imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Voodoo
Jul 2, 2007 5:25:34 GMT
Post by imakegarb on Jul 2, 2007 5:25:34 GMT
K, this isn't a subject I've studied much. Largely because, until this evening, I've rather dismissed it as a faith based entirely on magic. Well, this evening I listened to an interview on National Public Radio's "Speaking of Faith" with Patrick Bellegarde-Smith, chairman of the Department of Africology at the University of Wisconsin in Milwaukee and co-editor of books about Voodoo. Later, I downloaded the unedited version of the interview here: download.publicradio.org/podcast/speakingoffaith/20070628_vodou_uc-smith.mp3As I listened, I cross referenced like mad. Heard many similarities between Voodoo and Buddhism/Hinduism/Judaism/Christianity/various outher faiths. And, to top it off, one of the names for their one diety (pronounced "Gah-met", though I'm not sure of the spelling) means "Great Master" or "Great Architect". We talked, in another thread, about universal Freemasonry. As often happens, when I compare faiths and disciplines such as this, I'm left wondering if there's such a thing as universal -- everything.
|
|
|
Voodoo
Jul 2, 2007 6:29:58 GMT
Post by penfold on Jul 2, 2007 6:29:58 GMT
ya see in my humble hamster opinion all religions are distillations of the sum of human knowledge anyway, different entities get their billing in different positions according to the flavour one chooses, but there is so much resonance in each and every religious expression that to my mind they cannot fail to be much more than conglomorations of human consciousness. but I'm like that me.......
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Voodoo
Jul 2, 2007 13:48:34 GMT
Post by imakegarb on Jul 2, 2007 13:48:34 GMT
;D
I think you are right. But it causes me to wonder . . . all those wars over the centuries. All that agony . . . were we really fighting over a difference of religion (ever making allowances for politics that take religion along) or to try and enforce a given "distillation"?
|
|
|
Voodoo
Jul 2, 2007 20:00:47 GMT
Post by hollandr on Jul 2, 2007 20:00:47 GMT
>And, to top it off, one of the names for their one diety (pronounced "Gah-met", though I'm not sure of the spelling) means "Great Master" or "Great Architect".
Karen
How would we test whether that is the same entity that we refer to?
Or is this religion facing away from human destiny?
Cheers
Russell
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Voodoo
Jul 3, 2007 0:41:40 GMT
Post by imakegarb on Jul 3, 2007 0:41:40 GMT
(blink-blink) System A says there is only one God. System B says there is only one God.
Logically, if one is right in its supposition, then the other must also be right. Likewise, if one is wrong, then the other must be wrong. When it comes to monotheism, it tends to be all or nothing.
*If* both are correct in their supposition, then, logically, the god in each system would be the same God. This would be true even if both systems called the one God by a different name.
*If* both are incorrect in their supposition, then the God in each system may still be the same God. Or may be different Gods. But neither system can know for sure.
If what I heard on the radio is valid, Voodoo believers are monotheistic but allow for a huge number of godlike critters. If so, they would not be the first monotheists to make this distinction (for instance, angels and demons in Christianity).
|
|
|
Voodoo
Jul 3, 2007 2:28:28 GMT
Post by hollandr on Jul 3, 2007 2:28:28 GMT
Karen
there may be some assumptions in your logic.
For example, the god of the Old Testament insisted: Thou shalt have no gods before me.
Of what did he speak?
And St Paul admits many gods and many lords both in heaven and on earth. But we prefer not to consider the distinction between a lord and a god. And we certainly stay away from his admission of many lords and gods on earth
Cheers
Russell
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Voodoo
Jul 3, 2007 2:48:08 GMT
Post by imakegarb on Jul 3, 2007 2:48:08 GMT
Ah, but Bro. Russell, the people of Ancient Israel were not monotheistic, they were henotheistic. They believed in many gods but worshiped only one (not one God with many aspects but, truly, one God of many). And, so, it would be possible for the God of ancient Israel to be jealous In my hypothesis, I've got two systems that both insist there is but one God. Period. Monotheism, not henotheism. Now, even there, there's wiggle room. For a single diety could have many aspects (for example, the Christian idea of trinity). And, arguably, the God of Ancient Israel did evolve in that direction, especially after encounters with other belief systems. Judaism, today, is monotheistic. But the God of the commandments, clearly, believes in other gods. That's where things were at the time, when the words were written down. And, so, then, it was possible for the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to say there would be no gods before him Now, by the time we get to Paul, we do have a fully formed idea of one God with many aspects. Lords can be angels. They also can be inspired humans. But there is, still, for Paul, only one God. Ain't becoming grand? ;D Oh, and there's also this: The Inquisitive Cow on Henotheism, the Masai People and Marie Antoinette
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Voodoo
Jul 3, 2007 3:45:32 GMT
Post by Tamrin on Jul 3, 2007 3:45:32 GMT
Or is this religion facing away from human destiny? Bro. Karen,I think what Bro. Russell was alluding to was the function of some traditions in immersing one in matter and of others in releasing one from it. During alternating stages of our evolution one or the other is said to be appropriate. Voodoo may be a Dionysian or Bacchanalian type of tradition which, (together with that of my pet subject, Asherah—which did not include what most would now consider to be abominations), is largely contra-indicated in our materialistic Western cultures.
