I hijacked KingCracker's thread and I feel bad... So I decided to create my own.
This thread is to discuss Paganism. If you want to read what I wrote so far about Yule, here it is. My net is still out at home (FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU...), so play nice until I get into work tomorrow. PLEASE!!! I want to play, too! I see this stuff as history, not my personal religion. But there may be some here on this forum that see it as more than just history. Let us be respectful to each other... Please.
What I like about paganism is how people tend to confuse it with atheism. Is so fun when I hear somebody talking about the Greek philosophers and start saying how atheists they were, poor Zeus and crew!
Dude, post a smaller damn picture! That gak is annoying. Ah paganism, truly a hodge podge of insanity and cultural blending. I don't know why people get so excited like, "Oh yay! I am so cool for re-discovering this way awesome religion that is so not existent anymore!" Please people, if you really think that go to India. Almost all of the gods that have ever been worshipped in some form or fashion are represented in Hinduism. It is the only major world religion that IS pagan. On a more interesting note C.S. Lewis was a firm believer that if Christianity was wrong, Hinduism was right. I don't agree with him though. I think that if Christianity is wrong, then Nietzsche is right, but that is just my opinion...
JEB_Stuart wrote:Ah paganism, truly a hodge podge of insanity and cultural blending. I don't know why people get so excited like, "Oh yay! I am so cool for re-discovering this way awesome religion that is so not existent anymore!" Please people, if you really think that go to India. Almost all of the gods that have ever been worshipped in some form or fashion are represented in Hinduism.
People who worship completely unrelated gods are the worst.
No, I'm not going to respect your "religion" if it includes Athena, Thor, Osiris, Quetzalcoatl, and every other god you learned about when you checked out "Mythology for Kids!" from your local library.
That's not a religion. At least the people who say they're Jedis are using one setting.
Talking about archetypes glosses over important cultural differences. The tenor (that's a poor word for it--maybe "meaning" is better--KK is using the phrase "deeper reality") of Norse and Greek mythology are totally different despite both having gods that we (nota bene: that's right us not them) consider to be similar. Actually, Greek and Roman religion were very different despite drawing on a similar images/cultural traditions.
One thing that frustrates me about paganism is how people think that word refers to something particular. The word was used by Christians to mean not-Christians. Most people who talk about "pagans" or being "pagans" are talking about something that was made up in the twentieth century and could not have been "rediscovered" because it never existed in the first place.
I actually agree with the spirit of what Orkeo is saying except I would phrase it less tolerantly. If you're going to believe in something totally ridiculous, might as well go all out! Osiris married to Hera with Thor as their child? Oh, and they're all represented in our holy texts as furries. Also, to convert Orkeo, they all have lightsabers.
Manchu wrote: The word was used by Christians to mean not-Christians. Most people who talk about "pagans" or being "pagans" are talking about something that was made up in the twentieth century and could not have been "rediscovered" because it never existed in the first place.
In the context of Neopaganism the term is usually meant to reference the non-Christian belief systems of Europe. These very clearly existed, and thus are capable of being "rediscovered" in the sense that they are no longer widely followed. Clearly no current follower of a Neopagan belief system is going to produce a faithful recreation of the things which people like the Vikings believes, as there was no concept of orthodoxy as we understand it, but that's really only important if you think orthodoxy is important. Which many people do not.
Manchu wrote:
I actually agree with the spirit of what Orkeo is saying except I would phrase it less tolerantly. If you're going to believe in something totally ridiculous, might as well go all out! Osiris married to Hera with Thor as their child? Oh, and they're all represented in our holy texts as furries. Also, to convert Orkeo, they all have lightsabers.
The best thing about the old gods is that they reflect human nature. The old gods are never looked upon as perfect, they are a mirror image of ourselves, but with powers.
If you're going to believe in something totally ridiculous, might as well go all out!
What, like you guys do? Most 'pagan' belief systems are related to the seasons and human interaction with nature - such things were vitally important for human survival in Iron-Age Britain for example. The whole community would starve if the crop failed - in that context it would make sense to sacrifice or make an offering to some sort of 'God of Crops'.
'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone'.
Christians believe in some pretty strange gak, guy. That's all I'm saying.
Orkeosaurus wrote:People who worship completely unrelated gods are the worst.
No, I'm not going to respect your "religion" if it includes Athena, Thor, Osiris, Quetzalcoatl, and every other god you learned about when you checked out "Mythology for Kids!" from your local library.
Planescape mutha-hugger
I worship the Lady of Pain, the soon to be Mrs Stompa!
Albatross wrote:in that context it would make sense to sacrifice or make an offering to some sort of 'God of Crops'.
Assuming you've got the right logic here (which is far from obvious: I don't know why modern people are so convinced that people from the past think the same way as we do), you think that there is some logical connection between killing an animal and weather conditions?
I'm not entirely convinced that you or several other Dakka users have really taken Christianity seriously enough to know the first thing about it. And before you protest that you have been in a church building more than once in your life, let me say "who cares?"
In any case, I was talking about people who currently identify as "pagan," a word that is used with about as much specificity as the phrase "new age," not the actual people of ages past. (Although I should say that I regard those ancient religions, whatever they were actually like, as barbarous unless I allow myself to romanticize them into something they probably were not.) The fact that you (plural, not just you Alby) are engaging me on other terms indicates that you're not really interested in anything I have to say apart from indicating that you are somehow "open minded" (although poorly informed or simply uneducated seems closer to the point) while I fit your ready-made category of "typical religious bigot." This, coupled with past experience, leads me to believe that actually engaging with you in a discussion about Christianity (still plural here, Alby, and mostly not about you now, and please read this next part in the voice of Rowan Atkinson) would accomplish less than inviting a bottle of furniture polish to share its opinions about Immanuel Kant.
Some pagan beliefs are straight up wacky! The greeks had loads of stories about gods impregnating mortal women who then gave birth as virgins. That's just plain weird--silly pagans!
Frazzled wrote:This thread has nothing to do with Bikers. Frazzled goes off to sulk.
A mention of 40k in OT. I think I just broke all the rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
olympia wrote:Some pagan beliefs are straight up wacky! The greeks had loads of stories about gods impregnating mortal women who then gave birth as virgins. That's just plain weird--silly pagans!
The Winter Solstice is a Minor High Day, usually occuring around December 21st or so of the civil calendar. Also known as Yule and Midwinter, this is a day sacred to Sun, Thunder, and Fire Deities. Large fires were built outdoors and Yule Logs lit indoors, in order to rekindle the dying Sun and help it to return brightly to the Northern skies. Burnt logs and ashes from the Midwinter fires were kept as a talisman against lightning and house fires. It was also a custom in many parts of Paleopagan Europe to decorate live evergreen trees in honor of the Gods (cutting down a tree to bring indoors is a blasphemous desecration of the original concept). This is considered, along with Midsummer, the best day of the year to cut mistletoe. Among some Mediterranean Paleopagans, a date on or near this was celebrated as the Birthday of Mithras and/or the Feast of Saturnalia (which the Christians co-opted to use for the birth of Christ).
The term “Pagan” comes originally from the Latin “paganus,” which appears to have originally had such meanings as “villager,” “country dweller,” or “hick.” The Roman army used it to refer to civilians. The early Roman Christians used “pagan” to refer to everyone who preferred to worship pre-Christian divinities, whom the Christians had decided were all “really” demons in disguise, based on the habit of rural folks holding on to their old faiths longer than city folks, as well as because the polytheists were unwilling to enroll in “the Army of the Lord.” Over the centuries, “pagan” became simply an insult, applied to the monotheistic followers of Islam by the Christians (and vice versa), and by the Protestants and Catholics towards each other, as it gradually gained the connotation of “a false religion and its followers.” By the beginning of the twentieth century, the word’s primary meanings became a blend of “atheist,” “agnostic,” “hedonist,” “religionless,” etc., (when referring to an educated, white, male, heterosexual, non-Celtic European) and “ignorant savage and/or pervert” (when referring to everyone else on the planet).
Today there are many people who proudly call ourselves “Pagan,” and we use the word differently from the ways that most mainstream Westerners do. To most of us, “Paganism” is a general term for polytheistic religions old and new, with “Pagan” used as the adjective as well as the membership term. The overwhelming majority of all the human beings who have ever lived were or are Pagans, and we believe that there is an enormous wealth of spiritual insight and strength to be gained from following a Pagan path. There are three important points to be noted here, however:
Like the members of every other religious community, we Pagans have the right to define ourselves and to demand that our definitions, rather than (or in addition to) those invented by individuals and institutions hostile to us, be quoted or referenced when we are discussed by the mass media.
Like the names of all other religions and their followers, “Pagan” and “Paganism” deserve a capital letter, just as “Buddhist,” “Christian,” “Protestant,” or “Bahai” do.
Like other general terms for religions, “Pagan/Paganism” requires modifying prefixes or adjectives in order to communicate specific approaches, denominations or sects. The following are the ones I have settled upon over the last thirtyfive years:
“Paleopaganism” or “Paleo-Paganism” is a general term for the original polytheistic, nature-centered faiths of tribal Europe, Africa, Asia, the Americas, Oceania and Australia, when they were (or in some rare cases, still are) practiced as intact belief systems. Of the so-called “Great Religions of the World,” Hinduism (prior to the influx of Islam into India), Taoism and Shinto, for example, fall under this category, though many members of these faiths might be reluctant to use the term. Some Paleopagan belief systems may be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. There are billions of Paleopagans living and worshiping their deities today.
“Mesopaganism” or “Meso-Paganism” is a general term for a variety of movements both organized and nonorganized, started as attempts to recreate, revive or continue what their founders thought were the best aspects of the Paleopagan ways of their ancestors (or predecessors), but which were heavily influenced (accidentally, deliberately and/or involuntarily) by concepts and practices from the monotheistic, dualistic, or nontheistic worldviews of Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, or early Buddhism. Examples of Mesopagan belief systems would include Freemasonry, Rosicrucianism, Theosophy, Spiritualism, etc., as well as those forms of Druidism influenced by those movements, the many Afro-Diasporatic faiths (such as Voudoun, Santeria, Candomble, etc.), Sikhism, several sects of Hinduism that have been influenced by Islam and Christianity, Mahayana Buddhism, Aleister Crowley’s religion/philosophy of Thelema, Odinism (some Norse Paganism), most “Family Traditions” of Witchcraft (those that aren’t completely fake), and most orthodox (aka “British Traditionalist”) denominations of Wicca.
Also included as Mesopagans would be the so-called “Christo-Pagans,” those who call themselves “monotheist Pagans,” and perhaps those Satanists who worship the Egyptian deity Set, if there really are any. The Satanists who insist that they don’t worship anything other than themselves but who like to use the name Satan because it’s “scary,” are simply Christian heretics, along with the Secular Humanists and other Western atheists, because the God and Devil they don’t believe in are the ones defined by Christian doctrine. Some Mesopagan belief systems may be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. There are at least a billion Mesopagans living and worshiping their deities today.
“Neopaganism” or “Neo-Paganism” is a general term for a variety of movements both organized and (usually) nonorganized, started since 1960 c.e. or so (though they had literary roots going back to the mid-1800’s), as attempts to recreate, revive or continue what their founders thought were the best aspects of the Paleopagan ways of their ancestors (or predecessors), blended with modern humanistic, pluralist and inclusionary ideals, while consciously striving to eliminate as much as possible of the traditional Western monotheism, dualism, and puritanism. The core Neopagan beliefs include a multiplicity of deities of all genders, a perception of those deities as both immanent and transcendent, a commitment to environmental awareness, and a willingness to perform magical as well as spiritual rituals to help both ourselves and others. Examples of Neopaganism would include the Church of All Worlds, most heterodox Wiccan traditions, Druidism as practiced by Ár nDraíocht Féin and the Henge of Keltria, some Norse Paganism, and some modern forms of Buddhism whose members refer to themselves as “Buddheo-Pagans.” Neopagan belief systems are not racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. There are hundreds of thousands of Neopagans living and worshiping their deities today. As “Neo-Paganism,” this term was popularized in the 1960’s and 1970’s by Oberon Zell, a founder of the Church of All Worlds.
The term “Neopaganism” has nothing to do with the Catholic Church’s recent use of “neo-paganism” to refer to Hitler’s Germanic Mesopaganism, which incorporated nineteen centuries of Christian anti-semitism and dualism. Hitler, after all, considered himself a good Christian and was perceived as such by many, if not most, German Christians at the time. The Catholic Church is simply trying to distract attention away from its responsibility for creating the Western cultural environment that dehumanized Jews, and from its pathetic record in opposing the Holocaust while it was going on (not to mention the value to the Church in trashing competing new religions by associating us with the Nazis).
These three prefixed terms do not delineate clear-cut categories. Historically, there is often a period, whether of decades or centuries, when Paleopaganism is blending into Mesopaganism, or Mesopaganism into Neopaganism. Furthermore, the founders and members of Mesopagan and Neopagan groups frequently prefer to believe (or at least declare) that they are genuinely Paleopagan in beliefs and practices. This “myth of continuity” is in keeping with the habits of most creators and members of new religions throughout human existence, and should not be taken too seriously.
When doing searching on the Net, you should be aware that some people do and some don’t hyphenate these terms, especially “Neo-Paganism,” that many Neopagans drop the “Neo-” entirely (especially in casual use), and that many outsiders refuse to capitalize the names of our religions. More confusingly, many Mesopagans and Paleopagans refuse to use the term “Pagan” for themselves at all, having accepted the mainstream Christian definitions. One sign of progress, however, occured when the publishers of Hinduism Today — a fabulous monthly journal published in a dozen languages around the globe — printed an editorial a few years back in which they proudly accepted the term “Pagan” on behalf of the one billion Hindus in the world!
Obviously, the use of this vocabulary is currently in flux, and you may need to try variant spellings, capitalizations, and hyphenizations to find what you’re looking for.
Some of this material is taken from my Pagan Glossary of Terms, elsewhere on my website. I will eventually have a page here listing definitions for Paganism and Neopaganism written by other Pagan authors and groups.
Is having access to this material worth a few dollars, punts, pounds, or euros to you? Click the button to make a fast and secure donation to Isaac and Phaedra Bonewits, so they can afford to keep this website going and growing! Or you can suggest to your local Occult/New Age bookstore that they bring him and/or her out for one of his or her colorful presentations, or you could visit their Blatant Hucksterism Page, or you could just send money to them at PO Box 1010, Nyack, NY, USA 10960-8010.
Assuming you've got the right logic here (which is far from obvious: I don't know why modern people are so convinced that people from the past think the same way as we do), you think that there is some logical connection between killing an animal and weather conditions?
There is no logical connection whatsoever - neither is it logical to believe that Jesus died for my sins, or that God even exists at all. That's my point. I know a little bit about early pre-christian religious practice in Britain - much of it seems to have been related to the seasons and their immediate environment, as well as fertility. Let's not start flaming each other.
I'm not entirely convinced that you or several other Dakka users have really taken Christianity seriously enough to know the first thing about it. And before you protest that you have been in a church building more than once in your life, let me say "who cares?"
Nice assumption - I was however raised Catholic - church, sunday school, the whole nine yards.
In any case, I was talking about people who currently identify as "pagan," a word that is used with about as much specificity as the phrase "new age," not the actual people of ages past. (Although I should say that I regard those ancient religions, whatever they were actually like, as barbarous unless I allow myself to romanticize them into something they probably were not.) The fact that you (plural, not just you Alby) are engaging me on other terms indicates that you're not really interested in anything I have to say apart from indicating that you are somehow "open minded" (although poorly informed or simply uneducated seems closer to the point) while I fit your ready-made category of "typical religious bigot." This, coupled with past experience, leads me to believe that actually engaging with you in a discussion about Christianity (still plural here, Alby, and mostly not about you now, and please read this next part in the voice of Rowan Atkinson) would accomplish less than inviting a bottle of furniture polish to share its opinions about Immanuel Kant.
I never said you were a bigot - I've NEVER said or implied that. I'm merely saying 'judge not, lest ye be judged'. I agree that there is a certain amount of 'pick-and-choose' as far as modern 'Paganism' is concerned - Wicca is an area of interest for me, as it's modern incarnation is (in part) derived from Old Irish (and British, in the wider sense) religious tradition - but it's not a belief system I subscribe to. One could argue that the same criticisms could apply to Mormonism and The Jehova's Witnesses. You could also argue that it applied to Christianity, given it's relationship to Judaeism. As for barbarism - sacrifice is a feature of early religion, simple fact. Personally, I think one could regard Christianity, Islam and Judaeism as 'barbaric' as they belong to an earlier, less sophisticated and more superstitious time. I'm not judging or attacking anyone here - that's just the way I see it. Please try not to be offended.
