It's difficult to articulate this, but I'll give it a shot hoping you understand what I'm getting at and no 'insults' intended. It's more about us as people living today.

Why do you think that the majority of Pagans hold to ancient or older customs?

Do people think that only older 'forms' or definitions of certain deities have the help or understanding that one may seek and is unavailable today? Are there 'newer' types that may be acknowledged or considered? After all, there are new concepts , both cultural and those which effect our everyday lives. Or are/is deity or practices unchanging?

What about those things which many people reverence? Nature is around us all the time - I'm not sure older conceptions of it are necessarily 'better'. More to the point, most of it as it was originally seen or conceptualized is gone beyond our reach and/or we simply cannot ( I believe, I could be wrong) put our minds back in time so it's difficult to say whether our understanding of such things is either germane to today . What may have meant something 500 years ago or a thousand, how can we even imagine that?

Signs and symbols have changed. There are new signs now perhaps.

Just maundering here, but I wonder if in reaching back, we may be missing that which would be of aid now. Why the harking back to a past that is often romanticized beyond recognition of the reality which the people probably experienced long ago.

Is it a yearning for a more, hmm, basic? approach to things. Are older things and concepts more 'honest' than modern ones?

Just raveling a thread here (so to speak).

Marto

Interesting points. The past in relation to customs, traditions, myths and stories are important as much as they are a foundation for building beliefs on. However one shouldn't be stuck in the past or not allow traditions to evolve because that would lead to stagnation and for those customs becoming an irrelevance. All things evolve - the obvious things like society, ideas, people - but also the gods themselves I personally believe evolve through time.

We can never get into the mindset of what our ancestors thought or how they saw their world. We live in a different time now and it would be a mistake I believe to try and think the way they did - that society has gone and those world-views have changed as our knowledge of the world and the universe has grown. Religions and ideas which refuse to change become redundant and fade away. Our world-view is informed by the the information from the past and the present.

Interesting questions!

I think for some people there is a sense that people in the past knew the 'right' way to live and in our hectic modern lives we have lost that-hence looking back. I don't think this is confined to paganism though-it seems to be a general human trait to look back to a mythical 'golden age'. As an example America has that sort of attitude to the 1950s (so do we to some extent).

What I find interesting is the idea of deity changing over time-we can all probably think of examples of deities whose attributes/spheres of influence changed over time-sometimes because they were brought in from a different culture. Hecate would be an interesting example here. This is where I struggle sometimes with a reliance on written texts to inform our current beliefs. These texts can give us a snapshot of how that deity was perceived at a certain time, in a certain place and by certain people but who is to say that it is wholly accurate? What if your experience is at odds with this? Do you then say-it can't be right because it is not written anywhere that this deity is associated with healing? Are we in danger of limiting deities to outdated perceptions of them? It's interesting because I have had experiences of certain deities that I didn't know anything about but then found some written texts that validated my experience of them so I'm not suggesting that we throw the baby out with the bathwater Food for thought...I may come back to this later...

I agree it is difficult to enter the mind set of ancestors, but it is not impossible. If you take the term 'mind set' to include a conscious or intellectual understanding then that is difficult for the reasons already suggested above. But consider a different approach, maybe call it 'mind state' and the difficulty need not apply as we are not dealing with concepts or thought patterns but a state of being. That is very important in my way of working. I am quite sure that through various methods I approach, replicate and share the state of mind, being and spirit of those before me. Indeed, it is a central core of my tradition and personal belief that through this one directly connects and sometimes communicates through a continuum of gradual change that is not so remote in practise, if remote in time.
Often I gain understanding of a 'modern' concept such as some of the expressions of modern physics and genetics through my magickal experience.
I would say that there is little if any need for a contemporary interpretation of the nature of the universe, however that is not to say that a definition and interpretation using contemporary language, symbols and tools would not be valid.

Good point. People have always thought that some mythical past was better than now. But when you actually look it wasn't. Our ancestors lived in often very violent times.



Texts are useful but all the written word has done is crystalise one moment in time and does not really reflect the more organic nature of many ancient religions which evolved and changed over time. A too heavy reliance on written texts - often written centuries after the events - is foolhardy and one runs the risk of dogma. Personal experience is more important than nit-picking an ancient text for hidden meanings (which can be useful, don't get me wrong, but it's all down to interpretation and eveyone's is different - look at the Bible!).

