Hawk's Cry: The Blog of a Witch on Paganism, Witchcraft, Wicca, Magick, Occult, Pagan Hymns, Prayers and Rituals

Pagan vs Abrahamic Religions Part I: Soul Ownership

July 31st, 2009

Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil by William Blake There is much confusion about the differences and similarities between the Pagan religions and the Abrahamic religions. Talk to some fundamentalist Christians and they would say that there are no similarities. Talk to some Christian-Pagans and they would say there are no differences. I’m sure the same is true if you substituted “Jewish” or “Muslim” for “Christian.” Over time, I will compare and contrast these religious systems to help people distinguish and discriminate appropriately between them.

This article will discuss the important topic of soul ownership.

Most Pagans don’t think about who owns their soul at all, even though it is one of the most important distinguishing characteristics for the Pagan religions. The Abrahamic religions talk about this constantly. Much of the internal moral struggle their members face is on this topic. They see the choice as being between God and Satan. It is a purely binary choice, either one or the other. They portray it as a choice being made during every moment of every day, since the temptation to sin is so great, and to sin is to give your soul to Satan by following what he says.

The problem with this thinking is that it eliminates the third, hidden choice. The occult (meaning “hidden”) choice.

The occult choice is yourself. Pagan religions, particularly those who follow the darker aspects, see the choice as being between the Gods and Yourself. Either you give your soul to the Gods or you take it and own it yourself.

It is written in Genesis 3:5, “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”

There were two trees in the Abrahamic Garden of Eden. The Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge. They see the choice as being Life or Death, God or Satan. The Tree of Life is the light path where you give your soul to God (IHVH), doing his bidding as you give up all of your will. “Thy will be done in earth,” as it is written in Matthew 6:10.

The other tree is the Tree of Knowledge. This is associated with Satan and Death and is the tree that Adam and Eve ate from, causing them to be banished and marked. The secret to the Tree of Knowledge is the knowledge that you don’t have to give your soul to anyone. You can own it yourself. You have Free Will.

In Pagan religions, we can serve the Gods (or choose not to) while retaining full ownership and control of our free will and our souls. When I serve Lord Hermes, I am not giving up myself to Him. He is not choosing my actions for me and I don’t blindly do as He asks. I am still responsible for my actions, even those done in His service. (See Serving the Gods)

This is a fundamental difference between the Pagan religions and the Abrahamic religions. Abrahamic followers strive to give their will, their soul, to their God. The believe strongly that their will is never theirs and cannot ever be their own. They must give it to either one deity or another.

Pagans see it as a choice between giving their soul to a God (or number of Gods, though that would make life extremely difficult) or keep it for themselves. Most choose to keep it themselves. They choose the path of Free Will, not (any) God’s Will.

This raises an interesting theological question, that of mingling Christianity (or Judaism or Islam) with Paganism. Can one be a Christian-Pagan, Muslim-Pagan or Jewish-Pagan? I will leave that answer open for discussion.

What do you think?

7 Responses to “Pagan vs Abrahamic Religions Part I: Soul Ownership”

Jay Cunningham Says:
August 10th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Any testable falsifiable explanation that there is a god or a soul?
Lea Elisabeth Says:
October 12th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
This is an interesting article. I have a Christian friend who uses a lot of Native American spirituality in her worship, so I guess you can kind of combine the two paths. I think it goes back to the person.
Marleen Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:49 am
Originally they did and to some extent still do. Italian Roman-Catholics are infused with pagan rituals and beliefs. In Ireland spells were adapted to call on God, the Holy Spirit, Trinity and Maria instead of the old pagan god’s name. In Romania the orthodox church is filled with pagan symbolism.
It doesn’t matter what you choose as a symbol for worship. It’s the intent that’s important not the symbol you choose to work for you.
As Budhists say, the door to enlightenment opens inward not outward.
Morninghawk Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:39 am
My thoughts exactly. The symbols one chooses are simply the trappings you choose, but regardless of which is chosen they all lead to the same place, inside your deepest self where your divine connection exists.
Tom Says:
December 25th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
I’m not sure the two paths are distinguishable, except in the most exoteric sense. In the Christian mythos, the lost can be saved and the saved can be lost – well, unless you’re a Calvinist – so, it isn’t about losing free will or the responsibility for choices.

Many Christians seem to have only a surface understanding of their own religion. I say that as an outsider, so maybe it isn’t worth much; but it seems to me that the important thing in Christianity is the existence of a relationship between God and the individual. Salvation, for the Christian, is basically being in relationship with God, while being lost is being out of relationship with God.

Thus, for both the Christian and the Pagan, it’s all about being in relationship with one’s god(s).

You mention that a key difference between the Abrahamic religions is Paganish is that the former seek to sign over their souls and their will; but the Christian doesn’t see himself as an automaton, nor does his cosmology admit that possibility. The Christian believes that his god actually dwells inside him, at the spiritual level, and that this marriage of spirits can become closer and closer over time, transforming him into God’s likeness. Now, he would never admit that he could become just like God, because he still conceives of himself as being in a hierarchical relationship with his deity; and this may be one of the real key differences Paganism has from Christianity, as the latter is practiced by most Christians.

