Jayjay: I’ve always found paganism very interesting. I like the way that they have different aspects represented by different dieties, and that the deities are not infalliable, they can make mistakes and have feelings too. However, i was unaware that any modern paganism existed. I would appreciate it if you could let me know where I could find more information about this.
Monica:
That’s a tall order! 
Here is a very thorough links page, divided into categories.
Paganism and Wicca absolutely exploded in popularity and awareness with the advent of the World Wide Web. A lot of places wouldn’t carry pagan books and information before and some places that did were hounded to either stop ordering the books or to shut down completely.
I used to have a more-than-halfway-decent bookmarks list on pagan/Wiccan net resources, but that computer is long dead and I drifted into apatheism and agnosticism since then.
jayjay
And, from the agnostic neo-shamanic neo-pagan…
Well, I’m partial to Coyote, myself. But I’d never insist.
If a deity is necessary to your particular spiritual growth, one will present itself to you. At least, in my experience.
However, Deity isn’t necessary for spirituality. So, you may not need to believe in any God(dess)/Deity.
What works for one does not necessarily work for all.
This question, of course, depends on the needs of the end-user.
If you are looking for a solid entry level god, I’d go with the Judeo-Christian god. Its reletively inexpensive and provides a lot of cross-culture compatibility. Plus you’ll find lots of customer support, something people find lacking in other gods. One problem with this god is it can be invasive. Many other religions have complained about anti-competitive practices such as The Crusades and The Spanish Inquisition. There are also many flavors/variations which can be confusing to new users, so customization can be tricky. Make sure you consult your recruiter on specifics, including confession, mandatory church attendence, and the possibility of multiple wives.
If it is spirituality you are looking for rather than a God-figure per se than Bhuddism is a good alternative. Provides 4 noble truths and a simple 8-fold path to achieve Nirvana (the Bhuddist proprietary implementation of Heaven) which allow for an easy drag-and-drop installation program. This is a good low-cost alternative for users who like some of the ideals of Yahweh but not the baggage of serving an omnipotent and occasionally vengeful god. If you are looking something a little more challenging than Bhuddism you can try Taoism. A word of warning, Taoism is not for the casual user. It can be very confusing and customer support is non-existent (indeed, anyone providing customer support is ipso facto not a Taoist).
You can also explore the various pagan religions. Be aware that many of these are still in Beta testing and as such, their standards aren’t as firmly entrenched as more established religions and support can be touch and go. Proponents like the “Earth God” figure and natural subdeities as opposed to a father-figure type god presented in Yahweh. This is a good choice for the alternative lifestyle, eco-friendly, “think different” types.
There are also sects like Scientology. These are high-cost groups that aren’t recommended for new users, but they have the advantage that you may wind up rubbing elbows with John Travolta.
Choosing a god is a big decision, and it is important to be a smart consumer when making it. Be very wary of religions that require long-term contracts or expensive entry fees, and check with the Better Religious Bureau before making a final decision.
I’ve got a good god for you: all-that-is. Existence itself.
It contains all potential possible power. It encompasses all possible potential knowledge. It lasts as long as anything possibly can. These may not be the things that people think of when they think of omnipotence and omniscience, but with existence, these concepts are quite analougus to the traditional ones, with the added bonus of being much more clearly defined and meaningful. Even better, there’s no nasty need to worry about whether or not it actually exists: it does if ANYTHING does.
Even better, if any other conventional god or gods exist, they too are simply part of all-that-exists. You may or may not believe that they exist: regardless you can still worship all-that-exists, humble in your ignorance of whether these particular demi-beings are real or not. Not knowing what existence includes is only part of its never-ending and seemingly ever expanding mystery, and the mystery is hardly restricted merely to the existence of possible demi-gods.
Existence is jaw-droppingly awe inspiring: it’s hard NOT to worship it.
Think of everyone and everything that you love: all these things are part of this god. Think of everything that is horrible and loathesome to you: these things too are part of all that exists. But there is hope: for because of existence, you can work to fix them, to change the very contents of existence itself. You yourself are a part of existence, a special part singularly capable of recognizing your own existence and the existence of everything around you.
