<JungianFundamentalist> otter
<Otter> ?
<JungianFundamentalist> can i ask you
<JungianFundamentalist> are you a theist
* Otter shrugs
<Otter> i have gods
<Otter> but my path isn't centered on them
<Otter> and they are beings on their own journey, still earning and growing themselves, just a bit farther along
<Otter> learning
<Otter> why do you ask?
<JungianFundamentalist> i was just going to ask if you beleived in the concept of avatar
<JungianFundamentalist> not the movie
<Otter> ah
<Otter> hmmmm, i can't say i've met one
<Otter> arguably, we are all avatars
<Otter> but in the sense of a physical embodiment of hte beings we call gods, i can't see why it wouldn't be possible
<Otter> it may be as rare as an adult joining in a came of cooties on the playground, though
<Otter> came = about time to sleepish for "game"
<JungianFundamentalist> heh
<Otter> what are your thoughts on avatars?
<Otter> i'll bbiab
<JungianFundamentalist> its tied pretty heavily to my thoughts on the nature of gods
<JungianFundamentalist> but if an avatar is possible i don't think the pysical body it manifested in would last long
<JungianFundamentalist> or more likely maintaining the avatar state would be untenible
<JungianFundamentalist> and an unmaintianed avatar state calls into question weather its an avatar state at all
<Otter> hmmm
<Otter> it seems to me that an unmaintained avatar would cease to exist
<Otter> we're not talking about channeling or posession, right?
<Otter> you mean the god manifests his or her own body
<Otter> why do you think it would be untenable? too much energy?
<JungianFundamentalist> yeah i guess what i'm thinking of would be synonimous with channeling or possession
<Otter> ah, okay
<Otter> different thing to me
<Otter> hmmm
<JungianFundamentalist> well
<JungianFundamentalist> closer to possession
<JungianFundamentalist> channeling conjures images of something far less all consuming to me
<Otter> i belive the gods do enter us and speak and act through us. i wouldn't call that an avatar, though, because the person is
still there, though in a drastically altered state
<Otter> i think you mean the kind of channeling where the channeler "dies" temporarily to allow the spirit, in this case a god, to completely take over their body
<JungianFundamentalist> this state would be as close to the obliteration of the person as can be gotten
<Otter> i'm not sure i even believe in that kind of channeling
<JungianFundamentalist> i'm not -sure- either
<JungianFundamentalist> i think its a tantalising posiblity
<Otter> the only person who i've met who claimed to be doing that pretty clearly (to me, anyway) wasn't channeling at all
<Otter> though she did have some interesting things to say
<Otter> my question would be why would a god want or need to do that?
<JungianFundamentalist> do you beleive gods have physical bodies?
<Otter> not here. honestly, i haven't thought much abou the possiblity they might be physical somewhere else
<JungianFundamentalist> there are things that can be achived with a physical body that can't be achived without one
<Otter> as i said before, i think if a god really needed a physical body, he could probably just manifest one
<Otter> i'm honestly not sure how that works
<Otter> but my suspicion is the reason we don't run into gods when we go to buy shoes is that they've already achieved all they need to achieve here on earth
<Otter> they've moved on, and it's our place to learn now
<Otter> same reason you don't see high school students sitting at the tiny desks in the first grade classroom, answering "what is 3+4?"
<Otter> though you might find one teaching the class
<JungianFundamentalist> i think were it possible to give you body to a god would be the purist form of devotion
<Otter> or the highest form of slacking
<JungianFundamentalist> depends on your thoughts on the nature of gods
* Otter nods
<Otter> to me, they are beings who were once as we are now
<Otter> we are the larval form of gods
<Otter> if you like
<Otter> what are your gods?
<JungianFundamentalist> to me a god is anything more powerful than a human, that is an object of devotion... to put it clumsily
* Otter nods
<Otter> the word "god" implies a relationship to me
<Otter> a god not only has evolved, but also reaches back to help those still in human form
<Otter> your definition is more inclusive
<JungianFundamentalist> a god is perfect
<Otter> mine covers only what i mean by the word
<Otter> ah, well, we are talking about different things, then
<JungianFundamentalist> a pysical body compromises any attempt at perfection
<JungianFundamentalist> if you want to keep the body functioning
<Otter> my gods are still learning, and hence, capable of error
<Otter> though i don't really expect to catch any of their mistakes
<JungianFundamentalist> by perfect i mean perfect in of them selves... their outcomes on the world can be pretty imperfect for beings in the world
<Otter> could a god give up godhood to live among us, then?
