Pagan Theology

[Ryokan]

I know next to nothing about Pagans and Wiccans. The only one I've met is my cousin, and she was a "Wiccan"/Deepak Chopra acolyte, and hardly representative. So I ahve some questions:
1. Is paganism/Wicca presuppositional or evidential?
2. Pagan/Wicca morality: Absolute or situational?
3. Do Pagan's evangleize? If yes, how? If no, how do they attract new members?
4. What are the major brands, denomination, or whatever in the Pagan/Wiccan community, and how do they differ?
5. Do Pagan's have holy books? If so, some examples?

Thanks a bunch for anyone who has time to answer my questions.

[technomage]

I know next to nothing about Pagans and Wiccans. The only one I've met is my cousin, and she was a "Wiccan"/Deepak Chopra acolyte, and hardly representative. So I ahve some questions:
1. Is paganism/Wicca presuppositional or evidential?
2. Pagan/Wicca morality: Absolute or situational?
3. Do Pagan's evangleize? If yes, how? If no, how do they attract new members?
4. What are the major brands, denomination, or whatever in the Pagan/Wiccan community, and how do they differ?
5. Do Pagan's have holy books? If so, some examples?

Thanks a bunch for anyone who has time to answer my questions.

Hoo, boy. Talking about "Pagan Religions" is an awfully broad category ... if we were speaking languages, you'd be asking about all the Romance languages at once. :hehe:

1: Generally speaking, Paganism is evidential or experiential. Most Pagans are actually more concerned with orthopraxy than orthodoxy--but even that is only concerned with practice within that group. If you're in the group down the road, most Pagans don't care if you practice differently.
2: Pagan morality: since "morality" is--by definition--cultural standards, morals are relative. Personally, I believe there may be an absolute ethical standard, but I'm a somewhat diffident hard agnostic about it: I don't believe it is possible to know that standard (though I think it's possible to guess).
3: Some Pagans do--most don't, and rather frown on the concept. Truth to tell, a lot of Paganism is in reaction to Christianity in a more-or-less post-Christian culture. A lot of the "Pagans" you'll meet are Pagan because it's the flavor of the month.
4: Major brands: as you've seen from the "Things You'll Never See a Pagan Say" thread, too many to list.
5: Holy books: some don't, some do, but of those who do there are too many to list.

Justin

[Cu Mhorrigan]

I wrote up this article once that gives the basics of Paganism I am attaching it as a Word Dc umant and I am putting it up for you to read.
Enjoy.

Paganism 101: the Basics of the Pagan Spirituality
by Cu-Morrigan

Introduction:
The Author:
The Class: Paganism has received a lot of attention in recent years with the internet and shows like Charmed, Buffy: the vampire Slayer, Angel, as well as Movies like The Craft, Harry Potter and Cartoons Like Sabrina the Teen-Aged witch.
Nowadays, it has become fashionable to announce one's self as a Pagan, or Neo-Pagan, Wiccan or witch, especially teenagers, wishing someway to attract attention, and by adults trying to follow the latest fad in spirituality or as an excuse to justify weird or aberrant behavior.
However, Calling yourself a Pagan is One thing, Actually following the spiritual path is something else. It is My hope with this class to explain in practical terms what it actually means to be a pagan in our modern age and to assist those who wish to implement the following of this spiritual path.

Definition of the word "Pagan":
The Word Pagan is derived from the Latin word Paganus which is loosely translated to mean "Of the country". It should be noted however the usage of paganus within the Roman Empire (Where they Spoke Latin, dyuh) was always meant to be a slur meaning "hill-billy, redneck, hick, trailer trash, white trash" much in the same way we would talk about Guests on the Jerry Springer Show, and members of rural communities.
Later, when the Christian faith took over the Roman Empire under Charlemagne, it took on a connotation of those outside of the Christian faith and those in need of conversion. Not an improvement, because Paganus was still Much of an insult to imply that a "Paganus" was unlearned, uneducated, and uncivilized.
Turning a negative into a positive:
It wasn’t until recently that Pagan had gained a more positive use with the resurgence of pagan beliefs within the European and American Cultures. It was adopted by those who sought a spirituality closer to those of our "ancestors". Eventually It was taken to mean those who follow the Old religions, or those who follow a spiritual path outside of the big three abrahamic religions. (What are the big Three Abrahamic religions?)

What DO pagans believe?:
An it harm none Do as thou wilt
Speaking in general terms, Paganism is an earth-centered spirituality, which believes in the sacredness of all things, equality of all persons regardless of gender, sexual, and spiritual and social practices. The practices within paganism are extremely diverse and open-ended allowing individuals to incorporate whatever rituals and belief systems they feel comfortable with.
Since there is so much diversity within our spiritual path, we stress personal liberty, and responsibility for one's own actions. That as long as a person does NOT cause physical, mental, emotional, financial, and Spiritual harm to others or himself, He/She is free to pursue one's Physical, Mental, And Spiritual development as He/She sees fit.
Which brings me to my next point: Pagans in general: DO NOT PROSYLETIZE!!!!! That means you aren’t going to get a call from us at three o’clock in the morning asking us if you are going to ritual or not. There is no High priestess going around smacking people over the head if they haven’t worked on their book of shadows or if they buy the wrong candle for a personal ritual. Aint gonna happen.
Why? We are assuming that if you are here, you want to be here. We'll give you information, let you know your options and the rest is up to you. We aren’t going to stand on a street corner and scream at folks for not worshipping Athena; nor for women/men who chose not to go around sky clad (That's nekkid for those of us who are really new to this).
The Law of Return (or sowing and reaping)
There are No true "Sins" within our spiritual practices, only things that Cause harm (or as I like to call them "Stupid Ideas"), and things which Are Helpful (Or as I like to call them "Good Ideas"). When you Do Good things, Good things tend to happen to you (Eventually). When you do Bad things, Bad things tend to happen to you (Eventually). Of course since we do not live in a static environment and people tend to interact with one another, some times things get a little Fa-kakhed. However the Universe always balances itself out in the end. This concept is called karma, and it's a relatively complicated matter, which I have boiled down to its lowest common denominator. Of course there are differing views of Karma, one of which is the three fold Law (What you do comes back three fold or three times back at you). If you are not sure as to whether an act will have some kind of repercussion, ask yourself, how much would I really like this done to Me?
(The self-Defense Caveat: Like all "Laws" there are loopholes, If someone else is out to cause you harm in some way it would be a really STUPID (Bad Karma) idea not to protect yourself, or your family, or your friends. However make sure you have as many facts as possible (Meaning the guy is holding a knife and threatens to cut you up.) before beating the oneness of all things back into these individuals)
Pantheons, Divinities, Spirits, Energies:
Okay this is where it gets a little tricky, but bear with Me. The MOST common and extremely annoying question we get is "Don’t you folks worship Satan?" (Everyone roll his or her eyes here.) The answer to that is a resounding "NO!" For the most part you need to keep in mind that paganism is a separate religion from Christianity. Hence Satan (Whom I call the Christian God of Evil and nastiness) is not apart of our pantheon. Sorry...For the Most part (Depending on the tradition you follow) The Pagan concept of Divinity falls under the following expressions.

Duo-Theism: (Duo=Two or Dual, Theos=Divinities) The Worship of a Co-Equal God and Goddess, each having unlimited power, compassion, wisdom, energy, what have you; but maintaining different roles and functions.
The God is aggressive, Powerful, Sexual and Adventurous, Skillful. He handles the Male Side of fertility.
The Goddess is Nurturing, passionate, Creative, Sensual and artistic. She over sees the Power of creating Life through birth. or the Female side of fertility
This belief is widely held by the Wiccans and Wicca like aspects of paganism.

Poly Theism: (Poly=Many, Theos=Divinities) The belief in Multiple Gods and Goddesses. Many folks see these Gods as extensions of the God and Goddess each one taking different aspects at the time of their encounter with the worshipper in question. Others (Like Myself) believe that they are actually separate entities with their own personalities, quirks and motives. Not every god or goddess is a real people person, nor does every god and goddess have a laid back attitude. if you are going to get involved with a particular deity, you had better make sure you so a LOT of research as to what they like, don’t like and if a particular god or goddess is right for you. Otherwise your life will get extremely interesting in a bad way.
The third School of though in polytheism is the idea of the gods and goddesses being archetypes within a person's own psyche, sort of like a piece of your own subconscious wrapped up in a costume and a mask in order to teach our conscious mind a lesson it needs.
Of course there is more than those three Schools of thought but im just giving the basics here.

Pantheism: Simply put, this is the idea that the Divine is in everything hence All things are a part of the energy we call god. Since all things are a part of god, all things are sacred, and hence expressions of the divine in some way shape or form. Hence when I Worship a tree I am worshipping the Divine, when I give food to a hungry stray, I am feeding the Divine, when I am hurting someone I am hurting the divine.

Then there is the Fourth Category:
I-have-no-Friggin-Clue-ism: For the beginner, this is the best spiritual idea I can suggest. the idea is essentially "I have no friggin clue if there is a Divinity or not, therefore, unless I am shown otherwise, I will not say that the Gods are this way or that. I will respect the Power behind the name, but I will not pledge myself to him/her/it unless I have an absolutely good reason to." This is actually one of the safest belief systems to take as a new student of the pagan path because you are open enough to receive enlightenment but at the same time you do not run the risk of making a total, complete ass out of yourself. The Gods will instruct you when they see fit.

Now of course Pagans will usually incorporate Not only one but perhaps two or three of the ideas listed above, this usually comes from personal experience and cannot be learned any other way.
Keep in mind that it's okay to shift from one idea to another or even incorporate two or more of these ideas...it's all good. Just find out what works best for you.

So How the Heck do I become a pagan? (Or stupid questions that are commonly asked)
Well, for the Most part, it's a matter of doing a lot of reading and a lot of self-exploration. It took me at least two years of studying online and reading books and attending classes to even consider myself a pagan. A lot of the traditions under the banner of Paganism will have different views on training, and initiation (Think of it as baptism), and How one becomes a member of that tradition. The best way is to go to pagan gatherings, bookstores and such and talk to other pagans. Eventually you will either find a religious path that works for you or you will throw your arms up in dismay and run screaming back to your religion of birth. And there is nothing wrong with that. NOT AT ALL! We realize that the pagan spiritual path is not for everyone, and we will not be offended. Just make sure you don’t tell people we sacrificed your cat and you'll be cool with us.

Do I need to buy special clothes and Dress in black? The answer is: Only if you really want to, yes there are special robes some folks wear, but unless your coven says other wise, you can pretty much wear what you want. Just some basic suggestions: Wear something Comfortable, and wear something you won’t mind getting dirty. Most of our rituals take place out doors and while you may look really good in an Armani suit and Gucci shoes, there is a good chance your clothes will get messed up and your shoes scuffed. Loose, light clothes in summer and spring is always a good idea, and warmer clothes in the fall are really smart. Most winter rituals will be held indoors depending on the weather. If it makes you comfortable to wear black witch clothes and pointed hats and cloaks; Knock yourself OUT...you'll be getting lots of stares and odd looks (Mostly from us) but all in all if it makes you comfortable, then that is all that matters.

Do I need to buy special jewelry? Again, Only if you want to and if you enjoy it. Jewelry is a personal matter to the people who wear it. and it's usually best to find a piece that says "HEY I LIKE YOU WEAR ME AROUND YOUR NECK!!" Other wise, No special jewelry is required to be a pagan...

Do I need to kill something like a kitten and drink it's blood? No, you don’t have to kill an animal to be a pagan. For the most part we are animal friendly and don’t believe in killing a critter in order to work our rituals. Yes there are some pagan groups that practice animal sacrifice and for the most part it is left alone...but fear not, the only thing to be killed has already been slaughtered and put on the feasting table in a sacred bucket marked KFC.

Do I need to become a vegetarian? Nope, being a vegetarian is a matter of personal preference and what you feel in your heart to do. While many of us are vegetarians a lot of us aren't. It may be a good idea to eat a little healthier but no one is going to come down on you for eating meat or using meat-based products. However you might want to do your own research and come up with your own choices.

So what do I need to do? Excellent question, one, as I suggested before, Do a lot of research, a lot of reading and when in doubt do more research. A lot of Pagans keep what is called a "Book of shadows" which is just a fancy name for a Journal. Write down everything you learn in that book and when you get a chance, read it. if you see a cool Article on the net, feel free to print it. To create a book of shadows I would suggest buying a loose-leaf binder, and fill it half way with paper. It's also a good idea to invest in a three hole punch that way you can put articles you printed from the net and use them for later reference. Do not worry about using blood and special things to "make it official" It is your study guide, your book and make sure you personalize it to suit your needs. When you feel you are ready, and you have found a religious tradition you feel comfy with, take that book of Shadows and attend any class you can afford. a lot of places have very reasonable rates for their classes. the learning annex is one source but so is your local Pagan books store. just make sure you talk to the person running the store to make sure he knows what he/she is talking about. if you are not entirely comfortable in studying with them, consider looking for another teacher. Remember this is about YOUR spiritual growth and enrichment and you need to be in an environment conducive to YOUR learning.

Holidays, and Rituals:
There are eight major Holy Days during the pagan year that a lot of us agree upon. There are also rituals that are held on the New Moon and the Full moon depending on how often your coven (A group of Pagans you worship with) meets.
The Eight Major Holidays are listed in the order they fall on:
Imbolc (February)
Spring Equinox (March 21)
Beltaine (May 1)
Summer Solstice (Litha) (June 21)
Lughnassadh or Lamas (August)
Autumn Equinox (Mabon) (September 21)
Samhain or Halloween (October 31 to Nov 1)
Winter Solstice (Yule) (December 21)
Each Holy Day represents a certain Mythological even in our religion which will be discussed by the High Priest(ess) in advance.
It's usually a good idea to find out in advance what you would need to bring so that you can best participate in the ritual.
Now most likely you are going to have a hard time pronouncing the names of the days when you first start out, so don’t be afraid to ask stupid questions, it's the only way you are going to learn.

Tools For Rituals:
Energy: This is the Most important, and since I am assuming people know Jack about paganism, Im going to make this explanation brief. When we perform rituals, and cast spells we are attempting to gather energy. This energy comes from the universe and our selves and depending on what we are trying to do we use certain rituals, and tools. THink of it this way, It's Like Gathering up a whole bunch of snow together we eventually gather enough to make a snowball and we pack it in and send it off to impact your friend. It's basically the same thing. When we perform these rites they help our minds to focus on gathering this energy and tell it what we want done. Sort of Like a well focused and shaped prayer. Energy is the most important part of any ritual, without it we are just looking stupid.

Cauldron: This is basically a Black, three-legged pot to be used for burning incense and for other things. They range from tiny to Huge and can be used to burn Incense, burn paper, and make potions. Now Cauldrons tend to be rather expensive, so if you are a bit "Price Sensitive" Like me Find yourself one of those old fashioned Iron pots that Mom uses to make rice. Make sure you clean it before and after use. If you have one of these in your own Home and have had it for a long time, you are pretty Much Used to it and it i used to you. So you really don’t have to "Charge" it with energy.

Athemae: Essentially This is a Knife or a really small sword. This is used to direct energy raised up during rituals. THESE ARE NOT USED TO CUT PEOPLE (Of all Species). It can be used for cutting vegetables. Most traditions prefer a double sided blade and small enough to conceal. (You would be amazed how many Cops will stop you for carrying a broad sword.) If you’re unable to get an athamae: It's totally cool to make yourself a wand, or use your index finger to direct energy.

Wands/Rods: Okay These are wooden or Crystal Sticks also used to Direct energy and well as to draw it to yourself. Wands tend to be no longer than your arm, while rods can be longer. Best way to get a rod is to go out on little walks in the park and look for a stick. Once you find a stick you like and that screams out for you to take it, take it home, and sand it and decorate it until you are totally comfortable with it. Viola you have a wand or rod. If you have as Much mechanical aptitude as a slug. Ask around your local occult bookstores. Keep in mind they are going to be slightly expensive and you will have to charge it once you get it home.

Candles: Candles are used in rituals to help get your mind into the practice of Magic (No I am Not spelling Magic with a K or a J...I’m keeping this as simple as possible. If you want to Use the funky spellings in your own notebooks, Knock yourself out, you’re not being graded here). Candles are lit and help to get the mind into a state where it's easier to put the patterns in for the energy to flow
I would strongly suggest getting candles of all colors and sizes as much as you can afford, Usually one of each color. You can pick them up anywhere.

Incense: Like candles Incense helps the mind get energy together to cast spells. It's a good idea to make your own incense or to purchase them from a botanica, or occult bookstore. Incense sticks May be colored but it's usually a good idea to purchase them based on their smells. Pungent or spicy incense is Normally used to send stuff away. (Mainly because they are offensive.) While sweet incense is used to bring stuff to you. Earthy smells Help to facilitate Healing and to strengthen you.

Divination tools: Things Like Tarot Cards, Runes and what not. These are mainly used to help make decisions or to gain some kind of insight as to what is going on around you. Keep in Mind they items themselves are not Magical in and of themselves but are based on your own intuition interpreting what you are seeing.

BOOKS BOOKS and More BOOKS: Like I said earlier, it is suggested you read religiously. It's best to keep a library of things you have read or are about to read. Don’t just pick books only by one author, but of different ones. Some people May know a lot about what they are talking about others are complete and Utter Horseshit. However the only way you are going to find out is if you look for yourself and keep your book of shadows nearby while you read. If something sounds like Horse Puckey, or if you aren’t sure about whether or not what is true within a book, do some research.
It sounds like a lot of work but this is your spirituality we are talking about Here. Hence it is a good idea to Question everything ad find if there is an agreement between the authors you have read. Another thing to keep in mind is that some folks are completely full of Fluff and bull puckey. Others deliberately water stuff down to keep from divulging too much about their path. And others are completely straightforward about that which they are writing about.
One of the best ways to learn about an author is find out when they are going to be doing a book signing near you. Get to meet them (Most books Signings are free and most will give a short lecture about their book just to whet your appetite for it. Some of the most intense learning experiences I gained were in attending some of these lectures, but it's also a great way to actually see the person who is writing. Use your intuition...and don’t be shy about picking their brain. That is what they are there for. In fact I would suggest doing that about the store where you get your tools and books. It helps you learn a lot faster especially when you ask Stupid questions. Yes you will get looks, Yes you will even get the occasional Shake of the head, But Sometimes if you don’t ask you wont know. It’s worth it.

Suggested Things to do:
Check out different groups that meet in your area, you can do this by attending Open circles, or classes. Use them as a way to meet other pagans and eventually find a group you feel comfortable studying with. If you are Solitary Pagan It helps to meet and greet other pagans.

Look around for Pagan Shops, botanicas and other places where you can get supplies. Most botanicas are devoted to Santeria or Voudu but you can get some really good equipment at cheap prices.

Check out the local Library as well as the bookstore for things you can read about your particular pantheon.

Ask a lot of questions; Even Stupid Ones. It's one of the chief tenets of paganism to question everything you come across. If you get an answer that sounds Like Horse-puckey, verify verify verify.

Things not to do:
Don’t Panic, this seems like a lot of information but it really isn’t. This is just the primer for your own research.
Don’t sweat if you cannot find a teacher right away, Nine times out of ten they usually show up when you are ready to learn more about a particular aspect of your tradition.
Don’t start off calling yourself a High Something or other of a particular tradition. Most Systems within paganism have their own methods of teaching and credentials for Clergy and what not. It’s a sure sign that you haven’t grasped the lessons learned.
Don’t be afraid of getting criticized, it's going to happen. Learn to grow a thick skin, And if someone points something out to you listen and check out your own motives and conscience. If the shoe fits, wear it, if it doesn’t, then don’t.
Don’t take everything at face value...Learn how to question what you hear and not be a total Idiot about it.
Don’t try and convert people, It rarely works just put out information let people know where you stand and end it there.

Recommended websites:
http://witchvox.com "The Witches Voice" it's a great place to start since they have information about everything.
http://pantheon.org A great place to learn about the Gods of your chosen pantheon it doesnt have all the information but enough for you to get your feet wet and do some research.

Yahoo.com: They have a plethora of pagan groups and places where you can talk to people of different walks of Life.
It's also a great way to meet pagans in your area.
Google: and other search engines. Another great website with links to thousands of Pagan websites.

Recommended books:
The truth about witchcraft today: By Scott Cunningham
Urban Primitive: by Tannin Silverstien and Raven Kaldera
The Book of Shamanic Healing by Kristin Madden
The Celestine Prophecy: James Redfield (Yes it's a novel but it helps to get an idea about energy work. and How energy can be gathered and Stolen.
The Wiccan Warrior: BY Kerr Cucuhain
Witchcraft Theory and Practice by Ly de Angeles
When I see the Wild God By Ly de Angeles

[tmancour]

Cu: Excellent article. I'd add the following books to a reccomended reading list:

Drawing Down the Moon, Margot Adler (of NPR)
The Spiral Dance, Starhawk
Buckland's Complete Witches Handbook, Raymond Buckland

I have about fifty more that I'd add, but let's not go crazy.

In general, about 40-50% of pagans self-identify as some sort of Wiccan, the rest are split between Druid, Asatru (Norse), Shamanic, and other trads. Exact numbers are hard to come by, as most of us are still in the Broom Closet. It is estimated that there are anywhere from 500,000 and 1 million pagans in America alone. The religion is also enjoying a resurgeance in Europe and Oceana.

Proper form of address for a witch is "Witch", male or female, although I prefer "wizard" for male witches. While "warlock" is usually seen as a derogatory term (it means, according to some, "oathbreaker") there are those who are revalorizing it.

While individual trads vary widely, and some take offense at being called Wiccan, most Pagans have at least some familiarity with the various Wiccan traditions.

Any other questions?

Arion the Blue
High Druid of Durham

[Cu Mhorrigan]

thankies tman....

[Ryokan]

Thankyou for answering my questions everyone. Cu, you were very helpful in helping me get some answers for what apparently is a very broad topic.
Few more questions:
1. God and Goddess: Are they benevolent God's, or just God's? Omnimax or limited?

2. On what basis is a ritual, ah, ritualized?

3. Magic: Like prayer? Expected to produce real power or just superior insight?

4. Afterlife?

5. I guess I am having trouble nderstanding how people come to Paganism or Wicca. Christianity, and Islam rely on traditions, and sacred text. Buddhism has a"Try it, you'll like it" approach. How does it work for you?

I am sorry to ask so many questions, but I am currently searching for a spiritual path. I just had my first child, and if possible, when he ask me why he is here I can have a better answer than " To give me tax write off and fetch me beer. Now get me a beer.". I am pretty familiar with Islam, somewhat with Hinduism, more so with Buddhism, very with CHristianity, and not at all with Paganism/Wicca. So, before I try something, I want to know all my options. I appreciate your help.

[technomage]

1. God and Goddess: Are they benevolent God's, or just God's? Omnimax or limited?

No single answer. God and Goddess frequently seen as benevolent and limited: they're facets of the "One God," who is omnimax, but unknowable. However, some Pagans (such as Asatruar) are "discrete polytheists."

2. On what basis is a ritual, ah, ritualized?

:shrug: Within Wicca, a combination of tradition and creativity. Other pagan religions vary widely.

3. Magic: Like prayer? Expected to produce real power or just superior insight?

Yes to both, and everything in between. Magic is not the central aspect of Wicca, but it is a tool towards the comprehension of Mystery.

4. Afterlife?

Who knows? My own personal opinion is that when my body dies, my "soul" (being an emanation or "spark" from the Creator) will rejoin the Creator--basic Neo-Platonic thought. But there are a lot of opinions out there.

5. I guess I am having trouble nderstanding how people come to Paganism or Wicca. Christianity, and Islam rely on traditions, and sacred text. Buddhism has a"Try it, you'll like it" approach. How does it work for you?

We're somewhat like Buddhism, in that regard--"Try it, you'll like it." And if you don't like it, that's cool, too.

From my point of view, the whole point is this: we are in a universe where there is no surefire way to absolutely know whether or not there is a God, or what God is like. These are important questions, but religions--including Wicca--are not intended to "answer" these questions. An organized religion is just a large group of people who are following one guy's answer.

Instead of a book of pre-made answers, a religion should be a way of clarifying the questions so that you can formulate your own answers. And that's not a jab at Islam, Christianity, or Judaism just because they're "book" religions: I know plenty of Jews, Christians, and Muslims who have an honest and authentic "connection" with the Creator, as best as I can tell.

But the important thing is this: if you have a question, ask, no matter what "church" you go to. Whether it's the First Baptist Church of Somewhere, USA or the Lady Goddess Coven of Backwoods, Nowhere, we're not here to be given the answers. We're here to discover the answers anew for ourselves.

[Ryokan]

Good advice, Cup of Mystery. Thanks.

[tmancour]

Thankyou for answering my questions everyone. Cu, you were very helpful in helping me get some answers for what apparently is a very broad topic.
Few more questions:
1. God and Goddess: Are they benevolent God's, or just God's? Omnimax or limited?

Your Mileage May Vary. In general, they are very benevolent. Consider them your Cosmic Parents. They want to guide you and teach you to be the best You that you can be. But that doesn't mean they don't (most of them) have a dark side. "The rivers are full of crocadile nasties/and (S)he who made kittens put snakes in the grassies" (Jethro Tull, Bungle in the Jungle). An important part of most Pagan theology is the acknowlegement and understanding that death is a necessary part of life, so gods who have something to do with Death are not uncommon -- this shocks some folks who hail from a more Christian perspective, as they see Death as the enemy.

They aren't all-powerful -- each has his/her domain and sometimes several different Aspects. But one reason we returned to the Old Gods is that Yahweh is often hard to get to know, what with his anti-social, occasionally psychopathic personality.


2. On what basis is a ritual, ah, ritualized?


Ritual comes in many forms and flavors. Usually they involve the casting of what is known as a Circle, more to keep the energy in rather than to keep bad things out. Most celebratory rituals honor aspects of the gods and focus on the season of the Wheel of the Year. Other rituals are very psychologically based, artificially created crisis experiences that are designed to force a "leap of faith" type of religious revelation. Still others mark specific occasions, i.e. a Wiccaning, a handfasting, or a funeral. But we Pagans love ritual.