Manchu - please don't make assumptions about my level of intelligence or education, you know absolutely nothing about me apart from what you may have read on this Tabletop Wargaming website. At the end of the day, your religion (you are Christian, correct?) requires substantial leaps of faith to believe certain things are possible, or that certain events took place - I was merely pointing out that this being the case, perhaps it's a little unwise to criticise other people's belief systems. Such actions only ever lead to
'Flame-Jihad' (I love that term, I'm nicking it ).
Trent also sang "My God pouts on the cover of a magazine". So in the pantheon of NIN, you can also worship celebrities. You might be able to thus convince one of them to give you money.
I like saints being catholic is awesome there's a saint for everything.
VITUS
Also known as
Guy
Memorial
15 June; restricted to local calendars since 1969
Profile
Legend says Vitus was the son of a Sicilian senator; Christian at age twelve. Preacher. Miracle worker. Valerian had him arrested and tried to break his faith; he failed. Vitus and some of his household fled to Rome where he freed Emperor Diocletian's son of an evil spirit. Vitus would not sacrifice to the gods, and his cure was attributed to sorcery. Arrested again, this time with the household he had brought with him. Tortured. Freed from prison during a storm in which temples were destroyed; an angel led them back to Lucania. One of the Fourteen Holy Helpers.
For obscure reasons, some 16th century Germans believed they could obtain a year's good health by dancing before the statue of Saint Vitus on his feast day. This dancing developed almost into a mania, and was confused with chorea, the nervous condition later known as Saint Vitus' dance, the saint being invoked against it.
Additional Information
Catholic Online
Died
martyred c.303 in Luciana
Patronage
actors, against animal attacks, against dog bites, against lightening, against storms, comedians, Czechoslovakia, dancers, dog bites, dogs, epilepsy, epileptics, lightening, Saint Vitus dance nervous disorders, snake bites, storms
Prayer to Saint Vitus
Dear Vitus, the one thing we are certain about is that you died a martyr's death. In early times, churches were dedicated to you in important places. In the Middle Ages, your intercession obtained cures from epilepsy so that this disease came to be called "Saint Vitus' Dance". Inspire comedians to make people dance with laughter and so bear goodwill toward one another. Amen.
Automatically Appended Next Post: His saint day is easy for me to remember because its my birthday!
Albatross wrote:in that context it would make sense to sacrifice or make an offering to some sort of 'God of Crops'.
Assuming you've got the right logic here (which is far from obvious: I don't know why modern people are so convinced that people from the past think the same way as we do), you think that there is some logical connection between killing an animal and weather conditions?
I'm not entirely convinced that you or several other Dakka users have really taken Christianity seriously enough to know the first thing about it. And before you protest that you have been in a church building more than once in your life, let me say "who cares?"
In any case, I was talking about people who currently identify as "pagan," a word that is used with about as much specificity as the phrase "new age," not the actual people of ages past. (Although I should say that I regard those ancient religions, whatever they were actually like, as barbarous unless I allow myself to romanticize them into something they probably were not.) The fact that you (plural, not just you Alby) are engaging me on other terms indicates that you're not really interested in anything I have to say apart from indicating that you are somehow "open minded" (although poorly informed or simply uneducated seems closer to the point) while I fit your ready-made category of "typical religious bigot." This, coupled with past experience, leads me to believe that actually engaging with you in a discussion about Christianity (still plural here, Alby, and mostly not about you now, and please read this next part in the voice of Rowan Atkinson) would accomplish less than inviting a bottle of furniture polish to share its opinions about Immanuel Kant.
and let it not be forgotten that christmas and easter were placed on 'pagan' holy days to allow for easier conversion of the masses, going to a church of england school i have been taught and read the bible (not all of it) and many parallels can be drawn from that holy text to many other pagan belief systems, they are a guide to living in thart culture, people haven't changed much in 2000 years (just there external pool of knowledge and understanding) but their enviroments have, so the belief systems have changed over time. the old religions off the world are mostly polytheism in nature but it seems no different to modern monothiesisms (a single god representing all parts)
i feel its just a cycle, religions are created and then they fade, or murge with other religions and new ones better suited to the world replace them
The conversion to Christianity has to go down as one of the biggest cons on the planet. New religion comes along and tells you about their wonderful God, he's not so violent as their Gods. no need to make sacrifices, he cares about you... conversion done. Then the real part kicks in. They forget to mention the whole "suffering" bit, that to be really loved by God you have to spend your whole life being miserable and that to sin is the greatest crime against God... unless you make a suitable donation to your local Clergy, then all is forgiven.
Mannahnin wrote:Trent also sang "My God pouts on the cover of a magazine". So in the pantheon of NIN, you can also worship celebrities. You might be able to thus convince one of them to give you money.
If you happen to look at that song out of context .
Da Boss wrote:This thread annoys me because apparently those who can dish it out can't take it.
Yes, its funny how that works.
olympia wrote:
They have that in Catholicism too--they're called Saints
Yes, yes they do.
Though, to be fair, the saints are not gods in the sense that Christians use the word God. They are, however, very much analogous to gods in the sense that Pagans, Hindus, and other polytheists use the word god.
dogma wrote:There isn't any. That's the nature of faith.
Well I wouldn't totally agree to that. Although a healthy dose of faith is required.
Some would say that the mere fact that we exist is "proof", and that was sufficient for most people, up until the 19th century.
The fact that we exist on this planet, and our planet is specifically located in just the right spot in the universe for life to exist, is what I'm talking about. (Before the conniption fits start, I know a person can take the view that this proves nothing, but it doesn't mean that another point of view may disagree)
Also the new theory of "irreducible complexity" proposed by Dr. Micheal Behe is a sign that the creation science is catching up to evolutionary science, when it comes to the debate regarding intelligent design.
GG
p.s. you can google irreducible complexity, and get many hits so I don't feel the need to give a science lecture on it.
p.p.s. here we go again it seems all roads lead to this topic....sigh
Irreducible complexity was demolished almost as soon as it came out. Intelligent Design is a deliberately deceptive disguise for creationism, and there's almost no science in it at all, despite a couple of otherwise intelligent people (like Behe) being involved in it.
While I give thanks to the gods for our existence, and believe they gave the "spark" in the beginning of life, I sure don't deny Evolution.
dogma wrote:There isn't any. That's the nature of faith.
Well I wouldn't totally agree to that. Although a healthy dose of faith is required.
Some would say that the mere fact that we exist is "proof", and that was sufficient for most people, up until the 19th century.
The fact that we exist on this planet, and our planet is specifically located in just the right spot in the universe for life to exist, is what I'm talking about. (Before the conniption fits start, I know a person can take the view that this proves nothing, but it doesn't mean that another point of view may disagree)
Also the new theory of "irreducible complexity" proposed by Dr. Micheal Behe is a sign that the creation science is catching up to evolutionary science, when it comes to the debate regarding intelligent design.
GG
p.s. you can google irreducible complexity, and get many hits so I don't feel the need to give a science lecture on it.
p.p.s. here we go again it seems all roads lead to this topic....sigh
All roads only lead to this topic if you keep on bringing it up mate.
Though, it'd help if you'd do some reading on what the scientific method is. Cheers.
Da Boss wrote:All roads only lead to this topic if you keep on bringing it up mate.
Though, it'd help if you'd do some reading on what the scientific method is. Cheers.
He asked for proof. While I agree that it's a pretty silly question, and would prefer he had not soiled this thread with it, that's not the same thing as launching an evolution discussion.
Irreducible complexity was demolished almost as soon as it came out.
So just pasting a link to talkorigins proves that it was demolished.....Hardly.
I love how people make bombastic claims like this or that was demolished or absurd, etc.etc. when they don't know what they are talking about.
GG
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote:He asked for proof. While I agree that it's a pretty silly question, and would prefer he had not soiled this thread with it, that's not the same thing as launching an evolution discussion.
GG, please feel free to read any of the articles there. Or speak to virtually any biologist. Or pick up the very nice little book, "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne.
Let's drop Creationism vs Evolution. They are only opposed if you are someone who believes in the literal truth of the bible. The topic has been flame warred about many times before.
Back to an earlier query, would the Buddha count as a god or higher being?
generalgrog wrote:It's amazing what you can learn on the OT.
That is what compels me to talk about it. Growing up Mormon, I was taught how Joseph Smith walked into the wilderness and fasted to seek the answers to his existential questions. I use Google and forums while eating Cheeze-Its and drinking Mountain Dew.
JD21290 wrote:Since we are actually going on about more than just a single religion here, ill drop in a Q. for anyone to answer.
Well, when we talk about Christianity, we are discussing more than one denomination... Catholic, Protestant, Seventh Day Adventist, Methodist, Anglicanism, Presbyterianism, Baptists, Pentecostalism, Latter Day Saints... I can keep going, but I am bored. Here, read this for more.
Show me proof that a god or greater being does exist.
I spoke with a coworker and he says there is DEFINITE proof good exists... It can be found here. Hurr durr hurr durp durp durp... Seriously, though:
Some dude on the internet wrote:"Prove to me that God exists." That's the famous challenge an atheist casts at a theist. The defender of the faith now runs through a list of reasons and arguments that make perfect sense to anybody... except to the atheist. Frustrated, the theist lashes back, "Prove to me that God doesn't exist." Now it's the challenger's turn to turn red with anger. "You don't understand the scientific method. The onus is on you to prove God!"
And so they go, back and forth, conference after conference, century after century. How many times have we seen the scene? A thousand? A million? Is there a solution to this dilemma? Can we break the impasse and move on?
Well, let's look at something a little less emotionally charged and more obvious than God. Can you prove the existence of THIS chair? What experiment would you propose we run? Or what logic are we going to apply to test the hypothesis? Should we touch the chair with our hands or will visual contact suffice? What if the blind man can't see the chair? What if the quadriplegic can't sense it with her fingers? Does the chair vanish? Does it not exist? Does your existence depend on my senses? Did the Sun not exist before life appeared on Earth?
We can brainstorm questions and answers all year long and won't come up with an experiment or test that will satisfy everybody. And all proposals will nonetheless end up being subjective.
How about evidence? That seems to be a sure way. Doesn't a large, fossilized bone objectively prove that T-Rex existed?
So now the theist changes tactics and lists evidence in favor of God. "Look at the wonders that God wrought. Look at the beauty of the mountains and oceans, the perfection of a starfish, the delightful smell of flowers. If that isn't proof of God's existence..."
The atheist is unpersuaded and comes up with an impromptu list of contrary evidence. "Yeah? Look at the misery and war and pestilence that God also showered upon us. Either God doesn't exist or He must be blind or evil!"
And so they continue for hours.
When it comes to matters of proof, Science is quite unlike Law. For instance, testimony -- a hallmark of Law -- is totally inadmissible in Science, for else Science would deteriorate into a subjective discipline. And the purpose of material evidence is political rather than to prove. Evidence is used to sway the jury in the prosecutor's favor, to lend support to the proponent's argument. It does not prove a theory. We certainly cannot prove existence indirectly or by inference. Proof by implication of a qualitative issue is necessarily founded upon opinion.
For instance, are footprints proof of the existence of Big Foot? Do crop circles prove the existence of extraterrestrial aliens?
Footprints and crop circles merely serve to persuade the listener that the presenter can back the instant theory with more than just words. However, the same evidence can just as well be used to justify alternative explanations.
Therefore, a fossil does not prove that T-Rexes existed. A large femur is just that: a bone. The prosecutor is not really arguing that the bone proves the existence of a dinosaur any more than the presence of iridium proves their non-existence. The prosecutor attempts to convince the jury that there is a rational explanation for this bone to be found within a particular cross-section of the Earth's crust. And whether the animal lived 65 million years ago or looked like the picture the artist reconstructed after faithfully following the paleontologist's guidelines is again a matter of theory. The alleged architectures and behaviors and clades of dinosaurs have changed over the years as more evidence and ideas have poured in. Evidence is not per se an explanation, much less conclusive, but rather what the theorist attempts to interpret. And existence is not something we explain (theory), but something we define and assume (hypothesis) in order to explain.
Anyway, all this is muddying up what I was promised would be a Pagan thread. As a Pagan, I reserve the right to diverge off-topic if I so desire in "The Pagan Thread", but I'd rather stay on topic.
Seriously, guys... I wanted this to be a discussion about Paganism. A broad topic, I know. But I left it broad so the thread can discuss many things and not stray drastically OT. Creationism vs. Evolution is a little off topic.
The reason I created this thread is because I like to study ALL religions. I like to make informed decisions about serious topics. Like stated before, all religions are very similar when observed objectively. Which is why I find it so silly that we FIGHT over it in the first place... In this forum, in real life, and in wars that span the globe.
All four of these guys are VERY similar. They are all operating systems. They all have boot cycles, user interfaces, command lines and programs. They also all have bugs. You cannot deny the fact they all have bugs. You also cannot deny the fact that they have useful functions. As an amateur computer scientist, they all interest me, and I use the one that makes the most sense for what I am doing.
Video Editing: Mac Home made DVR: Linux Video Games: PC General use: any will do
I have the same outlook on religion. I embrace ideals (NOT beliefs) from all religions if they make sense to me. Yes, that means I pick and choose. Yes, I know that is unorthodox. No, I don't care if some say they don't mesh. To me they do. That is all I need.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote:Anyway, all this is muddying up what I was promised would be a Pagan thread. As a Pagan, I reserve the right to diverge off-topic if I so desire in "The Pagan Thread", but I'd rather stay on topic.
QFT
So, how about them Druids? Also, Blue moon on Dec. 31st. w00t!!!
Is there a huge amount of evidence that shows that there has always been conflict where religion is concerned? It seems to me that there wasn't, it was only when one God was introduced that this happened.
Here's another thing... The bible is made up of two parts, the Old Testament & the New Testament. The Old Testament I believe is shared by Jews, Christian's & Muslims (or rough there abouts). After Jesus is born, it fragments, you get the two new religions, Christianity & Islam. These two "new" religions appear to be the ones causing the problems. The Jews are happy to fight for their corner and their homeland, not go out and shove their religion down other peoples throats. Christianity & Islam are hell bent (excuse the pun ) on giving the rest of the planet grief over who we should believe in!
The old Pagan religions seem to get along without any problems either, it doesn't appear to of made any difference to them. Vikings, Romans, Greeks, Indians and Jews lived, loved and made money. Who you worshipped didn't matter to them. At least to the old world races they were honest about bashing you over the head and taking your money or land... you had it, they wanted it. If they could trade, fine, if they could steal, even better and if they could defeat you in a fight, brilliant, but they didn't do it because of their God's. As I write this I do see a similarity between the worship of the old God's and capitalism. You have the worshippers or want to just get on with life, with their God / Government there in the background, setting out guidelines and some rules. However they would prefer it if God/God's/Government didn't stick their nose in too much!
There were plenty of wars unconcerned with religion before the advent of monotheism.
The Persians were major monotheists (Zoroastrianism) and fought many wars. They were also very religiously tolerant.
The Jews, according to the Old Testament, were often involved in wars sometimes because of their religion and sometimes because other people attacked them.
I think the link between religion and war is pretty weak.
I don't think you can realistically make religion in general or any particular religion a major cause of war. Usually war has to do with territory and resources.
Did ancient pre-christian societies have those? Yup. Did they make war? Yup.
Da Boss wrote:This thread annoys me because apparently those who can dish it out can't take it.
QFT! I find it on both sides of this argument, and it is usually caused by either ignorant or childish people.
Kilkrazy wrote:Let's drop Creationism vs Evolution. They are only opposed if you are someone who believes in the literal truth of the bible. The topic has been flame warred about many times before.
Can we please do this? This argument is so old, especially since neither side knows what they are talking about. No not every Christian is a Creationist, and yes theistic evolution is completely possible.
Kilkrazy wrote:Back to an earlier query, would the Buddha count as a god or higher being?
Neither. Siddhartha Gautama considered himself to be merely an enlightened man. The modern deification of his person would surely annoy him.
tblock1984 wrote:I spoke with a coworker and he says there is DEFINITE proof good exists... It can be found here. Hurr durr hurr durp durp durp... Seriously, though:
Your coworker is a fool. Anyone who makes claims like that is truly foolish.
tblock1984 wrote:And so they go, back and forth, conference after conference, century after century. How many times have we seen the scene? A thousand? A million? Is there a solution to this dilemma? Can we break the impasse and move on?
