Still under construction, but here's some of it ...

One question, is which of these models, if any, we will adopt. Well, for the gods we worship, we would tend to reject the subconscious archetype model, because our deities have long been perceived as being capable of changing their minds, whereas one would expect inherited drives to appear static, unless viewed on an evolutionary time scale.

The model that pictures the deity existing in some substratum of shared subconscious thought, would raise the question of how much information passes from one person to another, and how quickly, through nonverbal cues. Such a deity would not be expected to be able to think very clearly, or quickly, and certainly would be incapable of maintaining any sort of afterlife for the faithful, we think - would there be enough room in there, in such a virtual world, even if could exist, and maintain any degree of stability at all. (Consider what your mind would be like, if your neurons kept shifting around inside your brain). This being would be more a force of nature, than a companion. Such is not the feeling we get, on prayer, nor that worshippers have had down through the ages of these particular deities. Plus, there does seem to be some experience, of prayers to the departed being heard, so this model, likewise, is rejected, from our perspective.

Well, what about the others? We don't know. Our experience does not, at present, provide us with adequate evidence to distinguish between them, so we maintain an attitude of thoughtful uncertainty, considering each as one possibility, among many. This may raise the question, of what it is that we have faith in, and if the answer is nothing, then is our faith not as vain and futile, as the unexamined one we criticized in the beginning?

The answer is, that we have faith in the process itself. If nobody is there, it would be expect to guide us to nothing. If that somebody's nature is vague, and ill defined, then our ideas about it will be as well, as they should be. But if the nature is clear and distinct, the deities will will guide us toward the view of it, it wishes us to hold. Should that will be an unfriendly one, our insistance on examining the life and actions it leads us to (as well as our own feelings about that life, and our refusal to accept unnecessary hardship as part of some great plan, or to put a falsely cheerful gloss on that which is unpleasant) should alert us to that fact. If we discard that, of course, then we are blindly following someone we scarcely know the identity of, to a place we might not want to imagine. It is for that reason that we call a dogmatic outlook, "the devil's handmaiden", for its embrace among the faithful can make it easy for a demon to pass as a god.

(Note : how can an actual being's nature be "vague and ill defined"? One way, is if it is still forming, and its nature is not yet set, or, perhaps, even the boundaries that separate it, from that which is not it, should it be an aspect of a larger reality. Consider a cloud. Is it not real? Then tell me, can you say exactly where its boundaries lie? Another way, is if this mental picture we have of a deity (that which by resembling an existing entity, defines which is the deity spoken of) resembles, not one, but many deities. The reality, then, while dependent on the external and objective, remains as ill defined as our conception of it, for the very terms of our discourse are uncertain.)

So, what we are seeking, is not some final, unquestionable definition of the truth, but the living experience of being drawn in by the truth. We accept that its final attainment, is something we can never achieve, and recognize that given human nature, this very uncertainty is a gift in and of itself, if for no other reason, than it will always leave us with questions to wonder about, and answers to look forward to.

But then, one might ask, what do we base our rituals on? The answer is, that to the extent that our life experience leaves us uncertain as to the true nature of the divine, our worship requires no answers, for those answers would have no bearing on the lives we wish the deity to offer us guidance about and help with. The models remaining all had a few relevant details in common. Those we worship, or adore (*) are imagined as existing in a partially formed, dreamlike state, brought, as we have said, to a fuller consciousness by the intense emotional connection of prayer. Or, at least, their awareness of us was in a comparable state, a completely alien perspective seeming so out of focus, from our point of view, as to be of a dreamlike nature.

It is, as the reader may have guessed, this outlook, that leads to the name of our group, "The Shrine of the Sleeping Gods". It also serves to partially answer the question of how it is, that we can speak of the mercy of a being who has committed harm, or allowed harm to occur, at some point, and how we can pray to such a deity. Can you remember a dream, in which you couldn't fully remember who you were, and did things that you would never do while awake? Suppose that the world of the dream was a real one, and you were a deity in it, who entered it when you dreamed. Would you become a bad person, because you did bad things in this place? No, of course not, because not all of you was present, in a psychological sense. Now, imagine one of the denizens of this dream world connecting with you in such a way as to help you remember more of who you really are, and you find yourself dealing in a more compassionate way with the people of that lower world. That would be an answered prayer.

Consider the conduct of Aprodite, in the first myth we've posted a telling of, as an illustration. In neglect, Aphrodite is the sleeping force of nature, consumed with rage during an unpleasant dream. As Myrrha cries out in pain, it is as if Aphrodite has been awakened, and can only view with sorrow, what she has done in her moment of blindness. Such would seem to be compatible with the narratives in hand. Does this negate the need, in the story, for fate to teach her a lesson? No, no more than a toddler's unformed character poses a reason for its parents to never discipline it. To do so would be bad parenting, as those unhappy experiences help to mold the child's character and condition it not to do, what it ought not, and puts it in the right frame of mind, eventually, to be open to the realisation of what is right, and what is wrong, later on. Fate is cruel to Adonis, perhaps, but it helps the goddess, still forming, to take shape, as, some here might say, the conscious entity that is Aphrodite, forms from the subconscious presence that is Ishtar, or Inanna.

Click to continue.

(*) Some Pagans, and most Demipagans, believe in a supreme being, who is termed God, and a collection of lesser divinities, called, as a matter of custom, the gods (as well as the angels and saints). The latter are, in no sense, considered equal in dignity to the former. Adoration, as we define it, is the respect, and request for assistance directed to the lesser divinities, while worship, the full identification in the moment of one's wishes with the deity's will, would be reserved for God, the supreme Deity, alone. The gods, in this view, need salvation as much as ourselves, but being of greater potential, can achieve it more fully, and help us do likewise, through their guidance, when they are brought to full awareness of the one offering adoration. Namely, the one who traditionally would be called a worshipper, to the possible displeasure of the Demipagan.

On this site, we will use the word "God" (capitalized), as opposed to "the gods", in this fashion. Some demipagans define God to be the collective will of the gods, while others consider Him (or Her, if one prefers) to be a distinct being, in His own right. Here, we adopt the generic masculine as a matter of custom. The supreme being is usually considered to transcend gender, species, and much of the rest of that which is specifically human.