3. Magic: Like prayer? Expected to produce real power or just superior insight?


Like prayer, but arguably more effective. I consider spellcraft a "spiritual technology", a method of influencing your life and the lives of those around you. Basically, you use a system of symbols to communicate through your subconscious mind to your "superconscious" mind -- that part of your brain that is hooked into the rest of the universe. Some people are really good at magick; others suck at it. But there are a tremendous number of misconceptions about the Craft, and only serious study and determined practice will allow you to regularly reap the benefits. Remember (as I say to my students virtually every time the subject arises): the easiest thing to change about the universe is yourself.

And the real "power" that you produce in magick is not some harryPotter-esque effect -- it is the subtle power of self-mastery and self-discipline, much like that of someone who has studied martial arts or yoga for a long time. You are powerful because you know you are, and you don't have to prove it by transforming your neighbors into frogs. "To know thyself is the ultimate form of agression."


4. Afterlife?


Yes, sorta. But it isn't a reward, it's a rest-stop between incarnations. Most Pagans believe in some sort of reincarnation. The afterlife is known to most Wiccans and Druids as Tir Na Nog, or the Summerland. It's where you go to reflect on your most recent life, catch up with friends, and plan your next foray into the material world. This life is the reward.


5. I guess I am having trouble nderstanding how people come to Paganism or Wicca. Christianity, and Islam rely on traditions, and sacred text. Buddhism has a"Try it, you'll like it" approach. How does it work for you?

While most of us are recovering monotheists, having had bad experiences with Christianity or Judaism, there is a lot of natural draw to the Old Gods. Christianity and Islam do, indeed rely on sacred texts -- we prefer the spiritual power of personal experience, and consider that of more value than a thousand year old mistranslated record of someone else's experience. Paganism is a mystical religion: we seek the divine personally, we need no intermediary priest or book. Every Wiccan writes their own holy book, their Book of Shadows (because everyone's shadow is different, and their own) which serves as part ritual text, part recipe book, part poetry book, and part collection of wisdom. Each one is unique.

But we do have some traditional base. Europe was a Pagan land for thousands of years before St. Paul got all uppity, and there is a large body of Pagan thought and tradition. While not all of it made it through the Christian Repression -- especially the Celtic stuff -- the Greco-Roman paganism is well-documented, and, surprisingly enough, is the Norse: Iceland was only converted to Christianity in the 1400s, and no one got around to telling them that they were "officially" converted until a decade later. The King of Denmark, who had authority over Iceland, converted them from afar. The native Pagan culture and religion has continued more-or-less uninterrupted since Iceland was settled by the Vikings around 800 CE.


I am sorry to ask so many questions, but I am currently searching for a spiritual path. I just had my first child, and if possible, when he ask me why he is here I can have a better answer than " To give me tax write off and fetch me beer. Now get me a beer.". I am pretty familiar with Islam, somewhat with Hinduism, more so with Buddhism, very with CHristianity, and not at all with Paganism/Wicca. So, before I try something, I want to know all my options. I appreciate your help.


We appreciate you taking the time to ask. We're always willing to give an opinion or six about our religion. Despite bad press to the contrary, it is a complex and ethically-sophisticated religion well suited to post-Industrial life.

Blessed be,

Arion the Blue

[Ryokan]

Your Mileage May Vary. In general, they are very benevolent. Consider them your Cosmic Parents. They want to guide you and teach you to be the best You that you can be. But that doesn't mean they don't (most of them) have a dark side. "The rivers are full of crocadile nasties/and (S)he who made kittens put snakes in the grassies" (Jethro Tull, Bungle in the Jungle). An important part of most Pagan theology is the acknowlegement and understanding that death is a necessary part of life, so gods who have something to do with Death are not uncommon -- this shocks some folks who hail from a more Christian perspective, as they see Death as the enemy.

They aren't all-powerful -- each has his/her domain and sometimes several different Aspects. But one reason we returned to the Old Gods is that Yahweh is often hard to get to know, what with his anti-social, occasionally psychopathic personality.



Ritual comes in many forms and flavors. Usually they involve the casting of what is known as a Circle, more to keep the energy in rather than to keep bad things out. Most celebratory rituals honor aspects of the gods and focus on the season of the Wheel of the Year. Other rituals are very psychologically based, artificially created crisis experiences that are designed to force a "leap of faith" type of religious revelation. Still others mark specific occasions, i.e. a Wiccaning, a handfasting, or a funeral. But we Pagans love ritual.




Like prayer, but arguably more effective. I consider spellcraft a "spiritual technology", a method of influencing your life and the lives of those around you. Basically, you use a system of symbols to communicate through your subconscious mind to your "superconscious" mind -- that part of your brain that is hooked into the rest of the universe. Some people are really good at magick; others suck at it. But there are a tremendous number of misconceptions about the Craft, and only serious study and determined practice will allow you to regularly reap the benefits. Remember (as I say to my students virtually every time the subject arises): the easiest thing to change about the universe is yourself.

And the real "power" that you produce in magick is not some harryPotter-esque effect -- it is the subtle power of self-mastery and self-discipline, much like that of someone who has studied martial arts or yoga for a long time. You are powerful because you know you are, and you don't have to prove it by transforming your neighbors into frogs. "To know thyself is the ultimate form of agression."



Yes, sorta. But it isn't a reward, it's a rest-stop between incarnations. Most Pagans believe in some sort of reincarnation. The afterlife is known to most Wiccans and Druids as Tir Na Nog, or the Summerland. It's where you go to reflect on your most recent life, catch up with friends, and plan your next foray into the material world. This life is the reward.



While most of us are recovering monotheists, having had bad experiences with Christianity or Judaism, there is a lot of natural draw to the Old Gods. Christianity and Islam do, indeed rely on sacred texts -- we prefer the spiritual power of personal experience, and consider that of more value than a thousand year old mistranslated record of someone else's experience. Paganism is a mystical religion: we seek the divine personally, we need no intermediary priest or book. Every Wiccan writes their own holy book, their Book of Shadows (because everyone's shadow is different, and their own) which serves as part ritual text, part recipe book, part poetry book, and part collection of wisdom. Each one is unique.

But we do have some traditional base. Europe was a Pagan land for thousands of years before St. Paul got all uppity, and there is a large body of Pagan thought and tradition. While not all of it made it through the Christian Repression -- especially the Celtic stuff -- the Greco-Roman paganism is well-documented, and, surprisingly enough, is the Norse: Iceland was only converted to Christianity in the 1400s, and no one got around to telling them that they were "officially" converted until a decade later. The King of Denmark, who had authority over Iceland, converted them from afar. The native Pagan culture and religion has continued more-or-less uninterrupted since Iceland was settled by the Vikings around 800 CE.




We appreciate you taking the time to ask. We're always willing to give an opinion or six about our religion. Despite bad press to the contrary, it is a complex and ethically-sophisticated religion well suited to post-Industrial life.

Blessed be,

Arion the BlueThanks. I am goign to let all this compile.

[technomage]

Thanks. I am goign to let all this compile.
At a guess, it looks like you used the "verbose" option.

(In-joke for computer programmers. If you don't get it, don't worry about it.)

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

I think a filter also was in effect! Speaking of computers. So I shall squeak up...

An important part of most Pagan theology is the acknowlegement and understanding that death is a necessary part of life, so gods who have something to do with Death are not uncommon -- this shocks some folks who hail from a more Christian perspective, as they see Death as the enemy.

Well, if we're asking about Wiccan theology, I shall repost my questions!

Predation, too? Why is Gaia not to be imitated, here? If she is right there along with the goddesses?

If you must tell me that human predation is wrong, I shall agree! Absolutely wrong, this is not a value that is subject to opinion.

That's the whole problem with relative values, when they impinge on each other, then people do not say "Let the strongest/luckiest/cleverest win!"

And what about all the emphasis on balance? Now I do believe in balance! Enjoy a feast now and again, but don't be gluttonous. Exercise some, and take a nap.

But making balance a principle value (an absolute one?), won't do, for then we have some awkward balances to maintain, balances no one would consider acting and correcting.

We should be picketing the disease control centers, for a release of some of that smallpox? Eliminating cancer, would that be unbalanced?

Blessings,
Lee

[technomage]

Hi everyone,



Well, if we're asking about Wiccan theology, I shall repost my questions!

Predation, too? Why is Gaia not to be imitated, here? If she is right there along with the goddesses?

Lee, I'm fairly sure the points I'm about to make have already been made to you, so I'm only going to say this once. The Gods are not necessarily to be imitated.

We should be picketing the disease control centers, for a release of some of that smallpox? Eliminating cancer, would that be unbalanced?

And this is nothing but willful stupidity on your part. Kindly dispose of the pretense to idiocy.

[Ryokan]

At a guess, it looks like you used the "verbose" option.

(In-joke for computer programmers. If you don't get it, don't worry about it.)
I am just a teeny bit shy of that nerdy. I am glad you let us know how nerdy you are though. :tongue:

[Ryokan]

Lee, I'm fairly sure the points I'm about to make have already been made to you, so I'm only going to say this once. The Gods are not necessarily to be imitated.



And this is nothing but willful stupidity on your part. Kindly dispose of the pretense to idiocy.
I am sure, if their are any Gods, and they feel things are unbalanced, they will smite enough people to even things out again. And if their aren't well, people are plenty good at self smiting.

[technomage]

I am just a teeny bit shy of that nerdy. I am glad you let us know how nerdy you are though. :tongue:

Ry, programming is the merest tip of the iceberg. :lol:

[Ryokan]

Ry, programming is the merest tip of the iceberg. :lol:
I can't really talk. I once play a LARP. And not just any LARP, but Vampire the Masquerade. I am so goth I crap Bats. Sad bats. :blush:
Teenagers are so dumb.

[technomage]

I am so goth I crap Bats. Sad bats. :blush:

Oh, dear heavens! :lmbo: Ry, with your permission, that's going in my sig!

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Justin: The Gods are not necessarily to be imitated.
Well, I had just been told that "The Rede is intended as a guideline for humans, not animals," in the area of predation, so then I wonder why Gaia is not following the Rede, when predators prowl. That would seem to be a rather radical departure from Wicca, from (by all indications) an exemplary goddess.

Lee: We should be picketing the disease control centers, for a release of some of that smallpox? Eliminating cancer, would that be unbalanced?

Justin: And this is nothing but willful stupidity on your part. Kindly dispose of the pretense to idiocy.
And I agree that this is moral nonsense. I am asking, though, why this is not an implication of Wicca's emphasis of balance, and in particular, the balance between life and death.

I am sure, if their are any Gods, and they feel things are unbalanced, they will smite enough people to even things out again. And if their aren't well, people are plenty good at self smiting.
Yes, this is what I was hoping for, by way of a reply. This is how to advance the discussion!

Somebody else might restore the balance, or we might do this inadvertently, and thus no intentional action is needed.

But in that case, why promote this principle, if it is involuntary, in such a major area as life and death, on our part? Is this involuntary in (most?) other areas? Need we worry about this principle, at all? Can we worry about this principle, at all?

Are we all in a hammerlock? Predestination, of sorts?

Blessings,
Lee

[technomage]

Well, I had just been told that "The Rede is intended as a guideline for humans, not animals," in the area of predation, so then I wonder why Gaia is not following the Rede, when predators prowl. That would seem to be a rather radical departure from Wicca, from (by all indications) an exemplary goddess.

Have you been talking to Cu or Arion? There's a reason: Cu, though well intentioned, is still a student. Arion is more experienced, but he also practices Druidism, which gives him a different slant.

However, it matters not: if you continue the habit of attempting to twist statements in order to win arguments, then it's no surprise that you're spouting nonsense. Lee, as I have told others, now I will tell you: your insistance on "winning" is causing you to critique a false image or "straw man" of Wicca. You do not know enough about Paganism or Wicca to form a coherent critique, and I frankly do not feel like enlightening your ignorance just for you to turn right around and attack me for my pains.

Kindly go away. If you want to engage in apologetics, I would encourage you to select another group of non-Christians to "grace" with your efforts.

[Ryokan]

Oh, dear heavens! :lmbo: Ry, with your permission, that's going in my sig!
It's fine. It is a funny saying. I ripped it off something about, I'd don't know, hockey players, or something bizarre like that.

[Pythagoras]

A Cup of Mystery,

Do Pagans believe in the hypostatic union of God? -- for example the Hindus(Pagans) do!

I like to know how you conceieve of God Almighty?

Thanks,

[technomage]

A Cup of Mystery,

Do Pagans believe in the hypostatic union of God? -- for example the Hindus(Pagans) do!

Pythagoras, that's like asking you if you believe Zeus is real or metaphor. Hypostatic union is a Christian term relating to Christian doctrine: Wicca has no equivalent, and your assertion that "Hindus do" is, to me, rather nonsensical.

I like to know how you conceieve of God Almighty?

I've already discussed that: the Creator is infitite, but essentially unknowable (beyond human understanding). All "god names" are human-created analogies for the Creator--therefore, just as any "argument from analogy" is fundamentally flawed but may be illustrative, all religions are technically wrong, but may be functionally useful.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Wiccan,



Pythagoras, that's like asking you if you believe Zeus is real or metaphor. Hypostatic union is a Christian term relating to Christian doctrine: Wicca has no equivalent, and your assertion that "Hindus do" is, to me, rather nonsensical.



It's a well known fact that the Hindu Shema of Braham, Vishnu and Shiva, Eko(One) Deva(God) Trimurthi(Three in One) perfectly compliments the Oneness Pentacostal , Modalism notions of God. I'm surprsied you're ignorant of this fact.

Have you read Christianity and the Doctrine of non-Dualism ? Here’s the book review.



http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0900588829/202-6899270-7280650 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0900588829/202-6899270-7280650)



Synopsis
How is the Supreme Identity of Hinduism related to the hypostatic union of Christianity? Does the "pure" spirituality of the East complement the "practical" spirituality of the West? What is the relationship between Oriental quietism and Christian deliverance? The anonymous author of this work, a Cistercian monk, wrote these short but profound reflections out of an earnest desire to bring aspects of the Hindu tradition to the attention of a Western readership. With a subtle care for detail, he clarifies the relationship between the hypostatic union embodied in the person of Christ and the Supreme Identity of Atma and Brahma, two distinct notions seemingly opposed in certain respects but curiously compatible in unexpected ways. With characteristic humility, the author writes: 'We will say unequivocally that after more than forty years of intellectual reflection on this doctrine, we have found nothing that has seemed incompatible with our full and complete faith in the Christian Revelation.' Given the attraction Indian thought exercises on contemporary Western spirituality, these pages offer the Christian a welcome deepening of access to the spirit of the Hindu perspective. The radical disparity that seemingly exists between the phrase 'I am Brahma' and the sacred formula of the Eucharistic consecration 'This is my Body' melts away, allowing these separate worlds to shed new meaning on each other. The author outlines conditions leading to a doctrinal accord between the Advaita Vedanta and orthodox Christian doctrine. He writes at one point that although these two traditional perspectives 'do not pertain to the same order of Reality, hypostatic union and Supreme Identity are not in themselves metaphysically incompatible...

I've already discussed that: the Creator is infitite, but essentially unknowable (beyond human understanding).

So the creator is infinite. Is there anything more about Him we can know?

Thanks,

[technomage]

It's a well known fact that the Hindu Shema of Braham, Vishnu and Shiva, Eko(One) Deva(God) Trimurthi(Three in One) perfectly compliments the Oneness Pentacostal , Modalism notions of God. I'm surprsied you're ignorant of this fact.

Pythagoras, you and I have previously discussed your assertions on this. I disagree with your equating the doctrine of the Trinity with Hindu beliefs, and feel you do so only through a grotesque and deliberate misapprehension of Hindu (and Christian) doctrine. There is a grave difference between "ignorant of this fact," and rejecting the assertion as false.

Regardless, neither your incorrect assertion nor Hinduism reflects on Wiccan theology. Wicca is its own faith, Pythagoras, and comparisons with Hinduism are not necessarily relevant.

So the creator is infinite. Is there anything more about Him we can know?

It would certainly make sense to me that something that is infinite cannot be truly comprehended by finite human intellect, except as an abstract concept.

Justin

[lee_merrill]

Hi Justin,

Lee: ... so then I wonder why Gaia is not following the Rede, when predators prowl. That would seem to be a rather radical departure from Wicca, from (by all indications) an exemplary goddess.

Justin: Lee, as I have told others, now I will tell you: your insistance on "winning" is causing you to critique a false image or "straw man" of Wicca.

Then we have one of three conclusions:

1) Gaia is following the Rede.
2) If not, this is not a radical departure from Wicca.
3) Gaia is not an exemplary goddess.

Where, now, is the straw man? The Wicker Man? As in the movie by that title, that did have an act of human sacrifice, a bit of predation, as a central theme, in espousing paganism.

Why would eliminating cancer, presumably as part of an effort to eliminate all disease, not upset the balance between life and death? Some people are put in a deep freeze, in hope of some cure in the future, immortality of sorts, isn't that, unbalanced?

Justin: I frankly do not feel like enlightening your ignorance just for you to turn right around and attack me for my pains.
Then we must also inquire as to whether these questions might be difficult to answer, in the framework of Wicca, that also is a possibility.

Justin: Kindly go away. If you want to engage in apologetics, I would encourage you to select another group of non-Christians to "grace" with your efforts.
Well, I'm not going to sit by, and let there be a presentation of Wicca/paganism, that skips the difficulties. There are other aspects as well, and difficulties that (possibly?) people could be unwilling to discuss.

I shall not apologize for such apologetics, nor will I vanish, unless someone works upon me such a spell.

Blessings,
Lee

[Ryokan]

Cuz their aren't difficulties with Christianity. I agree, I see some potential problems with Wicca that I can't discuss here, but Christianity has even more serious problems. And it deals with the problem of evil even less elegantly.

[tmancour]

Predation, too? Why is Gaia not to be imitated, here? If she is right there along with the goddesses? If you must tell me that human predation is wrong, I shall agree! Absolutely wrong, this is not a value that is subject to opinion.


I may differ here from my coreligionists, but I believe it is a matter of Appropriateness. Gaia is, indeed, one of the Great Goddesses, but Wisdom dictates that caution should be used when seeking to emulate Her.

Predation in most cases is wrong. To take and kill for no good reason is unwise and a violation of the Rede even at its most liberal interpretation. That doesn't mean that our paleopagan ancestors didn't do an awful lot of it -- but we practice Neo-Paganism, which has evolved in an entirely different socio-economic climate than early Paganism. But if it did, somehow, become appropriate to prey upon others for your own survival, a case could be made for it. For example: asteroid hits the Earth, all is chaos, and your next door neighbor is hoarding beenie-weenies while you and your kids go hungry. You may seriously have to consider a little predation. But taking from others when all is in abundance is unwise and subject to unpleasant consequences.




That's the whole problem with relative values, when they impinge on each other, then people do not say "Let the strongest/luckiest/cleverest win!"


Actually, that is essentially what I just said. Paganism is not a pacifistic religion. Yes, there are pacifists within it, but then there are many, many members of the armed services who worship the Old Gods. Paganism recognizes the underlying natural "law" of Darwin, and when push comes to shove the perfectly natural and perfectly human will to survive will override most other considerations.


And what about all the emphasis on balance? Now I do believe in balance! Enjoy a feast now and again, but don't be gluttonous. Exercise some, and take a nap.

But making balance a principle value (an absolute one?), won't do, for then we have some awkward balances to maintain, balances no one would consider acting and correcting.

We should be picketing the disease control centers, for a release of some of that smallpox? Eliminating cancer, would that be unbalanced?


You misunderstand the concept as it is practiced. The principal of Balance is not a directive to force the world to be balanced, it is the recognition that complex systems (including social interactions and psychological development) will FIND balance, just as water will always seek the lowest point or gas will seek to expand to its limits. It is the acknowlegement that working against the tides is counterproductive and often stupid. There is an equilibrium to be maintained, not an equation to be balanced. And this principal does not assume that we are absent from the equilibrium, somehow objectively sitting outside of the universe and staring at the inequities. We are part of it, and our own needs, wants, desires, fears and aspirations will all be a factor in the eventual return to equilibrium.

Arion the Blue

[technomage]

Then we have one of three conclusions:

1) Gaia is following the Rede.
2) If not, this is not a radical departure from Wicca.
3) Gaia is not an exemplary goddess.

We have a fourth: Lee does not understand Wicca, and this lack of understanding is deliberate. You have already been told that the Rede was written for humans, not for animals: the Rede was also not written for the Gods. If you insist on looking at the Gods as "Exemplary," then you are forced to the position that God the Father must obey the Mosaic Law.

Well, I'm not going to sit by, and let there be a presentation of Wicca/paganism, that skips the difficulties.

Yet the difficulties are not of Wicca, but of your own creation. Lee, that is dishonest in the extreme--contrary, I will note, to both your own faith and mine--and that dishonesty is precisely why I wish you to stop wasting my time.

I do not tolerate the dishonest, Lee. Begone.

[tmancour]

Then we have one of three conclusions:

1) Gaia is following the Rede.


Again, the Rede is a human ethical construct, for humans. If you are talking about the "savage nature" aspect of the food chain, then I refer back to the concept of Death in the Service of Life. Gaia doesn't follow the Rede.


2) If not, this is not a radical departure from Wicca.


Correct.


3) Gaia is not an exemplary goddess.


I don't see how you reach this conclusion. Please elucidate.



Why would eliminating cancer, presumably as part of an effort to eliminate all disease, not upset the balance between life and death? Some people are put in a deep freeze, in hope of some cure in the future, immortality of sorts, isn't that, unbalanced?


But we have already upset the balance between Life and Death: Our life spans are now on average twice what they were five hundred years ago. But the balance is being sought by the natural forces involved. As our lifespans increase, so does the number of geriatric diseases hitherto unknown, such as Alzheimers. Also, the same technology that has allowed our lifespans to grow has also introduced us to chemical elements that have increased the number of environmental disease our mortal flesh is heir to.

Seeking balance is not an active issue for most Pagans past their personal issues. We don't run around trying to put everything in perfect order -- we know better. But in most cases we try not to impede the balance from finding its natural equilibrium. It's a judgement call, but that's what the Path of Wisdom trains us to make.



Then we must also inquire as to whether these questions might be difficult to answer, in the framework of Wicca, that also is a possibility.
[/quote

They are not difficult -- but we have a much different perspective and use different starting axioms than an Abrahamic, along with a different set of cosmological principals and core values.

[QUOTE=lee_merrill]
Well, I'm not going to sit by, and let there be a presentation of Wicca/paganism, that skips the difficulties. There are other aspects as well, and difficulties that (possibly?) people could be unwilling to discuss.

I shall not apologize for such apologetics, nor will I vanish, unless someone works upon me such a spell.


Please don't. I have no problem defending my religion. An untried faith is a poorly tempered sword in battle.

Arion

[lee_merrill]

I do not tolerate the dishonest, Lee. Begone.

<<Lee looks in the mirror.>>

Didn't work...

Perhaps "Forsooth, begone?" :blush:

More anon, for all who will tolerate me...

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Ryokan: I agree, I see some potential problems with Wicca that I can't discuss here, but Christianity has even more serious problems. And it deals with the problem of evil even less elegantly.
But I would hold that we cannot have enough real goodness (not just infinite ice cream, I mean the inherent good that ice cream etc. can bring), and we cannot have too little real evil, and that these are absolutes, and that people recognize this, and Wicca (this is inelegant) does not.

Lee: Predation, too? Why is Gaia not to be imitated, here?

Arion: But if it did, somehow, become appropriate to prey upon others for your own survival, a case could be made for it. For example: asteroid hits the Earth, all is chaos, and your next door neighbor is hoarding beenie-weenies while you and your kids go hungry. You may seriously have to consider a little predation.
Here we have another difference between Wicca and Christianity, for if this is allowed in the one system, it is forbidden in the other.

Proverbs 6:30-31 Men do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy his hunger when he is starving. Yet if he is caught, he must pay sevenfold, though it costs him all the wealth of his house.

It's still wrong to steal, and God has promised to provide for those who seek him, and this type of stealing is still to some extent, an expedient, a "necessary evil," not especially elegant.

Arion: Paganism recognizes the underlying natural "law" of Darwin, and when push comes to shove the perfectly natural and perfectly human will to survive will override most other considerations.
Then predation is not wrong, and imitating Nature in this regard is appropriate.

And the cannibals may pursue this interest, without a qualm, and if people are eaten, we should not have a qualm, either.

We may note that some people other than cannibals have indeed made this principle quite prominent in their system (Reich number III), surely the Wiccans would draw back here...

Lee: Eliminating cancer, would that be unbalanced?

Arion: ... this principal does not assume that we are absent from the equilibrium, somehow objectively sitting outside of the universe and staring at the inequities. We are part of it, and our own needs, wants, desires, fears and aspirations will all be a factor in the eventual return to equilibrium.
Then my questions to Ryokan apply, this seems to make it rather needless to make this a principle, which indeed it seems to be.

Justin: If you insist on looking at the Gods as "Exemplary," then you are forced to the position that God the Father must obey the Mosaic Law.
Well, he does, actually, in that the law is summed up in the law of love for God and neighbor, and God loves, within the Trinity, and God loves each of us, with perfect love.

And saying Gaia is not exemplary seems to me to be saying that the Wiccan deities are not very Wiccan, that the world is not an example of Wicca, nor Nature, nor gods and goddesses, only people are, in this aspect. That's very odd, for I though Wicca was all about unity and such, with man and Nature and the supernatural, and what we find in one expresses what we find in the other.

Arion: If you are talking about the "savage nature" aspect of the food chain, then I refer back to the concept of Death in the Service of Life. Gaia doesn't follow the Rede.
How can it be commendable for Gaia, and not for us, though?

Job 4:17 Can a mortal be more righteous than God? Can a man be more pure than his Maker?

Lee: If not, this is not a radical departure from Wicca.

Arion: Correct.
Well, I meant predation is not a radical departure, though it appears that it is.

Lee: [or] Gaia is not an exemplary goddess.

Arion: I don't see how you reach this conclusion. Please elucidate.
If we can't imitate predation, and Gaia embodies predation, then this prominent principle in Nature is not exemplary for us. And this very Wiccan deity is somehow not very Wiccan here.

Arion: We don't run around trying to put everything in perfect order -- we know better. But in most cases we try not to impede the balance from finding its natural equilibrium.
Then Wiccans should not exert themselves in research medicine, which amounts to subscribing to diseases being present, which I think is not most people's approach to the problem of diseases, they do seek healing when they are sick, and consider it to be admirable to help others heal, and remain well, and this is an aspect of the problem of evil, which I think can be addressed in this area in a better way than Wicca pictures here...