The burden of proof or disproof is on neither of them. It requires a great deal of faith to believe either way. That is due to our own incomplete and pathetic knowledge of the universe.
Wolfstan wrote:Is there a huge amount of evidence that shows that there has always been conflict where religion is concerned? It seems to me that there wasn't, it was only when one God was introduced that this happened.
Holy crap have you read a history book at all? Or are you intentionally forgetting, well, a bunch of damn wars before the advent of Judeo-Christendom?
Wolfstan wrote:Here's another thing... The bible is made up of two parts, the Old Testament & the New Testament. The Old Testament I believe is shared by Jews, Christian's & Muslims (or rough there abouts). After Jesus is born, it fragments, you get the two new religions, Christianity & Islam. These two "new" religions appear to be the ones causing the problems. The Jews are happy to fight for their corner and their homeland, not go out and shove their religion down other peoples throats. Christianity & Islam are hell bent (excuse the pun ) on giving the rest of the planet grief over who we should believe in!
Your understanding of reality borders on the criminally negligent.
Wolfstan wrote:The old Pagan religions seem to get along without any problems either, it doesn't appear to of made any difference to them. Vikings, Romans, Greeks, Indians and Jews lived, loved and made money. Who you worshiped didn't matter to them. At least to the old world races they were honest about bashing you over the head and taking your money or land... you had it, they wanted it. If they could trade, fine, if they could steal, even better and if they could defeat you in a fight, brilliant, but they didn't do it because of their God's. As I write this I do see a similarity between the worship of the old God's and capitalism. You have the worshipers or want to just get on with life, with their God / Government there in the background, setting out guidelines and some rules. However they would prefer it if God/God's/Government didn't stick their nose in too much!
Ugh, I haven't been so unsettled by historical fallacy since I saw the movie 300. They did NOT "live, love and make money" as you put it. They were human after all, and they killed thousands upon thousands of people! Caesar himself slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Helvetii as they tried to leave what is now Switzerland, and that was only one tribe of barbarians! Please, please, please, for the love of God please, learn history before you make ridiculous posts like this. Bad history makes JEB sad...
tblock1984 wrote:I spoke with a coworker and he says there is DEFINITE proof good exists... It can be found here. Hurr durr hurr durp durp durp... Seriously, though:
Your coworker is a fool. Anyone who makes claims like that is truly foolish.
I knew that would happen.
LOL
I was asked for a "snarky" response to that as a ridiculous question. That said, anyone who takes that sort of response seriously is a fool.
The term “Pagan” comes originally from the Latin “paganus,” which appears to have originally had such meanings as “villager,” “country dweller,” or “hick.” The Roman army used it to refer to civilians. The early Roman Christians used “pagan” to refer to everyone who preferred to worship pre-Christian divinities, whom the Christians had decided were all “really” demons in disguise, based on the habit of rural folks holding on to their old faiths longer than city folks, as well as because the polytheists were unwilling to enroll in “the Army of the Lord.” Over the centuries, “pagan” became simply an insult, applied to the monotheistic followers of Islam by the Christians (and vice versa), and by the Protestants and Catholics towards each other, as it gradually gained the connotation of “a false religion and its followers.” By the beginning of the twentieth century, the word’s primary meanings became a blend of “atheist,” “agnostic,” “hedonist,” “religionless,” etc., (when referring to an educated, white, male, heterosexual, non-Celtic European) and “ignorant savage and/or pervert” (when referring to everyone else on the planet).
Wolfstan wrote:Is there a huge amount of evidence that shows that there has always been conflict where religion is concerned? It seems to me that there wasn't, it was only when one God was introduced that this happened.
Here's another thing... The bible is made up of two parts, the Old Testament & the New Testament. The Old Testament I believe is shared by Jews, Christian's & Muslims (or rough there abouts). After Jesus is born, it fragments, you get the two new religions, Christianity & Islam. These two "new" religions appear to be the ones causing the problems. The Jews are happy to fight for their corner and their homeland, not go out and shove their religion down other peoples throats. Christianity & Islam are hell bent (excuse the pun ) on giving the rest of the planet grief over who we should believe in!
The old Pagan religions seem to get along without any problems either, it doesn't appear to of made any difference to them. Vikings, Romans, Greeks, Indians and Jews lived, loved and made money. Who you worshipped didn't matter to them. At least to the old world races they were honest about bashing you over the head and taking your money or land... you had it, they wanted it. If they could trade, fine, if they could steal, even better and if they could defeat you in a fight, brilliant, but they didn't do it because of their God's. As I write this I do see a similarity between the worship of the old God's and capitalism. You have the worshippers or want to just get on with life, with their God / Government there in the background, setting out guidelines and some rules. However they would prefer it if God/God's/Government didn't stick their nose in too much!
I said I find it silly that we fight over it in the first place, and stated I have seen such arguments in this forum, in real life, and in war. It was a generalization. I never once said "THIS IS THE REASON WAR HAPPENS!" but "War has happened because of this."
I will however answer you question:
Wiki wrote:A religious war is a war caused by religious differences. It can involve one state with an established religion against another state with a different religion or a different sect within the same religion, or a religiously motivated group attempting to spread its faith by violence, or to suppress another group because of its religious beliefs or practices. The Muslim Conquests, the French Wars of Religion, the Crusades, and the Reconquista are frequently cited historical examples.
The Muslim concept of Jihad,which translates to 'struggle' from Arabic and has a combative aspect, was set down in the 7th Century. Saint Augustine is credited as being the first to detail a "Just War" theory within Christianity, whereby war is justifiable on religious grounds. Saint Thomas Aquinas elaborated on these criteria and his writings were used by the Roman Catholic Church to regulate the actions of European countries.
Many wars that are not religious wars often still include elements of religion, such as priests blessing battleships. Differences in religion can further inflame a war being fought for other reasons. Historically, temples have been destroyed to weaken the morale of the opponent, even when the war itself is not being waged over religious ideals.
Religious designations are sometimes used as shorthand for cultural and historical differences between combatants, giving the often misleading impression that the conflict is primarily about religious differences. For example, there is a common perception of The Troubles in Northern Ireland as a religious conflict, as one side (Nationalists) was predominantly composed of Catholics and the other (Unionists) of Protestants. However, the more fundamental cause is the attachment of Northern Ireland to either the Republic of Ireland or the United Kingdom and while religion played a role as a cultural marker, the conflict was in fact ethnic or nationalistic rather than religious in nature.[1] Since the native Irish were mostly Catholic and the later British-sponsored immigrants were mainly Protestant, the terms become shorthand for the two cultures, but it is inaccurate to describe the conflict as a religious one.
I think that answers your question and explains why you asked it in the first place. I am not trying to be a dick, but the cause of a war can be just as ambiguous as why other people fight for it. It is all perspective. Some fight for God, some fight for their families, others fight for the thrill and honor. Every one is different. But I cannot help but notice a common denominator, even if the logic behind it is skewed by misinterpretation and fallacies.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Da Boss wrote:This thread annoys me because apparently those who can dish it out can't take it.
QFT! I find it on both sides of this argument, and it is usually caused by either ignorant or childish people.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
tblock1984 wrote:I spoke with a coworker and he says there is DEFINITE proof good exists... It can be found here. Hurr durr hurr durp durp durp... Seriously, though:
Your coworker is a fool. Anyone who makes claims like that is truly foolish.
Sorry, dude... I forgot that part you told me in the break room... That little addendum you said to put at the end of that statement.... Mah Bahd! I thought my Hurr durr hurr alone would let people know I was being sarcastic... That is also "my bad" for making assumptions...
JEB_Stuart wrote:
tblock1984 wrote:And so they go, back and forth, conference after conference, century after century. How many times have we seen the scene? A thousand? A million? Is there a solution to this dilemma? Can we break the impasse and move on?
The burden of proof or disproof is on neither of them. It requires a great deal of faith to believe either way. That is due to our own incomplete and pathetic knowledge of the universe.
...is that a counter point or an agreement? That is pretty much what I was trying to say.
generalgrog wrote:
The fact that we exist on this planet, and our planet is specifically located in just the right spot in the universe for life to exist, is what I'm talking about. (Before the conniption fits start, I know a person can take the view that this proves nothing, but it doesn't mean that another point of view may disagree)
What you're discussing is evidence, not proof. Proof is the preponderance of evidence which forces the acceptance of a statement as true. If a given piece of evidence can be subject to multiple interpretations, then that piece of evidence can prove nothing (except via elimination: ie prove that something is impossible) without additional support.
My two pennies worth- first off I would not call myself a christian or a pagan or a follower of any major world religion. Most of the rituals todays pagans follow are based on what Victorians thought happened in the past (look at Stone Henge each solstice and morris dancing), the thought is there but its more show than religion. Unfortunately as the old religions died out or were incorperated into other religions they were lost forever (yes I know there are plenty of theories out there but no real hard evidence. Its also worth noting that the written evidence from the past were written by the religious people who were trying to take over the pagan religions so we have a very biased view of them that way as well).
As for sacrificing, anyone modern pagan who thinks killing a goat to appease their 'gods' needs to be locked up! Sacrificing a goat/other animal in Iron age times was a big deal, it gave you sustenance (milk, cheese, meat) it also clothed you with its skin. If a modern day pagan wanted to do the equivelant they should buy their weeks/months (depending on how much they wanted to appease) food and clothing then throw it on a bonfire as a sacrifice to their gods.
The only thing I really believe in is that everyone should have the right to belive what they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone or anything and they don't try to force it on others.
Mick
Mick A wrote:My two pennies worth- first off I would not call myself a christian or a pagan or a follower of any major world religion. Most of the rituals todays pagans follow are based on what Victorians thought happened in the past (look at Stone Henge each solstice and morris dancing), the thought is there but its more show than religion. Unfortunately as the old religions died out or were incorperated into other religions they were lost forever (yes I know there are plenty of theories out there but no real hard evidence. Its also worth noting that the written evidence from the past were written by the religious people who were trying to take over the pagan religions so we have a very biased view of them that way as well).
As for sacrificing, anyone modern pagan who thinks killing a goat to appease their 'gods' needs to be locked up! Sacrificing a goat/other animal in Iron age times was a big deal, it gave you sustenance (milk, cheese, meat) it also clothed you with its skin. If a modern day pagan wanted to do the equivelant they should buy their weeks/months (depending on how much they wanted to appease) food and clothing then throw it on a bonfire as a sacrifice to their gods.
The only thing I really believe in is that everyone should have the right to belive what they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone or anything and they don't try to force it on others.
Mick
Those are the most well spent two cents I have heard in a while...
Mick, I posted some informative links above. You might be interested in checking them out. Some of what you're talking about is exactly what we call Mesopagan traditions.
Your take on sacrifice is pretty solid. I don’t think you can so easily dismiss modern animal sacrifice, though. Some Hindus do this quite a lot, and they’re not the only ones.
Neopagan Druids have abandoned blood sacrifice, though. That’s one of our modern updates, based on modern morality, along with stuff like egalitarianism. My group fairly commonly includes the offering of products of our gardens, though. And I’ve seen bigger ones. You’re right that the point of sacrifice is really that it’s supposed be a sacrifice- a loss- something you’ll feel. Something that you invested effort into. At one major initiation ceremony I attended, one of the people being initiated had carved a large wooden disk with a beautiful elaborate knotwork design, and offered it to the gods by sacrificing it in the fire. It was very moving. He honored them through the sacrifice of his work and his art.
Kilkrazy wrote:If you read up about the old religions you quickly find the same archetypes in all of them: the war god, the mother god, the trickster god, and so on.
Why should those not be the same real gods with different back stories in the different religions?
I agree with you and on that note many religions also reference a great flood. There is evidence to support that ancient Greek mythology was based upon the Wykan. You can also find references to Wykan in the new testament, it's definitely there. While the Hindu religion is based on paganism actually Vishnu, Brahma and Shiva are three different aspects of the same god. Some claim that Buddha was an avatar of Vishnu. It's all very interesting to say the least.
I dig Neo-Pagansim. I do not follow the rituals (except for wish wheels), but I do consider myself Druid (well, part druid) because I embrace the Universal Shamanic Truths. I see them more like rough guide lines I try to keep in mind in my day to day life. They are ideas, not beliefs. Taken from Advanced Celtic Shamanism by D J Conway, page 152.
It is analogous to say that in the Codex of my life, these are like the stat lines, you know, the stuff that matters. The rules for playing the game... Everything else (rituals, history, runes, magic talismans, spells, magik) is fluff... It can be very cool and interesting, but it is not relevant to me leading my life.
Evil To worship God One, For Life Is Composed of Cubed Opposites -AntiOne.
Simple Cube Divinity is the most perfect and life supporting form existing in the universe and on Earth - including Earth itself. Do you realize that a 4 corner square rotating 1/4 turn creates a full circle? A full rotated square will create 16 corners, 96 hours and 4 simultaneous 24 hour Day circles within only a single imaginary cubed Earth roation. This amounts to a spiraling quad helix of Earth as it revolves around the Sun - rotating as it revolves around the Sun, to induce the value of the Sun revolving about the Earth. This act demonstrates that both Sun and Earth rotate around each other simultaneously - thus creating Opposites existing only as Opposites with a zero value existence between the binary and cancelling to nothing as One or God theism. All Creation occurs between Opposites, and exists only as Opposites - with a zero value existence. As One or as a Godism, all Opposite values cancel out to nothing. The Circle you see around Earth divides Earth into Opposite values equal to a zero existence. As One or God, both Earth and Human cancel to nothing. The whole of the Universe is composed of Opposites - with a zero value existence - that camcels to nothing as One or a God. Humans worship ONEness of DEATH, thus they are destroying the LIFE of all Opposites by which all Creation exists. I have found Evil lies in the Bible that will rock religious and academic values to their primitive origin. There is no Human or God who can match my Cube Wisdom as a Cube Phenomenoligist - The Cube God Measurer. While the Circle of Earth rotation is a perpetual enbodiment as it is void of the Corner Time notches that accumulate as aging Life for the 4 corner residents. Have you mentality to know 4 Days rotating simultaneously on Earth?
Evil To worship God One, For Life Is Composed of Cubed Opposites -AntiOne. ... While the Circle of Earth rotation is a perpetual enbodiment as it is void of the Corner Time notches that accumulate as aging Life for the 4 corner residents. Have you mentality to know 4 Days rotating simultaneously on Earth?
...jaw drop...
That is deeper than the Mariana Trench. I dig it! High five!!!
None of that really corresponds to my Druidic practice, but I'm DANA, former ADF. We're a bit Celtic Reconstructionist in bent; not so much with the theosophy or ceremonial magic.
GBF- Ah, haven't seen that spelling before. I am familiar with that. My mother was Wiccan (Daughters from the late 60s until she joined ADF in the 80s.
Mannahnin wrote:None of that really corresponds to my Druidic practice, but I'm DANA, former ADF. We're a bit Celtic Reconstructionist in bent; not so much with the theosophy or ceremonial magic.
GBF- Ah, haven't seen that spelling before. I am familiar with that. My mother was Wiccan (Daughters from the late 60s until she joined ADF in the 80s.
Cool. I am interested to learn more. I am not really affiliated with any group. I just really did the mindset. I call it copy pasta religion. Find creeds that you like from all religions and copy and paste them together.
If anything, I would think that the entire possibility of life stood a chance of being 'planted' early in Earths history. Interesting idea, not sure how much that would matter though. Maybe if we make it further into space, we will be the ones to go around 'planting' life on planets.
Interesting thread so far though, never been into much of this besides the mythology behind some of it.
Indeed. Google "indigo children." Scary fething true with my kids...
Random internet article wrote:The newspapers and magazines have nicknamed them "Generation X." The television commentators have called them "hard to read, even harder to understand." These are the offspring of that incredible genetic explosion of angst and wonder, the Baby Boomers. These are also the ones who will carry us through the end of time and space.
It has been predicted (by several) that, on or near December 22, 2012, all time (as we know it) will stop. The Mayan Calendar will be complete, and something brand new will begin. Some like to believe that it will be eternity. In these next 15 years, our people and our planet will be making preparations for our Graduation Day. Of course, *everyone* has been invited. By then, everyone will surely be here.