This is very similar to a topic I started a while back: Ancient Religions

One thing I can‘t stand is the whole “we do this/don’t do this because ancient pagans did this/didn’t do this” attitude. I do not think we can truly get into the mind set of ancient pagans because we are so far removed from them. Does anyone here actually believe that illness is the result of a curse set by gods, demons or malevolent witches? Does anyone here perform animal sacrifice (actually killing a living thing)? Would you sacrifice a child (kill it) to ensure a prosperous year?.

Also I can’t stand the whole “Christians stole the pagans festivals/ symbols/ gods/ goddesses (and made the gods saints/demons)” thing and yet Pagans take beliefs and practices from different cultures and belief systems all the time and somehow they’re not stealing but when Christians do the same they (the christians) are.

I'm at work, so this is going to be fairly brief.

The reason I think we harken back to the past is because we don't have an unbroken line of paganism to evolve through and from. Unlike Christianity/Judaism etc - centuries of practise, argument, evolution etc to branch out from, Paganism in its modern form is really quite new and I think there's an element of uncertainty and finding our feet, and we need the reassurance that we're roughly in line with people and practises we knew for sure were pagan, so that WE can be sure we are being pagan before moving on. IMO, modern Pagans are basically children copying their parents.

There's also the thought that perhaps "if it ain't broken" - maybe there's enough in old ways and practises which work and which are still relevant enough to not need modern tweaking? Flaxen made the point about deities evolving and us being in danger of limiting them - is there not also an argument that they are timeless (being gods) and that it is we who limit ourselves in our understanding of them - ie, the gods are doing just fine thanks, it's us who are having difficulty moving on?

In general though, this thread has touched on something I've been minded to ask for a while, just never got round to forming the right post for it: do we need new mythologies to bring our understanding of the gods bang up to date?

I don't hark back at all, my path is only as old as I am and I'm quite happy that way. I have tried it, but I got so disillusioned with it as you can't ever really tell what ancient practices were, everything is tainted or lost. Not to say that working instictively stops you missing stuff, it's a big universe and we're small people.

I think ancestor worship goes back to the start of Humans & so I think this remembering & harking back to the old days is something built within our psyche.
I don't think it's something peculiar to Pagan as such

Fantastic! I've always been intrigued by the idea of ancient gods in modern settings-new jobs for old gods I've always imagined that Loki would be very suited to the field of IT. Flora, as we all know, has used her plant expertise in the creation of a very successful alternative to butter

My own take on this, is that whilst people wish to 'know' the way things were done in the past, its really impossible. For instance - the agrarian aspect so often found in paganism - I grew up in a city, and true we grew veg and fruit, but we were never going to starve if what we planted failed.

And we live in a very different world now, and have access to more knowledge than our ancestors could ever have dreamed of having.

But - I think that what we should be seeking, rather than to re-enact, or reconstruct the past 'methods' is to discover the underlying principles of the way people believed in the past. Simply because, despite the differences in life styles and in the world generally, we are still human, the gods are still gods, the same sun is above us and the same earth beneath our feet, and within all that, I dont think the underlying 'truths' (for want of a better word) have changed either.

To me its about energies built up over the years..

The longer something has been done a certain way, then the bigger the energy it has.

Doing things the way it has been done for 1000s of years, puts us intune with that older and to me much stronger energy.

Case of why re-invent the wheel,, when its already there and working..

When people try to reach into the past for their religious inspiration, I don't think they're doing it so much because the past was better, but because what came next wasn't. Same with other kinds of nostalgia - it isn't that the 50's were so great, it was that things got different really fast after them, and that is the last point before gangs and drive-bys and people questioning the order of things (hippies) and senseless wars etc. etc. etc., and before the general prosperity began to wane (in the view of those who want to return to the 50's, at least)

For a lot of modern pagans, Christianity is the big bad ex they are trying to escape, so they reach to a time before the ex had ascendancy. It may not have been better than the now, but it lacked the now's biggest problem, so they figure to skip the whole movement by acting as if it never happened, as if the 'then' can be transplanted unchanged. Even though the changes that serve us (medicine, travel, etc.) are kept, the ones that don't can be ignored.

This would make sense to me if these past religions had a living tradition that had moved and developed with the times. Instead, the old ones stopped developing when the new one took over. Bits and pieces survived, but because they were just bits and pieces they were kept under glass and inviolate, not allowed to evolve. To change them would be to risk losing them, and nobody wants to lose the 'last' of something.