Blessings,
Lee

[Pythagoras]

Hi Wiccan,

Pythagoras, you and I have previously discussed your assertions on this. I disagree with your equating the doctrine of the Trinity with Hindu beliefs, and feel you do so only through a grotesque and deliberate misapprehension of Hindu (and Christian) doctrine. There is a grave difference between "ignorant of this fact," and rejecting the assertion as false.



Justin

Well, the book source I furnished you last post seems to be equating the Catholic trinity with the Hindu one on at least some fundamental levels. Obviously you have already made up your mind on the issue.

How can you still honestly mantain that equating the Hindu and Catholic trinities is a "grotesque and deliberate misapprehension", even after reading that book review I furnished?(and the countless other evidences)

In my view,your Pagan religion is less blasphemous than the Catholic trinity religion. At least you don't divide God into three persons and still insist He's one, or do you?

Thanks,

[technomage]

Well, the book source I furnished you last post seems to be equating the Catholic trinity with the Hindu one on at least some fundamental levels. Obviously you have already made up your mind on the issue.

Obviously you have, as well, or you would not continue to confuse "relate" and "equate."

How can you still honestly mantain that equating the Hindu and Catholic trinities is a "grotesque and deliberate misapprehension" after reading that book review (book authored by a Catholic monk)?

Because I don't care what some monk writes if he's wrong. :lol:

In my view,your Pagan religion is less blasphemous that the Catholic trinity religion. At least you don't divide God into three persons and still insist He's one, or do you?

Pythagoras, it's quite obvious that you don't understand Catholicism or Christianity. I really don't think it's worth my time or yours to try to explain Pagan religion to you: at this point, I'm unsure if you can handle basic concepts like truth, accuracy, or intellectual honesty.

Have a nice day.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Wiccan,



Pythagoras, it's quite obvious that you don't understand Catholicism or Christianity.

Have a nice day.

Actually I do understand them both quite well, more than most in this World.

Christianity is the religion of Christ and his apostles; a creed which conceieved God as an absolute One with Jesus as His anointed Messiah. Christ Jesus never intended for men to worship him as God. Talk of "grotesque".

Wiccan, how can any rational, honest person seriously entertain the possibility that Jesus is God? Do you?

Catholicism on the other hand has nothing at all to do with Christ or his teachings. Jesus never intended the Deity of himself, the trinity,transubstantation , papal infallability, Mary's immaculate heart, Mary as co-redeemprtix, to name a few.


Obviously you have, as well, or you would not continue to confuse "relate" and "equate."


And you're deliberately distorting my position by forgetting my qualification, "on at least some fundamental levels."

The Hindu and Catholic trinities are not 100% equal but similar(partially equal)in many important respects.


Take care,

[Ryokan]

Hi Wiccan,



Actually I do understand them both quite well, more than most in this World.

Christianity is the religion of Christ and his apostles; a creed which conceieved God as an absolute One with Jesus as His anointed Messiah. Christ Jesus never intended for men to worship him as God. Talk of "grotesque".

Wiccan, how can any rational, honest person seriously entertain the possibility that Jesus is God? Do you? I don't, but many do. And not becuase they want to be heretics.

Catholicism on the other hand has nothing at all to do with Christ or his teachings. Jesus never intended the Deity of himself, the trinity,transubstantation , papal infallability, Mary's immaculate heart, Mary as co-redeemprtix, to name a few.
You clearly don't understand Catholicism at all.



And you're deliberately distorting my position by forgetting my qualification, "on at least some fundamental levels."

The Hindu and Catholic trinities are not 100% equal but similar(partially equal)in many important respects.


Take care,Catholics acknowledge that.

[tmancour]

But I would hold that we cannot have enough real goodness (not just infinite ice cream, I mean the inherent good that ice cream etc. can bring), and we cannot have too little real evil, and that these are absolutes, and that people recognize this, and Wicca (this is inelegant) does not.

Again, that depends upon what your definitions of "good" and "evil" are. From an Abrahamic perspective, this is an absolute. From a Wiccan perspective, it is difficult to label something "good" or "evil" without first evaluating it from many perspectives.

And, yes, before you bring it up the cannibal doesn't see himself as evil, yet what he does (in the sense that he kills other humans specifically for food) is considered evil by the majority of human cultures. But which part is evil: the killing or the consuming? Would consumption be considered not evil if the victim died of natural causes, and cannibalism was that tribe's method of disposing of the dead? Ritual cannibalism is popular in many cultures, although it is usually displaced by symbolic cannibalism at a fairly early stage. Should all such acts be condemned as evil, because of the "inherent" evil involved in consuming human flesh, even symbolically?

In terms of "objective" evil, Wiccans usually contend that unnecessary suffering is the bottom-line for making that judgement. And when the world is viewed in that context, with that loose definition, then yes, there should be less evil in the world. Relatively speaking.



Here we have another difference between Wicca and Christianity, for if this is allowed in the one system, it is forbidden in the other.

Proverbs 6:30-31 Men do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy his hunger when he is starving. Yet if he is caught, he must pay sevenfold, though it costs him all the wealth of his house.

It's still wrong to steal, and God has promised to provide for those who seek him, and this type of stealing is still to some extent, an expedient, a "necessary evil," not especially elegant.


According to scripture, it is only wrong to steal if you don't have Jehovah's permission first. Which he conveniently grants quite frequently. But stealing implies some measure of property ownership, and that gets into some hazy legal territory. Nor is stealing considered an absolute value in most cultures --including our own (see recent Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain). In ancient Celtic Pagan times it was even a rite of passage and an important social event for a young man to prove himself by cattle rustling. There are even cultures that have a sort of "sacred theft", often re-enacting a mythological theme. The Romani culture even institutionalized stealing with a myth about a little Rom boy who stole one of the four nails originally destined to crucify Jesus -- his theft was seen by Christ as an act of compassion, and so he granted a special dispensation to the Rom to steal without divine punishment. While stealing for subsistance is, indeed, inelegant, it is also sometimes necessary for survival -- a trait that is universally respected.


Then predation is not wrong, and imitating Nature in this regard is appropriate.


IN THE APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCES. Again, this is a judgement call. A major difference in the Abrahamic faiths and Paganism is the lack of emphasis on the development of personal wisdom in the former. Is it appropriate to be a predator in all circumstances? No, it is not. But en extremis there is no artificial prohibition. The Path of Wisdom advises you on when those situations arise, and the appropriate course of action.


And the cannibals may pursue this interest, without a qualm, and if people are eaten, we should not have a qualm, either.


It depends: if they are Christian missionaries, bon appetite! :lol: Otherwise, the inherent right of the cannibal to eat human flesh is as valid as my right not to be eaten. See above argument.



We may note that some people other than cannibals have indeed made this principle quite prominent in their system (Reich number III), surely the Wiccans would draw back here...


Predation as a matter of survival is one thing; predation for the sake of empire, quite another. Wicca recognizes the necessity of the former, and the necessity to defeat the latter. Which is which? Judgement call . . .


Then my questions to Ryokan apply, this seems to make it rather needless to make this a principle, which indeed it seems to be.

It is absolutely essential as a guiding principal to Pagan practice. Just because we are not always agents of balance does not detract from the necessity of studying Balance and how it effects our daily lives. Again, it is understanding and Wisdom that is involved here.


Well, he does, actually, in that the law is summed up in the law of love for God and neighbor, and God loves, within the Trinity, and God loves each of us, with perfect love.

And if that were the extent of Abrahamic religious law, the world would be a much better place. But it isn't. The Abrahamic faiths are a legalistic religion with a highly codified standard of conduct -- one which Jehovah/Jesus/Allah frequently violates. If all Christians were to emulate the actions of Jehovah, they would be clinically insane and incarcerated in most jurisdictions.


And saying Gaia is not exemplary seems to me to be saying that the Wiccan deities are not very Wiccan, that the world is not an example of Wicca, nor Nature, nor gods and goddesses, only people are, in this aspect. That's very odd, for I though Wicca was all about unity and such, with man and Nature and the supernatural, and what we find in one expresses what we find in the other.


Your logic is faulty. First, you are approaching the topic from a purely Abrahamic standard, comparing your own religion's conception of deity to ours; not all cultures -- or even a majority of them -- look upon deity and divinity the way that Abrahamists do. Indeed, the Abrahamist conception of deity is bound up with history, making it a linear conceptualization, while most of the rest of the world recognizes the inherently cyclical nature of divinity. We do not worship "Jehovah in drag" when we speak of the Goddess.

Second, we do not look to our gods for directives in how to live; we seek their guidance, not their command. The fact that Gaia-the-deity has a penchant for earthquakes and hurricanes has little bearing in our social interaction, except maybe to act as a useful metaphor.

And that is where I see a fundamental difference between the religions: Wicca seeks to be useful; radical monotheism seeks to be Absolutely Right. It is the difference between "right thinking" (orthodoxy) and "appropriate thinking" (wisdom). But Wisdom is a difficult spiritual discipline to cultivate, and I expect that it is far easier to endlessly debate what is right and lawful than it is to decide what is an appropriate course of action.


How can it be commendable for Gaia, and not for us, though?


But Gaia doesn't prey on others. That assumption shows you have an inadequate conception of the deity. Gaia just IS, in all Her glory. She is not there to provide us an example of how to live -- She is the matrix in which we live. Even beyond that, those predators who have inspired us with their cunning, ferocity, and their brutal efficiency do have lessons to teach us -- but again, they are lessons in appropriate action. Yes, the lion kills to eat, and so we kill to eat. Yes, the lion shows us an example of valor in defense of the pride, so we too should be valorous in defense of the tribe. But the lion kills no more than necessary for sustenance. And the lion runs away from a threat if at all possible, avoiding the conflict to live another day. Those are commendable actions.


Job 4:17 Can a mortal be more righteous than God? Can a man be more pure than his Maker?

Righteousness and purity are fetishes of desert-born radical monotheism, not forest-and-plain born polytheism. We have different values.


Well, I meant predation is not a radical departure, though it appears that it is.


Again, appropriateness is the important factor here.


If we can't imitate predation, and Gaia embodies predation, then this prominent principle in Nature is not exemplary for us. And this very Wiccan deity is somehow not very Wiccan here.


But Gaia doesn't "embody predation"; nor should we not, when appropriate, emulate predation. Gaia in Her modern context is the personification of the terrestrial eco-system, within which all entities are obliged to prey on each other, to some degree or another, or at least benefit in some way from that predation. If you are looking for the "embodiement of predation" you are looking at the wrong deity. That would be Cernnunos, the Horned One, the Master of Animals, the Predator and the Prey. And both deities are very Wiccan.


Then Wiccans should not exert themselves in research medicine, which amounts to subscribing to diseases being present, which I think is not most people's approach to the problem of diseases, they do seek healing when they are sick, and consider it to be admirable to help others heal, and remain well, and this is an aspect of the problem of evil, which I think can be addressed in this area in a better way than Wicca pictures here...


Once again, APPROPRIATENESS. There are plenty of Wiccans in research medicine (I live in the hub of the biotech world). They do not eschew the elimination of disease because of some abstract moral construct. They work to a) understand the universe b) heal disease because Wiccans have a huge healing tradition c) they seek to fight the suffering caused by disease. From a Wiccan perspective, disease is not evil; the suffering brought by disease is evil, just as fires are not evil, but fire can cause great suffering. While there is no great Wiccan charge to eliminate suffering, we try to do so because it is the Wise thing to do. Indeed, compared to some fundamentalist Christian sects who refuse to fight disease because they believe the power of prayer alone is enough cure, or, failing that, that it was God's Will that someone dies to disease, Wiccans are all about the compassionate care of the sick.

And I don't see how you can look at our way of viewing evil as lacking. I'm sure if you took a survey of Wiccans and Pagans in general you would find a deeply held commitment to thwart and mitigate evil -- not because some deity instructed us to, but because Evil is generally bad for society and its elimination is a wise thing to work toward.

Arion

[tmancour]

In my view,your Pagan religion is less blasphemous than the Catholic trinity religion. At least you don't divide God into three persons and still insist He's one, or do you?


It depends upon whether we are feeling more pantheistic or polytheistic that day. We divide divinity any way we are comfortable, and look at it through a variety of filters. Yet we also understand that Divinity is omnipresent. Just because you fill a cauldron from a spring doesn't mean you have changed the nature of water. Divinity looked at as the Trinity and divinity as seen as monotheism are just different ways to splash in the tub.

Arion

[lee_merrill]

Hi Arion,

Lee: But I would hold that we cannot have enough real goodness, and we cannot have too little real evil, and that these are absolutes, and that people recognize this, and Wicca does not.

Arion: Again, that depends upon what your definitions of "good" and "evil" are.
Well, let's even take the relativist position! Can there be too much real good, where good is according to your view? Too little real evil, as you define it? Surely these are essentially absolutes within your system, or else you must not believe your own values, again, within your system.

Arion: Would consumption be considered not evil if the victim died of natural causes, and cannibalism was that tribe's method of disposing of the dead?
By cannibalism I meant both, though, the entire act of killing and eating considered a whole, certainly people have considered this entire act, and thus we may evaluate this entire act, even if one part of it (cooking?) might not be considered so inherently evil, per se.

Should all such acts be condemned as evil, because of the "inherent" evil involved in consuming human flesh, even symbolically?
Yes, if it's considered to be taking spiritual virtues, without permission. To think of doing an act that would be evil, to accept that thought, shows us what we would do, if we really could do anything we wanted, and thus it is just as bad as really doing it.

In terms of "objective" evil, Wiccans usually contend that unnecessary suffering is the bottom-line for making that judgment. And when the world is viewed in that context, with that loose definition, then yes, there should be less evil in the world.
Yes, I agree with this principle! Absolutely...

Relatively speaking.
Er, ahem...

Now I wouldn't call this the first principle, I think your principle here implies (what I find in Scripture as) the first principle, and that is the principle of loving others. Now how can this principle be relative? I mean the principle, and not any particular application of it.

Surely it must always be true that unnecessary suffering is really evil, and also that to act in an unloving manner, is also always evil, since this will bring suffering for a bad reason.

According to scripture, it is only wrong to steal if you don't have Jehovah's permission first. Which he conveniently grants quite frequently.
Glad to discuss specific instances you may have in mind! Maybe over in Apologetics...

But stealing implies some measure of property ownership, and that gets into some hazy legal territory.
Well yes, the application is sometimes hazy, but the principle is clear, I may use your principle here, of stealing causing suffering without cause.

While stealing for subsistance is, indeed, inelegant, it is also sometimes necessary for survival -- a trait that is universally respected.
Scripture says people don't blame such stealing, but God does not excuse even this.

Matthew 4:3 The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread."

I think this was a temptation just like that, to take for yourself inan appropriate way, to steal, and Jesus refused this, at the point of starvation (people die after almost exactly 40 days without food).


Lee: Then predation is not wrong, and imitating Nature in this regard is appropriate.

Arion: IN THE APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Well, certainly lions don't hunt prey all day, every day, so imitating Nature would mean people may prey on others, as needed. You will not, of course, object if I find it necessary to prey on you. I will not, of course, object if you find it necessary...

But we do object to being stalked and preyed on, and I think I know why.

Arion: if they are Christian missionaries, bon appetite!
Well, no, Christians are the salt of the earth, not the steak of the earth! I guess salt does generally get eaten too, though.

Otherwise, the inherent right of the cannibal to eat human flesh is as valid as my right not to be eaten.
This is indeed the conclusion I do think relative values must come to.

Abrahamic faiths are a legalistic religion with a highly codified standard of conduct -- one which Jehovah/Jesus/Allah frequently violates.
Well, no...

Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Galatians 2:19 For through the law I [Paul] died to the law so that I might live for God.

Glad to discuss this further, if you would want to start another thread...

Lee: ... saying Gaia is not exemplary seems to me to be saying that the Wiccan deities are not very Wiccan, that the world is not an example of Wicca, nor Nature, nor gods and goddesses, only people are, in this aspect [of the Rede].

Arion: Indeed, the Abrahamist conception of deity is bound up with history, making it a linear conceptualization, while most of the rest of the world recognizes the inherently cyclical nature of divinity.
Well, cyclical or linear, are the Wiccan deities, is Nature, quite Wiccan? I was given to believe that they were.

Second, we do not look to our gods for directives in how to live; we seek their guidance, not their command.
Nor their example! So these gods must be hypocritical? Do as I say, and not as I do, and not as the world I put you in, does?

And why is harming others permissible for the gods? They might be going through a low point in the cycle, but isn't it still wrong, as causing unnecessary suffering?

Wicca seeks to be useful; radical monotheism seeks to be Absolutely Right. ... and I expect that it is far easier to endlessly debate what is right and lawful than it is to decide what is an appropriate course of action.
I do believe that what is right is useful, though! Loving others brings a good result, always.

Galatians 6:9 Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.

Quite practical!

Yes, the lion kills to eat, and so we kill to eat. Yes, the lion shows us an example of valor in defense of the pride, so we too should be valorous in defense of the tribe. But the lion kills no more than necessary for sustenance. And the lion runs away from a threat if at all possible, avoiding the conflict to live another day.
So then predation is fine, if we follow this line of being predators. I need some spiritual power, thus I choose to eat the most spiritually powerful person I can take down. No more than I need! And avoid the police, but my conscience shall not object.

Lee: Then Wiccans should not exert themselves in research medicine...

Arion: While there is no great Wiccan charge to eliminate suffering, we try to do so because it is the Wise thing to do.
Well, if it's wise, it's absolutely good! The opposite of wise being unwise, or foolish.

But! If predation is fine, then viral and bacterial and parasitic predation is fine, and we cannot (in principle) forbid to P. falciparum what we allow to ourselves, we are simply another cog in the wheel, another thread on the loom, all woven together, and all part of the garment...

Blessings,
Lee

[CelticRaven7]

Hi!

:eek: *celticraven7 looks around, and wonders if she'll be eaten alive in this kind of debate*

Anyways... Lee said, So these gods must be hypocritical? Do as I say, and not as I do, and not as the world I put you in, does?

I don't see where this applies to the Wiccan and/or Pagan deities any more than it should apply to the Christian deity. According to the Christian Bible, the Chrisitian god has killed people as examples (i.e., Ananias and Sapphira). He's ordered whole populations of people killed. If we said, "Lee, don't you think you should go kill a couple of the members of the nearest church that have the worst problem with lying (so that the rest of them won't lie so much)?", you'd say, "You're crazy! My God doesn't want me to copy him in that way!" Instead, you probably think along the lines of God did what he did to Ananias and Sapphira to both make people take him seriously and understand that lying, especially to God and/or the church, is a really really bad thing.

Then, when we tell you that some aspects of our gods aren't meant to be literal examples of how we live our lives, but rather provide an emphasis on ideals that are important, you either ignore the logic or actually don't see it.

*looks furtively around and hides in the nearest doorway*

CelticRaven7

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

CelticRaven: looks around, and wonders if she'll be eaten alive in this kind of debate.

"And please don't cook me, kind sirs! I am a good cook myself, and cook better than I cook, if you see what I mean. I'll cook beautifully for you, a perfectly beautiful breakfast for you, if only you won't have me for supper" (Bilbo Baggins).

Lee: So these gods must be hypocritical? Do as I say, and not as I do?

CelticRaven: If we said, "Lee, don't you think you should go kill a couple of the members of the nearest church that have the worst problem with lying (so that the rest of them won't lie so much)?", you'd say, "You're crazy! My God doesn't want me to copy him in that way!"
Actually, a person was involved in carrying out this sentence:

Acts 5:4-10 "What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God." When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. ... "How could you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also." At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband.

Now we don't have this prerogative on our own, but God does know enough to know when to carry out such a sentence, and sometimes he will carry out a sentence through the acts of other people.

CelticRaven: Then, when we tell you that some aspects of our gods aren't meant to be literal examples of how we live our lives, but rather provide an emphasis on ideals that are important, you either ignore the logic or actually don't see it.
Well, there is a difference, if the Wiccan deities don't follow the Rede, which is pretty central to Wicca.

The main point I was after is that the gods should follow the principles they command for others, and their actions (though they may throw thunderbolts, where we cannot) should always reflect those principles.

When we say that a deity really does not subscribe to an important principle of Wicca, then certainly we have a fracture in the foundation.

And I would hold that all God's actions in Scripture are consistent with the principles he gives to people, always, and without exception, so it's different to purposely and intentionally give up this ground, and say that there is a real difference of principle, between humans, and the deities, especially in the principle of not willingly harming another.

looks furtively around and hides in the nearest doorway
From the gods! If they don't have our best interest in mind, all the time, which it does not appear that they do...

Blessings,
Lee

[technomage]

Well, there is a difference, if the Wiccan deities don't follow the Rede, which is pretty central to Wicca.

Does YHVH follow Mosaic law? Of course not ... it is not made for Him.

In the same manner, if the Lord and Lady do not follow the Rede because it is not made for the Gods ... what exactly is the issue?

Justin

[Didymus]

Does YHVH follow Mosaic law? Of course not ... it is not made for Him.

In the same manner, if the Lord and Lady do not follow the Rede because it is not made for the Gods ... what exactly is the issue?

Justin

Good question? "Lord" and "lady" - works of fiction or poets meaning what?

[technomage]

Good question? "Lord" and "lady" - works of fiction or poets meaning what?

That's part of the Mystery, Didymus. If you were interested in Wicca (I'm assuming you're not), I could introduce you to them ... but I cannot coherently tell you about them. :wink:

[tmancour]

Good question? "Lord" and "lady" - works of fiction or poets meaning what?


The Lord and the Lady are two terms of familiar address to the main Wiccan deities, the Great Goddess and the Horned God -- the masculine and feminine divine principals. Our divine family mirrors our human family. We use "Lord" and "Lady" the same way an Abrahamist would use "Lord" and "Adonai".

Arion

[tmancour]

Well, let's even take the relativist position! Can there be too much real good, where good is according to your view? Too little real evil, as you define it? Surely these are essentially absolutes within your system, or else you must not believe your own values, again, within your system.


But how do you quantify "good" and "evil"? There is always exactly the same amount of both, one theory runs, it just shifts around beyond the limits of our comprehension. And how much is too much is a subjective judgement call. Would I want a world of pure "good"? Pure "evil"? I think not -- the former would be boring as all get-out, the latter depressing to the point of pathology. These two "forces" (for lack of a better word) are subjective abstract principals, culturally derived. One cannot live in eternal sunshine. Nor eternal darkness. Atoms will not be happy with all protons and no electrons.

Remember: this kind of moral dualism is mostly a monotheistic idea (Thanks Zoroaster! (*groan*)). The Yin and Yang do not represent Good and Evil exclusively -- they represent opposites of every sort. Removing one principal from the balance would be foolhardy. So Good and Evil would NOT be considered absolute in our system. The sparrow's lunch is the earthworm's bad day.



By cannibalism I meant both, though, the entire act of killing and eating considered a whole, certainly people have considered this entire act, and thus we may evaluate this entire act, even if one part of it (cooking?) might not be considered so inherently evil, per se.


Actually, the murder would be, in my theological opinion, really the most "evil" act. The cooking and eating of human flesh is not in and of itself "evil" -- merely gross, disgusting, socially unacceptable by most extant human cultures, and punishable by law in most jurisdictions. And, morally speaking, a lot would depend upon the cannibal's motivation. Is he doing it out of a need for sustainance, a la the Donner Party? Is he doing it for the magickal absorbtion of some trait or characteristic of the prey? Is he doing it because his society has so ingrained the socio-religious necessity that to do otherwise would constitute a severe and potentially fatal psychological trauma? Intent does count, and there are mitigating circumstances for just about any situation. What if the victim volunteered their services as entree? And were dying of terminal disease or natural causes?


Yes, if it's considered to be taking spiritual virtues, without permission. To think of doing an act that would be evil, to accept that thought, shows us what we would do, if we really could do anything we wanted, and thus it is just as bad as really doing it.


Good thing the Christian world has Jesus' permission then, as Christians are the largest group of ritualistic cannibals on the planet. Of course, the only way we know y'all have his permission is a passage in the Bible written (at earliest) seventy years after his death. And this raises another interesting question: if it is "evil" to consume human flesh to take spiritual virtues without permission, then is it equally as evil to take spiritual values without permission by other means? Such as Mormons converting people (namely Jews, but I admit, it creeps me out too!) after they are dead? Or heck, for that matter, Evangelicals trying to forcibly convert and baptize folks while they are alive?


Yes, I agree with this principle! Absolutely...
Er, ahem...

Sorry to be such a theological pain . . .


Now I wouldn't call this the first principle, I think your principle here implies (what I find in Scripture as) the first principle, and that is the principle of loving others. Now how can this principle be relative? I mean the principle, and not any particular application of it.


Yes, I agree with this principle! Absolutely... :lol:

Another common misunderstanding about Wicca is that we do not emphasize love. But Wicca and the other Pagan traditions place a very high premiium on love. The place of love -- perfect love -- in our religion is paramount. Love of Nature, love of life, love of humanity, love of our friends and family. In this case, a definition for love might be seen as that condition where an individual's happiness and well-being is preconditional upon the happiness and well-being of the subject of that emotion. "No greater love hath a man . . . "

One of the truly great spiritual teachings of Jesus was the valorization of the concept of Phileos. But universal brotherly love, while a noble goal, is also a difficult spiritual discipline to master. To their credit, the history of Christianity is punctuated with sterling examples of people who demonstrably mastered it -- but they are also the exception, not the rule.

Most Neo-Pagans aspire to some form of Phileos -- indeed, for many of us it is Christianity's major redeeming factor. But Neo-Pagans in general recognize that our love, in practical terms, is usually bound primarily to those people in our lives with whom we share an intense interpersonal relationship. That does not diminish either the depth of feeling or its importance at the center of our lives. No doubt for some people the practical manifestation of universal love is sufficient fodder for their soul on its own; for most, however, it lacks the spiritual sustainance we require to thrive. That doesn't make us weaker, or less loving, or less compassionate -- it merely means that we have accepted who we are to the point where we know our limitations. For me to throw myself into the warm ocean of universal brotherhood, devoting my life to the selfless service of others, then I would spiritually starve to death, and my gods-given talents would atrophy while I was feeding the homeless or however I chose to manifest Phileos. My religious daily requirements are more complex than that.