There are no new souls being born into this universe. However, old souls are coming in thundering hordes. Spirit speaks these ideas to us, of course, in a linear sense. In a Multiversal sense, we've always been here and we always will be. But in a past-present-future kind of way.......every one of us is involved in a sort of "historic unfoldment."
Since about 1973, there are no children anymore. There are only "little people." They are old, old souls who pretend they are young, impressionable babes. In one moment, a child may seem utterly weak and dependent, and in the next moment, he will inform his startled parents exactly what he did and where he (and they!) lived in a last life. Often, he'll do it off-handedly, without blinking, and then scurry off to watch television.
QFT in my lifetime soooooo many times:
Random internet article wrote:I believe Adult Indigos have these characteristics:
* Are intelligent (though did not necessarily have top grades). * Are very creative and enjoy making things.40K, anyone? * Always need to know WHY (especially why they are being asked to do something). * Had disgust and perhaps loathing for the inanity of much of the required work in school, the repetition. * Were rebellious in school, refusing to do homework, rejecting authority of teachers OR seriously wanted to rebel, but didn't DARE, usually due to parental pressure. * May have experienced early existential depression and feelings of helplessness. These may have ranged from sadness to utter despair. Suicidal feelings while still in high school or younger are not uncommon in the Indigo Adult. * Have difficulty in service-oriented jobs - resistance to authority and caste system of employment. * Prefer cooperative efforts or leadership position or solo if expertise is valued. * Have deep empathy for others, yet an intolerance of stupidity. * Extremely emotionally sensitive including crying at the drop of a hat (no shielding) - to no expression of emotion (full shielding). * May have trouble with RAGE. * Have trouble with most systems (either emotionally, mentally, or physically)- political, educational, medical, law. * Alienation from politics - feeling your voice won't count and that the outcome really doesn't matter anyway. * Frustration with or rejection of the traditional American dream - 9-5 career, marriage, 2.5 children, house with white picket fence, etc. * Anger at rights being taken away, fear and/or fury at "Big Brother watching you." * They feel a need like a burning desire to do something to change and improve the world. May be stymied what to do. * Have psychic or spiritual interest fairly young - in or before teen years. * Had few if any Indigo role models. * Have strong intuition. * Random behavior pattern or mind style - (symptoms of Attention Deficit Disorder), may have trouble focusing on a task unless of OWN choosing, may jump around in conversations. * Have had psychic experiences, such as premonitions, seeing angels or ghosts, hearing voices. * Sexually expressive and inventive OR may reject sexuality in boredom. May explore alternate types of sexuality. * Seek meaning to their life and understanding about the world May seek this through religion, spiritual groups and books, self-help groups or books, or individually. * If they find balance they may become very strong, healthy, happy lightworkers.
Every item hits the nail on the head, at least for me. It is like a profile of myself. Some of the stronger traits are bold.
Hey JEB let me clarify something here shall I, I did not say that my comments were 100% spot on, I was generalising about a subject that obviously some people can't handle. I did indicate that I could be wrong. I also know that as a brutal species we take what we want and we have had countless wars over the years. My point was though, were those wars of ancient times about which God / God's you worshipped? From what I've read I don't think they were, they appear to be about good old brutal greed and power. I was trying to be flippent and humorous about our species.
Wolfstan wrote:Hey JEB let me clarify something here shall I, I did not say that my comments were 100% spot on, I was generalising about a subject that obviously some people can't handle. I did indicate that I could be wrong. I also know that as a brutal species we take what we want and we have had countless wars over the years. My point was though, were those wars of ancient times about which God / God's you worshipped? From what I've read I don't think they were, they appear to be about good old brutal greed and power. I was trying to be flippent and humorous about our species.
Well now you know there is nothing funny about us. Ever.
I am suprised you post the thing about indigo children. For a start it takes balls to post that on cynical old dakka.
But I gotta disagree with that. It seems to me to be wishful thinking. And more likely a result of this generation not being beaten senseless every time they displease their parents. Combine with new environmental influence such as TV.
Also I fit that list, but who really gets born loving repetition and doing what their told.
Wolfstan wrote:Hey JEB let me clarify something here shall I, I did not say that my comments were 100% spot on, I was generalizing about a subject that obviously some people can't handle.
And what was that? Basic history? Or is it just that you would prefer to ridicule people's faith with impunity?
Wolfstan wrote:Is there a huge amount of evidence that shows that there has always been conflict where religion is concerned? It seems to me that there wasn't, it was only when one God was introduced that this happened.
This statement is what really started my eye rolling. And of course you quickly followed it up with this gem...
Wolfstan wrote:Christianity & Islam are hell bent (excuse the pun ) on giving the rest of the planet grief over who we should believe in!
Yes, that seems like a great thing to say.... Oh, but don't worry folks. We aren't done yet.
Wolfstan wrote:Who you worshiped didn't matter to [Pagans].
Well, lets forget the Romans torturing and crucifying Christians for one. Or Aztecs and their human sacrifices, etc. Pagans are just as guilty as monotheists of causing wars and bloodshed over religion. Difference? We have better documentation concerning monotheistic religions vs. others.
Wolfstan wrote:I did indicate that I could be wrong.
No you didn't. Nowhere in your post did you say that.
Wolfstan wrote:From what I've read I don't think they were, they appear to be about good old brutal greed and power. I was trying to be flippant and humorous about our species.
I sure as hell didn't get that feeling, but I could be alone in my sentiment. I can handle people's criticism, and plenty of jokes. Hell, I agree with many people in the OT when it concerns people's attitudes, but I don't like people just making blanket attacks and statements that are just horribly wrong. I am fairly strict in how I handle any arguments related to history, as it is my personal belief that if people would just the most basic of fact checking, we could avoid a bunch of flame wars and stupid arguments, and I have a vested interest in the subject as a historian.
Wolfstan wrote:Christianity & Islam are hell bent (excuse the pun ) on giving the rest of the planet grief over who we should believe in!
Yes, that seems like a great thing to say.... Oh, but don't worry folks. We aren't done yet.
To be fair, both religions feature explicit calls for conversion. That doesn't mean that all Christians, or Muslims agree with those notions, but they are there.
dogma wrote:To be fair, both religions feature explicit calls for conversion. That doesn't mean that all Christians, or Muslims agree with those notions, but they are there.
Agreed completely, but I don't know any Christian who advocates forcing people to believe in Christianity. Thank God for Jacobus Arminius, and his notions of free choice. While I may be a very devout Christian, and therefore believe it is the ultimate truth, in no way do I presume that everyone should be forced to believe what I do. I have no problems sharing what I believe, but I don't force it on anyone. There is a big difference between Evangelism and Conversion Through the Sword...
People have been killing other people over differences of belief for thousands of years - the Abrahamic religions are not alone in this respect. To suggest that 'Pagans' didn't do the same is just ignorant, sorry Wolfstan.
Wolfstan wrote:Who you worshiped didn't matter to [Pagans].
Well, lets forget the Romans torturing and crucifying Christians for one. Or Aztecs and their human sacrifices, etc. Pagans are just as guilty as monotheists of causing wars and bloodshed over religion. Difference? We have better documentation concerning monotheistic religions vs. others.
Different subject, you seem to be wanting to mix the two together. They may off well tortured others and had human sacrifices, but it wasn't because their god was better than yours.
Crucifying Christians was nothing to do with religion, it was to do with power and control. Christianity was a religion that was causing people to stand up to the Romans, it was a threat, in the same way as if a conquered state who worshipped "the mighty apple" had stood up to them, it wouldn't of been allowed. As to the Aztecs, that's down to supply & demand. They weren't stupid, they believed in Gods that wanted blood and lots of it. They either wiped themselves out or found a resource from somewhere else. I can't really imagine that a prisoner converting to their religion would of escaped having their heart ripped out.
I would imagine that the reason why Christianity took off is that you are faced with a religion that involves volatile Gods and sacrifice or a God that doesn't really ask that much of you. Hummm, no brainer there then.
Pretty much did what they did for land, power and wealth.
Europe & the Middle East from 1000 AD onwards either used their religion to motivate the war for genuine religious reasons or used it to disguise their motivation, good old, land, power and wealth.
Again, hands up, my knowledge is limited as my area of interest is Vikings, Celts & Saxons and in the stuff that I've read and watched I can't ever remember being informed that religion was the motivation (apart from getting outside resources for sacrifices) for what they did.
Wolfstan wrote:Different subject, you seem to be wanting to mix the two together. They may off well tortured others and had human sacrifices, but it wasn't because their god was better than yours.
So killing people for believing a different religion doesn't qualify? That fits exactly what you said.
Wolfstan wrote:Crucifying Christians was nothing to do with religion, it was to do with power and control. Christianity was a religion that was causing people to stand up to the Romans, it was a threat, in the same way as if a conquered state who worshipped "the mighty apple" had stood up to them, it wouldn't of been allowed.
...I can't believe you wrote that. That is completely wrong...
Wolfstan wrote:As to the Aztecs, that's down to supply & demand. They weren't stupid, they believed in Gods that wanted blood and lots of it. They either wiped themselves out or found a resource from somewhere else. I can't really imagine that a prisoner converting to their religion would of escaped having their heart ripped out.
So again, killing people for your god doesn't fit your definition?
Wolfstan wrote:I would imagine that the reason why Christianity took off is that you are faced with a religion that involves volatile Gods and sacrifice or a God that doesn't really ask that much of you. Hummm, no brainer there then.
Because nobody could legitimately believe in Christianity right?
Wolfstan wrote:Europe & the Middle East from 1000 AD onwards either used their religion to motivate the war for genuine religious reasons or used it to disguise their motivation, good old, land, power and wealth.
Do you know that for a fact? No and neither do we. It is mere speculation. Besides I have already stated that it is only more noticeable in the Post-Dark Age world because of our abundance of documentation.
Wolfstan wrote:
Europe & the Middle East from 1000 AD onwards either used their religion to motivate the war for genuine religious reasons or used it to disguise their motivation, good old, land, power and wealth.
Do you know that for a fact? No and neither do we. It is mere speculation. Besides I have already stated that it is only more noticeable in the Post-Dark Age world because of our abundance of documentation.
At the end of the day most of it is going to be speculation. I myself am a non believer, but admit it would be nice if there was something there. However as far as I'm concerned no religion can be seperated by terms such as "Pagan". All believers of any faith believe for their own reasons, but none of which would stand up in a court of law if defending yourself. You can't have one faith system stand up and say "my faith is the real one" and persecute all others because they have it written down somewhere that their God is the one and only God. What about all the other religions that have it written down?
Wolfstan wrote:
I would imagine that the reason why Christianity took off is that you are faced with a religion that involves volatile Gods and sacrifice or a God that doesn't really ask that much of you. Hummm, no brainer there then.
Because nobody could legitimately believe in Christianity right?
Again this is speculation, but speculation based on how humans work. You only have to see how many non believers start believing in something when it matters to them and this is in the 21st Century. So your average peasent working in the fields, around about 200 - 400 AD gets to hear about a new religion. This religion tells you that when you die you go to this wonderful place called heaven and to do this all you need to do is cast out your old Gods. Old Gods, they point out that are unpredictable and want you to make sacrifices. All you have to do with this new "all in one God" is worship him and follow this basic rules (10 rules which in general aren't all that bad) and you get to go to this wonderful place when you die. I know what I'd go for if it had been me.
Wolfstan wrote:
As to the Aztecs, that's down to supply & demand. They weren't stupid, they believed in Gods that wanted blood and lots of it. They either wiped themselves out or found a resource from somewhere else. I can't really imagine that a prisoner converting to their religion would of escaped having their heart ripped out.
So again, killing people for your god doesn't fit your definition?
You still want to read it one way don't you. The Aztecs grabbing people from other tirbes and sacrificing them is completely different to organising a Crusade and going off to conquer a foreign land. The Aztecs didn't believe who you worshipped you were a source of bodies for sacrificing. The Crusaders would either kill you for being a heathen or convert you to their religion. The Aztecs wouldn't of cared less if the people they were sacrificing believed in the same god or not.
...I can't believe you wrote that. That is completely wrong...
Jeb, if you could extrapolate on this point a little, it would be more helpful and educational to all those reading these. I'm not amazingly knowledgeable on this area of history, and it would be interesting hear why he's wrong, and what the 'right' (if that's the correct word to use) answer is, rather than just effectively writing a longer version of 'lolno'.
Wolfstan- most pagans were converted to christianity through their kings/lords being converted first then being told they were now christian. If this didn't work the christian faith adopted certain pagan rites and festivals to pull them in (which has already been mentioned). Another trick was to build a church on a site the pagans worshipped on. Fear was also a major tool used by the church, the threat of not going to the afterlife or being outcast. So as you can see it was very rarely a peasants 'choice' to become christian.
This is not meant to put down todays christian faith as it is quite different and a lot more tolerable of other faiths these days.
Yep, fair enough. However that then raises the question of why the lords & masters changed? The same principle could apply? Again it's speculation. It could be that it was just down to them being very clever and opportunistic, they could see a new power was emerging and wanted to be part of it.
The victors write history and the Pagans have been made to look bad in this re-written history. It's just me I'm afraid, I find it both arrogant & funny that the believers of one God can point the finger and say that Pagan Gods don't exist. Am I the only one to see the irony in that?
Wolfstan wrote:You still want to read it one way don't you. The Aztecs grabbing people from other tirbes and sacrificing them is completely different to organising a Crusade and going off to conquer a foreign land. The Aztecs didn't believe who you worshipped you were a source of bodies for sacrificing. The Crusaders would either kill you for being a heathen or convert you to their religion. The Aztecs wouldn't of cared less if the people they were sacrificing believed in the same god or not.
The primary goal of the crusades was to retake the Holy Land. And their behavior wasn't much worse than any other angry medieval knights.
While I don't know if the Aztecs cared abut the religion of the other tribes, they did make sure it was other tribes they were getting most of their sacrifices from. They created quasi-nations within their own empire simply as a continuous source of sacrifices (which would bite them in the ass when Spain came along). How is this better than anything the Christians did again?
If you take an overall view it is quite clear that people are divided into nice, alright or nasty whatever their religion.
There are some really nasty Christians in the modern world, and some nice pagans, Buddhists and so on. Most people are alright and can be lead to niceness or nastiness depending on the situation.
It's just me I'm afraid, I find it both arrogant & funny that the believers of one God can point the finger and say that Pagan Gods don't exist. Am I the only one to see the irony in that?
@Wolfstan
No - this was dealt with a couple of pages ago between me and Manchu IIRC. If that's your position, fair enough - I just thought you were stating that the Abrahamic religions were the inventors of 'holy war'? I don't think 'Pagans' have been denigrated in history any more than other religious groups. Religious groups sling mud at each other as a matter of routine. You're slinging mud at Christians, Mulsims and Jews right now.
As I have said many times, just because you raise your hand and claim to be a Christian doesn't make you one.
Matthew 7:21-23 (KJV)
21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Wolfstan wrote:At the end of the day most of it is going to be speculation. I myself am a non believer, but admit it would be nice if there was something there. However as far as I'm concerned no religion can be separated by terms such as "Pagan". All believers of any faith believe for their own reasons, but none of which would stand up in a court of law if defending yourself. You can't have one faith system stand up and say "my faith is the real one" and persecute all others because they have it written down somewhere that their God is the one and only God. What about all the other religions that have it written down?
I don't mean to be rude, and would love to take this up over PM, but this is a bit of a tangent off the pagan discussion. To avoid Modquisition, I vote that we take this up over PM.
Wolfstan wrote:Again this is speculation, but speculation based on how humans work. You only have to see how many non believers start believing in something when it matters to them and this is in the 21st Century. So your average peasant working in the fields, around about AD 200-400 gets to hear about a new religion. This religion tells you that when you die you go to this wonderful place called heaven and to do this all you need to do is cast out your old Gods. Old Gods, they point out that are unpredictable and want you to make sacrifices. All you have to do with this new "all in one God" is worship him and follow this basic rules (10 rules which in general aren't all that bad) and you get to go to this wonderful place when you die. I know what I'd go for if it had been me.
Well the idea of paradise or a heaven is by no means unique or revolutionary to the Christian faith. Things such as the Elysian Fields and the like had been major parts of Pagan religions for some time. I for one think that many of the people in the early Church did truly believe in Christianity, because the gospel literally means "good news" and because of its teaching of equality and love. Interestingly enough, Christianity was embraced by Jew, Gentile, Rich and Poor equally in the early days of the Church.