For a personal example, many of my mom's people harken back to a time before the Europeans came here. That's when the problems started, they feel, and they recreate olden times to remember what they were. Thing is, things weren't perfect then either. The Europeans did a lot of damage, and the People will never be the same, but they aren't going to all disappear, and if they did we would still not be our ancestors. We use, make, and get the benefit of modern society and we rarely think that living without the bad parts means living without the good. We don't know the exact things we did back then, so even going forward from that 'chosen point' would be difficult if not impossible.

I think it's important to avoid losing more of the past, pre-Christian or pre-European invasion, but enshrining it instead of using it helps nothing. And rejecting modern advances in favour of less effective old ways is pointless. I think it's better to meld what we know from the far past with what has developed in the recent past and go forward from there. Religiously and culturally both.

unsung

I'd agree with this.

Pretty glad we haven't evolved too much in ritual sense..

can you imagine,, the wheel of the year,, where we have rituals for cheaper sunny vacations,, yule rituals for shopping without queues, beltaine ritual for the securing the latest playstation..

Although we don't need these rituals any longer to survive like our ancestors did, i am grateful we still have them..

Personally, I see a focus change, instead of being survival based they are more personal growth based now. subtle evolution..

I am in agreement with Wulfric for the most part. I have been questioning my Norse / Heathen tendencies more and more as I have read more about those who would try to recreate the past. I'm all for evolution and adaptation myself, and believe that the Gods adapt and evolve to survive too.

Having said that I think there are certain human concepts that remain the same over time - love, loyalty, honesty, friendship etc which means that we can still understand and relate to the experiences of others recorded hundreds, even thousands, of years ago. We can still use the lessons they teach in our own lives and there is something innately appealing about that.

I often wonder if people do it because they are trying to get closer to their gods?

I think I mentioned this in another thread a while ago so forgive me if I am repeating myself!

We have to assume there was a point in time that "a" god turned to "a" man and said, I want you to know who I am, what I do and how you should worship, revere, me. So we have to assume that like Chinese whispers, the connection to that god gets diluted over time. Certainly, we today view gods personally, they never did in the past. In Roman times, there were temples and priests and priestesses and your connection to the gods was through them. Maybe thats why people do it, to try and get closer to their gods, to be the connection themselves. This is all guess work on my part tho cause I have no gods!

Could you please elaborate on this? What rituals do we have now that span further than say, 100 years? ( and that's pushing it, I should think)

For example, we have no idea what was involved in the Eleusinian Mysteries except for the visible to all processions and such. Yet these were very important rituals for a long time.

Indeed, (and this is probably just my ignorance ) , I can't think of a single 'modern' pagan ritual that has much basis in it's supposed historical counterparts.

Or, did I get your meaning wrong and you meant a 'need' for ritual?

Thanks,

Marto

What about the Pentates and Lares and such? Although attending public ritual and dealing with the priesthood was inevitable as so much stress was put on orthopraxy in both Ancient Greece and Rome, the home always came first and that was done individually.

Marto

But 'Social Norms' and cultural consensus played such a HUGE part in all religions. While I agree that the feelings you speak of probably remain pretty much the same, the way in which they 'honoured' was very different.

Let me put it this way: Sucks to be woman for most of written history and most rituals and worship were built around such social conventions.

Marto

But is that really any different to people having crucifixes or madonnas at home?

What I mean is, its a brief nod to the god in the morning or an offering of something to a god of the household to keep it happy... but they were only symbols of the gods, not "contact" as such? Or am I misunderstanding that?

You're asking another Atheist? I can't really see the difference myself. Idolatry by oneself or with a group and someone chosen to 'channel' the deity. When one thinks about it, most of the ,um, operation? is the same: make an offering, make a prayer, throw in a few 'please could could I have.....' and then going about the day . The only thing missing when alone is the choir or vox populi.

Wasn't even J.C. supposed to have abjured the public show and told people to go into their closet and pray?

I could be wrong though. I'm older , but I don't quiet hearken back to ancient Greece or Rome

Marto

I guess it would depend on the religion and the social structure it existed in. Not all religions were formalised or set in stone - certainly the old heathen beliefs of the north weren't - at least not until the very end or after Christianity arrived in the main probably as a reaction.