So the principal of loving other could quite easily be seen as an absolute, barring any particular manifestation of that principal. However, using my definition, if you love a masochist, are you compelled, therefore, to manifest that love by making them happy and beating the snot out of them? Or if you love a starving vampire, are you therefore compelled to offer your neck? The absolute concept of love gets cloudy in such situations. And those are just the extremes. A friend of mine loves his wife. Loves her so much that when it became obvious that she no longer loved him, he was forced to make a choice: leave her to be happy, but in doing so permanently scar himself with her loss; or continue trying to maintain a relationship in which she would always be unhappy. What does the absolute of love say to such situations? And what about love of self? That kind of complicates things. But then such things are always complicated when they are pulled out of the abstract and into our reality. What if my goddess, whom I love, instructed to kill my children, whom I also love? Moral dilemma! (And highly unlikely, considering Brighid is a protector of children). Love is a many splendored thing. It also stinks, every now and then.




Surely it must always be true that unnecessary suffering is really evil, and also that to act in an unloving manner, is also always evil, since this will bring suffering for a bad reason.


Hmm. Unnecessary suffering is truly evil. But by whose standards is it necessary or unnecessary? My five year old thinks my punishments are arbitrary and unkind -- even unnecessary. But from my perspective, they are necessary -- and not at all unloving. To confront me in the street and tell me my gods are frauds and that I will burn in hell for all of eternity unless I cave in to Jehovah, that seems pretty unloving to me. It has caused me much needless suffering. But there are those out there who think my suffering for my beliefs has merit, and is quite necessary. Judgement call.


Glad to discuss specific instances you may have in mind! Maybe over in Apologetics...


The land of Canaan springs to mind. But you are right: another time, another thread.


Well yes, the application is sometimes hazy, but the principle is clear, I may use your principle here, of stealing causing suffering without cause.


But in most cases, there is a cause for the suffering. If it is you who are the victim, then your suffering may seem unjust. But if you have been robbed by someone you owe money to, and refuse to pay, then IN THEIR OPINION they have sufficient cause to make you suffer. Or if your ancestors did something to their ancestors. The government steals all the time, and they feel they have sufficient cause. Others may disagree. . .


Scripture says people don't blame such stealing, but God does not excuse even this.

Matthew 4:3 The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread."

I think this was a temptation just like that, to take for yourself inan appropriate way, to steal, and Jesus refused this, at the point of starvation (people die after almost exactly 40 days without food).


Only Jesus would not have been stealing, or taking something in an inappropriate way. He was starving not because of a lack of resources, but as part of an elaborate religious purification, one which often leads to hallucinations (sometimes the devil even shows up to screw with your head -- low blood sugar does some strange things to your mind). Satan "tempting" him with the possibility of divinely generated bread wasn't an affront to his morality, it was his inner voice telling him that he could give up his self-imposed austerity at a whim -- which irritated him as a mystic.


Well, certainly lions don't hunt prey all day, every day, so imitating Nature would mean people may prey on others, as needed. You will not, of course, object if I find it necessary to prey on you. I will not, of course, object if you find it necessary...

By all means, prey upon me. You may well find it much harder than you imagine. Paganism is not, despite the fluffybunnies and West Coast idealists, a religion of pacifism. Sure, we respect those who are of a special conscience, and we will fight to protect them. But we also respect survival -- the whole point of the Path of Wisdom is not just to live well, but to Live -- not die -- until it is an appropriate time.

And you can count on me not to prey on you for the simple reason that I do follow the Path of Wisdom, and Wisdom dictates that the role of the predator looks easier than it is, and that it has some inherent problems (namely, the gazelles organizing a vigilante group and buying AK-47s from a shady-looking zebra from just over the border, someone they met down at the watering hole . . . ). Besides, that would be harming you unnecessarily. Unless my family or tribe is in peril, I can't morally justify that.

Besides, despite the lovely diaramas or spear-chucking paleolithic hunters taking down wooly mammoths with sticks and pure determination isn't quite accurate; our austrolipithicine ancestors were not hunters. They were scavengers, and damn good ones. We were big enough to compete with wolves and other scavengers, eventually by co-opting them. Preying on other animals purposefully came later.


But we do object to being stalked and preyed on, and I think I know why.


Because it is damn inconvenient while you are trying to live long and prosper.


Well, no, Christians are the salt of the earth, not the steak of the earth! I guess salt does generally get eaten too, though.
[quote]

The cannibals rarely made that distinction.

[QUOTE=lee_merrill]
This is indeed the conclusion I do think relative values must come to.


And that isn't a problem for me.



Well, no...

Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Galatians 2:19 For through the law I [Paul] died to the law so that I might live for God.

Glad to discuss this further, if you would want to start another thread...


Maybe later.


Well, cyclical or linear, are the Wiccan deities, is Nature, quite Wiccan? I was given to believe that they were.


You keep using the term "quite Wiccan" the same way you would use the term "quite Christian". While they two are both complex religions, being Wiccan means being Wise ("wicce", wise one in OAS. Some say "woman" or "to bend", but "witch" and "wizard" both mean "wise one"). Is Nature Wise? Defining Wisdom as doing the appropriate thing at the appropriate time, then yes, Nature epitomizes Wisdom.

You make the mistake of trying to bind us to the Rede the same way Christians are bound to the scriptures. The Rede is a guiding principal, but it doesn't exist without context, and it doesn't work right without Wisdom.


Nor their example! So these gods must be hypocritical? Do as I say, and not as I do, and not as the world I put you in, does?

Our gods are not gods of History, like Jehovah and his ilk. The myths we use to inspire and guide us are teaching tools for the realization of sacred mystery and the development of personal wisdom, not commandments or laws.


And why is harming others permissible for the gods? They might be going through a low point in the cycle, but isn't it still wrong, as causing unnecessary suffering?


Again, who decides which suffering is necessary and which is not? And when was the last time you heard of a pagan god harming anyone? Our myths are not canon. And we are not mindless robots. Should the gods have cause to harm, no doubt we can lay claim to the same defense the Abrahamics use constantly: "It was god's will".



I do believe that what is right is useful, though! Loving others brings a good result, always.


An interesting theory, but real-life situations prove otherwise. I've known of several situations where someone's love was not useful, or even right. Love untempered with Wisdom invites sorrow, suffering, even disaster. Othello "loved not wisely, but too well" and his whole life shattered because of it. Love is a powerful force; but like all powerful forces, it can cause unforeseen hardship even in the best of circumstances, with the best of intentions.


Galatians 6:9 Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.

Quite practical!


It's called "enlightened self-interest", and it is a cornerstone of Wisdom.


So then predation is fine, if we follow this line of being predators. I need some spiritual power, thus I choose to eat the most spiritually powerful person I can take down. No more than I need! And avoid the police, but my conscience shall not object.


Prove to me that eating someone can transfer spiritual power, and we'll talk.


Well, if it's wise, it's absolutely good! The opposite of wise being unwise, or foolish.


Another fallacy. Wisdom is not "absolutely good" -- it is rife with interpretation. One man's wisdom is another man's foolishness. And not everything Wisdom dictates is necessarily "good" -- there are plenty of cases where, objectively, a course of action could be considered pure "good", but subjectively it is highly unwise. That doesn't mean you should eschew the path leaning towards "pure good", however -- another tenant of Wisdom is when to ignore the wisest course of action and follow your conscience.


But! If predation is fine, then viral and bacterial and parasitic predation is fine, and we cannot (in principle) forbid to P. falciparum what we allow to ourselves, we are simply another cog in the wheel, another thread on the loom, all woven together, and all part of the garment...

Yep, pretty much true. That doesn't mean we can't choose to fight it -- defense being a natural and inevitable result of predation -- but we are essentially another thread on the loom with this bug. "An it harm none" isn't a commandment of complete pacifism (like the Jains), it's a good rule of thumb by which we can guide our daily lives.

Arion

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Justin: Does YHVH follow Mosaic law? Of course not ... it is not made for Him.
Yes, but it reflects his character, and Jesus came to fulfill it.

In the same manner, if the Lord and Lady do not follow the Rede because it is not made for the Gods ... what exactly is the issue?
Then it does not reflect their character? They would be willing to harm someone, just because they want to?

Lee: Well, let's even take the relativist position! Can there be too much real good, where good is according to your view? Too little real evil, as you define it?

Arion: But how do you quantify "good" and "evil"?
Well, I'm taking some individual's perspective here, whatever that may be! Not my own.

Would I want a world of pure "good"? Pure "evil"? I think not -- the former would be boring as all get-out, the latter depressing to the point of pathology.
But boring is evil, so for it to be pure good, it wouldn't be boring. Or pathological...

One cannot live in eternal sunshine.
Well, why not? "God is light," Christians believe, and he is eternal.

Revelation 22:5 There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.

And this need not be boring, remember light shows! And the absence of light is actually what is always the same, it's quite boring, there are no underground cave display shows, without a lantern.

Atoms will not be happy with all protons and no electrons.
But these are both morally neutral.

So Good and Evil would NOT be considered absolute in our system. The sparrow's lunch is the earthworm's bad day.
Well, I was asking about a given relative perspective, and the worm does say it's a really bad day, this is an absolute value, within Wormy's system. But death is not needed, "necessary evils" may indeed be unnecessary:

Isaiah 11:7 The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox.

I could live with that! Pun intended...

Intent does count, and there are mitigating circumstances for just about any situation.
Intent does make a difference, and circumstances are considerations, but I think just a moment ago we were agreeing that a relative value system must put no constraint on the right of a cannibal to cannibalize, if it is consistent with their system. That surely is where relative value systems must end up, with no right to criticize Hitler, if only he is being consistent. He was that...

Lee: Yes, if it's considered to be taking spiritual virtues, without permission.

Arion: Good thing the Christian world has Jesus' permission then, as Christians are the largest group of ritualistic cannibals on the planet.
Well, this is Jesus giving himself, so this is not spiritual stealing, nor is it eating people! Jesus didn't say feed on each other. But he does feed us with himself, voluntarily, yet without being destroyed, without losing anything himself, and he even mentions that "the flesh counts for nothing" in this passage (Jn. 6:63), showing that painting a picture of cannibalism is not, in a real sense, what is meant here.

Arion: then is it equally as evil to take spiritual values without permission by other means?
Yes, I agree that people forcing conversions is a travesty.

Lee: I think your principle here implies ... the first principle, and that is the principle of loving others.

Arion: Yes, I agree with this principle! Absolutely...
Glad to agree!

Arion: ... or continue trying to maintain a relationship in which she would always be unhappy. What does the absolute of love say to such situations? And what about love of self? That kind of complicates things.
Yes, loves can conflict, this is an important point. Now there seems to be no footing at all for relative value systems here, que sera, sera, is I think what people would say, let the outcome be the outcome, there is no way to decide between two such conflicting claims.

But I would quote what you said earlier!

"In this case, a definition for love might be seen as that condition where an individual's happiness and well-being is preconditional upon the happiness and well-being of the subject of that emotion. 'No greater love hath a man . . .'"

Yes, and I think this is the key, the highest love, the truest love, is to want what is best for others, to the point of sacrificing self-love, even. And at that point, I believe people's best interests may well not conflict, and this solves the dilemma, if both the husband and the wife both want what is best for each other, and do not place their individual happiness above the other person's happiness. Then they dance...

Lee: Surely it must always be true that unnecessary suffering is really evil, and also that to act in an unloving manner, is also always evil...

Arion: Hmm. Unnecessary suffering is truly evil. But by whose standards is it necessary or unnecessary? My five year old thinks my punishments are arbitrary and unkind...
And you think him truly wrong, I take it? Now is it possible you or I might really be wrong? If the bridge is out, let's try and stop people, even if the road looks intact. Not every bridge is a judgment call, not any bridge, actually, in the final analysis, it will either carry you, or it won't...

Arion: The land of Canaan springs to mind. But you are right: another time, another thread.
Fair enough...

Lee: Well yes, the application is sometimes hazy, but the principle is clear...

Arion: If it is you who are the victim, then your suffering may seem unjust. But if you have been robbed by someone you owe money to, and refuse to pay, then IN THEIR OPINION they have sufficient cause to make you suffer.
But both people will still insist that they are upholding the principle, that any suffering they cause is not needless, or unjust.

Arion: The government steals all the time, and they feel they have sufficient cause. Others may disagree. . .
But they provide services of equal value, don't they? Meetings, and rule books, and statutes of senators. No, wait...

Lee: Well, certainly lions don't hunt prey all day, every day, so imitating Nature would mean people may prey on others, as needed.

Arion: Wisdom dictates that the role of the predator looks easier than it is, and that it has some inherent problems (namely, the gazelles organizing a vigilante group and buying AK-47s from a shady-looking zebra from just over the border...)
Only they don't! Neither gazelles nor zebras can defend themselves, they can only hide, and run, and the lions keep their machine-gunnery, and why is this not to be imitated?

Remember the "rabbits" Solzhenitsyn spoke of in the gulags, should Stalin then be imitated? Some day the terrorists will no doubt have the ability to blow up cities, "And there are only two alternative, you know. Either to be in the N.I.C.E. or to be out of it. And I know better than you which is going to be most fun" (from "That Hideous Strength").

Time to imitate Nature, now? The lions may run away with the show, indeed, I think it most probable, and then we have to weigh our principles on one side, and our lives on the other. And yet it is still wrong to prey on others, really wrong, and Nature is not our example here, we recognize this, when we see a real human predator, and we don't just object to him, because of bringing inconvenience.

There can't be too few terrorists, with a city-bomb in their hand.

And when was the last time you heard of a pagan god harming anyone?
You have not read of Zeus? Some really sordid accounts there, such as becoming a serpent, and violating two women, one being his daughter, the other ... his mother.

Should the gods have cause to harm, no doubt we can lay claim to the same defense the Abrahamics use constantly: "It was god's will".
But then we must not fully trust them, if they can do real harm, just because they want to. The God of the Bible is said not to be like that, to hold that these other deities are like that, is a considerable difference.

Love is a powerful force; but like all powerful forces, it can cause unforeseen hardship even in the best of circumstances, with the best of intentions.
Not if it's directed by a God who knows the future, and also loves that much, then there are no unforeseen results of acting in love, in obedience to him.

Galatians 6:9 Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.

Lee: Quite practical!

Arion: It's called "enlightened self-interest", and it is a cornerstone of Wisdom.
Nope! The harvest is so you can give more, not so you can eat it.

Acts 20:35 In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'

Not "more commendable." More blessed! So the way to be most blessed is to give the most, and God takes the prize for that...

Arion: Prove to me that eating someone can transfer spiritual power, and we'll talk.
Well, I don't actually believe this! This was rhetorical, to prove a point about relative values meaning we should not shake our finger at the cannibal, even from within the pot. If values are really relative, and all equally valid, relative to one another.

Lee: Well, if it's wise, it's absolutely good! The opposite of wise being unwise...

Arion: Another fallacy. Wisdom is not "absolutely good" -- it is rife with interpretation.
But wisdom includes the ability to interpret, I meant real insight about how to really act in the best way, that always, absolutely good.

Lee: But! If predation is fine, then viral and bacterial and parasitic predation is fine, and we cannot (in principle) forbid to P. falciparum what we allow to ourselves...

Arion: Yep, pretty much true. That doesn't mean we can't choose to fight it...
Certainly, but we can't fight it in principle, which means we are more like mercenary soldiers than knights in armor, so let's take down the banners, and use them as a tablecloth.

Blessings,
Lee

[tmancour]

Yes, but it reflects his character, and Jesus came to fulfill it.


Judgemental, wrathful, jealous, spiteful, and extreme. Yeah, that pretty much covers it. A friend of mine -- a social worker with a religious bent -- once told me that if Jehovah ever came into her office for a visit that he would fit the profile of an abusive spouse.


Then it does not reflect their character? They would be willing to harm someone, just because they want to?


It does, generally, reflect their character, in that they rarely do things like, say, destroy everyone in the world because they're upset with the way things are going, giving only one family an opportunity to escape their watery wrath. As far as purly gratuitous harm on their capricious whim goes, it's rare.


Well, I'm taking some individual's perspective here, whatever that may be! Not my own.

But boring is evil, so for it to be pure good, it wouldn't be boring. Or pathological...

It depends on your (wait for it) . . . perspective. I consider eternal boredom to be evil (which is one reason I don't believe in Hell). To you (or some other individual) eternal boredom may look like paradise. So in your system, which do we get? Same paradise for everyone? Or one per customer, tailored to their individual needs? 'Cause the traditional representation of the Christian Heaven make me nauseated. And that's what the stated Christian goal is: the Kingdom of Heaven(tm) on Earth. My idea of ultimate good is flags, flax, fodder and frig, with enough day-to-day conflict to keep it interesting. Sitting around all day basking in the Glory of Jehovah seems pointless.


Well, why not? "God is light," Christians believe, and he is eternal.


But for everything to be light, as well, there could be no other objects, for all solid objects cast shadows. Sounds like solar worship to me. And what is wrong with night? Presumably, if Jehovah wasn't pleased with the whole "Earth turns on its axis" deal he would have fixed that basic design flaw. Does Jehovah have it out for nightowls?


Revelation 22:5 There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.

And this need not be boring, remember light shows! And the absence of light is actually what is always the same, it's quite boring, there are no underground cave display shows, without a lantern.


The night is frequently more interesting than the day. I think this is a poor theological arguement -- "things will be better when we no longer have to depend upon the tired old solar system any more!"



But these are both morally neutral.


Most questions of balance are.


Well, I was asking about a given relative perspective, and the worm does say it's a really bad day, this is an absolute value, within Wormy's system. But death is not needed, "necessary evils" may indeed be unnecessary:

Isaiah 11:7 The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox.

I could live with that! Pun intended...


Thus ignoring the essential, gods-given nature of the cow, bear, lion and ox. Cows don't eat salmon. And lions don't eat straw. This compulsion to dismiss the natural order of the Earth is a conceit of Jehovah. Why do you even need a lion or a bear, natural predators, if they aren't going to fulfill their function in the Great Hunt? And what are they all going to eat -- grass? Does Jehovah's provence not extend into the plant kingdom? Or is it okay for plants to die, but not animals, in the Kingdom of Heaven? Swamp Thing isn't going to be happy about that . . .


Intent does make a difference, and circumstances are considerations, but I think just a moment ago we were agreeing that a relative value system must put no constraint on the right of a cannibal to cannibalize, if it is consistent with their system. That surely is where relative value systems must end up, with no right to criticize Hitler, if only he is being consistent. He was that...


But again you misunderstand. Under my system I have every right to criticize -- but no right to take action, unless it is in defense and it is wise. There are plenty of things that offend me in the world. I criticize them all the time. But I have no compulsion to make me rectify them -- and no written permission slip from a deity to suffer them not to live -- unless they happen to directly affect me. I have every right to criticize Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and George W. Bush if I think their policies are unwise and unfair. And if wisdom and my conscience agree that something needs to be done about it, well, I might do something about it. But my response would be individually tailored to the situation, and I would face my personal responsibility for the consequences of my actions. I wouldn't say "God made me do it" and plead that I was a helpless tool. Your conclusion about the inevitability of a relative value system ending up with a world full of sheep dominated by a few predators can be countered by looking at the extreme injustices, even evil, done in the name of an extreme absolute values system.



Well, this is Jesus giving himself, so this is not spiritual stealing, nor is it eating people! Jesus didn't say feed on each other. But he does feed us with himself, voluntarily, yet without being destroyed, without losing anything himself, and he even mentions that "the flesh counts for nothing" in this passage (Jn. 6:63), showing that painting a picture of cannibalism is not, in a real sense, what is meant here.


But if "the flesh counts for nothing", then what is wrong with cannibalism in Christianity? And this goes back to my earlier point: is it morally wrong if the victim volunteers for the right to be eaten by his neighbors?


Yes, I agree that people forcing conversions is a travesty.


Good. Please tell a few of your coreligionists.


Yes, loves can conflict, this is an important point. Now there seems to be no footing at all for relative value systems here, que sera, sera, is I think what people would say, let the outcome be the outcome, there is no way to decide between two such conflicting claims.

Ah, but there is! While you are using the Rede as the end-all, be-all of Pagan (specifically Wiccan) morals, it isn't. Wisdom plays as much of a role, as I have been trying to communicate. It is still a tricky matter, and there is no way to ensure that no-one gets hurt in the game of Love, but Wisdom at least shows you a multitude of possibilities without artificially binding you to one.


But I would quote what you said earlier!

"In this case, a definition for love might be seen as that condition where an individual's happiness and well-being is preconditional upon the happiness and well-being of the subject of that emotion. 'No greater love hath a man . . .'"

Yes, and I think this is the key, the highest love, the truest love, is to want what is best for others, to the point of sacrificing self-love, even. And at that point, I believe people's best interests may well not conflict, and this solves the dilemma, if both the husband and the wife both want what is best for each other, and do not place their individual happiness above the other person's happiness. Then they dance...


The problem is that what YOU believe is best for me isn't necessarily what I see as best for me. If I think that it is best for my kids to go to college, I may push them to take really hard academics in order to make that happen. If my kids don't agree with me, and feel that their talents lie in the music industry, then we have a conflict. (personally, I'd prefer to buy my boy a fat electric guitar than to shell out $15,000 a year for tuition and books, but that's just me). In the case of our fictional husband and wife, it is quite possible that their best interests do, in fact, conflict, and that no real resolution can come of it, despite the amount or intensity of the dancing.


And you think him truly wrong, I take it? Now is it possible you or I might really be wrong? If the bridge is out, let's try and stop people, even if the road looks intact. Not every bridge is a judgment call, not any bridge, actually, in the final analysis, it will either carry you, or it won't...


Of course it is possible. And I admit the possibility. But I also cannot act as if I am if I don't believe myself to be -- wisdom dictates we follow our conscience in this, and I think that punishing him adequately enough to learn a basic lesson now may well prevent him from incurring greater suffering later -- but that is my call to make, as I am the one ultimately Responsible for him and his development. But I have little or no right to challenge how you raise your kids -- until they break into my house.



But both people will still insist that they are upholding the principle, that any suffering they cause is not needless, or unjust.


Tricky, ain't it? This is where Wisdom comes in, again. This Relative Values System requires a little more thought than merely looking up the correct moral answers in a book . . .


But they provide services of equal value, don't they? Meetings, and rule books, and statutes of senators. No, wait...


I really, really hope you are being sarcastic. However, there is also a school of thought that the man who robs you is also providing you a service: teaching you the nature of humility and giving you proper inspiration for positive action. "Love thy enemies -- for they are the Instruments of Thy Fate."



Only they don't! Neither gazelles nor zebras can defend themselves, they can only hide, and run, and the lions keep their machine-gunnery, and why is this not to be imitated?

But isn't the ability to run away terribly fast a defense against a slower and less agile lion? Not to mention complex strategies to preserve the young and the breeding females against attack? The Lion is terribly conspicuous and easy to pick out, easy to arrange a territorial dispute with another lion in which said lion may get eliminated. Meanwhile, your vigilante group of herbivores has bred at three times the rate that a carnivore has, and your herd is stronger because the lion has helpfully eaten the genetically weaker (or genetically unlucky) members of your herd, improving the gene pool.

An interesting case in point: When the Mongols conquered China, they installed an aggressive regime of warriors at the top of the Empire. Perfect example of the Lions seizing power. But it was a transitory thing: after a few generations of assimilation, the Mongol Dynasty was a foppish group of hedonists far removed from their smelly desert-dwelling warrior ancestors. The Han Chinese who made up the vast bulk of the country knew this, and when they were ready they moved in and eliminted the tiny, tiny "predatory" faction that held power in name (because the Imperial Bueracracy is who held power in fact) and ended the Mongol (Qing) dynasty pretty quickly. The Great Hunt is a complex interplay of forces, and the long game is about survival and thriving, not about who sits at the top of the food chain. You annoy the zebras and gazelles long enough and they will find a way to deal with you.


Remember the "rabbits" Solzhenitsyn spoke of in the gulags, should Stalin then be imitated? Some day the terrorists will no doubt have the ability to blow up cities, "And there are only two alternative, you know. Either to be in the N.I.C.E. or to be out of it. And I know better than you which is going to be most fun" (from "That Hideous Strength").

Each according to the dictates of their own conscience. Stalin seized power on the backs of a politico-legal system that was just as intractable and inflexable as the Biblical system it despised. Yet the Church endured through seventy years of brutal repression because of the dictates of conscience. If you want to run a globe-spanning repressive empire, then yes, Stalin should be emulated. If your aspirations lie elsewhere, then probably not.

As far as the Jihadi terrorists go, yes, they have the potential for massive destruction without the overhead of an actual state to call their own. But their "threat" is minor, geopolitically speaking. Sure, they can kill a bunch of people in a sensationalistic way, providing good PR and a good recruiting tool, but their action leaves them no closer to their stated goals. They are, like the Marxists and Colonial-Age Christians before them, using a philosophical point to legitimize acts of violance, not using violence to acheive political ends (which is what war is all about).


Time to imitate Nature, now? The lions may run away with the show, indeed, I think it most probable, and then we have to weigh our principles on one side, and our lives on the other. And yet it is still wrong to prey on others, really wrong, and Nature is not our example here, we recognize this, when we see a real human predator, and we don't just object to him, because of bringing inconvenience.


But you are equating all of Nature to predation, and while the Great Hunt is certainly a fundamental part of it, it is not the whole. Nature always plays a long game, and that IS worthy of emulation. The terrorists that you are speaking of are not, indeed, predators: they are parasites. They live and thrive because of a socio-economic-political situation that has evolved, true -- but it continues to evolve, and the moment that their meal-ticket is gone, they will disappear. What would happen to the Jihadis if we suddenly didn't need Arab oil? What would they do if the Saudis had to base their economy on their other natural resources, tourism and sand? No more wealthy princes throwing money around, no more oil companies willing to play both sides against the middle -- and no more Great Satan needing to secure a long-term energy policy by stationing troops in the Middle East? Without their cause celebre, they are just a bunch of goof-balls in the desert waving around Hungarian-surplus AK-47s and oppressing their wives. The terrorists are not predators. Predators (in nature) slay to stay alive, not to make the newspapers. Parasites, on the other hand . . .


There can't be too few terrorists, with a city-bomb in their hand.


Word.



You have not read of Zeus? Some really sordid accounts there, such as becoming a serpent, and violating two women, one being his daughter, the other ... his mother.