Wolfstan wrote:You still want to read it one way don't you. The Aztecs grabbing people from other tribes and sacrificing them is completely different to organizing a Crusade and going off to conquer a foreign land.
That is not what the Crusades were about. Crusades=Most misrepresented and misinterpreted event in history.
Wolfstan wrote:The Aztecs didn't believe who you worshiped you were a source of bodies for sacrificing. The Crusaders would either kill you for being a heathen or convert you to their religion. The Aztecs wouldn't of cared less if the people they were sacrificing believed in the same god or not.
Well no, the Aztecs sacrificed other nations and peoples on purpose, partially because they didn't believe in their gods, and partially because they believed their gods made them superior to others.
Ketara wrote:Jeb, if you could extrapolate on this point a little, it would be more helpful and educational to all those reading these. I'm not amazingly knowledgeable on this area of history, and it would be interesting hear why he's wrong, and what the 'right' (if that's the correct word to use) answer is, rather than just effectively writing a longer version of 'lolno'.
I would be happy to Ketara, but I will admit that I wanted to avoid a history lesson. Very well then my friends, grab a chair, a pipe and a drink and gather round the fireplace as we explore the relationship of pre-Christian Rome and the early Church. It has been stated that Rome persecuted the early Church because it was encouraging people to stand up to Rome and that it was a threat. Well that is decidedly wrong and not at all what happened. Rome was actually surprisingly tolerant of other religions in its own Empire, with the Jews and Christians being a small exception to that rule. They didn't care what you believed, as long as you hailed Caesar as Emperor and as a living god. Of course, pre-Imperial Rome, Judaism wasn't much of an issue, especially since there was no emperor. But that is another lesson. After the crucifixion of Christ, the Apostles and early believers were very successful in Evangelizing to people all over the empire, reaching as far as Hispania. Problems began to emerge during the reign of Caligula, but really came to a head during the reign of Nero. Nero openly persecuted Christians, "using them as torches to light the streets of Rome," and blamed them for the great fire that destroyed huge swaths of the city. Our most telling details of Rome's attitude towards Christians comes from the letters of Pliny the Younger to the Emperor Trajan around AD 100. To paraphrase his writings, Pliny wrote to the emperor numerous times regarding the torture and execution of Christians in his province. He declares that just as is policy throughout the Empire he is torturing and executing Christians like a good Roman governor should, but he explains that he doesn't really understand why. He states that they haven't done anything wrong other then refuse to acknowledge the emperor, ie Trajan, as a god and that they refuse to renounce their claims to Christ's divinity. Other then that though he is completely perplexed as to why they should be executed. He states several times that he finds them all to be upstanding citizens who are all devoted to Rome, just not its religious requirements. Most historians have taken this as a very telling letter that explains the common feeling towards Christians by Roman governors. In short Rome executed Christians for their faith, not for their political dissension.
Mick A wrote:Fear was also a major tool used by the church, the threat of not going to the afterlife or being outcast. So as you can see it was very rarely a peasants 'choice' to become christian.
I find your assertion interesting. I don't necessarily agree with all of it, especially the fear part being used by the Church (mostly because it just didn't have that kind of power), but I definitely can find common ground with most of what you say.
Wolfstan wrote:Yep, fair enough. However that then raises the question of why the lords & masters changed? The same principle could apply? Again it's speculation. It could be that it was just down to them being very clever and opportunistic, they could see a new power was emerging and wanted to be part of it.
Again, they could also have actually believed it, I know its hard to understand, but entirely possible, and IMHO likely.
Wolfstan wrote:The victors write history and the Pagans have been made to look bad in this re-written history. It's just me I'm afraid, I find it both arrogant & funny that the believers of one God can point the finger and say that Pagan gods don't exist. Am I the only one to see the irony in that?
Well considering Christians, other monotheists, etc. don't believe that God lives on top of Mt. Olympus, or in the center of the Earth, in our physical, etc., I don't find it that ironic. But again, that is my personal take...
@generalgrog: Your point being? So people can claim to be Christians, but they're not. That's called lying. Or at least false worship. It's nothing new.
I'm pretty sure, as far as the Crusades went, Christians far and wide participated in it. Not all would have been piously motivated, but most were. What evidence do you have that the Pope and the Crusaders were not Christians?
While wolfstan's statement about Christianity motivating people to "stand up" to the Romans has an erroneous connotation of political rebellion, it's not completely wrong. Neither the Christians of antiquity nor the Romans who governed them needed to wait around for Tolstoy or Gandhi to teach them about civil disobedience and its tremendous implications. Witness (no pun intended) the life and martyrdom of Justin or any of the martyrs for that matter. It wasn't too far a step from the Christians being eaten by the lions to Ambrose excommunicating Theodosius. JEB's facts are right but he fails to explain why, in answer to Pliny's question (which was the same as Justin's) Christians needed to be executed for not acknowledging the divinity of Caeser. It wasn't because the Romans were mean or stupid. It was because they were quite sharp--these Christians, whose beliefs they did indeed understand--were not convinced that the coercive temporal power of the state was the final authority, even in some earthly matters. What might such a people eventually do? Take over the entire Empire perhaps? Yep.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Wait, Ceaser was considered divine? With the amount of times these guys were murdered you wouldn't think so.
The mantra of the Emperor's divinity was this, "In the East they can worship living emperors as gods, but in Rome they are only worshiped as such after they die." That all changed with Caligula who deified himself, and was then promptly assassinated.
@Manchu: I disagree with your sentiments, but I am to lazy to write another book
Emperors Faithful wrote:@generalgrog: Your point being? So people can claim to be Christians, but they're not. That's called lying. Or at least false worship. It's nothing new.
Yes.... lying is a way of putting it, but to be more precise Hypocrites. Intellectual assent does not a Christian make. You can know that Christ is Lord, and not do his will. The demons know he is Lord, and they tremble.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
I'm pretty sure, as far as the Crusades went, Christians far and wide participated in it. Not all would have been piously motivated, but most were. What evidence do you have that the Pope and the Crusaders were not Christians?
Sorry..but mass slaughter in the name of Christ is not Christian behavior. Most of those people participating in crusades were doing it out of greed, or as a way to buy their salvation through papal dispensation. And yes many of the popes, indeed much of the Roman Catholic heirarchy, during that time were hardly Christian, just look at the Borgia. That is why the reformation happened.
But the quote I gave goes way beyond just the dark and middle age Church, many people in the Church(no matter the denomination) today, could be classified as hypocrite.
Sorry this has nothing to do with paganism..if you want to continue discussion in pm shoot me one.
generalgrog wrote:Most of those people participating in crusades were doing it out of greed, or as a way to buy their salvation through papal dispensation.
See:
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Wolfstan wrote:. . . organizing a Crusade and going off to conquer a foreign land.
That is not what the Crusades were about. Crusades=Most misrepresented and misinterpreted event in history.
I'm not gonna even touch that bit about the Reformation.
But about the Crusades, you (plural) might want to read a book called "God's War" by Christopher Tyreman if you actually want to know some facts about (PLUS the latest research concerning) what was going on there. I'd recommend doing that soon or at least before talking about it more.
JEB_Stuart wrote:Agreed completely, but I don't know any Christian who advocates forcing people to believe in Christianity.
Well, there was Jerry Falwell. Granted, he didn't talk about forcing people to convert. But his general desire to see the unfaithful punished was close enough.
dogma wrote: But his general desire to see the unfaithful as being punished was close enough.
Fixed. Falwell believed that God punished the wicked in this lifetime (as well as afterward, no doubt) and so one wonders, as a practical matter, how this would relate to his desire to see them converted. After all, he talked about people who didn't agree with him as if they were already in hell, so basically lost to his cause. I think the main goal of this kind of preaching is not to attract completely new adherents but rather to firm up those who already followed him or to push into following him those who were not totally committed to his movement but were already hangers-on (girl/boyfriends or family of true believers, etc). I don't think that fear is the operative force here, either, but rather the sense of belonging to the "elect" who can set themselves over and apart from those who are labeled sinful and so wretched. This strategy operates to bring a certain demographic closer together along preexistent social and ideological ties, not so much to pry them apart from other ideas or behaviors and present them with new ones (i.e., conversion). It's easy to believe that people would buy into this kind of fear and join up with him to escape "damnation." But it's also easy to believe that one is somehow unique in seeing through (a pretty typical expression of arrogance) this when actually the vast majority of "outsiders" are not moved at all by Falwell's style except to be repulsed by it. The great illusion of contemporary American evangelism is that it seeks to convert people to Christianity. In reality, the goal is to mobilize a preexistent and ostensibly Christian population into supporting a social and political agenda. Religion is merely employed as the packaging, the vocabulary with which that agenda is sold. Another way to look at it, if you are actually Christian, is that religion is the victim here, another instance of Christ crucified.
Manchu wrote:
Falwell believed that God punished the wicked in this lifetime (as well as afterward, no doubt) and so one wonders, as a practical matter, how this would relate to his desire to see them converted. After all, he talked about people who didn't agree with him as if they were already in hell, so basically lost to his cause. I think the main goal of this kind of preaching is not to attract completely new adherents but rather to firm up those who already followed him or to push into following him those who were not totally committed to his movement but were already hangers-on (girl/boyfriends or family of true believers, etc).
You answered your own question.
Manchu wrote:
I don't think that fear is the operative force here, either, but rather the sense of belonging to the "elect" who can set themselves over and apart from those who are labeled sinful and so wretched.
The concept of fear is implicit in the use of concepts like 'sin' and 'wretchedness'. If Falwell had simply pointed to the inherent awesomeness of being down with the J-man in the way he was down with the J-man, then fear would not have been a component of his approach. Certainly the sense of belonging is important as well, but it would be wrong to say that fear has no affect on the nature of the message.
Manchu wrote:
This strategy operates to bring a certain demographic closer together along preexistent social and ideological ties, not so much to pry them apart from other ideas or behaviors and present them with new ones (i.e., conversion).
One doesn't have to posses a prior religious belief in order to be converted.
Manchu wrote:
The great illusion of contemporary American evangelism is that it seeks to convert people to Christianity. In reality, the goal is to mobilize a preexistent and ostensibly Christian population into supporting a social and political agenda. Religion is merely employed as the packaging, the vocabulary with which that agenda is sold.
Conversion need not involve moving between religions. The concept relates to any significant (life altering) change with respect to one's religious beliefs. A Catholic who becomes a Protestant has been converted.
Being mobilized into a voting or spending bloc is not conversion. Conversion is not merely changing your opinion. Almost every person on this forum, including some self-described Christians, thinks of religion as a matter of opinion but this is an insufficient view of Christianity both in terms of what it teaches about the nature and meaning of the world and human beings and what it does to those who profess it in an authentic way. Most of the religious feeling I've encountered among Christians in my lifetime has been just that--a feeling. Generally, the subject thinks that the word "Christianity" stands for a set of social viewpoints (some constructive, some divisive) that are easily translatable into choices expressed on a ballot or on a news program. In other words, "Christianity" is for them the label on some kind of political ticket in an election to determine how people ought and ought not behave. Those who agree with the party platform (forgetting that they are themselves the authors of that platform, although they will quote it to you in verses from the Bible) and vote this ticket are "Christians." Christianity, in this way, is just an opinion, an abstract something with which you either agree or disagree. Authentic Christianity (and, to some degree I suppose, Islam and Judaism although neither Buddhism or Hinduism), meanwhile, is a "fact" because it is not a set of beliefs or theories or rules or criticisms but rather it is a description of reality as it already is and as it is becoming (in a millennial sense) that is objectively--meaning, for those who do not know, separately from the perspective of the subject who considers it--true so that its relevance is not conditional on whether you agree or disagree. Unlike one's acknowledgment of the natural world, however, the act of conforming oneself to this "way the world really is" is morally transformative/transfiguring--the phenomenon that Christians call "salvation." Undertaking this changing in fact (as distinguished from changing of mind), specifically as a response to the Gospel, is what is meant by the term conversion used in a strictly religious sense. For more on the terms "opinion" and "fact" as I'm using them here see Charles Taylor's "A Secular Age."
Well the thread has jumped the shark, as far as the pagan theme goes. LOL
Manchu, not meant as an attack but your last post was rather convoluted and hard to follow. It sounded to me like you were saying that most people you have met that claim Christianity are so, due to some political choice? Or maybe you are trying to say that they choose some politcal path becasue they believe that this path is Christianity? Like I said,not sure where you were going there.
Anyway is it really that hard to believe that a persons political views are shaped by their religious views? I.E, if a person is a religious conservative, then they would naturally not vote for a party that pushes for abortion, gay marriage, and other nonconservative ideas.
I agree that we've gone way past paganism. But I figue if everyone's a'rambling I might as well say some things, too, and see if anyone pays attention.
So to clarify, I am saying that people confuse their religious and political views because they think these two things are the same type of idea (namely, an opinion) when they are not. Religiously conservative =/= socially conservative. It should be perfectly possible--in fact it is perfectly possible no matter what some people think--for a devout Catholic to support civil marriage for gay couples and legalized abortion.
generalgrog wrote:Sorry..but mass slaughter in the name of Christ is not Christian behavior. Most of those people participating in crusades were doing it out of greed, or as a way to buy their salvation through papal dispensation. And yes many of the popes, indeed much of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, during that time were hardly Christian, just look at the Borgia. That is why the reformation happened.
I think that is not a decent review of people at that time. I just finished writing a major paper on the historiography of the Crusades, mostly concerned with Richard the Lionheart's Third Crusade. I can tell you this: Most of what the majority of people think about the Crusades is completely wrong.
generalgrog wrote:But the quote I gave goes way beyond just the dark and middle age Church, many people in the Church(no matter the denomination) today, could be classified as hypocrite.
There is nothing new under the sun GG.
generalgrog wrote:Sorry this has nothing to do with paganism..if you want to continue discussion in pm shoot me one.
Same to you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:Well, there was Jerry Falwell. Granted, he didn't talk about forcing people to convert. But his general desire to see the unfaithful punished was close enough.
Can we leave the crazies out of this please? Just thinking of Jerry Falwell gives me the jibblies...here they come again....
Manchu wrote:Being mobilized into a voting or spending bloc is not conversion. Conversion is not merely changing your opinion.
No it isn't, but that's not the sum of the evangelical mission. You could claim that they focus too heavily on politics, and many young evangelicals would probably agree with you, but its important to note that politics is simply a popular vehicle, not an end in itself.
Manchu wrote:
Almost every person on this forum, including some self-described Christians, thinks of religion as a matter of opinion but this is an insufficient view of Christianity both in terms of what it teaches about the nature and meaning of the world and human beings and what it does to those who profess it in an authentic way. Most of the religious feeling I've encountered among Christians in my lifetime has been just that--a feeling.
Do you believe that opinions are only motivated by reason, or that reason is independent of emotion? Beyond even that, many people engage with politics on an emotional level. Partially by top-down design, partially as a result of the psychological transference of expertise (ie. competent in one area does not translate into competence in all areas).
Manchu wrote:
Those who agree with the party platform (forgetting that they are themselves the authors of that platform, although they will quote it to you in verses from the Bible) and vote this ticket are "Christians."
I think you're making a false assumption. I've read a lot of Conservative Christian rhetoric in my time, and I've never seen anything that points to voting as a standard for conversion. Its always been more akin to "If you're a Christian, then you'll vote this way." not "If you vote this way, then you're a Christian." You can't get one from the other without additional information.
Manchu wrote:
Christianity, in this way, is just an opinion, an abstract something with which you either agree or disagree. Authentic Christianity (and, to some degree I suppose, Islam and Judaism although neither Buddhism or Hinduism), meanwhile, is a "fact" because it is not a set of beliefs or theories or rules or criticisms but rather it is a description of reality as it already is and as it is becoming (in a millennial sense) that is objectively--meaning, for those who do not know, separately from the perspective of the subject who considers it--true so that its relevance is not conditional on whether you agree or disagree.
First, Hinduism and Buddhism are both 'fact' in the sense that you're using the word. They both have established traditions, and histories which are composed of factual information which is both easily referenced, and adhered to. The absence of orthodoxy does not preclude the presence of fact.
Extending from that point: the factual nature of any given piece of information does not render it necessarily relevant. Relevance can only be determined by the subject. That's a classic consequence of the Is-Ought problem.
Manchu wrote:
Unlike one's acknowledgment of the natural world, however, the act of conforming oneself to this "way the world really is" is morally transformative/transfiguring--the phenomenon that Christians call "salvation." Undertaking this changing in fact (as distinguished from changing of mind), specifically as a response to the Gospel, is what is meant by the term conversion used in a strictly religious sense. For more on the terms "opinion" and "fact" as I'm using them here see Charles Taylor's "A Secular Age."