We don't even know what the religion was called, if it even had a name. There was no hierarchy of priests, no central authority (except for the King in later times who would have had both secular and ritual roles at certain feasts, etc.). What priests there were - called Gothi in Iceland - were usually the richest landowner who could afford to put on the feasts at different times of the year. Otherwise it seems it was down to the individual what sort of relationship they wanted with the gods - some were devout and others didn't bother. It was a matter of personal choice.

Thats interesting. So, who decided who the Heathen gods were? Who gave them names and said, "this is who this god is and what he does and how he should/could be worshiped"?

I'm just going to be bloody-minded here ( no surprise there, then ). Without the lack of written records, I don't think anything can be assumed.

I would also dispute this ++It was a matter of personal choice++ given what we do know about the ways religion and beliefs were used as a social cohesion factor and also, what I wrote above. I would feel pretty safe in guessing that if someone from a smallish kingdom or tribe stated loudly " I think _____ doesn't exist or if he/she does, they are a right bastard so I'm going to worship my shoe - it's just as effective" they would get a very chilly (if not deathly) reception indeed.

Again, with the caveat that since we don't know, I'm just guessing.

Marto

Ah well, that's something we'll never know. Of course one could argue that they gave themselves their names - or their parents (for they had them of course). I expect the worship of the Germanic gods spread with trade and warfare - these were the two common transmitters of knowledge etc. As for worship - this varied from tribe to tribe, even from village to village judging from the grave goods.

There's more than written records to go on. We have archaeology as well. Also a lack of temples in the heathen period until much later when kings started consolidating their power bases. But from the archaeological evidence from grave goods, etc., we can see that customs and beliefs varied from tribe to tribe, or even village to village. Certain themes reoccur but with local variations. It wasn't an organised religion like Christianity was - there were no set texts, no holy book (hardly anyone could write or read). Of course in villages there would have been a uniformity of belief because of the close relationship people had - usually two or three families: farmsteads more than villages really.

Well, from much later sources we know from Iceland, for instance, that it was a case of personal choice - some Icelanders didn't believe the gods existed whilst others did. We also know that not all kings used their religion in the way later mediaeval monarchs did, for instance - King Penda of Mercia couldn't care less which religion you followed - he followed the old gods but he allowed his subject to follow Christianity if they wanted: as long as they were faithful to their beliefs - he hated hypocrites.

.

Wulfric:

What times would you assign to the 'Heathen Period'?

Thanks,

Marto

The heathen period ended at various in different countries. In Iceland it was 1000 AD when Christianity was accepted although the two faiths carried on legally for some time after that. In England it was over a period of some decades from the early 7th century. In Sweden it was around 1123. For Denmark it was the mid 10th century and in Norway it was around the late 10th/early 11th century.

When did it start? Who knows but from archaeological evidence there are proto-runes from the 3rd/4th century BC and other pieces of evidence.

Thanks.

*goes in search of dusty tomes and JSTOR articles for that period*

Marto

No, not all of them. Marto has mentioned the household gods - but there were also cults without temples. And no, I'm not talking about imported Eastern religions. You could look up Silvanus - a god of the liminal region between the forest and the field. A god of animals, but from whom women had to be protected when birthing. No temples; not even a day in the Roman calendar - but a fair amount of private organised activity. Sort of "Silvanus" clubs. IIRC, private altars were set up on the edge of ordered land, where it met woods.



Heathen sumbls and blots (pronounced 'bloats') are pretty much based on the written texts we have. OK, so we don't kill an cow and sprinkle everyone with blood any more, but the rest is close to historical, even if most of the texts came to us through the Christian period.

As for Snippety's and Wulfric's points about moving on - yes, there are what we call Loremasters (those who are bound by what was written, and dismiss UPG). They're at one end of the scale and, thankfully, the worst seem to be in the US. Some I have come across lose sight (to me) of the religion for the sake of ensuring everything is according to 10th century Scandinavia, or an earlier century in England. Many become obsessed about every detail of the culture of the time/place.

At the other end of the scale is the person who relies entirely on UPG and never tests what they receive. (UPG = unsubstantiated personal gnosis i.e. received from the gods themselves or from one's own wishful thinking). The Heathens I know test out our UPG against people we feel are reliable. We'll say "I received something along these lines - has anyone received something similar?" To test true, we often only give a piece of information at a time, so as not to overly influence anyone who comes back with a "Yes". Or until we trust that person not to be influenced, anyway. A dear friend - an academic - and I take each to places and say "What do you experience?"