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Voodoo
Jul 3, 2007 7:28:53 GMT
Post by imakegarb on Jul 3, 2007 7:28:53 GMT
I dunno. I see a lot of wisdom it seeking the eternal by looking inward. Quite a few faiths and disciplines advocate it. And some advocate the opposite but their writings hint at the former. Which, I think, means it can go in both directions. The Adam was made from the dirt and goes, always, back to it. . . the endless thread is measured, then cut short . . . the goddess moves endlessly thru maiden, mother, crone . . . and the snake swallows its tail.
There's also, in many of these systems, unexpected advice on how to get *there*. There are those who would seek God by withdrawing from the world; or do equally as well by becoming immersed in it (the monastary vs the soup kitchen). I've also seen fire walkers who . . .
It's seldom what I expect. I want to move forward and find out the quickest way is to go backward. I want to rise above my existence and I do that by plunging every deeper into it. And while I recognize there's a real danger in finding lessons in popular culture, I see great wisdom in this:
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Voodoo
Jul 3, 2007 8:01:12 GMT
Post by Tamrin on Jul 3, 2007 8:01:12 GMT
Well, I had said: During alternating stages of our evolution one or the other is said to be appropriate. These alternating stages can also occur within a single life. And I did say ( emphasis added): ...largely contra-indicated in our materialistic Western cultures. Despite my objections elsewhere on the forum, I suppose Yin and Yang is an appropriate emblem in this case, containing in each half, something of the other. Even now in the depths of the Kali Yuga, there are still times when it might be appropriate for you to be a "Material Girl." I suggest it is entirely appropriate for children, for instance, to be thoroughly materialistic and, at times, we all need to be as children. Indeed, Jesus is reported to have said (Mat.18:2, Mk.10:15, Lk18:17): I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Voodoo
Jul 3, 2007 13:48:40 GMT
Post by imakegarb on Jul 3, 2007 13:48:40 GMT
Not arguing at all with you, my Brother. Only pointing out that those disciplines that discourage materialism may be every bit as much on the right path as those that don't.
And, well, hmmmmm. Taken in context, I don't think Jesus was referring to the materialistic nature of children but in their child-like wonder and willingness to believe. Not actually one of my fave passages as it would seem Jesus is saying we should not engage our adult minds when pondering the divine but should simply accept what we are told.
And the Good Shepherd thing . . . hmmmmmm.
|
|
|
Voodoo
Jul 4, 2007 1:53:03 GMT
Post by hollandr on Jul 4, 2007 1:53:03 GMT
Karen
It may be that "little children" is code for new initiates who have just been born again of water and the holy spirit
Cheers
Russell
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Voodoo
Jul 4, 2007 4:00:11 GMT
Post by Tamrin on Jul 4, 2007 4:00:11 GMT
Only pointing out that those disciplines that discourage materialism may be every bit as much on the right path as those that don't. H’mmmmmmm, I think I have somehow managed to convey an impression contrary to the one I intended (I had meant to suggest that Voodoo assists or encourages, rather than discourages, immersion in matter). Anyway, let’s move on. (together with that of my pet subject, Asherah—which did not include what most would now consider to be abominations) Readers may wonder why I had included this goddess of the pre-Judaic Hebrew religion in a discussion about a religion with animistic African roots. Consideration of the Qemant of Ethiopia who, assuming there is a significant distinction between the two, broadly practice elements of both traditions, may provide some insight. One should be careful not to confuse the Qemant with the neighbouring Falashas) Please bear-in-mind that translators have misleadingly rendered Asherah’s name as “grove” in several versions of the bible and groves were the places she had been worshipped outside, on the high hills and low vales. Asherah was the principle god (mother of all others) among the pre-Judaic Hebrews. Until the time of kings Hezekiah and Josiah, she was worshipped in the temple of Solomon, represented in the Sanctum Sanctorum by what is sometimes referred to as a pillar (among the imports of her name is “stability”). Her “pillar” (most likely a stylized tree) was broken, burnt to ashes and scattered. While the Biblical authors and translators have heaped anathemas on her memory, the greatest abominations concerning her worship seem to have been the pouring out of drink offerings (wine), the baking of cakes (bread) and perhaps a rite of nominal or actual coitus, as a sacrament (given the tendentious nature of other errors, the latter is somewhat doubtful as it may be no more than a salacious slander or exaggeration). Her priests were the Kadosh or Quadosh, meaning “holy” (although translated as “sodomites”). Among the Qemant their saints are called Qedus, meaning “holy.” They evoke spirits called “qoles” in their scared groves, which they drape with colourful hangings, and in which they perform sacrifices (usually chickens). They have several rites of passage and their fraternal associations are called “mahebars.” There are separate associations for men and women, although there is no absolute bar to intervisitation. There are also major mahebars, the members of which may be senior members of one or more of the lesser associations. Sadly, their theology is largely unknown.
|
|
|
Voodoo
Jul 4, 2007 4:28:01 GMT
Post by hollandr on Jul 4, 2007 4:28:01 GMT
>Her “pillar” (most likely a stylized tree) was broken, burnt to ashes and scattered.
