English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Peter Carroll in his book Liber Kaos states that 'the acceptance of a single belief makes a person a magician: the meta-belief that belief is a tool for acheiving effects' (Liber Kaos p.77, 1992). With this theory one would believe in any gods or goddesses one chose to in order to suit the the spell under consideration, in effect 'creating and destroying' deities as required. Do the gods have an independent existence - where do they go when no-one believes in them - and is this 'meta-belief' a useful tool or a fallacy in your opinion?

'Belief is a tool rather than an end in itself; one can make real any belief one chooses, including contradictory beliefs' (Carrol p.77).

2006-10-10 15:03:07 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

5 answers

I do not personnally believe this. I believe in the God and Goddess as the creaters and all other lesser gods to be astral entities.

-Wiccan teen )O(

2006-10-10 15:06:25 · answer #1 · answered by Seeker 3 · 0 0

The meta-belief is valid,although I've nexer heard it phrased that way before you,(thank you).The gods do exist independently.But their reality is limited.(read Carl Jung"s discourse on archtypes.)You could say that the gods and man create each other.In those terms meta-belief is "the tool".The last quote is 100% correct.

2006-10-10 22:18:03 · answer #2 · answered by ? 6 · 0 0

It sounds like you have a reading comprehension problem (no offense).
Acceptance of the meta-belief (belief is a tool...) is essential for a magician; specifically to eliminate the mindset that produces a question like: "where do [the Gods] go?

The simultaneous use of contradictory beliefs creates universes.
Duh!

2006-10-10 22:15:41 · answer #3 · answered by limendoz 5 · 0 2

i believe that the gods are a constant. that they all exist and are seperate of each other.

i believe in the gods of every religion and path.

the ides that human belief makes a god on demand for a specific ritual and then destroies it at the end of that ritual, to me is a strange way of thinking. but if it works for the practicioner i guess that is their choice. it seems very much like Laveyan Satanism where the diety is a metophor for power and not something to be worshiped or venerated. this seems to lead to a "me first" style of religion in my opinion. which is ok i guess, just not for me.

2006-10-10 22:19:50 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I tend to believe in the energy that that god or goddess represents. No matter what you choose to call or name it, it is the essence of that which you call upon that truly matters. Names are merely for mans clarification and classification. In the end it matters not what you feel you must call it but in what you wish it to do for you.

Aho,
Fenix

2006-10-10 22:18:26 · answer #5 · answered by Fenix 2 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers