When a god’s follower is actually their moral opposite…
…It probably makes more sense than you’re willing to admit. Click here to find out why.
PSA: this is not an article “about current affairs”. I don’t do that here. I’ve been told I have a journalistic tone (by which I’m not sure if I should be flattered or offended, or both at once — I’ll let you decide that for me), but nonetheless, I work very hard to keep my writing timeless and useful beyond a specific time period. In other words, I don’t want my old articles to eventually get “dated”. That’s merely because I want my philosophy to make sense on its own, not just within the context of a bubble that can burst any second — but I’m aware it comes at the VERY dear expense of garnering people’s sympathy and camaraderie.
You know what? That’s fine. I can be like Socrates, hated left and right and centre. So be it. “But Lucy, that’s a miserable existence” — only if you reduce my whole existence to, uh, the bits and pieces of it I show you online. Let’s be real, you don’t even know me and can’t get to me.
I’m sure authorial intent isn’t the only force at play here. If you feel that my article resonates with any current events or even your own current struggles, who am I to deny you the relatability? Feel free to enjoy it in whichever way helps you most.
I’m sure we all know examples of “do as I say, not as I do” in the context of religion.
Fill in the blank with yours.
Back when I was first getting into Buddhism… (And for those of you who didn’t know, yes it’s compatible with polytheism. The Tibetan syncretise it with their own gods, and so do the Thai and the Chinese of multiple ethnicities. But if you want a more literal example of syncretism with Hellenic gods, fine, it exists too).
Anyway: back when I was getting into Buddhism, a few years ago, I ran into Ranton on YouTube and almost instantly became a fan. He’s friends with shaolin warriors (same?), Buddhist but originally from the West (same??), zero-bullshit approach to storytelling (same???)… anyway, you get the idea, he is relatable to me. And in one of his videos (no idea which one… Sorry), he said a thing that really got me intrigued: the Buddhist temple was where he met some of the best people he knows, BUT ALSO some of the worst.
I started wondering… What kind of bad people can there be in Buddhism?
Not gonna lie, this came partly from my wishful thinking at the time, because I was in the “honeymoon phase” with the religion, so to speak. So, hearing this bothered me. I was expecting it to be all roses from then on… Right? I mean… I was coming from a background of domestic abuse and spiritual gaslighting with a mother who embraced all forms of appropriative and imperialistic newage trends. The last thing I wanted was to be retraumatised by the new chosen faith. So, I did a bit of a deep dive in order to try and find out what sort of dangers awaited me in this newly found spiritual path.
During the research phase (which consisted of, you know, looking for and listening to people from within the religion who had been in it for a while), I started trying to anticipate what I would find. I thought, “well, maybe, there is toxic positivity and gaslighting? Something like that?” — Because logic tells me a religion based on mindfulness and acceptance might possibly have a few fanatics who take it to an extreme — but no, I didn’t find that.
4 years into Buddhism and counting, I still haven’t seen toxic positivity in it.
What I did find, however, was stories of monks, gurus and other elders who became too power-hungry and territorial. And this puzzled me even further, making me even doubt some of the stories. It made no sense. How come a religion whose very founder REJECTED power struggles and egotism… Attract power-hungry egotistic people? To positions of power, no less?
I won’t pretend I fully understand the reason why — I think I am constantly piecing it together like a big puzzle which won’t be completed before I die — but I have come to a few realisations along the way which might be helpful. Hence, I’ll share them with you:
Violent Christian. Lustful Muslim. Authoritarian Buddhist. Perfectionist Neopagan. What do they all have in common?
Simple: they all contrast on a fundamental level with everything their god(s) represent(s).
Violent Christian: not only is “do not kill” one of the 10 commandments, but the entire New Testament of the Holy Bible preaches compassion for other people and/or patience because god’s justice will be served — and we, humans, shouldn’t be the ones to serve god’s justice. That’s hubris. We’re not gods. We are beneath god.
Lustful Muslim: the Quran emphasises a lot of moral values, and a common theme is that of moderation and discipline in all areas of life. When you’re lustful (and that’s not only for sex), you’re going against that.
Authoritarian Buddhist: now we’re getting into religions without a “holy scripture”. I mean, sure, different Buddhist schools have different sets of written material people consider sacred, but this will depend on WHERE you are. There’s no Buddhist “Bible” or “Quran” (or Torah — I’m not familiar at all with Judaism so I just figured I wouldn’t talk about it but feel free to educate me if you want) in a unified manner. Nonetheless, if we take a look at the man pretty much every tradition agrees was the first Buddha (Sidharta Gautama), we learn that he was born a prince, but disagreed with the system that favoured him over others, so he took to refuge and meditation instead. When you’re authoritarian, you go against that.
Perfectionist Neopagan: when you look at the Neopagan movement, especially prevalent in the West, you see the revival (or attempts at revival) of Ancient pre-Christian European and Near-Eastern faiths. These are all different in their pantheons, morals, and philosophy. However, there is a common thread: the gods are many, because not one god is all-encompassing (or in other words, “perfect”). In fact, pagan gods were more relatable to us human beings than, say, the Abrahamic god. Pagan gods fail, have shortcomings, get “goofy” and relatable every now and then. That’s their whole shtick, am I right? Well… When you’re perfectionist, and your tolerance for people’s shortcomings is super low, you go against that.
