Requirements for worshipping under certain religions.

[TagraNar]

Something has triggered in my brain, and I hope this is the right place for this. It has been a nagging thought in the back of my mind for a while. It is, simply, the requirement that one be a part of a culture to start worshipping certain gods.

I've seen the idea espoused by a couple of people (I won't name anyone, just so it doesn't look like I'm singling people out). The basics of it I've gotten is that you need to have been raised in the culture (and thus, most likely, have some of that blood running through you) to actively worship those gods, otherwise they want no business with you. But I must wonder, if the culture has changed from the time it first came about or was prominent, then wouldn't a current practitioner be invalid according to those standards when compared to the ancient peoples who worshipped inside of the culture that developed the religion?

If I feel as though I need to worship, say, the Greek gods, would my being an American bar me completely from that? I have no Greek blood in my veins, as far as I can tell, and I most certainly was not raised in the culture where they were worshipped. So, what then? (I'm not aware of any culture barrier for the Greeks, but I may be wrong.)

As I said, this has been nagging me for a while, so I'd like to attempt to clear it up, at the very least.  

[jaden kendam]

TagraNar

Something has triggered in my brain, and I hope this is the right place for this. It has been a nagging thought in the back of my mind for a while. It is, simply, the requirement that one be a part of a culture to start worshipping certain gods.

I've seen the idea espoused by a couple of people (I won't name anyone, just so it doesn't look like I'm singling people out). The basics of it I've gotten is that you need to have been raised in the culture (and thus, most likely, have some of that blood running through you) to actively worship those gods, otherwise they want no business with you. But I must wonder, if the culture has changed from the time it first came about or was prominent, then wouldn't a current practitioner be invalid according to those standards when compared to the ancient peoples who worshipped inside of the culture that developed the religion?

If I feel as though I need to worship, say, the Greek gods, would my being an American bar me completely from that? I have no Greek blood in my veins, as far as I can tell, and I most certainly was not raised in the culture where they were worshipped. So, what then? (I'm not aware of any culture barrier for the Greeks, but I may be wrong.)

As I said, this has been nagging me for a while, so I'd like to attempt to clear it up, at the very least.

It depends upon the culture and diety in question. If the greek gods had said somewhere through a priest that they did not want outsideres worshipping them, then no, someone not of greek decent would just be grasping at straws.  

[TeaDidikai]

This needs more context.

There are three different kinds of "culture" present.
Closed, Semi-closed and Open.

Open cultures have no prohibitions against people outside of the culture working with the deities in question. Examples include the Hellenic and Roman deities, the Norse deities etc.

Semi-closed cultures have prohibitions against those who are not part of the people worshipping the deities in question. However, these cultures have provisions for conversion or otherwise joining the culture in question.
Examples of this group include the Celts, the Jewish faith and Hinduism.

Closed Cultures are those you have to be born into and take part in. This includes those who practice Shinto, the Rroma most Native American paths (not the generic Pow-Wow circut) and a number of others- some of which cite "Metagenetics" as the cause.

For closed and semi-closed traditions, the gods themselves in the sacred texts that outline the foundation of faith and practice say that the path is closed to outsiders.  

[Starlock]

There's varying standpoints on this and there really is no clear right or wrong among them. So here I'll just present some ideas and concepts that relate to these varying standpoints and let others take it as they will.

Old Pagan religions were, by and large, deeply embedded in the day-to-day living and culture of the society when compared to modern religions such as Christianity. One couldn't possibly compartamentalize the religion-aspect of the society and the culture-aspect of the society apart from each other they were so intertwined. I believe that this is the perspective that the argument "you can't work with such-and-such pantheon unless you're part of the culture" comes from. There's definately some good merit to this. If you lack the cultural context, you also lack the full force of the religious context. On the contrary, it can be argued that these kinds of cultural contexts can be re-created with enough time and effort even if you are not immersed in it by birthright.

Americans in particular have a major dilema with this since they lack any sort of strong cultural pantheon to draw upon. We're cultural mutts who, unless you grow up, say, in Chinatown or Little Italy, can't claim a strong cultural connection to these ancient patheons. So what's an American to do? In the often American way, assert your own independence and adapt the pantheon or cultural motif that best suits you. The positive effects of this is that it provides a culturally-ungrounded individual with something solid. On the negative side, when cultures are taken out of context, practices can be less-than-genuine or diluted.

