.

You thus go from absolute time to absolute space. And with all that matter reduced to pure energy within the singularity you need just a fractional imbalance to ignite another bang and begin the whole linear process all over. Now cosmologically speaking this sea of possibilities can be construed as nothing, since it is not yet subject to linear process or it could be seen as everything.. i.e God.

Furthermore since such a Universe would be both finite and cyclical that sets it in motion - The "Word" - would be the collective unconscious of it`s previous incarnation ( thought being a linear process) , which can then direct the initial process in such a way as to make a coherant structure.. i.e by "creating" in accordance with Natural Law.

Since however it may be that in leaving our bodies on death we retain only the changes experience inscribes on our souls, we would not have perfect predictability and thus God will always remain ignorant and in need of knowledge. It`s like being able to use a computer without any knowledge of how to code...

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Schrödinger's Cat,