I run (sort of - very lightly!) an egroup for polytheists and the normal mode of thought is that one balances the past with the present: we are not re-enactors, we are reconstructionists. We operate in the 21st century, not some time in the past. It's good to know what people thought then about the gods, but it's not something to bind us.

There is a small cynical cell in my brain that makes me beg the question 'Did the God(s) invent Man, or has man invented the Gods for his own need?

If the latter, then perhaps referring back to the so-called old ways is just a way of giving the deities some gravitas and give a basis and history to their gods - almost like building a character profile in a novel.

If the former, then why shouldnt the gods evolve in order to survive? If the whole of the earth, including mankind, has evolved then it makes sense for the gods to keep themselves 'up to date'.

I read somewhere that an unworshipped deity is one that will shrivel and die (ie fade into oblivion rather than not exist as such); if they are evolving then using historical reference is, again, just a way of creating a structure and character as our ancestors did for us.

Hope this makes sense. I know what I'm trying to say but cant quite make out if its come over as i want it to in print.

BB from a confused and confusing at the best of times TTT

In some senses they do cease to exist or at the very least cease to exist for us. It's the whole 'does a tree that falls in an empty forest make a sound?' question. Putting aside such answers like 'an empty forest would have no trees because it's empty', it's all about asking if things exist if we don't perceive them?

The Egyptians seemed to think that they don't as one of the worse things you could do to someone is erase their name from all records. It would be like they never existed and thus would not receive any sustenance in the afterlife. Simply put they would shrivel and die.

This leads to the question, are the gods powerful enough to be self sustaining? That's assuming that they actually exists and are not just personified aspects of some Divine energy?

So in other words - I have no idea!

But as for the original question, for me I am drawn to the 'older forms' of paganism as it's how I got into paganism. I read the myths and the inspired me to look into it deeper. I looked at more modern forms but the further I got away from the myths, the further I got from the original inspiration. To me it's just the way that I connect with.

But then again I am not an ancient Egyptian so I've adapted. I do try and draw on ancient sources where possible but I'll never be 100% accurate.

You have some very valid points there. I have pondered this for a while and I keep being drawn to the fact that 'We will never truely know'. But.....that doesn't stop us wanting to find out, if it did, we wouldn't be on the paths we have chosen. I was 'lost' for a while and it was only the chance conversation with a newly made acquaintance that made me realise that I didn't have to follow the 'exact same' path as my parents, who had raised me with Pagan beliefs only I didn't realise it at the time!! I have chosen one of the oldest and least understood Pagan paths, and that is because I feel that the 'older' paths are the ones with the more to teach us. If, for example, I suddenly decided to start a new path, with all the teachings set out for everyone to see and understand clearly, where would we learn to explore and find out for ourselves? How do we learn anything without making our own mistakes via the learning process? I adore my chosen path, it makes me feel complete, a whole person not just the half person I used to be. I am still learning and always will be and that is one of the main reasons I stay with it. I feel that religion should be something that we treat with respect, something we strive to understand, but never do so fully, and something that brings us all together as a community, the way it used to when our Ancestors were finding their way in this world and the next. By the way, the newly made acquaintance that helped me on my way to the ultimate truth....? He is now my Bestest Friend, my Priest and my general partner in crime!! I owe him a lot, probably more than he'll ever know!!

I completely agree (and a tad envious that you put it better than I did!).

The old paths do have more to teach us and it's the learning process that brings the insights. It's like a quest. You seek the knowledge, find everything but your quarry at first and then when you do, the achievement is so much more!

To simply be given the information does not bring the understanding of it. And the older you go the harder it is to find the information as it's been altered, miss translated and lost.