To clearly present the two primary positions, there's the school that believes cultural traditions should never be taken out of context (or in less extreme varieties, should never be combined with other cultural contexts, ie, ecclecticism) --- and there's the school that believes cultural syncreticism is nothing to be avoided, but adopted as it suits the individual. Again, no real right or wrong here... all context and all opinion. Whichever path you take, someone will disagree with you. Stick with the position that makes sense to you after you've given it some careful thought. 3nodding  

[blindfaith^_^]

TagraNar

Something has triggered in my brain, and I hope this is the right place for this. It has been a nagging thought in the back of my mind for a while. It is, simply, the requirement that one be a part of a culture to start worshipping certain gods.

First welcome to the fluffy rehab, and second this is a great place for this kind of question. ^_^

As far as the requirement that one be part of a culture to start worshipping certain gods, this depends highly on the religion. There are many open traditions and many closed ones.

Quote:

I've seen the idea espoused by a couple of people (I won't name anyone, just so it doesn't look like I'm singling people out). The basics of it I've gotten is that you need to have been raised in the culture (and thus, most likely, have some of that blood running through you) to actively worship those gods, otherwise they want no business with you.

It really depends on the religion in question. Some cultures, like the Celtic one can adopt others into their culture. Others are closed to everyone who does not have the right bloodline. I think either Tea or Reagun could explain this better though.

Quote:

But I must wonder, if the culture has changed from the time it first came about or was prominent, then wouldn't a current practitioner be invalid according to those standards when compared to the ancient peoples who worshipped inside of the culture that developed the religion?

It the people who follow the religion make changes to their culture and way of life as time goes on (which most of them probably do) then it would only make sense the religion would change too. The orginal people of the religion have the right to make whatever changes to their faith, its others outsife of the faith that can not change it.

Quote:

If I feel as though I need to worship, say, the Greek gods, would my being an American bar me completely from that?

I think (please correct me if I'm wrong) that several of the ways to worship Greek gods are open traditions that anyone can join if they do their research.

That's more or less my understanding of closed and open cultures, but I may have misunderstood it or missed something crucial.  

[Fiddlers Green]

Well, there are what is refered to as Closed Religions.
These religions either espouse meta-genetics (the process by which one is of a chosen people or one's bloodline is considered sacred to the faith... or mayhaps, said bloodline traces it's way back to a certain diety of theirs) or are seen as culture inheritances, wherein one must be raised in that culture (adoption and kidnapping become options in this situation, options that may not be available in metagentic religions depending on whether the metageneics trace thru just one parent, or both... and also rule out membership by virute of ancestry)

In a metagenetic religion, if you aren't of the appropriate lineage (and even then, you may be required to have a certain pedigree so that you are pure enough) you're SOL, the Diety choose his/her/it's followers long ago, and you aren't it. Better luck next life, or find a way to possess the body of someone who has the propper ancestery. But then again, being American, There is a solid chance of having a dash of many rare lineages. wink

In a cultural legacy, the actual culture claiming the religion as theirs will make the case that their culture and faith are intertwined, or that their Gods blessed/choose their City/Civilization/Region/Tribe or other group, but maintains ties based on a trait of the culture, rather than dint of blood. It si the way of life, rather than the bloodline in that case (often, but not always).

I personally have reservations about many (but not all) cultural legacies, as the culture may have changed beyound what the gods who choose it choose it for. Also, it mires down in the politics and tribulations of the region, and can create a religion which serves the state or other powerful figures, rather than following the desires of the founding divinity. Also, with cultural diffusion, there can also come a contamination of the religion. Some cultures become isolated to maintain purity, or even take up a migratory existance, rather than bend knee to those who would change their way of life...
In such cases, their claims of purity have support, and they have shown a dedication to maintaining their traditions and identity, and as such, I am more likely to respect their cultural boundaries... The people who sacrifice of themselves for that which their gods originally choose them for have demonstrated the responsibility needed to claim a continued right of claim (assuming the original pacts and associations are correct, but that is hardly the point of the matter).

Ultimately, I disagree with many in that I say the gods in question have final say on who may or may not worship them...
However, I would always caution that for those who have fealt a calling or spoken directly with any divinity that humans are not the only entity that lies and derives amusement from misleading others... so one should proceed with caution... extreme caution... aparent gnosis or revelation is nothing to be triflied with.

Oh, and then there are Though-forms, which Tea is the best source on, and I'll definately leave the floor to her on that. wink  

[TagraNar]

TeaDidikai

This needs more context.

There are three different kinds of "culture" present.
Closed, Semi-closed and Open.

For closed and semi-closed traditions, the gods themselves in the sacred texts that outline the foundation of faith and practice say that the path is closed to outsiders.

That doesn't answer the question of a culture that changes. What if the culture changes dramatically or is partially lost. What culture, then, does the god in question require or desire a person be of? Am I to believe that the Celtic culture in Ireland, for example, has remained unchanged when the best of archeologists are still missing parts of the mythology and practices? Is what remains valid for the gods? This is where I see a weakness. If the culture is no longer the same, is it the right culture? If I were to join that culture, would that actually be enough?