But what if I say… MOST Neopagans are perfectionist? (And you can repeat the contradiction for the other faiths above, or far beyond them). I mean, save for a minority of Christo-pagans (or people like me, the Buddhist-pagans), the majority of this community are people who will not tolerate any mishap ever, or else they cancel/ostracise/humiliate whoever did wrong. They tend not to understand WHY other religions keep existing even after the big collective messes they got involved in. Like, “how come Christianity still exists even though the Crusades and the Inquisition were a thing”, they probably wonder, helplessly, maybe coming to the ultimate conclusion that today’s Christian are simply dumb of short-sighted. Oh, of course, let’s just cancel Christianity altogether now, shall we? Shame on you, Christians! Your ancestors were barbaric, so there’s no hope at all for yuor religion to learn and grow and live on from that. (/sarcasm)
But it’s not that Neopagans don’t understand the concept of redemption. I think they’re pretty smart and do in fact understand it. The problem is… Subconsciously, without realising, they have come to Neopaganism BECAUSE they have issues with perfectionism which need addressing. THAT’S WHY pagan gods would be good role-models for them, teaching them that imperfection is ok and there’s no need to be ashamed of it. We all fuck up, but that’s not the end of the world. Even if we fuck up royally (and end up deserving a good punishment), we can STILL move on and STILL grow and STILL learn and become better people. Nobody is stuck in a villain arc forever. That’s the lesson most people who gravitate towards Neopaganism need to learn, and that’s why — although they won’t admit it, because it’s subconscious, not a thing they consciously know — they need multiple gods.
Look… [before you cancel me, at least have the decency of finishing reading this article], I’m not saying everyone who is in [insert religion here] has a big flaw that amounts to the exact opposite of what this religion preaches. Not all Christians are basically devils in human bodies, for example. No. We’re all flawed in different degrees of intensity, we’re all human and we come in shades of grey. But I AM saying that maybe… Just maybe… we tend TOWARDS an imbalance, which is conveniently the very thing our chosen religion preaches against and/or teaches how to overcome.
You’re not supposed to feel guilt over that. You’re supposed to acknowledge it’s normal. You have a faith because you need to learn from this faith. Your faith isn’t an accessory you wear for reaffirming your identity. It’s a school you’re in to pursue learning.
That’s not a miracle or a fateful thing or whatever. It’s just plain psychology. Deep down, we know what we need. And we go look for this learning we need in order to achieve more balance. It’s just hidden from consciousness. That’s all well and good… The problem starts when we achieve higher ranks in the religion, and think our learning is past us (when in fact, it’s anything but).
This also manifests with priests/worshippers/followers of individual gods within polytheism. For example, I keep seeing:
- Dionysus followers who act authoritarian and close-minded. What is it with this bullshit? Why can’t they see that being “for liberty” (one of Dionysus’ domains — god of liberty) doesn’t only mean going all out with the LGBTQ+ flags and anti-fascism and feminism and whatever. I mean, sure, all of that is on point, but it’s not all there is to liberty. In fact, it’s a bit contradictory, when WITHIN those communities, they decide to start tone policing; forcing their perception on others instead of letting these others speak; being heavy-handed with their rule enforcing and whatnot; having double standards with community rules based on who they personally like or don’t like (that’s what dictators do! They let their hearts decide who gets freedom to do as they please — family and friends — while everyone else gets the short end of the stick)… It’s blatant. It’s bullshit. But it’s common, exactly because they need Dionysus in their lives to hopefully learn and grow beyond these tendencies.
- Athena worshippers falling for conspiracy theories, “snake oil” and unverified gnosis all the time. Athena is the god of wisdom, for crying out loud! She’s all about assessing, discerning, thinking before you act and speak. You’d think a follower of Athena would at least TRY to be wise and resist the first impulse but… It’s not what happens in reality. Just take a look at the communities where people worship Athena, and you’ll see. But why is that? Are they worshipping the wrong goddess? No. No, they aren’t. They’re worshipping the best possible goddess for their needs. They need Athena because hopefully with her help, they will gradually break free from this inner monster that just wants instant gratification all the time. Again: faith is not an identity statement. Faith is about learning the lesson you’re in dire need of learning.
- Apollon worshippers who are shy and withdrawn and do NOT want the spotlight. Seriously… Have you ever seen a public ritual in honour of Apollon these days? Even in Hellenist communities whose MAJORITY worships him? Yeah, me neither. Some followers of Apollon are even afraid of ending up as a “boss”, which is why they go for careers where they get to freelance on their own, or be eternally the subordinate, or even befriend a shit ton of other Apollon worshippers but never actually organise as a cultus because “it’s unfair if one person gets to lead and becomes authoritarian, oh no, let’s just not”. How ironic for the cultus of a god who is associated with the actual sun. I mean, holy fuck — it’s weird, but again, it makes sense. These people need Apollon. He has what they need to learn in order to become better, more balanced human beings.
You get the idea. We tend to walk the path which leads to a place we still haven’t been to. I mean, when I put it like that, it’s even obvious. Why would you travel to arrive at a place where you’re already standing? Why would you buy a ticket to the station where you bought it, just for the lols. Who even does that? I’m sure you’re not even ALLOWED to do this literal thing.
But in a metaphorical sense, for some reason, people cling to the idea that you can do it — you can buy a ticket that leads to the exact station you’re already standing at. Why call it a journey, then? It makes no sense. In a way, I get the sentiment. I get where it comes from. Learning is painful; uncomfortable; exhausting; it feels like labour, it’s no fun. When is my coffee break?
It’s understandable to try and fool ourselves into thinking we can evade learning because then we’ll evade pain. But understandable or not, it’s misguided, and it’s bad for you. In trying to evade short-term pain, you’ll end up enduring it much stronger, much worse, in the long term.
I’d choose instant pain if I were you.