Anyway, this transformation doesn’t lead to being a robot, but to a transformation of character. What the Christian is really doing is trying to become more like his god.

I think conceiving of Paganism and Witchcraft as religions where the I-Thou relationship between the individual and deity is institutionalized, carved in stone as it were, does the worshipper a grave disservice, because divine intimacy is the goal of all true religion – as you yourself say in another blog. I believe the ultimate intimacy is a union between the worshipper and his god(s) which results in something that is paradoxical from a merely rational point of view – a Oneness in which individuality is not lost.

Well, I’ve ranted enough; but I think you get my point. I’m not so bothered by your description of Christianity as I am by your characterization of Paganism as a religion of permanent separation between the worshipper and his gods. That, I believe, is the absolute antithesis of true religion – and I think you do, too.
Morninghawk Says:
January 3rd, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Thank you for the thoughtful comment.

Though I agree with many of your points, there are some areas I disagree. I agree that the overall goal of all Right-Hand-Path (RHP) religions, at their esoteric level, is to be united with the divine. That is the common thread that allows different religions to participate in ecumenical dialogue.

One area I respectfully disagree with is that, based on my study and understanding of Christian theology, God is a transcendent deity, not an immanent deity. This is true for Islam and Judaism as well. The immanence of God in Christianity comes through the Holy Spirit, as made possible by the unity of God and Jesus Christ, according to the book of John. Being a transcendent deity, God is separated from His creation so He does not dwell within people (or anything else). The connection must be made through something else, such as the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, I don’t know as much about what connects God with His followers in Islam or Judaism. The dwelling of God within a person in Christianity is a very recent, New Age, idea that is not supported in canon.

You are right in that most Christians and other Abrahamic followers don’t see themselves as automatons. They see it instead as a voluntary giving of their individual will to God by striving to always obey Him. To do otherwise, especially in fundamentalist denominations, would be to give your will to Satan. I tend to think that the most fundamentalist denominations actually see people as a type of automaton for either God or Satan, based on the actions the person chooses.

As far as the separation between a Pagan practitioner and his/her deities, I think you are seeing it more in black-and-white than I intended. Maybe I didn’t describe it well enough. There are different (sometimes conflicting) cosmologies in Paganism and even within Wicca. The one I follow sees the Gods as having their own individual and independent existences, as opposed to archetypes or just energies. This individual identity allows there to be multiple Gods and Goddesses with their own identities. Naturally, this shows that I disagree with the idea that there is One Goddess and God and all Goddesses are simply aspects of the One Goddess and all Gods are aspects of the One God. I respect that belief that many Pagans and Wiccans hold, but I disagree with it.

I do see a connection inherent within all beings with the Gods and Goddesses, because we are all created with the Divine Spark of Life within us. This is why we can commune directly with our Gods without the need for a mediator, such as the Holy Spirit. But that does not mean that I am God (which is a different topic). I work with Hermes, for example. I see Hermes living in money, in websites, in book and magazines, etc. It is similar to how someone working with Artemis may see Her in the trees and animals of the forest. I also feel Hermes within me and hear His voice guiding me. This does not mean that I am one with Hermes all the time. I have my own identity and He has His. Like you suggest, deeds I do that please Him and are done in His honor do bring me closer to Him. But it does not mean that I must do all that He says. I have my own will that is higher to me than His will. It is this choice that I am attempting to explore in this post.

Like you say, in the end, all Right-Hand-Path religions work to become closer with the divine. They help people see above their petty issues and problems and act in a way that brings them closer to the all-loving Gods. That is why we can live and communicate with Abrahamic followers, since we all have this common goal.

I hope this helped clarify my position.
Tom Says:
January 6th, 2010 at 8:49 pm
Morninghawk,

Thanks for your cogent and thoughtful responses.

I regret that I am not as gentle as I need to be. My guess is that this lack comes from too many years of seeking truth in a propositional form. I think that tends to make one strident. The Goddess is working on that, as we speak. I am a work-in-progress.

Let me encourage you, if it is a subject of interest to you, to continue investigating the theology of immanence within Christianity. I think the New Testament is pretty up-front about it. Also, in Judaism, the founder of the Hasidic school, Baal Shem Tov, taught that God is everywhere. I think it’s impossible for a religion with any depth to avoid immanence; how can man touch the divine, unless the divine be near?

I have heard, anecdotally, that when Starhawk was on the faculty of Matthew Fox’s Institute for Creation Spirituality he brought her to the grudging realization that Christianity does have a theology of immanence. My personal belief is that the divine is both immanent and transcendent. I think this is what Christianity teaches, and I think it’s true, too.

Since you raised the subject, I believe the objections of hard polytheists to soft polytheism can be satisfied, which is to say that I believe the two points of view can be reconciled. There is a conceptual framework for the gods being aspects of a unitary divine and yet fully distinct individual persons. I owe the inspiration for this framework to a charming little romance called Flatland, written by Edwin Abbott in 1884. The key is postulating a divine that is simultaneously immanent and transcendent (as above), and that transcendent aspect as a *metapersonal* being. I find this line of thought extremely exciting; please let me know if you would like to discuss it further.

Again, thank you for your kind reflections.