Yup. And I read of Noah getting molested by his own son, and then impregnating his own daughters. And Lot offering his own daughters for a gang-rape to convince a crowd to go away. Plenty of sordid tales to go around in every mythology. But I don't see anything wrong with "becoming a serpent" -- it is an ancient symbol of wisdom. I could try to cop out of this by saying that Zeus isn't in my pantheon, but I wont. I will say that the myths of any particular religion are rarely to be interpreted literally -- else there would be no place for the Trickster in any of his manifestations in any pantheon. Myths are teaching stories that embody truths and mysteries, to be interpreted symbolically. Only in Judaism and the other Abrahamics do we see the myths of a culture valorized as History, with an insistance on literal interpretation (unless it is politically inconvenient, for example, the Biblical position on polygamy). Has Zeus zapped anyone recently? Not that I'm aware of.


But then we must not fully trust them, if they can do real harm, just because they want to. The God of the Bible is said not to be like that, to hold that these other deities are like that, is a considerable difference.


But there are very few cases, mythologically speaking, where a pagan god zapped anyone without a good reason. Now, one may find fault with their reasons, but they almost always had them, and I assume that they were powerful ones in their minds. And then you have to wonder about Jehovah -- allegedly non-capricious -- who, according to the Bible, drowned virtually every man, woman, and child on Earth to punish humanity for its "wickedness". How wicked can a newborn be? Such wholesale slaughter seems out of step with the whole "God of Love" thing. As is his treatment of Job, who committed no crime and was a loyal and enduring servent of Jehovah. The OT reads like one capricious whim after another. Of all the deities out there, I think I would trust Jehovah only above, say, Loki or Set.


Not if it's directed by a God who knows the future, and also loves that much, then there are no unforeseen results of acting in love, in obedience to him.


If Jehovah knows the future, then what point playing it out? If he loves that much, then why his capricious and impatient ways? And how can so many who claim to be obedient to his ways, and claim to be acting from a place of Jehovah's love, cause so much suffering and terror in his name -- while he permits it?


Nope! The harvest is so you can give more, not so you can eat it.


I stand by my previous statement. "Enlightened self-interest" also encompasses the idea that altruistic acts are also in your interest -- doing good is good because it raises the tenor of society, which is better for your personal development and prosperity in the long run.


Acts 20:35 In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'

Not "more commendable." More blessed! So the way to be most blessed is to give the most, and God takes the prize for that...


When he is not taking. And yet when the idea of salvation through good works is brought up, most Christian theologians recoil in horror. Can one be blessed by helping the weak, and still not attain salvation? How many blessed saints are burning in hell under this system?


Well, I don't actually believe this! This was rhetorical, to prove a point about relative values meaning we should not shake our finger at the cannibal, even from within the pot. If values are really relative, and all equally valid, relative to one another.


And you misunderstand the fundamental of relative values. We can shake a finger -- no prohibition against that. Relative values implies a subjective look at the universe -- which also takes into account our own personal determinations. I am appalled by cannibalism, and I won't stand for it in my neighborhood. What the cannibal in your neighborhood does is your problem, not mine.


But wisdom includes the ability to interpret, I meant real insight about how to really act in the best way, that always, absolutely good.


No, that is always absolutely APPOPRIATE. That doesn't always mean "good". It is Wise and Good to save your neighbor's house from a fire. It is Good but not Wise to interfere in the foreclosure sale of that same neighbor's house. It is Wise but not Good to steal your neighbor's recycling bins after the sale of his house because he doesn't need them anymore and the new guy can order more, while your single bin is always over-ful by pick-up day and the dang recycling people won't give you a second bin. Your wisdom may steer you unerringly towards absolute good -- mine steers me to the appropriate action. And I may choose to ignore the dictates of Wisdom if my conscience has a more compelling arguement. One of the tenants of Wisdom is that sometimes the wisest thing to do is to ignore the tenants of Wisdom. And yes, it is subject to interpretation. It demands it.



Certainly, but we can't fight it in principle, which means we are more like mercenary soldiers than knights in armor, so let's take down the banners, and use them as a tablecloth.

Oh, but we can-- by donating money to people who are fighting it in deed. And, historically speaking, "knights in armor" became "mercenary soldiers" the moment their military obligation to their liege was completed.

Blessed Be,

Arion

[lee_merrill]

Hi Arion,

Judgemental, wrathful, jealous, spiteful, and extreme. Yeah, that pretty much covers it.
I'm willing to discuss any specifics! In a new thread, as mentioned before...

It does, generally, reflect their character, in that they rarely do things like, say, destroy everyone in the world because they're upset with the way things are going, giving only one family an opportunity to escape their watery wrath.
I guess we have a specific, here. We read that all people were evil, then, with every man's mind occupied with evil, continually, so judgmental only applies if this evaluation was incorrect, wrathful, yes, jealous, yes again, if they should have been faithful, spiteful, why is punishment necessarily spiteful, extreme, yes, indeed. God is very unbalanced, in regard to evil.

How wicked can a newborn be? Such wholesale slaughter seems out of step with the whole "God of Love" thing.
If a newborn can be filled with the Holy Spirit (Lk. 1:15), could they not be filled with other spirits? And is there hope after death? But this is getting into another topic, we could discuss this in the Apologetics forum, if you wish...

Revelation 1:14-17 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance. When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead.

As far as purly gratuitous harm on their capricious whim goes, it's rare.
Well again, that means we can't always trust them! They themselves would admit this, and that is a considerable difference here between the Wiccan deities and the God of the Bible.

Sitting around all day basking in the Glory of Jehovah seems pointless.
I have had some times of worship that have made me conclude differently! But there will indeed be lots to do, I believe that too, and evil is not required for life to be interesting! I think there will be mountains to climb, knowledge to know and share, more than can be imagined...

The night is frequently more interesting than the day.
But not complete darkness! Though I don't mean floodlights on all corners...

Lee: But these are both morally neutral.

Arion: Most questions of balance are.
Which is why this principle is so perilous! It allows deeds (advocates them!) solely and only to restore the balance, and thus making this principle primary, makes all values relative, even within the individual systems. Not only relative, but irrelevant.

Arion: Why do you even need a lion or a bear, natural predators, if they aren't going to fulfill their function in the Great Hunt?
I find elephants pretty impressive, thought they don't eat other animals. There could be other purposes for such animals in nature, and I don't mind.

"It is constantly assured, especially in our Tolstoyan tendencies, that when the lion lies down with the lamb the lion becomes lamb-like. But that is brutal annexation and imperialism on the part of the lamb. That is simply the lamb absorbing the lion instead of the lion eating the lamb. The real problem is -- Can the lion lie down with the lamb and still retain his royal ferocity? That is the problem the Church attempted; that is the miracle she achieved." (G.K. Chesterton, in "Orthodoxy")

Arion: Does Jehovah's provence not extend into the plant kingdom? Or is it okay for plants to die, but not animals, in the Kingdom of Heaven?
I think that also will be mended (Rev. 21:4).

Lee: That surely is where relative value systems must end up, with no right to criticize Hitler, if only he is being consistent.

Arion: I have every right to criticize Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and George W. Bush if I think their policies are unwise and unfair.
Well, no you don't! Not if all value systems are independent, which relative value thinking says they are.

Arion: Your conclusion about the inevitability of a relative value system ending up with a world full of sheep dominated by a few predators can be countered by looking at the extreme injustices, even evil, done in the name of an extreme absolute values system.
It might be that all views are hopeless! That is not what I am trying to determine here. But the point about the sheep and the predators is that the balance of nature is not by sheep getting guns and ammunition! They just don't, and then we should not, either? People who are defenseless should not seek to arm themselves? Disarmament is also bad?

I'm looking at nature here, and the way nature balances, it's not the way we would prefer!

The Great Hunt is a complex interplay of forces, and the long game is about survival and thriving, not about who sits at the top of the food chain. You annoy the zebras and gazelles long enough and they will find a way to deal with you.
Well, they won't, though...

But if "the flesh counts for nothing", then what is wrong with cannibalism in Christianity? And this goes back to my earlier point: is it morally wrong if the victim volunteers for the right to be eaten by his neighbors?
I think this statement was Jesus' way of saying "and I'm not talking about people eating people here," thus saying that it is wrong. And yes, it is wrong even if the victim volunteers, based on Scriptural principles, that is why I hold that.

While you are using the Rede as the end-all, be-all of Pagan (specifically Wiccan) morals, it isn't. Wisdom plays as much of a role...
Yes, but wisdom within whose system? And I was going beyond the Rede, and signing up for what you said, in making loving others be the highest principle. Isn't this a principle everyone should recognize? The wisdom comes in in seeing how best to be loving, not in deciding whether to have a person's best interest in mind.

I may push them to take really hard academics in order to make that happen. If my kids don't agree with me, and feel that their talents lie in the music industry, then we have a conflict.
I agree that human decisions about what would be in a given person's best interest are not always possible. I do believe that someone else might know! And have found it to be true, people who are obeying God, loving others, don't (generally! people aren't perfect) clash...

This Relative Values System requires a little more thought than merely looking up the correct moral answers in a book . . .
I quite agree, wisdom is required, and yet it is above each point of view, and principles can be seen, that apply to everyone. And again, how to apply them in a given instance will not be in the book.

... there is also a school of thought that the man who robs you is also providing you a service ...
I wasn't being serious about the senators! And I meant to say "statues of senators." But I do also believe that for those who love God, they can be hurt, but not harmed, even all that hurts them, does them good. But that's another topic...

Arion: If you want to run a globe-spanning repressive empire, then yes, Stalin should be emulated. If your aspirations lie elsewhere, then probably not.
Then you and I have no right to criticize Stalin, no right whatsoever...

Lee: Time to imitate Nature, now? The lions may run away with the show, indeed, I think it most probable...

Arion: What would happen to the Jihadis if we suddenly didn't need Arab oil?
But I meant lions in general, not just Jihadi ones. Such as the Oklahoma city bombing, eventually many individuals, with any type of aim, will be able to destroy cities. Then we shall probably not hear of respecting their point of view, and allowing it. It will, however, be to late at that point, to seek a change, for adoption of some absolute morals.

Lee: There can't be too few terrorists, with a city-bomb in their hand.

Arion: Word.
I'm not sure what you mean here, though.

Yup. And I read of Noah getting molested by his own son, and then impregnating his own daughters. And Lot offering his own daughters for a gang-rape to convince a crowd to go away. Plenty of sordid tales to go around in every mythology.
God does not do what people do, though, in the incidents in the Bible. This is different than Zeus raping his mother and his daughter.

I will say that the myths of any particular religion are rarely to be interpreted literally -- else there would be no place for the Trickster in any of his manifestations in any pantheon.
How can you know that all your myths are not a trick, then? The Trickster might be the real mover and shaker.

Has Zeus zapped anyone recently? Not that I'm aware of.
Me either. Though I believe demons do, which hide behind those masks.

If Jehovah knows the future, then what point playing it out? If he loves that much, then why his capricious and impatient ways? And how can so many who claim to be obedient to his ways, and claim to be acting from a place of Jehovah's love, cause so much suffering and terror in his name -- while he permits it?
As an initial response to the first question, why watch a favorite play? And again, I believe God's faithfulness and patience can be shown, and even people acting in his name, doing wrong, does that not show patience? Surely not everything people do in the name of Christianity is endorsed by him.

I stand by my previous statement. "Enlightened self-interest" also encompasses the idea that altruistic acts are also in your interest -- doing good is good because it raises the tenor of society, which is better for your personal development and prosperity in the long run.
And I stand by my previous statement, too! It is more blessed to give, than to receive, thus the harvest is for giving more, not for eating more.

Luke 12:20-21 But God said to him ... 'This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?' This is how it will be with anyone who stores up things for himself but is not rich toward God.

And yet when the idea of salvation through good works is brought up, most Christian theologians recoil in horror. Can one be blessed by helping the weak, and still not attain salvation?
The blessing comes in that real giving, and helping others, is done with the love of God, love that comes from God, thus it is fellowship with him, and salvation comes from being one with God. Helpful deeds, per se, do not provide this, the motive must be there, and the presence of God brings this, and saves people.

And you misunderstand the fundamental of relative values. We can shake a finger -- no prohibition against that. Relative values implies a subjective look at the universe -- which also takes into account our own personal determinations. I am appalled by cannibalism, and I won't stand for it in my neighborhood. What the cannibal in your neighborhood does is your problem, not mine.
You seem to be saying more than I thought you were saying, it seems your own values are relative, within your system. That's more than saying "each system is valid." So you have a right to shake a finger sometimes? The right is there, if you decide it is? How is that a right, then, and not a mere decision to shake the finger?

Doesn't a right imply a real moral imperative? Why does the cannibal moving from one place to another, provide this?

Lee: I meant real insight about how to really act in the best way, that always, [is] absolutely good.

Arion: No, that is always absolutely APPROPRIATE. That doesn't always mean "good". It is Wise and Good to save your neighbor's house from a fire. It is Good but not Wise to interfere in the foreclosure sale of that same neighbor's house. It is Wise but not Good to steal your neighbor's recycling bins after the sale of his house because he doesn't need them anymore and the new guy can order more...
Well, I meant wisdom in accordance with desiring everyone's best interest though, which would also guide a person through the above decisions, especially if they knew someone who knows the future, and is the source of supernatural love.

... historically speaking, "knights in armor" became "mercenary soldiers" the moment their military obligation to their liege was completed.
It is again possible that all ships are sinking ships! I am not, however, so pessimistic...

Blessings,
Lee

[tmancour]

I guess we have a specific, here. We read that all people were evil, then, with every man's mind occupied with evil, continually, so judgmental only applies if this evaluation was incorrect, wrathful, yes, jealous, yes again, if they should have been faithful, spiteful, why is punishment necessarily spiteful, extreme, yes, indeed. God is very unbalanced, in regard to evil.

If a newborn can be filled with the Holy Spirit (Lk. 1:15), could they not be filled with other spirits? And is there hope after death?



Emphasis mine. We read that all people were evil -- therefore it must be so. What is the likelihood that all people were, indeed "evil"? If they were human beings like us, then it is highly UNLIKELY that every man's mind was occupied with evil. Even if it were so, then why was Noah and his kin exempt? He couldn't have been the only holy man around. And if EVERY newborn was filled with "evil spirits" -- which I am certain could not have been the case -- why were Noah's children exempted from this, as well? Either everyone really WAS evil, except for Noah, which I cannot accept as possible, or Jehovah threw a temper-tantrum and wiped out his finest creation instead of taking steps to correct their behavior. Either answer shows a deity that has poor judgement and a lack of subtle coping skills. Sure, the pagan gods may have gone after individuals or even tribes and nations, but to stoop to global genocide as an answer to the problem of evil seems more than a little obsessive. There were, no doubt, a few Jews who could be considered morally "Evil" in 1930s era Germany -- that did not justify the Final Solution. Either Jehovah's judgement was faulty or his solution was faulty. Either way, this episode alone is enough to convince me that Jehovah is not a god I can worship in good conscience. And I certainly can't trust him.


Revelation 1:14-17 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance. When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead.


And that's supposed to instruct me? Revelation is one of the reasons Christianity is in such deep trouble, these days -- one of the major flaws of the religion. Prophecy is bad enough when it is institutionally vague -- when you add in highly allegorical imagery and obscure symbolism you're going to be able to justify just about anything by quoting it.


Well again, that means we can't always trust them! They themselves would admit this, and that is a considerable difference here between the Wiccan deities and the God of the Bible.

Yet you can't trust jehovah any further -- and he claims to be the demiurge and progenitor and the omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent end all/be all. Do our gods have limitations? Yes, and we admit them. I don't expect Brighid to have all the answers in the universe -- but then again I don't need all the answers in the universe. I can trust her to do Her job as long as I do mine. With Jehovah you can follow all of his obtuse rules to the letter and still get a "Go to hell, go directly to hell, do not pass Go, do not collect 200 shekels" card. Meanwhile, he gives you very little practical information in regards to living your day-to-day life -- indeed, thanks to the Book of Revelation, he has made the whole concept of a day-to-day life a moot point, except in regards to how well and often you prosrate yourself in front of his ego before he decides if you are deserving of continued existance or eternal damnation. The whole "life after death" issue dominates the conversation, and puts the relationship on a very insecure footing. Meanwhile, you have everyone else in the Body of Christ dropping by to tell you how poorly you have interpreted the Bible and how despite your hard work and good intentions that you and your entire family are doomed because you don't agree with the way that they have interpreted it.


I have had some times of worship that have made me conclude differently! But there will indeed be lots to do, I believe that too, and evil is not required for life to be interesting! I think there will be mountains to climb, knowledge to know and share, more than can be imagined...

We have a general term for the kind of person who does think that basking in the light 24/7 is a worthwhile endeavor: "blissninnies". While it may be a fulfililng path for some, I see it as a basic denial of the breadth of human experience, the same sort of spiritual cop-out I see in those who see evil everywhere. No, evil is not required for life to be interesting -- but I think it is well open to discussion if a) mankind can ever really give up "evil" and b) if we did, if we would still be human. Why climb mountains when jehovah is standing at the summit saying "Hey, you think that was impressive? I BUILT the damn thing!" Or why share knowlege when Jehovah is annoyingly in the background saying "Oh, I knew that." The very concept of a personification of an ultimate entity is belittling to us as human beings. Why strive for anything when you know that all of your accomplishments, both spiritual and physical, will be wiped away in an eschatological food-fight later on?


But not complete darkness! Though I don't mean floodlights on all corners...


But that is the implication. "Darkness" is just a fancy way of saying "where there is no light". And complete darkness is utterly destroyed by the tiniest spark. That's the problem with absolute dualities. Both extremes are inherently boring.


Which is why this principle is so perilous! It allows deeds (advocates them!) solely and only to restore the balance, and thus making this principle primary, makes all values relative, even within the individual systems. Not only relative, but irrelevant.

Again, you misunderstand. The deeds that are advocated to "restore the balance" are usually for our personal benefit alone. Rarely are we called upon to restore the balance of the greater world. And I don't see how this can be considered perilous. Is it because we don't have some arbitrary divinely provided legal standard by which to judge, and are therefore forced to use our own judgement? Equilibrium is a fact of nature, both in the physical world and within our own psychological universe. If I am overweight, and unhappy because of it, then there is a need for me to restore the proper equilibrium to my physical body. If I don't, then the equilibrium will be found through some other means -- like my premature death. And this equilibrium has a temporal componant, as well -- else we would eschew both the sun and the moon and strive for perpetual twilight.


I find elephants pretty impressive, thought they don't eat other animals. There could be other purposes for such animals in nature, and I don't mind.


The only "purpose" animals have is to justify their existance by surviving and reproducing within the niche in the food chain they occupy. The quote that you supply is interesting, but it misses the point, only viewing the importance of the animals in relation to man, and idealizing traits we identify with them as being their only salient contribution to the world.



Well, no you don't! Not if all value systems are independent, which relative value thinking says they are.


But there is a difference between thought and action! Under my system it is perfectly appropriate and encouraged to explore alternate value systems, and then make a personal judgement of their merits and demerits. The Path of Wisdom mandates that we do so as to include any items that would be appropriate and beneficial to our prosperity and survival. But all value systems are NOT independent -- they are interdependant, because the peoples who profess them are interdependant. Just as the American who drives an SUV cannot rightly claim to have no effect on Middle-East politics, we cannot (and, for the most part do not) claim that pagan values have no effect on other people, and vice versa. It is a matter of judgement, personal judgement, using our developed conscience as our benchmark.


It might be that all views are hopeless! That is not what I am trying to determine here. But the point about the sheep and the predators is that the balance of nature is not by sheep getting guns and ammunition! They just don't, and then we should not, either? People who are defenseless should not seek to arm themselves? Disarmament is also bad?

I'm looking at nature here, and the way nature balances, it's not the way we would prefer!


Perhaps not. But that is what Is, what we have to deal with. Pagans look to nature for guidance, it is true, but we don't look at it with the dogged determination to emulate it to the destruction of who we are -- the same way some Christians look at the scriptures.


Well, they won't, though...


But they do, or there wouldn't be any more zebras and gazelles. They have survival strategies based on herd movement, avoidance, subterfuge, and superior speed. Fighting is not the only recourse when violence is forced upon you. take sheep, for example: Sheep don't get guns and ammunition, it's true -- but they may get themselves domesticated by a shepherd who has access to guns and ammunition, which could be considered a survival strategy worth emulating in an appropriate circumstance. Nature is indeed a delicate balance of complex forces -- and it is always in motion. We can try to opt out of Nature all we want, but She always has the trump card.


I think this statement was Jesus' way of saying "and I'm not talking about people eating people here," thus saying that it is wrong. And yes, it is wrong even if the victim volunteers, based on Scriptural principles, that is why I hold that.


Then why even do it symbolically? It seems unecessarily provacative, and it caused a lot of unnecessary stress to the early Church. Allegory and symbolism are fine -- when they are called out.


Yes, but wisdom within whose system? And I was going beyond the Rede, and signing up for what you said, in making loving others be the highest principle. Isn't this a principle everyone should recognize? The wisdom comes in in seeing how best to be loving, not in deciding whether to have a person's best interest in mind.

Wisdom, the "Art and Science of Doing the Appropriate Thing at the Appropriate Time" isn't system-dependent. It is individual-dependent. What might be wisdom for you may well be foolishness for me. And I didn't say that "loving others" was the highest principal, but that "Love" is. A subtle but important difference. You have a duty and obligation to love yourself first in paganism, because if you cannot love yourself fully, then you will never be able to truly love anyone else. And I do agree with your last statement.


I quite agree, wisdom is required, and yet it is above each point of view, and principles can be seen, that apply to everyone. And again, how to apply them in a given instance will not be in the book.


Then it is of limited use, and can't be trusted without liberal interpretation. So what makes it superior than my own developed judgement?


Then you and I have no right to criticize Stalin, no right whatsoever...


Not at all. I not only have a right, I have a duty, under my system -- subjective as it is -- to criticize injustice and immoral behavior. I just don't need someone else's laws to justify doing it. I may not codify evil, as the Abrahamics do, but, "If it looks evil, it probably is." Indeed, it is the sworn duty of a druid to participate in the civic life of his/her community to add his/her wisdom to the cauldron of debate. And, if Stalin (or his Texas-born equivalent) should pop up in my backyard, then I have a duty to fight it. I just don't need to quote scripture to justify it. We aren't that hung up on legalism.


But I meant lions in general, not just Jihadi ones. Such as the Oklahoma city bombing, eventually many individuals, with any type of aim, will be able to destroy cities. Then we shall probably not hear of respecting their point of view, and allowing it. It will, however, be to late at that point, to seek a change, for adoption of some absolute morals.


I may respect their right to have a conflicting point of view without respecting what that point of view is. For example, I detest the kind of right-wing Dominionist political take-over that seems to be going on in the Evangelical movement in the US right now. But I would never do anything to deprive them of the ability to hold that point of view. Why? Because absolute freedom of thought is a core value with me. I may battle them in the streets when they try to impose a theocracy, but I would never try to make it illegal for them to want to impose a theocracy, even if that would be a very Bad Thing for me and my people. Imposing an absolute moral code of all of us for the sake of illusionary security is a cure worse than disease.

The fact is that individuals have had the ability to conduct large-scale mayhem for some time now. My wife is a trained biochemist, and she (frequently!) reminds me that the only thing seperating her from a military chemical warfare expert is a government pension and a conscience. The fact is, making laws, either civil or religious, to prevent that type of behavior has never stopped the behavior from occuring.



I'm not sure what you mean here, though.


Lol. Sorry, I guess I dated myself there. "Word", as in "Word to your mother", i.e. 80s slang denoting emphatic agreement.


God does not do what people do, though, in the incidents in the Bible. This is different than Zeus raping his mother and his daughter.


He comes mighty close, and Noah was held up as an example of a virtuous holy man, so good that he escaped the genocide when no others could. Jehovah can't be accused of rape only because he outlawed the Goddess -- although, when the Holy Spirit descended upon Mary to impregnate her with Jesus, was it with her full consent? Or was he using his power and influence to coerce her into an unwanted pregnancy?

As far as Zeus goes, he is a storm god; rapine is frequently a less-than-savory aspect of their character. It comes from the fact that the proto-storm gods were worshipped mostly by nomadic plains raiders who made their living by stealing the land and liberty of agriculturists, and, in so doing, improsed their genetic heritage on their subject populations by force. But it can easily be seen as metaphor -- something even the ancient Greeks acknowleged. Indeed, the classic Abrahamic interpretation of rape as a crime is pretty unsavory, too -- to this day, Moslems consider the raped woman unclean, due to her "adultry".


How can you know that all your myths are not a trick, then? The Trickster might be the real mover and shaker.


No doubt he often is. But the Trickster's tricks always have an important lesson inside, usually cloaked in meaning-laden irony. But I no more discount their inner truths because they aren't "historical fact" than you would disavow part of the Bible that had been scientifically proven to be a forgery.


Me either. Though I believe demons do, which hide behind those masks.


And they don't hide behind the masks of the saintly folks in the Christian church? The modern pagan gods don't qualify as demons according to traditional Abrahamist doctrine. Real demons don't want you to think for yourself, and that is one of the cornerstones of Pagan theology.



As an initial response to the first question, why watch a favorite play?

Because there is nothing else on?


And again, I believe God's faithfulness and patience can be shown, and even people acting in his name, doing wrong, does that not show patience?

Patience, or neglect? Why is he so patient now, compared to Noah's era? Why let his various peoples -- chosen and otherwise -- get away with destroying, raping, and torturing each other with virtual impunity? Jehovah is remarkably inconsistant for a divinity. Either that, or he's gotten jaded over the centuries.


Surely not everything people do in the name of Christianity is endorsed by him.


Yet he is strangely silent on the subject.



And I stand by my previous statement, too! It is more blessed to give, than to receive, thus the harvest is for giving more, not for eating more.

Luke 12:20-21 But God said to him ... 'This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?' This is how it will be with anyone who stores up things for himself but is not rich toward God.


But what point is blessedness, when it is only by grace, not acts, that souls can be saved under most Christian dogma? Is it not more noble to give from your own heart, purly because you wish to, than to give because it is mandated by the deity to do so, and receive a blessing as a reward? In my case, I could care less what Jehovah thinks of my giving pattern. I give of myself -- my time, my money, my wisdom -- because I feel I have a duty to do so, as others' gifts have benefitted me -- and because I like how I feel when I can help someone out. It's enlightened self-interest.


The blessing comes in that real giving, and helping others, is done with the love of God, love that comes from God, thus it is fellowship with him, and salvation comes from being one with God. Helpful deeds, per se, do not provide this, the motive must be there, and the presence of God brings this, and saves people.