I don't think I did put it better than you, your vocabulary is better than mine, I just use simpler vocabulary because I'm a simpler person altogether! Thankyou, though, for your kind words, I really appreciate it. I still struggle but at least I know that my Bestest Friend will be there when I fall flat on my mush, he'll pick me up, make sure I'm okay and then probably fall about peeing himself laughing at my exploits!! But, Hey! that's what makes Pagans such interesting people! But, I digress.....I would hate to think what sort of person I would have been, if I hadn't found the path I am on. I do know, though, that sometimes we meet situations and people that try to steer us away from what is right for us, physically and religiously, no matter what we believe. Recognising the harm we can do to ourselves and to others is one step on the path that we all should learn right at the beginning of our 'quest' and that is why we need to encourage the correct public image of ourselves as Pagans, as this is what people new to the Pagan lifestyle will see and respond to. Fruitloops need not apply!! xx

Without the slightest shadow of a doubt, as I have said so many times on this and other boards, it was "Man" that invented the "Gods/Goddesses". Many if not most human beings are simple / weak minded souls that need help (or something to blame for their troubles) to get them through their lives and by inventing gods / Goddesses they have provided themselves with that much needed support.
Then of course, there are other gods that have been invented and perpetuated by power and money hungry criminals, purely has a means of controlling the lives, thoughts and wallets of other human beings. I am naturally looking now, mainly in the direction of the invented gods of those two most dictatorial belief systems, Islam and Christianity, though they are not the only ones that need eradicating if mankind is ever to become free and civilised.

Exactly. Since they were first invented, Gods are / have been given various roles that they can then be honoured or blamed for. The gods of war are applauded by the winning side and blamed by the losers, fire gods are blamed by those made homeless by forest fires but praised by those who felt cold. There will be a use for gods while ever man refuses to stand on his own two feet and accept responsibility for his own faults and behaviour.

In your opinion.

Hmm.

I don't know quite what to class as 'older forms'. It is what it is today, tomorrow, a thousand years ago - the root runs through everything. Like a tooth - the bit below the gum, which we can't see, is the beginning of it - the bit that anchors everything down - whilst the crown does all the work and we're used to seeing it. All the same tooth though. Made of the same stuff. Without the root the crown (contemporary magic) would come unstuck and without the crown in active use nothing much would be going on; the root, for all its uses, would be wasted.

Bit of a random analogy perhaps, but...*shrug* I'm in a random mood.

I am deeply interested in global shamanic cultures and shamanic constants - the stuff that runs down through time and cultures - as a Buddhist might say, a 'universal truth' although to a Buddhist these truths would most likely be illusions

I am fascinated by the old simply because paganism is so very old. So very, very old. When we opened up our eyes to existence - those were the faces smiling back.

It's been our obsession and our lifeblood through all existence - from once-upon-a-time to today's TV-static age. It's survived all we've evolved into and adapted and permeated everything we are and have been with grace and ingenuity. We are, as an existing entity, incapable of living without.

(Yes, yes, atheists aside - that's not what I mean. Jung if you have to.)

It's outlived and outlasted us and will do so again and again through every lifetime. Because of this it connects us to everything we have ever been. Just as you might go down the library and stick your nose in the ol' family tree to work out where you came from, so you do so with a book on yea oldie crafte pathie and shamanicy stuff.

Soul food.

Don't get me wrong - I think cyber magic, technomancy, Discordia and the likes are most excellent too! The crowning glory, as it were. For what good is the past without a present? Playfulness is the spirit of the universe. Our today is tomorrow's...uh...yesterday...yadda yadda.

But all realities are as one and, as such, are inseparable. I love the old in things. It resonates in everything.

I like resonance

O.K. MH. In my very far from humble opinion, "Without the slightest shadow of a doubt, .........."

Heh. You know, it's not the lightning bolt - it's the banana skin you might want to worry about...

Dear Pasher,



And without the slightest shadow of a doubt, as I have said so many times on this and other boards, it was the Gods and Goddesses that inspired in "Man" not merely the desire but the need to do so.

BB,

John Macintyre

Man may 'create' a new god but are they really creating or are they just attaching a new name to an existing god or Divine principle?

Are the different gods just the same god viewed through different cultural mediums?

In a sense I would say that most Gods are created by man, however not in the same way or for the same reasons that Pasher believes.

All purely UPG (maybe), but I believe that there are different types of Gods. I would say that there are the Gods created by man that 'travel well' and the Gods of land that don't. The Gods of Land and place, I would say are the most ancient and are almost like a different species of being - not omnipotent like the Christian idea of a God but powerful nevertheless in their own spheres of influence. The Gods that travel well I believe to be man created. But in the sense of an honoured ancestor who is so widely respected and worshipped and honoured that in the end, they attain God status.

To me, this doesn't make either type of deity lesser - it just helps to understand that if you worship a land-based deity and then leave that land, you are going to have trouble worshipping that deity (well, unless you do some form of otherworld travel and do it like that). But you get my point lol