<JungianFundamentalist> i don't think so
<Otter> another difference is that i wouldn't say that i'm devoted to my gods
<Otter> i have great respect for them, but i think they'd laugh at the idea of me becoming a devotee
<JungianFundamentalist> there are probably some that could "live" amongst us. but its a tiny minority of them.
<JungianFundamentalist> ones who living amongst us wouldn't compromise their godhood
<JungianFundamentalist> not ones i consider worthy of devotion
<JungianFundamentalist> personally
<Otter> that reminds me of that joan osborne song
<Otter> "what if god was one of us, just a slob like one of us, just a stranger on the bus trying to make his way home"
<JungianFundamentalist> i don't think most people need an excuse to be more human :P
<Otter> what do you mean by more human?
<JungianFundamentalist> mindless gratification of bodily needs.
<JungianFundamentalist> like
<JungianFundamentalist> theres nothing wrong with being human
<JungianFundamentalist> or enjoying yourself
<JungianFundamentalist> or gratifiying your bodily needs
<JungianFundamentalist> but i think most people do plenty of that already
<JungianFundamentalist> they don't need to devote themselves to it
<Otter> what about mindful gratifcation of bodily needs?
* Nahtrol (
~AndChat91@42.sub-75-235-45.myvzw.com) has joined #paganjourney
<Otter> hello Nahtrol
<Nahtrol> Hello otter
<JungianFundamentalist> it has its place
<Otter> have we met before?
<Nahtrol> In a way
<JungianFundamentalist> if people want to devote themselves to that i'm not going to stop them
<JungianFundamentalist> it just isn't very interesting to me
<JungianFundamentalist> personally
<Nahtrol> Devote to ewhat
<Nahtrol> *to what
<Otter> mindful gratification of bodily needs
<Nahtrol> Hmmm
<Otter> the main thread is about the nature of the gods.
<Nahtrol> Humans will act as they will
<Nahtrol> LOL
<Otter> in a way?
<JungianFundamentalist> also its ripe for abuse were there to come into being a cult centred around it
<Nahtrol> The gods are no better
<JungianFundamentalist> in a way thats alot harder for cults centred around other kinds of devotion
<Nahtrol> The only difference is their net of influence
<Nahtrol> Hmmm
<Otter> ah, Nahtrol is that guy from georgia?
<Nahtrol> Jungian what would you concider a cult
<Nahtrol> No I am not from there
<JungianFundamentalist> a willed culture
<Nahtrol> So all cultures are cults then
<Otter> do you mean cult in the sense of new religious movement?
<Nahtrol> And so is everything a cult
<Otter> people who deliberately break away from the mainstream?
<JungianFundamentalist> in the context we are discussing... the danger of a cult centred areound the mindful gratification of bodily needs
<Nahtrol> Anything can be seen as a cult
<JungianFundamentalist> i'm talking about like a guru type movement
<JungianFundamentalist> i.e. oprah or dr. oz or what have you
<Otter> yeah, gotta watch out for those tantric oprahains
<Nahtrol> Lol
<JungianFundamentalist> heh
<JungianFundamentalist> those are just examples :P
<Nahtrol> Otter you would know me as fire_wizard1 btw
<Otter> for myself, devoteeism makes no sense
<Otter> ah, okay. long time no see
<JungianFundamentalist> it makes no sense to most
<JungianFundamentalist> nowadays
<Otter> i'm not sure about that
<JungianFundamentalist> which is part of what makes it more interesting to me than personal development or trancendance
<JungianFundamentalist> well
<Nahtrol> Otter you devote your time to your own path
<JungianFundamentalist> makes no sense to most non monothiests
<Otter> Christiainity remains the dominant religion in our culture, and it is a devotee religion
<Otter> ah, okay
<Otter> no it doesn't
<Otter> except hindus
<Nahtrol> That's where I divert
<Otter> ?
<Nahtrol> I don't revere any entity
<JungianFundamentalist> i don't think devotion and reverance are synonimous
<JungianFundamentalist> reverance can be an aid in devotion
<JungianFundamentalist> depending on the deity
<Otter> me neither
<Nahtrol> Or concider any entity higher than myself
<Otter> i have great respect (reverence) for my gods, but i am not devoted to them
<Otter> higher than myself? they are older and wiser. i don't think that makes a hierarchy, though
<JungianFundamentalist> some gods don't desire reverance
<JungianFundamentalist> eris