So the charity of a pagan is cursed, no matter how sincere the gift? Surely the Samaratin was not a Christian -- he could well have been a pagan, or backslid jew. Is he therefore unblessed because his motivation was simply a concern for his fellow man, unhindered by divine edict?


You seem to be saying more than I thought you were saying, it seems your own values are relative, within your system. That's more than saying "each system is valid." So you have a right to shake a finger sometimes? The right is there, if you decide it is? How is that a right, then, and not a mere decision to shake the finger?

Doesn't a right imply a real moral imperative? Why does the cannibal moving from one place to another, provide this?


Yes, my own values are relative within my system. I don't have a problem with that. What is "right" in one situation is not universally "right" in another -- especially in my own life. Yes, the right to shake a finger -- or make an impassioned plea for action -- or brandish a weapon -- is there when I decide it is, using my own conscience and wisdom to make that determination. But I also have to face the consequences of that action, regardless of what they are. If I am unwilling to face the consequences, I need to think again about taking the action. The ability to discern and accept consequences for action is the difference between a "right" and a mere "decision". And while the term "right" (a legalistic term unsuited to the vagaries of theology) doesn't necessarily imply a moral imperative, it does so only as far as the subsequent "responsibility" is adhered to. The cannibal's location is not germaine to the abstract concept of my moral right to judge; it is germaine to my moral responsibility to act, and accept the consequences. A cannibal in my community is cause for my personal concern. A cannibal in yours may spark my interest, but it does not drive me to action unless I am willing to make the determination that I need to act (if, for example, you refuse to and I feel sorry for your kids) and I'm willing to take responsibility for my action (including the possibility of the soup pot).



Well, I meant wisdom in accordance with desiring everyone's best interest though, which would also guide a person through the above decisions, especially if they knew someone who knows the future, and is the source of supernatural love.

The Path of Wisdom is a highly personalized sort of thing, though. And when well-practiced, it doesn't try to take EVERYONE'S best interest into account, because we realize early on that taking everyone's best interest into account is impossible and unproductive. Wisdom, as a verb, takes your own personal best interest into account, and leaves you to negotiate how to integrate that with everyone else's best interest. As far as knowing the future, that's why we practice divination -- to give us a little more insight into the consequences of the decisions we make. And I may well be a source of supernatural love, as well. At least my wife thinks so.


Blessed Be,
Arion

[lee_merrill]

Hi Arion,

Lee: We read that all people were evil, then...


Arion: We read that all people were evil -- therefore it must be so. ... If they were human beings like us, then it is highly UNLIKELY that every man's mind was occupied with evil.
Well, editing it will make it easier to make a criticism! But it seems odd to accept a flood of judgment, and refuse to accept the given reason. And we have some evidence that they were unlike us, quite a bit so...

Genesis 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

Arion: why were Noah's children exempted from this, as well?
Maybe people were giving themselves to demons, which affected even their children, and Noah did not do this?

Revelation 1:14-17 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire...

Arion: when you add in highly allegorical imagery and obscure symbolism you're going to be able to justify just about anything by quoting it.
But I meant that God is very unbalanced, with respect to evil, as he is portrayed in Scripture.

I can trust her to do Her job as long as I do mine.
I don't think you can, though, if there is even a small possibility that Brighid may deviate from your best interest, or from the path of wisdom.

With Jehovah you can follow all of his obtuse rules to the letter and still get a "Go to hell, go directly to hell, do not pass Go, do not collect 200 shekels" card.
Well (this is rather quaintly stated) I disagree. God's rules are given in order to increase sinning (Rom. 5:20), that is their purpose, to bring us to despair of ever being good, to bring us to God, and his goodness.

and how despite your hard work and good intentions that you and your entire family are doomed because you don't agree with the way that they have interpreted it.
Interpretations of Scripture don't save people, though! Nor do wrong interpretations doom them, knowing God, or not knowing him, is the key:

John 17:3 Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

Arion: We have a general term for the kind of person who does think that basking in the light 24/7 is a worthwhile endeavor: "blissninnies".
This term shall not dissuade me in my delight in worship, in the Lord's presence! I do hope you know what I mean some day!

I think it is well open to discussion if a) mankind can ever really give up "evil" and b) if we did, if we would still be human.
Why should humans always be flawed, though? Isn't evil a flaw and a defect?

The very concept of a personification of an ultimate entity is belittling to us as human beings.
Well, yes, and then we have to ask if this is a correct estimate of ourselves relative to God.

Lee: and thus making this principle [or balance] primary, makes all values relative, even within the individual systems. Not only relative, but irrelevant.

Arion: Again, you misunderstand. The deeds that are advocated to "restore the balance" are usually for our personal benefit alone.
I was getting the impression that there was a global balance, though, surely that is meant, also, by Wiccans.

Arion: If I am overweight, and unhappy because of it, then there is a need for me to restore the proper equilibrium to my physical body.
But the ideal is a perfectly healthy body, not a body with 50% wounds and festering sores, or that is 50% overweight. Balance is not sought here between good and evil, and is not to be sought in the moral sphere, either, for then there would be no good principles, even within a given system, except for the one principle of balance.

But all value systems are NOT independent -- they are interdependant, because the peoples who profess them are interdependant.
But depending on others doesn't make these value systems overlap, necessarily.

Lee: I'm looking at nature here, and the way nature balances, it's not the way we would prefer!

Arion: Pagans look to nature for guidance, it is true, but we don't look at it with the dogged determination to emulate it to the destruction of who we are...
Then Gaia is not very Wiccan, Wiccans really should make this plain when they speak of her, but the tone I hear is of adulation and calls to emulation.

Arion: We can try to opt out of Nature all we want, but She always has the trump card.
The atomic bomb, what will be the trump for that, though? The fading of all the stars, that will make Nature very ... unbalanced.

Then why even do it symbolically?
Maybe the symbol in communion is of a child living from its mother? Maybe another symbol was meant, and Jesus knew he would be misunderstood (e.g. Mt. 15:12, Jn. 2:21).

Lee: The wisdom comes in in seeing how best to be loving, not in deciding whether to have a person's best interest in mind.

Arion: And I do agree with your last statement.
Glad to agree!

Lee: ... and principles can be seen, that apply to everyone. And again, how to apply them in a given instance will not be in the book.

Arion: Then it is of limited use, and can't be trusted without liberal interpretation. So what makes it superior than my own developed judgement?
The book might be like a map? A summary of many people's journeys, and many people's experiences of the territory of interest? But the main point was about the existence of real principles, that apply to all people.

Lee: Then you and I have no right to criticize Stalin, no right whatsoever...

Arion: I not only have a right, I have a duty, under my system -- subjective as it is -- to criticize injustice and immoral behavior.
But these criticisms are only really valid if Stalin should agree that his deeds are unjust within his system, too. Otherwise, this is like saying "Stalin prefers hot peppers, but that would give me indigestion."

Arion: My wife is a trained biochemist, and she (frequently!) reminds me that the only thing separating her from a military chemical warfare expert is a government pension and a conscience.
So do we not have an absolute value, here? A terrorist use of city bombs is always to be rejected, it is always, really wrong.

Arion: ... when the Holy Spirit descended upon Mary to impregnate her with Jesus, was it with her full consent?
Yes, the account tells us, and God bring this life to Mary as he brings life in every conception, being "the Author of life."

Arion: And [demons] don't hide behind the masks of the saintly folks in the Christian church?
Oh, they do. If by "saintly" you mean "apparently fine upstanding people" (1 Tim. 4:2).

The modern pagan gods don't qualify as demons according to traditional Abrahamist doctrine. Real demons don't want you to think for yourself, and that is one of the cornerstones of Pagan theology.
Another absolute value! Now we have three on our list, loving others, no terrorist acts to destroy a city, and don't mindlessly accept any teaching. And this need not make us Sith.

It's easy to be deceived about what is a demon, though, as far as I have experienced.

2 Corinthians 11:14 ... for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.

Lee: As an initial response to the first question, why watch a favorite play?

Arion: Because there is nothing else on?
Then you tend not to pick your favorite ice cream? Or listen to favorite CDs? Known outcomes tend to be picked by people, even the unexpected, people enjoy it (as a rule) only when they are expecting a surprise.

Lee: I believe God's faithfulness and patience can be shown, and even people acting in his name, doing wrong, does that not show patience?

Arion: Why let his various peoples -- chosen and otherwise -- get away with destroying, raping, and torturing each other with virtual impunity?
That would show patience though, wouldn't it? But there is not impunity here...

Isaiah 57:21 "There is no peace," says my God, "for the wicked."

Arion: Is it not more noble to give from your own heart, purly because you wish to, than to give because it is mandated by the deity to do so, and receive a blessing as a reward?
I agree, giving in order to get is not yet giving, and the reward, the blessing, is in the giving!

and because I like how I feel when I can help someone out. It's enlightened self-interest.
There's more, though! Doing people good because your actual delight is in doing them good, we need not stop at a feeling we have, the delight can be in the result. Not that I'm there, yet!

Is he therefore unblessed because his motivation was simply a concern for his fellow man, unhindered by divine edict?
But love comes from God (1 Jn. 4:16; 4:8), which is why people apart from God, helping others, don't benefit from doing those good deeds, because it is still self-interest, enlightened though it may be.

The ability to discern and accept consequences for action is the difference between a "right" and a mere "decision".
Then a pitcher throwing to third instead of first, after an evaluation, is a moral value? Surely there is more to a moral value than weighing the consequences of a decision.

Lee: ... which would also guide a person through the above decisions, especially if they knew someone who knows the future, and is the source of supernatural love.

Arion: ... we realize early on that taking everyone's best interest into account is impossible and unproductive.
Yes, on our own! But not if we know someone who knows the future, and the source of all love.

Arion: And I may well be a source of supernatural love...
But "enlightened self-interest" cannot spell "love." Too many letters...

Blessings,
Lee

[tmancour]

Hi Arion,

Hey, Lee! Good discussion! Anyone else feel like jumping in? All are welcome.


Well, editing it will make it easier to make a criticism! But it seems odd to accept a flood of judgment, and refuse to accept the given reason. And we have some evidence that they were unlike us, quite a bit so...

Genesis 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.


I actually don't accept the flood as written, nor do I accept the reasons given for Jehovah's hissy-cow. My opinion? The flood myth was stolen from the proto-Semetic body of mythology (see the Enuma Elish, which predates the OT by a stretch) which in turn is the cultural memory of a natural disaster of some significance at the end of the last Ice Age. Not that flooding would be uncommon to river-dwellers. But this must have been a big flood. As far as the Nephilim and their cousins go, these are (anthropologically) the memories of prehistoric encounters between different cultures, wherein the Semetic culture of early pastorlists encountered primative agro, hunting/gathering and fishing cultures of the Great River Basins. Most cultures have this same "Chaotic Golden Age" portion of their oral history; for the Greeks it was the time of the Titans.

But even as written, the actions of Jehovah in this particular incident demonstrate that the character of the deity was just as capricious and petty as those of the other proto-Semetic deities (such as Baal) that were forming about the same time -- and whom Jehovah was striving against for the worship of the Hebrews.


Maybe people were giving themselves to demons, which affected even their children, and Noah did not do this?

More likely, the proto-Semites and their tribal sky god were losing their pastoralist children to the lure of a more urban river-side Agricultural culture and their gods ("the demons"); the pastoralists countered this move by having Noah survive a convenient river flood by packing up his herd on a raft -- thus "proving" the superiority of his mobile deity while the genius loci of the urban centers along the rivers were unable to keep the unexpected floods at bay. Five hundred years of Hebrew syncretism later, the myth of Noah and the Enuma Elish collide -- about the same time Moses is writing the Pentatuch. Moses uses his genius to transform the ancestral survival story into a keen object lesson about the power of his new Patron, the pastoral sky-god Jehovah (Elohim): He was willing to kill all the world the last time he got pissed off; don't mess with the Big J unless you want to get squashed.

Of course, that's just my theory.


But I meant that God is very unbalanced, with respect to evil, as he is portrayed in Scripture.

No argument there! But some of his actions against "evil" seem terribly unjust and irrelevent to our current cultural context. I would have to question how much of these crimes were truly "evil", i.e. causing unnecessary suffering, and how many were mere cultural taboos that the Hebrew tribal patron didn't like (eating pork, for instance).


I don't think you can, though, if there is even a small possibility that Brighid may deviate from your best interest, or from the path of wisdom.


But I have far, far more confidence in Her ability and desire to look out for my best interests than I do with Jehovah's wacky track record. I still don't see how my personal spiritual capitulation to a Semetic deity who claims to have created the Universe would have any real benefit, when from his texts I know that Jehovah's interest (destroying the world and everyone in it in a eschatological fit) is contrary to my best interest (living in an undestroyed world where I can peacefully raise my kids and pursue knowlege and joy without undue hardship).

Do I occasionally have doubts about my relationship with Brighid? No more than I have doubts about the stability of the relationship I have with my wife (14 years together this Lughnasad). While prior performance is no garuntee of future results, my experiences with Brighid thus far have been uniformly beneficial and positive. My experiences with Jehovah and his fan club, not so much.


Well (this is rather quaintly stated) I disagree. God's rules are given in order to increase sinning (Rom. 5:20), that is their purpose, to bring us to despair of ever being good, to bring us to God, and his goodness.


This is the theological equivalent of beating yourself in the head with a hammer because it feels so good when you stop. Let me get this straight: Jehovah hates sin. He discharged the Progenitor from Paradise because of sin, and cursed all of his descendents with the taint of his sin. But he is willing to eagerly make up even MORE rules which he knows will be broken because it helps to reinforce to his followers how pathetically ineffectual they are without his divine favor? And then he plans on killing off and condemning the vast majority of humanity to writhe in unbearable agony and suffering, with no hope of reprieve, for not following all of the petty rules AND not spending enough time mindlessly adoring him?

Jehovah sounds more like a psychotic, egotistical Mafia don than a principaled deity with our best interests at heart. He uses the tactics of fear and threats of violence to enforce his theologically brutal regime, and uses the term "love" to make this sick relationship feel all better. I'll stick with the Bright Lady, thank you. With Her I know where I stand, and I know she would rather see me prosper and flourish and nurture my kids than on my knees for half my life terrified out of my mind.


Interpretations of Scripture don't save people, though! Nor do wrong interpretations doom them, knowing God, or not knowing him, is the key:

John 17:3 Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.


Yet I haven't met a professed Christian over 95. So much for "eternal life"! Or was this perk reserved for people who knew the actual Historic Jesus? Or was he doing it wrong? If so, everyone else is doing it wrong, too. And while interpretations of scripture don't "save" anyone, in your system the Scriptures are essential for salvation -- someone who has not heard them, been instructed in them, or read them is automatically doomed to Hell for all of eternity, regardless of his personal moral standing or acts of generosity and piety in his native community. Literacy is a requirement for your system; thought is required in mine.


This term shall not dissuade me in my delight in worship, in the Lord's presence! I do hope you know what I mean some day!


I should hope not. And I do know what you mean -- ecstatic experience is not an Abrahamic invention. But prolonged use may be habit forming, and to your personal detriment if you plan on running your day-to-day life along standard lines. I know people who "dwell in bliss" all day long. They are good, friendly people. They also don't get much done. I like to indulge in a prolonged soak in the Waters of Life myself, from time to time, but when a storm comes everyone should get out of the pool.


Why should humans always be flawed, though? Isn't evil a flaw and a defect?


Who says we are flawed? We have never had the kind of Platonic Ideal version of humanity. We are who we are, warts and all. And if Jehovah wanted perfection, he should have stopped Creation with the angels. Evil isn't a "defect", it's a culturally acquired set of values that have their roots, more or less, in avoiding unnecessary suffering. As long as there is suffering, there will be evil. And we must suffer, sometimes, in order to learn. To give up the ability to suffer is to abandon wisdom and knowlege and embrace stagnation.

Darn that Tree of Knowlege!


Well, yes, and then we have to ask if this is a correct estimate of ourselves relative to God.

As stated in your Scriptures, well, that's for you to decide. As far as I am concerned, if Jehovah (or the demiurge of your choice) is so freakin' powerful, then he really doesn't need my approval to do whatever he wants to. But by the same token a deity of that magnatude should be as uninterested in my personal habits as I am in the habits of microbes. Whereas a more concrete divinity like Brighid I can certainly envision as having a more personal stake and personal interest in my affairs.


I was getting the impression that there was a global balance, though, surely that is meant, also, by Wiccans.


Well, I admit that there is a lack of unity of ideal on this subject. There is no doubt that we view the global balance of the ecosphere as a holy system worthy of both study and reverence. But there are competing schools-of-thought on the subject. For the tree-hugging Ecopagan crowd, Gaia is sick and out of balance because of our industrialization and poor utilization of resources, and our assistance is needed in order to preserve species and ecologies for the future. For the scientifically minded Technopagan crowd, Gaia is sick and out of balance because of our industrialization, but all of our efforts to preserve the ecological status quo will ultimately be ineffectual, as Gaia has taken some big hits before and recovered -- although this time She may not take Humanity with her. Note that Ecopagans and Technopagans, despite their disparate views, frequently share common concerns and (occasionally) even the same brain: I have been both in my time, and while I currently am trending towards Techno, Eco still holds a lot of appeal -- even moreso, now that I've had kids.

But the ideal of Balance is not the teeter-totter fulcrum type of dualistic thinking; rather, an appreciation of the ideal can be broken down into the Three Rules of Ecology (which are also reflected in other complex and organic systems):

1. What goes around, comes around.
(Which means that actions have consequences, frequently more and different consequences than we expect.)

2. Everything seeks its level.
(Which means that all forces naturally seek their equilibrium.)

3. Sh*t Happens.
(Which means that unforseen and unanticipated events are inevitable and must be taken into account, if not exactly planned for, and that not all forces will reach their equilibrium for any significant amount of time before other forces change the equation.)



But the ideal is a perfectly healthy body, not a body with 50% wounds and festering sores, or that is 50% overweight. Balance is not sought here between good and evil, and is not to be sought in the moral sphere, either, for then there would be no good principles, even within a given system, except for the one principle of balance.

But balance isn't a moral principal, and shouldn't be taken as such. It is a Natural principal, and one that cannot be ignored or successfully fought. Recognizing the principal of Balance is an important part of the Path of Wisdom, but it is not an active guiding force of morality any more than Gravity is. Balance can be brought to bear on moral issues -- recognizing the forces involved in the stem cell debate, for example, or the role of the Church in the Holocaust can both be viewed in terms of Balance. But reducing such issues to pure balck-and-white, good-and-evil terms is to diminish their importance and deny the inherent complexity of the human condition: we do ourselves a disservice by thus reducing our lives to simple dualities.


But depending on others doesn't make these value systems overlap, necessarily.


The value systems THEMSELVES are interdependent. Could Christianity exist without the foundation of Judaism? Could Buddhism exist without the bedrock of Hindu ideas? Could Taoism and Confucism exist by themselves in a healthy society? No. In ancient Israel they needed heathen slaves to work on the Sabbath to keep it holy for the Jews. In India they need Moslem butchers because while the taking of life is sinful, eating the flesh killed by another is not. In SE Asia they have Moslem blacksmiths because the profession is seen as unclean in Theravada Buddhism. Christians for centuries had Jews as bankers and undertakers because both professions were reviled. And modern Christian convenience store owners like hiring Moslems or Hindus because they aren't fussy about working on Sundays and Christmas.

These are all very practical ways that these religions are interdependent. Each of these religious value systems overlap in some important ways. As does Paganism and Christianity. Just as Christianity took liberally from the religious genius of Pagan gods and holidays, so too does modern Paganism steal a lot from what Christianity has evolved into.


Then Gaia is not very Wiccan, Wiccans really should make this plain when they speak of her, but the tone I hear is of adulation and calls to emulation.


Gaia, it could be argued, is beyond "Wiccan" or any other religious classification. She is almost universally revered for what she is: our life-support system made manifest, the womb from which all life springs, the Universal Mother who births the world. Should we blindly emulate the forces of nature because we revere them? That wouldn't be wise. Gaia is not Wiccan, but Wiccans can acknowlege, revere, and seek understanding of the Great Goddess without mindlessly attempting to emulate some abstract interpretation of Her complex workings. Are there things in the Natural world that we would be better off emulating? I would say, yes. Such as a less repressive idea of sexuality and gender relations, a more realistic view of death and dying, and an understanding that complex systems are easily whacked out if you aren't careful. But to seek to emulate the whole system of the Natural World that is Gaia would be a denial of our own unique and distinctive place within.


The atomic bomb, what will be the trump for that, though? The fading of all the stars, that will make Nature very ... unbalanced.


That is an all-too-human conceit. The A-Bomb won't destroy Gaia -- merely radically alter her ecosystem if used excessively. But that kind of dramatic change is taking place all the time, all around us. If we are stupid enough to destroy the planet's ecosystem with such toys, then it is we ourselves who will deserve that fate. The stars will not fade, only our view of them. One unfortunate side-effect of a thousand years of Abrahamic domination has been a very humanocentric view of the universe. Gaia could destroy us with one big disaster -- we could not truly destroy Gaia before we would suffer the effects of our own foolhardiness. But gaia would endure. Earth Abides.


Maybe the symbol in communion is of a child living from its mother? Maybe another symbol was meant, and Jesus knew he would be misunderstood (e.g. Mt. 15:12, Jn. 2:21).

Kind of sloppy work, then, don't you think?


The book might be like a map? A summary of many people's journeys, and many people's experiences of the territory of interest? But the main point was about the existence of real principles, that apply to all people.


But the OT isn't concerned with universal principals -- just the laws that the Hebrew tribes needed to obey in return for a marginal piece of strategically important real-estate. And while the NT may well preach universal principals, it is a scattered and incomplete story. The existance of the Nag Hammadi scrolls shows that there was more to the story than ended up in the final version, and any real understanding of the Scriptures would have to take ALL of the Scriptures into account.

And if the book is a summary of many journeys, what makes it superior in any way to similar collections from other cultures? Why would I live my life by Semetic cultural principals when my ancestral culture has a rich body of literature to guide me?


But these criticisms are only really valid if Stalin should agree that his deeds are unjust within his system, too. Otherwise, this is like saying "Stalin prefers hot peppers, but that would give me indigestion."

Valid to whom? A criticism of Stalin would be valid to Stalin only if they were made in his presence or otherwise had enough of an effect to bring them to his notice. Whereas a criticism of Stalin is quite valid to me, as a statement of personal principals and subjective criticism. Such as saying "Stalin likes hot peppers, and he is making everyone in Russia eat hot peppers, and because I don't like hot peppers I assume that not everyone in Russia likes hot peppers, therefore Stalin's insistance on a hot pepper diet is unjust in my opinion and should be battled by those who agree with me."


So do we not have an absolute value, here? A terrorist use of city bombs is always to be rejected, it is always, really wrong.

How about the use of a city-destroying bomb by a government? Is that any more moral and ethical than a terrorist use of that same bomb? Is it always really wrong, too?


Yes, the account tells us, and God bring this life to Mary as he brings life in every conception, being "the Author of life."

But it doesn't record whether or not she had a choice in the matter. As a matter of fact, when the Angel appears unto Mary, it is with "good news" -- you're pregnant with Jehovah's avatar, aren't you honored? There is no room here for her to disagree, to refuse. She has no choice in the matter -- she has been presented with a fait acompli. Indeed, we have only one canonical account of the Immaculate Conception, and that wasn't written by Mary. I wonder how her version would differ?

And the idea that Jehovah is the "Author of Life" is a profound conceit to a Goddess worshipper. Jehovah cannot make an avatar without the help of a woman, i.e. the power of the Goddess. Life is not a book to be written by a single entity, however big the ego.


Oh, they do. If by "saintly" you mean "apparently fine upstanding people" (1 Tim. 4:2).


Yeah, we kind of noticed that. :lol:


Another absolute value! Now we have three on our list, loving others, no terrorist acts to destroy a city, and don't mindlessly accept any teaching. And this need not make us Sith.


But they are not absolutes, really. Loving Others is a value, true, but only if it isn't self-destructive or mutually destructive to do so (condition). "terrorist acts to destroy a city" isn't really a value, but a crime; the value is placed in not harming the innocent and causing unecessary suffering. While I am pretty much against terrorists destroying a city, I'm also against governments destroying a city, and for the same reasons. But I also know that war is inevitable in the human condition, as much as we despise it, and that part and parcel with war comes unnecessary suffering. That doesn't mean I'm in favor of it, it just means that I recognize it as an inevitable consequence. And thinking for onesself is indeed a value, but again, not an absolute. It is an intrinsic part of wisdom, but carried to extremes (which absolutes usually do) it denies the importance of others' experience in favor to our own. Wisdom does not deny experience, it embraces it, and while learning from your mistakes is smart, true wisdom comes from learning from OTHER people's mistakes. Without this knowlege (which treating the "thinking for yourself" value as an absolute would deny) you are doomed to making inappropriate decisions based on bad data. Therefore thinking for yourself is not an absolute value, but a subjective one: I want to think for myself, but I will gain benefit from letting other people think through things that I haven't thought about, and I will incorporate that into my world-view and decision making process.


It's easy to be deceived about what is a demon, though, as far as I have experienced.

2 Corinthians 11:14 ... for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.


Actually, according to the original Hebrew Apocrypha, Satan was the highest Archangel before the Fall, if I am not mistaken. He doesn't need to "masquerade" as an angel -- he was one, and one of light, as well ("Lucifer" means "light bringer" -- he was identified as the Morning Star, the planet Venus). Other demons? Depends. I've met a few entities that I would class as demons. They come in a variety of flavors.


Then you tend not to pick your favorite ice cream? Or listen to favorite CDs? Known outcomes tend to be picked by people, even the unexpected, people enjoy it (as a rule) only when they are expecting a surprise.


So Jehovah is so set in his ways that he would rather know the outcome of this little show we call Life than try it without knowing the ending, and seeing what we become on our own?


That would show patience though, wouldn't it? But there is not impunity here...

Isaiah 57:21 "There is no peace," says my God, "for the wicked."


That would carry more weight for me if there was, in fact, peace for the non-Wicked. But it seems that the wicked and non-wicked both get about the same amount of hassle. My point was that you don't set a kid down in front of a shiny red button, tell him not to push it, walk away, and then get mad when he pushes it. That is bad parenting. I expect more from a deity who was allegedly smart enough to think up Grand Field Unification Theory and the underlying structure of the universe. Or was Jehovah a socially inept Physics major? Actually, that would explain a lot.



