Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

GG

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.

Wow, so this is what an unmodded religious thread is like. Impressive.

On the positive Dorns Fist's avatar alone is worth the price of admission.

Thank you sir!

It's important to spread Christmas Cheer!

Dorns Fist wrote:Thank you sir!

It's important to spread Christmas Cheer!

"Hey Wife. I'm fat like Santa. you should be Mrs. Claus and wear this."
"You need to go yourself old man."

Thats my baby!

Dorns Fist wrote:Thank you sir!

It's important to spread Christmas Cheer!

I'd like to spread her Christmas Chee..../flees mod vulture squadron response unit.

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...

Still not too much about Paganism in this thread, I see.

[Sad]

And a startling lack of bikers

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.

GG

I was actually offended by that when I was a (oversensitive) kid.

It's pretty funny now, though.

Mannahnin wrote:Still not too much about Paganism in this thread, I see.

[Sad]

Thank you, Mannahnin.

Finally, the second part of my indigo children post appears... Change. I will now introduce Crystal children into the mix.

Interesting read:

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.

The following is a result from doing a Google search for "why are people afraid to discuss certain things?":

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.

tblock1984 wrote:Finally, the second part of my indigo children post appears... Change. I will now introduce Crystal children into the mix.

Interesting read:

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.

I was getting concerned there for a minute.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I was getting concerned there for a minute.

I am a skeptic, too. But day in and day out, my little girls surprise me in ways that make me simply ask myself, "What if?"

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."

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.

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).