Philip
That sounds familiar. Do you have a source for it?
Cheers
Russell
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Voodoo
Jul 4, 2007 4:57:58 GMT
Post by Tamrin on Jul 4, 2007 4:57:58 GMT
That sounds familiar. Do you have a source for it? Bro. Russell,For starters, see II Kings Chapter 23, Verses 4, 6 & 15. Google Asherah and you will soon confirm the error of her name and that of her emblem being translated as "grove." Soon after asking, “ Who raised up the righteous man from the east" (Isaiah 41:2), we find, the construction and raising of what appears to have been an ashera being an occasion of unity among artisans (Isaiah 41:7—See also Isaiah 40:20, 44:13 & 46:7).
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Voodoo
Jul 4, 2007 5:47:19 GMT
Post by Tamrin on Jul 4, 2007 5:47:19 GMT
Bro. Russell,Also familiar might be the place where the ashes were burnt to ashes and scattered—the Kidron, a wadi, i.e. a watercourse which only flowed after rain (alternatively wet and dry). The followers of Ahab worshipped Asherah. When massacred, we read of them (I Kings 21:24): Him that dieth of Ahab in the city the dogs shall eat; and him that dieth in the field shall the fowls of the air eat.
|
|
|
Voodoo
Jul 4, 2007 16:19:23 GMT
Post by Marcel on Jul 4, 2007 16:19:23 GMT
Le Grand Maitre (the Great Master) is the ultimate deity of Haitian Voudoun.
Funny enough Voudoun is actually Syncretizing some Masonry into it. Several Loa (spirits) are referred to as Masons and some banners and so on used is also Masonry inspired.
I would however hold that Buddhism is Acosmic and Nontheistic while Voudoun is Animistic and Polytheistic.
|
|
Y Mahomed
Member
3rd door left of right
Posts: 97
|
Voodoo
Jul 19, 2007 11:31:46 GMT
Post by Y Mahomed on Jul 19, 2007 11:31:46 GMT
In the Islamic culture the divine is described as one and many. He refers to her/him/themself as Me and I as well as We, Us and Our in the quraan. I think what is meant by it is that there is one creator, of everything, even the Gods and that is the nameless the ME the I, but the We, Us and Our can be named, in Islam it is Allah(God) ... they who can be named.
Yet I must add that they(Gods) function as one(collective conciousness), hence they ARE one. They are like a company with the nameless as the Godhead(CEO).
Does anyone get my analogy? Try and picture the Qabalistic Tree of Life with the Nameless as Kether.
|
|
|
Voodoo
Jul 19, 2007 13:38:16 GMT
Post by tws on Jul 19, 2007 13:38:16 GMT
In the Islamic culture the divine is described as one and many. He refers to her/him/themself as Me and I as well as We, Us and Our in the quraan. I think what is meant by it is that there is one creator, of everything, even the Gods and that is the nameless the ME the I, but the We, Us and Our can be named, in Islam it is Allah(God) ... they who can be named. Yet I must add that they(Gods) function as one( collective conciousness), hence they ARE one. They are like a company with the nameless as the Godhead(CEO). Does anyone get my analogy? Try and picture the Qabalistic Tree of Life with the Nameless as Kether. Or perhaps as Ain Soph. Being beyond the veil of negative existence, the cosmic creator is unknowable and unnameable. Kether is the first manifastation of the godhead into the knowable universe, yet still unattainable to us as material beings. As to the Qu'ran, there is wisdom to be found in all beliefs. The followers of the Prophet, however, need to raise themselves out of the mire of the 7th century first. Islam has yet to have its "Reformation."
|
|
|
Voodoo
Jul 19, 2007 13:46:09 GMT
Post by tws on Jul 19, 2007 13:46:09 GMT
Not arguing at all with you, my Brother. Only pointing out that those disciplines that discourage materialism may be every bit as much on the right path as those that don't. And, well, hmmmmm. Taken in context, I don't think Jesus was referring to the materialistic nature of children but in their child-like wonder and willingness to believe. Not actually one of my fave passages as it would seem Jesus is saying we should not engage our adult minds when pondering the divine but should simply accept what we are told. And the Good Shepherd thing . . . hmmmmmm. Oooo! That bothered you too? I always said, better a goat than a sheep. Sheep need Shepards. What do sheep eventually end up as? Mutton!
|
|