And indeed, worshiping in this god requires no special faith, for the worship is entirely a subjective affirmation: you are deifying it. It is your diety. And yet, you need not ascribe any special character to it. You need not believe that it is conscious (rather, consciousness is possible because of it), or that it has a particular plan for you (rather, all intentions and plans are possible through it). It is a theism which, indeed, requires no blind faith in any particular claim ABOUT the nature of existence. There is no question of it being entirely compatible with any bent towards any claims about existence, from hard skepticism to extreme credulity (though one would hope that you would wish to at least seek for the true nature of existence in a humble and careful way, even searches that are irrational, superstitious, and credulous are, just as everything, part of existence).
Pantheism can be very neat, and quite instructive as to the nature of things like atheism.
For instance, I’m an atheist, but if I were to become a pantheist, there is not a SINGLE matter of truth on which I would have to have more knowledge of, or change my belief in. Indeed, I too am fascinated and awe-struck by existence: I just don’t call it a, or my, god. So the ultimate difference, the final dividing line between atheist and a theist is simple estimation: whether I feel that something is rightly called my god or not, and my relationship to it one of a diety.
Why limit yourself. If you are able to beileve in things on a whim, why not believe in ALL the gods. You know, to cover all the bases…
Believing in them all is only about as contractory as believing in one…
Ask yourself if you should believe in any God at all. Do you think that believing in a specific higher power and obeying its accompanying dogma are necessary for you to be truly happy? Are you afraid of not worshipping a God? How much of a role do you want religion to play in your life. Do you feel that the concept of “faith” is important and reasonable in a religion? What about devotion? Awareness? Morality?
If you can find yourself an answer to all of these questions, you will be closer to finding the religion that’s right for you (if any).
Or just become a UU and continue to explore with a bunch of other people who don’t believe in any single right answer for everyone.
Its the journey thats important.
Cat’s Cradle by Vonnegut, right? This works for me. (And I’m a UU, in case it matters to anyone.)
Except I wouldn’t use the word “lies.” I’ve just decided that some of the big questions are too tough for me to figure out right now. Questions like, “What is the nature of God?”
I’m just gonna skip that question temporarily and go on to the next: “How can I live a spiritual life?” Once I’ve become perfectly wise, kind and just, it might be easier for me to figure out the nature of God.
Or I might decide it doesn’t matter.
Well, while Jews don’t generally proselytize, I will answer the question by saying I’m rather attached to my G-d (that would be the Old Testament one).
For an excellent critical analysis of Judaic theology, I recommend the book “The Inspired Soul” by Rabbi David Gottlieb. Unfoirtunately, it is out of print, but if you’re genuinely serious about exploring such issues, e-mail me privately and I’ll bet I can find you a copy…or at least lend you my own.
I may be wrong in this interpretation, but I thought the OP was asking a question along the lines of “if someone hears God speaking to them, how do they know which God it is?” I didn’t think PosterChild was really asking for opinions regarding which God the Teeming Millions thought was the “best” God.
Here’s my view. There are only three possibilities regarding God.
a) there is no God, or
b) there is only one God, and it is the same God for all the world’s religions, or
c) there are multiple Gods, different for each of the world’s religions.
So let’s assume that someone “hears” God speaking to them. For purposes of this discussion, let’s say that this “voice” is not necessarily literal. It can be a series of incidents, similar to what Mangetout describes, that is interpreted as God “speaking” to that person. Let’s call this person Algernon. (I don’t normally refer to myself in the third person, but in this case since I’m speaking rhetorically it serves some purpose to make the comments more generic.)
If a) there is no God, then Algernon is simply delusional. Not delusional in a negative way (unless of course he feels the need to accost innocent non-believers on the street with his dogmatic proselytizing). The “voice” is a figment, or by-product, of some sort of brain neuron activity. Or coincidental occurrences are incorrectly misinterpreted as having meaning. In this case, whichever God Algernon wants to choose to believe in is fine and dandy.
If b) there is only one God, then it seems to me that one of two things could be true. Either the God Algernon believes he “hears” is determined by his cultural context (along the lines of “this is what my dad taught me was true”), or God decides to present him(her)self in a manner to be perceived as a particular God. For example, if there is only one God and the only exposure to religion Algernon had prior to his “experience” was Buddhism, then he’d likely perceive the “voice” as the Buddhist God, not as the Christian God. He’d have no context by which to even know what a Christian God would be like.
If c) there are multiple Gods, then perhaps They are all contending for our attention. I suppose whichever one “gets through” to Algernon is the one he’ll perceive and consequently believe in. Or, as tulley so creatively expressed, They are not contending for our attention at all and we just choose the God that seems to best fit our personality.