And I'd need to ask someone else how one would go about "converting" to that culture.

Starlock: sweatdrop Yeah, no matter what ya believe, there's always a opposing side. I'd just rather the opposing side not be the gods themselves. whee  

[TeaDidikai]

TagraNar

That doesn't answer the question of a culture that changes. What if the culture changes dramatically or is partially lost. What culture, then, does the god in question require or desire a person be of?

Cultures do change. But they do not become another culture.

For example- The vast majority of Rroma are Muslims or Christian, the majorty aren't nomadic anymore either. That doesn't mean they aren't Rroma.

Quote:

Am I to believe that the Celtic culture in Ireland, for example, has remained unchanged when the best of archeologists are still missing parts of the mythology and practices?

Of course not. But to be part of the Gaels, you have to be part of that culture either by adoption or by living it.

Quote:

Is what remains valid for the gods?

I see no reason why the Irish gods would take issue with computers, and while some do take issue with the misapplication of thier runic system, that is between the darn fool who misused the Ogham and the god who keeps an eye on such.

Quote:

If I were to join that culture, would that actually be enough?

Depends on the culture. Rroma? No. Not even being married in makes you Domari for example. My husband isn't included as a child of Alako.

Quote:

And I'd need to ask someone else how one would go about "converting" to that culture.

Yep.  

[Fiddlers Green]

TeaDidikai

TagraNar

That doesn't answer the question of a culture that changes. What if the culture changes dramatically or is partially lost. What culture, then, does the god in question require or desire a person be of?

Cultures do change. But they do not become another culture.

For example- The vast majority of Rroma are Muslims or Christian, the majorty aren't nomadic anymore either. That doesn't mean they aren't Rroma.

Please bear with me, I am not well edumacated regarding the Rroma...
Would it be correct to describe the Rroma as meta-genetic?

Also, barring meta-genetics, how much change can a culture undergo and still validly claim to be the same culture?  

[TeaDidikai]

Fiddlers Green

Please bear with me, I am not well edumacated regarding the Rroma...
Would it be correct to describe the Rroma as meta-genetic?

The initial faith of the Rroma was/is metagenetic in nature.

This is a result of any number of creation myths for the people themselves.

However- with conversion comes the denouncement of the initial theology, but not a rejection of the culture itself. They are still Rroma. They still do not pass their traditions onto outsiders, even "rye". But they do not practice in the traditional ways.

Further- a number of Rroma title the god of their new faith "Del", which was one of the gods of their ancestors.

Quote:

Also, barring meta-genetics, how much change can a culture undergo and still validly claim to be the same culture?

The culture- and thus the entitlement can change however it pleases and still be it's own culture. Is it the same culture of their ancestors? No. But it is still the culture of the people.

I'll use the Irish Celts as an example:
Due to Celtsploitation- the average American thinks of:
Shamrocks
Knotwork
"Druids"
Haunting flute and fiddle music,
the color Green... etc.

However, all those things do not make the Modern Dublin Rock music not part of Irish Culture. Is it the same music as Whiskey in the Jar? Heavens no. But it is still Irish and part of Irish culture.  

[Fiddlers Green]

TeaDidikai

The initial faith of the Rroma was/is metagenetic in nature.

This is a result of any number of creation myths for the people themselves.

However- with conversion comes the denouncement of the initial theology, but not a rejection of the culture itself. They are still Rroma. They still do not pass their traditions onto outsiders, even "rye". But they do not practice in the traditional ways.

Further- a number of Rroma title the god of their new faith "Del", which was one of the gods of their ancestors.

Ah, rightio, I'm tracking now.

Quote:

The culture- and thus the entitlement can change however it pleases and still be it's own culture. Is it the same culture of their ancestors? No. But it is still the culture of the people.

I'll use the Irish Celts as an example:
Due to Celtsploitation- the average American thinks of:
Shamrocks
Knotwork
"Druids"
Haunting flute and fiddle music,
the color Green... etc.

However, all those things do not make the Modern Dublin Rock music not part of Irish Culture. Is it the same music as Whiskey in the Jar? Heavens no. But it is still Irish and part of Irish culture.

You left out assumptions regarding Catholocism and what lies at the end of Rainbows. Oh, and tempers. wink
Oh, and I heard a modern rock version of Whiskey in the Jars. xd

The part that I am having difficulties with is when it is stated that a (or several) God(s) chose this culture (not this people, this is barring meta-genetics for my specific instance) in an era when the culture was something entirely different from what it is now. Now, what the divintiy chose has been changed beyound the bounds of what it was... it is no longer what was chosen... it grew from that, but it is not the same. Unless it is being claimed that the diety itself (or themselves) directed or approved of this change... then how can a member of the new culture claim that they practice/ are members of the chosen culture?