I agree, giving in order to get is not yet giving, and the reward, the blessing, is in the giving!

There's more, though! Doing people good because your actual delight is in doing them good, we need not stop at a feeling we have, the delight can be in the result. Not that I'm there, yet!

But love comes from God (1 Jn. 4:16; 4:8), which is why people apart from God, helping others, don't benefit from doing those good deeds, because it is still self-interest, enlightened though it may be.

In your system, perhaps. But in mine love comes from everywhere, the entire pantheistic universe, and it is impossible to be "apart" from it -- you are always in it and always will be. When that love is expressed by doing "good" deeds, it is its own reward. I may not see a dividend from Jehovah on my file in Heaven for doing good, but that isn't particularly important to me. Indeed, the fact that he would discount a good deed done by a non-believer further strengthens my belief that Jehovah, as depicted, is unworthy of my worship.


Then a pitcher throwing to third instead of first, after an evaluation, is a moral value? Surely there is more to a moral value than weighing the consequences of a decision.

Is there? What is morality, except a method of determining correct action? In the scheme of the baseball game the pitcher does, indeed, make a "moral" choice. Using the value of winning the game, and the instance of this play as a means to that end, the pitcher makes a decision based on his knowlege and experience of where the best chance of furthering that end lies: with the runner on first or the runner on third. Within the context of the game that is a moral choice. Within the context of our larger "game" of life, thousands of such minute decisions are made by us daily, and each conclusion that is reached is done based on our wisdom, experience, and intuition.


Yes, on our own! But not if we know someone who knows the future, and the source of all love.


A major part of Wicca is learning how to intuit the future to assist in making such decisions. And in our system, we are the source of our love. It isnt manufactured elsewhere.



But "enlightened self-interest" cannot spell "love." Too many letters...

But the two are not mutually exclusive. Often our self-interest and our capacity to love are in harmony. Sometimes not, but more often the one points the way to the other, and viceversa.

Blessed Be

Arion

Blessings,
Lee[/QUOTE]

[lee_merrill]

Hi again, Arion,

Long post alert! I appreciate the discussion, though...

Lee: But it seems odd to accept a flood of judgment, and refuse to accept the given reason. And we have some evidence that they were unlike us, quite a bit so...

Arion: But even as written, the actions of Jehovah in this particular incident demonstrate that the character of the deity was just as capricious and petty as those of the other proto-Semetic deities (such as Baal)...
Unless this other part of the account, as written, is taken to be correct, then this was not capricious, or petty...

Arion: I would have to question how much of these crimes were truly "evil", i.e. causing unnecessary suffering, and how many were mere cultural taboos that the Hebrew tribal patron didn't like (eating pork, for instance).
Pork can be problematic if not properly cooked, though! But I think the main point was to picture through animals which ones humans are to imitate, by dividing creatures into "clean" and "unclean," so people are to be like sheep (sheepish?), instead of being piggish.

Lee: I don't think you can [trust], though, if there is even a small possibility that Brighid may deviate from your best interest, or from the path of wisdom.

Arion: But I have far, far more confidence in Her ability and desire to look out for my best interests than I do with Jehovah's wacky track record.
But this still doesn't mend matters. You can't trust someone completely who is not completely trustworthy.

Arion: I still don't see how my personal spiritual capitulation to a Semetic deity who claims to have created the Universe would have any real benefit...
Maybe he is real? The gods, I think, are not up for election, so we need to know which ones are real, and the God of Scripture has some good credentials, as in fulfilled prophecy.

Lee: God's rules are given in order to increase sinning (Rom. 5:20), that is their purpose, to bring us to despair of ever being good, to bring us to God, and his goodness.

Arion: But he is willing to eagerly make up even MORE rules which he knows will be broken because it helps to reinforce to his followers how pathetically ineffectual they are without his divine favor?
Yes! Maybe we are, I know I am...

Arion: And then he plans on killing off and condemning the vast majority of humanity to writhe in unbearable agony and suffering, with no hope of reprieve...
I actually believe there is hope after this judgment...

for not following all of the petty rules AND not spending enough time mindlessly adoring him?
That's certainly not Biblical! The root of praise is insight, and the rules are not for the righteous!

1 Timothy 1:9 We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful...

And again, to bring a result of more sinning, and more sinning, until they give up!

Arion: He uses the tactics of fear and threats of violence to enforce his theologically brutal regime...
The cross is not like that, though...

I'll stick with the Bright Lady, thank you. With Her I know where I stand, and I know she would rather see me prosper and flourish and nurture my kids than on my knees for half my life terrified out of my mind.
You don't, apparently, know the Lord...

Psalm 9:9-10 The Lord is a refuge for the oppressed, a stronghold in times of trouble. Those who know your name will trust in you, for you, Lord, have never forsaken those who seek you.

John 17:3 Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

Arion: Yet I haven't met a professed Christian over 95. So much for "eternal life"!
After resurrection, though! That's part of Christianity, too, and a critical part...

Arion: I know people who "dwell in bliss" all day long. They are good, friendly people. They also don't get much done. I like to indulge in a prolonged soak in the Waters of Life myself, from time to time, but when a storm comes everyone should get out of the pool.
Then the pool is not the presence of God! That is what I meant, and have found, in worship, and the presence of God is the best place to be, in a storm, and forever! Worship of God is indeed, well, like this:

Psalm 63:3-5 Because your love is better than life, my lips will glorify you. I will praise you as long as I live, and in your name I will lift up my hands. My soul will be satisfied as with the richest of foods; with singing lips my mouth will praise you.

Arion: Who says we are flawed?
I'm flawed! And that's bad. Really, it's pretty undeniable, the flaws, and the evil of them...

To give up the ability to suffer is to abandon wisdom and knowledge and embrace stagnation.
I don't know that this is a necessary connection, though, a plant grows and blossoms, apparently, without suffering. I agree that wisdom is usually acquired through pain! Yet I see no reason why this must be so, in every case, or why it should always be so.

Arion: Whereas a more concrete divinity like Brighid I can certainly envision as having a more personal stake and personal interest in my affairs.
Maybe you should speak to Jesus, and see if he is more concrete! If he is interested in your affairs...

Arion: [Balance means] actions have consequences ... all forces naturally seek their equilibrium ... not all forces will reach their equilibrium for any significant amount of time before other forces change the equation. ... But balance isn't a moral principal, and shouldn't be taken as such.
Well, fine, but if it rides above anyone's moral principles, it makes all morals basically meaningless. Why rescue a drowning person, on principle, if the inevitable balance will be maintained, or disrupted, and this drowning person, this contemplation of a rescue, is all part of this system? Which is simply mindless, and amoral, as you said...

If the root of reality is like thermal equilibrium, then we need not trouble ourselves much about principles built on that foundation, which will oversee all our purposes and plans, and basically override them, in a mindless way.

I though we weren't to be mindless, too! And now I wonder why, why not be like the Hindus, who see the basis of all being as mindless and impersonal, and sit down and chant a mantra in an attempt to join this dissolution...

Balance can be brought to bear on moral issues -- recognizing the forces involved in the stem cell debate, for example, or the role of the Church in the Holocaust can both be viewed in terms of Balance.
Well, this makes me upset, though, how many embryos and Jewish people should be killed each year, in order to keep the Balance?

Reality is complex, but this doesn't make the Holocaust somehow, somewhat tolerable. Can you see where you're going with this? You keep stating this, and recoiling from it, and I'm glad you recoil from it, but it is the logical outcome of a relative value system, to not condemn the Holocaust, and a logical consequence of making balance principal, to not fight against this evil, except as a matter of personal pragmatism.

In ancient Israel they needed heathen slaves to work on the Sabbath to keep it holy for the Jews.
Actually, the servants were supposed to rest, too (Ex. 20:10).

But to seek to emulate the whole system of the Natural World that is Gaia would be a denial of our own unique and distinctive place within.
Isn't that making nature a basis for values, still, though? Our place in nature is still part of nature, and if we are no more than specially insightful primates, then we should take our place in nature, and indeed, follow Gaia, and certainly not make up another system of values. So Gaia should be very Wiccan, only it seems she's not, so maybe Wicca is out of line, on the basis of it's own principles.

Lee: The atomic bomb, what will be the trump for that, though? The fading of all the stars, that will make Nature very ... unbalanced.

Arion: The A-Bomb won't destroy Gaia -- merely radically alter her ecosystem if used excessively.
They're not done building bombs yet, you know...

Arion: If we are stupid enough to destroy the planet's ecosystem with such toys, then it is we ourselves who will deserve that fate.
Then Balance is not supreme! So we shouldn't treat it as if it was.

The stars will not fade, only our view of them. ... gaia would endure. Earth Abides.
Well, I don't know on what basis you might say this, though. By virtue of current processes, in only a few more billion years (the sun is gradually heating up), the earth will be completely uninhabitable, by almost any creatures. Eventually the sun will expand, and the earth will become part of the sun, and all life on earth, and earth itself, will end. How can you know this will not happen? On what basis do you make this claim?

And if [the Bible] is a summary of many journeys, what makes it superior in any way to similar collections from other cultures?
Maybe someone with supernatural knowledge, and a valid claim to have made the world, made the selections? The stamp of prophecy in Scripture is "the finger of God," which is why, by the way, I believe the earth will end, and then be remade, for this is written there.

Lee: But these criticisms are only really valid if Stalin should agree that his deeds are unjust within his system, too. Otherwise, this is like saying "Stalin prefers hot peppers, but that would give me indigestion."

Arion: Valid to whom?
Valid to both you and Stalin. If this criticism is only valid to you, and only valid within your system, then we have a preference, not a real right to criticize Stalin and his deeds.

Arion: "I assume that not everyone in Russia likes hot peppers, therefore Stalin's insistance on a hot pepper diet is unjust in my opinion and should be battled by those who agree with me."
Then we have (another) absolute value! People should not force their values on others. Relative value systems do all seem to have this absolute value in them, I must say...

Lee: So do we not have an absolute value, here? A terrorist use of city bombs is always to be rejected, it is always, really wrong.

Arion: How about the use of a city-destroying bomb by a government? Is that any more moral and ethical than a terrorist use of that same bomb? Is it always really wrong, too?
Let's not change the subject, though! Do we have an absolute value here, in the case of a terrorist? I think we do, this is always wrong, and should be wrong, in any system. And I also would hold that governments should not destroy cities with a bomb, either, that destroying Hiroshima was wrong.

Arion: when the Angel appears unto Mary, it is with "good news" -- you're pregnant with Jehovah's avatar, aren't you honored?
Actually, this was still in the future, at this point, and Mary did then say "Let it be with me according to your word."

Jehovah cannot make an avatar without the help of a woman, i.e. the power of the Goddess.
Actually, Jesus is held to have appeared before this time of coming to earth, in human form on earth, in several instances, and that he has always existed, and even that a womb was not required:

Matthew 3:9 I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.

Lee: Another absolute value! Now we have three on our list, loving others, no terrorist acts to destroy a city, and don't mindlessly accept any teaching. And this need not make us Sith.

Arion: But they are not absolutes, really.
So then sometimes we should not love others, occasionally a terrorist destroying a city is not to be condemned, and sometimes we should mindlessly subscribe to what a person teaches. Isn't that the alternative? I don't think you were subscribing to these view, though, at all.

Loving Others is a value, true, but only if it isn't self-destructive or mutually destructive to do so (condition).
I'm simply talking about the attitude of love, though, not about actions because of love, isn't this attitude an absolute value?

"terrorist acts to destroy a city" isn't really a value, but a crime.
So if there was no law against this, it would be all right? I meant, in principle, it's wrong, and I thought you had agreed.

I want to think for myself, but I will gain benefit from letting other people think through things that I haven't thought about...
Yes, but this is not being mindless, the value was in refusing to be mindless.

Other demons? Depends. I've met a few entities that I would class as demons. They come in a variety of flavors.
Some of them in pleasant ones! In my experience, so care is needed...

Lee: Then you tend not to pick your favorite ice cream? Or listen to favorite CDs?

Arion: So Jehovah is so set in his ways that he would rather know the outcome of this little show we call Life than try it without knowing the ending, and seeing what we become on our own?
Well, maybe he can't not know the future. He certainly can't be completely reliable in his plans and counsels, without knowing it! And I think the great joy of God is in loving, not in finding things out. Well, he made everything up!

Lee: But there is not impunity here...

Isaiah 57:21 "There is no peace," says my God, "for the wicked."

Arion: That would carry more weight for me if there was, in fact, peace for the non-Wicked.
I must say that my conclusion here is that a lack of peace implies a lack of righteousness. And there is peace for those who follow Jesus, in the way of the cross, it's an odd paradox...

"I have so much joy, that though I be in a place of darkness and mourning, yet I cannot lament; but both night and day am so full of joy as I never was so merry before; the Lord's name be praised for ever. Our enemies do fret, fume, and gnash their teeth at it. O pray constantly that this joy may never be taken from us; for it passeth all the delights in this world. This is the peace of God that passeth all understanding. This peace, the more his chosen be afflicted, the more they feel it, and therefore cannot faint neither for fire nor water." (Samuel Clarke)

Lee: But love comes from God (1 Jn. 4:16; 4:8), which is why people apart from God, helping others, don't benefit from doing those good deeds, because it is still self-interest, enlightened though it may be.

Arion: In your system, perhaps. But in mine love comes from everywhere, the entire pantheistic universe, and it is impossible to be "apart" from it -- you are always in it and always will be.
Then Hitler was "in love" as well as anyone else? I think not! And nature is "red in tooth and claw," is everyone not apart from those aspects, too? For Pan has a cloven hoof.

Indeed, the fact that he would discount a good deed done by a non-believer further strengthens my belief that Jehovah, as depicted, is unworthy of my worship.
Unless natural loves are inherently self-interest, then it is right to think of something better, and not commend was is basically self-seeking, even though it is, again, enlightened.

Arion: What is morality, except a method of determining correct action?
It's more than pragmatism! Sometimes we should act against all our desires and instincts, in helping others, even to self-sacrifice, on principle. If we are going to be pragmatists, we shall do no such thing.

Lee: But "enlightened self-interest" cannot spell "love."

Arion: But the two are not mutually exclusive.
Certainly! But they are essentially different...

John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.

Blessings,
Lee

[tmancour]

Hi again, Arion,

Long post alert! I appreciate the discussion, though...



As do I.


Unless this other part of the account, as written, is taken to be correct, then this was not capricious, or petty...


And that is the problem with text-based religions -- deciding which parts are "correct" and whould be taken literally and which parts are "allegory".
Sure, a lot of fascinating intellectual exercise can be had by doing so, but some of us get frustrated by the endless "so what did the author really mean?" debate. By valorizing history with their religion, the Hebrews left the door wide open to absolutely assanine arguements about trivial issues -- as well as removing any hope of questioning the veracity of the author. "It is written -- it must be so." It ain't, necessarily, and the Flood myth is an excellent example. Yet there are perfectly sane and normal people today who accept this haigiographical and allegorical scene from the OT as historical fact, when all other evidence points to the contrary. When faith runs that far afoul of reality, your religion has problems at the root.


Pork can be problematic if not properly cooked, though! But I think the main point was to picture through animals which ones humans are to imitate, by dividing creatures into "clean" and "unclean," so people are to be like sheep (sheepish?), instead of being piggish.


The prohibition against pork is from a pastoral culture, in which sheep and grazing are a vitally important ECONOMIC componant of their culture. It was also in reaction to the Hittites, an Indo-European culture that introduced the domesticated pig to the region. Had Jehovah been deified on the other side of the Mediterranian, then the pig would have been venerated (as it was in Celtic culture) because of its use as a surplus food storage system. And I don't want any deity telling me to emulate sheep -- anyone who has had actually experience with the animal knows that they are stupid, smelly, and foul-tempered. Pigs are charming in comparison.



But this still doesn't mend matters. You can't trust someone completely who is not completely trustworthy.


But you can. The issue of trust is dependant on the Trustor, not the Trustee. I can trust Brighid completely because I have made a judgement to do so -- wisely or foolishly -- just as I have made the determination not to trust Jehovah because I don't like the way he operates. The ultimate wisdom of my decision will be known only in the fullness of time.


Maybe he is real? The gods, I think, are not up for election, so we need to know which ones are real, and the God of Scripture has some good credentials, as in fulfilled prophecy.


But he is hardly alone in that. Celtic lore is replete with fulfilled prophecy based on the works of the gods. Greek myth is pervaded by it: Delphi alone of the prophetic centers was home to prophecy that altered the course of mighty empires -- while Jehovah was still a backwater sky god protecting sheep and bedouins from the privations of the surrounding civilizations and raids by rival bedouin. If you count fulfillment of prophecy as proof of divinity, then Jehovah is at the back of the pack.



Yes! Maybe we are, I know I am...


That's a pretty sad way to run a religion. I prefer a deity who is going to make me a better person, not set me up for perpetual failure. Jehovah and his fan club have a distinctly sado-masochistic relationship.



I actually believe there is hope after this judgment...


You mean, hope for all of the people that get slaughtered in a final Earth-destroying orgy of bloodshed and genocide brought about by the whim of Jehovah/Allah? What hope is there in that? That we'll all feel much better about ourselves after we're dead and our planet is a burnt-out cinder? I don't find that very hopeful.


That's certainly not Biblical! The root of praise is insight, and the rules are not for the righteous!

1 Timothy 1:9 We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful...

And again, to bring a result of more sinning, and more sinning, until they give up!

So the Rules™ only apply to those whom the rulemakers didn't like to begin with -- but not the rulemakers themselves? And who determines who the "righteous" are? This is a crazy system by anyone's estimation.


The cross is not like that, though...


No, the cross is EXACTLY like that. Jesus accepted the cosmology and basic theology of the Hebrews, which puts forth the idea of the Covenant and its implicit threat, and his followers (notably Paul) raised the stakes from losing the Promised Land to Eternal Damnation, because it got better play for the foreign audience who didn't have a stake in the Promised Land. Add in the Book of Revalations, and you have one nasty, pernacious threat of ultimate violence to anyone who doesn't knuckle under and submit. As one of the local preachers is fond of saying: "Your Judgement score card only has a 'Saved' and 'Damned' box to check -- there is no 'Other'. With that kind of fearmongering implicit in the religion, I'll save my worship for someone who doesn't have to coerce it out of me.


You don't, apparently, know the Lord...

Psalm 9:9-10 The Lord is a refuge for the oppressed, a stronghold in times of trouble. Those who know your name will trust in you, for you, Lord, have never forsaken those who seek you.


I know him by his fan club. But the OT is full of instances where Jehovah forsook his Chosen People ™ when they needed him most -- unless he was the author of their miseries. Calling on Jehovah is no garuntee of salvation from earthly oppression, else there would be no Latin American dictatorships or Cold War imperial dominations. My Goddess could well make the same claim, except she spreads Her divine compassion for all Her children, whether they know Her or not. For all who have been Birthed are Her charges. You need not seek what you have always had.


After resurrection, though! That's part of Christianity, too, and a critical part...


The PROMISE of resurrection -- if you filled out all the proper forms, obeyed all the proper laws (which ones are proper being, of course, subject of much debate) and stayed on Jehovah/Jesus' good side. What if the pork rule is really valid? Nearly everyone in the South will burn because of barbecue. OOPS! Of course, you won't know if any of this is true until after you're dead, which means you take the whole issue on Faith (there's that word again!) Christians frequently ask me: "What if you're wrong? Do you want to burn in Hell?" I ask in return, "What if YOU are wrong -- and all evidence points that you are."

The whole idea of spiritually-based resurrection -- "eternal life" -- death as the enemy -- is profane, an abomination against Nature which has regulated the life-cycles of all things. It is a human conceit that we can "escape" this cycle. Jehovah and his minions use the fear of the unknown -- death and darkness -- as a stick, and resurrection as the carrot, a "believe and obey me now and I'll get you back later, after you've wasted your life arguing about my books" kind of system.


Then the pool is not the presence of God! That is what I meant, and have found, in worship, and the presence of God is the best place to be, in a storm, and forever! Worship of God is indeed, well, like this:

Psalm 63:3-5 Because your love is better than life, my lips will glorify you. I will praise you as long as I live, and in your name I will lift up my hands. My soul will be satisfied as with the richest of foods; with singing lips my mouth will praise you.


The fact that Jehovah requires this kind of praise and glory from his followers says quite a bit about him. EVERY religion has religious ecstasy as a componant -- the Islamic verses about the happiness found in Allah, the Buddhist scriptrues about the sublime joy one gets from Enlightenment, the Taoist ultimate pleasure about walking the Way, the divine happiness that accompanied the initiates of the Eleusinian Mysteries -- again, Christianity has no trademark on religious ecstacy. As pleasant as the verse is, the Vedic odes to Soma are as joyful and more artful.


I'm flawed! And that's bad. Really, it's pretty undeniable, the flaws, and the evil of them...


Are you flawed? Or are you taking someone's word that you are? If you are "flawed", was there an original "flawless" version? Or are you really just human, with the same desires, idosyncrisies, and needs as all other humans? Is it a flaw that you have the capacity for evil? Or is it a blessing that you do good despite your capacity for evil? Perfection is an abstract concept that has no realization in our world. The Christian concept of "perfection" is as real as the Platonic concept of the perfect chair. The sky is always perfect -- yet the sky is always changing. Everything else is style.


I don't know that this is a necessary connection, though, a plant grows and blossoms, apparently, without suffering. I agree that wisdom is usually acquired through pain! Yet I see no reason why this must be so, in every case, or why it should always be so.

Who knows (outside a particularly empathetic Green Mage) whether the daisy suffers the same pangs a human child does as a part of the natural cycle of life? And while suffering isn't always required for learning, it is usually so. pain is the great teacher. You often must suffer in order to learn. Why? Because if the knowlege is handed to you painlessly, you usually will not understand. Pain is experience that enforces the knowlege, binds it to your mind. You can give education away, and it will be treated with little value. Charge a price (pain) and the value goes up considerably.


Maybe you should speak to Jesus, and see if he is more concrete! If he is interested in your affairs...

According to your system, he is interested in ALL affairs. However, when I was younger I spoke to jesus daily. I tried to cultivate a "personal relationship with Christ" -- tried oh so very hard. I prayed, and listened, and prayed, and studied scripture, and prayed, and went to church and confessed my sins -- and jesus didn't have answers to any of my major questions -- not answers I was satisfied with. So after fifteen years of pleading with a supposed Savior for solace, compassion, and answers, I got nothing but fear, threats, and guilt. My personal life was a wreck, I contemplated suicide, etc. When the Goddess became manifest in my life, my questions were answered. She treated me as a person, as a friend, as a student, not a pathetically sinful lackey. She showed me true compassion, the kind only a Mother can show. She showed me true joy, a delight in the world and all of Her creatures. She gave me the answers I sought that Jehovah/Jesus was so reluctant to give, constrained as he was by a 2000 year old vocabulary. She taught me that my experience was worth a library of secondary accounts, that one tree contains more truth than a thousand books. Jesus could only say "follow me". The Goddess said "Let us walk together."


Well, fine, but if it rides above anyone's moral principles, it makes all morals basically meaningless. Why rescue a drowning person, on principle, if the inevitable balance will be maintained, or disrupted, and this drowning person, this contemplation of a rescue, is all part of this system? Which is simply mindless, and amoral, as you said...

If the root of reality is like thermal equilibrium, then we need not trouble ourselves much about principles built on that foundation, which will oversee all our purposes and plans, and basically override them, in a mindless way.

I though we weren't to be mindless, too! And now I wonder why, why not be like the Hindus, who see the basis of all being as mindless and impersonal, and sit down and chant a mantra in an attempt to join this dissolution...


The principal of balance is an amoral principal like any other natural law. It does apply to morality, however, as a useful framework throughwhich to view moral decisions. And what makes our morality any different if it isn't based on the fundamental principals on which reality is based? Reality is a big, big equation. Morality is merely a useful (and important) tool in our day-to-day existance, not a natural law of nature. Mistaking the two leads to major problems in a religion. (hint, hint)

We are NOT to be mindless -- rather, mindFULL. And your understanding of Hindu cosmology and practice is limited, if you view it like that. Atman and Brahman are important cosmological principals, but they do not exist "mindlessly". Rather, they are the result of the sentience of the universe, the product of our collective thought. But that is, essentially, what Pagans do: chant a mantra/use a mudra/view a mandala/perform a ritual to join more fully in the eternally echoing song of Life.


Well, this makes me upset, though, how many embryos and Jewish people should be killed each year, in order to keep the Balance?


My point is that it isn't our job to make that determination. We can use the principal of balance, however, to view the situation in a potentially useful way. We could also use the principal of gravity or electromagnatism or entropy, or cyclic development through which to view it, but they may or may not be as useful. Attempting to "keep the balance" in such a way is as short-sighted, foolish, and demonstrative of a lack of understanding as counting up the number of souls saved this year and figuring out if you met your quota.


Reality is complex, but this doesn't make the Holocaust somehow, somewhat tolerable. Can you see where you're going with this? You keep stating this, and recoiling from it, and I'm glad you recoil from it, but it is the logical outcome of a relative value system, to not condemn the Holocaust, and a logical consequence of making balance principal, to not fight against this evil, except as a matter of personal pragmatism.


But the holocaust WAS tolerated, by the Church, by the German people, by the very guards who enacted the orders. As repugnantly vile and obviously morally bankrupt as it was, it never became a primary reason for fighting the war, nor was it ever theologically dealt with by the Church. It, and the A-Bomb, are the two central moral and ethical issues of the 20th century, and Christianity has no good answer for either of them. Just as it had no place in its cosmology for Africans and Indians during the bloody Age of Exploration and Conquest. In all cases, it was Christians (except the few Jews in the Manhattan Project or who acted as slave merchants) who enacted these crimes despite the glaring moral repugnancy and untold suffering involved.
And yet they have no answer for their actions, for the demons they unleashed on the world.

As morally wrong as the Holocaust was, as evil as it was, it was an inevitable outgrowth of ABSOLUTE values. Jews were ABSOLUTELY to blame for all of Europe's ills in the Nazi cosmology -- one that was firmly based in a thousand years of Christian absolutism. As undeniably evil as using an atomic weapon on human beings was, it was the inevitable outgrowth of the ABSOLUTE value system that evolved out of Protestant America, under which the "nasty little yellow bastards" were considered universally unclean and treacherous. Absolutism begets extremism and tyranny, inevitably. Abrahamists have ALWAYS taken the "us versus them" philosophy, the "either with us or against us" plan of action. There is no room for objection or dissent in the Abrahamist system, no room for the "other". If you disagree with Jehovah (or his fanclub) you are condemned automatically, no opportunity to appeal. In your system all alternatives are "satanic", therefore invalid.