Yes, it is morally transformative as it fundamentally alters the belief set of any given individual, at least in the sense that the religion grants the believe a convenient way of labeling events which occur in life. Its an instruction manual, and in that sense can be regarded as factual: ie. the book says X is a factual statement about the contents of a book, but not a factual statement about the relationship between the books contents, and the larger world.
This pagan thread seems to be more about Christianity.
My two cents.
Christianity (as I know it) is personal. I do not mean that in the way people like John kerry say it (personally I believe this but publically I'll do that). I mean it is between an individual and Jesus. (IMO) if you are truly a Christian you will act a certain way. I don't think you can believe something as important as your soul and salvation and not have it effect you in every day life. However, for me, I do not vote to impose my morals on other people. There is a difference between personal beliefs and forcing everyone else to act like they believe the same thing you do I believe government should not infringe my right to practice my religion, but I do not believe it should enforce the tenants of my faith. Free will is a huge part of Christianity. That is why I just role my eyes when these people that want to expand the government and take other peoples money "for the greater good" say they are just following the Bible. I haven't seen anywhere in the Bible where Jesus says to take other people's money.
Most of the evils done in religions' name has been done by the state (or with state support). I would say it was the power of the state that led to great evil in religions name, not the religion itself. Religion is often used as a means to stir people up and get them to go along with what you are doing. That is why islam is so violent in todays world. In parts of the world there is no difference between the state and islam. For example, Christianity started off as an oppressed people persecuted by the state, (and in many parts of the world it still is to a lesser or greater extent). It wasn't until Christians came to lead the state powers that bad things started happening. islam basically started out as the state with mohammed at the head. Some of the greatest evils done in (relatively recent times) have been done by states that actively seeked to replace God with the state.
Basically, I think you can find bad stuff done in every religions name. And their are plenty of kooks that go around and say they belong to a certain religion and embarress everyone else.
I AM BACK FROM A LONG WEEKEND WITHOUT INTERNET AND MY TREAD IS STILL HERE!!! OMGZ!!! Everyone deserves some drinks!
Shaman wrote:I am suprised you post the thing about indigo children. For a start it takes balls to post that on cynical old dakka.
Yes, it did take balls. Especially posting the first half of my thought, but not getting to the second point until two days later. But we will have to wait a little more. I am busy now... I will wait for lunch.
Dorns Fist wrote:This pagan thread seems to be more about Christianity.
I know... We must put this train back on track...
Dorns Fist wrote:My two cents.
Most of the evils done in religions' name has been done by the state (or with state support)...
...Basically, I think you can find bad stuff done in every religions name. And their are plenty of kooks that go around and say they belong to a certain religion and embarress everyone else.
Give me a minute and I'll change your mind
Give me a bullet and I'll change your life...
QFT... This makes Corey Taylor fume with nerdrage:
Frazzled wrote:Wow, so this is what an unmodded religious thread is like. Impressive.
If you are not being sarcastic, that is a big compliment. I hope the fact that I have been out of the discussion for 2 days has nothing to do with this...
Feel free to start, "The Outlaw Thread...", or "The Warlock Thread..." definately no "The Hells Angels Thread"
GG
Automatically Appended Next Post: Hey I just remembered something related to pagans. Remember the pagans in Dragnet the movie? Tom Hanks with the goat trousers? Priceless.
Some random internet article wrote:The first thing most people notice about Crystal Children is their eyes, large, penetrating, and wise beyond their years. Their eyes lock on and hypnotize you, while you realize your soul is being laid bare for the child to see. Perhaps you've noticed this special new "breed" of children rapidly populating our planet. They are happy, delightful and forgiving. This generation of new lightworkers, roughly ages 0 through 7, are like no previous generation. Ideal in many ways, they are the pointers for where humanity is headed ... and its a good direction!
The older children (approximately age 7 through 25), called "indigo Children", share some characteristics with the Crystal Children. Both generations are highly sensitive and psychic, and have important life purposes. The main difference is their temperament. Indigos have a warrior spirit, because their collective purpose is to mash down old systems that no longer serve us. They are here to quash government, educational, and legal systems that lack integrity. To accomplish this end, they need tempers and fiery determination.
Those adults who resist change and who value conformity may misunderstand the Indigos. They are often mislabeled with psychiatric diagnoses of Attention Deficit with Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) or Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). Sadly, when they are medicated, the Indigos often lose their beautiful sensitivity, spiritual gifts and warrior energy..........In contrast, the Crystal Children are blissful and even-tempered. Sure, they may have tantrums occasionally, but these children are largely forgiving and easy-going. The Crystals are the generation who benefit from the Indigos trailblazing. First, the Indigo Children lead with a machete, cutting down anything that lacks integrity. Then the Crystal Children follow the cleared path, into a safer and more secure world.
In the new world which the Indigos are ushering in, we will all be much more aware of our intuitive thoughts and feelings. We won't rely so much upon the spoken or written word. Communication will be faster, more direct, and more honest, because it will be mind to mind. Already, increasing numbers of us are getting in touch with our psychic abilities. Our interest in the paranormal is at an all-time high, accompanied by books, television shows, and movies on the topic.
Indigo children. Crystal children. What does it all mean? Well, IMHO, they are terms created by people attempting to exploit the ignorant and/or confused masses. Just like The Secret. Does that alone mean that it is not worth my time? Far from it. I believe we have a dirty little problem Humanity, let me share it with you...
Our society as a whole is becoming more and more interested in the paranormal. We yearn for it, we crave it... However, the moment we see it in our lives, we disregard it. Ignore it. Dismiss it as a crazy random happenstance and go on about our day. Or, worse. Why? WHY!?!? When people witness magic, they'll ignore it and say it never happened. The only thing they'll believe is whats tragic.
@Mannahnin: Sorry, I am going to pick on you for a moment. If you would like to discuss Paganism... Why don't you? @Everybody: Phobias, phobias, phobias... What is yours? Mnemophobia- Fear of memories Neophobia- Fear of change Optophobia- Fear of opening one's eyes
Why do you not feel comfortable initiating the conversation? Grab the thread by the balls and speak your mind. I did. Thread's not closed. When talking with people on Dakka, while obeying the rules, what's the worst that can happen? Thread gets closed and some random person thinks you are a slow... The world will not end. If you get angry, it will pass.
Anon from t3h intarwebz wrote:There are certain things that I'm afraid to say.
And I won't say here what they are specifically. I've been consciously and unconsciously afraid to say certain things aloud. I think them in my head, but then, I stop myself, and I'm talking about everyday conversations of the political or religious type.
It seems to have all started right about the time Bush stole, I mean, about the time Bush became the president. I saw what happened in 2000 and I began my strange practice of not saying things out of fear of being looked at as some sort of radical or whacko.
But I do it every day. and so do our politicians, and I thought I was better than them, but I'm not. They don't have the guts to stand up there in public and say what really needs to be said because they are afraid they won't get re elected to their extremely lucky positions of power and wealth.
Just like I, a schmuck out here in schmuckland, am afraid to say things that ought to be said. Uncover truths that ought to be uncovered, and expose lies that ought to be exposed.
I wish some Democrat would say damn it all, I am going to stop being afraid to say things.
I'm afraid to say our troops have died in vain. I'm afraid to say that Bush could've stopped nine eleven but chose not to. I'm afraid to say that more than just a few of our soldiers are committing war crimes. I'm afraid to say that Dick Cheney is really in charge and we are preparing to become a fascist military state of 300 million people.
I'm afraid to say that 100,000 Iraqis have died and the war which isn't a war is lost, yet it will continue on forever into the future even if we all hate it.
I can say these things here, and most will agree with some of it, but I can't say these things to a table full of folks discussing things over drinks. it's just not fashionable or socially acceptable to speak the truth, the total, brutal truth.
If we could actually talk instead of repress, I think this world would be a better place. This is essentially what the Druids thought, we are all one. This is the core of Freemasonry: "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity." This is resurfacing in popular Neo-pagan theology. Ariel's concept of Pan is intriguing.
We were once part of a great river. One river, one flow. And we went with the flow, Hand and hand with clear minds. Thoughts were harmonious like the rhythm of wind chimes. Then the river went over a cliff and we all fell, breaking off into individual drops of water. For now, we are individuals, unique and separate. But, in time, we will reach the bottom and be merged back into the great river.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Everything above is rhetorical... I didn't write it expecting a response...
You can, and are encouraged to, discuss this amongst each other, whether it be here in this thread or PM. Please remember to be polite and stay on topic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:And a startling lack of bikers
Just for you Frazz.... You wanted bikers in a Pagan thread. Wish granted. The Ancient Riders are a group for motorcycle enthusiasts who are pagan.
Some random internet article wrote:The first thing most people notice about Crystal Children is their eyes, large, penetrating, and wise beyond their years. Their eyes lock on and hypnotize you, while you realize your soul is being laid bare for the child to see. Perhaps you've noticed this special new "breed" of children rapidly populating our planet. They are happy, delightful and forgiving. This generation of new lightworkers, roughly ages 0 through 7, are like no previous generation. Ideal in many ways, they are the pointers for where humanity is headed ... and its a good direction!
The older children (approximately age 7 through 25), called "indigo Children", share some characteristics with the Crystal Children. Both generations are highly sensitive and psychic, and have important life purposes. The main difference is their temperament. Indigos have a warrior spirit, because their collective purpose is to mash down old systems that no longer serve us. They are here to quash government, educational, and legal systems that lack integrity. To accomplish this end, they need tempers and fiery determination.
Those adults who resist change and who value conformity may misunderstand the Indigos. They are often mislabeled with psychiatric diagnoses of Attention Deficit with Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) or Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). Sadly, when they are medicated, the Indigos often lose their beautiful sensitivity, spiritual gifts and warrior energy..........In contrast, the Crystal Children are blissful and even-tempered. Sure, they may have tantrums occasionally, but these children are largely forgiving and easy-going. The Crystals are the generation who benefit from the Indigos trailblazing. First, the Indigo Children lead with a machete, cutting down anything that lacks integrity. Then the Crystal Children follow the cleared path, into a safer and more secure world.
In the new world which the Indigos are ushering in, we will all be much more aware of our intuitive thoughts and feelings. We won't rely so much upon the spoken or written word. Communication will be faster, more direct, and more honest, because it will be mind to mind. Already, increasing numbers of us are getting in touch with our psychic abilities. Our interest in the paranormal is at an all-time high, accompanied by books, television shows, and movies on the topic.
Indigo children. Crystal children. What does it all mean? Well, IMHO, they are terms created by people attempting to exploit the ignorant and/or confused masses.
Yeah, tblock, most of that stuff you're referencing really has no association with the Neopaganism I'm familiar with.
I am somewhat familiar with the Druidic Craft of the Wise (which you linked to there), and they are not what I would call Druids. I'm not too happy about them using the name, either. DJ Conway, while ahistorical, at least is harmless as far as I can tell.
Mannahnin wrote:Yeah, tblock, most of that stuff you're referencing really has no association with the Neopaganism I'm familiar with.
"Why not excellence?" Sorry, I am not arguing with you... Just throwing in my two cents.
Neopaganism Wiki wrote:Neopaganism or Neo-Paganism is an umbrella term used to identify a wide variety of modern religious movements, particularly those influenced by pre-Christian pagan beliefs of Europe.
Neo-Pagan religious movements are extremely diverse, with beliefs that range widely from polytheism to animism, to pantheism and other paradigms. Many Neopagans practise a spirituality that is entirely modern in origin, while others attempt to accurately reconstruct or revive indigenous, ethnic religions as found in historical and folkloric sources.
Honestly, most people don't get it because vocalizing through these archaic vocal chords and the even more context-less written language... Well, you just loose something in the translation... It has been there all along, most people just read the words, but don't try to understand the words.
Reformed Druids of North America Wiki wrote:Druidism boasts its lack of institutionalized dogma. Each Druid is required only to adopt these Basic Tenets:
* One of the many ways in which the object of Man’s search for religious truth can be found is through Nature. * Nature, being one of the primary concerns in Man’s life and struggle, and being one of the objects of Creation, is important to Man’s spiritual quests.
In Reformed Druidism, the natural world is personified as the Earth-Mother. The transcendent essence of the universe, working through the natural world, is called Be’al, from a word the ancient Celts applied to an abstract supreme being. The "object of Man’s search" is called "awareness."
Mannahnin wrote:I am somewhat familiar with the Druidic Craft of the Wise (which you linked to there), and they are not what I would call Druids. I'm not too happy about them using the name, either. DJ Conway, while ahistorical, at least is harmless as far as I can tell.
True... They are sort of the Mormon version of Paganism. I was thinking the same thing. The whole culture really appears to be confused Wiccans. But at the end of the day, Ariel can make some sense. Especially about your own inner evil, and today's society in regards to the next step in human evolution.
Ariel/Laurie, if she's the person I'm familiar with, has 'taken' concepts from quite a number of places since Eli.
Last I knew they were teaching the concept that Wicca is like an introductory level for-the-masses version of Druidism. Which has all kinds of things wrong with it. Also claiming to be a member of ADF's mother grove, which was, according to her, a big group marriage. Among numerous other amazing statements.
Mannahnin wrote:Ariel/Laurie, if she's the person I'm familiar with, has 'taken' concepts from quite a number of places since Eli.
Last I knew they were teaching the concept that Wicca is like an introductory level for-the-masses version of Druidism. Which has all kinds of things wrong with it. Also claiming to be a member of ADF's mother grove, which was, according to her, a big group marriage. Among numerous other amazing statements.
It was pretty wacky.
QFT
"There are cracks in the road we laid But where the temple fell The secrets have gone mad This is nothing new, but when we killed it all The hate was all we had Who needs another mess? We could start over Just look me in the eyes and say I'm wrong..." -Corey Taylor
Why are we so preoccupied with what is right and wrong. The old ways spoke of Duality. This is a concept that is not new to Paganism. Every Yin must have its Yang. Isn't the point to find the Nirvana-like state in between?
Food for thought: I see Christian thread after Christian thread on Dakka. I would like to discuss the whole spectrum of human theology, not just a single facet. I am compelled to create a new thread to discuss the common ideal and patterns I have seen in Pagan religions as a whole, as well as across our modern media. When I start discussing the patterns I have seen in the media and religious beliefs, I am told that is not right. It is an observation. Not a fact.
I am not dismayed... I expected this.
Wiki wrote:Fear is an emotional response to a perceived threat. It is a basic survival mechanism occurring in response to a specific stimulus, such as pain or the threat of danger. Some psychologists such as John B. Watson, Robert Plutchik, and Paul Ekman have suggested that fear is one of a small set of basic or innate emotions. This set also includes such emotions as joy, sadness, and anger. Fear should be distinguished from the related emotional state of anxiety, which typically occurs without any external threat. Additionally, fear is related to the specific behaviors of escape and avoidance, whereas anxiety is the result of threats which are perceived to be uncontrollable or unavoidable. Worth noting is that fear always relates to future events, such as worsening of a situation, or continuation of a situation that is unacceptable. Fear could also be an instant reaction, to something presently happening.
tblock1984 wrote:Why are we so preoccupied with what is right and wrong. The old ways spoke of Duality. This is a concept that is not new to Paganism.
Every Yin must have its Yang. Isn't the point to find the Nirvana-like state in between?
My understanding of Taoism is that right and wrong is one of the few things that is not dualistic; morality and wisdom are balance between the earth and sky/static and dynamic/light and dark/feminine and masculine/etc. If you are balanced, then you are right (on the path). If you are inbalanced then you are wrong (off the path), which will cause misery.
tblock1984 wrote:Why are we so preoccupied with labeling what is right and wrong. The old ways spoke of Duality. This is a concept that is not new to Paganism. Every Yin must have its Yang. Isn't the point to find the Nirvana-like state in between?
Fixed
Orkeosaurus wrote:My understanding of Taoism is that right and wrong is one of the few things that is not dualistic; morality and wisdom are balance between the earth and sky/static and dynamic/light and dark/feminine and masculine/etc. If you are balanced, then you are right (on the path). If you are inbalanced then you are wrong (off the path), which will cause misery.
Good and Evil is a dichotomy and, according to Tao, dichotomy are illusory phenomena. Funny concept for Dualism, considering Wiki says it is a nondualistic philosophy. That in itself explains my intrigue with Duality.
