To Modern Pagans : How do you resolve these four points?

Why would I have to do that? Oh right, because
Doctrines don't matter because "pagans" are liars.

I'll bite

1. A first cause is reconcilable with paganism and doesn't exclusively enforce abrahamic mythology explicitly. It implicitly supports any other religion that uses a "source" for the universe. Calling pagan deities 'gods' is generally a misnomer becusse 'God' has too much semantic baggage.

2. This is up to the individual communities to address. My personal opinion is that they are intrinsically ethnically linked but others from outside the 'tribe' can be adopted sincerely. I think that individual pagan beloved systems should be predominantly geographically limited rather than genetically.

3.In order : Explicit textual references and sources -> implicit textual ref. and sources -> oral tradition -> innovation.

4. It should be named after the attached ethnographic e.g. Anglism/Sæxism (not Anglicanism), Nordism, Hellenism etc except where a historical label is explicit.

Paganism is simply a catch-all term for the unorganized beliefs that arise in various different cultures before organized religions come along. In truth Paganism was a million small contradicting faiths with different beliefs and traditions. You can't revive it because there is no one thing to revive. The only way you can get a more than a local amount of people to follow the exact same religion is through force or intimidation. As we live in more enlightened times doing such is no longer considered moral and we thus see a rise in Atheism/Agnosticism and "Fad" conversions like western Buddhists. To truly bring back "Paganism" you would have to first create a singular Pagan faith (good luck getting everyone to agree on its pantheon/beliefs/rituals/etc.) And then find some way to enforce it upon an unwilling populace (good luck taking over the government and establishing your specific Paganism as the law of the land.)

1. What is your faith's ontology regarding the creation of the universe and the demonstrable necessity of a first cause?

It's not a faith, it's a metaphysical account of reality with accompanying views on morality and the divine.

In terms of a creation story, fundamentally I don't have one because I'm a Platonist. I worship the Twin Gods, Plato and Aristotle, and they follow the dread Parmenides who discovered that you cannot create or destroy the fundamental substances.

In terms of a first cause, I accept either self moved or unmoved movers. I am more in favour of the later for the supreme god(s). The source for the different types of movers is Plato's Laws and Aristotle's Physics and Metaphysics.

2. Is modern paganism intrinsically 'owned' by specific ethnicities, is it a closed or open religion?

Mine is not owned by a particular ethnicity. It is a true account of reality, coupled with texts detailing the height of practical human wisdom. Anyone of sufficient reason and desire can adopt it.

3. Who should hold doctrinal authority within your faith?

It's not a faith. The accepted texts, though, are anything written in Greek before the late 4th c. BCE, and in Chinese before the mid-late 3rd c. BCE. As secondary sources, texts written in Greek or Latin before the end of the 2nd c. CE are somewhat acceptable, and Chinese texts written before the end of the 1st c. CE (slight exception, if the text deals with Wang Mang and does not show any indications of Buddhist corruption).

4. What should your faith be named?

Classicism? Sino-Hellenism? I don't think there's a precise name. I am a Platonist, in that I follow the teachings of the philosophical dioscouroi for metaphysics, and necessarily that colours the rest of the system. At the same time, though, Chinese texts provide important information regarding ancestors and how the past should be viewed, and have a lot of practical information that surpasses the Hellenes in certain areas.

Required reading for the curious?

>To Modern Pagans : How do you resolve these four points?

'kay.

>1. What is your faith's ontology regarding the creation of the universe and the demonstrable necessity of a first cause?

I feel that the universe probably came about spontaneously, since space and time are demonstrably connected (as has been empirically proven by relativity, which we use every time we use GPS). To this end I see creation stories as the gods trying to explain a complex process to humans, often couched in metaphorical terms. You'll also notice a lot of creation stories refer more to the creation of specific peoples than 'everything'. As I am a Greek pagan, I see my creation story as an explanation of complex processes related to 'the beginning.'

Philosophically, I reject the idea that 'first cause' is necessary. Causality is probably an artifact of a forward arrow of time, which is an artifact of time itself. I think looking for causality in a context that is 'out of time' is silly, anthrocentric bias.

>2. Is modern paganism intrinsically 'owned' by specific ethnicities, is it a closed or open religion?

Depends on the branch. It's not intrinsically ethnic, but a few groups believe their own branch ought to be, as is their right.

>3. Who should hold doctrinal authority within your faith?

'Doctrinal authority'. Uh, the gods who I pray to?

>4. What should your faith be named?

Shit's hard. I tend to go with 'neo-pagan' to show I'm not a reconstructionist.

What about actual recognised pagan religions? You know, stuff like Shintoism. The whole point of which was "fuck Buddhism".

>1. What is your faith's ontology regarding the creation of the universe and the demonstrable necessity of a first cause?

Dunno, never spoken to a god so all I have ate the philosophical and scientific musings of fellow humans to go by.

>2. Is modern paganism intrinsically 'owned' by specific ethnicities, is it a closed or open religion?

All humans are born pagan, then indoctrinated into various non-pagan cults by their parents.

>3. Who should hold doctrinal authority within your faith?

All humans have equal authority to speak on matters of the divine.

>4. What should your faith be named?

Heathenism.

Shintoism is not predicated on "fuck Buddhism" and in fact is compatible with Buddhism. Most Japs are both Shintoist AND Buddhist.

Hi, Varg, you atheist fuck.

I don't know what a varg is, and I'm not an atheist. There's a god or gods, I just haven't had any personal experiences of them so I don't know anything much about their nature.

The whole point was the reinstate a religion that had long laid dormant and abandoned by the common populace for the reasons of strengthening nationalism and driving a wedge into connections with the Chinese they were about to go mount a genocidal war against.

The only difference is that Shinto was fully state-endorsed, whereas this is not.

>I don't know what a varg is, and I'm not an atheist. There's a god or gods, I just haven't had any personal experiences of them so I don't know anything much about their nature.

... oh.

My apologies. Pic related is Varg. He's moderately active in heathen communities. He uses 'paganism' as a front for building up nationalist sentiment against globalism, however his worldview is actually pretty atheistic. It sickens me, and I assumed you were taking his party line due to some superficial similarities.

I used to be in your shoes, I hope the gods reach out to you soon man. Shit's hard, and I got discouraged before I got results.

Required reasoning in terms of modern works putting forward the system I discussed, or required reading in terms of which Classical texts are the most important?

I don't read many modern books, so I don't know if anyone has detailed a similar system to my own. I have not noticed many people online who mirror my views, so I may have to write a text of my own (beyond long discussions/posts on forums like the codex).

However, I know there are large numbers of people who like classical texts and try to follow them philosophically. There are large stoic groups, for example, and of course things like Confucianism are still studied and popular.

If you want recommendations for Classical texts, that's easy enough, but I don't know what you've read or what particular topic interests you.