There are times when we must become elements of balance, it is true. But those times are rare, and frought with danger.


Isn't that making nature a basis for values, still, though? Our place in nature is still part of nature, and if we are no more than specially insightful primates, then we should take our place in nature, and indeed, follow Gaia, and certainly not make up another system of values. So Gaia should be very Wiccan, only it seems she's not, so maybe Wicca is out of line, on the basis of it's own principles.

A BASIS for values, perhaps, but not the values themselves. And we cannot help but "follow" Gaia, whatever vain conceits of immortality and escape from death we invent for ourselves to make us feel better about the unknown. We still are born, mature, feed, breed, and die, just as all things do. Wicca does acknowlege that, honor that, and aspire to that. But Gaia is not "wiccan" any more than a map is the place it represents. Wicca is a man-made construct, a system of belief based on the natural world and our place within it, not the universe-pervading ultimate answer that the Abrahamics pretend to have. Wicca is pragmatic, concerned with the inherent value of the individual within the system, but it is not the system itself. And it is adaptable, plastic, able to change to fit circumstances, not static, moribund, and stagnant. Most of all, Wicca is Useful. If Gaia thought that being a Wiccan would be useful to Her, no doubt She would do so.


Then Balance is not supreme! So we shouldn't treat it as if it was.


No more than Gravity is supreme. Or electromagnatism. Or time. Or mathematics. Or thermodynamics. Balance is a guiding principal, one that seems to eschew extremes as unhelpful, temporary, and transient. It is Useful as a concept and metaphor. But it is just one part of a greater whole. Expecting to use one principal to describe the world is an Absolutist conceit. I know better.


Well, I don't know on what basis you might say this, though. By virtue of current processes, in only a few more billion years (the sun is gradually heating up), the earth will be completely uninhabitable, by almost any creatures. Eventually the sun will expand, and the earth will become part of the sun, and all life on earth, and earth itself, will end. How can you know this will not happen? On what basis do you make this claim?

Actually, I do know it will happen -- it is your coreligionists who insist on the world ending, and the sooner the better! My point was that regardless of what we do or don't do, Life is pervasive, even ubiquitous, and our inflated sense of importance to the universe is due to our own collective ego issue rather than any intrinsic evidence that we even HAVE an importance to the entire universe-at-large. Life is necessary for our existance; the converse is not true. Again, it is a relative thing. When the Earth and Sun come to their natural end of cycle, then they will end -- temporarily. Then their energy and mass will recombine into a different form, a new star will be born, and new planets, and life will evolve once again. "For nothing, not even Death, is Forever."


Maybe someone with supernatural knowledge, and a valid claim to have made the world, made the selections? The stamp of prophecy in Scripture is "the finger of God," which is why, by the way, I believe the earth will end, and then be remade, for this is written there.

Again, Abrahamists don't have a corner on the prophecy market. How much of other (non-Abrahamic) prophecies have you explored? There is a Hindu divinity who caused his prophet in southern India to set up a temple, then made a prediction for every person who would ever visit the temple. His (I forget his name) track record is awe-inspiring, what parapsychologists call a "high number of hits". If you make the pilgramage, you will receive your prophecy because he saw you were coming and made one. Is this the "finger of God" at work, under an alias?

And what gives Jehovah a valid claim to being the demiurge?


Valid to both you and Stalin. If this criticism is only valid to you, and only valid within your system, then we have a preference, not a real right to criticize Stalin and his deeds.


The term "right" is a legal term, and I hale from a non-legalistic religion. "Right" and "preferance" are pretty darn similar to me. My "right" to criticize Stalin is unmarred by legalism. I know what he did was wrong. I condemn it. I don't need anyone's permission to do so. I also don't need anyone's permission to be wrong.


Then we have (another) absolute value! People should not force their values on others. Relative value systems do all seem to have this absolute value in them, I must say...

Again, you are confusing values with practical considerations. For I don't believe it is POSSIBLE to "force" your values on me. You can attempt to coerce me, with threats of damnation and death and suffering, to convert to your way of thinking (or at least profess that I have done so) but in the end it is MY decision. The value I espouse here is Tolerance. And it is not absolute. I tolerate the existance of alternate forms of sexuality in my society, because I hold the expression of love in any circumstance to be generally a Good Thing. I do not, however, seek to tolerate child sexual abuse in my society, despite NAMBLA's profession that it is an expression of love, because I hold minor children (say, 16 years and younger) to be generally unprepared and unable to make an informed decision about their sexuality when it comes to older adults. Tolerance is a value, but Wisdom dictates that you shouldn't let your stated values (including Tolerance)override your common sense. That is a Legalist trap that causes suffering, more often than not.


Let's not change the subject, though! Do we have an absolute value here, in the case of a terrorist? I think we do, this is always wrong, and should be wrong, in any system. And I also would hold that governments should not destroy cities with a bomb, either, that destroying Hiroshima was wrong.


The absolute is that I would condemn ANY agency, terrorist, government, etc. to destroy a city for such a trivial concern as religious difference, political expediancy, or a "demonstration of power". Indeed, the only justification that I could see for destroying a city with an atomic weapon would be to stop a lethal viral contamination that threatens to destroy all of humanity -- a la The Andromeda Strain -- and even then it's iffy.

The act of unprovoked murder of innocents is what I consider a value, but each of those items is also subject to variable conditions: for example, was the attack unprovoked?

The recent London bombing is a good example. According to the British, yes, it was completely unprovoked. According to the jihadis from Yorkshire, Britain's participation in the Iraq war was enough provokation to justify the attack. Was it murder? It was the taking of life, but killing in wartime is not murder, and even the killing of innocents is usually considered "collateral damage" or somesuch euphamism. In Israel, Hammas justifies killing Israeli civilians because all Israeli adults are compelled to take military service, and according to international law you remain, legally speaking, a member of the military even after you take off your uniform. Were the British victims innocent? To the West, they were -- but how much responsibility for a democracy's foreign policy does the average taxpayer/voter bear? What we contribute in taxes to our government, which in many Arab eyes has been at war with Islam for decades, if not centuries, would be more than sufficient for us to take extreme punative action (for providing "aid and comfort to the enemy") against an Iraqi farmer who contributed a similar amount to an insurgent group.

So the wholesale statement "I condemn the unprovoked murder of innocents" is frought with issues, based on perspective -- issues that are completely relative, not absolute. That doesn't stop me from making the statement, and wholeheartedly believing it. But if you want to put a gun in my hand and send me to shoot people I don't know because of it, I have a problem with that.



Actually, this was still in the future, at this point, and Mary did then say "Let it be with me according to your word."


Some dude who claims to be the creator of the Universe shows up and wants a favor -- and she's going to argue? "Do with me what you will" is hardly an enthusiastic and ringing endorsement. A girl who is molested by her father all her life may accept that and expect it as her role -- that doesn't mean that she is consenting to the practice.


Actually, Jesus is held to have appeared before this time of coming to earth, in human form on earth, in several instances, and that he has always existed, and even that a womb was not required:

Matthew 3:9 I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.


Then how was jesus "begotton, not made" if there wasn't a woman involved? It takes two to beget. And the stories of Jesus appearing before his birth are apocryphal and deny the historical importance of Jesus. Besides, if a womb wasn't necessary why go to all the trouble and inconvenience a poor young Jewish girl? Pure sadism?


So then sometimes we should not love others, occasionally a terrorist destroying a city is not to be condemned, and sometimes we should mindlessly subscribe to what a person teaches. Isn't that the alternative? I don't think you were subscribing to these view, though, at all.


I'm saying that you have to use your judgement, aided by Wisdom and other guiding principals, to determine what you should do in any circumstance. But to bind yourself too tightly to any absolute is a recipe for disaster, as an individual, a community, a nation or a religion. Flexibility allows you to survive and prosper. Nothing invites an irrresistable force like an unmovable object.


I'm simply talking about the attitude of love, though, not about actions because of love, isn't this attitude an absolute value?

But love is a verb -- it doesn't exist independant of an originator and an object of love. Your attitude toward love could be classified as a personal absolute -- Wicca in no way seeks to undercut the establishment of personal, individual values -- but seeking to declare the attitude of love as an absolute universal requirement seems defeating the purpose of actual unconditional love. If your attitude is to be highly selective about who you love, I'm not going to argue with that -- as long as you make no claim about my capacity to love such a person regardless of their position on the issue.


So if there was no law against this, it would be all right? I meant, in principle, it's wrong, and I thought you had agreed.

"Law" is itself a slippery term. There was no law against Cain killing Abel -- no government, no legal system, no writing, no lawyers (heck, it was before the 10 Commandments -- he could have gotten away with adultry and idolitry too!) -- but that didn't make it any less a crime, or any less wrong. When something happens that in our judgement is wrong, but no law exists to cover such an event, that doesn't detract from it's moral incorrectness. The 9-11 hijackers were guilty of murder (3000 counts of it) and destruction of property, but do those laws encompass the extent of their crimes? Lots of people murder and destroy property and get off scott free. I think not. But that's only in my judgement.


Yes, but this is not being mindless, the value was in refusing to be mindless.
[/quote[]

"to act without the benefit of cogent thought" is mindlessness. It is, in my system, a good idea, even a value, to avoid doing this. But it is impossible to say that every action I take has had the benefit of cogent thought. And believe me, I've pulled some boners. But that doesn't make the value any less important, or any less relative. You can do the exact right thing without a cogent thought -- and in most cases it won't be important. But something as important as your religion -- your total response to the universe -- to undertake that without the benefit of cogent thought is against my value. It's a matter of perspective . . .

[QUOTE=lee_merrill]
Some of them in pleasant ones! In my experience, so care is needed...


No doubt! If only we had a cast-iron, infallable Demon detector . . .


Well, maybe he can't not know the future. He certainly can't be completely reliable in his plans and counsels, without knowing it! And I think the great joy of God is in loving, not in finding things out. Well, he made everything up!


Yet, if that was the case, then you would presume that he would make a universe conducive to loving, where finding things out wouldn't be important. Yet that is not the universe we have. And the subject of his reliability is still very much up in the air . . . for example, what happens to Christianity if Judgement and Armageddon never actually come?


I must say that my conclusion here is that a lack of peace implies a lack of righteousness. And there is peace for those who follow Jesus, in the way of the cross, it's an odd paradox...

"I have so much joy, that though I be in a place of darkness and mourning, yet I cannot lament; but both night and day am so full of joy as I never was so merry before; the Lord's name be praised for ever. Our enemies do fret, fume, and gnash their teeth at it. O pray constantly that this joy may never be taken from us; for it passeth all the delights in this world. This is the peace of God that passeth all understanding. This peace, the more his chosen be afflicted, the more they feel it, and therefore cannot faint neither for fire nor water." (Samuel Clarke)

So you are implying that a "lack of peace" is an indication that a person/community/society has somehow been unrighteous? "Bad things wouldn't have happened to him if he was right with God!" Is misfortune and pain a sign of a lack of divine favor, or even divine presence? Did the Jews who died in the Holocaust -- a most un-peaceful existance -- do so because they somehow deserved it? That would mean that all those who suffer do so because of their lack of righteousness, and all those who lead a peaceful life do so because they lead a righteous life. Evidence doesn't support this idea.

And just because it is paradox, I don't automatically discount it. However, is the joy felt by a nonbeliever, a non-follower of the cross, any less significant? Walt Whitman was a purely joyful person, as reflected in his poetry. Yet he was only barely a Christian by any reckoning, and I count him as mostly Pagan. Yet his joy and peace, despite the horrors of war he witnessed, transcend the fetish of the cross.


Then Hitler was "in love" as well as anyone else? I think not!


Htler had a capacity to love -- a sick, twisted, perverted capacity, but he demonstrated love in many ways. With Eva Baun, if no where else. That doesn't mean he wasn't capable of true evil. Sometimes the worst evils are born out of love. That doesn't mean we should stop loving.
(CONTINUED NEXT POST)

[tmancour]

And nature is "red in tooth and claw," is everyone not apart from those aspects, too? For Pan has a cloven hoof.

No, we are not. We are all, essentially, animals, barbarians, what have you. We have tremendous capacity for violence both in the service of the lifeforce, and against it. There is a difference in the Great Hunt and wanton murder for murder's sake. That does not mean that we are divorced from the capacity and the ability to love with our whole hearts. Laying down our lives for our fellow men is a noble act of love -- but it is also an act of love to stop the suffering of our fellow men -- with their consent -- even if we have great and profound feelings for them. It is easy to die for your brother. It is much harder to kill your brother to prevent his suffering -- but no less an act of love.

And what's wrong with cloven hooves? Or Pan, for that matter?


Unless natural loves are inherently self-interest, then it is right to think of something better, and not commend was is basically self-seeking, even though it is, again, enlightened.


I don't consider something to be of any less value because it has a benefit to myself -- nor do I consider something to be necessarily more noble or "better" because it DOESN'T benefit myself. Love is almost always enlightened self-interest. Even love of Jehovah. The Christian adheres to the Law because of his Love of the Lord and his self-interested desire to escape hellfire. Jehovah loves his creation because to do any less would not only deprecate the art and act of creation, but would call into question the rationale for the creation in the first place: self interest.

Whereas the Buddhist bodhisatvas don't even have that-- they make the ultimate display of compassion by stopping just short of absolute nirvana until all the rest of the universe can join them. Would it not be more noble for a Christian to cheerfully volunteer for hell if it meant that even one more person would know Christ's love? But few would do so.


It's more than pragmatism! Sometimes we should act against all our desires and instincts, in helping others, even to self-sacrifice, on principle. If we are going to be pragmatists, we shall do no such thing.

You are forgetting the "enlightened" portion of enlightened self-interest. That means that there are cases, as wisdom dictates, when our individual desires should be sacrificed for a greater good, because our self-interest extends beyond our self. For example, survival is of paramount importance to me -- but if sacrificing my life for the chance my children will survive is a possibility, then I do so willingly and joyfully, if with a tinge of sorrow. Had I no children, I may do the same for others, as the spirit moves me, as my self-interest may include building a better world, and sacrificing myself to save others who may well build that better world is a worthy enough cause. Pragmatism is a relative term.

But the problem is that Christianity and Islam both encourage you to sacrifice yourself even when there is no apparent gain, in the form of martyrdom. There was a great wave of martyrdom at the end of the Pagan era, because young people were so enthusiastic about their new religion that they thought the best way to ensure their place at the Right Hand of the Lord was to die a martyr's death. So you had little 13 year old girls popping up and defying the Pagan Emperors, then demanding that they die in the arena as a testament to their faith -- that is, on principal. Utterly pointless. Similarly, today you have young Muslim men who want to secure their place in paradise and strike a blow for Islam by strapping themselves with bombs and blowing up themselves and others, despite the fact that this action ultimately hurts their cause.

Pragmatism isn't the mean-spirited, unidealistic element of philosophy that people make it out to be. If sacrifice of one's self is going to have a profound beneficial effect, then it is called for. If it is going to be a pointless waste of life, then it is just stupid. The trick is knowing which is which.


Certainly! But they are essentially different...

John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.


Emphasis mine. Is that not self-interest? For I claim that your interests can survive your life. Even laying down your life for complete strangers can be in your self-interest, even an expression of love. The key is to make it count for something, not waste it on pointless pursuit of an abstract principal -- an "absolute value".


Blessings,
Lee


Blessed Be, Lee,

Arion

[lee_merrill]

Hi Arion,

Sure, a lot of fascinating intellectual exercise can be had by doing so, but some of us get frustrated by the endless "so what did the author really mean?" debate.
I suppose this isn't a problem when reading myths!

Yet there are perfectly sane and normal people today who accept this haigiographical and allegorical scene from the OT as historical fact, when all other evidence points to the contrary. When faith runs that far afoul of reality, your religion has problems at the root.
Unless God has that much power? Really, he could do this. If God didn't have this much power, if people really did get this wicked, then that would be a root problem, I would say.

Lee: But this still doesn't mend matters. You can't trust someone completely who is not completely trustworthy.

Arion: I can trust Brighid completely because I have made a judgement to do so -- wisely or foolishly...
But not both wisely, and implicitly! That is my point, if (as you say) she may act inappropriately, at times.

Lee: Maybe he is real? The gods, I think, are not up for election, so we need to know which ones are real, and the God of Scripture has some good credentials, as in fulfilled prophecy.

Arion: If you count fulfillment of prophecy as proof of divinity, then Jehovah is at the back of the pack. ... His (I forget his name) track record is awe-inspiring, what parapsychologists call a "high number of hits".
I really do need more specific examples! Here is one list, from Scripture:

Babylon will never be rebuilt, or reinhabited (Isa. 13:19, Jer. 25:12, Jer. 51:26).
Edom will never be rebuilt or reinhabited (Isa. 34:9-10, Jer. 49:18).
The Edomites would disappear as a nation (Oba. 1:18).
The Caananites would disappear, most notably the nation of the Philistines, which lasted the longest (Ex. 15:15, Isa. 14:31, Amos 1:8, Zeph. 2:5).
There will always be Jewish people (Jer. 31:35-37; 33:24-26).
There will be Egyptian and Assyrian people up until the fulfillment of Isa. 19:16-25.
Egypt will never again rule the other nations (Eze. 29:14-15).

These are verifiable, and many can even be tested today! All you have to do, is attempt to rebuild Babylon. As Saddam Hussein did...

That we'll all feel much better about ourselves after we're dead and our planet is a burnt-out cinder?
Well, not all the people will die (Mt. 24:22), and there is another earth coming...

Lee: After resurrection, though! That's part of Christianity, too, and a critical part...

Arion: What if the pork rule is really valid? Nearly everyone in the South will burn because of barbecue.
But it is the presence of God in the heart, knowing him, and then following his leading (well, he might know more then we do!), that saves a person. Mere rule-keeping will not save anyone.

Romans 3:20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

The whole idea of spiritually-based resurrection -- "eternal life" -- death as the enemy -- is profane, an abomination against Nature which has regulated the life-cycles of all things.
Well, then there's a lot of injustice, and not the balance people might claim, as in Stalin ending on a feather-bed, for instance, and on the other side of the imbalance, we have the millions of people who died without redress, in his prisons. That's the abomination, I would say...

Psalm 63:3-5 Because your love is better than life, my lips will glorify you.

Arion: The fact that Jehovah requires this kind of praise and glory from his followers says quite a bit about him.
Maybe this love can be tasted, though? This is not saying "Here is required praise!"

Arion: Are you flawed? Or are you taking someone's word that you are?
I'm flawed!

"Modern masters of science are much impressed with the need of beginning all inquiry with a fact. The ancient masters of religion were quite equally impressed with that necessity. They began with the fact of sin -- a fact as practical as potatoes. Whether or no man could be washed in miraculous waters, there was no doubt at any rate that he wanted washing. But certain religious leaders in London, not mere materialists, have begun in our day not to deny the highly disputable water, but to deny the indisputable dirt. Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved. Some followers of the Reverend R. J. Campbell ... essentially deny human sin, which they can see in the street. The strongest saints and the strongest sceptics alike took positive evil as the starting-point of their argument. If it be true (as it certainly is) that a man can feel exquisite happiness in skinning a cat, then the religious philosopher can only draw one of two deductions. He must either deny the existence of God, as all atheists do; or he must deny the present union between God and man, as all Christians do. The new theologians seem to think it a highly rationalistic solution to deny the cat." (Chesterton, "Orthodoxy")

Arion: Jesus could only say "follow me". The Goddess said "Let us walk together."
Jesus said this other statement too, though, and I find it true...

Lee: If the root of reality is like thermal equilibrium, then we need not trouble ourselves much about principles built on that foundation, which will oversee all our purposes and plans, and basically override them, in a mindless way.

I though we weren't to be mindless, too! And now I wonder why, why not be like the Hindus, who see the basis of all being as mindless and impersonal, and sit down and chant a mantra...

Arion: But that is, essentially, what Pagans do: chant a mantra/use a mudra/view a mandala/perform a ritual to join more fully in the eternally echoing song of Life.
But Hindus, and even more emphatically so, Buddhists, do not hold that the song is meaningful. How can a world that is at its root, water seeking its level, be meaningful, or a song? Mountains are poetic, valleys are poetic, Flatland, however, is not.

Lee: Well, this makes me upset, though, how many embryos and Jewish people should be killed each year, in order to keep the Balance?

Arion: My point is that it isn't our job to make that determination. We can use the principal of balance, however, to view the situation in a potentially useful way.
So what is the useful aspect of Hitler killing Jewish people, may I ask? Or embryos, if they are living human beings?

Lee: You keep stating this, and recoiling from it, and I'm glad you recoil from it, but it is the logical outcome of a relative value system, to not condemn the Holocaust, and a logical consequence of making balance principal, to not fight against this evil, except as a matter of personal pragmatism.

Arion: But the holocaust WAS tolerated, by the Church, by the German people, by the very guards who enacted the orders.
They were all quite wrong.

Arion: Just as it had no place in its cosmology for Africans and Indians during the bloody Age of Exploration and Conquest.
This also is not part of Christian cosmology.

John 18:36 Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world."

As morally wrong as the Holocaust was, as evil as it was, it was an inevitable outgrowth of ABSOLUTE values.
People can be mistaken about values, too, that might have been the problem. Just because a person draws a wrong line on the map does not mean there is no such thing as maps.

As undeniably evil as using an atomic weapon on human beings was...
I agree, and this is an absolute value, is it not? As is your rejection of the Holocaust, and with that, I also do agree.

In your system all alternatives are "satanic", therefore invalid.
But this must presume either that there are no real truths, or that Christianity is mistaken about what is specifically true. And I will believe your view more, if you stop making one absolute statement after another!

Lee: Our place in nature is still part of nature, and if we are no more than specially insightful primates, then we should take our place in nature, and indeed, follow Gaia ... So Gaia should be very Wiccan, only it seems she's not...

Arion: But Gaia is not "wiccan" any more than a map is the place it represents.
Isn't Gaia the place, though? "We still are born, mature, feed, breed, and die, just as all things do. Wicca does acknowlege that, honor that, and aspire to that."

And we cannot help but "follow" Gaia, whatever vain conceits of immortality and escape from death we invent for ourselves to make us feel better about the unknown.
But then is the goddess not alongside us? This sounds just like what you rejected, in turning to Wicca, that there is this insistence on following, a non-negotiable requirement here.

When the Earth and Sun come to their natural end of cycle, then they will end -- temporarily. Then their energy and mass will recombine into a different form, a new star will be born, and new planets, and life will evolve once again. "For nothing, not even Death, is Forever."
And I am still wondering on what basis you have made your conclusion. Poetic dictums will not reverse entropy, or create a world, I would say...

Lee: Then we have (another) absolute value! People should not force their values on others.

Arion: For I don't believe it is POSSIBLE to "force" your values on me. You can attempt to coerce me, with threats...
This is also extended to say we shouldn't try to force our values on others, though. Is this not (another) absolute value? The relative value people really do convince me of my position! For they give such examples, of absolute values, in many ways.

So the wholesale statement "I condemn the unprovoked murder of innocents" is frought with issues, based on perspective -- issues that are completely relative, not absolute.
Certainly the application of any principle is not absolute, but the point here is that the principles are. They are absolute, and that is what an absolute value system is all about, finding which principles are always valid, and then seeking to understand how to apply them, in a given instance.

Besides, if a womb wasn't necessary why go to all the trouble and inconvenience a poor young Jewish girl?
Well, this is getting off-topic, but she was not displeased.

Luke 1:48 From now on all generations will call me blessed...

Lee: So then sometimes we should not love others, occasionally a terrorist destroying a city is not to be condemned, and sometimes we should mindlessly subscribe to what a person teaches. Isn't that the alternative? I don't think you were subscribing to these views, though, at all.

Arion: I'm saying that you have to use your judgement...
I agree! Then we have absolute values, and seek wisdom as how to apply them.

Arion: You can do the exact right thing without a cogent thought -- and in most cases it won't be important.
Yes, but that's not so good as doing right after consideration! Thus there is an absolute value here, in not being mindless about our actions, or in accepting what he hear.

No doubt! If only we had a cast-iron, infallable Demon detector . . .
I have one here! 1 John 4:1-3, and it actually works!

Yet, if that was the case, then you would presume that he would make a universe conducive to loving, where finding things out wouldn't be important. Yet that is not the universe we have.
Maybe knowing facts, per se, is really not so important. As Arion does keep saying! It seems his world-view values relationship more than book learning. And I agree...

So you are implying that a "lack of peace" is an indication that a person/community/society has somehow been unrighteous?
Yes, a lack of peace, inside a person, does indicate this, though not necessarily, with communities and societies.

Lee: And nature is "red in tooth and claw," is everyone not apart from those aspects, too? For Pan has a cloven hoof.

Arion: There is a difference in the Great Hunt and wanton murder for murder's sake.
Yes, but this then implies that people should hunt others as the predators do, as needed.

And what's wrong with cloven hooves? Or Pan, for that matter?
Because Pan meaning "everything," as in all of nature, and all of nature is not to be imitated. Some more Chesterton!

"All the same, it will be as well if Jones does not worship the sun and moon. If he does, there is a tendency for him to imitate them; to say, that because the sun burns insects alive, he may burn insects alive. He thinks that because the sun gives people sun-stroke, he may give his neighbour measles. He thinks that because the moon is said to drive men mad, he may drive his wife mad. ... The only objection to Natural Religion is that somehow it always becomes unnatural. A man loves Nature in the morning for her innocence and amiability, and at nightfall, if he is loving her still, it is for her darkness and her cruelty. He washes at dawn in clear water as did the Wise Man of the Stoics, yet, somehow at the dark end of the day, he is bathing in hot bull's blood, as did Julian the Apostate. The mere pursuit of health always leads to something unhealthy. Physical nature must not be made the direct object of obedience; it must be enjoyed, not worshipped. Stars and mountains must not be taken seriously. If they are, we end where the pagan nature worship ended."

Would it not be more noble for a Christian to cheerfully volunteer for hell if it meant that even one more person would know Christ's love? But few would do so.
There is that note in Scripture...

Exodus 32:32 "But now, please forgive their sin-- but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written."

Romans 9:3-4 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel.

And that could not be enlightened self-interest...

Blessings,
Lee