Wiki wrote:In Taoism, Tao both precedes and encompasses the universe. As with other nondualistic philosophies, all the observable objects in the world - referred to in the Tao Te Ching as 'the named' or 'the ten thousand things' - are considered to be manifestations of Tao, and can only operate within the boundaries of Tao. Tao is, by contrast, often referred to as 'the nameless', because neither it nor its principles can ever be adequately expressed in words. It is conceived, for example, with neither shape nor form, as simultaneously perfectly still and constantly moving, as both larger than the largest thing and smaller than the smallest, because the words that describe shape, movement, size, or other qualities always create dichotomies, and Tao is always a unity.
While the Tao cannot be expressed, Taoism holds that it can be known, and its principles can be followed. Much of Taoist writing focuses on the value of following the Tao - called Te (virtue) - and of the ultimate uselessness of trying to understand or control Tao outright. This is often expressed through yin and yang arguments, where every action creates a counter-action as a natural, unavoidable movement within manifestations of the Tao.
Tao is often compared to water: clear, colorless, unremarkable, yet all beings depend on it for life, and even the hardest stone cannot stand in its way forever.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I feel that I need to consolidate my thoughts a little bit....
We will continue to argue over religion until true religious understanding has been established. Religious understanding cannot be achieved until we free our minds of old, archaic archetypes that no longer apply. Freeing you minds is something we cannot do on our own. The next generation, the children of today, are going to be the ones to make this change. This change will not be like the switch from analog to HD. It will take time. It will take years. Just like the Fox network becoming a network of soft core porn and biased news broadcasting...
tblock1984 wrote:
Good and Evil is a dichotomy and, according to Tao, dichotomy are illusory phenomena. Funny concept for Dualism, considering Wiki says it is a nondualistic philosophy.
That in itself explains my intrigue with Duality.
Yeah, to my understanding Taoist dichotomies are illustrative, rather than descriptive.
tblock1984 wrote:
Good and Evil is a dichotomy and, according to Tao, dichotomy are illusory phenomena. Funny concept for Dualism, considering Wiki says it is a nondualistic philosophy.
That in itself explains my intrigue with Duality.
Wiki wrote:In Taoism, Tao both precedes and encompasses the universe. As with other nondualistic philosophies, all the observable objects in the world - referred to in the Tao Te Ching as 'the named' or 'the ten thousand things' - are considered to be manifestations of Tao, and can only operate within the boundaries of Tao. Tao is, by contrast, often referred to as 'the nameless', because neither it nor its principles can ever be adequately expressed in words. It is conceived, for example, with neither shape nor form, as simultaneously perfectly still and constantly moving, as both larger than the largest thing and smaller than the smallest, because the words that describe shape, movement, size, or other qualities always create dichotomies, and Tao is always a unity.
While the Tao cannot be expressed, Taoism holds that it can be known, and its principles can be followed. Much of Taoist writing focuses on the value of following the Tao - called Te (virtue) - and of the ultimate uselessness of trying to understand or control Tao outright. This is often expressed through yin and yang arguments, where every action creates a counter-action as a natural, unavoidable movement within manifestations of the Tao.
Tao is often compared to water: clear, colorless, unremarkable, yet all beings depend on it for life, and even the hardest stone cannot stand in its way forever.
By "nondualistic" I would guess it's referring to Cartesian Dualism (the spiritual/mental being separate from the material). By dualistic I was only referring to being fundamentally paired.
Concerning good and evil/right and wrong, I don't see why those couldn't exist in Taoism. They're not material properties, and it seems that the philosophy only concerns itself with material dichotomies. After all, the Tao cannot be described; but things can also be describable. In that sense you would have a fundamental dichotomy present right there.
Good and evil/right and wrong in Taoism seem to be more closely associated with wisdom/foolishness (wisdom being knowledge of the Tao, which remains pretty separate from knowledge in the normal sense).
As not to completely derail this thread, I am going to take put this conversation on the back burned a bit and call for a cease fire. Dropping a very deep thing like that on a casual Monday morning was maybe bad form on my part.
What can I say? I observe and report. Not picking fights, just calling things how I see them. I am human, too. I am just as prone to err and asshatery (the act of wearing one's ass as a hat) as anyone else. And as I stated before, I cannot fully describe my thoughts to my audience due to the fact that I am limited by what my fingers type and how you interpret that...
That being said, I hope all of our participants are having fun! Now, let us leave left field and move a little closer to being on topic: What do you think the practical application of rituals in NeoPaganism has in respect to casting spells and manipulating mental energy? I have heard some relate it to prayer. Others claim it is the Law of Attraction. Or very cool self help exercises. I am very interested in this topic as I have never been able to wrap my head around rituals in the modern day.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Good and evil/right and wrong in Taoism seem to be more closely associated with wisdom/foolishness (wisdom being knowledge of the Tao, which remains pretty separate from knowledge in the normal sense).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orkeosaurus wrote:Oh, not trying to pick fights or anything. I'm just sort of thinking out loud.
LOL! Same here... Honestly, I don't really know where I am going with this until I get there and re-read 5 pages and go "Oh..."
I just don't want the convo to get stale from back-and-forth-ing... It is the number one cause of Religion Thread Deaths on Dakka.
And I am not done with this topic yet... Truly unbiased informative understanding... This thread shows promise...
Automatically Appended Next Post: I guess what I should do is ask the audience what they would like to talk about:
Rituals provide a structure for action and thought.
Religious rituals provide a structure for emotional focus and buildup, for a shared intention and worship. In the context of my religious practice, they allow us as a group (or occasionally as individuals) to meditate, to reflect on the holy day, what it meant to our ancestors and means to us. To acknowledge and honor the Gods, Nature Spirits, and Ancestors/Honored Dead, to make offerings and/or sacrifices to the Gods, and to ask/pray for positive outcomes from them.
To my understanding Ceremonial Magic/k also uses rituals, but primarily as a focus for personal will or drawing power from the universe (or specific sources? I’m not an expert) to effect changes in the world.
As I understand it, the big difference between prayer and Magic/k is that prayer asks the God/s for something, but by asking through them, you allow the divine to choose the best way (and whether) to grant the request. If it is better for the request not to be granted, or if the specific thing you are asking for turns out not to be in your (or the subject’s) best interest, the God/s adjust for that. With Magic/k, you are attempting to directly effect a specific change, which might have unintended and/or unforeseeable consequences. Note that this is not intended to be condemnatory, but is merely my (limited) understanding.
Has Wicca had the same "reinventing" process as Druidism did? By this I mean that the Druids we see and their rituals are based on what was recreated in the 18th Century. None of the lore was written down, so it had to be recreated, or to be harsh, made up (I don't mean that in a mocking way). It's based on what we think it would or should of been, so I find it very hard to feel anything when it comes to spells.
As much as it pains me to say it, especially as I loath the RC church, the rituals connected to it seem to carry more weight as they've been passed down over hundreds of years. You only have to see a heavy duty bannishing in Supernatural and it makes the hairs on the back of your neck stand up.
Wolfstan wrote:Has Wicca had the same "reinventing" process as Druidism did?
Pretty much, yeah. Much like pow-wows are associated with Native Americans but are are really a modern invention. If you go back 200 years there was no such thing but here we are today.
Albatross wrote:Is there really more to it than simply impressing goth chicks?
Now that made me spit out my cuppa laughing!
You don't need to be a pagan to practise what most people consider 'magic'. My partner is christian (and proud of it) but is also a healer, this is how we got together as she healed my knee which according to my doctor was arthritic. I don't know how she did it but I've not had a problem since (just under 2 years now!).
Another thing worth noting is that most 'witches' were just herbalists keeping alive traditions that had been handed down through the generations.
@Mick A - I know what you mean, mate. I'm considering wrapping my laptop in Tesco carrier-bags (other carrier bags are available ), because I'm always drinking tea whilst browsing this site .
Another thing worth noting is that most 'witches' were just herbalists keeping alive traditions that had been handed down through the generations.
True. Such practice is part of our national heritage - it should be taught in schools, historically if not practically.
GG- Witchcraft is a pretty broad term. Are you talking about the classic negative definitions, or the more modern Neopagans who use the term?
Folks might want to check out some of the links and definitions I posted before.
Albatross, Wolfstan- Wicca is pretty much the standout Neopagan religion. It was created in the 20th century, out of a combination of elements, including the writings of Margaret Murray and Robert Graves, and ceremonial magickal traditions. The founders originally claimed that it was handed down surviving lineages from antiquity, but those claims have basically been debunked (ref. Aidan Kelly’s Crafting the Art of Magic, though that’s not 100% accurate either). Trying to borrow authority by claiming antiquity is (to my understanding) a pretty common thing when a new religion starts. Many practitioners and new initiates continued to believe that Wicca actually was of ancient origin up at least through the 70s and 80s. My mother was initiated into such a group in the 60s, and didn’t really find out they weren’t practicing authentic Paleopagan Irish traditions for some years.
Albatross, there is still some debate about what, if any, folk traditional practices exist in any part of Europe. To the best of my knowledge most of them were stamped out centuries ago, at least any that constituted a real organized religious practice; not counting small folk magics/superstitions that weren’t really competition for the dominant Judeo-Christian religions. That said, there are some intriguing mentions of what appear to be Paleopagan/semi-Druidic practices extant in Lithuania up until the Soviet Union took over in the early 20th century, and there are supposed to be some written records thereof in some Russion institutions.
In the late 70s/early 80s, Isaac Bonewits and some friends got the idea of doing more real research into authentic Paleopagan practices, and eventually decided to go ahead and make a new religious group out of it, and that’s how Ar nDroicht Fein started. My mother joined that in the 80s, then the rest of our family later (my dad was more agnostic, and mom didn’t indoctrinate us as kids- we got to choose whether we wanted to participate).
Wolfstan, I think the Druid groups you’re talking about are what Bonewits classifies as Mesopagan Druids- their practices informed largely by fraternal orders, 18th century romantic ideas about Noble Savages, bad archeology (and stuff made up by guys like Iolo Morganwg), and monotheism. Modern Neopagan ones are consciously aware that they’re starting something NEW, though they often try to do some research to understand as much as we can about the authentic Paleopagan practices, albeit working with pretty limited resources. There’s also the more rigorous Celtic Reconstructionists, who are usually a bit stricter on their scholarly research.
Mannahnin wrote:GG- Witchcraft is a pretty broad term. Are you talking about the classic negative definitions, or the more modern Neopagans who use the term?
Well I guess I'm refereing to the occult practice. I'm not an expert on this stuff at all, but when you start talking about using magic, beyond the David Copperfield variety, it sounds like your getting into Voodoo/witchdoctor/spiritualism a.k.a witchcraft. And of course I'm not talking about flying around on broomsticks.
In the late 70s/early 80s, Isaac Bonewits and some friends got the idea of doing more real research into authentic Paleopagan practices, and eventually decided to go ahead and make a new religious group out of it, and that’s how Ar nDroicht Fein started. My mother joined that in the 80s, then the rest of our family later (my dad was more agnostic, and mom didn’t indoctrinate us as kids- we got to choose whether we wanted to participate).
Bonewits apparently considered 'early Wicca' to be genuinely Paleopagan though, didn't he? How is his reconstruction any different to any other? None of it is 'authentic' - there's a lot of over-romanticism concerning all things Irish across 'The Pond' from what I've observed.
Yes, there are some folk traditions that survive in the British Isles (and by extension the USA/Canada/The Antipodes) - mainly related to folk song and traditional community practice. But religions? Nope.
My necklace cord is broken at the moment, but I do usually wear a Thor hammer and symbol that represents Odin around my neck. If there are gods, I want mine to be of the Nordic variety
The day someone can actually prove that any of that witchcraft malarkey actually works is the day i will believe in it.
I think all of it is absolute bollocks. Horoscopes, palm reading, witchcraft, its just stuff that people "do" for a hobby or something they find fun. I like reading comic books but i grew out of thinking i could stick to walls and fly.
I have found it is generally something that goths and greebos like to say they do because it sounds kinda cool. But seriously, magic?! Youve gotta be kidding me..
mattyrm wrote:The day someone can actually prove that any of that witchcraft malarkey actually works is the day i will believe in it.
I think all of it is absolute bollocks. Horoscopes, palm reading, witchcraft, its just stuff that people "do" for a hobby or something they find fun. I like reading comic books but i grew out of thinking i could stick to walls and fly.
I have found it is generally something that goths and greebos like to say they do because it sounds kinda cool. But seriously, magic?! Youve gotta be kidding me..
And yet most of the world believe in miracle workers and spirits and powers and humans walking on water and transmuting water to wine and coming back from the dead.
Here's food for thought. The human being is made of 70(sih)% water, the moon can make entire seas rise and fall shifting millions of tons of ocean and yet we currently don't understand how exactly it affects a person, yet you talk to taxi drivers, casualty hospital workers and The Samaritans and they will all tell you busiest nights are always on a full moon.
There are more things in Heaven and Earth and all that jazz.
I have always been sympathetic to older faiths since there was much about them in terms of coexisting with the envirionment rather than conquering it. I don't really get the cherry-picking that goes on with 'neopagans' or whatever they are called, who basically create a religious system that is the most convenient and justifies what they want.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Here's food for thought. The human being is made of 70(sih)% water, the moon can make entire seas rise and fall shifting millions of tons of ocean and yet we currently don't understand how exactly it affects a person, yet you talk to taxi drivers, casualty hospital workers and The Samaritans and they will all tell you busiest nights are always on a full moon.
An exboss of mine had a calendar with the moon phases. He used to track "incidents" and the closer we got to te full moon the more "incidents" happened. He could tell it was a full moon just by the increase of human "crazyness"
In the late 70s/early 80s, Isaac Bonewits and some friends got the idea of doing more real research into authentic Paleopagan practices, and eventually decided to go ahead and make a new religious group out of it, and that’s how Ar nDroicht Fein started. My mother joined that in the 80s, then the rest of our family later (my dad was more agnostic, and mom didn’t indoctrinate us as kids- we got to choose whether we wanted to participate).
Bonewits apparently considered 'early Wicca' to be genuinely Paleopagan though, didn't he? How is his reconstruction any different to any other? None of it is 'authentic' - there's a lot of over-romanticism concerning all things Irish across 'The Pond' from what I've observed.
Yes, there are some folk traditions that survive in the British Isles (and by extension the USA/Canada/The Antipodes) - mainly related to folk song and traditional community practice. But religions? Nope.
No, to the best of my knowledge he did not and does not. As you’ve noted, there are no documented surviving “authentic” traditions. No Paleopagan religions handed down in secrecy in Europe surviving to this day.
Neopagans are trying to create and participate in modern, relevant forms of worship and community which resonate with and reference ancient and meaningful (at least to them) concepts and deities, sometimes (but not exclusively by any means) connected to their own heritage. Part of the point of the Paleopagan, Neopagan, and Mesopagan classifications is to write accurately and honestly about the differences.
While there are few clear boundaries or easy divisions between Neopaganism and Pagan Reconstructionism, basically the point of Reconstructionism is to reference and research real archeological and historical data, and work from that as best as you can, with as little invention (or importation from other cultures) as you can manage. Obviously you can’t get away from some invention, as there is not enough surviving data to practice a religion just based on what we can dig up. Here are a couple more links.
There are two approaches. One is to find well-read, experienced and knowledgeable people to recommend books to you. In order for this to work, they must be people you trust to make correct judgments between good and bad research. CR folk often debate the validity and accuracy of information presented in books. Usually an eventual consensus judgment emerges about the author or book.
The second approach is a difficult but very personally rewarding learning process of developing that discerning judgment yourself. This involves critical thinking and the ability to discern the difference between fantasy and reality, solid attributed research and wishful thinking. It’s useful to go through the bibliography of any book you are looking at. Check out who is writing the books the author references. If most of the books in the bibliography are printed by occult and Pagan presses, chances are you’re better off looking at a different source. However, if a book or article is published by an academic press — affiliated with a university or other academic institution — you’re more likely to find useful and accurate information.
A crucial point in evaluating any book is whether the author is writing within their own field of expertise. For instance, someone with an advanced degree in archaeology, but no training in the Celtic languages, might be invaluable in terms of understanding sacred sites, but next to worthless in analyzing the mythology. A Ph.D. level zoologist might be a fine author on zoology, but know absolutely nothing about Celtic studies or comparative mythology. If an author cannot read the original language of the texts they are using as source materials, there are bound to be flaws in their interpretation. Similarly, if an author is trained in Classical and European mythology, but is not an expert on the Insular Celts, their conclusions will be filtered through a different lens and may easily result in a warped view.
