Do I Have to Agree With All Old Lore?

[Jake5588]

Hey Guys,

First, I'm new to this site, and new to Neo-paganism as a whole. I was first a fundamentalist Christian, then an Atheist, and now I'm here. My question is whether I have to believe all of the old lore, or are there parts I can take as metaphor / valuable fiction? For example, my home pantheon are the Greek Gods/Goddesses. My patron deity is Athena. Yet, I don't believe she was literally born out of Zeus' forehead, fully grown and armored. I feel that it may be a metaphor, or parable, or maybe just fiction that might have a higher truth involved.

My next question after that is one I've been asking myself: if I qualify portions of the old (and varied) lore between literal and non, then how can I tell the difference between properly understanding human told lore, versus having a "cafeteria" faith.

Peace to all of you,
Jake

 

[bubbleguppy]

If I can recall correctly, there are quite literally dozens of variations of every story from Greek lore, and many Greek Hellenists did not believe in them all, let alone believe that they were all literal. I'm certain you're fine.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Hey Guys,

First, I'm new to this site, and new to Neo-paganism as a whole. I was first a fundamentalist Christian, then an Atheist, and now I'm here. My question is whether I have to believe all of the old lore, or are there parts I can take as metaphor / valuable fiction? For example, my home pantheon are the Greek Gods/Goddesses. My patron deity is Athena. Yet, I don't believe she was literally born out of Zeus' forehead, fully grown and armored. I feel that it may be a metaphor, or parable, or maybe just fiction that might have a higher truth involved.

My next question after that is one I've been asking myself: if I qualify portions of the old (and varied) lore between literal and non, then how can I tell the difference between properly understanding human told lore, versus having a "cafeteria" faith.

Peace to all of you,
Jake

No, Greek polytheist traditions are orthopraxic not orthodoxic - meaning it matters more what you do rather than what you believe. The notion of scriptural literalism is a hang-over from your time as a Christian, as is the notion of a "cafeteria" faith. Being able to decide for ourselves which bits of lore to take literally or as a metaphor is not inherently a bad thing. We're only conditioned to think it is because we've been brought up in a religion where our beliefs are defined for us by the dogmas of whichever Christian sect we're born or indoctrinated into.

A story doesn't have to be literally true for you to draw lessons or meaning from it.

I've only ever encountered one Hellenist who claimed the Iliad was 100% gospel truth that had to have literally happened and I head-desked so hard. He wouldn't hear a word about it being metaphorical.

 

[Quintessence]

This is no fault of your own, but I find it sad that questions like this get asked. Mythological literalism is a relatively novel development that came out of certain Christian movements. Unfortunately, it is now the subject of so much discussion that people think it's the normal way of approaching mythos and also apply it to mythos outside of Christianity. Put simply, mythological literalism has no place in Paganisms (and IMHO, I'd say it has no place in religion period). I'd suggest picking up Karen Armstrong's "Short History of Myth" to put all this into better perspective. This article she wrote for The Guardian here gets at some of the important bits - Metaphysical mistake | Karen Armstrong

"In most pre-modern cultures, there were two recognised ways of attaining truth. The Greeks called them mythos and logos. Both were crucial and each had its particular sphere of competence. Logos ("reason; science") was the pragmatic mode of thought that enabled us to control our environment and function in the world. It had, therefore, to correspond accurately to external realities. But logoscould not assuage human grief or give people intimations that their lives had meaning. For that they turned to mythos, an early form of psychology, which dealt with the more elusive aspects of human experience."​

 

[Jake5588]

All of you guys were awesome. Thank you. That's kinda the way I felt coming in to polytheism. Sure, I still have some baggage from my former faith; but I just couldn't see the Gods being so ridiculously petty that I must perfectly understand all mythos or else I would be tortured for all eternity. Your comments re-affirmed that. Thank you all.

And as far as an action based faith: I'm fully in support of that. Never could figure out how if Hitler accepted Christ on his death bed: he would have a higher reward than a non Christian Ghandi.

 

[Aldrnari]

As others have stated here, myths change over time and location. Rather than looking at myths of the gods as infallible scriptural truths (such as the bible or Quran), look for the character of the gods in those stories. They aren't exact accounts of happenings, but are tales weaved to invoke the imagination and speak to us on a deeper level. The connection of those stories to you, the gods and their symbolic nature, and how they relate to your life are the things that matter, imo.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

The Greek word mythos just means "story": it could be used for the plot of a play, for example. What we call myths are stories featuring gods or heroes. Some make serious points, some are just playful. The one thing they all have in common is being Greek and so presenting the Greek world-view.

 

[FirstandAmistad]

Sorry to necro this thread, but I've felt really similarly to the OP about whether or not to consider myself a true pagan or not. It was refreshing to see someone asking a similar question to what I wanted to ask.

I believe that there are spiritual forces at work in the universe, and I generally personify them as the Celtic (particularly insular Celtic) gods because they resonate with me the most. I'm not sure I genuinely believe that the Dagda is a real entity (as far as all the myths that surround him and other figures go), but I do believe that the same thing that was described as the Dagda in the past is still here today and I do feel as though I have a connection to it as well as other pagan gods. Right now, I feel as though I'm in an exploratory stage in my spirituality, with no clear hard truths set in stone... but I'm ok with that. I wish you the best on your own personal journey, Jake

 

[GoodbyeDave]

… I do believe that the same thing that was described as the Dagda in the past is still here today and I do feel as though I have a connection to it as well as other pagan gods. Right now, I feel as though I'm in an exploratory stage in my spirituality, with no clear hard truths set in stone... but I'm ok with that.

Ah, that's the whole point, isn't it? Polytheism is an empirical religion. Your experiences, validated by those of others through the ages, are the basis; not some self-proclaimed prophet's uncheckable pronouncements. And, yes, it's not set in stone. We change and our relationship to the gods changes; the gods may change, too. Good luck with your journey!