It seems to me that said people turned their backs on that culture in favour of the new one, and, having done so, have no more claim to it than any other outsider (again, this is barring meta-genetics).  

[TeaDidikai]

Fiddlers Green

Oh, and I heard a modern rock version of Whiskey in the Jars. xd

I'm curious.

Quote:

The part that I am having difficulties with is when it is stated that a (or several) God(s) chose this culture (not this people, this is barring meta-genetics for my specific instance) in an era when the culture was something entirely different from what it is now. Now, what the divintiy chose has been changed beyound the bounds of what it was... it is no longer what was chosen... it grew from that, but it is not the same. Unless it is being claimed that the diety itself (or themselves) directed or approved of this change... then how can a member of the new culture claim that they practice/ are members of the chosen culture?

A couple notes on this:
For a start- I don't think you can divide a people from their culture. While you can label and belong to a number of cultures and subcultures, you are still a drop of water that makes up the sea that is the culture itself.

As a result, I cannot say I have heard of a deity splitting the two. The easy example to my mind is the Rroma. The sacrifice in July to Bibi protects every Vitsa that takes part. Even those who are Christian are protected.

Quote:

It seems to me that said people turned their backs on that culture in favour of the new one, and, having done so, have no more claim to it than any other outsider (again, this is barring meta-genetics).

And where I stand is that belonging to more than one culture doesn't invalidate the others (unless the culture is defined by being X and never Y).


For example- Catholicism has an amazing culture unto itself. The Rroma who are Catholic are part of both as neither prohibits membership in the other.

I guess I see a false delimma.  

[Fiddlers Green]

TeaDidikai

I'm curious.

Metallica did a version, it's on Garage Inc.

Quote:

A couple notes on this:
For a start- I don't think you can divide a people from their culture. While you can label and belong to a number of cultures and subcultures, you are still a drop of water that makes up the sea that is the culture itself.

Ah, here is where we are diverging...
I see culture as more than just the mindless herd animals people who are a part of it. A culture lives, breathes, and can die... while the people who composed it yet linger.

Quote:

As a result, I cannot say I have heard of a deity splitting the two. The easy example to my mind is the Rroma. The sacrifice in July to Bibi protects every Vitsa that takes part. Even those who are Christian are protected.

So, what if Shem told Bibi to bugger off, that this person is his follower? How does this work?
Do Bibi and Adonai have a tussel over who gets to do what to who? And which of them has more right to the mortal in question? This vaguely reminds me of the Achoo! "Bless You" Grr... thread. whee

Quote:

And where I stand is that belonging to more than one culture doesn't invalidate the others (unless the culture is defined by being X and never Y).

I have a different view... I do agree that many cultures are not mutual exclusive... however, when culture X is at odds with culture Y, and the people of X abandon the X ways to do things the Y way, I don't see how they have a right to claim that they are the proud Xians! And all that is of X is theirs to dictate.

Quote:

For example- Catholicism has an amazing culture unto itself. The Rroma who are Catholic are part of both as neither prohibits membership in the other.

That's fair.
And Islam has an interesting culture attached to itself as well...
Does being Catholic prohibit membership in the Islamic culture?
I am curious about this point, as, for me, it seems it would, but I do want to hear disagreement if it is existant.

Quote:

I guess I see a false delimma.

You shouldn't.

I'm talking about when the culture grows into something contrary to what it was...

I do not mean to say all cultural flow is like that, but some is.
And that some is what I am speaking regarding, the off instance when the modern culture is not just different, but either actively at odds with, or unrelated to, the previous culture who's legacy is being claimed.  

[Henry Dorsett Case]

Fiddlers Green

Quote:

For example- Catholicism has an amazing culture unto itself. The Rroma who are Catholic are part of both as neither prohibits membership in the other.

That's fair.
And Islam has an interesting culture attached to itself as well...
Does being Catholic prohibit membership in the Islamic culture?
I am curious about this point, as, for me, it seems it would, but I do want to hear disagreement if it is existant.

I'd rather say so, as being a member of the Catholic culture entails acceptance that Jesus is the son of YHVH, died, descended into the grave, and is seated at the right hand of YHVH, and the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity. Whereas Islam specifically rejects that YHVH had a son, begotten or spiritual, and states that the Trinity is blasphemy.

Side note: I like the Rednex dance mix of Whiskey in the Jar m'self.