We can not believe any authors who write on matters Celtic if what they are presenting is based on nothing more than their own opinion. Checking their references is absolutely necessary if you are uncertain as to the historical accuracy of their work. If you can’t find credible sources with some proof of their claims, it’s best to take the information with a grain of salt or to regard it as personal opinion, not fact. The most accurate sources on Celtic history and religion are going to be archaeologists, Celtic historians, and language experts publishing through academic presses, not occult and New Age authors. The books may be more difficult to wade through, but the rewards for doing so are immense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:GG- Witchcraft is a pretty broad term. Are you talking about the classic negative definitions, or the more modern Neopagans who use the term?
Well I guess I'm refereing to the occult practice. I'm not an expert on this stuff at all, but when you start talking about using magic, beyond the David Copperfield variety, it sounds like your getting into Voodoo/witchdoctor/spiritualism a.k.a witchcraft. And of course I'm not talking about flying around on broomsticks.
GG
I think you're lumping a bunch of different things into one, there. Voudoun is a Mesopagan religion by Bonetiwits' classification, being a mix of Paleopagan African religious/spiritual practices with some Christian concepts mixed in. Witchdoctors are traditional tribal healers/medicine men. Spiritualism is something else entirely: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritualism
In regards to the full moon I work with adults with challenging behaviour and have always found that there is increased agitation leading upto the full moon but the actual night of the full moon is normally the quietest if doing a nighshift...
Mick
Mannahnin wrote:
I think you're lumping a bunch of different things into one, there. Voudoun is a Mesopagan religion by Bonetiwits' classification, being a mix of Paleopagan African religious/spiritual practices with some Christian concepts mixed in. Witchdoctors are traditional tribal healers/medicine men. Spiritualism is something else entirely: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritualism
I lumped them together because they essentially do the same thing. They commune with evil spirits. Christians call these spirits demons.
I was curious to see how long it would take for a member of a monotheistic religion to slip in the 'yes, all your ancestors/spirits/polytheistic gods are belong to us...and they're ebil'.
Mannahnin wrote:
I think you're lumping a bunch of different things into one, there. Voudoun is a Mesopagan religion by Bonetiwits' classification, being a mix of Paleopagan African religious/spiritual practices with some Christian concepts mixed in. Witchdoctors are traditional tribal healers/medicine men. Spiritualism is something else entirely: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritualism
I lumped them together because they essentially do the same thing. They commune with evil spirits. Christians call these spirits demons.
GG
Not necessarily. Demons represent the angels that fell with Lucifer. You'd have to show support for the claim that spirits are classed as demons.
Now hold on a second here. This is "the pagan thread", right? I was asked a direct question by mannahim. I gave an answer that was not aa religious attack(MSG). It was an explanation of what Christians believe and directly relates to paganism (as I understand the term anyway) . Remember the guy that got offended is the guy that asked the question, who happens to be a mod.
A bunch of you jumped all over frazz. And now mannahiem has basically just done the same thing frazz did. (although definately less threatening than frazz was, but still a threat was implied).
I was simply answering a question. If you don't want a question answered then don't ask it.
I also thought that it was at least the Catholic dogma that any sort of spirit not in service of the Lord was evil (and communing with them witchcraft, a crime deserving execution).
GG- sorry to get snappish. I think I was partially overreacting due to previous hijackings of the thread with Christian content. You made a comment, I asked a clarifying question. You expanded on your initial comment, and I provided some clarifying data on several different groups and sets of practices. All good up to that point.
You then expressed a condemnatory judgment of the different groups I described, and lumped them together again, in direct contravention of what I had just told you, and without the courtesy of adding any sort of caveat or question. If you wanted to say “from my perspective it seems” or “what I have been taught as a Christian”, that’d be a bit different. But you seemed to really be adding nothing to the conversation except condemnation and contradiction. All heat and no light.
Orke- There are multiple places in the Bible where it condemns witchcraft, divination, sorcery, or other occult practices. Deuteronomy also has the lovely passage: “3 Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and burn their Asherah poles* in the fire; cut down the idols of their gods and wipe out their names from those places.”
The entire problem is centered around mannys sensitivity on the issue. I, nor orke said anything particularly offensive. It's just that it's obvious that manny is a bit touchy about this subject. I don't mind not commenting on the subject because I don't take pleasure in needling someone. So for mannys sake I'll not comment anymore on this thread.
Back to Wiccans, witchcraft and wizardry- what, if any, text are sacred to them? What would someone curious about their beliefs read? I was very much enjoying the debate about how much of the neopagan movement was new, and how much was historically accurate.
Wiccans typically (but I’m not sure if this is universal) use a book, often called a Book of Shadows, as a religious journal, ritual / spell record, and meditative resource. It would have notes, prayers, spells, chants, songs and/or religious poetry in it. In the original British traditions (starting with Gardner) this would be hand-copied from your initiating Priest or Priestess, though it was expected that you would add things that work for you, or new things you invent, and might subtract things which did not work for you.
Neopagan religions generally don’t have holy books, per se, as we don’t have ancient sacred texts passed down from history, sadly. There are lots of modern books on the subject, though. And some important historical texts. Carmina Gadelica, for example, is a great collection of historic Scottish folk lore, songs, charms, prayers, hymns and incantations, compiled in Scotland between 1855 and 1910. An English language one-volume version was published in 1992.
Gitzbitah wrote:Back to Wiccans, witchcraft and wizardry- what, if any, text are sacred to them? What would someone curious about their beliefs read? I was very much enjoying the debate about how much of the neopagan movement was new, and how much was historically accurate.
Generally speaking, there aren't any universally sacred texts to read. For introductory books, Scott Cunningham, Raymond Buckland, and Starhawk are three decent authors to look for; Silver RavenWolf is okay if you want to go the 'trendy' route (gag). For the Asatru-inclined, the Poetic and Prose Eddas are extremely defining historical Norse reads.
As for books in general, if you look closely at the authors I'd recommend anything written by a member of the ATC, the Aquarian Tabernacle Church. They get pretty detailed and far away from the fluffy, trendy 'Cast A Spell 101' books and more into the actual theology and religion of paganism.
Mannahnin wrote:I think I was partially overreacting due to previous hijackings of the thread with Christian content.
In defense of posts made by myself and others, earlier in this thread, we only made those posts because of critiques and false statements made by several others. Just because the thread isn't specifically about Christianity doesn't mean you can post unrepresentative information, false facts or assaults against it with impunity. And you will notice some of us, myself included, did call for PM conversations to resolve the issues because they weren't related to the thread.
And I appreciate that JEB. I didn't call anyone out at that time, because I'm generally comfortable with digressions, and it seemed like a pretty reasonable discussion.
At the end of the day, GG implied that pagans communed with evil spirits - he knew exactly what he was doing. Total flamebait, IMO.
@Mannahin
Isaac Bonewits, the influential Neo-druid, has claimed that early Wicca (at a time when it was still called "Witchcraft") was in fact a Meso-Pagan path.
I found this on Wiki, dunno how true it is - no citation!
Just out of interest, do you have any interest in Ogham?
Albatross wrote:At the end of the day, GG implied that pagans communed with evil spirits - he knew exactly what he was doing. Total flamebait, IMO.
That may be true. But Modquisition is on... I say live and let live.
Besides, it does not bother me that some random person on the net thinks the spirits of my Mother and Grandfather are evil. I know that they are not, and that is enough to me...
Albatross wrote:Just out of interest, do you have any interest in Ogham?
I am interested, too. I know they are characters that are used in divination.
Albatross wrote:At the end of the day, GG implied that pagans communed with evil spirits - he knew exactly what he was doing. Total flamebait, IMO.
You know what's really bad? I once heard someone claim gods don't exist at all!
@Mannahin
Isaac Bonewits, the influential Neo-druid, has claimed that early Wicca (at a time when it was still called "Witchcraft") was in fact a Meso-Pagan path.
I found this on Wiki, dunno how true it is - no citation!
It sounds like your typical Salem-era "witchcraft" would fit under meso-paganism; traits of older religions/customs surviving into a predominantly Christian time.
I wouldn't say that was "Wicca", but the I suppose the Wiccans might...
Albatross wrote:Just out of interest, do you have any interest in Ogham?
I am interested, too. I know they are characters that are used in divination.
I've done a bit of study on it. It's been a bloody long time since I've looked at it.
It was designed to be carved into sticks, which were indeed used for divination. It uses basically hash marks: / \ - :to represent letters, words, ideas, etc.
Now you've got me wanting to re-read the books I've got in my Library on it!
Albatross wrote:Just out of interest, do you have any interest in Ogham?
I am interested, too. I know they are characters that are used in divination.
I've done a bit of study on it. It's been a bloody long time since I've looked at it.
It was designed to be carved into sticks, which were indeed used for divination. It uses basically hash marks: / \ - :to represent letters, words, ideas, etc.
Now you've got me wanting to re-read the books I've got in my Library on it!
QFT! I read a lot of stuff a few years ago about Druids. Sadly, most of that information has been replaced with 40K rules and 4chan memes...
Automatically Appended Next Post: I did a quick Wiki search... Not much, actually, other than history.
Here are some pics of the Book of Ballymote (1390), the Auraicept na n-Éces explaining the ogham script.
endless wrote:It's a little disappointing that wiccans are using dogma?
First off, whom are you speaking to? The Quote button is your friend...
Second, is that sarcasm or an actual question? If not rhetorical, please establish some context.
Third, if that is snarky tongue in cheek comment, I would like to say that by that same logic, I find it a little disappointing that Christians are using dogma... And by that I mean WTF!?!?! That makes little to no sense.
Sorry, but when you get into a discussion like this on Dakka, please be specific... Do you really want to fill one of these out over an easily avoidable misunderstanding?
Well, DO YOU? Hurr durr hurr.... JK. But seriously, WTF?
endless wrote:
It's a little disappointing that wiccans are using dogma?
First off, whom are you speaking to? The Quote button is your friend...
Second, is that sarcasm or an actual question? If not rhetorical, please establish some context.
Third, if that is snarky tongue in cheek comment, I would like to say that by that same logic, I find it a little disappointing that Christians are using dogma... And by that I mean WTF!?!?! That makes little to no sense.
Sorry, but when you get into a discussion like this on Dakka, please be specific... Do you really want to fill one of these out over an easily avoidable misunderstanding?
I'm quoting you. What is your point? That the Wiccan religion has used older texts to justify itself? That Dakka has a status above all other forms of expression that would allow you to say what is right or what is wrong and is also is your forum, allowing you to make rules and to decry anyone who disagrees with you?
Invent away and justify yourself however you like, I say that an ideology which holds freedom as central to it's belief cannot restrict anyone and should never underestimate its' critics.
I did a bit of digging into the various areas of 'pagan' religion, along with demonology, spirituality, satanism, and various other fields a few years back. I found plenty to interest me, had a few experiences of my own(good and bad), and left it there.
Now as a War Studies student, I've also done a little research into the various programs the military has conducted into the fields of the paranormal. There's some interesting data and results to be found.
All of this has led me, as a natural agnostic, to the conclusion that there definitely is something else out there. I'm not necessarily referring to spiritual entities or the like, but I believe after examining all the evidence, that there is some sort of 'power' (for lack of a better word), that resides in us, and in the Universe itself. The various religions, cults and psychics all tap into this in some way or another, but are all just merely different aspects or approaches to what is ultimately the same thing.
That's the conclusion I've reached however. I do think though, that further study under appropriate conditions is definitely merited, and it could give valuable insights into ourselves and the rest of the universe.
Isaac Bonewits, the influential Neo-druid, has claimed that early Wicca (at a time when it was still called "Witchcraft") was in fact a Meso-Pagan path.
I found this on Wiki, dunno how true it is - no citation!
Sounds like a distortion/misunderstanding of something he'd say. Uou can go right to the source on this, though:
Wow, just... Wow... I don't usually dissect posts from other users like this (unless it is Frazz ), but I think you misunderstood me... And I think I misunderstood you.
You made a statement and put a question mark at the end, and I was confused by this. On top of that, you left no context to the intent of your post. That led me to make an assumption: I thought you were replying to someone else with a rhetorical question (in which case I wanted to know who you were responding to, hence the quote comment) or being cheeky and unintentionally laying flame bait (which is not a good idea under Modquisition). Grammar and context are important on the internet, and it is against Dakka Dakka Forum Rules.
First, let me say I am sorry, endless, for jumping to conclusions.
endless wrote:OK, let's quote that...
endless wrote: It's a little disappointing that wiccans are using dogma?
First off, whom are you speaking to? The Quote button is your friend... Second, is that sarcasm or an actual question? If not rhetorical, please establish some context. Third, if that is snarky tongue in cheek comment, I would like to say that by that same logic, I find it a little disappointing that Christians are using dogma... And by that I mean WTF!?!?! That makes little to no sense.
Sorry, but when you get into a discussion like this on Dakka, please be specific... Do you really want to fill one of these out over an easily avoidable misunderstanding?
I'm quoting you.
FYI... When you see the [quote] tag, you can change it to [quote=tblock1984] to place my user name in the top of the box and let everyone know who you quoting. This code is auto-generated when you click the Quote button at the top right of a person's post. That is what I meant.
endless wrote:What is your point? That the Wiccan religion has used older texts to justify itself?
We were discussing the Ogham... Pic was related. That is all.
endless wrote:That Dakka has a status above all other forms of expression that would allow you to say what is right or what is wrong and is also is your forum, allowing you to make rules and to decry anyone who disagrees with you?
...o.O? I never said I disagree with you. I said I didn't understand you post. Also, check a few pages back for my back and forth with Orkeosaurus to see what I have to say about subjective labels such as right/wrong and good/evil before you accuse me of being intolerant. In fact, read my history and witness my nerdrage on account of other people labeling things they don't understand, either out of ignorance or intolerance. Or just ask Frazzled. He can tell you stories of our epic battle over religious intolerance. My point is, you are really barking up the wrong tree.
Anywho, I digress...
endless wrote:Invent away and justify yourself however you like, I say that an ideology which holds freedom as central to it's belief cannot restrict anyone and should never underestimate its' critics.
I am not inventing. This forum has rules. I am making sure my thread doesn't get closed due to a violation of Dakka Dakka Forum Rule #1 under the scrutiny of Modquisition. It has nothing to do with you or your beliefs.
Ketara wrote:I did a bit of digging into the various areas of 'pagan' religion, along with demonology, spirituality, satanism, and various other fields a few years back. I found plenty to interest me, had a few experiences of my own(good and bad), and left it there.
Now as a War Studies student, I've also done a little research into the various programs the military has conducted into the fields of the paranormal. There's some interesting data and results to be found.
All of this has led me, as a natural agnostic, to the conclusion that there definitely is something else out there. I'm not necessarily referring to spiritual entities or the like, but I believe after examining all the evidence, that there is some sort of 'power' (for lack of a better word), that resides in us, and in the Universe itself. The various religions, cults and psychics all tap into this in some way or another, but are all just merely different aspects or approaches to what is ultimately the same thing.
That's the conclusion I've reached however. I do think though, that further study under appropriate conditions is definitely merited, and it could give valuable insights into ourselves and the rest of the universe.
QFT That is what I was getting at earlier in the thread. I find it asinine that humanity fights over religion when I believe it is the same power with different names. The kicker is: I don't think this entity or power cares. IMHO, it is very indifferent to what we do, like a programmer writing code. YMMV. But for me: TheoLOL.
Politely, lets all move on. I think there's been some miscommunication in the last few posts. We have to remember this is the internet and you should naturally assume things are going to be misinterpreted, so everyone take a step back, count some coup, and start again.
Ah paganism, truly a hodge podge of insanity and cultural blending. I don't know why people get so excited like, "Oh yay! I am so cool for re-discovering this way awesome religion that is so not existent anymore!" Please people, if you really think that go to India. Almost all of the gods that have ever been worshipped in some form or fashion are represented in Hinduism. It is the only major world religion that IS pagan. On a more interesting note C.S. Lewis was a firm believer that if Christianity was wrong, Hinduism was right. I don't agree with him though. I think that if Christianity is wrong, then Nietzsche is right, but that is just my opinion...
).
.
Oh, but don't worry folks. We aren't done yet.
Honestly, I don't really know where I am going with this until I get there and re-read 5 pages and go "Oh..."
